Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
15556586061

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Blah blah blah, rinse and repeat.

    Hulsey's study was a sham, a money grifting exercise that sucked gullible fools in.

    Better luck with the next great revelation.

    No offence "Freefall" is a measured feature of the collapse. It not make believe.
    NIST denied it happened, then changed their mind and said it did happen and then hide the implications in the final paper.
    The sham is the NIST study. If you understand their statement from 2008, you see they had no clue freefall happened,


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,551 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    No offence "Freefall" is a measured feature of the collapse. It not make believe.
    NIST denied it happened, then changed their mind and said it did happen and then hide the implications in the final paper.
    The sham is the NIST study. If you understand their statement from 2008, you see they had no clue freefall happened,

    Bye bye


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Bye bye

    Struggle with facts i know.

    Sunder: “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it....

    If you understand this at all, this a denial Building seven had a freefall event.
    What the analysis shows...is that same time it took for the structural model to come down...is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    , or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. A slower time translates to buckling of columns.

    Freefall time is a collapse that occurs almost instant. There no known way to remove columns instantly by physical principles. Only way to remove columns that fast and out of the way is by demolition.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Yawn away there statement says 40 percent slower than Freefall :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 71,799 ✭✭✭✭Ted_YNWA


    Don't fan the flames Timberrrrrrrr


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,551 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Ted_YNWA wrote: »
    Don't fan the flames Timberrrrrrrr

    He has been posting the same shìte for months, these are the only responses worthy at this stage.

    Hulsey report was a sham (he even admitted this himself) so now he has resorted to posting the same thing he posts in every other 9-11 thread.

    You should close this one as we all know he won't be posting anything new in it and will continue to make the same claims every day.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    He has been posting the same shìte for months, these are the only responses worthy at this stage.

    Hulsey report was a sham (he even admitted this himself) so now he has resorted to posting the same thing he posts in every other 9-11 thread.

    You should close this one as we all know he won't be posting anything new in it and will continue to make the same claims every day.

    Timber that a quote from NIST. I have added nothing new to it. I never said Hulsey study was a sham this your opinion.
    You guys have never replied and revealed why NIST said the collapse on video was 40 percent slower than freefall.
    What made them believe freefall never happened in Aug 2008? Is not a failure to understand the actual collapse on 9/11. This denial was in their draft paper.

    Don't take my word for it you hear the same words on video in Aug 2008. NIST denied freefall. David Chandler a Physics Teacher asked NIST why there modelling showed no freefall. NIST replied on video and you hear them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    I never said Hulsey study was a sham this your opinion.
    Again, yes you have.
    You believe his study is wrong and what you, someone with no relevant experience can tell it's wrong.
    Thus you believe it's a sham.

    If it's not a sham, why is he and AE9/11 promoting a study they know is wrong?
    You guys have never replied and revealed why NIST said the collapse on video was 40 percent slower than freefall.
    But we have many times in direct clear terms.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »

    But we have many times in direct clear terms.

    You have not, you posted NIST final paper.
    You never commented to why NIST denied free fall when they presented their draft paper.
    How can an impossibilty be possible in the space of a few months?
    The draft paper took six years to finish, the final paper was just three months of fixes.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    You have not, you posted NIST final paper.
    You never commented to why NIST denied free fall when they presented their draft paper.
    .
    But we have many many times. You are just pretending otherwise.

    And again:
    You believe Hulsey's study is wrong and what you, someone with no relevant experience can tell it's wrong.
    Thus you believe it's a sham.

    Why are you bothering to post in this thread when we've already reached this conclusion.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But we have many many times. You are just pretending otherwise.

    And again:
    You believe Hulsey's study is wrong and what you, someone with no relevant experience can tell it's wrong.
    Thus you believe it's a sham.

    Why are you bothering to post in this thread when we've already reached this conclusion.

    You haven't, its the reason i keep posting this info to show NIST slipped up and ruled out free fall in Aug 2008. A correction after six years of work has satisfied you guys, but if you look at the correction, they don't explain it.

    There collapse modelling was completed in Aug 2008 and you guys overlook that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    You haven't, its the reason i keep posting this info
    But we have. Many times in many ways. We explained it to you like we would to a small child. You ignored it and went on tangents until you soon ignored those and came back to this point.

    You keep posting this info because you have nothing new or original and you have to fall back on this after you've admitted that Hulsey's study is a sham.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But we have. Many times in many ways. We explained it to you like we would to a small child. You ignored it and went on tangents until you soon ignored those and came back to this point.

    You keep posting this info because you have nothing new or original and you have to fall back on this after you've admitted that Hulsey's study is a sham.

    Explain here then for everyone. Just explain it based on the draft paper. Lets see if you're honest.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Explain here then for everyone.
    No thanks. We've explained it many times before.
    If I explained it again, you'd just ignore it and go off on another tangent and repeat the cycle again like you have done so many times before.

    Similarly, you keep ignoring the fact that you've admitted that Hulsey's Study is a fraud. So not sure what the point would be.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    No thanks. We've explained it many times before.
    If I explained it again, you'd just ignore it and go off on another tangent and repeat the cycle again like you have done so many times before.

    Similarly, you keep ignoring the fact that you've admitted that Hulsey's Study is a fraud. So not sure what the point would be.

    You can't answer it. You keep pretending you addressed though in this thread. The limited and vague answers you gave satify your buddies on here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    You can't answer it. You keep pretending you addressed though in this thread. The limited and vague answers you gave satify your buddies on here.
    But I have answered it many times. I'm not pretending anything.
    Other posters have also explained it to you like a little kid. You just ignored it.
    If we took the time to explain it again you'd just ignore it, go off on another tangent, give up in a few posts and repeat the same links and pretend it wasn't explained to you.
    You've done this several times already.

