Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Provide a source they claimed thermite.
All the lectures I read they claim nano-thermite.

You just debunked yourself. Nano thermite doesn’t cut by slow burning. It supposedly is used like an explosive. That means it would have to create a pressure wave to cut steel that would create a corresponding sound wave indicative of a force powerful enough to cut steel. There is no evidence in the WTC 7 video, audio, seismic of pressure waves cutting steel columns. Why would nano thermite expelling all it’s energy as an explosive at the time of detonation heat the WTC 7 pile?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

That false also - independents have analysed the chips and affirmed there was thermite materials embedded in the skin of the chips.

And there it is. Your blatant falsehoods I will net let you forget. So cite an a actual source with link. Or admit your wrong.

Is this how you want it to go down. You posting proven falsehoods?

And I think this sums up you comprehension on controlled demolitions systems...

You

If they adopted a faster wiring system example fiber optics the demolition would be fast and speedy with no lag.

You understand fiber optics doesn’t care Amos to set off blasting caps or magnesium fuses?

11 scientists, I believe signed the Harrit paper. Some came on board independently. You believe 11 scientists lied and that's be your opinion. Harrit from denmark, it doing his own work.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

momentum transfer

How does it related to a buckling column that failed because it lost lateral support from failed floor connections and became separated from the floor system?

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

That false also - independents have analysed the chips and affirmed there was thermite materials embedded in the skin of the chips.

And there it is. Your blatant falsehoods I will net let you forget. So cite an a actual source with link. Or admit your wrong.

Is this how you want it to go down. You posting proven falsehoods?

And I think this sums up you comprehension on controlled demolitions systems...

You

If they adopted a faster wiring system example fiber optics the demolition would be fast and speedy with no lag.

You understand fiber optics doesn’t care Amos to set off blasting caps or magnesium fuses?

11 scientists, I believe signed the Harrit paper. Some came on board independently. You believe 11 scientists lied and that's be your opinion. Harrit from denmark, it doing his own work.

So these guys didn’t lie and the three WTC 7 studies before Hulsey’s study stands?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

This is one of my favorite post by benthamitemetric

www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-31#post-215963

www.metabunk.org...-215963

Fourth--let's step back and sum up Hulsey's study and comments to date in context. At every level, Hulsey's approach and conclusions are highly suspect and, at least to this interested, questioning citizen, Hulsey's study does nothing to actually call into question the overarching conclusion reached by each of the three other studies; the only things Hulsey has called into question to date with his stated conclusions are his integrity and competence:
There is only a single study (Hulsey's) that purports to reach a conclusion contrary to what the other studies have concluded re the vulnerability of WTC7 to progressive collapse from reasonable fire scenarios.
Hulsey received a grant of $300,000+ from an organization (AE911Truth) that has for years dedicated itself to the theory that WTC7 could not have collapsed as a result of fire, and that same organization was explicit in wanting Hulsey's study to prove that when it chartered the study.
Hulsey made his bias in favor of his sponsor's desired conclusion crystal clear when he announced he reached that conclusion before even completing his modeling. (It doesn't help appearances that he initially announced that conclusion at a PR event hosted in NYC by AE911Truth.)
Each of the the NIST, Arup, and WAI studies were conducted by multiple PhDs with expertise in forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science, and the NIST WTC7 report was also independently peer reviewed by the Journal of Structural Engineering (whose editors and peer reviewers have similar levels of expertise), while not a single expert on forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science worked on Hulsey's study.
On top of coming to a different overall conclusion re the vulnerability of the building to fire, Hulsey also seemingly came to the indefensible conclusion (which points to a fundamental error in his approach) that there could be no local connection failures at all in the building!
Hulsey is also the only study author of the bunch to describe his conclusion in absolute terms, even when that means defying logic and the reality of his limited study to claim he proved a negative.

www.metabunk.org...

So. Besides NIST. You have, “ Arup, and WAI studies were conducted by multiple PhDs with expertise in forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science, and the NIST WTC7 report was also independently peer reviewed by the Journal of Structural Engineering (whose editors and peer reviewers have similar levels of expertise)”

UAF WTC 7 Evaluation Simulation Plausibility Check (Leroy Hulsey, AE911Truth)

m.youtube.com...

