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

Dohnjoe wrote: »

LOL

Everything from encyclopedias to school textbooks refer to what happened on 911.

They don't refer to controlled explosions or secret Nazi's or energy weapons, because that stuff is completely baseless

Don't let your eyes deceive you.
NIST model is a fabrication.
Look closely at the real building images from 9/11.
Don't believe the agency hired by the US government is telling you the truth.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You not winning this, just stop. Everyone can see the NIST computer-generated model. There front is smashed in the middle and west side.

NIST lied about the collapse. The evidence shows that.

No. That's not what's happening here.
It's you misrepresenting the NIST model because you don't understand it or the report.

And again, you're deflecting.

There is no building in history that has been destroyed by a secret demolition.
There is no building in history that has been destroyed by thermite of any kind.
There is no building in history that has been destroyed in a secret demolition using thermite after the building had two other giant buildings collapsing next to it.

There is no building in history that "fell at free fall."

Which of these statements is not correct?

Why do you keep avoiding this question?
I'm honestly asking you to explain this. How do you justify it to yourself?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You aren't providing direct evidence for your theory

You are just denying the event in order to cast doubt on it in order to suggest at some vague conspiracy.

Precisely the same method that Alex Jones uses whether it's 911 or Sandy Hook.

It’s ridiculous how far you go guys will go to preserve this theory.
Do you believe the image i showed is not real picture of building seven on 9/11?
Explain how 47 floors falling down one after another on top of each other would not break Windows?
Was it magical dust? I see no debris plumes or dust do you?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You not winning this, just stop.

LOL

Everything from encyclopedias to school textbooks refer to what happened on 911.

They don't refer to controlled explosions or secret Nazi's or energy weapons, because that stuff is completely baseless

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Debunkers ignore the evidence.

You aren't providing direct evidence for your theory

You are just denying the event in order to cast doubt on it in order to suggest at some vague conspiracy.

Precisely the same method that Alex Jones uses whether it's 911 or Sandy Hook.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Nope. We just don't accept what you are claiming. You are misrepresenting what NIST says and what reality shows because you are bad at physics and reading and you are very dishonest to the point that you tell bald faced lies about the images you post.

You not winning this, just stop. Everyone can see the NIST computer-generated model. There front is smashed in the middle and west side.

NIST lied about the collapse. The evidence shows that.

mikekerry wrote: »

Your opinion is that it's baseless does't make it fact though.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. No one is providing evidence of their theories in here. Hell, the theories aren't even being explained in any depth let alone supported

At the end of the day no-one can say for certain what exactly happened that day which makes the debate interesting.

Yes we can. There's little mystery over 9/11, it's one of the most studied events of this century. If someone is claiming all of that is completely wrong, and something else entirely happened, cool, but they have to support it.

On top of that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. These individuals don't even provide basic evidence, let alone a theory.

Do you believe the Holocaust didn't happen because some individuals on the internet try to deny it? do you think that the world is flat because there is "debate" over it? No.

All we do in this forum is give our opinion based on the evidence at hand.

Yeah but some people think their own incredulity is evidence. Their own lack of understanding of physics is evidence. That their denialism of X is evidence of Y.

Operating outside the basic rules of logic and being ignorant is not an argument against something

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Debunkers ignore the evidence.

Nope. We just don't accept what you are claiming. You are misrepresenting what NIST says and what reality shows because you are bad at physics and reading and you are very dishonest to the point that you tell bald faced lies about the images you post.

Cheerful Spring2

mikekerry wrote: »

Your opinion is that it's baseless does't make it fact though.
At the end of the day no-one can say for certain what exactly happened that day which makes the debate interesting.
All we do in this forum is give our opinion based on the evidence at hand.

Debunkers ignore the evidence.

This is NIST ( FEA) computer generated model of the collapse.

Notice where it all began the front facade perfect.

We play their model further to a spot with there interior collapse almost complete before full collapse.

You see the entire front is now broken and no longer there. The framing warped at the top roof. Deformation in the middle section. and windows are smashed. Empty shell.

Compare to actual reality on 9/11!

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

My reasoning is not dishonest.

But it is.
When you reasoning is turned around on your theory, you avoid addressing it.

You keep using the "first time in history" argument.
But when we point out how that applies even more to your theory, you pretend that post doesn't exist and you run away.

For example you keep avoiding this point:

There is no building in history that has been destroyed by a secret demolition.
There is no building in history that has been destroyed by thermite of any kind.
There is no building in history that has been destroyed in a secret demolition using thermite after the building had two other giant buildings collapsing next to it.

There is no building in history that "fell at free fall."

Which of these statements is not correct?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

To date not one person has put up credible evidence for any 911 conspiracy theory on here.

That's your opinion , I think there is plenty of interesting stuff people put up e.g. info on the hulsey report, whether you agree with the info or not is not the point people are allowed put up info for it to be debated.

