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

King Mob wrote: »

If you say so. I don't really believe you and you certainly don't understand any of those things.

Well, no. In this case, I'm referring to the fact you said Hulsey's study was a fraud. I'm using the fact you've rejected the study.
You believe it's wrong and a fraud. So why do you keep supporting it?

I care what you believe and gaslighting again. You got fooled by him.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Mick West has no clue about structural engineering or finite element analysis. He can't comprehend the study, never mind try to debunk it.

Neither do you

You guys used his info to call the Hulsey study a fraud. You don't see now that's funny!

Care to answer the question?

You claimed Hulsey was wrong. You believe his report is a fraud.
Yet you keep supporting it.
Why?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I care what you believe and gaslighting again. You got fooled by him.

If you say so.

You're still dodging my question.

You believe Hulsey's paper is a fraud.
Why do you keep supporting it?

Cheerful Spring2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Neither do you

Care to answer the question?

I acknowledged his question at the bottom of the post Timber (read it) You guys were foaming at the mouth after Mick posted, a merry bunch of campers. I did see right away “why” there was no dynamic collisions and motion detected in the Hulsey models.

Before i explain further
He called the paper fraud. I never said the paper a fraud.

Mick brain unfamiliar with FEA programs. If he knew what he was looking he would have commented on yes Hulsey showing a DSR (FEA) sudden removal model

The problem.
A collapse of the central core resulting from demolition, it not going to match the NIST model. Mick could not understand that for some odd reason or refused to or just pretended to not care.

A controlled demolition is not fire collapse, so outcomes inside the building are wholly different.
How does one demonstrate the devastation by controlled demolition? Sap2000 ( university accepted FEA) program can’t show that.
Mick again clueless.

Cheerful Spring2

There no FEA program that will place demolitions on or near the columns

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I acknowledged his question at the bottom of the post Timber (read it) You guys were foaming at the mouth after Mick posted

Again, I didn't refer to Mick West and have no interest in discussing him or your baseless petty accusations against him.
If you have issues with him, talk to him or post on his forum where he can respond to you.

You are still dodging the question.
YOU believe Hulsey's report is wrong.
YOU said that his model was wrong.
YOU believe that his report is fraudulent.

So why do you keep supporting the report after YOU said it was wrong and believe it's a fraud?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Again, I didn't refer to Mick West and have no interest in discussing him or your baseless petty accusations against him.
If you have issues with him, talk to him or post on his forum where he can respond to you.

You are still dodging the question.
YOU believe Hulsey's report is wrong.
YOU said that his model was wrong.
YOU believe that his report is fraudulent.

So why do you keep supporting the report after YOU said it was wrong and believe it's a fraud?

Important discussion you want to avoid

There no honest debate here, so let's agree to disagree.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Important discussion you want to avoid

Again, no. It's something you brought up to deflect from a question you want to avoid.
I don't believe any of the claims you make about Mick West's opinions or statements believe you constantly misrepresent things.
I have no interest in discussing them with you and never expressed as much.

You keep dodging this point though:

YOU believe Hulsey's report is wrong.
YOU said that his model was wrong.
YOU believe that his report is fraudulent.

So why do you keep supporting the report after YOU said it was wrong and believe it's a fraud?

Cheerful Spring2

I don't believe any of the claims you make about Mick West's opinions or statements believe you constantly misrepresent things.
I have no interest in discussing them with you and never expressed as much.

You expecting me to reply this gaslighting post. You don't believe me, we already know., Stop replying to my posts then, i have not got a gun to your head!

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You expecting me to reply this gaslighting post. You don't believe me, we already know., Stop replying to my posts then, i have not got a gun to your head!

What are you talking about? You keep using that term in the oddest ways.
And no, I don't expect you will respond as you often ignore points and questions that you can't honestly answer.

YOU believe Hulsey's report is wrong.
YOU said that his model was wrong.
YOU believe that his report is fraudulent.

So why do you keep supporting the report after YOU said it was wrong and believe it's a fraud?

Do you not believe that Hulsey's report is wrong now?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

What are you talking about? You keep using that term in the oddest ways.
And no, I don't expect you will respond as you often ignore points and questions that you can't honestly answer.

