Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1…3132343637

Comments

  • #1652
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1653
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,643 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #1654
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • #1655
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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. 


  • #1656
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


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


  • Advertisement
  • #1657
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • #1658
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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:confused:

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


  • #1659
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Important discussion you want to avoid:confused:
    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?


  • #1660
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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!


  • #1661
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • #1662
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.
    giphy.gif


  • #1663
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • #1664
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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

    510124.png

    Small list and you fit the mold check for every one.
    510125.png


  • #1665
    Ted_YNWA
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 71,799 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #1666
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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...


  • #1667
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1668
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1669
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • #1670
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1671
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #1672
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #1673
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


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

    510135.png

    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.


  • #1674
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • #1675
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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?


  • #1676
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #1677
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1678
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #1679
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • #1680
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #1681
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • #1682
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    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?

    How is it deflection? It explains everything and NIST involvement with a cover up.

    Lets break down the NIST statement, when you clearly don't get it.


    “A free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it….”
    literally means all the steel columns supporting 8 floors below gone!

    This NIST ruling that out in clear terms, and debunkers igore 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


  • #1683
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    How it deflection. It explains everything.

    Lets break down the NIST statement, you clearly don't get it.
    It's deflection because it's not the topic we're trying to get you to focus on.
    I didn't mention the NIST statement and the NIST statment has nothing to do with the point at hand.
    I'm not going to discuss the NIST's statement with you again, as it's been explained to you exhaustively.
    You are only bringing up the NIST's statement to deflect from a point you are uncomfortable with.

    We're discussing Hulsey's paper.

    You said that Hulsey's study was wrong.

    You agree that Hulsey's study is a fraud.

    So why do you promote a fraudulent paper?


  • #1684
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    It's deflection because it's not the topic we're trying to get you to focus on.
    I didn't mention the NIST statement and the NIST statment has nothing to do with the point at hand.
    I'm not going to discuss the NIST's statement with you again, as it's been explained to you exhaustively.
    You are only bringing up the NIST's statement to deflect from a point you are uncomfortable with.

    We're discussing Hulsey's paper.

    You said that Hulsey's study was wrong.

    You agree that Hulsey's study is a fraud.

    So why do you promote a fraudulent paper?

    Why do we need to focus on something different. When it already established NIST lied about the collapse?

    You just have not noticed with no structural components underneath= controlled demolition.


  • #1685
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Why do we need to focus on something different.
    That's an excellent question.
    You keep trying to change the topic. You're misrepresentations of the NIST have already been dealt with repeatedly. We're not going to go over it again.

    The topic is Hulsey's report.

    The question I'm asking you is about Hulsey's report.

    You said that Hulsey's study was wrong.

    You agree that Hulsey's study is a fraud.

    So why do you promote a fraudulent paper?


  • #1686
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    That's an excellent question.
    You keep trying to change the topic. You're misrepresentations of the NIST have already been dealt with repeatedly. We're not going to go over it again.

    The topic is Hulsey's report.

    The question I'm asking you is about Hulsey's report.

    You said that Hulsey's study was wrong.

    You agree that Hulsey's study is a fraud.

    So why do you promote a fraudulent paper?

    They lied, yet you refuse to believe the covered up later?


    They were caught on video, as you well know saying the same thing in Aug 2008.


  • Advertisement
  • #1687
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Since Kingmob keeps claiming I misrepresenting the statement and lying about what they said. It be great if a mod or neutral poster watch the video and show exactly where i lied?


  • #1688
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    They lied, yet you refuse to believe the covered up later?
    They were caught on video, as you well know saying the same thing in Aug 2008.
    And now ignoring the questions put to you andyou are just repeating yourself.

    You promote a study you agree is a fraud because you yourself are also as dishonest as Hulsey.
    I don't know why you need to be so dishonest, but I suspect it's because of some desperate need to believe in the conspiracy theory at all costs.

    You shouldn't promote Hulsey's report, as it only serves to make you look even less credible.

    So since we've reached the conclusion that Husley's report is worthless fraud and Cheerful has no more interest in discussing it, I think this thread should be finally closed.
    I also think that the whole sub section should be folded back into the main forum since the only threads here have been Cheerful going around in circles on each regardless of topic.


  • #1689
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Statements and words have no meaning for debunkers

    You haven't provided any credible evidence

    Give us the details and the timeline of this "controlled demolition". If you can't do that, then you are demonstrating that you simply don't know.

    If someone else wants to claim this building was destroyed by energy weapons. Likewise, they have to give all the supporting evidence for that. If they can't - they are talking ****.

    They can't just claim, "free fall speed, I don't get this report, therefore energy weapons". That's nonsense. They have to detail the weapons, where they were located, how they worked exactly, names of those who used them, witnesses, timelines, details. Direct evidence.

