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

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Here is the list of people you believe are responsible for 9/11

...

Saudi Princes and officials

...

You adding Nazi's to that list or are you starting from scratch again?

There does seem to be a massive shift away from the Saudis rants to the Nazis now.
I wonder if the Saudis were secretly nazis.
Or vice versa...

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

And it doesn't have anything to do with Hulsey's report.

Do you now accept it was a fraud?

A Controlled demolition led to the building to come down on 9/11. I don’t accept your flawed opinion the Hulsey report is a fraud.

NIST like I informed you yesterday said the top 18 floors fell from the top to the bottom inside the building before the full collapse. If you don’t believe that provide your alternative explanation?

The image i showed you. It is easy to see what transpired.


If you  look at the image the 18 floors from corner to corner (east to west) the middle and west area of the building not damaged. There is no broken windows or dust clouds.

(47 total stories collapsed according to NIST due to fire)

The 18 floors of interest at the top had toppled. What happens next?
An enormous amount of kinetic energy would be released and the girders, and joists, and trusses and steel beams would be impacting the wall all the way down to the ground? Do we see that  event on video no. And where did debris dust and concrete go? Rolling clouds of dust would break the windows!

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

A Controlled demolition led to the building to come down on 9/11. I don’t accept your flawed opinion the Hulsey report is a fraud.

But we've shown you how it's a fraud in many many ways you cannot address.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST....

But even if this wasn't just another case of your poor understanding of science and English leading to a misrepresentation, that's the NISt report, not Hulsey's

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Make no sense to you and others. :cool:

You guys have already shown me why this debate pointless. I understand now why AE911 truth message not getting through. They're dealing with people who prefer to live in denial. So with that i end it now, this debate. We all have better things to do then continue!

Less than 24 hours later :rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

A Controlled demolition led to the building to come down on 9/11. I don’t accept your flawed opinion the Hulsey report is a fraud.

NIST like I informed you yesterday said the top 18 floors fell from the top to the bottom inside the building before the full collapse. If you don’t believe that provide your alternative explanation?

The image i showed you. It is easy to see what transpired.


If you  look at the image the 18 floors from corner to corner (east to west) the middle and west area of the building not damaged. There is no broken windows or dust clouds.

(47 total stories collapsed according to NIST due to fire)

The 18 floors of interest at the top had toppled. What happens next?
An enormous amount of kinetic energy would be released and the girders, and joists, and trusses and steel beams would be impacting the wall all the way down to the ground? Do we see that  event on video no. And where did debris dust and concrete go? Rolling clouds of dust would break the windows!

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But we've shown you how it's a fraud in many many ways you cannot address.



But even if this wasn't just another case of your poor understanding of science and English leading to a misrepresentation, that's the NISt report, not Hulsey's

You have shown nothing only waffle.
I showed you evidence.
How can floors collapsing not break windows?

Cheerful Spring2

All mainstream studies claim a progressive collapse happened.
All mainstream studies claim a top down collapse (inside) occurred before the full building collapsed.
The top of the building important.


NIST computer (FEA) models show broken windows at the top all the way across the width the building. Care to explain why we don't see that in the image i showed you?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

A Controlled demolition led to the building to come down on 9/11.

Your opinion isn't fact.

If you want to convince people that Nazi's performed secret controlled demolitions on the Twin Towers, you can't just say it happened, it doesn't work like that. You have to show how it happened, who did it, how they did it, how they rigged the buildings, all of that with it's own supporting evidence

In all your countless posts here you've never done that. You do the opposite, you try to browbeat it into people with a mixture of dishonesty, deflection, incredulity, you name it, every denial trick and technique in the book - which are instant red flags to anything

Cheerful Spring2

Hulsey theory is sound.

8 floors below got taken out (84 columns) holding the building.
You can see the west wall breaks running up the wall at the end.
The building falling into the empty space where the 8 floors below were removed (freefall)

Dohnjoe

Gifs of WTC 7 falling intensify

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You have shown nothing only waffle.
I showed you evidence.

You haven't shown anything and you ran away from every single point because you can't address them.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

How can floors collapsing not break windows?

