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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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: »

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: »

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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

Cheerful Summer

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

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

What deception is that- can you highlight where they made mistakes?
You just claim things without giving examples where the misrepresented NIST.

Cheerful Summer

King Mob wrote: »

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.

There only one guy online attempting to debunk the Hulsey study. And that guy Mick West. There nothing to talk about.

What exactly has Mick West debunked?
What convinced you- he has videos highlight something that you thought was a slam dunk?

Cheerful Summer

OwlsZat wrote: »

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.

They can't. Skeptics have one example in all of history. A building in Iran. A building that Iranian firefighters siad had gas canisters and oil tanks. Steel had no fireproofing. It was run down building and not repaired for years. So they have nothing to proof thier case. A partial collapse for them is the same as building collapsing into its own footprint.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

There only one guy online attempting to debunk the Hulsey study. And that guy Mick West. There nothing to talk about.

What exactly has Mick West debunked?
What convinced you- he has videos highlight something that you thought was a slam dunk?

Again you are going on a rant about someone not on this forum behind his back. Thats a bit cowardly.

The points I and others made are earlier in the thread and you were unable to answer them. Go back and address them now if you like.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

They can't. Skeptics have one example in all of history. A building in Iran. A building that Iranian firefighters siad had gas canisters and oil tanks. Steel had no fireproofing. It was run down building and not repaired for years. So they have nothing to proof thier case. A partial collapse for them is the same as building collapsing into its own footprint.

Again more distraction using incorrect information and a hilariously hypocritical point.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

What deception is that- can you highlight where they made mistakes?

Perpetuating a non-existent conspiracy, and making money from it.

Cheerful Summer

King Mob wrote: »

Again you are going on a rant about someone not on this forum behind his back. Thats a bit cowardly.

The points I and others made are earlier in the thread and you were unable to answer them. Go back and address them now if you like.

highlight the page number to make it easier to locate.

I talked to Mick for years on twitter and on his youtube page and on his site. Different subjects sometimes not all related to 9/11. He thinks UFOs are birds and balloons and planes too.

Cheerful Summer

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Perpetuating a non-existent conspiracy, and making money from it.

Can you provide proof the 3000 + engineers and architects are making money from this?
Richard Gage yes, but what about the others. What do they make from signing up?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Skeptics have one example in all of history.

Skepticism is a type of thinking. It's essentially questioning everything (within reason)

Attacking skeptics is on the same level as attacking scientists, academia and historians.

A building that Iranian firefighters siad had gas canisters and oil tanks. Steel had no fireproofing. It was run down building and not repaired for years. So they have nothing to proof thier case.

It's a steel-framed building that collapsed due to fire. You attack it relentlessly because it directly contradicted the pseudo-scientific beliefs by AE911 - that steel-framed buildings couldn't collapse.

As mentioned you attack anything and everything that gets in the way of your personal conspiracy beliefs on 911. Science, history, investigation, experts, academia. This is literally your personal 911 disinfo thread with the odd visitor, who typically contradicts you with an alternative conspiracy.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

highlight the page number to make it easier to locate.

I talked to Mick for years on twitter and on his youtube page and on his site. Different subjects sometimes not all related to 9/11. He thinks UFOs are birds and balloons and planes too.

The posts are there to find. When the same was asked of you, you never pointed to points you previously made, so I've no incentive to do your work for you.
You ignored the points then. You are ignoring the points now. Because you cant address them.

And again, you are bringing up your obession with Mick West. I also presume you are lying again.
We don't really care about what you think of Mick West.
It's another distraction you are trying.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Can you provide proof the 3000 + engineers and architects are making money from this?

I never wrote that.

What's interesting is that in this thread you require -

Everyone "proves" everything to you
You can reject it for any reason you can imagine
You provide no direct evidence whatsoever for your far-fetched conspiracy theories

Rinse. Repeat.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Summer

King Mob wrote: »

The posts are there to find. When the same was asked of you, you never pointed to points you previously made, so I've no incentive to do your work for you.
You ignored the points then. You are ignoring the points now. Because you cant address them.

And again, you are bringing up your obession with Mick West. I also presume you are lying again.
We don't really care about what you think of Mick West.
It's another distraction you are trying.

There your posts not mine. I have no clue what you debunked till I see what you wrote.

Cheerful Summer

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Attacking skeptics is on the same level as attacking scientists, academia and historians.

You actually believe this?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

There your posts not mine. I have no clue what you debunked till I see what you wrote.

Again there are numerous times were you have been asked to show or repeat something you claimed to have said or explained. Rather that do so, you told us to go back and find them. Im only doing the same.
Again you display your hypocracy.

We've posted points you can address. You are distracting from them and now pretending they dont exist.

Cheerful Summer

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I never wrote that.

What's interesting is that in this thread you require -
Everyone "proves" everything to you

You can reject it for any reason you can imagine

You provide no direct evidence whatsoever for your far-fetched conspiracy theories

Rinse. Repeat.

Explain why i should not reject the NIST study?
What exactly is convincing you there correct?
Preferably use information from their study.
We going nowhere till we find out what convinced you- and just a biggering contest at the moment.

Cheerful Summer

King Mob wrote: »

Again there are numerous times were you have been asked to show or repeat something you claimed to have said or explained. Rather that do so, you told us to go back and find them. Im only doing the same.
Again you display your hypocracy.

We've posted points you can address. You are distracting from them and now pretending they dont exist.

I can not address posts, i have not seen. I was banned anyway when the study came out. So i have clue where you want me to look in this thread. It end of october now, thats two months ago.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

You actually believe this?

It's a type of thinking. A method. If you can't find your keys in the morning, you don't blindly assume someone stole them, you apply basic skepticism. You use it everyday. Like science. Science is a method.

People just have this fantastic ability to "turn it off" when they believe in something faith or belief based (e.g. religion). They abandon normal rational methods of logic, etc and instead use their non-reasoning side.