Merged: Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Yes I was told I was rejected because I lack credentials no degree in what the consider the appropriate Science.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

Yes I was told I was rejected because I lack credentials no degree in what the consider the appropriate Science.

Well that disposes of the claims about "open for public comment". I'll leave it for Oystein to put in context - he is far more familiar with the details than I am.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

Yes I was told I was rejected because I lack credentials no degree in what the consider the appropriate Science.

Since they seem to think the appropriate science is forensic structural engineering, neither does Hulsey, or indeed anyone else, because it's a science he made up for himself.

Dave

[JSanderO]

Hulsey will have no impact of the explanation as to what happened on 9/11 to anyone but 911 truthers.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Since they seem to think the appropriate science is forensic structural engineering, neither does Hulsey, or indeed anyone else, because it's a science he made up for himself.

Dave

Actually I would call it Nonscience or Nonsense both terms apply here.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

Yes I was told I was rejected because I lack credentials no degree in what the consider the appropriate Science.

Ok. You seem to say that you submitted your comments on the September 03 Draft Report by Hulsey to publiccomment@ae911truth.org on or before November 15th, AND that they already responded to you saying they rejected your comments because you lack credentials no degree in what the consider the appropriate Science.
Do I construe that correctly?

I'll be blunt: I do not believe that story.
Could you please forward to my email account, which you know, the comments you had mailed to publiccomment@ae911truth.org and then also their reply? Thanks.

Background: I sent comments to publiccomment@ae911truth.org and did not receive any response, nor would I expect any response, nor would I believe that they would dare to reject any comments.

[Oystein]

In early September I had sent the link to Hulsey's draft report to a friend who is a structural engineer (his job, if I understand correctly, is to certify structural designs submitted by other engineering firms; those are often large and non-standard structures like power plants, valley bridges, stuff like that). I askked him if he could look at the report and give me his thoughts.

Today I had breakfast with him, my first chance to inquire about his thoughts. He said the report looks inflated - lots of stuff that looks like engineering, but really pretty thin on substance. As for using FEA to study the dynamics of total collapse, his assessment is that this is almost unfeasible. Chaos theory reigns. His main argument was that such a FE analysis can and should be viewed as a branching process - say, a beam gets overloaded and is forced to buckle - then often it could buckle to the left or the right (or perhaps a third or fourth direction) - and this may make a difference later on. Such branches must occur countless times in a structure like this, making the outcome highly undetermined.

What he didn't catch on to was Hulsey's failings...

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Ok. You seem to say that you submitted your comments on the September 03 Draft Report by Hulsey to publiccomment@ae911truth.org on or before November 15th, AND that they already responded to you saying they rejected your comments because you lack credentials no degree in what the consider the appropriate Science.
Do I construe that correctly?

I'll be blunt: I do not believe that story.
Could you please forward to my email account, which you know, the comments you had mailed to publiccomment@ae911truth.org and then also their reply? Thanks.

Background: I sent comments to publiccomment@ae911truth.org and did not receive any response, nor would I expect any response, nor would I believe that they would dare to reject any comments.

Yes.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Oystein

In early September I had sent the link to Hulsey's draft report to a friend who is a structural engineer (his job, if I understand correctly, is to certify structural designs submitted by other engineering firms; those are often large and non-standard structures like power plants, valley bridges, stuff like that). I askked him if he could look at the report and give me his thoughts.

Today I had breakfast with him, my first chance to inquire about his thoughts. He said the report looks inflated - lots of stuff that looks like engineering, but really pretty thin on substance. As for using FEA to study the dynamics of total collapse, his assessment is that this is almost unfeasible. Chaos theory reigns. His main argument was that such a FE analysis can and should be viewed as a branching process - say, a beam gets overloaded and is forced to buckle - then often it could buckle to the left or the right (or perhaps a third or fourth direction) - and this may make a difference later on. Such branches must occur countless times in a structure like this, making the outcome highly undetermined.

What he didn't catch on to was Hulsey's failings...

