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

OwlsZat wrote: »

Did anyone go to 1munute in the video and see the charge go off in the bottom right. Anyone want to explain how it goes off before the collapse of the floor above. Perhaps someone who has read the full Nist explanation...

Dohnjoe has provided the real explanation.
What's your explanation?
Where exactly was that charge? Why did it go off then? What kind of charge was it?

Ipso

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not a "charge", it's large quantities of air from collapsing floors being compressed, forced downwards and escaping from the building (bringing dust and debris with it)

Then there's all the electrical equipment that was in the building, a/c vents etc

Dohnjoe wrote: »

it's large quantities of air from collapsing floors being compressed, forced downwards and escaping from the building

Pressure is defined as the force exerted on a surface divided by the area over which that force acts.

There is no chance that that area over which the force is acting would be small enough to create the pressure required to force debris out such a small spot with enough energy to propel it 50 feet clear of the building at a site hundreds of feet below the area of collapse.

You'd also have to ask yourself why this effect isn't seen on the 50 floors above...

The Nal

OwlsZat wrote: »

Pressure is defined as the force exerted on a surface divided by the area over which that force acts.

There is no chance that that area over which the force is acting would be small enough to create the pressure required to force debris out such a small spot with enough energy to propel it 50 feet clear of the building at a site hundreds of feet below the area of collapse.

You'd also have to ask yourself why this effect isn't seen on the 50 floors above...

You can clearly see from the picture (and videoes) the same effect in the front of the building, ie facing you in that pic.

Its... errr.... its called "air". Have you ever seen a whoopee cushion?

OwlsZat wrote: »

There is no chance that that area over which the force is acting would be small enough to create the pressure required to force debris out such a small spot with enough energy to propel it 50 feet clear of the building at a site hundreds of feet below the area of collapse.

You'd also have to ask yourself why this effect isn't seen on the 50 floors above...

How much pressure is required exactly?
How much pressure would be created by the falling section of the building?

The pressure exerted by a large mass moving downward.

The resistance afforded by the inertia of a large mass below, and resistant to the initial downward force.

The simple fact that 2 items cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

The fact that in any pressure venting or "release" of the pressure built by 2 items attempting to occupy said space, ejected debris will follow the path of least resistance?

The paths of escape for gas/debris being crushed and compacted by the collapse being either through poured concrete?
Or glass curtain clad exterior?

Individual and random vents through that exterior, or "path of least resistance" are now indicative of super secret ultra silent nano thermite based demolition?

A method that even now, 20yrs later is still not creeping into mainstream use via patent?
Imagine the environmental benefits of near silent demolition!
I'd like to own shares in the company that developed that tech!

That in the main, one poster has managed to keep this nonsense circling the drain is commendable.
It shows considerable stubbornness, that if applied to something actually constructive could honestly lead to something world changing.

Instead, they play self contradictory, and forgetful mental gymnastics just to be contrary.

King Mob wrote: »

How much pressure is required exactly?
How much pressure would be created by the falling section of the building?

The pressure of a falling building is distributed across all the surfaces it's acting on. There is no chance the only site it's acting on is 50 feet below. There is no chance a force that strong could be localized to the point. Anyways, believe whatever you like.

I personally don't believe the super-heated steel theory, but if the American's said so I can see why your all so convinced.

banie01 wrote: »

The fact that in any pressure venting or "release" of the pressure built by 2 items attempting to occupy said space, ejected debris will follow the path of least resistance?

So you think the pressure built up from the collapse upstairs. Shot down a vent and so strong it sucked physical debris off the walls and ejected then through a window 50 fleet below?

Thanks for that. :rolleyes:

OwlsZat wrote: »

The pressure of a falling building is distributed across all the surfaces it's acting on. There is no chance the only site it's acting on is 50 feet below. There is no chance a force that strong could be localized to the point.

Again, how strong would it need to be and how strong would the force be if it was only the result of the falling building.
Please tell us the exact figures you are using.

The Nal

OwlsZat wrote: »

The pressure of a falling building is distributed across all the surfaces it's acting on. There is no chance the only site it's acting on is 50 feet below. There is no chance a force that strong could be localized to the point. Anyways, believe whatever you like.

