The nuclear theory is refined, confirmed

Discussion in '9/11' started by Eleuthera, Sep 4, 2019.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,471
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    facts you say? ... yet here you are pushing an idiotic nuclear event scenario ... you're a real piece of work E ...
     
  2. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,471
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    well lets discuss this dishonest claim ... we have before, why not do it again? ...
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why would I want to discuss YOUR dishonest claims? If you want to discuss the documented facts and evidence, that’s a different story but that would go against your beliefs and claims so I doubt you would want to take part. But I’m certainly open to any honest discussion if you are capable of doing that. Any injection of the term “troofer” on your part though would automatically render anything you have to say irrelevant.
     
  4. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,471
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    sure Bobby ... can you drop the OCT groveler shtick? ...
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely and I agree it's as irrelevant in an honest discussion as is "troofer". So please continue, what do you say are my "dishonest claims"? Or if you don't want to address that, start somewhere else.

    BTW as long as Hulsey has been part of the discussion, you should know that according to Richard Gage, Hulsey's final report is scheduled for publication in January 2020. I don't know where but Hulsey claimed about a year ago that it may be published in Europe because he might not be able to publish it in a US publication. Where it's published does not matter, it's about the message, not the messenger. Comments from peer reviewers will also be part of the final report. Personally, I'm betting it will take longer to get it published. All phases of Hulsey's work exceeded deadlines in the past so I'm not expecting this to be different.

    If you did send your comments to Hulsey, I'd be very interested to read what you wrote.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2019
  6. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,595
    Likes Received:
    11,695
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because you are unaware of certain facts DOES NOT MEAN that those facts don't exist.

    Wilfull ignorance on your part does not obviate facts known to many.
     
  7. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,471
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    re: dishonest claims ... In the past, I have provided ample evidence that the handling of the WTC debris was a money grab by a corrupt union in New York City ... it was handed over by the gov and surely some stooge would have talked by now in a 60 Minutes interview of anything nefarious ...

    I am a retired mechanical engineer ... (now living in a very low population area of northern Arizona ... off the grid) I took University level Physics I and II over 30 years ago ... I didn't have to apply 95% of that curriculum to designing HVAC systems over my career but yes I understand the laws of physics ...

    The peer review process is more important then the paper itself ... this whole process is like watching paint dry ...

    having said all that, neither you nor I are qualified to peer review Dr. Hulsey's work ...
     
  8. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,471
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    well then, please tell me what facts I am unaware of ....
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. Sorry but you haven't shown one single piece of evidence that my claim was dishonest. Destruction of evidence has only one purpose, to try to obstruct any possible investigation.

    2. You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever that the removal of 9/11 debris was the responsibility of any corrupt union. While I don't dispute that perhaps select contractors may have been handed that task via some corrupt incestuous relationship, it could not have possibly occurred without an order from a government official. So your claim is strictly your personal theory.

    3. If the removal of 9/11 debris was not ordered by the Bush administration, they certainly had the power to stop it in its tracks. That they didn't, coupled with the fact that it had to be ordered by a government official strongly indicates that there was a concerted effort to destroy the evidence as quickly as possible and prior to any investigation.

    4. Your belief that some stooge would have talked by now, in a 60 Minute interview yet, is strictly conjecture on your part. IF 9/11 was an inside job, any "stooge" who might have talked would likely be risking his/her life and possibly that of their family.

    You say that yet you show you believe that WTC7 was a natural progressive collapse strictly caused by fire and damage despite the contradictory evidence and expert analysis that shows it was global collapse at free fall. And that involves application of all relevant physics principles. You admit you are not qualified to peer review Hulsey's work yet you indicate you know better than Hulsey who completed a 4 year study and concluded it was a global collapse. You OTOH have done no study at all nor are you even qualified to conduct one by your own admission. That makes no sense at all, you are contradicting yourself.

    That makes no sense either. There can't be a peer review without the draft paper. They are equally important. The peer review process can confirm or reject elements within the draft and/or the conclusion(s) reached. But if the peer review process confirms the paper then it becomes settled science unless and until proven otherwise. So the focal point is the paper and what it asserts, not the peer review process.

    Irrelevant, it has nothing to do with any discussion. If the issue is too tedious for you, why are you bothering with it? You claimed you were anxiously waiting for the release of the draft paper and now that it's out you seem to be avoiding any discussion of any of the details within the paper. Why is that?

    Neither you nor I are qualified or have even attempted a peer review, so this is also an irrelevant statement. We are both strictly observers but we each have our own personal opinions. Neither you nor I are required to be qualified to understand the vast majority of Hulsey's paper and his conclusions. A great deal of it is elementary (i.e. a no brainer). The difference is you reject it but cannot show any valid reason why you reject it. The reasoning you've provided thus far is just plain silly and outright wrong. As stated by Hulsey and shown in his paper, he used NIST's contrived data to prove NIST's hypothesis is impossible.
     
  10. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,595
    Likes Received:
    11,695
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is insufficient space here to list those facts.
     
  11. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,471
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    there is plenty of space ... show me some facts ...
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. WTC7 dropped at free fall through its own structure for about 100 ft or 8 stories and at near free fall for the remainder.
    2. The NIST report that concluded that WTC7 progressively collapsed strictly due to fire is based on fraudulent data and fraudulent investigative methodology.
    3. Dr. Leroy Hulsey conducted a 4 year study that concluded that the NIST hypothesis with respect to WTC7 is impossible using NIST's fraudulent data and equally impossible using all known correct data.
    4. Dr. Leroy Hulsey created a computer model that closely resembles the actual collapse of WTC7 by removing all of its columns nearly simultaneously.
    5. There is no known legitimate computer model or investigation or study that shows that WTC7 was destroyed strictly due to fire, damage or both.
    6. The least likely cause of the total destruction of WTC7 is fire.
    7. The most likely cause of the total destruction of WTC7 is that it suffered a global collapse due to the near simultaneous removal of all its columns.
    8. There are multiple corroborating eyewitness accounts of explosions, including at least 2 videos and interviews with 2 eyewitnesses who were actually in WTC7 during some of those explosions.
    9. The vast majority of the World Trade Center debris was quickly and illegally removed prior to any investigation, obstructing any possible investigation.

