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

[Deleted User]

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is the modus operandi of 9/11 truthers

They drag everything down into absurdly obtuse technical details, go round and round in circles and then browbeat anyone bothered to debate it with pure stamina

I don't agree here Dohnjoe.
They don't actually want to go down to the details. What they do is repeat talking points prepared by types like AE9/11 to give the impression that they know and understand the technical details.
The second you examine the details and force them to use their own knowledge and understanding...

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

I don't agree here Dohnjoe.
They don't actually want to go down to the details. What they do is repeat talking points prepared by types like AE9/11 to give the impression that they know and understand the technical details.
The second you examine the details and force them to use their own knowledge and understanding...

That's the point, when you see Tony S "debating", all he is doing is using his technical knowledge to shotgun blast a bunch of technical bull**** into a forum, and rational people have to spend (an inordinate amount of) time to address it..

But to all the 9/11 truthers reading the very fact that it is technical looking and science-y sounding means it "must be true". The fact that others are debating Tony S means he "must have a point"

That's literally the mindsets we are dealing with here

When Haritt & Co released their pseudo-scientific junk paper, it didn't matter what it contained, it's just that it "looked the part"

You aren't going to win a technical debate with someone who believes that the BBC didn't make a mistake in reporting WTC 7 falling, not because they are correct, but because they have an immense capacity for illogically going round in circles, like a hamster on a wheel.

Which is what the hundreds of pages in these threads demonstrate. The art of endlessly tying something up in obtuse debate in order to make it look like there is a debate at all.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

I don't agree here Dohnjoe.
They don't actually want to go down to the details. What they do is repeat talking points prepared by types like AE9/11 to give the impression that they know and understand the technical details.
The second you examine the details and force them to use their own knowledge and understanding...

This is coming from a guy who denied the pound was a unit of force in his post and then claimed Hulsey was using the wrong definition for his equation

Write to him and complain, as you seem to think you more than him?

I provided the technical details, and you ran away.

This is Frankel construction drawing for the east corner again.

Marked up top (G3500) the floor beam is W21x44.

In the NIST study the claim the floor beam was W24x55. When you wrongly size beams that will throw off your results. Debunkers seem to not care about actual results.

Dohnjoe

Awhile back, in one of these debates, someone mistook me for a conspiracy theorist, so for a couple of posts I played the role. I just made simplistic, childish counter-points and low-brow denial comments. It's so simple to do and to tie others up in explanations. Can just be recycled endlessly - like this whole idiotic debate.

Cheerful Spring2

This is a better view of the east corner you can see in the Frankel construction and steel drawing.

Girder A2001 NIST claimed in their report thermally expanded off its seat. Marked out in Blue is the floor steel beam (g3500) that NIST wrongly sized in their final report.

Cheerful Spring2

On the NIST image, there no bracing lateral supports shown. They removed them to allow the floor beams to sag and buckle.

This an actual diagram based on the Frankel Construction drawing.

You see them in Frankel drawing.

NIST image of that east corner from their final report, shows no lateral support beams.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This is a better view of the east corner you can see in the Frankel construction and steel drawing.

Yeaah if you could just show us on the diagrams exactly where the secret Nazi's planted the "sort of silent" bombs that you claim blew up all these buildings that'd be great

Cheerful Spring2

Hulsey displayed when you pull out the lateral supports at G3500 and heat them up the floor beam will buckle and sag when unsupported. NIST removed the lateral support beams to start a deficiency at column 44 and later the claim the girder (A2001) thermally expanded at column 79 and came off its seat. It is easily spotted falsehood when you have the Frankel construction drawings at hand.

G3500 beam sagged and buckled in NIST final report unsupported.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeaah if you could just show us on the diagrams exactly where the secret Nazi's planted the "sort of silent" bombs that you claim blew up all these buildings that'd be great

I showing you what in the final report from Hulsey. NIST study is a deception.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This is coming from a guy who denied the pound was a unit of force in his post and then claimed Hulsey was using the wrong definition for his equation

Cheerful, you spend 6 pages insisting that pounds was ib and mocking anyone and anything that disagreed with you.

You can share all the "details" you want, but the answer is the same:
You don't know what you're taking about because you don't understand basic physics or even basic terms.

Reproducing diagrams from a study that's been shown to be a shame and doing base ms paint over them does not make you look clever.
It just makes you look more and more silly.

I would write to Hulsey, but it seems that they are just ignoring and not including any comments they are uncomfortable with.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, you spend 6 pages insisting that pounds was ib and mocking anyone and anything that disagreed with you.

