ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 4th November 2016, 02:24 PM   #1
MrFliop
Thinker
 
MrFliop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 144
Anything New From twoof Movement?

Wow, just wow! I haven't paid attention to anything in the 9/11 "truther" world since early 2013 because by then to me the movement seemed to be dead anyway. I almost forgot about its existence until today when in my Facebook feed I came across Corbettreport's infamous 9/11-A Conspiracy Theory. So I just came here to ask you guys who have been paying attention to 9/11 news: Has ANY new "evidence" come forward in the past 3 years pointing to a conspiracy? If so comment below and if you are so kind to save me time please post a debunking to it, if one does such exist yet. Note: Do not post stuff that has been parroted(and debunked) for years by truthers! Show me some new stuff that I would not have found 3 years ago!
MrFliop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 03:03 PM   #2
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,855
Here's the latest presentation posted by Dr. Leroy Hulsey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8DNabmb9-k
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 03:06 PM   #3
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,633
Originally Posted by MrFliop View Post
........... Has ANY new "evidence" come forward in the past 3 years pointing to a conspiracy?
Nope.....
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 03:07 PM   #4
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,633
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Here's the latest presentation posted by Dr. Leroy Hulsey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8DNabmb9-k
You need to look up the word "evidence".
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 03:50 PM   #5
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,061
Never was evidence for 9/11 truth claims. Never will be evidence to support 9/11 truth claims. 9/11 truth idiotic claims don't need evidence, the claims are all fantasy.

9/11 truth idiotic claims will continue to fool gullible people. Thus, nothing new, the same old nonsense.

Hulsey has no evidence to support the delusional CD fantasy.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 04:08 PM   #6
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,855
Hulsey said in the lecture that he is intentionally avoiding exposure to conspiracy-promoting literature.

I think he would much rather be "the guy who solved WTC 7's structural failure" instead of "that guy who thinks it was a demolition", AE911TRUTH be damned. I think he refuses to even say the word "demolition" or "implosion". He comes across to me like he really wants it to be a structural failure.

Last edited by MicahJava; 4th November 2016 at 04:16 PM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 04:08 PM   #7
MrFliop
Thinker
 
MrFliop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 144
Ok, so I've watched Dr. Hulsey's entire presentation and nowhere in it does he make any claim that there's evidence that WTC7 was demolished. He simply claims that he wants to know the real reason it collapsed. He says that he's worked with an independent team to reconstruct Building 7 and its collapse. Then he goes on to say how they're model is different from NIST's model. I'm no expert in this so can anybody here corraborate or refute these claims please? He then brings up the claim that WTC7 experienced freefall and that NIST hasn't come up with an explanation for it.

I went through my own collection of debunking material and found an answer to Dr. Husley's question:

Quote:
From youtube User RKOwens4's channel, originally posted on February 24,2009:
(comments by RKOwens4 in bold)

"Still waiting for you to debunk or explain NIST's admitted 2.25 seconds of freefall acceleration."

If you had read the NIST report on WTC7, you would see that the 2.25 seconds of free-fall is actually predicted by the collapse simulation. From the instant of collapse initiation, it takes 3 seconds for the collapse to spread from the 7th floor all the way to the roof. Then it takes another 8 seconds for the collapse to progress throughout the entire core. Once the core is completely gone, there's no lateral support for the perimeter columns. Also, the collapsing core pulls in on the floor beams, which pulls in on the perimeter columns. The collapse simulation predicted a bowing inward of the perimeter columns between the 8th and 14th floor (7 floors) when the shell began to collapse.Once they bowed inward enough, they just snapped at both ends and the 14th floor was free to fall onto the 8th floor with no resistance. Once the top hit other debris, it began slowing down again. So, don't say NIST doesn't know how to explain it, or that it can't be explained through collapse by fire. It already HAS been explained.

Also, we can do a simply calculation to see if the collapse prediction matches with the observation. The loss of perimeter columns between the 8th and 14th floors means a 7 floor drop. Each office floor was 12.5 feet in height (3.8 meters). 3.8x7=(1/2)9.8t^2 calculates out to a free-fall time of 2.33 seconds. This prediction is nearly identical to what it observed, further verifying the computer simulation and the NIST report. If free-fall is an indicator of controlled demolition, then why did the building not fall at free-fall for 11 seconds, then fall for free-fall for 2.25 seconds, then not at free-fall for another several seconds? 15.75 seconds out of the 18 second collapse WASN'T at free-fall.