If you think e.g. lasers brought the towers down and want to express that on a public forum, that's fine of course, but if you can't provide any evidence for such, then others can dismiss it .
Agreed. And it works both ways if people have issues with the official explanation they can debate those also it's a forum for debate works both ways. There is plenty of holes in the official theory that are ripe to debate.

911 conspiracy believers regularly dismiss other baseless theories, but it should be mentioned there is a certain irony as their own theories (to date) are just as baseless. And it goes without saying you can't reason with someone who is beyond reason

Your opinion is that it's baseless does't make it fact though.
At the end of the day no-one can say for certain what exactly happened that day which makes the debate interesting.
All we do in this forum is give our opinion based on the evidence at hand.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe operaton paperclip not imagined. One file got out and now its known history.

https://www.history.com/news/what-was-operation-paperclip

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It is entirely imagined. Your vague theory (secret Nazi's using a plane to assassinate the president, etc) is unique to you.

You think historical facts are wrong and whatever is in your head (at the time) is right. That's a sign of someone who can't tell the difference between what is real and what isn't.

You really are blind or just too stubborn.

How can an entire section of the building remain untouched? When NIST claims the interior of the building collapsed?

Energy from interior collapse would smash windows. The concrete floors are smashing one after another on top of each other across the entire width of the building according to NIST

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This is not imagined or speculation.

It is entirely imagined. Your vague theory (secret Nazi's using a plane to assassinate the president, etc) is unique to you.

You think historical facts are wrong and whatever is in your head (at the time) is right. That's a sign of someone who can't tell the difference between what is real and what isn't.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You haven't. You claimed it was an insurance scam by a Jew, now you are claiming it's an inside plot by secret Nazi's in the US. In between you've added and deleted a list of culprits depending on which day of week it was.

You clearly have difficulty understanding the difference between something you imagine and rationalise in your head vs reality and being able to demonstrate it

You think that the fact that you can't "get something" is evidence of a conspiracy - it isn't

You also maintain that a conspiracy group believing it's some unspecified conspiracy is evidence that its.. a conspiracy. It isn't.

If you can outline, detail, give a timeline for the conspiracy and then support it with evidence, cool, but you can't.

This is not imagined or speculation. These are genuine images of the building collapse on 9/11.

Maybe you can’t visualize what that NIST collapse would do to outside of the building?

It's difficult for you to imagine the building was controlled demolition! The evidence supports that theory.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Dohnjoe. I have

You haven't. You claimed it was an insurance scam by a Jew, now you are claiming it's an inside plot by secret Nazi's in the US. In between you've added and deleted a list of culprits depending on arbitrary personal imaginings

You clearly have difficulty understanding the difference between something you imagine and rationalise in your head vs reality and being able to demonstrate it

You think that the fact that because you can't "get something" then that is evidence of a conspiracy - it isn't

You also maintain that a conspiracy group believing it's some unspecified conspiracy is evidence that its.. a conspiracy. It isn't.

If you can outline, detail, give a timeline for the conspiracy and then support it with evidence, cool, but you've demonstrated you can't do that, not even close.

Lastly denial of an event isn't evidence for some unspecified mega-conspiracy

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

And you're deflecting the point again. You know your argument is dishonest.

There is no building in history that has been destroyed by a secret demolition.
There is no building in history that has been destroyed by thermite of any kind.
There is no building in history that has been destroyed in a secret demolition using thermite after the building had two other giant buildings collapsing next to it.

There is no building in history that "fell at free fall."

Which of these statements is not correct?

My reasoning is not dishonest.

NIST theory involves 47 floors collapsing from top to bottom across the entire width of the building. Before building advanced to full collapse.

We have video of top 18 floors (picture shown)

Below that we have no video what occurred. Hulsey believes the demolition took place down below on 8 floors.

NIST claims the top 18 floors ( photograph shown) collapsed prior to full collapse.

You have no explantation for why the middle and west side of the building remains untouched. You prefer to deflect to unknowns and ignore what the evidence actually shows.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There visual evidence from the day..

And you're deflecting the point again. You know your argument is dishonest.

There is no building in history that has been destroyed by a secret demolition.
There is no building in history that has been destroyed by thermite of any kind.
There is no building in history that has been destroyed in a secret demolition using thermite after the building had two other giant buildings collapsing next to it.

There is no building in history that "fell at free fall."

Which of these statements is not correct?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you use this argument even though you know it's false and dishonest.

There is no building in history that has been destroyed by a secret demolition.
There is no building in history that has been destroyed by thermite of any kind.
There is no building in history that has been destroyed in a secret demolition using thermite after the building had two other giant buildings collapsing next to it.

There is no building in history that "fell at free fall."

Do you honestly not see the issue with your argument, or do you just not care?

There visual evidence from the day..
We can see the outside of the building on 9/11.
This is one second near to two seconds before the full collapse of building seven.
According to NIST: From east to west across the entire width of the building, the interior was gutted out there no framing left?
Clue here NIST is full of **** is the middle and west front of the building is untouched and not damaged. There no broken windows, no dust clouds, no deformations of the walls (core pulling in the exterior perimeter columns) What NIST believes happened is not realistic based on the observable data.

