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

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If you were an honest, sincere, open minded person and look at all the facts about the collapse. I'd tell you You use the one point to call the Hulsey report a fraud, when its not. There you can figure out my likely answer!

But I don't just have one point. I have many, all of which I outlined.
Why are you lying about my position but then accusing me of being dishonest and insincere?

But this is besides the point. You are deflecting and avoiding again.
The scenario you described is not compatible with the theory Hulsey puts forward. If you believe your scenario is true, then you have to conclude Hulsey is wrong, and that he is a fraud.

King Mob wrote: »

But I don't just have one point. I have many, all of which I outlined.
Why are you lying about my position but then accusing me of being dishonest and insincere?

But this is besides the point. The scenario you described is not compatible with the theory Hulsey puts forward. If you believe your scenario is true, then you have to conclude Hulsey is wrong, and that he is a fraud.

I believe Hulsey and NIST are both wrong about the east corner Penthouse collapse.

I have my own opinion, what caused it.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If you were an honest, sincere, open minded person and look at all the facts about the collapse. I'd tell you You use the one point to call the Hulsey report a fraud, when its not. There you can figure out my likely answer!

You aren't in a position to lecture anyone about honesty when you baselessly invent answers to everything

To you, this study is utterly infallible

Yet you ignore the findings of studies by insurance companies that had to fork out vast amounts of insurance money

Your explanation? these insurance companies were "in on it". A conspiracy to back up a conspiracy.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You aren't in a position to lecture anyone about honesty when you baselessly invent answers to everything

To you, this study is utterly infallible

Yet you ignore the findings of studies by insurance companies that had to fork out vast amounts of insurance money

Your explanation? these insurance companies were "in on it". A conspiracy to back up a conspiracy.

blah, blah, blah. Repeat and Rinse.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I believe Hulsey and NIST are both wrong about the east corner Penthouse collapse.

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

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I have my own opinion, what caused it.

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

Timberrrrrrrr

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?

Nah he doesn't need all that, he has MS Paint :pac:

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.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

So you agree his study is wrong and he is a fraud.
Great. That's what we've been saying.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

Ok. And this makes you qualified to talk about skyscrapers? This makes you better qualified and better informed than any architects and Husley himself?

I think that's a very very silly claim cheerful.
Being a welder doesn't mean your opinion valid when it comes to skyscrapers or demolitions.

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

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.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

Ok. I'm just stating the fact that I don't believe you, as you are a liar.
But even if it's true, how does being a welder give your opinion any weight when it comes to the architecture of a skyscraper and forensics of it's collapse?
Especially considering you are dismissing the findings of hundreds of qualified architects who are specifically trained in skyscraper design and investigating collapses.

It's very strange that you think that you being a welder is of any relevance.

You're again deflecting.

You have just admitted that the Hulsey report is wrong, invalid and a fraud. When did you come to this realisation?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

Yea. That's a good idea. Cause if there's any information about you some people might find out your real name and share it around in PMs so others could stalk you or threaten you with it.
That would be a really shady thing for some people to do...

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

It's not like you are miscalculating something here, you are making up stuff on the spot. That is being dishonest with others, and being dishonest with yourself on this

It's bizarre that someone has a world view so overpowering they are willing to knowingly lie to themselves about it

King Mob wrote: »

Yea. That's a good idea. Cause if there's any information about you some people might find out your real name and share it around in PMs so others could stalk you or threaten you with it.
That would be a really shady thing for some people to do...

I never asked anyone for information about you. Someone who does not post on here anymore awhile back send a PM to me claiming you were a magician. I did not ask him for that info. He claimed to know your name. He disliked you.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I never asked anyone for information about you. Someone who does not post on here anymore awhile back send a PM to me claiming you were a magician. I did not ask him for that info. He claimed to know your name. He disliked you.

Lol, yup. And you then threatened me with that information.
So you whining about not wanting to give out personal information is you again demonstrating massive hypocrisy.

But again, you are deflecting from points you can't address.