Same reason there's intact windows under the penthouse after it had already collapsed.

Cheerful Spring2

[QUOTE=King Mob;113010512


Same reason there's intact windows under the penthouse after it had already collapsed.[/QUOTE]

:D:D:D:D

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) explantation is misleading where do you end up going next in the investigation? The controlled demolition theory is supported by the evidence.

 I am just highlighting another flaw with their theory Kingmob.

If they’re claim is a progressive collapse resulted in the interior of the building collapsing from top to bottom, then there needs to be evidence to support it- do you not agree? 
I just posting their computer sims (untouched) and comparing it to the building collapse on 9/11

. NIST stimulation the windows are shattered at the top (all the way across) even under the Penthouse.

Then why is it the building on 9/11 windows are not broke all the way across from east to west? Debunkers seem to just want ignore this finding for some reason as if doesn’t matter.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

:D:D:D:D

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) explantation

And again you are deflecting from Hulsey's report because you agree it's a fraud.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

. NIST stimulation the windows are shattered at the top (all the way across) even under the Penthouse.

But how can windows under the East part of the penthouse be intact when we can see it collapsing?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The controlled demolition theory is supported by the evidence.

It's not supported by any evidence or any investigation into the event

Hulsey, AE911, Alex Jones - no one has any details of this so called "demolition". It's just a myth perpetuated by incredulity and denialism about the event

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

And again you are deflecting from Hulsey's report because you agree it's a fraud.


But how can windows under the East part of the penthouse be intact when we can see it collapsing?

That deficiency on the top of the roof was likely started by the controlled demolition underneath.
We can not see that failure below the 18th floor. 
The Penthouse falling in and the full collapse occurring next (time difference between the two events is about 5 seconds)
Once you knock out core and exterior columns below, the balance of the rest of the building, is not the same. There structural instability.  There was an interior destruction below.
Whats holding up the Penthouse from collapsing then (columns are weakened and gone!
The 8 floors below will have to pancake on top of each other below!
Then the top half would just slide into the missing floors beneath.
I agree with Hulsey the event on 8 floors took about (2 seconds) and another few seconds for the debris to clear out of the way. 

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

That deficiency on the top of the roof was likely started by the controlled demolition underneath.
We can not see that failure below the 18th floor. 
The Penthouse falling in and the full collapse occurring next (time difference between the two events is about 5 seconds)
 

But how can there be windows intact after the penthouse collapsed?

Again you are deflecting to the NIST report which we've shown as a fact you don't understand. You've admitted you don't understand it. You keep misrepresenting it.
And you do all of that so you can keep deflecting from the fact you believe the Hulsey study is a fraud and you were scammed by AE9/11.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

That deficiency on the top of the roof was likely started by the controlled demolition underneath.
We can not see that failure below the 18th floor. 
The Penthouse falling in and the full collapse occurring next (time difference between the two events is about 5 seconds)
Once you knock out core and exterior columns below, the balance of the rest of the building, is not the same. There structural instability.  There was an interior destruction below.
Whats holding up the Penthouse from collapsing then (columns are weakened and gone!
The 8 floors below will have to pancake on top of each other below!
Then the top half would just slide into the missing floors beneath.
I agree with Hulsey the event on 8 floors took about (2 seconds) and another few seconds for the debris to clear out of the way. 

How did they wire a building that size with explosives and how did no one notice? Why did they destroy the building?

Dohnjoe

The Nal wrote: »

How did they wire a building that size with explosives and how did no one notice? Why did they destroy the building?

Couple of guys went in at night, left a bunch of boxes of "red chip flakes of thermite" beside support columns, and they blew them wirelessly, no need for a ton of wires and det cord

As for the why? could be any reason, to properly destroy info contained in the building (which fire might not have destroyed), there were a whole bunch of government departments and so on using the building

This is too easy

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

How did they wire a building that size with explosives and how did no one notice? Why did they destroy the building?

Crude why of doing it, but I attempt to show it.

The green arrows is the pancaking of the bottom 8 floors (crushing one after another after demolition)

The support columns underneath the Penthouse in blue (they're not core columns) will start losing instability at the top slowly. The Penthouse weakens and came through the roof.

