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

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

You are now ranting and your grammar has become indecipherable again.

Why is the Hulsey video "metabunk nonsense"?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Kingmob watch the 10 minutes of the video i provided. Don't listen to me, hear NIST for yourself, say on video freefall was impossibility.

But I don't have to watch the video. I know what the problem is.
You don't understand physics.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Dont waste your time already been thoroughly debunked.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-nists-lack-of-explanation-for-wtc7-freefall-they-have-one-column-buckling.9524/

That is NIST revised Nov 2008 paper, after they got picked apart in August 2008.

The stated something quite different on video. Only after David Chandler, confronted them and NIST making a fool of themselves, they added in a change. And now are claiming ,Freefall was consistent with their earlier analysis over the six-years. That's not true. The video is proof of it. You can't have negligible support- whatever that means when building seven is coming down at freefall. Freefall means the building is meeting zero resistance[/B.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

You are now ranting and your grammar has become indecipherable again.

Why is the Hulsey video "metabunk nonsense"?

But I don't have to watch the video. I know what the problem is.
You don't understand physics.

You think fire can blow up buildings. You lack basic social skills like commonsense.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

That is NIST revised Nov 2008 paper, after they got picked apart in August 2008.

The stated something quite different on video. Only after David Chandler, confronted them and NIST making a fool of themselves, they added in a change. And now are claiming ,Freefall was consistent with their earlier analysis over the six-years. That's not true. The video is proof of it. You can't have negligible support- whatever that means when building seven is coming down at freefall. Freefall means the building is meeting zero resistance[/B.

This is a misrepresentation based on poor understanding of science and poor reading ability as well as a dishonest conflation of events and a healthy application of out of context quoting.

Cheerful, how long did WTC7 take to fall?
How long would a ball take to fall from the roof of WTC7?
Which would take longer? Would they take the same time?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You think fire can blow up buildings.

I have never claimed this or said anything to this effect.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

This is a misrepresentation based on poor understanding of science and poor reading ability as well as a dishonest conflation of events and a healthy application of out of context quoting.

Cheerful, how long did WTC7 take to fall?
How long would a ball take to fall from the roof of WTC7?
Which would take longer? Would they take the same time?

How would you know, if my interpretation is correct or not, when you have not watched the video?
You just give your own point of view .
Your tactics are obvious to me. Keep deflecting.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

How would you know, if my interpretation is correct or not, when you have not watched the video?

Because you've made the claim before and it hasn't changed. You aren't aoffering new information. You are just regurgitating the same stuff.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You just give your own point of view .

I did:

This is a misrepresentation based on poor understanding of science and poor reading ability as well as a dishonest conflation of events and a healthy application of out of context quoting.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Your tactics are obvious to me. Keep deflecting.

It's not deflecting, it's just following you down your latest tangent.
However it brings us back to the central problem that you don't understand basic physics concepts.

SO again:
Which takes longer? The collapse of WTC7 or a ball falling the same distance?
Do they take the same amount of time?

It's a very simple question, but it's something I think you are incapable of answering because of your ignorance.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

I have never claimed this or said anything to this effect.

It is your claim. You believe fire brought down the twin towers.

You claim therefore is fire pulverised furniture. concrete, gypsum wallboard, and other stuff.

Owlzat has shown you the top half of building exploded

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It is your claim. You believe fire brought down the twin towers.

You claim therefore is fire pulverised furniture. concrete, gypsum wallboard, and other stuff.

Owlzat has shown you the top half of building exploded

Again you are misrepresenting my position. That's very dishonest.

"bringing down" does not equal "blew up".

I do not claim that "fire pulverised furniture. concrete, gypsum wallboard, and other stuff." and never had. That's a lie on your part.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Again you are misrepresenting my position. That's very dishonest.

"bringing down" does not equal "blew up".

I do not claim that "fire pulverised furniture. concrete, gypsum wallboard, and other stuff." and never had. That's a lie on your part.