Actually I was told by a Twoofer Friend, yes you can have those In Fairbanks that my comments were not being seriously considered.
He is a fellow chainsaw artist, there, he asked personally.
I don't expect any reply from Hulsey's team.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Oystein

In early September I had sent the link to Hulsey's draft report to a friend who is a structural engineer (his job, if I understand correctly, is to certify structural designs submitted by other engineering firms; those are often large and non-standard structures like power plants, valley bridges, stuff like that). I askked him if he could look at the report and give me his thoughts.

Today I had breakfast with him, my first chance to inquire about his thoughts. He said the report looks inflated - lots of stuff that looks like engineering, but really pretty thin on substance. As for using FEA to study the dynamics of total collapse, his assessment is that this is almost unfeasible. Chaos theory reigns. His main argument was that such a FE analysis can and should be viewed as a branching process - say, a beam gets overloaded and is forced to buckle - then often it could buckle to the left or the right (or perhaps a third or fourth direction) - and this may make a difference later on. Such branches must occur countless times in a structure like this, making the outcome highly undetermined.

What he didn't catch on to was Hulsey's failings...

Those Rules also apply to the fire specific Conditions in an oxidation event can not be measured to any degree of accuracy. Air flows turbulace in wind flows can have pronounced effects, what Hulsey's doing can not be considered science.
He can't establish a causally Chain, series of Logical event sequences for the Buildings collapse from a cart before horse science approach.
Hulsey is trying to Claim he has God's eye he can't do that not and say he is following a Scientific approach.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

Those Rules also apply to the fire specific Conditions in an oxidation event can not be measured to any degree of accuracy. Air flows turbulace in wind flows can have pronounced effects, what Hulsey's doing can not be considered science.
He can't establish a causally Chain, series of Logical event sequences for the Buildings collapse from a cart before horse science approach.
Hulsey is trying to Claim he has God's eye he can't do that not and say he is following a Scientific approach.

You can say in three words what you wrote in five. It will shorten your thoughts and make them much clearer.

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska

I can't be bothered to read 60 pages. I get that WTC7 could have been brought down by fires, but how could it have been the University of Alaska? That's far away and wasn't even hit by aircraft?

I'll get my coat.

[DGM]

Any news on the final paper?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by DGM

Any news on the final paper?

Nope, not really.
You might think different if you gullibly believed every word Richard Gage says, who recently flew to tropical Acapulco to spread his lies, where he was interviewed by some sycophant propagandist:

YT: NEW 911 Report By UAF DESTROYS Official Narrative On Collapse Of Building 7!!!
uploaded yesterday, 2020/02/19, it apparently took place between Feb 13 and 16

The title of the video is a lie, to start with: The report (final release) cannot "destroy" anything because it does not yet exist, and the draft isn't "new".

Gage fires of an incredibly fast scatter-shooting of lies, start at 1 min 33 seconds:

Originally Posted by Richard Gage lies

If uh Building 7 could come down at freefall acceleration[1], straight down, uniformly[2], symmetrically[3], into its own footprint[4] in under seven seconds[5] just like the old hotels in Las Vegas, which are controlled demolitions, then we have a problem[6] with how these similarly designed, hundreds of them, buildings[7] could behave in an office fire. And these were not huge office fires[8]. They were relatively small[9], few and scattered[10] in this building.[2:00]

10 lies in 27 seconds. WOW! I hilighted the lies. He speaks the truth about Vegas demolitions. That's it.

He goes on - 2 minutes 10 seconds:

Originally Posted by Richard Gage more lies

Well, Professor Leroy Hulsey one of the top forensic structural engineers in the country...

LOL
.
Here is JL Hulsey's personal page at the UAF web presence, it contains what must be considered his official CV:
http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx
Low and behold, it contains the word "forensic" exactly ZERO (0) times. Seems Mr. Hulsey does not think that "forensic" engineering is part of his expertise!

Hulsey is a university man, a Professor, and university professors publish publish publish. So I searched Google Scholar for a list of all papers co-authored by "JL Hulsey" which contain the word "forensic" - I found 1 (one):

Gang S. Chen, Feng Xiao, Wael Zatar, and J. Leroy Hulsey, "Characterization of Nonstationary Mode Interaction of Bridge by Considering Deterioration of Bearing", Hindawi, Advances in Materials Science and Engineering Volume 2018, Article ID 5454387, 8 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5454387

Note that Hulsey is listed last among the authors, his assistant for the WTC7 study, Feng Xiao, is listed second, ahead of him.

