Dr Hulsey WTC7 findings for people who not aware of this new study.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

I've explained the issue to you very directly and simply.

That's the model we are discussing. That is Hulsey's model for the NIST's scenario.

Stop deflecting and answer the question please.

So which is correct cheerful:
In NIST's scenario the building would move many hundreds of inches?
Or
In NIST's scenario the building would only move a few inches?

Kingmob.  There is no movement to the southeast in the NIST model that's the point you not getting!
Hulsey yes simulated their scenario correct, but what happened for him, when he removed columns 76 to 81 ( six of them on the eastside) the building titled to the southeast. 

NIST model that same scenario does not occur. 

Mick has not shown anything on his website that disproves that finding. 

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Kingmob.  . 

That's more deflection. Answer the question please:

You say that Hulsey correctly used the model. However, there are conflicting statements about it.

So which is correct cheerful:
In NIST's scenario the building would move many hundreds of inches?
Or
In NIST's scenario the building would only move a few inches?

If you don't answer, I will assume it is because you can't and this is another contradiction in Hulsey's report you can't address.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

That's more deflection. Answer the question please:

You say that Hulsey correctly used the model. However, there are conflicting statements about it.

So which is correct cheerful:
In NIST's scenario the building would move many hundreds of inches?
Or
In NIST's scenario the building would only move a few inches?

If you don't answer, I will assume it is because you can't and this is another contradiction in Hulsey's report you can't address.

Am i talking to a brick wall?
The Hulsey model moved southeast (tipped over) when the six holding steel columns on the eastside got removed.
NIST model did not move southeast with the six columns on the eastside removed. The NIST failure progressed west inside the building. 

How do I compare both when it not the same?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Am i talking to a brick wall?

No, you keep trying to deflect from a point you can't address.

So here we have another problem with Hulsey's report.

They disagree with their own models and simulations.
You also disagree with them and believe the models to be accurate when Hulsey et al say they are not.

We've also seen that they used incorrect figures to reach an incorrect conclusion which they kept.

We've also seen they censor public opinions they don't like.

The entire report is a joke and a fraud. But you'll keep defending it because it's like a religious text for you.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

The entire report is a joke and a fraud. But you'll keep defending it because it's like a religious text for you.

Why do you care if i defend it? You don't believe it! Wasting your time, then? Your brain not working or something? You still here on conspiracy forum?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Why do you care if i defend it?

Why are you defending it when you've been shown it's wrong?

The Nal

So now that controlled demolition has effectively been ruled out - as this joke of a study has proven - I give you the newest theory.

Propelled demolition.

Nano-thermite propellants

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf

And before anyone asks, no there is no evidence for it. None at all. Even the guy who came up with the theory says so in..... his theory.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

So now that controlled demolition has effectively been ruled out - as this joke of a study has proven - I give you the newest theory.

Propelled demolition.

Nano-thermite propellants

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf

And before anyone asks, no there is no evidence for it. None at all. Even the guy who came up with the theory says so in..... his theory.

Debunking on Metabunk is not credible. There posts from Mick West and two other posters? You accept junk.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Why are you defending it when you've been shown it's wrong?

Explain how it's wrong.
You were shown the actual construction drawings of the floor system;
I showed you NIST drawings and they claimed G3500 was 24x55 floor steel beam.
The construction drawing marked it down as 21x44 beam.
You just want to ignore that and pretend that that doesn't change the outcome or the results of the NIST study.
It just crazy thinking.

Plus the g3500 girder had no lateral support beams in the NIST graph. The exist on the construction drawing.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

No, you keep trying to deflect from a point you can't address.

So here we have another problem with Hulsey's report.

They disagree with their own models and simulations.
You also disagree with them and believe the models to be accurate when Hulsey et al say they are not.

We've also seen that they used incorrect figures to reach an incorrect conclusion which they kept.

We've also seen they censor public opinions they don't like.

The entire report is a joke and a fraud. But you'll keep defending it because it's like a religious text for you.

Mick is clueless. The elimination of key columns holding the building is how you bring it down

 Fancy computer physics of floors falling down does not explain anything and Mick complaining the Hulsey model does not mirror the NIST model where you see floors collapsing is a problem. He wants to see dynamic collisions of everything inside the building.

He does not understand the Hulsey model is a DSR  (removal of columns) model and the Sap2000 program simulates what happens.

When Hulsey removed the eastside columns ( where NIST claimed the event started) the building moved Southeast ( it went left) and toppled and titled over. 

NIST model there no movement of the building left ( no tilt) The failure just progressed west and NIST claims that still lead to a straight down collapse. Like i said Hulsey said horizontal progression of failures shown in the NIST model would not have happened. It's up to NIST to provide the data to proof that can occur.

Hulsey and NIST don’t agree about what occurred next after that eastside corner gutted out ( who is right?)

