nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Cheerful Spring

This fairly recent presentation in 2017. If you listen to him you can clearly tell he is a man of integrity and not a charlatan.

Just take time to listen to him.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

And agaain notice how conspiracy theorists have diverted the discussiin away from Hulseys report.
Almsot like they are ashamed of it and desperate to dustact from it.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

All AE911 truth is asking for these groups to do a proper analysis of the actual building as it was.

lol, no they aren't. They aren't interested in a real investigation any more than anti-vaxxers are interested in real science.

They are a crank outfit of conspiracy theorists who only want one thing - the conspiracy

The conspiracy puts money in their pockets, literally

Why are people accepting a study based on deception?

You accept their AE911's neverending deception and disinfo and regurgitate it here repeatedly

Cheerful Summer

banie01 wrote: »

Proclaiming the collapse as a con, when it has been agreed by the vast consensus of Engineering and architects as the most likely mode of failure, without presenting any evidence to the contrary is not a rational or indeed competent debate tactic.

It doesn't matter how often you proclaim it.

NIST does have issues but by vast consensus it is the accepted mode of collapse.

What evidence do you want to present to refute that?
That one of the many contributions by many posters to this thread and the others hasn't already refuted across the multiple threads already on the topic and that Cheerful has already presented.

Least you willing and admit the NIST study has issues.
NIST theory is not an accepted mode of failure, though.
The mainstream studies only agree that fire caused it.

I would hope Skeptics someday will explain how NIST explantation for the collapse could have happened. All AE911 truth is asking for these groups to do a proper analysis of the actual building as it was. Why are people accepting a study based on deception?

Secret data held only by NIST is not going to change my mind about this topic.

NIST leaving off construction parts is borderline criminal, yet Skeptic make excuses for them. Mick accepted these findings are real, but moved away from that now to claim different failures occurred on floor 13. He had no argument there, so he had to move the goalposts. These failures did happen and and Hulsey spoken about it in his report. Mick claims he didn't in one of his videos another lie.

You can't give NIST the benefit of the doubt, when they have left off more then one construction fitting. One construction fitting there maybe a reason they did that, but they left off the stiffiners, the shear studs, the two web plates- that for me is sign they manipulated their finite element models. Where the pressured to do this by their employers?

Lead investigator Shyam Sunder in 2008 claimed freefall was impossible. People forget this speech was given during a presentation of their draft report of thef WTC7 STUDY. That was smoking gun announcement. They bascially ****ed up and exposed that freefall does not occur in a fire collapse induced progressive collapse. Span of just three months they claimed freefall had occurred and yet never fully explained how it went from impossible in August 2008- to Nov 2008 perfectly fine and it happened.

banie01

OwlsZat wrote: »

I never said it was evidence of anything.

If Operation Northwood and the history of false flags are, as you agree.
Evidence of nothing WTC7 related, why bother introducing them to support your position?

Proclaiming the collapse as a con, when it has been agreed by the vast consensus of Engineering and architects as the most likely mode of failure, without presenting any evidence to the contrary is not a rational or indeed competent debate tactic.

It doesn't matter how often you proclaim it.

NIST does have issues but by vast consensus it is the accepted mode of collapse.

What evidence do you want to present to refute that?
That one of the many contributions by many posters to this thread and the others hasn't already refuted across the multiple threads already on the topic and that Cheerful has already presented.

Dohnjoe

OwlsZat wrote: »

I never said it was evidence of anything.

So your theory is that the planes were programmed to fly but you have no evidence for this whatsoever. And you can't give any details of this theory.

To sum up, you don't have any alternative theory as to what happened that is supported by direct evidence.

Why dont you tell us your opinion on how a steel framed building managed to collapse due to fire for the first time ever.

Sure. It certainly wasn't the first time that that a steel framed structure has collapsed or partially collapsed due to fire. Steel is susceptible to fire, it's well known about, studied and understood. WTC 7 is the first time a building has been struck and damaged by debris from a much larger building, igniting fires on multiple levels, had its sprinkler system knocked out, then had those fires burn unchecked for hours. The steel-framed WTC 6 partially collapsed. A few years ago a steel-framed building in Tehran collapsed due to fire.

If you have an alternative explanation that is backed by credible evidence (not your incredulity), then let us know.

OwlsZat

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Sure. This is the appeal to history fallacy. Something happening in the past is not evidence for a separate event happening in the future

Can you answer my questions?

I never said it was evidence of anything. Why dont you tell us your opinion on how a steel framed building managed to collapse due to fire for the first time ever. A world first and the biggest flaw with the whole charade.

Dohnjoe

OwlsZat wrote: »

Maybe tell me why you find a country with a history of false flag attacks who previously came up with the idea of a airliner hijacking false flag attack could not have carried out one.

Sure. This is the appeal to history fallacy. Something happening in the past is not evidence for a separate event happening in the future

Can you answer my questions?

OwlsZat

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

Maybe tell me why you find a country with a history of false flag attacks who previously came up with the idea of a airliner hijacking false flag attack could not have carried out one.

banie01

OwlsZat wrote: »

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

Quite a difference between a misplaced hyphen and identifying a 767 as a 747....

You clearly know exactly what you are talking about and I defer to your superior intellect...

Or wait, actually I don't.
I would be happy to debate any evidence you'd care to present that Cheerful hasn't already presented and had rebutted in any of his many many threads on the subject.

Feel free to read those threads, and even more importantly...
Feel free to contribute some evidence, something other than your opinions.

Dohnjoe

Apologies for going off-topic (Hulsey) but I tihnk this one has become the de-facto 911 thread, we can always move to one of the other more generic threads

Dohnjoe

OwlsZat wrote: »

The building could not have fallen down as described its physically impossible.

Why did at least four investigations find that it did?

Why does no recognised group of engineers or architects anywhere in the world support any other theory?

banie01

OwlsZat wrote: »

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 free opinions of your own.

This is a discussion on the validity or not of Dr Hulsey's report.
Feel free to read the thread and ask a question, query a point or indeed present some evidence.

Otherwise, your diatribes are fairly pointless.

OwlsZat

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.

OwlsZat

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.

Dohnjoe

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?

banie01

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.

OwlsZat

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

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.

Dohnjoe

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

OwlsZat

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

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

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.

banie01

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

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.

Dohnjoe

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

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.

Cheerful Summer

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.

Dohnjoe

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?

Dohnjoe

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

OwlsZat

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"