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

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You believe secret Nazi's pulled off 911. And that they killed JFK. And now that they are part of a "shadow government" that is poised to take over the US using this Coronavirus pandemic..

Can you name any of them in this "shadow government"?

Conspiracy theorists seem to hate: Bill Gates, Soros, Biden, Clinton, most Democrats, any Rothschilds, any Rockefellers, prominent Jews, everyone in the CIA

Anyone in that list?

 Why now is the official media channels now writing articles about the continuity of government? Stuff of this nature only released when higher up wants it out and wants the public to see it. 

If it doesn’t exist why would the media be asserting the navy general would take over the US government and be the new head? It not news from conspiracy sites, it's info from mainstream! You just prefer to believe there is no plans for a takeover and you are happy to live in that bubble.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

 Why now is the official media channels now writing articles about the continuity of government? Stuff of this nature only released when higher up wants it out and wants the public to see it. 

If it doesn’t exist why would the media be asserting the navy general would take over the US government and be the new head? It not news from conspiracy sites, it's info from mainstream! You just prefer to believe there is no plans for a takeover and you are happy to live in that bubble.

Can you name any of these secret Nazi's you are referring to? or members of this "shadow government"?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Can you name any of these secret Nazi's you are referring to? or members of this "shadow government"?

I posted the article from Newsweek.

Read it. A military takeover and replacing of the current government.

Air Force Gen. Terrence J. O'Shaughnessy would be new head of government, his already been given the position in the plans.

Cheerful Spring2

SEVEN Official Teaser (2020) | A Documentary on WTC Building 7

Looks good.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

SEVEN Official Teaser (2020) | A Documentary on WTC Building 7

Looks good.

Ad biggie said

Mo money Mo problems.

Cheerful Spring2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ad biggie said

Mo money Mo problems.

The criminal actions of the US government is the problem. Hiding the true facts from the world, the Official media silent.

Same bull**** occurred with the JFK files.
Months after President Donald Trump promised to open FBI files to help families of the 9/11 victims in a civil lawsuit against the Saudi government, the Justice Department has doubled down on its claim that the information is a state secret.

In a series of filings just before a midnight court deadline on Monday, the attorney general, William Barr; the acting director of national intelligence, Richard Grenell; and other senior officials insisted to a federal judge in the civil case that further disclosures about Saudi connections to the 9/11 plot would imperil national security.

But the administration insisted in court filings that even its justification for that secrecy needed to remain secret. Four statements to the court by FBI and Justice Department officials were filed under seal so they could not be seen by the public. An additional five, including one from the CIA, were shared only with the judge and cannot be read even by the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

https://www.propublica.org/article/attorney-general-barr-refuses-to-release-9-11-documents-to-families-of-the-victims

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

SEVEN Official Teaser (2020) | A Documentary on WTC Building 7

Looks good.

Why are they making a documentary about their fraudulent study?

Why do you think it looks good when you've rejected the central point of the documentary and believe that Hulsey's study is a fraud?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Why are they making a documentary about their fraudulent study?

Why do you think it looks good when you've rejected the central point of the documentary and believe that Hulsey's study is a fraud?

The Seismic charts you can see there two distinct detonations occurred inside the building before the full building came down.
Lee R Hulsey position is the the Penthouse came down, when some floors underneath the roofline collapsed, and then the central middle core, removed, and full collapse ensues.



You twist my words for an agenda. I believe Hulsey correct about the building collapsing due to controlled demolition.

What i not sure of is what caused those upper floors to collapse underneath the Penthouse. Was there a delay in setting off some of the controlled demolitions and was there two parts to the set up. Was the eastside support columns below rigged with a different timer to go off? Or it just like Hulsey said a collapse occurred up top (explosion or natural collapse?)

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »



You twist my words for an agenda. I believe Hulsey correct about the building collapsing due to controlled demolition.

But you believe his models and simulations are wrong.
That's the same reason you reject the NIST report.

Also we have established that you have determined that his models are wrong despite having no experience or training or ability. Thus we have to conclude that his models are obviously wrong.
A trained architect like him would also see it's obviously wrong. But he published it anyway, so therefore he must have done so fraudulently.

Yet despite this, you still support his fraudulent claims even though you know and agree he's a fraud.
That's very strange.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But you believe his models and simulations are wrong.
That's the same reason you reject the NIST report.

Also we have established that you have determined that his models are wrong despite having no experience or training or ability. Thus we have to conclude that his models are obviously wrong.
A trained architect like him would also see it's obviously wrong. But he published it anyway, so therefore he must have done so fraudulently.