Cheerful Spring2

The collapse was mostly a straight down collapse with freefall.
NIST progressive collapse the interior inside collapsing before the building even moves or changes shape.  I find their theory laughable. Can anyone show a building where the interior collapses and outside of the building does not react at all to that event?
It clear as day the core columns and exterior columns got pulled out seconds before the full collapse began.
NIST has no explanation as to why 8 floors ( near the bottom) from corner to corner would be missing. 

Cheerful Spring2

Video on the day shows the NIST theory is junk science.

47 floors collapsed to the ground prior to the full collapse ( bull****)

Look at west face of the building. No broken windows, no wall changes, no dust. You can see the demolitions running up the west wall when the building actually let go.

Cheerful Spring2

West wall no dust, no broken windows nothing!
1 to 2 seconds before full collapse.
According to NIST at this time the west corner floors 47-1 were collapsing from top to bottom!

The Nal

At what stage do you accept there was no conspiracy? 19 years if this. Cheerful you are the only person on the entire site still posting conspiracy theories. Everyone else saw sense years ago. It's time to accept its over. There was no conspiracy. Case closed.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

At what stage do you accept there was no conspiracy? 19 years if this. Cheerful you are the only person on the entire site still posting conspiracy theories. Everyone else saw sense years ago. It's time to accept its over. There was no conspiracy. Case closed.

Care to demonstrate how these collapsing steel joists, trusses, girders and beams, hundreds of tons of steel would not break windows on the west side before collapse?And how no dust would not emerge out of the windows? You just choose to deny and that your problem, not mine.
Visually consider the chaos that would cause..
Maybe you just don’t fully understand the NIST claim? There model all those floors from east to west ( each corner) came down before the full collapse. It’s a fairy tale story that people have believed for 19 years and nutty people still believe it, even though we have video of the full collapse on 9/11

Cheerful Spring2

Nal if you find evidence for a collapse on west side i give you a gold star.




According to NIST all that west floor system gone at this stage It laughable when you can see the outside of the building.

Cheerful Spring2

What the evidence shows is the collapse started at the bottom and building compressed. And then the windows started breaking in pattern from bottom- heading up. Watch the video.

This graph shows you wanted happened.

8 floors likely pancaked after the demolition. The top started moving and started compressing the underneath section.

Cheerful Spring2

Nal i just showing you NIST claim.
How do individuals see this and come away satisfied NIST right. They have the roof ceiling caving in, windows breaks in the middle, large warping deformations of the exterior and interior.
Seriously open your eyes, this NIST generated model of the collapse looks nothing like the real collapse on 9/11.

Even the middle collapse shown here never happened. There wire framing model makes no sense.  

mikekerry

The Nal wrote: »

At what stage do you accept there was no conspiracy? 19 years if this. Cheerful you are the only person on the entire site still posting conspiracy theories. Everyone else saw sense years ago. It's time to accept its over. There was no conspiracy. Case closed.

If you think there was no Conspiracy fine but if others want to put up info on the site that's up to them. If you are not interested then don't look at the forum. I'm interested in info people put up I'm sure others are also.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Explain how it's wrong.

But we have explained how it's wrong in many different ways. You just ignore those points and then try to rant about topics you don't understand.

Dohnjoe

mikekerry wrote: »

If you think there was no Conspiracy fine but if others want to put up info on the site that's up to them. If you are not interested then don't look at the forum. I'm interested in info people put up I'm sure others are also.

To date not one person has put up credible evidence for any 911 conspiracy theory on here.

If you think e.g. lasers brought the towers down and want to express that on a public forum, that's fine of course, but if you can't provide any evidence for such, then others can dismiss it

911 conspiracy believers regularly dismiss other baseless theories, but it should be mentioned there is a certain irony as their own theories (to date) are just as baseless. And it goes without saying you can't reason with someone who is beyond reason

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

To date not one person has put up credible evidence for any 911 conspiracy theory on here.

If you think e.g. lasers brought the towers down and want to express that on a public forum, that's fine of course, but if you can't provide any evidence for such, then others can dismiss it

911 conspiracy believers regularly dismiss other baseless theories, but it should be mentioned there is a certain irony as their own theories (to date) are just as baseless. And it goes without saying you can't reason with someone who is beyond reason

Dohnjoe. I have.. NIST maintained the interior (inside) of the building collapsed prior to full collapse of the building (first point)

Second point
Can you see evidence of an interior collapse on photographs and video? See the west side front of the building i showed you! no broken windows, no dust nothing.

Third point 
If the steel framing truly collapsed from 47 floor to first floor, there be hundreds of tons of steel crashing up against the front face on the way down and smashing and breaking windows, and there be enormous dust clouds escaping through cracks in the wall.

There no building in history that has maintained it original shape when the interior gutted out. It’s a laughable theory from NIST.  NIST removed the construction from the building, whats holding it up from crumbling to pieces?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There no building in history that has maintained it original shape when the interior gutted out. It’s a laughable theory from NIST.  NIST removed the construction from the building, whats holding it up from crumbling to pieces?

