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

27-10-2019 05:47PM

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

What wrong with it?
What your issue with it?

Posted earlier in the thread. Go back and find them.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Name any enigneer has come out claiming its bull****?

What's an engneer?
Do you mean engineer?

And why do I need to point to engineers who think it's bull****?

I've asked you previously to detail which engineers are reviewing it and which journal was going to peer review it. You ignored that question.
Show some engineers who support it.

Cheerful Summer · 27-10-2019 05:57PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nope. Nothing can stop you denying anything and everything you want. No one can "prove" to you that e.g. man landed on the moon. No one could prove it to me either if I so choose, any effort to do so would be completely futile.

That's subjective denialism, and it's simple.

It's why science and history aren't built on denialism. Coincidentally, notice that Hulsey's report is proving a negative.

Conspiracy theories like 911 function almost entirely on denialism.

We can prove it. We have videos of them landing on the moon. Plus, we have pictures of other successful missions. We know we went there. A Moon Mission hoax would be too larger to cover up and there never been any leaks.9/11 the official story refuted by people involved in the investigations. There photographic evidence disproving the official story, witness accounts, records and documentation that show the hijackers were acting very differently to devout Muslims. We know the training flight schools were owned by Saudi Arabia and the CIA officials. Connect the dots it clearly some rogue operation to change the Middle East. The fact known Al Qeada members entered the United States and stayed there for two years and were not arrested is a clear sign this operation was planned ahead of time. You Skeptics don't ever get curious why the CIA just allowed them to go about their business. How did the inquiry know all these Saudis were meeting hijackers for two years? One of the hijackers was arrested before 9/11 Moussai and he was taking flying lessons. CIA had the knowledge to stop the attacks, but they did do so and clearly only one reason for that- they wanted it to happen.

Dohnjoe · 27-10-2019 06:09PM

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

We can prove it. We have videos of them landing on the moon.

L.O.L.

We have clear as day footage of the planes crashing into the twin towers, the towers falling down.

People refuse to believe it. They insert their own narratives. They are holographic planes, remote controlled planes, they buildings were "blown up", energy weapons were used

Cheerful Summer · 27-10-2019 06:10PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Haha, name a group of credible structural engineers who has read it and reviewed it

Name a recognised group of architects or engineers who support the study

Name any who have peer reviewed it

Hulsey has produced a report that no one is reading, and it's highly likely he knew this.

It only out since September the draft.
Data was only released a week ago.
Mick still downloading so has even got enough time to look at it for you guys.
AE911 is taking public comments now.
This how it works.
If you find an engineering firm refuting the study near future, do post it.

Cheerful Summer · 27-10-2019 06:15PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

L.O.L.

We have clear as day footage of the planes crashing into the twin towers, the towers falling down.

People refuse to believe it. They insert their own narratives. They are holographic planes, remote controlled planes, they buildings were "blown up", energy weapons were used

Planes are made of aluminum, you swear a tank hit the tower at 423mph a hour.
There no history of fire collapsing a steel framed high rise.
On 9/11 you had three- one without a plane hitting it.

I suspect the no planes, energy weapons is disinformation to discredit the scientific body of work Ae911 truth doing. There only enigneers, and architects and scientists who sign up there to speak.

Dohnjoe · 27-10-2019 06:21PM

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Planes are made of aluminum, you swear a tank hit the tower at 423mph a hour.

Personal incredulity. "I can't believe they landed on the moon with 1960's tech"

You clearly don't understand kinetic energy

There no history of fire collapsing a steel framed high rise.

There's no history of planes deliberately ramming hitting high rises.

Ae911 truth

Cranks, loons and isolated experts. They are on the same level as the doctors and physicians who are anti-vaxx.

You repeat the same talking points over and over again, like a dogmatic mantra. Gish gallop.

No interest in establishing what really happened. Endlessly rehashing the same debunked claims.

Cheerful Summer · 27-10-2019 06:23PM

King Mob wrote: »

Posted earlier in the thread. Go back and find them.

We all know it just Mick West version of the truth.

Dohnjoe · 27-10-2019 06:26PM

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

We all know it just Mick West version of the truth.

Your version of the truth contradicts historical fact. It's not even a version you can detail, let alone support.

Think how extraordinary that is.

Cheerful Summer · 27-10-2019 06:42PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Personal incredulity. "I can't believe they landed on the moon with 1960's tech"

You clearly don't understand kinetic energy

There's no history of planes deliberately ramming hitting high rises.