This paper is about measuring the vibrations of an older (almost 50 years old) steel frame bridge in Alaska. They compare the data to model computations from a SAP2000 Finite Element Analysis model - just the tool they used on the WTC7.

The word "forensic" appears 3 times (no variations appear):

• Twice in the references ([8] and [9]), neither by Hulsey
• Once in the text. I quote:

Quote:

Researches in [5–7] demonstrated that the friction coefficient of expansion bearings together with other factors should be considered during the fragility analysis of the bridge system. For aged bridge bearings, deterioration such as the corrosion of the bearing surfaces and debris build-up at the contact interfaces of steel bearings is unavoidable and could substantially change their originally designed/verified mechanical behavior. In the past, there are quite a number of failures of ill-conditioned steel rocker bearings affecting the proper functioning of the bridge, such as those documented in forensic investigations [8, 9]. However, only a few studies in the past have considered the dynamic behavior of steel bridge bearings [10–17]. Researches in [12, 13] presented computational models for evaluating quasi-isolated bridge systems, [...]

None of the references [5] through [17] used around the lone mention of "forensics" have anything to do with Hulsey or his research team.

So this paper is NOT a, or about any "forensic" study, it merely offers up ideas to be potentially considered by future forensic studies.

Hulsey appears in the references once:

Quote:

22. F. Xiao, J. L. Hulsey, and R. Balasubramanian, “Fiber optic health monitoring and temperature behavior of bridge in cold region,” Structural Control and Health Monitoring, vol. 24, no. 11, p. e2020, 2017.

Highlighting, once more, that Hulsey's "things" in engineering are "bridges" and "effects of cold climate".

J Leroy Hulsey has NO academic background AT ALL in either forensic engineering or the effects of fire, and Richard Gage is a bold LIAR.

[DGM]

AE 9/11 and the "truth" community have donated a lot of money. Is there any hope on a return on this investment?

Will a paper ever surface?

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by DGM

AE 9/11 and the "truth" community have donated a lot of money. Is there any hope on a return on this investment?

Will a paper ever surface?

Last year, they said "early next year". It's now March, but I suppose that if you want to get technical, one might argue that anything before July 1 is still "early".

[JSanderO]

Originally Posted by DGM

AE 9/11 and the "truth" community have donated a lot of money. Is there any hope on a return on this investment?

Will a paper ever surface?

Truther approach their thinking by looking for a "proof" that the collapses were not possible without placed devices. This means that they have to undermine the notion that mechanical damage and the effects of fire could lead to the structures' undoing.

In the case of 7WTC this hinges on the notion that the girder col79-col44 could not collapse because if it did it would lead to collapse of several girders and floor sections below and then to the columns losing bracing, becoming "weakened" and unstable as explained by Euler... and setting off a progressive runaway collapse through the structure.

[Robin]

I will be interested to see if any construction engineers address this.

I notice, for example, that Hulsey is claiming that A2001 cannot walk of its seat because it would be trapped by the flange on Col 79.

The NIST report talks of it being pushed off by the expanding floor girders and in this case it seems likely that there would be rotation of Col 79 and bending of A2001 which would make it unlikely that that flange would be enough to trap it.

However I am far from an expert so I will wait for any engineers to chip in. (I could ask my brother but I imagine he would simply mock me for paying any attention to this).

[Robin]

Hulsey et al also claim that in financial services organisations most paper would be located in a fire proof safe.

I worked in a financial services organisation during that time and this is not the case, in fact there was a high concentration of paper and most of it not in expensive fireproof safes. I actually led the charge to put this information into a browsable database but it was a long task changing people's attitude about paper.

I can look around my office now and see a good deal more combustible material.

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by Robin

I notice, for example, that Hulsey is claiming that A2001 cannot walk of its seat because it would be trapped by the flange on Col 79.

The NIST report talks of it being pushed off by the expanding floor girders and in this case it seems likely that there would be rotation of Col 79 and bending of A2001 which would make it unlikely that that flange would be enough to trap it.