Again, you use this argument even though you know it's false and dishonest.

There is no building in history that has been destroyed by a secret demolition.
There is no building in history that has been destroyed by thermite of any kind.
There is no building in history that has been destroyed in a secret demolition using thermite after the building had two other giant buildings collapsing next to it.

There is no building in history that "fell at free fall."

Do you honestly not see the issue with your argument, or do you just not care?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you use this argument even though you know it's false and dishonest.

There is no building in history that has been destroyed by a secret demolition.
There is no building in history that has been destroyed by thermite of any kind.
There is no building in history that has been destroyed in a secret demolition using thermite after the building had two other giant buildings collapsing next to it.

There is no building in history that "fell at free fall."

Do you honestly not see the issue with your argument, or do you just not care?

There visual evidence from the day..
We can see the outside of the building on 9/11.
This is one second near to two seconds before the full collapse of building seven.
According to NIST: From east to west across the entire width of the building, the interior was gutted out there no framing left?
Clue here NIST is full of **** is the middle and west front of the building is untouched and not damaged. There no broken windows, no dust clouds, no deformations of the walls (core pulling in the exterior perimeter columns) What NIST believes happened is not realistic based on the observable data. 

I marked out the west side. There no broken windows, no dust nothing. 

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There visual evidence from the day..

And you're deflecting the point again. You know your argument is dishonest.

There is no building in history that has been destroyed by a secret demolition.
There is no building in history that has been destroyed by thermite of any kind.
There is no building in history that has been destroyed in a secret demolition using thermite after the building had two other giant buildings collapsing next to it.

There is no building in history that "fell at free fall."

Which of these statements is not correct?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

And you're deflecting the point again. You know your argument is dishonest.

There is no building in history that has been destroyed by a secret demolition.
There is no building in history that has been destroyed by thermite of any kind.
There is no building in history that has been destroyed in a secret demolition using thermite after the building had two other giant buildings collapsing next to it.

There is no building in history that "fell at free fall."

Which of these statements is not correct?

My reasoning is not dishonest.

NIST theory involves 47 floors collapsing from top to bottom across the entire width of the building. Before building advanced to full collapse.

We have video of top 18 floors (picture shown) 

Below that we have no video what occurred. Hulsey believes the demolition took place  down below on 8 floors.

NIST claims the top 18 floors ( photograph shown) collapsed prior to full collapse.

You have no explantation for why the middle and west side of the building remains untouched.  You prefer to deflect to unknowns and ignore what the evidence actually shows. 

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Dohnjoe. I have

You haven't. You claimed it was an insurance scam by a Jew, now you are claiming it's an inside plot by secret Nazi's in the US. In between you've added and deleted a list of culprits depending on arbitrary personal imaginings

You clearly have difficulty understanding the difference between something you imagine and rationalise in your head vs reality and being able to demonstrate it

You think that the fact that because you can't "get something" then that is evidence of a conspiracy - it isn't

You also maintain that a conspiracy group believing it's some unspecified conspiracy is evidence that its.. a conspiracy. It isn't.

If you can outline, detail, give a timeline for the conspiracy and then support it with evidence, cool, but you've demonstrated you can't do that, not even close.

Lastly denial of an event isn't evidence for some unspecified mega-conspiracy

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You haven't. You claimed it was an insurance scam by a Jew, now you are claiming it's an inside plot by secret Nazi's in the US. In between you've added and deleted a list of culprits depending on which day of week it was.

You clearly have difficulty understanding the difference between something you imagine and rationalise in your head vs reality and being able to demonstrate it

You think that the fact that you can't "get something" is evidence of a conspiracy - it isn't

You also maintain that a conspiracy group believing it's some unspecified conspiracy is evidence that its.. a conspiracy. It isn't.

If you can outline, detail, give a timeline for the conspiracy and then support it with evidence, cool, but you can't.

This is not imagined or speculation. These are genuine images of the building collapse on 9/11.



Maybe you can’t visualize what that NIST collapse would do to outside of the building?

It's difficult for you to imagine the building was controlled demolition! The evidence supports that theory.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This is not imagined or speculation.

It is entirely imagined. Your vague theory (secret Nazi's using a plane to assassinate the president, etc) is unique to you.

You think historical facts are wrong and whatever is in your head (at the time) is right. That's a sign of someone who can't tell the difference between what is real and what isn't.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It is entirely imagined. Your vague theory (secret Nazi's using a plane to assassinate the president, etc) is unique to you.

You think historical facts are wrong and whatever is in your head (at the time) is right. That's a sign of someone who can't tell the difference between what is real and what isn't.

You really are blind or just too stubborn.

How can an entire section of the building remain untouched? When NIST claims the interior of the building collapsed?

Energy from interior collapse would smash windows. The concrete floors are smashing one after another on top of each other across the entire width of the building according to NIST