What bringing down mean? Spell out what you think went on?
For me i see the building bursting apart, and there nothing left of the top half to keep on squeezing the lower half of the building.
Kingmob that's what appearing on video, concrete and gypsum wallboard and furniture is all changing to powdered dust and pieces in mid air.
If you believe fire contributed to the building coming down, then you believe this was cause behind it.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What bringing down mean? Spell out what you think went on?

Caused the collapse. It's very obvious.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Kingmob that's what appearing on video, concrete and gypsum wallboard and furniture is all changing to powdered dust and pieces in mid air.

But that's not what's happening.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If you believe fire contributed to the building coming down, then you believe this was cause behind it.

Again, you said:

You claim therefore is fire pulverised furniture. concrete, gypsum wallboard, and other stuff.

I never claimed this.

Which takes longer? The collapse of WTC7 or a ball falling the same distance?
Do they take the same amount of time?

It's a very simple question, but it's something I think you are incapable of answering because of your ignorance.

Do you honestly not know the answer to this?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Caused the collapse. It's very obvious.

But that's not what's happening.

Again, you said:

I never claimed this.

Which takes longer? The collapse of WTC7 or a ball falling the same distance?
Do they take the same amount of time?

It's a very simple question, but it's something I think you are incapable of answering because of your ignorance.

Do you honestly not know the answer to this?

Why should anyone listen to you.

Where the ton floor concrete slabs of concrete in this video?

WTC7 obviously, it has not got empty space.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Why should anyone listen to you.

Because I understand basic physics.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Where the ton floor concrete slabs of concrete in this video?

Inside the building and inside the clouds of dust and smoke.

Which takes longer? The collapse of WTC7 or a ball falling the same distance?
Do they take the same amount of time?

It's a very simple question, but it's something I think you are incapable of answering because of your ignorance.

Do you honestly not know the answer to this?
If you don't answer this time, it will be you conceding that you don't know the answer.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Because I understand basic physics.

Inside the building and inside the clouds of dust and smoke.

Which takes longer? The collapse of WTC7 or a ball falling the same distance?
Do they take the same amount of time?

It's a very simple question, but it's something I think you are incapable of answering because of your ignorance.

Do you honestly not know the answer to this?
If you don't answer this time, it will be you conceding that you don't know the answer.

The evidence definitely establishes the concrete pulverished, but you can believe there tons of concrete slaps concealed from view.

How did the fire push steel 100s of feets away?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

WTC7 obviously, it has not got empty space.

But why would that be a factor?

Why would "not got empty space" mean that it fell slower than a ball dropped from the same height?

You said that it didn't experience resistance.

Also, if the WTC7 took a longer time to fall than the ball, then that means that it fell slower than free fall.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But why would that be a factor?

Why would "not got empty space" mean that it fell slower than a ball dropped from the same height?

You said that it didn't experience resistance.

Also, if the WTC7 took a longer time to fall than the ball, then that means that it fell slower than free fall.

Buildings are made of structural steel and floors. How can a ball fall straight through? That can only occur outside the building.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Buildings are made of structural steel and floors.

Yes. And you said that the building didn't encounter resistance.
You are now saying that the building did encounter resistance and fell slower than free fall.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

How can a ball going to fall straight through? That can only occur outside the building.

Yes, that's correct.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. And you said that the building didn't encounter resistance.
You are now saying that the building did encounter resistance and fell slower than free fall.

Yes, that's correct.

Building seven would meet resistance at the bottom, when collapsing top floors would be massing on top of the very bottom floors

Building seven did not encounter resistance on a number of floors when was coming down.

This is not what would happen in common natural collapse!

When the building started collapsing at the upper floors, it met no resistance below, there was no buckling or hold up to stop the top floors collapse, across the width of the building ( freefall condition)

Only way to remove resistance that untouched by the above collapse, is to remove the structural resistance underneath by controlled demolition.