However I am far from an expert so I will wait for any engineers to chip in. (I could ask my brother but I imagine he would simply mock me for paying any attention to this).

I do think that this particular contention holds some water, as there's one other report (made for the same lawsuit as the Weidlinger report) that also claims that the side plates of C79 would prevent the walk-off. However, since NIST used a complex fire simulation and FEA including several floors, it's not all that clear that the expansion of the beams and girder due to heat was the direct cause, because they also reported eastward movement of the column.

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by Robin

I can look around my office now and see a good deal more combustible material.

It doesn't even take a lot of fuel to reach flashover.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[MileHighMadness]

Originally Posted by Robin

I will be interested to see if any construction engineers address this.

I notice, for example, that Hulsey is claiming that A2001 cannot walk of its seat because it would be trapped by the flange on Col 79.

The NIST report talks of it being pushed off by the expanding floor girders and in this case it seems likely that there would be rotation of Col 79 and bending of A2001 which would make it unlikely that that flange would be enough to trap it.

However I am far from an expert so I will wait for any engineers to chip in. (I could ask my brother but I imagine he would simply mock me for paying any attention to this).

The walk-off is not important. The strain energy builds up until the high strength bolts rip thru the bottom support plate. This whole connection comes apart like a small bomb. The girder is not pushed off the bearing seat, because there is no support left.

[Robin]

I don't understand what is supposed to be the motive for demolishing WTC7.

Do truthers suppose that the Powerful Secret Cabal didn't think people would be outraged enough by the two big towers being dropped, but that WTC7 would be one tower two many for the public?

[JSanderO]

The collapse of 7WTC appears to be an unforeseen and unintended consequence of the collapse of 1 WTC. It's not clear at all that the hijackers had any engineering expertise to know that hitting the towers with a jumbo would make them collapse.

For sure the main shock they wanted to cause was to hijack planes and use them as weapons... killing all on board and people in the buildings hit.

To this date there seems to be debate as to how the plane strike led to the building collapse. And there are some (truthers) who suggest that they towers were "too strong" to collapse without placed devices.

The runaways collapse phase... dubbed ROOSD seems to be the best fit explanation of that phase. There remains some fog about about the "ROOSD mass" was "freed" to drive the floor collapses, and then the toppling of the facade and core axial systems.

These towers depended in integrity of the structural system to remain standing. As the integrity was lost the structural failures rapidly raced through and undid the structural matrix and the buildings came down driven by gravity.

++++

Truthers need to come up with an explanation why and how the towers were taken down. They posit the main objective was to be the excuse to invade the ME... the so called "false flag", yet there was evidence that AQ was planning some sort of huge terrorist attack on US soil. This was included in a daily briefing to the POTUS in August. However the US had not way to prevent such an attack nor stop in in progress. The intel was not specific enough to prevent it. We had no policy to shot down commercial planes which were hijacked. Low tech trumped high tech... and our "security" was "defeated".

++++

Steel framed structures without effective fire fighting will likely fail after several hours. This was the case for the 3 buildings.

There were lessons learned from 9/11:
better Security at at airports and high profile terrorist targets
more robust fire protection systems for steel framed buildings
better systems for emergency egress of occupants in high rise buildings
redundant structural systems not (less) prone to runaway structural failures
better intel for/on non state actors

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by Robin

I don't understand what is supposed to be the motive for demolishing WTC7.

Do truthers suppose that the Powerful Secret Cabal didn't think people would be outraged enough by the two big towers being dropped, but that WTC7 would be one tower two many for the public?

They claim the CIA had a field office in WTC7 and they destroyed the building to get rid of files or whatever.

Yes, it gets stupider as they explain it.

I guarantee that in 9-10-2001 the CIA could have moved all of the files out of WTC7 with a marching band and cheerleaders and NOBODY would have cared. Most Truthers have never been to, let alone lived in NYC, New Yorkers and those who worked in the Twin Towers were always on the clock and if you got in their way they'd walk right over you to get to the office. They were almost all college educated and since most of the businesses in the WTC complex were financial based they were under a lot of pressure, and this means that any prep-work (i.e. jack hammers, the stench of cutting steel) would not only have been reported, they would have raised holy hell about it. They would still be talking about it today, how it interfered with their jobs.