YOU believe Hulsey's report is wrong.
YOU said that his model was wrong.
YOU believe that his report is fraudulent.

So why do you keep supporting the report after YOU said it was wrong and believe it's a fraud?

Do you not believe that Hulsey's report is wrong now?

You don't believe me. You made your point, have a nice day.

You have a gaslighter personality. Read the traits of people with that condition.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You don't believe me. You made your point, have a nice day.

You have a gaslighter personality. Read the traits of people with that condition.

Yes, I'm familiar with the term and you aren't using it correctly.

My point was that you keep promoting the Hulsey report even after you've said it was wrong and believe that it's a fraud.
I've asked you to explain why you're doing this, but again, you are running away from a point you can't address.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, I'm familiar with the term and you aren't using it correctly.

You do gaslight, others have noticed in other threads.

This one of many traits of gaslighting

Small list and you fit the mold check for every one.

Ted_YNWA

Cheerful Spring2

You are doing the exact same thing. Throwing Mick West questions back & refusing to answer what King Mob is asking of you.

You believe Hulsey's paper is a fraud.
Why do you keep supporting it?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You do gaslight, others have noticed in other threads.

This one of many traits of gaslighting

https://www.verywellfamily.com/is-someone-gaslighting-you-4147470

What Is Gaslighting?
Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that occurs in abusive relationships.

Cheerful, we are not in a relationship...

Cheerful Spring2

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Cheerful Spring2

You are doing the exact same thing. Throwing Mick West questions back & refusing to answer what King Mob is asking of you.

You believe Hulsey's paper is a fraud.
Why do you keep supporting it?

I never said was a fraud. There King mob words on this thread. Why should i accept something I never said?
I discussed this topic weeks ago. Read the seismic post, i posted today, discussed it again at the end of the post.
They're agenda by King mob to dismiss the whole report based one aspect of it.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

https://www.verywellfamily.com/is-someone-gaslighting-you-4147470

Cheerful, we are not in a relationship...

You have a gaslighter personaliity and don't care what you say, you check every box.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I never said was a fraud.

But you said it was wrong.

You claimed that Hulsey's simulations were wrong.
You reject the NIST report because you believe their simulation is wrong.
Therefore you must reject the Hulsey report.

You also claimed that you could tell Hulsey's simulations were wrong despite having NO expertise in any relevant field or any kind of skills or knowledge. You also didn't need to do any calculations or create any computer simulations yourself to reach your conclusion.
So if you could tell the simulations were wrong, then Hulsey, a trained architect would also be able to tell they were wrong. Therefore he knowingly published a report he knew was wrong.
This makes it a fraudulent paper.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But you said it was wrong.

You claimed that Hulsey's simulations were wrong.
You reject the NIST report because you believe their simulation is wrong.
Therefore you must reject the Hulsey report.

You also claimed that you could tell Hulsey's simulations were wrong despite having NO expertise in any relevant field or any kind of skills or knowledge. You also didn't need to do any calculations or create any computer simulations yourself to reach your conclusion.
So if you could tell the simulations were wrong, then Hulsey, a trained architect would also be able to tell they were wrong. Therefore he knowingly published a report he knew was wrong.
This makes it a fraudulent paper.

What have i posted that allows you make a claim Hulsey report is a fraud? I posted this today.
What i not sure of is what caused those upper floors to collapse underneath the Penthouse. Was there a delay in setting off some of the controlled demolitions and was there two parts to the set up. Was the eastside support columns below rigged with a different timer to go off? Or it just like Hulsey said a collapse occurred up top (explosion or natural collapse?)

The only difference between me and Hulsey is i think there might been a delay of explosions on the eastside. We still believe the same thing controlled demolition removed the central core, a different event, that brought down the building.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The only difference between me and Hulsey is i think there might been a delay of explosions on the eastside.

So you believe the simulations which form the basis of his study are wrong.
How can his study be correct if he is using incorrect simulations?
You believe the NIST report is a fraud because you believe their simulations are wrong, so therefore you must believe Hulsey's report is wrong.