Yet despite this, you still support his fraudulent claims even though you know and agree he's a fraud.
That's very strange.

Metabunk debunk of the Hulsey final paper is flawed. I’ll explain why.
Controlled demolition is not a natural collapse of different construction elements inside the building. There’s no buckling, twisting, variation, or crushing of columns caused by heat from fire.
When you believe here, the columns removed by controlled demolition, then there no need to show a “dynamic response” with the elements. 

There’s a multitude of reasons to why that is., the main reason- the roadmap to elimination of the columns different! Mick West fails to understand that or
not coped on to yet!

For Mick West to claim ‘resistance” ignored by Hulsey again false. The controlled demolition removed that support resistance underneath!
Sap2000 FEA program can not run a sim showing the physics of a controlled demolition inside the building! What Hulsey can do is remove the columns one by one by university accepted method DSR (FEA) and see how the FEA computer building reacts to the removal of columns naturally!
Debunkers ( you being one Kingmob) still restrained by the thinking the collapse caused by fire. 

Another thing Mick lies about.
Hulsey did not overlook the NIST explanation for the collapse, he reviewed it and found it can not have taken place. By the way, (debunkers ignore this flaw) Nordenson Investigation also concluded the girder (A2001) would be trapped by the sideplate at column 79. There strong evidence there the truthers have a point that NIST step-by-step collapse on the eastside at column 79 is not correct.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Metabunk debunk of the Hulsey final paper is flawed. I’ll explain why.

But I'm not talking about Metabunk or Mick West. Your obsession with him is very weird. Especially since you've never even talked to the guy.

You have said that Hulsey's models aren't accurate and have mistakes.
Therefore his paper is a fraud.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But I'm not talking about Metabunk or Mick West. Your obsession with him is very weird. Especially since you've never even talked to the guy.

You have said that Hulsey's models aren't accurate and have mistakes.
Therefore his paper is a fraud.

It not a weird obsession. You and others posted materials from that site to debunk the Hulsey study.

Laughable you support that clown.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It not a weird obsession. You and others posted materials from that site to debunk the Hulsey study.

Laughable you support that clown.

You're dodging the point.

I also think that the reason You dislike Mick West so much is that you can't actually address his points. That's why you keep going on about him here and not addressing him directly. I think that's a bit cowardly.

Regardless, the fact remains that you believe Husley's report is a fraud. Why do you keep supporting it?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

You're dodging the point.

I also think that the reason You dislike Mick West so much is that you can't actually address his points. That's why you keep going on about him here and not addressing him directly. I think that's a bit cowardly.

Regardless, the fact remains that you believe Husley's report is a fraud. Why do you keep supporting it?

Ask NIST for the full connection data? Nobody in their right mind can accept the NIST study legit, when they’re keeping the engineering FEA data to themselves and they're not releasing it..

Mick West belittles 9/11 research all the time online. Unlike you, I watch his videos. I have spoken to Mick West privately, his a salesperson and con man. Majority of debunkers are.

Strange how they're not one engineer who came out yet and supported Mick position?  Mick knows he ****ed up but will block comments that show that.

Mick did not know what "DSR" sudden column removal was when Hulsey released his draft paper. He even said on video Hulsey, a structural engineering professor teaching students, the subject at high profile university in Alaska, did not know what he was doing here.  Arrogance is off the scale! He debunked the Hulsey paper in one day lol. 

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob watch this video it exposes him. Arrogance try to put yourself against an engineer having never even used FEA in his life is way beyond pathetic.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Mick West 

Mick

Mick

Again, I'm not talking about Mick West or his points or your odd obsession with him. If you have issues with his claim, bring them up with him.

I'm talking about your position.
You believe Hulsey's report is wrong. You believe he published a fraudulent report.
Yet you keep supporting it.
Why do you support a fraudulent report?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Arrogance

You believe you know more than the original engineers and investigators. More than established historical fact.

You struggle to understand secondary school maths and physics. You "see" things in photos that aren't there. You plagiarise conspiracy ideas from a blog, state them as fact, then drop them a few days later. It's sheer ignorance and some of the most delusion arrogance I've ever seen on these forums.

And you think "secret Nazis" pull off these things. All you need to do is keep replying, because your inane views are the best argument against this 911 conspiracy stuff.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You believe you know more than the original engineers and investigators. More than established historical fact.

You struggle to understand secondary school maths and physics. You "see" things in photos that aren't there. You plagiarise conspiracy ideas from a blog, state them as fact, then drop them a few days later. It's sheer ignorance and some of the most delusion arrogance I've ever seen on these forums.

