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

14-03-2020 04:17PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Pretend study?

And yea, pretend study.
Aside from the endless list of problems pointed out, it's not being published in a journal.
Again that was another lie they told to get more donations.

It's not being published in a journal. They ahve not detailed any plans of this. They haven't shown anything that they even attempted this. Because they aren't being open.

Also we don't know who has been doing their pretend fake version of peer review. We don't know because they are not releasing that information either.

Cheerful Spring2 · 14-03-2020 04:30PM

King Mob wrote: »

And yea, pretend study.
Aside from the endless list of problems pointed out, it's not being published in a journal.
Again that was another lie they told to get more donations.

It's not being published in a journal. They ahve not detailed any plans of this. They haven't shown anything that they even attempted this. Because they aren't being open.

Also we don't know who has been doing their pretend fake version of peer review. We don't know because they are not releasing that information either.

Again for the third time. Two engineering groups challenged NIST explanation in court and their version is the collapse started on the 8th and 9th floor.

Are the right or wrong? Which theory better?

Trying to follow your logic Hulsey study is just junk? You got mainstream enignerring groups also believing no collapse started on the 13th floor.

14-03-2020 04:34PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Again for the third time. Two engineering groups challenged NIST explanation in court and their version is the collapse started on the 8th and 9th floor.

Are the right or wrong? Which theory better?
.

I don't know what you are refering to and I am not going to take the bait to allow you to deflect from a point you are uncomfortable with.

Where did the money go?
Why don't you care?

How much did you donate?

Why are you supporting an organisation that lied so blatantly?

Dohnjoe · 14-03-2020 04:48PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Two engineering groups challenged NIST explanation in court and their version is the collapse started on the 8th and 9th floor.

I'll take your bait.

By explosives? No.

If multiple investigations come to the same conclusion, any attempt to discredit all of them by pointing out differences is purely denialism by nitpicking or the layperson's conspiracy argument ("I don't understand it, therefore conspiracy")

9/11 conspiracy theorists rely almost entirely on denialism, attempting to cast doubt on the event in order to hint something else happened

Hulsey's study is a denialist study. It attempts (bizarrely) to prove a negative.

It's how 9/11 conspiracies live and breathe. It's why, whenever any 9/11 truther is asked, they cannot detail this "conspiracy" in the slightest.

Cheerful Spring2 · 14-03-2020 05:38PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I'll take your bait.

By explosives? No.

If multiple investigations come to the same conclusion, any attempt to discredit all of them by pointing out differences is purely denialism by nitpicking or the layperson's conspiracy argument ("I don't understand it, therefore conspiracy")

9/11 conspiracy theorists rely almost entirely on denialism, attempting to cast doubt on the event in order to hint something else happened

Hulsey's study is a denialist study. It attempts (bizarrely) to prove a negative.

It's how 9/11 conspiracies live and breathe. It's why, whenever any 9/11 truther is asked, they cannot detail this "conspiracy" in the slightest.

Had to check this to be sure. Arup and associates indeed confirmed Hulsey findings in court. There analysis showed the side plate would trap A2011 girder at column 79. The drawing documents conclusively demonstrated the girder had a end line/side plate!

NIST removed the side plate and did not include it their report. All errors need to be considered, not agree? You must find a way to get the girder off the seat with the web side plate in place!

Weidlinger report was displayed in court. Concluded a collapse occurred on the 8th,9th and 10th floor
Believe is multiple floors collapsed due to very high heat (range of 800c) Different take about where it all began in the building.

Yes, they claim no explosives. Still no information why the building experienced free fall? During a natural collapse the upper load weight is squeezing the bottom load. Clearly during part of the fall, that was measured, no resistance was provided by the bottom half. NIST does not explain the mechanism behind removing all 84 columns in a fraction of a second across the entire width of the building.

They claim exterior buckling happened at stage 1 yet ignore their own computer shows an intact central core on west of the building and no buckling visible underneath on west side. NIST also ignores if 47 floors had descended inside the buildingprior to full collapse, the central core would have pulled on the exterior framing at all corners- ( exterior column walls) Yet any video you watch on the day you see a motionless still building with only a few windows breaking when the Penthouse collapsed.

NIST does not show or explain why they're no windows breaking on the west side or why the west wall did not crack open? It just nonsense to believe a building can empty out and remove all steel and floors and not distort the building facade shape.

Cheerful Spring2 · 14-03-2020 06:03PM

King Mob wrote: »

I don't know what you are refering to and I am not going to take the bait to allow you to deflect from a point you are uncomfortable with.