So the “ Each of the the NIST, Arup, and WAI studies were conducted by multiple PhDs with expertise in forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science, and the NIST WTC7 report was also independently peer reviewed by the Journal of Structural Engineering (whose editors and peer reviewers have similar levels of expertise)” stands by your logic.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

momentum transfer

How does it related to a buckling column that failed because it lost lateral support from failed floor connections and became separated from the floor system?

Enough of your constant nonsensical posting. Why you do not talk about the wave video anymore? Did you use it as evidence? Your dishonest that you will not even talk about it. I reaching the point of just ending this debate, so hurry up.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

And this was my whole argument.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Facts
According to the Harrit red/grey chip study the nano-thermite was discovered in the Dust samples belonging to the twin towers.

You mean the study that never completed the discovery process. Published by a pay to play journal that skipped the papers coach and let people consulted to write the paper to peer review the paper. A study where the lab results were not independently verified by any other party. You mean the study that found rust and paint chips. They had to use a solvent used with industrial coatings to free up the iron and aluminum oxide. The study that never conducted a simple go / no go test in an inert atmosphere to see if the dust could support a thermite reaction. The study that assumed there was free Al2 because there was aluminum oxide, but never proved there was free Al2 to support a thermite reaction in the discovered chips.

Might read...,

Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?
www.internationalskeptics.com...

quote the study where they conclusively state nano thermite was what was found?

Might read

WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette
www.internationalskeptics.com...

Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust

Dr. James Millette
MVA Scientific Consultants
www.MVAinc.com

February 20-25 2012
American Academy of Forensic Science
www.AAFS.org
2012 Annual Meeting
Atlanta, Georgia
www.mvainc.com...

aneta.org...

Conclusions

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport


Do you know what momentum transfer is? Why would it be a cause? Explain with more than one line.

Let me explain a real life example of momentum transfer to you.

Go to a junkyard and get an old transmission.

Take a 100' chain and attach it to the transmission.

Attach the other end of the chain to your ankle.

Find a tall bridge and push the transmission off it.

When the chain comes tight will you accelerate at:

A. Less than free fall acceleration.

B. Free fall acceleration.

C. Greater than free fall acceleration.

D. Potato.

If you have posted nothing by tomorrow, I will be only replying to Ruby and others from now on. I wasting my time debating someone who this invested in lies.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

And this was my whole argument.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Facts
According to the Harrit red/grey chip study the nano-thermite was discovered in the Dust samples belonging to the twin towers.

You mean the study that never completed the discovery process. Published by a pay to play journal that skipped the papers coach and let people consulted to write the paper to peer review the paper. A study where the lab results were not independently verified by any other party. You mean the study that found rust and paint chips. They had to use a solvent used with industrial coatings to free up the iron and aluminum oxide. The study that never conducted a simple go / no go test in an inert atmosphere to see if the dust could support a thermite reaction. The study that assumed there was free Al2 because there was aluminum oxide, but never proved there was free Al2 to support a thermite reaction in the discovered chips.

Might read...,

Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?
www.internationalskeptics.com...

quote the study where they conclusively state nano thermite was what was found?

Might read

WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette
www.internationalskeptics.com...

Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust

Dr. James Millette
MVA Scientific Consultants
www.MVAinc.com

February 20-25 2012
American Academy of Forensic Science
www.AAFS.org
2012 Annual Meeting
Atlanta, Georgia
www.mvainc.com...

aneta.org...

Conclusions

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

How many posts with the same information is this now?
I already answered this that you don't get it, reveals to me you not all right?
Ruby and Yourself should get a room and have fun.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

momentum transfer

How does it related to a buckling column that failed because it lost lateral support from failed floor connections and became separated from the floor system?

Enough of your constant nonsensical posting. Why you do not talk about the wave video anymore? Did you use it as evidence? Your dishonest that you will not even talk about it. I reaching the point of just ending this debate, so hurry up.

