Is this what you want to discuss Bobby? Is the link below what you consider his preliminary report? The slideshow? Or is there another report we would be discussing? I need to know which to go on. http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf
Why? If you want to discuss Hulsey's preliminary report, his slide show or anything by Hulsey, I pointed you to the proper thread, start the discussion. If not quit playing bullshyt games to avoid discussing these. I don't care either way, it's your call.
The pictures that have been in the public purview for over 16 years now are the evidence. To those who are familiar with aircraft, and that might exclude you, it is clear the aircraft has external fairings not found on standard, in service airliners 767 style. Those fairings mean it CANNOT BE UA175. The engine on the sidewalk that flew off the airplane at impact is NOT the engine that would be found on a stock 767. That corroborates that the aircraft used was NOT United 175. If one is not informed about these subtle points, one will not understand. It appears that describes your situation. It was a drone.
I saw the video that seems to show those fairings and I read that the engine found on the street is not a match. The only way that any discrepancy can be confirmed or eliminated is by conducting a forensic parts match on the physical debris. And that’s what I keep on saying. “They knew” is not an argument that has anything to do with a legitimate investigation. It’s an argument used by those who just swallow propaganda and take it strictly on faith. To take the word of a pathological liar on faith is the height of stupidity. I’m not ready to theorize what it really was without a legitimate investigation. There is no confirmation that it was a drone or that it was something different than the official claim. But all the evidence points to a deliberate coverup. And because of the coverup, the incessant lies and the possibility that the parts may not match the official claim the default position should be that the official claim is a lie and definitely NOT “they knew”.
I am ready to theorize it was a drone. That, because it was NOT UA175 because it was NOT a stock 767. By process of elimination, if it wasn't 175, and if it resembles one of the 2 dozen 767 modified by Zakheim's company in Israel for the tanker candidate 767, then it likely was a drone. The tanker modification included the larger 747 engine, and assorted external plumbing, covered by the external fairings that we saw. No, it can't be proved because all the evidence was destroyed, but it all points to Israel, again, and they have drone technology down to a science.
I don't know, but the most likely candidate would be an employee of the outfit in whose lawn this all took place. To get an accurate answer to your question, you would have to ask somebody who was in on the planning and execution of the events of the day. I am not one of those people.
You cannot ignore the fact that those American airline parts would have had to be stored in readiness in a warehouse somewhere nearby and would have required a couple of flatbed trucks and probably a forklift and a crew to handle the logistics. I am not a fan of Israel, but they didn't do this.. and it was NOT a drone.
It wasn't a UNITED airliner at all.. Only one plane hit the Pentagon in the September 11th attacks September 11 attacks.. American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37 AM EST.
There are 2 different sets of airplane parts involved Margot. One is the assorted small pieces of aluminum, some painted, on the front lawn, and the other is those pieces shown inside the building, which consisted mostly of the remains of one small turbine engine, and some wheels and burned out tires. The pieces on the front yard were small and light, and indeed there was a picture of several men moving something a little bit bigger, covered in a tarp of some kind. Because it was secret enough to be covered, we don't really know what it was, but the fact that it was kept secret from prying eyes and cameras speak volumes about cover-up, literally. The pieces inside the building were blatantly INCONSISTENT with an airliner. Way too small. FYI Margot, the USAF flew its first drone aircraft in about 1948. They have made great strides in that technology since then.
He and I were discussing the aircraft that struck the South Tower, UA175. If you can't keep up with the details, it is hard to take you seriously.
There are many alternate theories out there because the OCT is strictly a theory, one that is unsupported by evidence, contradicted by evidence, makes little or no sense and is the product of a massive criminal scam designed to coverup what really happened on 9/11. There's nothing wrong with theory unless it's used as false fact (propaganda) to support a sinister agenda, such as the fake war on terror that has massacred or otherwise destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, perhaps millions.
can you source or provide pictures of any of this BS that you spout? ... do you still believe Dylan Avery? ...
I'm not into personalities, I'm into the facts surrounding any given case. My girl friend thinks I'm too much like a cop, asking too many questions. What can I say? The facts don't add up, but that's no surprise considering that the heads of the commission discussed that in the media, saying they were "set up to fail". Witness testimony taken behind closed doors and then not making it into the final report IS failing, as it was set up to do. You and I both know that, but I'm able to talk about it while you're not. You're unable to prove any element of the official story, and you become angry because I won't fall for the same nonsense you have.
It is not speculation to recognize and understand that there was no airliner at the Pentagon or in Shanksville. It is not speculation to understand and recognize that the aircraft that hit the tower were not conventional airliners. It is not speculation to understand and recognize that the damage at WTC does not comport with the NIST explanation. It is not speculation to understand that molten iron was present for about 90 days. It is not speculation to understand and recognize that the commission was set up to fail, and noted 63 times that "we found no evidence" for that many elements of the official story. It is not speculation to understand that Rodriguez testimony was taken in secret and then excluded from the report.
It is speculation. You've provided no supporting evidence of this claim. Provide the evidence you used to come up with this claim.
Again you balk at the questions. Tell me how saying that "there was no evidence to suggest that a hijacker sat in a jump (or whatever it was called) seat" is setting up the report to fail?
He's like a soundbite ... they will never post the actual testimony for "set up to fail" and "no evidence" ... just little nuggets of out of context words to further his delusion ... or perhaps this is just a game for him ...
Interesting. The hottest hotspot shown on satellite was 1020K which is 1376.33.F. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html Iron melts at 2800F. If the hottest hotspot was 1376.33F, how could there be molten iron like you claim? Iron melts at almost 1500F MORE than the hotspots you said were there.
Most claims were molten steel, some molten iron and molten metal. It's not his claim, it's the claim of numerous eyewitnesses. But you knew that very well phony one. I'm 100% sure you've seen these videos. So why are you asking? (at 3:50)
