Feeding unicorns is what you do.
Debunking is not just making a claim. Prove it's wrong to debunk, and that has not happened. You ignore what you desperately want to not know, and the University of Fairbanks has a peer reviewed study regarding Building Seven that is exactly what you must not know.
Good luck. Without reason and knowledge, luck is all you have.
A flawed research based on a photograph of one side of the building funded by conspiracy theorists. Give me a break. lol
The funny thing in all this is your belief that this proves something. Some conspiracy. That leap in logic that if it didnt fall due to fire that would somehow prove a conspiracy of the government tearing down its buildings.
Absurd.
9/11 was a conspiracy. You may disparage peer reviewed research published by an accredited American university after four years of study, but you do not recommend your opinion by doing so.
You also neglect the fact of history, in which agents of government have many, many times committed false flags for various reasons.
Where do you think the phrase 'Nero fiddled while Rome burned' comes from? It's how Nero became Emperor. He owned a private fire company, which set fire to the estates of the wealthy and would only put the fires out for payment. The sinking of the Maine that began the Spanish American war was a false flag. The Gulf of Tonkin incident that began US involvement in Vietnam was a false flag. Roosevelt was specifically aware of the Pearl Harbor attack because the US could read the encrypted messages of Japan.
Which conspiracy accurately details the 9/11 terrorist attack is undetermined, and much of the information that would have been useful to correctly understand who did what was illegally and deliberately destroyed by the USG, who had the evidence carted off as scrap metal, rather than allowing the NTSB or any law enforcement to examine the crime scene per long established law and precedent.
That, by itself, is actual evidence of a crime committed by the USG regarding 9/11, if only of obstruction of justice.
Do what you want. Being right isn't a given. You'll have to account relevant details to discard falsehoods, and you seem not only to not have done that, but to be desperately dedicated to not doing so regarding 9/11.
Because "A" happened that proves that "B" happened.
You dont see how that makes 0 sense.
No, "B" happened only if theres evidence for "B" happening.
I actually looked at the Hulsey report and its seriously flawed. He uses a static analysis for a dynamic situation. You can do that for a single column but thats it. His models disregard affects of fire on the beems and the fact the fire burned for 7 hours. He manually removes columns. His models have wrong metrics.
Basically this research is absolute rubbish. Something a student could have done better. It wouldnt get a passing grade on any serious college.
And the thermite nonsense. Not a single thing points in that direction.
And the metal spheres they talk about... If you want i can show you how you can make them at home with a pack of matches and some iron filings.
Well, we're not going to agree, which is fine with me. I do appreciate you addressed the issues above. Doing so restored some of the respect I have long held for you as a rational and forthright voice. I have apparently mistaken some of your remarks as simply avoidance of factual evidence, for which I apologize.
Regarding thermite, no other explanation remotely approaches the energy that was necessary to render massive amounts of the steel in the towers molten, and so hot that pools of liquid steel underground delayed the demolition work for weeks.
Not a chance that office fires did that, and most of the fuel of the planes was expended in the fireballs.
I understand you don't want to get bogged down in a discussion of these details, so I'll respect that and leave it there.
Thank you for the courtesy of your substantive reply.
The point wasnt in making the claim the steel beams are molten. It was weaking of the inner structure when the plane hit it and office fires affecting their load bearing. Steel loses about 50% of its strength at something like 400 celsius. Try burning a book, it could reach up to 900 Celsius in temperature.
Even if you watch the videos you see that wtc 1 and 2 are falling from the top down, exactly from the area where the plane hit them. Once the debris and floor hit lower floors where the structure is stronger everything starts toppling to the side.
Where do you even think the thermite was placed? In the basement? Because thats not how the buildings fell. They fell from top down. They were even falling at an angle. No compound associated with thermite was there.
Plane hit, made a hole, structure weakened, floors fell down. Theres nothing questionable about that.
I think ill end it on this note.
The worst thing about the 9/11 conspiracies is that you guys focused on a narrative that is easily dismissed.
If all of you that believe this instead focused on the right problem things could have been different, better.
The CIA, FBI fucked up, had info on the possible hijacking, did not act and because of their incompetence and failure civil liberties had to be stomped on.
That was the battle to fight, not this.
If you truly believe that Husley / Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks study is seriously flawed it pales in comparison to the official version of the WTC building 7 collapse produced by the NIST which is patently nonsensical and glaringly incomplete.
"absolute rubbish"
What the NIST did was to produce a “collapse initiation sequence”. They failed to explain the actual dynamics of the collapse. So what they provided ultimately was a sequence that led up to what they proposed was an inevitable collapse of each building.
The data used to create the official NIST WTC7 collapse model is, surprise, surprise - "classified".
Concerning the 'thermite theory', it can neither be proven nor disproven because of the wholesale destruction of evidence from ground zero. The rubble from the twin towers were hurriedly shipped out of the country and sent to scrap yards in China and India before any significant, rigorous and scientific investigation could be conducted. The crime scene quickly covered up.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/china_baosteel.htm
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Destruction_of_Evidence_from_Ground_Zero_at_the_World_Trade_Center
You probably believe in your own unicorns regarding 9/11 such as when the indestructible passport of one of the hijackers, Satam al Suqami, was discovered, completely intact by a 'passerby' a few blocks from the World Trade Center. The black boxes were never retrieved.
https://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Ch2.pdf
I tried to explain in a few words why the Hulsey report is rubbish. You dont really explain anything about NIST.
No, what you just shown is the dynamic analysis of the situation based on information present from eye witness accounts and video footage, rubble analysis.
Something the Hulsey report does not have. Its not just enough to show the animation, you have to explain it "on paper".
The hulsey report can be easily thrown in the trash because its very poorly done and it took about 20 mins to figure out its flaws. The NIST report is much more complex and comprehensive. Done by one of the best institutes in the world and by hundreds of scientists, engineers.
If you want to assume that they were all payed off, fine. Believe what you want.
I really wont go through hundreds of pages of the NIST report because the core claims seem very plausible to me, but even if you dont agree with the NIST report, maybe you think its flawed why would that prove a conspiracy of any kind?
Why would you think that? Isnt the right conclusion: "They just got it wrong."
This is the ridiculous way of thinking you guys subscribe to i mentioned before.
Its very important for you to learn "how to think".
If something cannot be proven or disproven then how is it worth talking about?
Then its just a worthless claim.
Maybe it was aliens. You cant prove or disprove that. Maybe god did it. Cant prove or disprove that.
Actually you can disprove all the claims about thermite easily but maybe it was some kind of high tech undetectable never seen before thermite (see what i mean).
Both the microsphere thing and the claims about chemical compounds found there.
Funny how conspiracy theorists make so many claims about the substance of the rubble and the chemicals present but also claim that you couldnt test anything because they shipped it all to China. Which one is it?😄.
Actually there were tests done even this or last year by a independent agency looking for the thermite. They explained away the red chips or whatever it was, cant remember exactly. So theres still plenty of evidence available.