You can share all the "details" you want, but the answer is the same:
You don't know what you're taking about because you don't understand basic physics or even basic terms.

Reproducing diagrams from a study that's been shown to be a shame and doing base ms paint over them does not make you look clever.
It just makes you look more and more silly.

I would write to Hulsey, but it seems that they are just ignoring and not including any comments they are uncomfortable with.

I know you have no interest in examining the technical details outlined the Hulsey report. You prefer to bypass it and i know why.
Where your evidence Hulsey report is fake news?
Are the construction drawings for the east corner false?
Explain you thinking.?
Again you challenged my claim pound was a unit of force. Your opinion matters very little and you still have not owned up to that mistake.
Outlining in MS paint is to help others see the deception. It's not all about you.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I know you have no interest in examining the technical details outlined the Hulsey report. You prefer to bypass it and i know why.
Where your evidence Hulsey report is fake news?

We've already pointed out dozens of issues with it. You just keep pretending they don't exist.

For example, it used an incorrect figure in the draft report, yet it did not change it's conclusion.
You are arguing that the NIST report is invalid because you believe it uses one incorrect figure.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Again you challenged my claim pound was a unit of force.

Lol.
Was that ibs? or lbs?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob Please explain how the 84 columns got removed based on the NIST computer model?

See the diagram below: all 84 columns was removed before the top half had time to crush the bottom half. When will you explain how that was achieved by buckling?

B- is the missing floors and the columns exterior and core across the width of the building from east to west.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

King Mob Please explain how the 84 columns got removed based on the NIST computer model?

They weren't. You are misrepresenting things because you don't understand what you are talking about and you are entirely dishonest.
As we have established many times, you do not understand what free fall is, which then leads you to your dishonest misrepresentation.

Why did Hulsey's report omit people's comments from the public review process?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

They weren't. You are misrepresenting things because you don't understand what you are talking about and you are entirely dishonest.

Why did Hulsey's report omit people's comments from the public review process?

You can't explain it. Unlikely to make any sense if you tried, and yet you support the official story.

Hulsey omitted public comments?
Belonging to who?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You can't explain it. Unlikely to make any sense if you tried, and yet you support the official story.

But I did explain it.
The explanation is: that you are misrepresenting things.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Hulsey omitted public comments?
Belonging to who?

Stop deflecting. Answer the question.
Why did they censor public comments?

The Nal

Mick West tearing this fraudulent report apart piece by piece.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/final-report-hulsey-ae911truths-wtc7-study.11169/post-237534

What a joke of a report.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But I did explain it.
The explanation is: that you are misrepresenting things.

Stop deflecting. Answer the question.
Why did they censor public comments?

You never explained it, end of story
NIST model shows no free fall, end of story.
Removing 84 columns at the bottom was achieved by a controlled demolition.

Video of the building on 9/11 we can see the building had full structural support a fraction of a second, before the onset of full collapse!

Hulsey conclusively showed if you pulled out the east corner columns on the eastside first, and when not done at same time on the west side, the east corner side of the building would start to tip over to the southeast.

This of course is ignored by 9/11 debunkers.

You claim he censored comments. Where did you hear or read this?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You never explained it, end of story
NIST model shows no free fall, end of story.

But I have explained it. I've explained it to you many times.
You don't understand the NIST report so you are misrepresenting it.
You don't understand because you don't understand basic physics like freefall and how to write lbs.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You claim he censoreed comments. Where did you hear or read this?

More reflection.
You can't explain it. Therefore Hulsey's report is proven to be a fraud.
:rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

The Nal wrote: »

Mick West tearing this fraudulent report apart piece by piece.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/final-report-hulsey-ae911truths-wtc7-study.11169/post-237534

What a joke of a report.

Yea, if the NIST report had an issue like that, conspiracy theorists would be moaning about it non stop.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Mick West tearing this fraudulent report apart piece by piece.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/final-report-hulsey-ae911truths-wtc7-study.11169/post-237534

What a joke of a report.

Nal that tipping over to southeast was shown to be true by another model?

Independent source.

It the same direction.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nal that tipping over to southeast was shown to be true by another model?

Independent source.

Jesus christ, cheerful. You haven't even read Hulsey's report, have you?:rolleyes:

The tipping over Mick is discussing comes form Hulsey's model of what he believes to be the NIST scenario.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Jesus christ, cheerful. You haven't even read Hulsey's report, have you?:rolleyes:

The tipping over Mick is discussing comes form Hulsey's model of what he believes to be the NIST scenario.

