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

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

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

mikekerry

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 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?

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: »

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.

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

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.

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 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

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. 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?

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: »

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?

What happened to the building

Name the secret Nazi's who you claim blew it up, which of them planted the bombs, what were these bombs, explosives? thermite? nano-thermite? super-thermite?

Who else knows about these secret Nazi's, or is it just you, are you the only person on the world who is in on this incredible information?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What happened to the building

Name the secret Nazi's who you claim blew it up, which of them planted the bombs, what were these bombs, explosives? thermite? nano-thermite? super-thermite?

Who else knows about these secret Nazi's, or is it just you, are you the only person on the world who is in on this incredible information?

Who did and why is speculation. I have my theories.
Building seven was controlled demolition. 100 percent fact. When you accept that fact then reality sinks in.
You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to notice something wrong here. Just compare the two images (actual reality) to the NIST model.

Collapses don’t match. It obvious why NIST will not drop their FEA data to be looked at. They covered up a crime.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Building seven was controlled demolition. 100 percent fact.

Glad we cleared that up.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Who did and why is speculation. I have my theories.

All of which are silly, nonsensical ficition that you can't keep straight and drop when it's convenient.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Collapses don’t match. It obvious why NIST will drop their data to be looked at. They covered up a crime.

But again, you are misrepresenting the report.

You know what else doesn't match reality? None of the models in Hulsey's 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?
Seriously. You know the answer to these, yet you can't admit the answer. Why?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Who did and why is speculation. I have my theories.
Building seven was controlled demolition. 100 percent fact.

"It's speculation but it's fact."

This is a debate with someone who's views have no basis in reality or logic.

9 seconds in

9.11 mainstream explantation for the collapse of building seven is fantasy.
You choose to not debate the evidence. You deflecting to unknowns.
We have mainstream photographs and video of the collapse on 9/11. The middle and West side (top of the building) did not collapse before the full collapse.
Images from 9/11 are clues (evidence)
47 stories collapsing inside before the onset of full collapse would break windows and crack walls and deform the shape of the building. To deny that, you’re someone who does not understand known physical principles on earth.

NIST theory of a top down collapse inside is nonsense.
Hulsey theory is supported by the evidence. A collapse below. Removal of 8 stories of columns (exterior and core) all caused by controlled demolition. The building pancaked at the bottom. The top half compressed. You can even see the snapping of the columns on west wide running up the wall when the building dropped (all seen on video)

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

9.11 mainstream explantation for the collapse of building seven is fantasy.
You choose to not debate the evidence. You deflecting to unknowns.
We have mainstream photographs and video of the collapse on 9/11. The middle and West side (top of the building) did not collapse before the full collapse.
Images from 9/11 are clues (evidence)
47 stories collapsing inside before the onset of full collapse would break windows and crack walls and deform the shape of the building. To deny that, you’re someone who does not understand known physical principles on earth.

NIST theory of top down collapse inside is nonsense.
Hulsey theory is supported by the evidence. A collapse below. Removal of 8 stories of columns (exterior and core) all caused by controlled demolition. The building pancaked at the bottom. The top half compressed. You can even see the snapping of the columns on west wide running up the wall when the building dropped (all seen on video)

Did "they" blow up the twin towers aswell?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You choose to not debate the evidence.

You don't provide any credible evidence for what you claim happened on 911. You don't even seem to understand what that word means

We keep giving you opportunity after opportunity to explain what alternatively happened with direct evidence, but you constantly avoid that and deflect.

Which demonstrates deep down you are deliberately evading it, which hints at serious dishonesty going on here.

Your views on 911 are either very deluded or very dishonest.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You don't provide any credible evidence for what you claim happened on 911. You don't even seem to understand what that word means

We keep giving you opportunity after opportunity to explain what alternatively happened with direct evidence, but you constantly avoid that and deflect.

Which demonstrates deep down you are deliberately evading it, which hints at serious dishonesty going on here.

Your views on 911 are either very deluded or very dishonest.

Video of the collapse is evidence. Observe the west side!

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Video of the collapse is evidence.

No it isn't. Again you appear to live in some bizarre alternative reality where you just point to things and claim "evidence".

It's very simple, you are claiming something happened on 911 with secret Nazi's. Explain what that was in detail with proper evidence. If you can't support it, it didn't happen.

Dohnjoe Even NIST timing for interior collapse too slow. It runs to over 25 seconds.

The building collapsed in about 5 to 6 seconds after the Penthouse left the roof. To destroy 47 floors takes time, its slow, as connections take time to buckle naturally.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Dohnjoe

Not interested in your endless denial. Demonstrate your theory or you are talking nonsense.

Even flat-earthers have some sort of explanation that the world is a disc and some funky attempt to support that

Support your theory..

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Video of the collapse is evidence. Observe the west side!

No explosions there. Glass breaking and air escaping as the building falls in on itself, exactly like WTC 1 & 2.

The Nal wrote: »

No explosions there. Glass breaking and air escaping as the building falls in on itself, exactly like WTC 1 & 2.

Nal the controlled demolition occurred below the top 18 stories.
The video only showing you the 18 stories at the top.
According to NIST, the 18 stories were gone before the full collapse.
People don't realise NIST collapse has two big stages ( interior collapse the 47th floor to the 1th- corner to corner) and then the building roofline moved and full collapse occurred.
The middle and west side not collapsed. There no broken windows or dust.
The demolition occurred 1 to 2 seconds before it collapsed. And then building compressed and fell. The west you can see the breaks run up the wall( bottom up to top) because the demolition occurred below.

If 18 stories had collapsed prior, the corner to corner windows would be smashed in the middle and west side and you see the evidence for that. NIST model in that way is accurate and true . The north face front facade would smash and break apart

The actual collapse event on 9/11 is very different to the NIST model.

One to near two second before full collapse. The west side is untouched.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You deflecting to unknowns.

What unknowns are you talking about. I'm pointing to simple facts you can't address.

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."

Please point out which of these statements is incorrect?
They are all correct and using your logic, they all prove your theory to be completely impossible.
Unless your logic is wrong.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Hulsey theory is supported by the evidence.

It's not. We've shown it's a fraud and you ran away from every point.