"For there to be freefall acceleration, there can be NO resistance."

That's exactly what I just said. Floors 8-14th's perimeter columns bowed inside and broke off, basically.

Last edited by MrFliop; 4th November 2016 at 04:11 PM.
MrFliop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 04:11 PM   #8
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,855
Lol, yeah Mr. Hulsey never thoughta that. Thanks, RKOwens4!
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 04:24 PM   #9
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,679
9/11 truth was never anything but lies. Mostly stupid ones. Some grotesque and foul ones.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 04:25 PM   #10
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,855
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
9/11 truth was never anything but lies. Mostly stupid ones. Some grotesque and foul ones.
Nothing the CIA hasn't thought about doing before.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 05:15 PM   #11
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
9/11 truth was never anything but lies. Mostly stupid ones. Some grotesque and foul ones.
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Nothing the CIA hasn't thought about doing before.
I'm not sure the CIA should be blamed for 9/11 truth, but I've seen information connecting the creation of "no planes" with Rumsfeld secretary Stephen Cambone.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 05:32 PM   #12
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,061
Hulsey study is not new, and seems to be another 9/11 truth nut study

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Hulsey said in the lecture that he is intentionally avoiding exposure to conspiracy-promoting literature.

I think he would much rather be "the guy who solved WTC 7's structural failure" instead of "that guy who thinks it was a demolition", AE911TRUTH be damned. I think he refuses to even say the word "demolition" or "implosion". He comes across to me like he really wants it to be a structural failure.
You fall for lies from 9/11 truth; may not make you a valid exert on identifying idiots in 9/11 truth like Hulsey.
But you might be right, Hulsey could be playing 9/11 truth to get funding.

However...
Quote:
WTC 7 Evaluation is a two-year study by Dr. J Leroy Hulsey, Chair of UAF's Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, and two Ph.D. research assistants. It is being crowd-funded through the nonprofit organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Follow the money, it is woo money for a woo study.

You failed to figure out Hulsey is another failed 9/11 truth nut.

Nothing Hulsey is doing is new; you missed the other studies done by reality based engineers and scientist, and you fell for lie from 9/11 truth.

NIST has a probable (9/11 truth has no clue what probable means, an never off a probable cause backed with evidence) collapse sequence caused by fire. What will Hulsey say caused the collapse? Magical silent explosives, or magical nano-thermite which leaves no evidence?

Hulsey's BS is not new, it is the same old nonsense. Hulsey waves his hands and says NIST is wrong. This is not new, all 9/11 truth nut experts wave their hands and say NIST is wrong, and never provide evidence for CD. Never will. A movement that depends on gullible followers, 9/11 truth.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 4th November 2016 at 05:37 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 08:15 PM   #13
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by MrFliop View Post
Has ANY new "evidence" come forward in the past 3 years pointing to a conspiracy?
I have to say no because after all of these years, there is still no 9/11 conspiracy evidence.

No one in their right mind would have dared used explosives and/or thermite because in doing so, would have left behind traceable evidence everywhere.
Two primary examples were the downing of Pan Am 103 and the 1993 WTC 1 bombing. In both cases, traceable evidence was left behind that pointed fingers at the culprits. Did I mention evidence left behind during the Oklahoma bombing?

Furthermore, it would have been impossible to properly and secretly prepare the WTC buildings for demolition. You can't just place explosives or thermite in a steel frame building and expect the building to collapse without proper preparation. That fact was evident in 1993 where a huge bomb failed to drop WTC 1 and in another case where thermite initially failed to collapse a heavily damaged steel frame roof that had been repeatedly bombed and shelled during World War II.

Amazingly, the steel frame roof was already in danger of collapse before the first failed attempt to collapse the roof with thermite and yet, truthers try to lead us to believe that thermite and/or explosives were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 4th November 2016 at 08:18 PM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2016, 01:38 AM   #14
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,729
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Lol, yeah Mr. Hulsey never thoughta that. Thanks, RKOwens4!
Well, if he's stated that NIST didn't explain it, but in fact NIST did explain it, then clearly there is something rather important that he hasn't thought of. He appears to be employing a classic truther tactic of claiming that something hasn't been explained; the next step will be to admit that the explanation exists but that he personally disagrees with it, and then pretend he wasn't lying when he made the original false claim.

