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

King Mob wrote: »

But he doesn't believe the conspiracy theories.

We also do not believe your interpretation of his remarks as you are a proven liar and you often claim things are said when they are not.
Sometimes this is due to your poor level of reading and comprehension ability.

You have not got the awarness to think outside of the box.
You don't understand when one failure ruled out, you have to provide evidence for another failure. It logical for me. For you, its difficult. This in my opinion shows lack of intelligence.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You have not got the awarness to think outside of the box.
You don't understand when one failure ruled out, you have to provide evidence for another failure. It logical for me. For you, its difficult. This in my opinion shows lack of intelligence.

But again, you don't understand basic physics. You aren't thinking inside or outside a box. You are just repeating complicated terms and pretending to be more informed than you are.

You are also dishonest. Using Mike West as somehow supporting your conspiracy theory is dishonest.
He does not agree with you on any level.

You are being hypocritical as you have not even acknowledge any of the myriad of issues pointed out in Hulsey's study.
Not least of which is the fact it's not peer reviewed (and isn't going to be), yet you are declaring it as perfectly accurate. (Something you cannot do as you don't understand even elementary school levels of physics.)

King Mob wrote: »

But again, you don't understand basic physics. You aren't thinking inside or outside a box. You are just repeating complicated terms and pretending to be more informed than you are.

You are also dishonest. Using Mike West as somehow supporting your conspiracy theory is dishonest.
He does not agree with you on any level.

You are being hypocritical as you have not even acknowledge any of the myriad of issues pointed out in Hulsey's study.
Not least of which is the fact it's not peer reviewed (and isn't going to be), yet you are declaring it as perfectly accurate. (Something you cannot do as you don't understand even elementary school levels of physics.)

What Mike theory then come on full recap?
I wait.
No deflection, is allowed.
You made a claim i lied about what Mike said, back it up?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What Mike theory then come on full recap?
I wait.

These sentences don't make sense and don't seem to have anything to do with my points above.
Your grammar is terrible.

Try again.

King Mob wrote: »

These sentences don't make sense and don't seem to have anything to do with my points above.
Your grammar is terrible.

Try again.

Answer. You understand perfectly. I wait for your reply.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Answer. You understand perfectly. I wait for your reply.

Answer what?
I don't understand what you are asking for because your grammar has devolved into nonsense again.

Also, I'm not particularly pushed to answer any questions you demand as you do nothing but dodge.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Sure, what lol about then. A radio interview!

Yes i do know Hulsey said it. He is not a snake. 100 per cent his statement correct.

What’s your proof of that?

[QUOTE=King Mob;11104124

Also, I'm not particularly pushed to answer any questions you demand as you do nothing but dodge.[/QUOTE]

You never answered a single thing in your life.
You entire game is to troll.
Unfortunately nobody else, but me sees it.

Provide a summary about the collapse.
Mike West version.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This is not an accurate assessement. Fire scenarios will be discussed and modelled by Hulsey.
The NIST theory is flawed. Mike West of Metabunk agrees.
Kingmob, yourself, none of you noticed it for years and still don't get it, i think? It's shows a lack of awareness by you guys, or something else is missing? I don't understand how your brain works, but this stuff, logical to me.
Mike West a software engineer, can see what i see. He not too far gone thankfully.

What does a software engineer know about high rise fires and building collapses exactly?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

.
Unfortunately nobody else, but me sees it.

Is that your motto?

banie01 wrote: »

Is that your motto?

Mike West can be added to the list.

Overheal wrote: »

What does a software engineer know about high rise fires and building collapses exactly?

He is an "engineer" clearly it's the same!
Structural, civil, electrical, software....
All engineers!
Keep up OH

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Mike West can be added to the list.

To your motto 's list?

Overheal wrote: »

What does a software engineer know about high rise fires and building collapses exactly?

lol watch them turn on him now :eek:

Now his opinion not worth as damn?
Did not stop Dohnjoe posting his website here for two years

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

lol watch them turn on him now :eek:

Explain this please

"In a recent interview with the BBC, Roland Angle claimed that NIST did not have any explanation for the 2.25 seconds of essentially free fall descent observed during the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

But NIST actually DO have an explanation for that, in their report on their collapse, and summarized in the FAQ"

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-nists-lack-of-explanation-for-wtc7-freefall-they-have-one-column-buckling.t9524/

Also did you watch the video I posted? You've yet again cited something, in this case someone, as evidence that completely disproves your point. Like, quite literally the opposite of what youve said.