When the debris is pushed out of the way on ( 8 floors)
The top half started compressing and coming down and the exterior columns let go ( you see this event the cracks running up the west wall on video)

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Crude why of doing it, but I attempt to show it.

Didn't answer any of those 3 questions I asked. Thats a theory on how the building fell.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Thats a theory on how the building fell.

Debunkers overlook the columns underneath the Penthouse are support columns. They're not core columns or exterior. They were constructed to just support that structure.

You can see the floor plan here. Core is in the middle. Exterior columns is around the edges


I marked out in green the support columns for the Penthouse.
Column 79 is also a support column in blue.

You looking down at the floor. It obvious why there a kink in the eastcorner if you follow the layout in green.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Debunkers overlook the columns underneath the Penthouse are support columns. They're not core columns or exterior. They were constructed to just support that structure.

You can see the floor plan here. Core is in the middle. Exterior columns is around the edges


I marked out in green the support columns for the Penthouse.
Column 79 is also a support column in blue.

You looking down at the floor. It obvious why there a kink in the eastcorner if you follow the layout in green.

I thought you were done debating this?

The Nal

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I thought you were done debating this?

Not debating, just posting endless out of context graphs which he has drawn graffiti on.

My questions still unaddressed. Still unanswered.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Crude why of doing it, but I attempt to show it.

The green arrows is the pancaking of the bottom 8 floors (crushing one after another after demolition)

The support columns underneath the Penthouse in blue (they're not core columns) will start losing instability at the top slowly. The Penthouse weakens and came through the roof.

When the debris is pushed out of the way on ( 8 floors)
The top half started compressing and coming down and the exterior columns let go ( you see this event the cracks running up the west wall on video)

This would disprove your theory then Cheerful. As in this case, the entirety of the penthouse would collapse all at once, not just part.

Your adorable crayon drawing is very very silly and leaves out the rest of the penthouse structure.

Your description also makes it impossible for any free fall to happen.

And none of that explains how it was possible that there were windows intact under the collapsing penthouse

And all of this is just deflection because you're avoiding talking about the Hulsey report, as it's a giant scam. One that you fell for...

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

T
And none of that explains how it was possible that there were windows intact under the collapsing penthouse

And all of this is just deflection because you're avoiding talking about the Hulsey report, as it's a giant scam. One that you fell for...

If you read the Hulsey report, they gave the explanation.

The Penthouse collapsed due to an interior isolated failure at the top underneath the roof. Roof gave way with the columns just under the roof gave way.

NIST they claim the entire east corner collapsed, big difference in opinion. Of course NIST does not explain there either, why they're no broken windows.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If you read the Hulsey report, they give the explanation.

The Penthouse collapsed due to an interior failure at the top underneath the roof. Roof gave way with the columns just under the roof gave way.

But that's not compatible with the explaination you gave as you claim that the penthouse collapse was due to a failure in the lower part of the building (ie. where you claim 8 floors collapsed).

So you now reject and disagree with the Hulsey report.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST they claim the entire east corner collapsed, big difference in opinion. Of course NIST does not explain there either, why they're no broken windows?

But there's unbroken windows under the collapsing penthouse? We see it collapsing yet it doesn't break all of the windows. How is that possible? According to you, it can't be possible.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If you read the Hulsey report, they gave the explanation.

The Penthouse collapsed due to an interior isolated failure at the top underneath the roof. Roof gave way with the columns just under the roof gave way.

NIST they claim the entire east corner collapsed, big difference in opinion. Of course NIST does not explain there either, why they're no broken windows.

Why are you still discussing this? I thought you were done with it?

Cheerful Spring2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why are you still discussing this? I thought you were done with it?

You a mod now?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You a mod now?

No

I'm asking why you are still discussing this less than 24 hours after you said you were done. This is why people don't take you seriously.

Dohnjoe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

This is why people don't take you seriously.

One of the reasons

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

So you now reject and disagree with the Hulsey report.

.

If you were an honest, sincere, open minded person and look at all the facts about the collapse. I'd tell you You use the one point to call the Hulsey report a fraud, when its not. There you can figure out my likely answer!