I personally don't believe the super-heated steel theory, but if the American's said so I can see why your all so convinced.

There were releases of pressure all over the buildings when they were falling. Pancaking floors, air and debris ejecting below.

It would be impossible for it not to happen.

OwlsZat wrote: »

So you think the pressure built up from the collapse upstairs. Shot down a vent and so strong it sucked physical debris off the walls and ejected then through a window 50 fleet below?

Thanks for that. :rolleyes:

ì was going to address your question, but

The Nal wrote: »

There were releases of pressure all over the buildings when they were falling. Pancaking floors, air and debris ejecting below.

It would be impossible for it not to happen.

Nal already did.

@Owlzat if you want to present a credible, evidence backed thesis as to what you believe happened, please do?

Refute the evidence others have laid, or indeed already discredited ad nauseaum on these threads.
This particular thread is a prime example.

Was set up to be the home of the report that exposed the lie and Hulsey was going to be a messiah....

How'd that work out for him?

The Nal wrote: »

There were releases of pressure all over the buildings when they were falling. Pancaking floors, air and debris ejecting below.

It would be impossible for it not to happen.

Ya this should happen on every floor. In a somewhat uniform fashion. where the pressure is highest at the top the debris should fall out the side of the building.

It shouldn't get blasted out 50 fleet below the site of collapse. The mechanics of the building collaspe dont' make a huge amount of sense.

Before you mention the farce that was building 7 or the Pentagon.

OwlsZat wrote: »

Ya this should happen on every floor. In a somewhat uniform fashion. where the pressure is highest at the top the debris should fall out the side of the building.

You seem to be confusing whats expected in a controlled demolition.
With what actually happened in an unexpected, catastrophic collapse.

Which one was WTC7?

banie01 wrote: »

ì was going to address your question, but

Nal already did.

@Owlzat if you want to present a credible, evidence backed thesis as to what you believe happened, please do?

Refute the evidence others have laid, or indeed already discredited ad nauseaum on these threads.
This particular thread is a prime example.

Was set up to be the home of the report that exposed the lie and Hulsey was going to be a messiah....

How'd that work out for him?

For the benefit of yourself and King Kong I'll re-stress I don't have a theory proposal or exact theory for how the twin towers collapsed. I just don't believe the explanation given at the time or through NIST.

OwlsZat wrote: »

I just don't believe the explanation given at the time or through NIST.

So just a contrarian then?

But without a theory or even evidence to support one other than Government bad, truthers good?

banie01 wrote: »

You seem to be confusing whats expected in a controlled demolition.
With what actually happened in an unexpected, catastrophic collapse.

Which one was WTC7?

I actually think it's you who is mixing up a controlled demolition and an unexpected catastrophic collapse.

How many steel reinforced earthquake fire proof buildings have catastrophically collapsed?

Perhaps you'd like to walk us through your theory for the building 7 collapse. Off frantically to check the notes of what the Americans told us happened I suppose. :rolleyes:

banie01 wrote: »

So just a contrarian then?

But without a theory or even evidence to support one other than Government bad, truthers good?

Ya your right. George W. Bush was an honest and esteemed President free from deception, full of honesty and integrity. :pac:

OwlsZat wrote: »

I actually think it's you who is mixing up a controlled demolition and an unexpected catastrophic collapse.

How many steel reinforced earthquake fire proof buildings have catastrophically collapsed?

Perhaps you'd like to walk us through your theory for the building 7 collapse. Off frantically to check the notes of what the Americans told us happened I suppose. :rolleyes:

As i told you back in october if i recall correctly....
Feel free to read back over the threads, this one and the others all the theories are laid out.

The facts in the main as to what caused this collapse are agreed by huge consensus.
The study that this thread is the subject of, that was supposed to refute that consensus has been shown to be a nonsense.

Now when you are asked to present a theory, evidence or an actual position other than "Building go boom"....

Its George W was bad, America was bad, sure didn't the Yanks plan Operation Northwood back in the 60'swaffle waffle.

I'm all for debate, I'm happy to discuss anything you present to support the mechanics of a demolition theory.
But CS has already presented that across multiple threads, it has been debated across multiple threads with each piece of evidence refuted.