Why did he reach incorrect conclusion? Why did he publish his report when he could tell he said some incorrect things and used a flawed simulation?
It can't be that you are more qualified or knowledgable than him, cause that's very silly.
So the only possible conclusion is that he is knowingly publishing a report that is incorrect. That is fraud.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

We still believe the same thing controlled demolition removed the central core, a different event, that brought down the building.

That doesn't really matter or impact the fact you think that his paper and simulations are wrong.
But it is a strong reason why you continue to promote his paper even though you reject it.

To you, and to the profiteers at the AE9/11 It doesn't matter if the report is true. Just that it can be used to promote the silly conspiracy theory.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

controlled demolitions

explosions on the eastside.

Woah, there is no credible evidence whatsoever of controlled "explosions" bringing down WTC 7 from you or Hulsey.

This is a controlled demolition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdqWRHe4AKs

Unless you or Hulsey come forward with direct evidence of these so called "controlled explosions" then both claims can be dismissed.

Cheerful Spring2

Can you see the arrangement of core and exterior columns inside building seven Kingmob?

The Support columns hold up the Penthouse (from the ground all the way up to the 47th upper floor) in red
Central core located in the middle of the building- green
Support columns failing brought the Penthouse down.
I suspect they rigged the support columns also, to avoid an uneven collapse at the end. That could have happened up top or at the bottom ( the people who rigged the building are only ones who know the exact set up.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Can you see the arrangement of core and exterior columns inside building seven Kingmob?
.

Yes, but that's not really relevant to the point and you're trying to deflect again.

You said Hulsey's paper was wrong. You could tell his simulations were wrong.
You aren't a better architect than Hulsey, so therefore he know's he's wrong too.
Therefore he's a fraud.

You keep supporting his paper even though you know it's wrong too.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, but that's not really relevant to the point and you're trying to deflect again.

You said Hulsey's paper was wrong. You could tell his simulations were wrong.
You aren't a better architect than Hulsey, so therefore he know's he's wrong too.
Therefore he's a fraud.

You keep supporting his paper even though you know it's wrong too.

How did the building collapse exactly answer that?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I suspect they rigged the support columns also, to avoid an uneven collapse at the end. That could have happened up top or at the bottom ( the people who rigged the building are only ones who know the exact set up.

You suspect who rigged what with what?

Which people?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You suspect who rigged what with what?

Which people?

Evidence that you guys always ignore.
Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for NIST’s WTC 7 report responded, “A free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it….” But, “there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case, and you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place, and everything was not instantaneous

Since it is a documented fact free fall occurred inside the building, there was no structural components underneath!

NIST got caught out big time.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Evidence that you guys always ignore.

And you then provide no direct evidence whatsoever.

What explosives are you talking about?

How many? where? what floors were they on? what type exactly? who planted them? (names)

What times did they go off at?

Answer each one of those questions, with credible evidence and we can start discussing it. If you don't, then there is no "controlled demolition" to discuss since no credible evidence of it exists whatsoever.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

How did the building collapse exactly answer that?

Again, that's not the issue. You're trying to deflect again.
Which was one of the behaviors on your list I believe.

We're not talking about the collapse or Mick West.
We're talking about the fact you believe Hulsey's report is wrong. You said it was wrong.

Why did Hulsey publish it if he knew it was wrong?
The only explanation I can think of is that he's a fraud.

I've asked you to explain this several times, but you've ignored those question as per usual, so I assumed you agreed it was a fraud.

Do you not believe he's wrong now, despite your previous comments?
If you do believe he's wrong, then why do you not believe he's a fraud?

Cheerful Spring2

Statements and words have no meaning for debunkers, funny that. How did building seven fall at freefall with structural resistance underneath? Debate the weeds and you see the conspiracy.

Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for NIST’s WTC 7 report responded, “A free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it….” But, “there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case, and you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place, and everything was not instantaneous

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Statements and words have no meaning for debunkers,

And more deflection.
We're not talking about free fall either.

You've been given plenty of chances to explain, but you refuse.

You said Hulsey's report is wrong.
You agree it's a fraud on his part.
Yet you promote it as true anyway.

Why?