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

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Off-Hulsey again

There was an investigation, the movements were discovered to be coincidental.

Further to this, for every "call" a trader places he/she will place a corresponding "put".

It's a method of hedging risk by betting on both sides of a potential risk.
The belief that the risk perceived at the time was a terrorist threat is mistaken, but is latched onto by truthers and also ignores that for the options traded in the aftermath that there was a corresponding loss.

Airlines from the mid 90's to the mid 2000's were in a considerable state of flux and the majority were at significant fiscal risk.
The collapse of major carriers was a known risk and such fiscal risk was a known concern that needed to be hedged against.

That the risk crystallised as a terrorist attack was coincidental to the hedge against the fiscal risk traders and funds instigated against the known fiscal risks.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Look at the actual collapse on video. We can only see the collapse outside the building.( north side view)
NIST released a global model based on what they just believe took place inside the building.

Hulsey paper model ( north side view)- does match the sequences of events on an actual video.
A noticeable visible kink is the only thing missing in Hulsey paper model- everything else matches up perfectly. Timing accurate as well. NIST also had trouble with the kink it was missing from their global model.

but the model doesnt match with reality and it doesnt match with the other model. How is this possible?
They are using the same data, so they should all show exactly the same thing. So why are they all so different?

How did they create this model and why does it look as if it was hand animated rather than simulated?

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Data model too fast. I not sure if just speed up to save time or something else wrong with it. The 3 seconds i see not correct. The collapses of roof don't come down that fast. I need more info about that model and what Hulsey was attempting to show there to talk more about it.

So why did they produce an incorrect model?
Please point to Hulseys comments about this.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

That a fair point. I hoping the release a better model to show Hulsey collapse scenario inside the building. Maybe in the Data I don't know. It only part I agree that needs more work. There no need to show NIST progressive collapse again though we already have their model

But if the models arent accurate and "need work" then you have to conclude that the studys conclusion is false.
How can the study be true if the models are wrong?
Thats your entire basis for rejecting the peer reveiwed nist study.

Its not like they didnt have time to perfect their models and its not like they couldnt have taken more time if they wanted...

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

.

According to Kingmob the model in post 965 not showing the full collapse. I have no clue why he thinks that. His last post does not make any sense..

Both of the model animations stop before the building completely crashes to the ground and stops moving. Ie the full collapse.
My post makes sense to everyone else. If you require clarification please point out what you are having trouble with and I will put it in simpler, clearer terms for you.
You seem to not know what basics terms like "top down" actually mean, so I can see why you might get confused.

LillySV wrote: »

listen could you go get your mammy there...think youve had too much internet time today...go out and play with the other kids on your street

knock it off. /mod

Ipso

LillySV wrote: »

listen could you go get your mammy there...think youve had too much internet time today...go out and play with the other kids on your street

Projection 101!

King Mob wrote: »

but the model doesnt match with reality and it doesnt match with the other model. How is this possible?
They are using the same data, so they should all show exactly the same thing. So why are they all so different?

How did they create this model and why does it look as if it was hand animated rather than simulated?

So why did they produce an incorrect model?
Please point to Hulseys comments about this.

But if the models arent accurate and "need work" then you have to conclude that the studys conclusion is false.
How can the study be true if the models are wrong?
Thats your entire basis for rejecting the peer reveiwed nist study.

Its not like they didnt have time to perfect their models and its not like they couldnt have taken more time if they wanted...

Someone posted the Hulsey files individually online. So now just looking at them now one by one. it take awhile there lot of models and calculations.

I made a short gif based on some files i found. Had to convert from powerpoint to gif.

I think i located the file Mick found the data model. There two models in there not one. I was wrong to say it was top down view. It's southside corner side view. The other model showing the collapse (southside face)

[URL="[url=https://imgflip.com/gif/3eoi1m][img]https://i.imgflip.com/3eoi1m.gif[/img][/url][url=https://imgflip.com/gif-maker]via Imgflip GIF Maker[/url]"][/url]

via Imgflip GIF Maker

Found some local models in one file.

Looking northeast from the core the title

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Someone posted the Hulsey files individually online. So now just looking at them now one by one. it take awhile there lot of models and calculations.

I made a short gif based on some files i found. Had to convert from powerpoint to gif.

I think i located the file Mick found the data model. There two models in there not one. I was wrong to say it was top down view. It's southside corner side view. The other model showing the collapse (southside face)

You are deflecting again because you've once again back yourself into a corner.
Just randomly copy pasting gifs you are stealing from elsewhere without reason or comment is not going to help your case or make you look clever or informed. It's going to make it look like you are deflecting.

I asked you several direct questions in my last two posts.
Stop avoiding them and address them.

And again you are bringing up your obsession with Mick West.
It's getting a little creepy at this point.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Found some local models in one file.

Looking northeast from the core the title

PTC Creo assembly. They didn’t call out the welds? No weld data will give you different results from reality

King Mob wrote: »

You are deflecting again because you've once again back yourself into a corner.
Just randomly copy pasting gifs you are stealing from elsewhere without reason or comment is not going to help your case or make you look clever or informed. It's going to make it look like you are deflecting.

I asked you several direct questions in my last two posts.
Stop avoiding them and address them.

And again you are bringing up your obsession with Mick West.
It's getting a little creepy at this point.

If you say so. Where am i stealing it from? Strong allegation so back it up?