I marked out the west side. There no broken windows, no dust nothing.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There no building in history that has maintained it original shape when the interior gutted out. It’s a laughable theory from NIST. NIST removed the construction from the building, whats holding it up from crumbling to pieces?

Again, you use this argument even though you know it's false and dishonest.

There is no building in history that has been destroyed by a secret demolition.
There is no building in history that has been destroyed by thermite of any kind.
There is no building in history that has been destroyed in a secret demolition using thermite after the building had two other giant buildings collapsing next to it.

There is no building in history that "fell at free fall."

Do you honestly not see the issue with your argument, or do you just not care?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

To date not one person has put up credible evidence for any 911 conspiracy theory on here.

If you think e.g. lasers brought the towers down and want to express that on a public forum, that's fine of course, but if you can't provide any evidence for such, then others can dismiss it

911 conspiracy believers regularly dismiss other baseless theories, but it should be mentioned there is a certain irony as their own theories (to date) are just as baseless. And it goes without saying you can't reason with someone who is beyond reason

Dohnjoe. I have.. NIST maintained the interior (inside) of the building collapsed prior to full collapse of the building (first point)

Second point
Can you see evidence of an interior collapse on photographs and video? See the west side front of the building i showed you! no broken windows, no dust nothing.

Third point
If the steel framing truly collapsed from 47 floor to first floor, there be hundreds of tons of steel crashing up against the front face on the way down and smashing and breaking windows, and there be enormous dust clouds escaping through cracks in the wall.

There no building in history that has maintained it original shape when the interior gutted out. It’s a laughable theory from NIST. NIST removed the construction from the building, whats holding it up from crumbling to pieces?

mikekerry wrote: »

If you think there was no Conspiracy fine but if others want to put up info on the site that's up to them. If you are not interested then don't look at the forum. I'm interested in info people put up I'm sure others are also.

To date not one person has put up credible evidence for any 911 conspiracy theory on here.

If you think e.g. lasers brought the towers down and want to express that on a public forum, that's fine of course, but if you can't provide any evidence for such, then others can dismiss it

911 conspiracy believers regularly dismiss other baseless theories, but it should be mentioned there is a certain irony as their own theories (to date) are just as baseless. And it goes without saying you can't reason with someone who is beyond reason

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Explain how it's wrong.

But we have explained how it's wrong in many different ways. You just ignore those points and then try to rant about topics you don't understand.

The Nal wrote: »

At what stage do you accept there was no conspiracy? 19 years if this. Cheerful you are the only person on the entire site still posting conspiracy theories. Everyone else saw sense years ago. It's time to accept its over. There was no conspiracy. Case closed.

If you think there was no Conspiracy fine but if others want to put up info on the site that's up to them. If you are not interested then don't look at the forum. I'm interested in info people put up I'm sure others are also.

Cheerful Spring2

Nal i just showing you NIST claim.
How do individuals see this and come away satisfied NIST right. They have the roof ceiling caving in, windows breaks in the middle, large warping deformations of the exterior and interior.
Seriously open your eyes, this NIST generated model of the collapse looks nothing like the real collapse on 9/11.

Even the middle collapse shown here never happened. There wire framing model makes no sense.

Cheerful Spring2

What the evidence shows is the collapse started at the bottom and building compressed. And then the windows started breaking in pattern from bottom- heading up. Watch the video.

This graph shows you wanted happened.

8 floors likely pancaked after the demolition. The top started moving and started compressing the underneath section.

Cheerful Spring2

Nal if you find evidence for a collapse on west side i give you a gold star.

According to NIST all that west floor system gone at this stage

It laughable when you can see the outside of the building.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

At what stage do you accept there was no conspiracy? 19 years if this. Cheerful you are the only person on the entire site still posting conspiracy theories. Everyone else saw sense years ago. It's time to accept its over. There was no conspiracy. Case closed.

Care to demonstrate how these collapsing steel joists, trusses, girders and beams, hundreds of tons of steel would not break windows on the west side before collapse?And how no dust would not emerge out of the windows? You just choose to deny and that your problem, not mine.
Visually consider the chaos that would cause..
Maybe you just don’t fully understand the NIST claim? There model all those floors from east to west ( each corner) came down before the full collapse. It’s a fairy tale story that people have believed for 19 years and nutty people still believe it, even though we have video of the full collapse on 9/11

At what stage do you accept there was no conspiracy? 19 years if this. Cheerful you are the only person on the entire site still posting conspiracy theories. Everyone else saw sense years ago. It's time to accept its over. There was no conspiracy. Case closed.

Cheerful Spring2

West wall no dust, no broken windows nothing!
1 to 2 seconds before full collapse.
According to NIST at this time the west corner floors 47-1 were collapsing from top to bottom!