To date there has yet to be any survivors of the WTC to come forward with tales of mysterious work crews or seeing anything out of the ordinary.

Every CT will gain steam with an anomaly, or perceived anomaly, or a collection of anomalies which can be used to create doubt even though none of the anomalies have anything to do with the actual event.

In the case of 911 this was a one-time spectacular event with a combination of moving parts. The problem is perceived reality verses reality.

Reception: Fire cannot bring down a high rise building.

Reality: Yes it can. WTC7 burned for almost 8 hours and there was undefined damage to the building from WTC1.

Perception: There's no way four hijacked airliners could fly unchallenged by the mighty USAF.

Reality: Ask anyone who's ever served in the military, especially in the Clinton era, about the USAF's capabilities to defend against an external attack, and then ask about an internal attack. The F-16's which launched out of D.C. were unarmed and the pilots planned to ram the jetliners.

Perception: The collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC7 looked like CD.

Reality: No they did not. There were no loud blasts and none of the buildings fell evenly as they would have under controlled demo.

Perception: Bush needed to fake 911 to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

Reality: NOBODY wanted to invade Afghanistan in 2001. Everything that has happened since our invasion has not been a surprise to anyone with basic military history knowledge, or just reads Kipling. In the end the US joins a prestigious list of failures that starts with Alexander the Great. Iraq was a different matter. Saddam was an idiot and the sad fact was it was only a matter of time before he pulled something that would have justified invasion - but we couldn't wait for some reason.

I can't speak to the engineering side of WTC7 but I've read the NIST report, and while most of it is over my head the answers are there in their recommendations for building code changes. Truthers are not but on subtext because if they were the NIST spells out the many issues with WTC7 and the Twin Towers which helped doom them after the attack.

[Oystein]

AE911Truth now say that Husley's final report will become available in under two weeks - that would be before March 27th on my calendar:

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/652-...-fight-to-nist

Originally Posted by AE911Truth

In less than two weeks, the final report of the University of Alaska Fairbanks study on World Trade Center Building 7 by Dr. Leroy Hulsey will be released!

This article comes with plenty of language calling for donations.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by Oystein

AE911Truth now say that Husley's final report will become available in under two weeks - that would be before March 27th on my calendar:

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/652-...-fight-to-nist



This article comes with plenty of language calling for donations.

Of course, they have to keep up the lifestyle that they have been accustomed.

[MileHighMadness]

It is always about the money. The truth has nothing to do with it.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by MileHighMadness

It is always about the money. The truth has nothing to do with it.

Follow the money...

[Trojan]

"Not only that, it will inform tens of thousands of engineers about the UAF report by sending postcards to a whopping 50,000 engineers, funding two dozen engineering presentations between now and August, and more."

How does AE 9/11 pick the engineers it will target?

[MileHighMadness]

The Final Report is out.

Gage wants $75,000 (of course) to send postcards to 50,000 engineers. I guess email is out of the question...LOL

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by MileHighMadness

The Final Report is out.

Gage wants $75,000 (of course) to send postcards to 50,000 engineers. I guess email is out of the question...LOL

Will that include train engineers and software engineers? <just asking>

[pgimeno]

From page iii:

EXTERNAL PEER REVIEWERS

Gregory Szuladzinski, Ph.D
Chartered Consulting Engineer
Analytical Service Company

Robert Korol, Ph.D
Emeritus Professor of Civil Engineering
McMaster University

Colour me surprised

Many key mistakes of the draft have been replicated in the final report:

• It does not really rebut Weidlinger's collapse initiation hypothesis, it merely talks about it with incredulity using pretty much the same wording as in the first version. That alone suffices to debunk one of the central claims of the report (that fire did not cause the collapse), as incredulity is not a strong enough reason to reject a report that proves otherwise.
• They've kept this claim (section 4.3, p.95; PDF p.108):

  Based on these analyses, we found that Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building (e.g., from Floor 6 to 13 or Floor 13 to 21). We found that the failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 at the lower floors of the building would cause the building to tilt dramatically to the east[1], which would have been observed in the videos but was not[2], and that it would not cause the east penthouse to collapse, because the intact portions of Columns 79, 80, and 81 above where the columns failed would still support the penthouse.