"Mike" (his name is Mick) is right here - conspiracy nutters dont read properly.

haha x a million

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You never answered a single thing in your life.
You entire game is to troll.
Unfortunately nobody else, but me sees it.

Provide a summary about the collapse.
Mike West version.

Don’t backseat mod.

Don’t throw personal abuse either.

Thank you for rephrasing the question, your first attempt was illiterate. English is the language spoken on this forum.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You never answered a single thing in your life.
You entire game is to troll.
Unfortunately nobody else, but me sees it.

Or maybe you're wrong...

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Provide a summary about the collapse.
Mike West version.

What are you talking about?
What's Mike West's version?
Why would I provide it?
Why do you think I know such a thing if such a thing exists.

What a bizarre demand.

Overheal wrote: »

Don’t backseat mod.

Don’t throw personal abuse either.

Thank you for rephrasing the question, your first attempt was illiterate. English is the language spoken on this forum.

You bit selective in who you pull for abuse. I say what i like.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

lol watch them turn on him now :eek:

Now his opinion not worth as damn?
Did not stop Dohnjoe posting his website here for two years

Who is turning on whom? If a software engineer wants to discredit engineering work by engineers fluent in the field of study (eg. Civil and FPE), he needs to do a lot more than say “as a software engineer...” just like you’ll never catch me saying ‘I’m a mechanical engineer so my opinion on Ubuntu server setups is unassailably correct’

King Mob wrote: »

Or maybe you're wrong...

What are you talking about?
What's Mike West's version?
Why would I provide it?
Why do you think I know such a thing if such a thing exists.

What a bizarre demand.

Its comedy gold. Bringing a person into the debate - Mick West - and then demanding that someone else provides the summary of the details.

The comedy doesn't stop there though. Mick West completely disagrees with Cheerful. A person hes citing as evidence to prove a point. Someone who does the exact opposite.

Incredible scenes.

King Mob wrote: »

Or maybe you're wrong...

What are you talking about?
What's Mike West's version?
Why would I provide it?
Why do you think I know such a thing if such a thing exists.

What a bizarre demand.

Your don't understand any of it. Reason you refuse to discuss it.
You ok with trolling and going off topic though.
You called me a liar and of course moderator left it.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You bit selective in who you pull for abuse. I say what i like.

You can say whatever the hell you like - just not here.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Your don't understand any of it. Reason you refuse to discuss it.
You ok with trolling and going off topic though.
You called me a liar and of course moderator left it.

You already are given incredible amounts of leeway on this forum; keep derailing threads with backseat modding though and you will be on a one month ban, and will miss out on prime 9/11 discussion season as a result. Last warning.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Your don't understand any of it. Reason you refuse to discuss it.

I don't understand why you are asking me to provide Mike West's version of events.
I don't know his version of events. I never claimed I did.
I don't see how this is relevant, useful or anything other than a deflection you are use to try and pretend you aren't making a show of yourself.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You called me a liar and of course moderator left it.

You are a liar. This has been shown many time in many ways. Hence why I don't believe that you are accurately reporting what Mike West says, in addition to your poor comprehension skills.

Most recently, you claimed to have insider information about hulsey's study.
This is a lie. You have no such information.

You also claim that his model is 100% accurate. This is also a lie as there is no way for you to know that as 1. the model is not released yet and 2. you are incapable of making that judgment because you do not understand basic physics like the difference between speed, velocity and acceleration.

The Nal wrote: »

I. Mick West completely disagrees with Cheerful.

I actually think there something wrong with you guys?
He disagreed with the NIST theory. I do too.
You guys believe the NIST theory correct.
It not compicated, but for you guys it is.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I actually think there something wrong with you guys?
He disagreed with the NIST theory. I do too.

You are now lying again as that is not what you claimed his statement was previously.

You said he "admitted that there were valid concerns"
You are now claiming he disagrees with the official story.
You are twisting it already.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I actually think there something wrong with you guys?
He disagreed with the NIST theory.
.

Go on then, tell us.

Well it’s 9/3/19 and society hasn’t been shaken to its core so I assume we’re still waiting on the Hulsey Report

Overheal wrote: »

Well it’s 9/3/19 and society hasn’t been shaken to its core so I assume we’re still waiting on the Hulsey Report

Well our resident Hulsey acolyte is banned isn't he?

That said, maybe the whole Brexit Furore at the moment and the just this moment defection of a Tory MP from the Tories is really just the NWO's adroit deflection of public interest from the revelations ? :P