    You are also still ignoring the fact that you reject Hulsey's Report.
    It's making you look very very foolish.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But I have answered it many times. I'm not pretending anything.
    Other posters have also explained it to you like a little kid. You just ignored it.
    If we took the time to explain it again you'd just ignore it, go off on another tangent, give up in a few posts and repeat the same links and pretend it wasn't explained to you.
    You've done this several times already.

    You are also still ignoring the fact that you reject Hulsey's Report.
    It's making you look very very foolish.

    Kingmob every post you make has a similar stye like this. It short, lines, with no explaining and just ramblings you answered in the past. If you provided context with good explantations, i take you seriously.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Kingmob every post you make has a similar stye like this. It short, lines, with no explaining and just ramblings you answered in the past.
    Yes. I am using shorter sentences and simpler language. This is because you have issues with reading comphrension.
    If you provided context with good explantations, i take you seriously.
    We have provided the explanation many times. You just keep ignoring it.

    Like you keep ignoring the fact you said that Hulsey's Study was wrong.

    It's making you look silly.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes. I am using shorter sentences and simpler language. This is because you have issues with reading comphrension.


    We have provided the explanation many times. You just keep ignoring it.

    Like you keep ignoring the fact you said that Hulsey's Study was wrong.

    It's making you look silly.

    Your style of debating and how you write. I don't find any explantations in any of your posts. It's one line, hey i know more than you rubbish.

    Debate the draft paper and why denied Freefall there.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Your style of debating and how you write.
    Yes. I have lowered the level of my language down so you can actually understand it.
    I don't find any explantations in any of your posts. It's one line, hey i know more than you rubbish.
    But we have explained it to you. You just keep ignoring it.
    Like you keep ignoring the fact you reject Hulsey's report.

    You keep trying to change the subject away from the topic of the thread. But it's only making you look more and more silly.
    Debate the draft paper and why denied Freefall there.
    This sentence makes no sense I'm afraid.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes. I have lowered the level of my language down so you can actually understand it.


    But we have explained it to you. You just keep ignoring it.
    Like you keep ignoring the fact you reject Hulsey's report.

    You keep trying to change the subject away from the topic of the thread. But it's only making you look more and more silly.


    This sentence makes no sense I'm afraid.

    You have written about 30 sentences 20 minutes. Should not take you long to provide an answer to why NIST denied freefall in Aug 2008, or better yet, show where you actually answered me in a thread. I read and commented on it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,551 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    You have written about 30 sentences 20 minutes. Should not take you long to provide an answer to why NIST denied freefall in Aug 2008, or better yet, show where you actually answered me in a thread. I read and commented on it.

    Nothing to do with the thread title.

    Do you agree with the Hulsey report?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    You have written about 30 sentences 20 minutes. Should not take you long to provide an answer to why NIST denied freefall in Aug 2008, or better yet, show where you actually answered me in a thread. I read and commented on it.
    But again, I've already addressed this:

    We've already explained this to you many times.
    You've ignored it many times and went off on random topics to avoid our explanation.
    If we explain it to you again, you will just ignore it again, go off on a random topic and then once again lie and say we never explained it to you.
    You have done this many times.

    You are also still ignoring the fact that you reject Hulsey's study.

    The topic of the thread is Hulsey's study.
    If you want the thread to continue, we can discuss that and the fact you agree it's a sham.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But again, I've already addressed this:

    We've already explained this to you many times.
    You've ignored it many times and went off on random topics to avoid our explanation.
    If we explain it to you again, you will just ignore it again, go off on a random topic and then once again lie and say we never explained it to you.
    You have done this many times.

    You are also still ignoring the fact that you reject Hulsey's study.

    The topic of the thread is Hulsey's study.
    If you want the thread to continue, we can discuss that and the fact you agree it's a sham.

    8 lines again no substance, point proven.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,551 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    10 lines again no substance, point proven.

    Do you agree with the Hulsey report?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    8 lines again no substance, point proven.
    Nope, all direct points you are now igorning because you can't address them.

    The topic of the thread is Hulsey's report.
    You said that his report is wrong.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Do you agree with the Hulsey report?

    Yes. Reason I do believe is the building dropped at free-fall. That's a key signature event.

    NIST statement in 2008 dismissed free fall. Six years after the study was complete, like how did it end up as impossibility to possible in space of couple of months.,. Final report is only a correction to minor mistakes. What happened to the structural resistance that was there in the draft paper stopping freefall? NIST ignores what they said in the past.

    Sunder: “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the analysis shows...is that same time it took for the structural model to come down...is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.”


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yes.
    But you said he and his simulations were incorrect.

    How can you agree with a flawed study?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you said he and his simulations were incorrect.

    How can you agree with a flawed study?

    The problem King mob the building only comes down when you take out the key columns keeping it up. The Penthouse held up by "support columns” a collapse there would only be a local failure on the eastside. If you bringing down the building the central core and exterior columns have to give way.

    There evidence on the outside of the building was not crumbling or breaking apart slowly. It went from full support to zero support in seconds.
    With a free fall that means an event occurred below from corner to corner and all the columns there reinforcing the top half collapsed.

    NIST in their draft paper said those key columns are still there providing resistance. What actually shown later the exterior and core was not there at all providing resistance.  A pancaking event seems to have taken place below, the top half, we can see then collapsed.


Advertisement