And you think "secret Nazis" pull off these things. All you need to do is keep replying, because your inane views are the best argument against this 911 conspiracy stuff.

No info post again, just opinion. I believe the AE911 truth opinion correct
You believe you know more than the original engineers and investigators. More than established historical fact.


Your bias Opinion.
And you think "secret Nazis" pull off these things. All you need to do is keep replying, because your inane views are the best argument against this 911 conspiracy stuf

Just a rant and same nonsense Kingmob posts.
You struggle to understand secondary school maths and physics. You "see" things in photos that aren't there. You plagiarise conspiracy ideas from a blog, state them as fact, then drop them a few days later. It's sheer ignorance and some of the most delusion arrogance I've ever seen on these forums.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Again, I'm not talking about Mick West or his points or your odd obsession with him. If you have issues with his claim, bring them up with him.

I'm talking about your position.
You believe Hulsey's report is wrong. You believe he published a fraudulent report.
Yet you keep supporting it.
Why do you support a fraudulent report?

You got fooled by Mick West. I posted why he was wrong. Information ignored of course!

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You got fooled by Mick West. I posted why he was wrong. Information ignored of course!

Yes it's ignored because I'm not talking about Mick West and never brought him up.
I don't really care about your weird personal vendetta against the man.

You claimed Hulsey was wrong. You believe his report is a fraud.
Yet you keep supporting it.
Why?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Yes it's ignored because I'm not talking about Mick West and never brought him up.
I don't really care about your weird personal vendetta against the man.

You claimed Hulsey was wrong. You believe his report is a fraud.
Yet you keep supporting it.
Why?

lies, you posted stuff to this forum off Metabunk when the draft came out and commented on it. Claimed, a fraud

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

lies, you posted stuff to this forum off Metabunk when the draft came out and commented on it. Claimed, a fraud

Yes, in a previous thread months ago.

Now I'm discussing the fact you believe Hulsey is wrong and his report is a fraud.

Why do you still support it when you believe it's a fraud?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, in a previous thread months ago.

Now I'm discussing the fact you believe Hulsey is wrong and his report is a fraud.

Why do you still support it when you believe it's a fraud?

I not let you off. Why did you believe Mick West?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I not let you off. Why did you believe Mick West?

Lol. you're dodging questions while demanding others answer your odd ones.

For one, I believe Mick over you cause he seems to be able to do high school math.

Why do you continue to support Hulsey's study when you've admited it's a fraud? If you dodge the question again, I will go forward assuming my theory that it's because you don't care whether it's true or not, only that it supports your almost religious belief about 9/11.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

lies, you posted stuff to this forum off Metabunk when the draft came out and commented on it. Claimed, a fraud

You keep spouting waffle yet refuse to engage with this part of his post, in fact you have ignored this many times. Instead of posting more nonsense why not answer his question please

You claimed Hulsey was wrong. You believe his report is a fraud.
Yet you keep supporting it.
Why?

Cheerful Spring2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You keep spouting waffle yet refuse to engage with this part of his post, in fact you have ignored this many times. Instead of posting more nonsense why not answer his question please

Read post 1631.
You guys did not even notice the issues with Mick opinion.
Saying i post nonsense

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Read post 1631.
You guys did not even notice the issues with Mick opinion.
Saying i post nonsense

That post does not address my question. You just go off on a random tangent about someone I did not bring up in my post. In my post I was not referring to anything Mick West said or believed.
Your post is very much nonsense.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Read post 1631.
You guys did not even notice the issues with Mick opinion.
Saying i post nonsense

You're such a fraud yourself no wonder you worship other fraudsters.


Care to be honest for once and directly answer a question that you have been asked?

You claimed Hulsey was wrong. You believe his report is a fraud.
Yet you keep supporting it.
Why?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

That post does not address my question. You just go off on a random tangent about someone I did not bring up in my post. In my post I was not referring to anything Mick West said or believed.
It's very much nonsense.

Mick West has no clue about structural engineering or finite element analysis. He can't comprehend the study, never mind try to debunk it.

You guys used his info to call the Hulsey study a fraud. You don't see now that's funny!

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Mick West has no clue about structural engineering or finite element analysis. He can't comprehend the study, never mind try to debunk it.

If you say so. I don't really believe you and you certainly don't understand any of those things.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You guys used his info to call the Hulsey study a fraud. You don't see now that's funny!

Well, no. In this case, I'm referring to the fact you said Hulsey's study was a fraud. I'm using the fact you've rejected the study.
You believe it's wrong and a fraud. So why do you keep supporting it?