Where did the money go?
Why don't you care?

How much did you donate?

Why are you supporting an organisation that lied so blatantly?

Where did the money go?

They spend money on a study!
It is amazing you think ae911 are not transparent. When Hulsey released the data to be checked. Releasing work shows you have doing something. We still have got any data from NIST in 12 years. Why are they still refusing to release it after this long? You don't have to be rocket science to figure it out, that people will notice the fraud with hands on look at their calculations.

Ae911 being catching out NIST lying for 8 years, you have it backwards.

14-03-2020 06:07PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Where did the money go?

They spend money on a study!
.

How? What was the money spent on? When? By who?
Again you were demanding we provide you with bank statements earlier.
So show the ones that were provided by this completely open and transparent study.
They should be easy for you to find and post.

And again, there's the other points you are once again ignoring.

Let's stop pretending cheerful. You know they lied.

Cheerful Spring2 · 14-03-2020 06:08PM

I done talking about 9/11 for today. With the final report i'm interested now in seeing if AE911 will include public comments from debunkers. I know some people on international skeptic forums send Hulsey and AE911 questions to be answered. Best leave it till then.

14-03-2020 06:16PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I done talking about 9/11 for today. With the final report i'm interested now in seeing if AE911 will include public comments from debunkers. I know some people on international skeptic forums send Hulsey and AE911 questions to be answered. Best leave it till then.

And now, when confronted with the fact they lied and tricked you, you're running away.

The report when published with still have all the flaws and silliness that has already been pointed out.
The report will not be peer reviewed and they will not provide information about the people they got for their pretend version of peer review.
They will not provide any information about how these people were chosen because they will all be firmly avowed conspiracy theorists who already agree with the study.
They will not provide the full set of data they use or the data missing from what they've already released.
They will not provide information of how their funding was spent.
They will not publish any of the questions, comment or problems brought up by anyone not a conspiracy theorist.
They have already failed to provide the openness and transparency they promised at the start of the study.
They will not address the fact they lied or address any of their failed promises or shady behaviour.

They will ask for yet more donations.

Cheerful Spring2 · 14-03-2020 06:23PM

King Mob wrote: »

And now, when confronted with the fact they lied and tricked you, you're running away.

The report when published with still have all the flaws and silliness that has already been pointed out.
The report will not be peer reviewed and they will not provide information about the people they got for their pretend version of peer review.
They will not provide any information about how these people were chosen because they will all be firmly avowed conspiracy theorists who already agree with the study.
They will not provide the full set of data they use or the data missing from what they've already released.
They will not provide information of how their funding was spent.
They will not publish any of the questions, comment or problems brought up by anyone not a conspiracy theorist.
They have already failed to provide the openness and transparency they promised at the start of the study.
They will not address the fact they lied or address any of their failed promises or shady behaviour.

They will ask for yet more donations.

You had a similar believe the study and data would never be released last year. When you predict wrongly-maybe best to stop implying you already know what happened behind the scenes and what is going to happen next?

Capt. Autumn · 14-03-2020 06:30PM

I find it amazing that whenever the subject of 9/11 comes up the same guys rock-up here, in that passive aggressive way of theirs to defend the official narrative.

JohnDoe, KingMob and Timberrr, I'm looking at ye in particular.

Such dedication.
Such commitment to the cause.
Never seem to miss a post day or night in trotting out your same 'debunk the debunker' arguments with a mixture of arrogance and disdain.

Why are you guys so personally invested in this?
What's with the dedication?
Why do you set out to belittle anyone who has recognized the anomalies of the day.
In short lads, what exactly are ye playing at?

Try and keep the discourse civil. I did.

14-03-2020 06:45PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You had a similar believe the study and data would never be released last year. When you predict wrongly-maybe best to stop implying you already know what happened behind the scenes and what is going to happen next?

You're right. I don't know what happened behind the scenes.
Because despite their claims of being open and transparent, they weren't.

Timberrrrrrrr · 14-03-2020 07:12PM

Capt. Autumn wrote: »

I find it amazing that whenever the subject of 9/11 comes up the same guys rock-up here, in that passive aggressive way of theirs to defend the official narrative.

JohnDoe, KingMob and Timberrr, I'm looking at ye in particular.

Such dedication.
Such commitment to the cause.
Never seem to miss a post day or night in trotting out your same 'debunk the debunker' arguments with a mixture of arrogance and disdain.