Cranks, loons and isolated experts. They are on the same level as the doctors and physicians who are anti-vaxx.

You repeat the same talking points over and over again, like a dogmatic mantra. Gish gallop.

No interest in establishing what really happened. Endlessly rehashing the same debunked claims.

Plane is aluminum, it not going to penetrate the hat-truss core of steel
It too strong.. They designed the building to resistant this impact.
Kinetic energy- only last a few seconds.
They have degrees in engineering and have worked in this field for years. They're people who have the balls to question the official story. They are smarter enough to realise fire collapsing a steel rise unlikely based on past history.
All this happened when the country attacked. They are smarter enough to realise again this when you would pull of an inside job, extremists from the middle east will be blamed and of course you had the planes to hid the fact the demolitions were going to be used later. In your world, fire evaporates and pulverises concrete in mid air and normal for you. To pulverise concrete the pressure inside the building must be massive, it like a volcano erupting. How can fire cause that pressure and reaction maybe you know Dohnjoe?

Dohnjoe · 27-10-2019 06:51PM

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

They're people who have the balls to question the official story.

They aren't questioning the established version of events, they are attempting to discredit it because they can't wrap their heads around it

"I can't understand how neutron stars work, a star which spins 700 times a second, that's impossible, therefore it doesn't exist"

That would be fine, but they take that extra step into lunacy, they try to suggest something else happened, without saying exactly what it is

The hypocrisy in that is staggering. All the evidence in the world won't convince them of X, they require no evidence to believe Y

Cheerful Summer · 27-10-2019 06:59PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They aren't questioning the established version of events, they are attempting to discredit it because they can't wrap their heads around it

"I can't understand how neutron stars work, a star which spins 700 times a second, that's impossible, therefore it doesn't exist"

That would be fine, but they take that extra step into lunacy, they try to suggest something else happened, without saying exactly what it is

The hypocrisy in that is staggering. All the evidence in the world won't convince them of X, they require no evidence to believe Y

Before 9/11 did you know the attack was coming?
Everyone turned on their TV watched it happened and wondered who did it!
It was all done in secret, least not known to public.
A demolition crew could have easily placed something in the building pre 9/11they had years to do it.
In regards to WTC7 they only had to place explosives on 8 floors to cause the collapse- not 47. That how demolitions work.
The towers collapse- is definitely not a conventional way of bringing it down, i think the truthers are right saying some exotic explosive was used there.
There no lunacy, because all happened during a major terrorist attack a event that changed the world. There was lot of things happening on 9/11 that never talked about again.
Like a middle eastern film crew showing up early in the morning to interview Bush, and were send away because they were not on a list.
The switchboard at the White House recieved a warning that angel was next. Codes were given over it alleged that airforce one was a target.
middle eastern men were also onboard other aircraft- they disappeared.
There lot of unsolved mysteries that are now forgotten.

Cheerful Summer · 27-10-2019 07:14PM

Just to back up my claim here.
An Assassination Attempt?

Bush awoke a little before 6:00 a.m. on September 11, pulled on shorts and an old T-shirt and laced up his running shoes. [CBS, 11/1/02] At 6:30 a.m., Bush, a reporter friend, and his Secret Service crew took a four-mile jog in the half-light of dawn around a nearby golf course. [Washington Post, 1/27/02, Washington Post, 09/11/01]

At about the same time Bush was getting ready for his jog, a van carrying several Middle Eastern men pulled up to the Colony's guard station. The men said they were a television news crew with a scheduled "poolside" interview with the president. They asked for a certain Secret Service agent by name. The message was relayed to a Secret Service agent inside the resort, who hadn't heard of the agent mentioned or of plans for an interview. He told the men to contact the president's public relations office in Washington, DC, and had the van turned away. [Longboat Observer, 9/26/01]

General Ahmed Shah Massoud.

The Secret Service may have foiled an assassination attempt. Two days earlier, Ahmed Shah Massoud, leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance, had been murdered by a similar ruse. Two North African men, posing as journalists from "Arabic News International," had been requesting an interview with Massoud since late August. Ahmad Jamsheed, Massoud's secretary, said that by the night of September 8, "they were so worried and excitable, they were begging us." An interview was arranged for the following day. As it began, a bomb hidden in the video camera exploded, killing the two journalists. Massoud was rushed by helicopter to a hospital in Tajikistan, but was pronounced dead on arrival (although his death was not acknowledged until September 15). [International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, 10/30/01, Newsday, 10/26/01] The assassination is widely believed to have been timed to remove the Taliban's most popular and respected opponent in anticipation of the backlash

It interesting event on very unusual day. Could 9/11 been a coup to overthrow Bush also? The fact the switchboard recieved a warning angel was next does suggest the rogue group was planning to take out bush too.