Yes. NIST model removing columns 76-81 at the east corner did not cause any distortion or tilt of this side of the building!

NIST model east columns got removed, then the failures proceeded to the west up top with no tilt at all!

Hulsey claim in the final report. To get a straight down collapse, like it shown on the actual collapse video- all the columns had to be removed almost at the same time (fraction of second or second difference)

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Hulsey claim in the final report. To get a straight down collapse like it shown on actual collapse video all the columns had to be removed almost at the same time (fraction of second or second difference)

But cheerful, you just said that the tilt was proven to be true by an independent source:

Nal that tipping over to southeast was shown to be true by another model?

Independent source.

Also the point that Mick raises is that Hulsey's final report says that the tilt of the NIST model would only be a few inche and that the images presented are an exaggeration.
Are you now saying that Hulsey's report is wrong and the model's tilt is much more than a few inches?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But cheerful, you just said that the tilt was proven to be true by an independent source:

Yes and that proves NIST progressive collapse hypothesis is wrong.

NIST pulled out east corner columns first, they did not touch the west corner columns until a later stage, in their model!

Hulsey starting pulling out the east corner columns underneath the Penthouse the building started to tilt over to the Southeast. The exterior columns got overloaded and could not support the weight.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yes and that proves NIST progressive collapse hypothesis is wrong.

So then the independant model is also wrong?

Again, you seem to be missing the point. You are deflecting again.

Also the point that Mick raises is that Hulsey's final report says that the tilt of the NIST model would only be a few inches and that the images presented are an exaggeration.
Are you now saying that Hulsey's report is wrong and the model's tilt is much more than a few inches?
Which is it?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

So then the independant model is also wrong?

Again, you seem to be missing the point. You are deflecting again.

Also the point that Mick raises is that Hulsey's final report says that the tilt of the NIST model would only be a few inches and that the images presented are an exaggeration.
Are you now saying that Hulsey's report is wrong and the model's tilt is much more than a few inches?
Which is it?

Yes, Mick is incorrect. A few inches, of movement?
I have to use MS paint again.

Hulsey computer modelling showed that building seven would have titled to the east marked in purple. The eastside floors and support columns are gone!

There an entire section of the building, the gutted eastside, now gone, so the weight on the westside would push east to topple it over.

Pulling out the east corner support columns will affect the perimeter( exterior) wall columns on the eastside. In the NIST model there slight to know distortion or movement of that east wall and east facade. There no way in reality a building would maintain its shape if you gutting out one side of it!

Purple is Hulsey direction (southeast)
Green is NIST direction (southwest)

NIST model progressive collapse has different stages of collapse. A collapse on the eastside. Then a top down collapse from the west. And then finally the full collapse roofline and building itself.

NIST global model.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yes, Mick is incorrect. A few inches, of movement?

You've dodged the question again. I think this is because you simply don't understand what anyone's talking about.
Let me try again using very simple language.

Hulsey's report modeled what they believe is the real version of the NIST's scenario.

When they first released their draft report, they showed this image for that model:
metabunk-2020-03-26-15-35-36-jpg.40046

Here we can see from the picture and the scale on the side, they are saying the model moves many hundreds of inches.
This picture and scale is repeated in the final report.

You said that an independent model was true and agreed with the visual of the animation and that the building would move a large amount in NIST's scenario.

But, now in the final report, they say this about the same model:

In all cases, failure simulations were based on finite element analysis results and the deformations presented were scaled by the software to help the reader visualize direction and relative magnitude for the displaced shape(s). Displaced magnitudes in each figure are exaggerated and are not scaled to the building geometry. Displacement values are typically given in inches within each figure.

So here they are saying that the pictures they show is not a 100% accurate representation and the model in reality moves only a few inches.

So which is correct cheerful:
In NIST's scenario the building would move many hundreds of inches?
Or
In NIST's scenario the building would only move a few inches?

Cheerful Spring2

Kingmob that's a different model. Are you blind? That not moving southeast is it? I will have to look on Metabunk and see what Mick problem is now?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Kingmob that's a different model. Are you blind? That not moving southeast is it? I will have to look on Metabunk and see what Mick problem is now?

I've explained the issue to you very directly and simply.

That's the model we are discussing. That is Hulsey's model for the NIST's scenario.

Stop deflecting and answer the question please.

So which is correct cheerful:
In NIST's scenario the building would move many hundreds of inches?
Or
In NIST's scenario the building would only move a few inches?