  As for [1], how dramatically is dramatically? Figure 4.2 shows a deflection of almost 10 inches to the east, the biggest of them. Figure 4.3 shows a deflection of 7.2 inches. In a video where 300 pixels represent 330 feet, 10 inches are about 0.9 pixels.
  
  Would a deflection of 0.9 pixels be visible in the videos? Not so much to the naked eye, unless you use some reference, but NIST came up with a method for sub-pixel measurement of displacement. They elaborate in appendix C of NCSTAR 1.9. The deflection they obtain is in the order of 6 inches to the east. Therefore [2] is false because this "dramatic" displacement was in fact observed in the videos. The question that remains is why did Hulsey's penthouse not collapse, and everyone else's (Weidlinger's, NIST's, ARUP's) collapse.
• Figure 4.17(c) is still that joke of a simulation, where the penthouse cracks like an egg, pivoting on the top right instead of the bottom right. The Metabunk guys found that the animation was specifically crafted to produce the collapse seen in the videos, by means of manipulating certain parameters, and was NOT the result of the removal of all columns as the report seems to imply. They did NOT obtain an animation of the global collapse from an accurate physics simulation. Therefore this point (p.110, PDF p.123) is a lie:

  4. The simultaneous failure of all core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse. The collapse could have started at various floors starting at Floor 16 and below and produced the same behavior.

They seem to have removed the ANSYS figure from the NIST report that they confused with the LS-DYNA analysis and patched the text accordingly. EDIT: My bad, the figure is still there and the text is essentially unchanged.

These are my findings on a first read.

[Oystein]

Find the Final Report as well as the Draft Report and the Public Comments linked to from the UAF's project page:
http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/

I submitted my comments on the Draft (13 pages!) to the intended email address publiccomment@ae911truth.org on November 14th, 21:31 UTC (that's Nov 14th in the day for all of the USA) - and yet they do not show up in the Public Comments published yesterday!

I emailed Hulsey and the interim Director of the Institute of Northern Engineering (INE), David Barnes, directly and separately to inquire about the whereabouts of my comments.

I find it curious that these comments were to be directed to an anonymous email address controlled by the sponsor of the study, giving them the means to censor comments they don't like. Even if Hulsey chose to ignore such criticism, they should at least now be part of the public record.


Did anyone else here submit comments? Are they included?

[Trojan]

Has anyone seen the PBS excerpt on the Hulsey report?

[Jaytje46]

Originally Posted by Robin

I don't understand what is supposed to be the motive for demolishing WTC7.

Do truthers suppose that the Powerful Secret Cabal didn't think people would be outraged enough by the two big towers being dropped, but that WTC7 would be one tower two many for the public?

I never understood this reasoning myself, or why they had too blow up the buildings. Its not like the Government would not declare war with just the buildings on fire, and still killing thousands of people. But reasoning is hard for truthers I guess.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by Jaytje46

I never understood this reasoning myself, or why they had too blow up the buildings. Its not like the Government would not declare war with just the buildings on fire, and still killing thousands of people. But reasoning is hard for truthers I guess.

I believe it is the distrust of the evil Government that lies most of the time and when investigating something no one had ever envisioned or believed could happen that the CTs went wild with their planes couldn't have done all the damage it HAD to be something else. Therein lies the connection towards the Government.

[JSanderO]

Truthers basically "think" everything from the media and the USG is a lie... The lies are meant to conceal some ugly truth... and in service to that they can essentially do and say anything... including controlling hundred and thousands of people to join in their fantasy.

Then come along a handful of false prophets who try to make scientific or engineering "sounding" arguments... write papers, books, lecture, do videos. None of it is based on facts. These guys are "cashing out" on the sheep who follow them.

[Jaytje46]

Same as with the northwoods file, they say only an evil man could come up with this, but I Guess they never read a book, or wacthed a movie. because authors can write a lot more disturbing stuff.