If your entire stance is predicated on, "it looks like a demolition" and "America Bad".

Theres not a lot that anyone here can say to sway that opinion.
Enjoy it...
You fight the power!

King Mob wrote: »

You said that a few times before when you stormed off in a strop.

And you said that about Hulseys report. Now you are abandoning completely now its ended as a joke.

The 9/11 topic can't progress because theres nowhere it can progress to. Because the conspiracy theories arent true.

I quit because one moderator was showing his unfairness. He let you do what you like and let you be uncivil to users. While providing me and other users, week off and monthly bans.

I still find it unusual, a conspiracy site, is where you guys hang out since you don't believe the conspiracies plots about 9/11, are true.

Kingmob you don't post anywhere else on boards.ie, you spend your time on here annoying users.

I have not given up on Hulsey report, the final draft due out soon and complaints about the study will be published.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

At least four separate investigations. Several by insurance companies very determined not to pay out. They all found fire was the key cause. No conflict of interest.
There is no investigation that reveals controlled demolitions

There is no credible evidence of controlled demolitions

There are no actual consensus controlled demolition theory

It reveals far more that you will accept a theory with no evidence over a theory with a mountain of evidence and would suggest you aren't applying any reason, logic or objectivity to the subject

You don't even set forth underlying facts.

There only two studies about WTC7 and one study ( NIST) about the towers.

The investigation that was spelled out in a court case found the NIST explantation about the collapse to be wrong. They believed it started on floor 9 and 10 of building seven

NIST theory the collapse of the building- started on floor 12 and 13.

OwlsZat wrote: »

For the benefit of yourself and King Kong I'll re-stress I don't have a theory proposal or exact theory for how the twin towers collapsed. I just don't believe the explanation given at the time or through NIST.

So if you don't have any exact figures, how do you know that the pressure isn't enough?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I have not given up on Hulsey report, the final draft due out soon and complaints about the study will be published.

There is a large number of points we have raised about the report and it's many inadequacies. You have addressed none of them and ran away when you were realising how badly you are failing.
Hulsey's report is a joke and will go nowhere.

King Mob wrote: »

There is a large number of points we have raised about the report and it's many inadequacies. You have addressed none of them and ran away when you were realising how badly you are failing.
Hulsey's report is a joke and will go nowhere.

The moderator got involved, and then i said am out. I was going to answer banie question, but i said what's the point when moderator keeps getting involved and threatening me with bans and let's you guys off the hook for not my answering questions?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The moderator got involved, and then i said am out. I was going to answer banie question, but i said what's the point when moderator keeps getting involved and threatening me with bans and let's you guys off the hook for not my answering questions?

Sure. That's the excuse you used. But we all know it's not true.
You ran away because you either realised how much of a joke Hulsey's report was or you realised that you'd cornered yourself because of your poor science, reading and writing skills and your general inconsistant positioning.

I think it's more the latter.

King Mob wrote: »

Sure. That's the excuse you used. But we all know it's not true.
You ran away because you either realised how much of a joke Hulsey's report was or you realised that you'd cornered yourself because of your poor science, reading and writing skills and your general inconsistant positioning.

I think it's more the latter.

You never understood the Hulsey report, you kept posting Metabunk nonsense. Read your free fall post, many errors.

You keep repeating Hulsey work is a joke, and forget NIST said on video that freefall was impossibility when they submitted their draft of the building seven study in 2008.

You guys made excuses for it today. Dohnjoe states 200 engineers worked on it, and yet not one of them noticed this until till David Chandler told them!

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You never understood the Hulsey report, you kept posting Metabunk nonsense.

What Metabunk nonsense did I keep posting?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Read your free fall post, many errors.

I have. You don't understand what free fall is or what it means.
We've shown this many times.

King Mob wrote: »

What Metabunk nonsense did I keep posting?

I have. You don't understand what free fall is or what it means.
We've shown this many times.

You posted the Hulsey model video and metabunk opinion of it
Mick did not undertand it was a DCR video ( column removal), not a dynamic model of progressive collapse across the width of the building.

You can't even get basic facts about free fall and controlled demolition correct. You don't wire up for 47 floors for demolition, thats not how it works.