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

Free Fall thread

Options
11314151719

Comments

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


    The Nal wrote: »
    Mick Wests latest. Its laughable really how AE911Truth have tried to manipulate people. Hulsey well and truly debunked here aswell.


    Mick says in the post you linked to, NIST identified several potential connection failures? Care to share what he meant by that? Where in the report does NIST highlight them?

    Edit that: Christopher had to correct Mick nonsense on the thread. Mick too slow to understand it!!
    That is incorrect.

    NIST said that the girder between columns 79 and 44 was pushed of its seat and that set off a chain of cascading floor failures that left column 79 unbraced on 3 sides over 9 floors which led to its buckling and that led to the total collapse of the building. NIST offers no other explanation for what started the collapse.
    yes, there were many failed connections but none of them triggered the collapse around column 79 which caused a cascade of floor failures and led to its buckling. It was the walk-off of the girder on the north side of column 79 that triggered the collapse and without it column 79 would not have lost lateral support over 9 floors and buckled.

    Mick likes to spin his own version. The black failed connections Mick kept highlighting are after the girder slipped from its seat. Mick lies help the conspiracy case.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Mick is correct. He has shown AE911Truth to be the frauds that they are.

    Case closed.


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


    The Nal wrote: »
    Mick is correct. He has shown AE911Truth to be the frauds that they are.

    Case closed.

    :pac:


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


    The Nal wrote: »
    Mick Wests latest. Its laughable really how AE911Truth have tried to manipulate people. Hulsey well and truly debunked here aswell.


    Mick West lies about the study he claims to support :eek: When you pretend things happened when they did not you lose all credibility. His the main supporter/debunker for the official story.


    Christopher bless his soul had to correct Mick post on that thread and the calculated lies. He even posted a quote from NIST to show it.

    525481.png


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Mick is correct. We know now that AE911Truth are frauds.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    The Nal wrote: »
    Mick is correct. We know now that AE911Truth are frauds.

    I like the point that's been brought up.

    AE9/11 and it's followers are arguing that the collapses obviously look like typical controlled demolitions.
    At the same time they are arguing that the conspirators set it up so the demolitions would look exactly like natural collapses due to fire.
    So according to them it both looks like a controlled demolition and it doesn't and at the same time it doesn't look like a natural collapse and it was made to look like one.

    And then on top of that they are arguing that it was demolished by a method never before used in a demolition in a scenario where a demolition has never been attempted. So it can't possibly look like a typical demolition.
    But according to them it does.
    And it doesn't.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    King Mob wrote: »
    I like the point that's been brought up.

    AE9/11 and it's followers are arguing that the collapses obviously look like typical controlled demolitions.
    At the same time they are arguing that the conspirators set it up so the demolitions would look exactly like natural collapses due to fire.
    So according to them it both looks like a controlled demolition and it doesn't and at the same time it doesn't look like a natural collapse and it was made to look like one.

    And then on top of that they are arguing that it was demolished by a method never before used in a demolition in a scenario where a demolition has never been attempted. So it can't possibly look like a typical demolition.
    But according to them it does.
    And it doesn't.

    Yeah. Common sense usually prevails. Especially in the absence of any evidence.


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


    The Nal wrote: »
    Yeah. Common sense usually prevails. Especially in the absence of any evidence.

    AE911 truth has evidence to substantiate the case of demolition. The US justice system will try and protect ths official narrative as long it can nevertheless.
    The Fabrication Drawings for building seven show convincingly the NIST simulation for the collapse of A2001 girder and column 79 is incorrect. All that is needed to bust the bubble is have the evidence heard in court, where jurors and specialists involved in the industry will be called in to testify.

    NIST for 12 years avoided debate with opposing voices.
    Crucial components were omitted here, and NIST had a nice run for 5 years till they got caught . FOIA request was accepted and truthers now have the original drawings/sketches for building seven.

    AE911 truth is also paying the legal fees of a man who bringing a case in the UK. His brother died in the Towers. One way or the other a court either in the UK or the US will hear and see the evidence eventually.


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


    The Nal wrote: »
    Mick is correct. We know now that AE911Truth are frauds.

    Mick is well aware the AE911 truth work is substantial, and he even conceded that truth during a one and one live video debate with Tony Szamboti, last year. You never watched the debate to notice Mick acceptance here of facts!

    Mick now retreated from acceptance to make a new claim, failures occurred way before the girder A2001 dropped from its seat and that explained the collapse in the global model?

    Tony: where that written down in the report asked Mick. Mick does not show Tony. Instead he shows Tony a model of collapsing stuff around column 79 and says here look there floor beams and girders falling down here and there too are you stupid.