Your just angry because there is no evidence in the video, audio, seismic evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was initiated by a planted pyrotechnics system. Something that should be producing obvious effects of pressure waves and shrapnel before the WTC 7 moves. There should be obvious audio of explosions with the force to cut steel columns, and detonations clearly echoing. There should be seismic evidence. There is zero evidence of a controlled demolition system activating. There is zero change controlled demolitions systems would survive the jet impacts, fires, and being hit with debris. Controlled demolition is dead on arrival because there is no evidence the collapse of WTC 7 was initiated by a controlled demolition system activating. There is no evidence of columns being actively cut.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Still waiting on you to cite and link to the independent analysis of WTC dust that verifies Jones’ finding of thermite?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Cite were Jones confirmed the presence of free Al2 to react in a thermite reaction in his paint chips by analysis. He didn’t. It was assumed because the chips had aluminum oxide that cannot support a thermite reaction. The paper is junk science. Never completed the discovery process. Never had the samples sent out for independent confirmation. And was called peered reviewed under false pretenses.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

The truth movement ate its credibility because of the thermite debacle. And the Hulsey’s report is junk science too.

And cite the Hulsey’s report were they claim the columns were cut? I think the term used is failed? Does that mean buckling?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

the chips had aluminum oxide

It was actually aluminum silicate found in Jones's paint chip not aluminum oxide.

Both are inert.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
If you have posted nothing by tomorrow, I will be only replying to Ruby and others from now on. I wasting my time debating someone who this invested in lies.

So you have chosen D. Potato as your answer.

Wise decision.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Hulseyreport


Do you know what momentum transfer is? Why would it be a cause? Explain with more than one line.

Let me explain a real life example of momentum transfer to you.

Go to a junkyard and get an old transmission.

Take a 100' chain and attach it to the transmission.

Attach the other end of the chain to your ankle.

Find a tall bridge and push the transmission off it.

When the chain comes tight will you accelerate at:

A. Less than free fall acceleration.

B. Free fall acceleration.

C. Greater than free fall acceleration.

D. Potato.

I trying to wrap my head around what you suggesting.
Your momentum transfer likely can only work if the upper floors are breaking the lower section and potential energy so large the rest just gives way by force That still doesn't explain free fall.
The problem with that we recognize free fall can alone only taken place if the lower section had given way first. 
Upper floors overcome the lower section when its natural collapse.
The lower floors had previously been taken out when the building collapsed.
That why NIST's own model is fundamentally flawed. The wave caused by the Penthouse came right through the roof and kept going.  In the model that NIST released the structural steel still there on the upper floors on the eastside. How can the Penthouse wreckage get through that?

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

the chips had aluminum oxide

It was actually aluminum silicate found in Jones's paint chip not aluminum oxide.

Both are inert.

That not true.
Provide a source where he said that.
You repeating Dr Milette claim.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

I trying to wrap my head around what you suggesting.
Your momentum transfer likely can only work if the upper floors are breaking the lower section and potential energy so large the rest just gives way by force That still doesn't explain free fall.
The problem with that we recognize free fall can alone only taken place if the lower section had given way first. 
Upper floors overcome the lower section when its natural collapse.
The lower floors had previously been taken out when the building collapsed.
That why NIST's own model is fundamentally flawed. The wave caused by the Penthouse came right through the roof and kept going.  In the model that NIST released the structural steel still there on the upper floors on the eastside. How can the Penthouse wreckage get through that?

The inside of the building collapsed 6 sec. before the outside of the building. It had 6 sec to build up momentum. With the inside crashing down against the outside, how could it not transfer momentum to the exterior, making it accelerate faster than normal.

You do know it fell faster than free fall don't you. The only real world explanation for that is momentum transfer.

Everything below the black line is faster than free fall.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

That not true.
Provide a source where he said that.
You repeating Dr Milette claim.

It is right there in the XEDS's

Here is the Lacelede paint formula compared to one of Jones's XEDS's

I have put some lines on it to make it easy for you.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

Provide a source they claimed thermite.
All the lectures I read they claim nano-thermite.
Debunkers own evidence showing the Penthouse coming straight through to the bottom at freefall speeds, is impossible based off the NIST model .
Debunkers should go away and try to explain that.

History lesson:

This video is the original source for the thermite claim. It all started from here and evolved over the years to where we are now: you telling me all about nano thermite.

Some body looked at this video and said that looks like thermite.



Then photos the corroded metal pieces showed up and truthers said "see I told you that's proof of thermite". We said "it was attacked by sulphur, thermite doesn't have any sulphur". And then the truthers said,"did I say Thermite, what I meant to say was Thermate. Thermate. Thermate. No wait Nanothermite. Nanothermite. No wait a minute Military Grade Super Nanothermite. Yea that's the ticket.

And here we are now. You still don't have any evidence to support your claims. Just some hot glowing debris falling out of the side of the building.