King Mob wrote: » Guess he forgot to check that before he got involved with the conspiracy. Whoopies... Also then maybe forgot that he probably shouldn't have told the insurance company that he planed to blow it up... I don't think they'd pay out for that...
Dohnjoe wrote: » He doesn't support the controlled demo theory. The only reason you "support" Hulsey is because he is paid by a conspiracy group to conduct research attempting to "disprove" the NIST If in the final report he comes out and claims that it couldn't be proved and that the NIST findings are correct you will likely disown him Again, the above has nothing to do with energy weapons or controlled demolitions You are still writing in this thread and you haven't supported your own theory yet It's a showcase for how individuals can support inane and absurd theories with absolutely no evidence, purely by attacking and attempting to discredit the real findings. Nothing else.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » We never going to know for sure what he meant. It's a lie though to claim Silverstein did not discuss controlled demolition with people on 9/11.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » November or December this year. Everything has to be correct for peer review. If he released and something is not right then the whole study is worthless.
King Mob wrote: » Sure. But the conspiracy explanation here is silly to the point of parody. You are claiming that he was involved with the conspiracy. Yet he only checked he'd get the money on the day of the event hours before the building was to collapse. And then in the process of calling, not only did he discuss it openly in front of people not involved in the conspiracy who would later talk about... he told the insurance company directly that he wanted to defraud them and asked them if they would still pay out money if he did. Then on top of that years later, he admits on camera that he's part of the conspiracy. Again, it's bizarre that you reject space lasers as silly, but believe this...
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Something tells me that this will be the case regardless.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » In my opinion Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. So his comments are very important. You are of the opinion this did not occur. You have a different point of view, that fine. We don't know what his insurance company told him? Either way, NIST covered up what really happened so he got his insurance money anyhow.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. So his comments are very important. You are of the opinion this did not occur. You have a different point of view, that fine. We don't know what his insurance company told him? Either way, NIST covered up what really happened so he got his insurance money anyhow.
King Mob wrote: » Ok, so leaving aside the fact that that quote was not ever broadcast live... Why do you think he said this on camera? Why did he blow the whole conspiracy?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Dr Hulsey is highly respected in his field of study. He even gave a lecture to ASCE engineers. They're not all close-minded. Many professional groups disagree with the NIST findings. Even Skeptics on JREF forum believe the NIST study has problems.
bessboroughboy wrote: » Ok, maybe not broadcast LIVE but that phrase WAS used by Larry Silverstein on the day of the attacks and BROADCAST on the same day - I remember it on TV
King Mob wrote: » You are not understanding the problem with your conspiracy theory here. It makes no sense for him to do those things in the context of a conspiracy. The fact you can't see why those actions are so silly shows either how little you understand or how little you care your evidence.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » What silly here you don't think people can slip up and saying things they should not have said.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » I'm sure he is, I'm also sure that you guys will throw him under the bus if he cannot prove conclusively what you are claiming and will instead turn on him and claim he is part of the conspiracy.
King Mob wrote: » Ahh.. so he slipped, fell and accidentally told his insurance company and everyone in the room that he planned on committing insurance fraud against them... Then he also slipped and accidentally admitted to being involved in the biggest crime ever... Right....:rolleyes: Why, in conspiracy land, does he say that he's concerned about more people dying? Why would he care about that if there's no people in danger and that he'd already just helped kill 3000 people?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » I would not do that. I know this study has been done correctly and he looked at different fire scenarios that could have occurred. His even looked could diesel fuel have caused it. There was an electric substation next to WTC7 his even looked at to see if that was a cause.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Silverstein never told anyone he contacted the insurance company to inquire about controlled demolition payouts. His conversation was overheard. It happens not unusual he probably did not think about it.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Quoted for future reference.
King Mob wrote: » lol, sure, that solves all of the problems I brought up. Good job.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » you see his very credible.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » You don't have to wait. You can listen to this to find out what he been looking at. Take time to listen you see his very credible. You see what he's doing compared to what NIST did. What NIST did is a joke.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Confirmation bias at it's best
Cheerful Spring wrote: » You speculating.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » I dont have time to spend an hour listening to that, i quoted you for when he doesnt say what you want him to say and you change tactic and accuse him of being in on the conspiracy.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » So you can't be bothered to find what the arguments are, got ya. Don't have to watch it all in one sitting anyways. You watch some of it and come back watch it again.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Have you actually ever
Cheerful Spring wrote: » watch some of it
Dohnjoe wrote: » As mentioned I have, and I have also read criticism of his preliminary findings. I've read that his own students have started questioning it. Without the final report, which is crucial, we can't know his final findings. He could literally turn around the conclude that he believes fire brought the building down I'm not sure you realise this. Having white hair, sounding "sciencey" about something and confirming your bias may be all you need, but back in real world his report (if finished, if challenging the WTC 7 investigation) will have to stand up to expert scrutiny
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » And i may later, as i said i quoted YOU so when you flip on your opinion of him i can quote your post again.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building.https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/shame-on-jesse-venturaSilverstein was on the phone on 9/11 trying to find out of his insurance company would pay out for controlled demolition of WTC7. Skeptics can no longer claim he was just talking just about pulling firefighters out of the building. The firefighters were told not to fight the fires at 11 am on 9/11. That's insane I love to know who made that decision and why? That just give up saving a building that had a few fires on just a few floors. There were no eastside fires till after 2 pm.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