OwlsZat · 27-10-2019 07:21PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Is there a facepalm gif big enough for this :pac:

Hope your next post doesn't contain the same offensive levels of ignorance. A quick Google would have told you instantly. Pilots can have the legs up sending snapchats while flying if their hearts desire.

“On a regular flight the autopilot does around 90 per cent of the flying.” Pilots usually handle the landing, but many modern aircraft and airports even possess an “Autoland” system, which is sometimes deployed in thick fog"

Dohnjoe · 27-10-2019 07:25PM

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

A demolition crew could have easily placed something in the building pre 9/11they had years to do it.

They could have filmed astronauts in a studio

They could have fixed the last premiership match by bribing players

They could have sank the Titanic by deliberately striking an iceberg

Theycould have planted explosives in the buildings years before

All completely meaningless without direct evidence

You seem to live in a bizarre realm where you believe the historical facts are governed by what you believe "could have" happened rather than what did happen

Dohnjoe · 27-10-2019 07:26PM

OwlsZat wrote: »

“On a regular flight the autopilot does around 90 per cent of the flying.” Pilots usually handle the landing, but many modern aircraft and airports even possess an “Autoland” system, which is sometimes deployed in thick fog"

To clarify, you believe that all the planes were pre-programmed to fly into WTC 1, 2, Pentagon and a field in Shanksville?

Cheerful Summer · 27-10-2019 07:36PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They could have filmed astronauts in a studio

They could have fixed the last premiership match by bribing players

They could have sank the Titanic by deliberately striking an iceberg

Theycould have planted explosives in the buildings years before

All completely meaningless without direct evidence

You seem to live in a bizarre realm where you believe the historical facts are governed by what you believe "could have" happened rather than what did happen

Fire records prove that steel framed high rise don't collapse due to just fire.
There has never been an the example in Western Europe or United States before 9/11 or since.
It doesn't take long to figure out that something else- caused the building full collapse.
Engineering studies ( NIST study) is a false account of the building construction.
You left with no other option- controlled demolition explains the collapses.
You have accepted the NIST explanation for building seven. I don't so we never agree controlled demolition caused that free-fall collapse.

OwlsZat · 27-10-2019 07:40PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

To clarify, you believe that all the planes were pre-programmed to fly into WTC 1, 2, Pentagon and a field in Shanksville?

You program computers. You control planes. Yes I believe the planes auto pilot systems were used to deliver the plans exactly on the buildings.

To clarity you believe 3 to 4 men smuggled weapons onto multiple Boeing Jumbo Jets or better overpowered the entire planes weapon free. Then managed to fly the huge planes into targets assistance free?

I met an Architect yesterday asked him for his input. Confirmed he thought the buildings couldn't have fallen with the prosed theory. Building design renders the theory impossible.

Dohnjoe · 27-10-2019 07:41PM

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Fire records prove that steel framed high rise don't collapse due to just fire.

"The world is flat according to me"

There has never been an the example in Western Europe or United States before 9/11 or since.

There has never been an example of planes deliberately ramming highrises like 911

Engineering studies ( NIST study) is a false account of the building construction.

"Any investigation, report and study that doesn't back my whacky conspiracy theory is wrong" - every conspiracy theorist ever

You keep parroting the same faulty points over and over.

OwlsZat · 27-10-2019 07:42PM

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Fire records prove that steel framed high rise don't collapse due to just fire.
There has never been an the example in Western Europe or United States before 9/11 or since.
It doesn't take long to figure out that something else- caused the building full collapse.
Engineering studies ( NIST study) is a false account of the building construction.
You left with no other option- controlled demolition explains the collapses.
You have accepted the NIST explanation for building seven. I don't so we never agree controlled demolition caused that free-fall collapse.

Thank you. What happened exactly we dont know. What we do know is the building could not have collapsed as described. It's simply impossible.

banie01 · 27-10-2019 07:43PM

OwlsZat wrote: »

You program computers. You control planes. Yes I believe the planes auto pilot systems were used to deliver the plans exactly on the buildings.

To clarity you believe 3 to 4 men smuggled weapons onto multiple Boeing Jumbo Jets or better overpowered the entire planes weapon free. Then managed to fly the huge planes into targets assistance free?