Why are you guys so personally invested in this?
What's with the dedication?
Why do you set out to belittle anyone who has recognized the anomalies of the day.
In short lads, what exactly are ye playing at?

Try and keep the discourse civil. I did.

There are 8 r's in my name, please spell it correctly thanks you.

Why would I have to be "personally invested" in something just because I discuss it?

Dohnjoe · 14-03-2020 07:28PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Had to check this to be sure. Arup and associates indeed confirmed Hulsey findings in court. There analysis showed the side plate would trap A2011 girder at column 79. The drawing documents conclusively demonstrated the girder had a end line/side plate!

NIST removed the side plate and did not include it their report. All errors need to be considered, not agree? You must find a way to get the girder off the seat with the web side plate in place!

Weidlinger report was displayed in court. Concluded a collapse occurred on the 8th,9th and 10th floor
Believe is multiple floors collapsed due to very high heat (range of 800c) Different take about where it all began in the building.

Yes, they claim no explosives. Still no information why the building experienced free fall? During a natural collapse the upper load weight is squeezing the bottom load. Clearly during part of the fall, that was measured, no resistance was provided by the bottom half. NIST does not explain the mechanism behind removing all 84 columns in a fraction of a second across the entire width of the building.

They claim exterior buckling happened at stage 1 yet ignore their own computer shows an intact central core on west of the building and no buckling visible underneath on west side. NIST also ignores if 47 floors had descended inside the buildingprior to full collapse, the central core would have pulled on the exterior framing at all corners- ( exterior column walls) Yet any video you watch on the day you see a motionless still building with only a few windows breaking when the Penthouse collapsed.

NIST does not show or explain why they're no windows breaking on the west side or why the west wall did not crack open? It just nonsense to believe a building can empty out and remove all steel and floors and not distort the building facade shape.

So no proper investigation found anything to hint at explosives or anything else, it has to be explosives, got it

Dohnjoe · 14-03-2020 07:29PM

Capt. Autumn wrote: »

I find it amazing that whenever the subject of 9/11 comes up the same guys rock-up here, in that passive aggressive way of theirs to defend the official narrative.

JohnDoe, KingMob and Timberrr, I'm looking at ye in particular.

Such dedication.
Such commitment to the cause.
Never seem to miss a post day or night in trotting out your same 'debunk the debunker' arguments with a mixture of arrogance and disdain.

Why are you guys so personally invested in this?
What's with the dedication?
Why do you set out to belittle anyone who has recognized the anomalies of the day.
In short lads, what exactly are ye playing at?

Try and keep the discourse civil. I did.

Are you claiming something else happened on 9/11, if yes, cool what is it?

Overheal · 16-03-2020 02:49AM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I done talking about 9/11 for today. With the final report i'm interested now in seeing if AE911 will include public comments from debunkers. I know some people on international skeptic forums send Hulsey and AE911 questions to be answered. Best leave it till then.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You had a similar believe the study and data would never be released last year. When you predict wrongly-maybe best to stop implying you already know what happened behind the scenes and what is going to happen next?

Overheal · 16-03-2020 02:52AM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Had to check this to be sure. Arup and associates indeed confirmed Hulsey findings in court.

Where are the court documents?

Cheerful Spring2 · 16-03-2020 05:09AM

Overheal wrote: »

Where are the court documents?

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/other-wtc7-investigations-aegis-insurance-v-7-world-trade-company-expert-reports.7112/

Dohnjoe · 16-03-2020 11:47PM

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/other-wtc7-investigations-aegis-insurance-v-7-world-trade-company-expert-reports.7112/

I believe this has already been discussed in one of these threads

None of these investigations or studies of course point to any "inside job" or "controlled demolition"

The conspiracy theory movement has used (abused) any differences in investigations in an attempt to discredit them as a whole in order to hint at controlled demolition (or whatever else). A bit like highlighting differences between history volumes on WW2 in order to claim something else entirely unsupported happened.

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-03-2020 07:50PM

Final report out.

There new extra text and clarifications in the finished report.

https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structural-Reevaluation-of-the-Collapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March-2020.pdf

Haven't had time to read everything. NIST misidentifying the length of the floor slap is extra stupidity.

The floors slap (green) at column 79, on the WTC7 Frankel Steel limited construction drawing it is sized W21X44. NIST has it at W24x55.