    Do you need more facts?

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mission-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.495859/

    More? Let me know.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  13. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,595
    Likes Received:
    11,695
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They have been right in front of your nose for years Shine, but you are unable to understand. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.
     
  14. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,471
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only number 8 might be a fact ... and I was talking about the topic of this thread that you buddy Eleuthera started but has yet to provide any facts but likes to use psychological terms rather than responding to questions ... your slip is showing Bob ...

    same old mantra huh E? ... you can't even get a fellow trooofer to stand behind your nuke theory because it is so ludicrous ... so sad to watch your inept spin ...
     
  15. ProVox

    ProVox Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2019
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    8
    All 9 examples given by Bob are factual ...... the OCT is not supported by either the facts available (Videos) or the Laws of Physics. If you understand the principal of Vortex shedding and look at the videos of the 'raging fires' (Actually smoke and even more dust) on the South face, you will also note that there were virtually NO visible fires except those where smoke (unburned fuel) ignited when it hit the outside air at the SE corner! Obvious if you look at the erratic ignition and then failure when the next cloud of smoke burst out of the windows and smothered the flames ..... no oxygen = no fires ..... just smoke!

    When WTC 7 collapsed, there was no cloud of smoke or flames as was seen with 1 and 2, because there were no significant fires ...... and there is not a single video that shows any significant fires at all inside the building (through windows) before or during the collapse.

    I think Hulsey has provided enough irrefutable evidence to say that it was not fire that bought down WTC 7 as claimed by NIST. Hulsey has also made no suggestion as to HOW a simultaneous collapse was initiated only that it was a simultaneous collapse of all the structural columns. That is also what all the evidence shows.

    Surely, under those circumstances, we know WHAT happened but it is up to NIST to come up with the HOW, because they were the ones charged by the US Government to provide that explanation? They failed ........ it could be said their version was a fraud, but in any case it is NIST that has all the explaining to do? Hulsey has put his case up for review, with all his data available to anyone who wants it, something that NIST has failed to do.

    If NIST prove it was ‘manic steel eating termites’ or a ‘super rust’ that was responsible ...... or even nuclear devices, then let them provide the evidence for another hypothesis. Personally, I still think Thermate/small explosives was the most likely cause ...... but that needs demolition experts to come up with the credible HOW that could have been achieved and I personally don’t think that would be too difficult to do, not only with WTC 7, but also WTC’s 1 and 2.
     
    Eleuthera and Bob0627 like this.
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your post (#54) insinuated that you actually agreed to participate in an adult discussion on this subject. So I responded to post #57 and received no follow up response from you. You asked to be shown some facts, albeit your post was directed to Eleuthera with respect to the nuclear theory but I did post some facts for you regardless. And your answer is a blanket denial of those facts with a half hearted acknowledgement that only 1 "might" be a fact. Every single one of the 9 facts I listed are documented and/or provable. If you're going to deny reality (as you always do when it comes to 9/11), there can never be an adult discussion with you on any 9/11 issue.

    And then to compliment your pathological denier mentality this is what you seem to only know how to resort to:

    Sorry Shiner, despite your claim that you're retired, you're still operating on a grade school level.
     
  17. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,652
    Likes Received:
    3,698
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Atoms combine into molecules that are held together with energy. It takes energy to break those bonds and energy is transformed once the bonds are broken. The products of the reaction are then free to react with their environment.

    Steel contains iron. Iron (Fe) is highly reactive with Oxygen. (O2). If you turn steel to dust, oxidation takes place, and loads of energy are released. That massive amount of energy does not leave "flammables such as paper nearby" untouched.
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,487
    Likes Received:
    1,725
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thats sounds pretty incredible fang, how 'nearby' does it have to be to be 'touched'? Citations?
     
  19. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,652
    Likes Received:
    3,698
    Trophy Points:
    113
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,487
    Likes Received:
    1,725
    Trophy Points:
    113
    fang no one cares about your psychological profile

    Pretty clear your theories are just singing from the soapbox, ssdd, that you made it all up, do I need crayolas next? Is this going to be a dodgefest?
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2020
    Eleuthera likes this.
  21. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,652
    Likes Received:
    3,698
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My so called theories are more commonly referred to as chemistry.

    I don't take credit for it. It's been around for a while.
     
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,487
    Likes Received:
    1,725
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still singing off key from the soapbox I see. Another dodge, so predictable. :lol:
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020
  23. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,595
    Likes Received:
    11,695
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Chemistry is cool, but physics is more appropriate in analyzing what happened at WTC.

    The New Kid on the block is the German physicist Heinz Pommer. He is a scientist with common sense and dignity.

    https://greencrowasthecrowflies.blogspot.com/2017/05/911-nuclear-event-as-heinz-pommer.html

    It's as plain as the nose on your face--among other things, WTC was a nuclear event.
     
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,487
    Likes Received:
    1,725
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah what was the laymans first clue lol

    [​IMG]

    then the idiot da'flunkies tried to convince truthers that the largest towers in the world were built over a freakin crater! :roll:
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020
    Eleuthera likes this.
  25. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,652
    Likes Received:
    3,698
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Accurate theories developed by physicists don't violate principles of chemistry...and vice versa. The theories that do...aren't accurate.
     

Share This Page