I met an Architect yesterday asked him for his input. Confirmed he thought the buildings couldn't have fallen with the prosed theory. Building design renders the theory impossible.

So in your theory, you aren't even correct about the type of aircraft used.
That doesn't bode well for how much credence you'll be afforded.

The "Boeing jumbo jet" is a 4 engine wide bodied airliner, quite different from what actually we're hijacked.

You and your architect friend should join AE911, it seems to be the go-to place for experts of your calibre.

OwlsZat · 27-10-2019 07:45PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"The world is flat according to me"

There has never been an example of planes deliberately ramming highrises like 911

"Any investigation, report and study that doesn't back my whacky conspiracy theory is wrong" - every conspiracy theorist ever

You keep parroting the same faulty points over and over.

Can you please stop posting when you've got nothing to say. Your spam is reducing the quality of the thread.

Dohnjoe · 27-10-2019 07:46PM

OwlsZat wrote: »

Yes I believe the planes auto pilot systems were used to deliver the plans exactly on the buildings.

Okay, and were the pilots on the planes?

Were there passengers on those planes?

And the hijackers, were they on the planes, did they exist at all?

To clarity you believe 3 to 4 men smuggled weapons onto multiple Boeing Jumbo Jets or better overpowered the entire planes weapon free. Then managed to fly the huge planes into targets assistance free?

Yes. Airliners had been hijacked many times before, the cabins were not locked there were no air marshals. They passengers and crew had little or no idea the planes were to be used as weapons (except flight 93, where passengers heard about the other planes being crashed into the buildings, and decided to force their way into the cabin)

OwlsZat · 27-10-2019 07:47PM

banie01 wrote: »

So in your theory, you aren't even correct about the type of aircraft used.
That doesn't bode well for how much credence you'll be afforded.

The "Boeing jumbo jet" is a 4 engine wide bodied airliner, quite different from what actually we're hijacked.

You and your architect friend should join AE911, it seems to be the go-to place for experts of your calibre.

You should definitely make a facetious point. Its makes you more credible and compensates for your lack of input.

Dohnjoe · 27-10-2019 07:48PM

OwlsZat wrote: »

Can you please stop posting when you've got nothing to say. Your spam is reducing the quality of the thread.

Not to backseat mod, but that might cross the lines a bit, would prefer you stay in the thread to debate your views

banie01 · 27-10-2019 07:50PM

OwlsZat wrote: »

You should definitely make a facetious point. Its makes you more credible and compensates for your lack of input.

My lack of input?

Their is nothing facetious about my point.
Details matter, you clearly have no grasp of them and I fail to sre anything in your contribution to this thread to date to change that view point.

OwlsZat · 27-10-2019 07:55PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Not to backseat mod, but that might cross the lines a bit, would prefer you stay in the thread to debate your views

You've long attempted to mod this thread. Spam posting nonsense opinions talking over the people actually making points. Maybe spend some time reading
Operation Northwoods and a brief history of false flag attacks. Instead of posting again saying someone is wrong without clearly having the foggiest.

banie01 · 27-10-2019 07:57PM

OwlsZat wrote: »

You've long attempted to mod this thread. Spam posting nonsense opinions talking over the people actually making points. Maybe spend some time reading
Operation Northwoods and a brief history of false flag attacks. Instead of posting again saying someone is wrong without clearly having the foggiest.

Bit rich coming from someone who didn't even know what type of aircraft were actually hi-jacked.

Dohnjoe · 27-10-2019 07:57PM

OwlsZat wrote: »

You've long attempted to mod this thread. Spam posting nonsense opinions talking over the people actually making points. Maybe spend some time reading
Operation Northwoods and a brief history of false flag attacks. Instead of posting again saying someone is wrong without clearly having the foggiest.

Can you answer the questions I asked on your 911 theory?

OwlsZat · 27-10-2019 08:01PM

banie01 wrote: »

My lack of input?

Their is nothing facetious about my point.
Details matter, you clearly have no grasp of them and I fail to sre anything in your contribution to this thread to date to change that view point.

Thank you for your continued exceptionally well written valuable input. Meanwhile back on point. The building could not have fallen down as described its physically impossible. It has had never happened previously or since in the history of the world. I wonder why that is. I'd suggest you consult those you know who studied building design and get some bias free opinions of your own.

OwlsZat · 27-10-2019 08:03PM

banie01 wrote: »

Bit rich coming from someone who didn't even know what type of aircraft were actually hi-jacked.

Pretty rich coming from someone who can't correctly write hijacked.

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

Comments