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

King Mob wrote: »

So then you reject the Hulsey report. You agree he is a fraud.
Wow...


lol
Based on what? The computer simulations you ran? Your years of engineering?

I think the explanation is wrong about the collapse on the east corner.

I worked for an engineering company in the past ( It was was welding and commercial Refrigeration business) I build these from scratch. I am very good with my hands and still am and I can build up things from nothing. I have used every tool you can think of and machinery to cut steel and Iron. I am qualified welder.

King Mob wrote: »

I also doubt this is true, as you are a proven liar.

Do you not think I care what you think, i have done for a living? You're a faceless nobody on a forum.

I would prove it but i don't want people like you knowing my business. You're not nice people.

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. Not sure what that's supposed to mean.
And again it's very hypocritical
And again it's deflection.

You being a welder, true or not, doesn't have any baring on anything. Your opinion is not valid. You dismissing even Hulsey because you believe your own opinion is superior is silly and hilarious and it demonstrates how ridiculous your position is.

You have now agreed that the Hulsey report is wrong, invalid and a fraud.
I think the thread can be closed now

Your attitude and manners stink. Take a communication class how to talk to people online. Better yet take some time off and go outside.

King Mob wrote: »

Lol yea.
That proves your very silly theory alright.:rolleyes:

There knowns and unknown’s around this destruction and if someone says they know 100 percent- what went on here they’re lying.  I have my point of view it's a controlled demolition based on what i understand.
 What we do have is studies that claim fire 100 percent brought the building down! The NIST report is the official investigation about the collapse. Thats where you start to try to figure out the causes of the building collapse on 9/11.
NIST opinion a local area loss took place on Floor 13 first.  There’s your launching point to begin the speculation.

The Builder construction blueprint for building seven is accessible online.
 
NIST interpretation. a collapse initiated because a girder moved off its support seat at column 79 (east-corner) area.  Along with the five-floor steel beams parallel to it also crippled and collapsed due to fire?

NIST replied to engineers observations about their study  
They wrote.: no evidence was found there was 32 shear Studs bolts hammered into the concrete, holding up the girder A2001 on floor13?
"Personally speaking i find that comment strange since you can see on the blueprint there is 32 shear studs used for girder A2001

They’d also left off the web side plate shown on Photographs. Every fitting has a role to play in stopping a girder walk-off   NIST left of the web stiffeners that would impede the girder from slipping off its seat.

Hulsey final report also demonstrated that NIST left off the lateral supports beams located at- G3500, " floor beam parellel to Column 44. The G3500 floor beam crippled and slipped an opinion NIST had.. I don’t see how you can leave off lateral support beams and claim the beam sagged then?

My experience around steel, i do find lot of NIST claims to be troublesome. 

It not rocket science that NIST collapse on floor 13 is not accurate. A fire would have to take out 32 shear studs and destroy that web plate to fall.  NIST does not explain how a girder falling off its seat would destroy column 79? Column 79 is going to just “fall apart” because a girder impacts a concrete slap.

It is things like this that make it much hard to accept the NIST study as anything but a coverup.  I fully understand why truthers can’t accept the collapse began at column 79.
Then you have to explain why did the east Penthouse come down? 
A failure will have to have occurred somewhere under that Penthouse.
I not letting Hulsey off the hook here either. Hulsey says a isolated failure up top caused that?
I don’t see why a failure would not occur up top if the core columns below got taken out near the bottom of the building?
Both studies overlook the timing between the two events a Penthouse collapse and  the full building coming down. It just 5 seconds+  They see both events are distinct events in time, but they're not really. 
Penthouse likely collapsed because of the inner core was been destroyed and support columns gave up. on that east corner.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I worked as a tower crane operator for many years, I literally built sky scrapers all over the world. I wouldn't have a clue about the engineering of them though. But a welder who built refrigerators thinks he knows more about buildings than engineers/architects :pac:

I thought you said you were in the British army on another thread? Or is that a job you did later? It's one aspect of the work i did. It lot more complicated then you think. You have to cut steel into different shapes and angles and it's precision work and have a good steady hand for that. Most truthers have no clue how to read constructiion drawings, i have some knowledge about that.

You claiming welder not used when steel framed buildings are build?

King Mob wrote: »

Where have I claimed that I had any experience?
Which of my points rely on my experience?


But you don't have experience in the field.
Welding is not the same field as skyscraper design or forensic architecture.
It's very funny you think they are.

It's also very funny that you are using this as the basis to reject Hulsey's study after all the hopes you put on it.

It is your claim for 12 years on boards fire is the only explanation for the collapse. yes or no. 

Well what is your experience to believe that's the only option?

Now you claim welders have no experience constructing steel-framed buildings around the world.  I never said its same profession. I claimed i worked with steel and Iron, and now for fact every building element, matters. It would not be placed in the building otherwise.