9/11 Finally An Explanation.......

[oldfisherman]

Something about the Building 7 collapse still does not pass the smell test. I do believe the collapse was the direct result of terrorist actions. There is no conspiracy going on here.

However, the amount of, and type of damage does not make sense. Something was wrong with building 7 BEFORE the planes hit the twin towers. Either someone used inferior metals in some sections to save money, or, there was a design flaw. That is what I believe is being covered up.

My guess is a cheaper grade metal was used instead of the grade specified. Since none of the metals were ever tested, we will never know.

I am amazed and concerned that the metals were not tested. There was so much they could have learned from the results about future tower construction, even if the correct metals were used. The govt’s explanation of testing dust instead of the metal is not acceptable.

 

[oldfisherman]

 

[oldfisherman]

This is the shortest video I can find about the two year study by Dr. Hulseys. He is investigating the collapse of WTC7. It is worth watching.



The second video is much longer, very boring, but gives endless details and techniques used in his study. After the first year of study, their preliminary finding is fire did not bring down #7. It also goes into great detail about the flaws and omissions that resulted in a faulty government report.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's seriously debunked already.

The whole scam behind the conspiracy theories is to keep making claims as if the previous ones are true.

I'd ask jlprk or maris61, tho. They're the experts.

 

[oldfisherman]

It's seriously debunked already.

The whole scam behind the conspiracy theories is to keep making claims as if the previous ones are true.

I'd ask jlprk or maris61, tho. They're the experts.

Not that I do not believe you, but please provide a link to the study, or whatever you’re referencing, that debunks the Dr. Hulsey study.

BTW most of the preliminary information from the Hulsey study was only released in the last couple of weeks. Your debunkers must conduct very fast debunking studies.

 

[Denny Crane]

NIST, real professionals, not some so-called authority.

Some of it is just common sense.

Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a49/1227842/

http://www.news.com.au/world/six-re...bout-six-seconds/story-fndir2ev-1226717737311

STUPID THEORY 3: World Trade Center 7 did not collapse. It was demolished.

SIMPLE REBUTTAL: Riiiight, so the world's tallest tower collapses on its neighbour less than 200m across the road. You've got 110 storeys of rubble pummelling a 47-storey building, setting it on fire, covering it in untold extra weight and inflicted untold stresses. And later that day, when the smaller building collapses, it's obvious the CIA did it with explosives. And Elvis left the building right before it happened.

Oh, and if you want a secondary explanation of why the building really wasn't toppled by mysterious people with explosives, try googling any of the so-called architects or engineers in the wacky YouTube vids. Almost none of them appear to be either a) currently employed or b) affiliated with any group other than 9/11 conspiracy groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

 

[oldfisherman]

NIST, real professionals, not some so-called authority.

Some of it is just common sense.

Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a49/1227842/

http://www.news.com.au/world/six-re...bout-six-seconds/story-fndir2ev-1226717737311

STUPID THEORY 3: World Trade Center 7 did not collapse. It was demolished.

SIMPLE REBUTTAL: Riiiight, so the world's tallest tower collapses on its neighbour less than 200m across the road. You've got 110 storeys of rubble pummelling a 47-storey building, setting it on fire, covering it in untold extra weight and inflicted untold stresses. And later that day, when the smaller building collapses, it's obvious the CIA did it with explosives. And Elvis left the building right before it happened.

Oh, and if you want a secondary explanation of why the building really wasn't toppled by mysterious people with explosives, try googling any of the so-called architects or engineers in the wacky YouTube vids. Almost none of them appear to be either a) currently employed or b) affiliated with any group other than 9/11 conspiracy groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

First off, every report you have linked in your post was made BEFORE Dr. Hulsey’s STUDY EVEN STARTED.

So my next statement should not surprise you.

Nothing in the links you provided even discusses Dr. Hulsey’s study, let alone debunk it.

 

[Denny Crane]

First off, every report you have linked in your post was made BEFORE Dr. Hulsey’s STUDY EVEN STARTED.

So my next statement should not surprise you.

Nothing in the links you provided even discusses Dr. Hulsey’s study, let alone debunk it.

I took a look at his site. He announced his results before he began his study. His partners in this are conspiracy theorists of the first order. Richard Gage.

http://www.architectmagazine.com/design/architects-shy-from-trutherism_o

Hulsey's partners (Gage):
http://www.ae911truth2016membership.org/

 

[Voodoo]

The first news I heard on 9/11 was that a personal prop plane hit one of the towers. It felt like war was declared on us when the second one hit.

We had no idea if it was just the two, then three , then four planes, or if it was many more.

It seems more like W was hesitant to go to war against Iraq. That happened over a year later, 2003, not immediately after 9/11. He could have ordered the invasion any time - he was commander in chief. Instead, he allowed for prolonged public debate. And he did offer Saddam a peaceful exit. The year+ gave Saddam a chance to sue for peace, as well.

Read this:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/9-11-15-years-anniversary-of-shame-214239

I don't think Bush or anyone else really had been planning to go to war with Iraq prior to 9/11, but they certainly viewed 9/11 as this existential crisis and decided to go to war with Iraq within weeks after the attack.

 

[Denny Crane]

Read this:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/9-11-15-years-anniversary-of-shame-214239

I don't think Bush or anyone else really had been planning to go to war with Iraq prior to 9/11, but they certainly viewed 9/11 as this existential crisis and decided to go to war with Iraq within weeks after the attack.

I think the neoconservatives wanted war in Iraq all along. That's well documented.

But It was from september 11, 2001 until March 2003 before the first shots fired. 1.5 years. Hardly chomping on the bit. Plenty of time for Saddam to sue for peace, and plenty of time for public review. And a vote.