Cheerful Spring2

Since building seven has 84 steel columns that means all of them where gone. There can't be a stage of buckling still happening, when the building come down at freefall.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Building seven would meet resistance at the bottom, when collapsing top floors would be massing on top of the very bottom floors

But that's not what you said:

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

. You can't have negligible support- whatever that means when building seven is coming down at freefall. Freefall means the building is meeting zero resistance[/B.

You are now saying that the building met resistance.

You are changing your story because you've been caught out on your ignorance.

This is not what would happen in common natural collapse!

Which other collapses are you refering to?
Please point to specific examples.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Since building seven has 84 steel columns that means all of them where gone. There can't be a stage of buckling still happening, when the building come down at freefall.

But it did buckle though.

Are you saying that all of these columns all failed at once at the same moment?

It never ends. "I dont understand something, therefore conspiracy".

In fact, deliberately not understanding it allows this poster to maintain their conspiracy fantasy.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But it did buckle though.

Are you saying that all of these columns all failed at once at the same moment?

The top pile would stop and land on the bottom pile of wreckage of floors below, you notice that in pictures.

Thats not changing ther story, that a feature of all collapse of buildings.

What am i saying is the top floors came down, met resistance for a bit, and then the building experienced freefall.

That means the lower half of the building resistance was completely gone, there was no longer 84 columns there.

Controlled demolition of building seven was achieved at the bottom mostly likely, and just gaveway then.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What am i saying is the top floors came down, met resistance for a bit, and then the building experienced freefall.

So this is just hilarious for two reasons.
Firstly it directly contradicts your statement a few posts ago:

Building seven would meet resistance at the bottom, when collapsing top floors would be massing on top of the very bottom floors

Secondly you are now agreeing with the NIST's version of events.

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall)
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

So this is just hilarious for two reasons.
Firstly it directly contradicts your statement a few posts ago:

Secondly you are now agreeing with the NIST's version of events.

NIST claims there was resistance at stage 2.
Plus the don't explain anywhere in the report, how the 84 columns disappeared across the width of the building from corner to corner by buckling!
Freefall means zero resistance.
NIST denied Freefall in August 2008, and then claimed in Nov 2008, free fall was considered during the six years of research ( a lie) We have the video.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST claims there was resistance at stage 2.

No it doesn't. You are lying yet again.

Like you said: Freefall means zero resistance.

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

The NIST says that there is no resistance during stage 2 of the facade's collapse.

I pop back in here every now and then to check in on this madness. The fact you are still clinging to the 'freefall' nonsense is farcical. Ironically, since the last time I checked in, you have now changed your stance from "freefall means zero resistance" to "of course it met with resistance at the bottom".

I've no idea why people entertain your madness, possibly to stop you from claiming victory, but it's great entertainment all the same.

See you in 2 months, folks.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

No it doesn't. You are lying yet again.

Like you said: Freefall means zero resistance.

The NIST says that there is no resistance during stage 2 of the facade's collapse.

They claim negligible support, which means resistance still. Read the metabunk info.

How can there be negligible support, when the top floors are still coming down on the bottom floors? NIST progressive collapse for some reason moves in all directions.

It goes from bottom up on one side eastside
( nothing happens on the other other side till that finishes)
And then the collapse moves from west side to the opposite corner collapses from top to the bottom. Buildings down collapse like that.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-nists-lack-of-explanation-for-wtc7-freefall-they-have-one-column-buckling.9524/

Cheerful Spring2

Deleted User wrote: »

I pop back in here every now and then to check in on this madness. The fact you are still clinging to the 'freefall' nonsense is farcical. Ironically, since the last time I checked in, you have now changed your stance from "freefall means zero resistance" to "of course it met with resistance at the bottom".

I've no idea why people entertain your madness, possibly to stop you from claiming victory, but it's great entertainment all the same.

See you in 2 months, folks.

Resistance in stage 3 is the finish the wreckage pile.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

They claim negligible support, which means resistance still. Read the metabunk info.

But I quoted the NIST's statement.
They say that stage two was at freefall, which means no resistance.

Also, I don't think you understand what the word negligible means.

Also now on top of agreeing with the NIST, you are posting "metabunk nonsense".