    Reality is Mick in denial and doesn't want to accept NIST analysis how it all started.

    Mick vs Tony, this was before the Hulsey study got released. When Mick talks, there suggestions this may have happened this way, but as Tony rightly says thats not an analysis.

    Tony showing Mick why at 11+ minutes , the NIST report is cheating and a fraud. Just watch and listen and Tony explains why the stiffeners are important here and can't be omitted.

    24 minutes in listen. People who are neutral listen to Mick accept AE911 work around the connections at column 79 is excellent and omitting the stiffeners is a valid concern! Dohnjoe will claim Ae911 truth are cranks and charlatans, even though Mick let his guard down for once and admitted what he thought.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    In the absence of any evidence after 19 years we can only accept the official report. No conspiracy. It happened as NIST described it.

    Only watched the first 15 mins or so but Mick speaking a lot of sense here



    Hes basically the last debunker. The truth movement is dead. Even some of the debunking sites are offline now. No ones bothered.


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


    The Nal wrote: »
    In the absence of any evidence after 19 years we can only accept the official report. No conspiracy. It happened as NIST described it.

    Only watched the first 15 mins or so but Mick speaking a lot of sense here



    Hes basically the last debunker. The truth movement is dead. Even some of the debunking sites are offline now. No ones bothered.

    Video of a maturer debunker communicating with a younger debunker is all good and all but ends up going nowhere.
    Tony from AE911 truth and Mick debated him. We have two opposing views colliding here, it's more informative.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    AE911 truth has evidence to substantiate the case of demolition. .

    What case? It's been nearly 20 years and you guys can't even state what the alternative is.


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


    Leroy Hulsey conclusions and the summary of his study.

    This is an opposite science opinion.

    525567.png

    525568.png


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Leroy Hulsey conclusions and the summary of his study.

    A fraudulent study full of flaws that has not been peer reviewed or published in an actual journal despite promises to do so.
    Also a joke study that does not present an alternative explaination.

    A study that you yourself disagreed with and ended up abandoning.


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


    24 minutes- Mick West accepts the AE911truth analysis is correct. None of the debunkers here have watched the video :rolleyes:

    Listen to Mick, it just two minutes you hear the real truth.

    Quoting Mick "in that limited case that would make a difference".

    It's game over with that statement, Mick saying that girder could not have slipped from its seat, he agrees. Mick instead of ending it there tried to push a false narrative the event started somehere else in the middle of the floor?



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    24 minutes- Mick West accepts the AE911truth analysis is correct. None of the debunkers here have watched the video :rolleyes:
    No cheerful, that's a lie. That's not this guys position and you know it.
    You are simply misunderstanding things and inventing your own fantasy to fill in the gap.

    Your obsession with Mick West continues to be very odd.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    24 minutes- Mick West accepts the AE911truth analysis is correct.

    No he does not.

    From 37 mins he further tears fraud Hulseys report apart. Even the host agrees. Mick is right. Thanks for posting.


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


    The Nal wrote: »
    No he does not.

    From 37 mins he further tears fraud Hulseys report apart. Even the host agrees. Mick is right. Thanks for posting.

    Lying still when people have a video is :D:D:D,

    NIST collapse theory quoted. Mick at 24 minutes agrees (bolded section in black) never happened and agrees NIST omitted these elements that would have stopped a failure.
    Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

    The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lying still when people have a video is :D:D:D,

    NIST collapse theory quoted. Mick at 24 minutes agrees (bolded section in black) never happened and agrees NIST omitted these elements that would have stopped a failure.

    Again cheerful, you have a poor grasp of reading and writing, and you have a tendency to invent and misinterpret things in a very ridiculous way. You often out right lie.

    Absolutely no one accepts that you are accurately representing what Mick West says.

    You keep spewing out all this random obsessive nonsense, but you aren't able to address any points put to you.
    You keep running away from them and at this stage you've lapped yourself several times over.


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


    Video is there for people who want to hear the truth. Don't be fooled by the debunkers on here. Listen to the video at 24 minutes.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again cheerful, you have a poor grasp of reading and writing, and you have a tendency to invent and misinterpret things in a very ridiculous way. You often out right lie.

    Absolutely no one accepts that you are accurately representing what Mick West says.

    You keep spewing out all this random obsessive nonsense, but you aren't able to address any points put to you.
    You keep running away from them and at this stage you've lapped yourself several times over.