How does being a welder give your opinion any weight when it comes to the architecture of a skyscraper and forensics of it's collapse?
Especially considering you are dismissing the findings of hundreds of qualified architects who are specifically trained in skyscraper design and investigating collapses.

It's very strange that you think that you being a welder is of any relevance.

You have just admitted that the Hulsey report is wrong, invalid and a fraud. When did you come to this realisation?

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, yup. And you then threatened me with that information.
So you whining about not wanting to give out personal information is you again demonstrating massive hypocrisy.

But again, you are deflecting from points you can't address.

How does being a welder give your opinion any weight when it comes to the architecture of a skyscraper and forensics of it's collapse?
Especially considering you are dismissing the findings of hundreds of qualified architects who are specifically trained in skyscraper design and investigating collapses.

It's very strange that you think that you being a welder is of any relevance.

You have just admitted that the Hulsey report is wrong, invalid and a fraud. When did you come to this realisation?

You should be worried you have stalkers.

Read post 1531. Your attitude here does not deserve a response.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

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:

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You should be worried you have stalkers.

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

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.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

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

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.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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?

But you've agreed that Hulsey's report isn't accurate because of your welding expertise.

How can Hulsey's report be at all worth while if he makes a mistake you (someone who doesn't even have a grasp of basic physics) can spot without even so much as a computer simulation.
The only explanation for that is that he's trying to make a fraudulent paper.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

But welding does not give you any qualification in architecture or physics.
It's very silly that you think it does.

Even if your claim is true, it doesn't give you any relevant experience at all.

Again, you keep trying to deflect to the NIST report to avoid talking about Hulsey's report.

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?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

How many skyscrapers have you worked on.
How many building collapses have you investigated?
How many computer simulations have you made yourself?

If the answer is none, your experience is irrelevant.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There knowns and unknown’s around this destruction and if someone says they know 100 percent- what went on here they’re lying.

We know what happened. In 2001 terrorist hijackers flew planes into buildings, which fell down.

Your endless incredulity and denial and debate means absolutely nothing. Those facts are completely separate from your interpretations of them.

All you do is try to cast doubt on the event to suggest some vague conspiracy happened - and by some remarkable coincidence, that's also your hobby.

King Mob wrote: »

How many skyscrapers have you worked on.
How many building collapses have you investigated?
How many computer simulations have you made yourself?

If the answer is none, your experience is irrelevant.

What your experience?
You have none. Least I have some experience in this field to argue a point.
Yet you kick and scream and claim 100 per cent fact it is a fire collapse:)

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What your experience?
You have none. Least I have some experience in this field to argue a point.
Yet you kick and scream and claim 100 per cent fact it is a fire collapse:)

It was a fire collapse

That's what the investigations discovered

They didn't discover a "laser beam" collapse, they didn't discover a "mini-nuke" collapse, they didn't discover a "controlled demolition" collapse, they didn't discover an "energy weapon" collapse

Your problem with grasping that is the reason why this thread exists

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It was a fire collapse

That's what the investigations discovered

They didn't discover a "laser beam" collapse, they didn't discover a "mini-nuke" collapse, they didn't discover a "controlled demolition" collapse, they didn't discover an "energy weapon" collapse

Your problem with grasping that is the reason why this thread exists

How did NIST prove it was a fire collapse? Think about that. Read my post today and understand why people don't believe that:)

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What your experience?

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

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You have none. Least I have some experience in this field to argue a point.
Yet you kick and scream and claim 100 per cent fact it is a fire collapse:)

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.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

How did NIST prove it was a fire collapse?

You require endless proof of theory A (fire collapse)

You require virtually no proof of theory B (controlled demolition)

That doesn't make any sense, it's a complete contradiction and the common denominator is you.

If you want to convince people that something else happened on 911, where's your proof, your supporting evidence, the names of your culprits?

You have none of that. One day it's Larry Silverstein, the next it's secret Nazi's.

So, because you don't have any of that, you rely entirely on your denial of the event. That's the only thing you have control over. Like Sandy Hook truthers, like moon landing hoaxers - you can endlessly deny it in order to fulfil your fantasy that something else happened

And when you have your own thread like this, nothing can stop you doing that

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.