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

I was wrong to say it was top down view. It's southside corner side view. The other model showing the collapse (southside face)

Thanks CS, the admission that you did not know what a top down view was, whilst you were giving voice to your opinion on engineering models and detail goes quite a long way towards allowing people to decide how much weight should be assigned your theories.

The top down/floor plan view is a basic engineering view and design tool.
That you did not know what it was speaks volumes.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

If you say so. Where am i stealing it from? Strong allegation so back it up?

Again you are deflecting.
Go back and address my points please.

Your current tactic of desperately trying to change the subject and throwing out single line demands for random crap is an indication that you know how stuck you are now.

banie01 wrote: »

Thanks CS, the admission that you did not know what a top downview was, whilst you were giving voice to your opinion on engineering models and detail goes quite a long way towards allowing people to decide how much weight should be assigned your theories.

The top down/floor plan view is a basic engineering view and design tool.
That you did not know what it was speaks volumes.

Never said that. You believe everything Kingmob writes.
I said a top-down view is looking down above- a bird eye view and aerial view of the building.
I was mistaken though when i said the data model was top down view. I corrected that mistake on my own when i said it was a side view of the collapse.
Anyway you can believe Kingmob if you like.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Never said that. You believe everything Kingmob writes.
I said a top-down view is looking down above- a bird eye view and aerial view of the building.
I was mistaken though when i said the data model was top down view. I corrected that mistake on my own when i said it was a side view of the collapse.
Anyway you can believe Kingmob if you like.

You are lying. You claimed that the model you posted was a top down view.
You were wrong then denied you were wrong for several pages.

King Mob wrote: »

You are lying. You claimed that the model you posted was a top down view.
You were wrong then denied you were wrong for several pages.

I just said i did can you read. I was wrong.
Go read your own post- page 964 it full of mistakes and errors. I don't get paty about this like you do. I just told what the models actually showed in a follow up post.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Never said that. You believe everything Kingmob writes.
I said a top-down view is looking down above- a bird eye view and aerial view of the building.
I was mistaken though when i said the data model was top down view. I corrected that mistake on my own when i said it was a side view of the collapse.
Anyway you can believe Kingmob if you like.

I am not asking or confirming anything Kingmob said.
I was conversing directly with you.

Yesterday you claimed

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

The model i posted today is a top down view of the Penthouse collapse.

That was a lie

be it based on poor English or poor grasp of Engineering terms.
You said it.

I then said,

banie01 wrote: »

When someone is attempting to rebutt an engineering model and doesn't understand what a top down view is :eek:

To which your replied, defending your erroneous understanding of the term.

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Top-down view, also sometimes referred to as bird's-eye view or overhead view.

The model i posted today was a bird eye view of the Roof and Penthouse collapses.

Now you are saying I'm agreeing with KingMob??

Cheerful, I'm disagreeing with you.
You don't know what you are talking and the waffle quoted above exemplifies that.

Accusing someone of stealing too. And providing know evidence. This allegations are just allowed to be said is a joke. Moderator liking your post. I have ennough this forum to be honest.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Summer wrote: »

Accusing someone of stealing too. And providing know evidence. This allegations are just allowed to be said is a joke. Moderator liking your post. I have ennough this forum to be honest.

You're basically the only one that keeps it going

How that doesn't speak volumes to you I don't know.

No. Stop. Wait. Come back.

He wanted to change the subject so hard he closed his account.
Whats the bets hell solve the log in problems on the othet account before too long?

King Mob wrote: »

He wanted to change the subject so hard he closed his account.
Whats the bets hell solve the log in problems on the othet account before too long?

They aren't log in problems,, it's clearly the NWO in conjunction with the Saudi's supported by Mossad with technical direction from Pakistan and the the daywalkers who are tracking him.

They are locking down his accounts to prevent the spread of the plain as day truth that he has discovered!

He's the hero basement dwellers everywhere need.

All right; that’s enough. Let it lie.

Overheal wrote: »

All right; that’s enough. Let it lie.

Will do, and I am sorry for the last little dig.

OwlsZat

"I happen to think that they had not only a plane but bombs that exploded simultaneously because I just can't imagine anything being able to go through that wall. Most buildings are built with the steel is on the inside around around the elevator shaft. This one was built with the steel on the outside. Which is the strongest structure you can have, and it was almost like a a can of soup." Donald Trump.

Wonder how the Donald knows so much about building towers....
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/victim-blown-out-911-tower-11147645

News Polls have suggested as many as 33% of Americans believe the twin towers attack was an inside job.

OwlsZat wrote: »

News Polls have suggested as many as 33% of Americans believe the twin towers attack was an inside job.

A quarter of Americans thing that astrology is real.
What point are you trying to make?

Do you have any comments on Hulsey's report?

Ipso

OwlsZat wrote: »

"I happen to think that they had not only a plane but bombs that exploded simultaneously because I just can't imagine anything being able to go through that wall. Most buildings are built with the steel is on the inside around around the elevator shaft. This one was built with the steel on the outside. Which is the strongest structure you can have, and it was almost like a a can of soup." Donald Trump.

Wonder how the Donald knows so much about building towers....
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/victim-blown-out-911-tower-11147645

News Polls have suggested as many as 33% of Americans believe the twin towers attack was an inside job.

Let's re-write the facts for luddites.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/12/4-in10-american-adults-were-living-end-times/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/43-of-americans-still-bel_b_28877