    Cheerful has obviously only listened to 20 seconds or so and not the follow up. And nothing 10 minutes after. Its hilarious to read. No attention span whatsoever.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    The Nal wrote: »
    Cheerful has obviously only listened to 20 seconds or so and not the follow up. And nothing 10 minutes after. Its hilarious to read. No attention span whatsoever.
    I think it's mostly likely because it's something the guys at AE9/11 have been jumping on cause they're also desperate to get Mick West.

    Wouldn't be shocked if cheeful never actually listened to the podcast at all.
    Video is there for people who want to hear the truth. Don't be fooled by the debunkers on here. Listen to the video at 24 minutes.
    Again, no one is going to do that cheerful.
    You have no credibility and no one cares about what Mick West says (or more likely didn't say.)

    Everyone can however see you dodging points, ranting incoherently and generally making a show of yourself and your follow conspiracy theorists.


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


    The Nal wrote: »
    Cheerful has obviously only listened to 20 seconds or so and not the follow up. And nothing 10 minutes after. Its hilarious to read. No attention span whatsoever.

    Two minutes.
    Mick recognizing that one connection ( A2001 girder) could not have slipped from its seat connection at column 79.
    Debunkers are shaken by facts here. Its often the case with complicated events they don’t understand.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Two minutes.
    Mick recognizing that one connection ( A2001 girder) could not have slipped from its seat connection at column 79.
    Debunkers are shaken by facts here. Its often the case with complicated events they don’t understand.

    You stopped listening after he said "in that limited case". :D

    Hulseys fraudulent study has been a shambles from start to finish and hasn't made a dent in the dwindling truther community. If anything, its completely killed it off.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    The Nal wrote: »
    You stopped listening after he said "in that limited case". :D

    Hulseys fraudulent study has been a shambles from start to finish and hasn't made a dent in the dwindling truther community. If anything, its completely killed it off.
    Have you noticed that cheerful barely mentions it any more?

    Again I think it's cause AE9/11 have switched tactics since it came out as a wet fart. So rather than try to harp on about a study that not even they can defend, they're changing the focus and hoping that people will forget about it.
    And all the donation money that they used on it...


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    King Mob wrote: »
    Have you noticed that cheerful barely mentions it any more?

    Again I think it's cause AE9/11 have switched tactics since it came out as a wet fart. So rather than try to harp on about a study that not even they can defend, they're changing the focus and hoping that people will forget about it.
    And all the donation money that they used on it...

    Kind of buried it alright yeah. Lots of "yeah but, yeah but" in the video above. At one point Szamboti says thats not what Hulsey meant to say and that hes in contact with Hulsey. So, just take his word for it I guess....

    When hes not shouting when Mick West is making valid points.

    From 1 hr 25 mins for 15 mins or so Mick has him on the back foot.


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


    The Nal wrote: »
    You stopped listening after he said "in that limited case". :D

    Hulseys fraudulent study has been a shambles from start to finish and hasn't made a dent in the dwindling truther community. If anything, its completely killed it off.

    I watched the whole video. The minutes of the video i want people to watch here rips to shreds all the arguments debunkers have put forward here about AE911 truth work.

    Mick West accepted and praised the work of AE911 truth. A valid argument: missing stiffeners, and web plate and others things. In this limited case you be right.

    This limited case is the root cause for the total collapse according to NIST

    Mick does not want that to be case since he knows the NIST work flawed there.
    When the girder at column 79 is not pushed off its seated connection there can be no progressive collapse.

    Mick is now moving goalposts that debunkers are not bright enough to see him doing this and claiming other girders on floor 13 lost connection first. This a a lie and big one at that.

    NIST outlined the full collapse on floor 13 (quoted) Mick admits on video" a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column never occurred therefore he acknowledges the collapse hypothesis suggested by NIST was impossible.
    Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column (- Limited case Mick version!,[/B] Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

    The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.
    [/QUOTE]


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Mick West accepted and praised the work of AE911 truth.
    Cheerful. That's not true.
    We know it's not true.

    Who do you think is believing you here?


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


    Mick own words: In that limited case does actually make a difference.

    Watch the video people at 24 minutes.

    Mick debunking NIST root analysis here.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Mick own words: In that limited case does actually make a difference.

    Watch the video people at 24 minutes.

    Mick debunking NIST root analysis here.

    But cheerful, what does he say after that?
    Where does he say he " accepted and praised the work of AE911 truth."

    You have issues with understanding and writing things and you like to invent things that are rather silly.

    Here it's very clear you're taking an out of context quote you don't understand the meaning of, and you're deciding it says things it doesn't because you are desperate to prove Mick West wrong.
    The man appears to be some kind of boogeyman for you.

    And again, he seems very active on his forum. Why not just discuss the issue with him directly?
    Maybe he can clarify his statement for you.


Advertisement