To the OP, Hulsey's study appears to be about the only new thing the TM has produced in the last three years, and his reports so far have (a) fallen well short of the volume of material that was promised, (b) employed the appallingly bad logical device of starting from the premise that the NIST collapse model is inaccurate to reach the conclusion that the collapse cannot have been due to fire, and (c) are being run by someone who claims to be a "forensic structural engineer" despite having no public record of forensic investigation prior to the start of the study. IOW, same ****, different truther. And apart from that, nothing new to see here.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2016, 07:07 AM   #15
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,333
Meanwhile, "new" evidence has been found that debunks 9/11 CTs.

I put "new" in quotes because it was there since 2010 but wasn't known to debunkers or CTers.

http://www.thorntontomasetti.com/pro...investigation/

It's an alternative explanation to NIST's that shows yet another way in which WTC 7 could have failed due to fires alone.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 5th November 2016 at 07:08 AM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2016, 08:00 AM   #16
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,831
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Meanwhile, "new" evidence has been found that debunks 9/11 CTs.

I put "new" in quotes because it was there since 2010 but wasn't known to debunkers or CTers.

http://www.thorntontomasetti.com/pro...investigation/

It's an alternative explanation to NIST's that shows yet another way in which WTC 7 could have failed due to fires alone.
Thanks, pgimeno.

Looks like the Truthers have a two-front war on their hands.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2016, 08:56 AM   #17
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,633
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Meanwhile, "new" evidence has been found that debunks 9/11 CTs.

I put "new" in quotes because it was there since 2010 but wasn't known to debunkers or CTers.

http://www.thorntontomasetti.com/pro...investigation/

It's an alternative explanation to NIST's that shows yet another way in which WTC 7 could have failed due to fires alone.
Thanks.

I shared this in the 9/11 Forum. Looks like I got some light reading to do.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2016, 09:05 AM   #18
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,333
Well, it's the "Weidlinger report" that has been discussed to some length in this forum. And credit should go to skyeagle409, who posted the link when I saw it for the first time here.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2016, 09:14 AM   #19
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,831
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Well, it's the "Weidlinger report" that has been discussed to some length in this forum. And credit should go to skyeagle409, who posted the link when I saw it for the first time here.
Thanks, until you highlighted this for some reason I did not make the connection, and hadn't read the report.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2016, 11:43 AM   #20
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,633
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Well, it's the "Weidlinger report" that has been discussed to some length in this forum. And credit should go to skyeagle409, who posted the link when I saw it for the first time here.
I remember it now.

I never read it(before) but, it dovetails well with what I've been saying for years. There was not a single failure point in the collapse of WTC7. It was a build up of failures over time.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2016, 12:11 PM   #21
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,067
Is there a facepalm as big as the world for 911-twoofers?
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2016, 05:18 PM   #22
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,234
Originally Posted by MrFliop View Post
Ok, so I've watched Dr. Hulsey's entire presentation ... He says that he's worked with an independent team to reconstruct Building 7 and its collapse. ...
Here is how this team is "independent":
  • It consists of Hulsey and two of his PhD students
  • It is payed US$ 200,000 by AE911Truth
  • It is reviewed by a panel constituted by AE911Truth
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2016, 06:35 AM   #23
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,847
The Weidlinger report is very thorough and sensible.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2016, 07:18 AM   #24
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Is there a facepalm as big as the world for 911-twoofers?
A face palm big enough for 9/11 would lag the entire internet for 12 minutes trying to load.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2016, 01:45 PM   #25
MrFliop
Thinker
 
MrFliop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 144
15 years and no Evidence. Ok, please die off truth movement
MrFliop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2016, 09:22 PM   #26
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,061
As reason replaces ignorance, 9/11 truth dies faster than free fall in the gullible followers' minds.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2016, 12:09 PM   #27
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,634
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
As reason replaces ignorance, 9/11 truth dies faster than free fall in the gullible followers' minds.
All large and popular CT's leave stains and a few cranks who carry on for a generation or two, JFK, Moon, Sitchin, etc.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:11 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.