The Nal · 25-03-2020 08:03PM

Mick West already spotted a fatal error - a fraudulent one -where they changed "the formula used to calculate K, changing it from 6,622 lbs/inch to just 552 !!"

What a clown show.

The truther movement is over. Case closed.

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-03-2020 08:31PM

The Nal wrote: »

Mick West already spotted a fatal error - a fraudulent one -where they changed "the formula used to calculate K, changing it from 6,622 lbs/inch to just 552 !!"

What a clown show.

The truther movement is over. Case closed.

Be truthful. This is what he wrote.
Quote A rather significant change here, where they change the formula used to calculate K, changing it from 6,622 lbs/inch to just 552 !!

Mick looking for gotcha moments.

Honest debunker would have provided context with his opinion.

Hulsey on page 89

The concrete was not considered by the Nordensen group during impact!
The weight of the assembly girder, beam, is 20,000 pounds.
Has nothing to do with NIST this new equation.
His disputing Nordensen study this time.

Mick opened his eyes he'll see the 20,000 pounds in the new equation.

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-03-2020 08:45PM

The Nal wrote: »

What a clown show.

.

Clown show is Mick West. A failure to not read the final report correctly. I looked it at only half hour ago and I understand the calculation straight away.

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-03-2020 09:26PM

Jesus christ Mick West nonsense is depressing. and will he ever cease lying?. Pointed out to him multiple occasions the Hulsey models are DSR.
University engineering teached FEA.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5587139/

When they're a sudden column loss inside the structure, the building framing will move.

NIST progressive collapse theory.: Their interpretation is the Rapid column loss starting on the east side, that moves to the west, in a odd ( horizontal progression) can result in a a straight down collapse observed on video? The collapse on the eastside side would not have affected the framing of the building?

Hulsey contradicts this finding. When their computer model eliminated the east columns by linear static DSR the building titled over to the east (southeast) Mick still doesn’t understand this tilt is just a failure of columns on the eastside and is not full progressive collapse of 84 columns inside the building.

Mick wants to see fancy collapse physics because his a computer game programmer. Hulsey not building a video game.

Hulsey shows the reader how the Sap 2000 model reacted when he performed a sudden column removal on the eastside. The building tiled to the southeast.

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-03-2020 09:55PM

Kostack studios likewise build a mirror of building seven in 2007 and there building also toppled over to the southeast. They took out the inside structure on the eastside first, notice the movement!!
Kostack studios supports the official story, but their building reacted differently when pulling out columns from east to west. They tried to dismiss as an anomaly.

Hulsey report came out in 2019 now it make sense why both models proceeded the same way..

Kostack model of the building, seven tilting southeast, moves identical to the hulsey Sap2000 model.

25-03-2020 11:24PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Clown show is Mick West. A failure to not read the final report correctly. I looked it at only half hour ago and I understand the calculation straight away.

Cheerful, this is a lie. You've shown many times that you don't understand basic math.

25-03-2020 11:50PM

King Mob wrote: »

And now, when confronted with the fact they lied and tricked you, you're running away.

The report when published with still have all the flaws and silliness that has already been pointed out.
The report will not be peer reviewed and they will not provide information about the people they got for their pretend version of peer review.
They will not provide any information about how these people were chosen because they will all be firmly avowed conspiracy theorists who already agree with the study.
They will not provide the full set of data they use or the data missing from what they've already released.
They will not provide information of how their funding was spent.
They will not publish any of the questions, comment or problems brought up by anyone not a conspiracy theorist.
They have already failed to provide the openness and transparency they promised at the start of the study.
They will not address the fact they lied or address any of their failed promises or shady behaviour.

They will ask for yet more donations.

And called all of it.

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-03-2020 11:57PM

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, this is a lie. You've shown many times that you don't understand basic math.

26-03-2020 12:11AM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I don't understand. Is that a response or just an attempt at a joke?

Cheerful Spring2 · 26-03-2020 12:35AM

King Mob wrote: »

I don't understand. Is that a response or just an attempt at a joke?

I will feature the fraud for you below
Truthers got the Frankel steel construction designs for building seven by FOIA request in 2013.
5 years after NIST completed their Investigation.
NIST claimed G3500 was a W22.55 sized floor steel beam.
It not, its a W21.44 floor steel beam (red box)

The graph i posted in my fist post if you need a better visual.

I marked it out in green to follow it.
G3500 is W21x44 floor beam into column 44- girder (A2001)extends to the left down to column 79.

NIST image of the layout in their report, all floor beams are equal in size, that's not true.

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

Comments