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
1555657585961»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,848 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    You wrong. This statement is a denial.

    "You are wrong" "Black is white"

    You engage in mirroring because you have no evidence. On this forum you don't require evidence, you can say whatever you want, you can claim anything as fact

    For example, I could log in another user and claim over and over that man didn't land on the moon. Keep writing posts on it, doesn't matter what the replies were - pure stamina :)

    That's all that's happening here, you just post the same "I don't get it, therefore conspiracy" over and over again.

    At any point you can go to a real engineering forum and discuss this, but you don't. That in itself demonstrates your points are moot.

    The fact that you need to rely on a forum where anyone can post anything they want with no evidence should be a giant hint.


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    "You are wrong" "Black is white"

    You engage in mirroring because you have no evidence. On this forum you don't require evidence, you can say whatever you want, you can claim anything as fact

    For example, I could log in another user and claim over and over that man didn't land on the moon. Keep writing posts on it, doesn't matter what the replies were - pure stamina :)

    That's all that's happening here, you just post the same "I don't get it, therefore conspiracy" over and over again.

    At any point you can go to a real engineering forum and discuss this, but you don't. That in itself demonstrates your points are moot.

    The fact that you need to rely on a forum where anyone can post anything they want with no evidence should be a giant hint.

    Kingmob and yourself have the same posting style, plenty of sentences, opinions, and little facts. I have provided the evidence. You refuse to answer me and try my best to answer your questions. You guys debating style poor and might get you by here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    try my best to answer your questions.
    Cheerful, you have not once answered a question with a direct honest answer on the first try.

    This is the biggest, blackest lie you've told in your entire history on this forum.


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    Cheerful, you have not once answered a question with a direct honest answer on the first try.

    This is the biggest, blackest lie you've told in your entire history on this forum.

    Most people who don’t have an agenda would notice this statement from NIST is them saying Freefall never happened. You see words and sentences differently on paper, or just you refuse to think there anything suspicious going on here. Your mind and can’t change it.

    This quote can be heard on videotape.
    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: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Most people who don’t have an agenda would notice this statement from NIST is them saying Freefall never happened. You see words and sentences differently on paper, or just you refuse to think there anything suspicious going on here. Your mind and can’t change it.

    This quote can be heard on videotape.
    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.”
    And around you go again....


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    And around you go again....

    It is Evidence. They hired NIST to investigate the collapse of the building seven and words matter. The NIST narrative is fire collapsed the supports inside the building, when questions were put to them, a portion of the building fell at freefall, they denied it. They said no our analysis showed it fell 40 percent slower than freefall. You can’t come away believing then they had seen freefall previously which do claim later in their final report. The missed an important feature of the collapse. You have to wonder was free fall not something they thought was possible during a fire?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,848 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    I have provided the evidence.

    You haven't.

    You've claimed to have provided evidence, but that hasn't happened. For example, what were the names of the people involved in your plot? you don't know their names, you don't have any evidence who they are or what they apparently did. You don't know the timeline, you don't know any of the details.

    You're stuck in an endless loop of denying the facts and "not getting them" in order to make your imagined conspiracy seem real to you. A theory which changes every few months anyway. It's mental.


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You haven't.

    You've claimed to have provided evidence, but that hasn't happened. For example, what were the names of the people involved in your plot? you don't know their names, you don't have any evidence who they are or what they apparently did. You don't know the timeline, you don't know any of the details.

    You're stuck in an endless loop of denying the facts and "not getting them" in order to make your imagined conspiracy seem real to you. A theory which changes every few months anyway. It's mental.

    We have not gotten past the hurdle of agreeing about the collapse and yet you demand names?
    What you fail to understand here is we only have to prove the building did come down the way the official reports claim it did. Personally I think the truthers have done a good job here showing column 79 side girder A2001 could not have thermally expanded to the east, which is problematic since NIST claims this where the first column buckled in the building and caused the progressive collapse that followed on next in their FEA models.

    Physical evidence shows something could not have happened, then up to NIST to prove it could. We know they will not since it 18 years now and nobody seen their FEA data.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,848 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    We have not gotten past the hurdle of agreeing about the collapse and yet you demand names?

    You are claiming something else entirely happened on 9/11. Provide details of it.

    If Alex Jones were in here claiming something else happened at Sandy Hook, he would be asked exactly the same question. Why are you exempt? Seriously, what is wrong with you?


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You are claiming something else entirely happened on 9/11. Provide details of it.

    If Alex Jones were in here claiming something else happened at Sandy Hook, he would be asked exactly the same question. Why are you exempt? Seriously, what is wrong with you?

    Even an agency like the FBI had trouble interviewing the suspects involved in 9/11. The US state department kicked up a fuss and said the Saudis were protesting and pressure was applied. You even see that today when US government would only hand over some documentation to the 9/11 families. US government has a treasure trove of info but they don’t want the public to read it. They want everyone to believe Bin laden recruited these men on his own.
    There no coincidence ISI chief was sending money to Mohammed Atta weeks before 9/11 and Bin Laden was found in a compound near the ISI military academy. There was some kind of concerted effort to strike at the US by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia higher ups. The goal and what the ambition and what they were trying to achieve here is unknown.

    I believe a rogue network carried out 9/11 and rogue agents in different governments helped. The CIA was keeping files about the hijackers from the FBI and for them to be not clued in to what was going to go down on 9/11, I don’t believe. If they received info the 19 arrived in 2000-01, a secret branch in the CIA would have tracked them and followed them. I think people in the CIA made a decision to let the attack go ahead.


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


    This was never investigated. The CIA protected by national security bull****.

    Dohnjoe why was the CIA blocking info? 9/11 happened because of this and yet nobody held responsible. Conspiracy people are right to be suspcious when the CIA protecting info about 9/11 hijackers in the country two years before the attack.

    This an FBI agent who was in the Bin Laden Terrorism unit before 9/11.
    I am sad and depressed about it," said Mark Rossini, one of two FBI agents assigned to the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit, who says agency managers mysteriously blocked them from informing their headquarters about future Al-Qaeda plotters present in the United States in 2000 and again in the summer of 2001. "It is patently evident the attacks did not need to happen and there has been no justice," he said.

    https://www.newsweek.com/cia-and-saudi-arabia-conspired-keep-911-details-secret-new-book-says-1091935

    This the bull**** the world is left to believe the CIA misjudged the threat and did know anything it all a lie. Agency managers can only block if the order came down from their superiors to do it.


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


    This your secretary of state says there was training courses in the CIA how to lie, steal, and cheat. And he laughs because he knows it ****ed up..


    .


Advertisement