    Why do you feel you are some sort of exception to this process?


  • #1690
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You haven't provided any credible evidence

    Give us the details and the timeline of this "controlled demolition". If you can't do that, then you are demonstrating that you simply don't know.

    If someone else wants to claim this building was destroyed by energy weapons. Likewise, they have to give all the supporting evidence for that. If they can't - they are talking ****.

    They can't just claim, "free fall speed, I don't get this report, therefore energy weapons". That's nonsense. They have to detail the weapons, where they were located, how they worked exactly, names of those who used them, witnesses, timelines, details. Direct evidence.

    Why do you feel you are some sort of exception to this process?

    The building had to be falling because of something else. The physical evidence shows that. It doesn’t matter what you think happpned!
    You people will deny and deny. There something intrinsically wrong with you, if you not able to tell realism from yarn.

    The statement from NIST supports the truther version of events ( end of the story)
    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

    NIST did not know when they presented their draft building seven had a free fall event.
    Thats why when confronted about this they said this.

    Breaking that down. A building with structural components underneath can’t undergo a a freefall event ( a freefall event is not a natural sequence of failures) it actually a controlled demolition (fast and instant)
    Freefall cany occur- when columns and floors across the width of the building are now missing collapsed before the fall.


  • #1691
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    And now ignoring the questions put to you andyou are just repeating yourself.

    You promote a study you agree is a fraud because you yourself are also as dishonest as Hulsey.
    I don't know why you need to be so dishonest, but I suspect it's because of some desperate need to believe in the conspiracy theory at all costs.

    You shouldn't promote Hulsey's report, as it only serves to make you look even less credible.

    So since we've reached the conclusion that Husley's report is worthless fraud and Cheerful has no more interest in discussing it, I think this thread should be finally closed.
    I also think that the whole sub section should be folded back into the main forum since the only threads here have been Cheerful going around in circles on each regardless of topic.

    NIST study was looked over by Hulsey in his final report.
    A paper would be fraudulent if you did not challenge mainstream studies about the collapse.
    Of course, you never read the Hulsey study, so you just assumed was not part of the paper. 


  • Advertisement
  • #1692
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    It doesn’t matter what you think happpned!

    What I think doesn't come from me personally, it's in the history books

    What you think exists only in your imagination, involving secret Nazi's, with no direct evidence whatsoever


  • #1693
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    What I think doesn't come from me personally, it's in the history books

    What you think exists only in your imagination, involving secret Nazi's, with no direct evidence whatsoever

    Who cares what in history books, as we have seen already with the Saudi secrecy- cover up the story bull****,

    In the history books oswald acted alone too, more bull****.

    You should listen to Joe Rogan i posted and open your eyes, to what took place in the 60s


  • #1694
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Who cares what in history books

    Everyone.

    Why should anyone be concerned with what you imagine history to be?


  • #1695
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Everyone.

    Why should anyone be concerned with what you imagine history to be?

    What do you think Epstein was involved with, just curious?


  • #1696
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    What do you think Epstein was involved with, just curious?

    The secret Nazis in the US you keep referring to?


  • #1697
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    The secret Nazis in the US you keep referring to?

    You tell me? What do you believe happened or too much depth for you?


  • #1698
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    NIST study was looked over by Hulsey in his final report.
    A paper would be fraudulent if you did not challenge mainstream studies about the collapse.
    Of course, you never read the Hulsey study, so you just assumed was not part of the paper. 
    But again, you said Hulsey was wrong.
    Why did Hulsey publish a report he knew was wrong?


  • #1699
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But again, you said Hulsey was wrong.
    Why did Hulsey publish a report he knew was wrong?

    You will just twist my words and change it to suit you. 
    You believe Hulsey controlled demolition theory nonsense and you attack me for believing that!

    When I show you evidence that supports the case, you ignore it:confused:

    You have agreed with me in the past "free fall" happened!

    So why was NIST denying freefall in Aug 2018? 
    The statement there for you read and understand.

    They even say in their statement a freefall time is an object with no structural components underneath and wasn't the case here, because structural rsistance was provided in this case and serious of failures had to take place first and no failures occurred instantly.

    For freefall to have happened the underneath resistance ( has to be gone completely) You are well aware an object falling down in open outside air not meeting any resistance on the way down.


  • #1700
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    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

    They said the same thing on the video i posted word for word.


  • #1701
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Nobody yet explained how NIST, after six years of study and investigation missed eight floors from corner to corner were gone completely? 2.25 seconds of freefall is about 100 feet (8 floors) corner to corner 84 columns in that portion of the building below gone.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement