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

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Who cares what in history books

Everyone.

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

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?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

The secret Nazis in the US you keep referring to?

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You will just twist my words and change it to suit you.

I'm not twisting your words.
You said Hulsey was wrong.
Why did he publish a report that was wrong?

I'm not talking about the NIST.
You are deflecting again.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

The "let's go through all this over again from the top" post

Overheal wrote: »

The "let's go through all this over again from the top" post

That's the hobby: "Try to convince me, I'll never be convinced" and keep repeating the cycle

Overheal wrote: »

The "let's go through all this over again from the top" post

And the thing is we have explained it to him in every way we possibly can.
We've shown him why and how he's wrong and what the actual explanation is.
We've shown how and why he can't show that such a thing proves his claims and how such a thing actually contradicts his claims.

We've gone all the way from Hulsey's report being completely flawless and without a doubt going to prove the conspiracy theory to it being wrong because he knows better than the expert architect he was praising at the start of the topic...

Is there really any point to keeping this thread or even this subsection open anymore?

The Hulsey report was kind of the last gasp of the conspiracy theory before it go relegated to a punchline like the JFK and moon hoax stuff.

Overheal wrote: »

The "let's go through all this over again from the top" post

I think they're statement in the draft is self explanatory. Debunkers are trying to convince people they knew about "freefall" when the facts don't match up with their statements. Freefall is impossibility with structural resistance below.

Sunder: “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the analysis shows...is that same time it took for the structural model to come down...is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.”

Free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.. Turns out that actually happened.

NIST denied that actually happened in Aug 2008 they only fixed their error in Nov 2008.

This is a statement of denial in Aug 2008
What the analysis shows...is that same time it took for the structural model to come down...is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.”

The Nal

Its over Cheerful. No one cares. Case closed. No conspiracy.

The Nal wrote: »

Its over Cheerful. No one cares. Case closed. No conspiracy.

The Demoltion removes structural support below, that’s why NIST had no answer. They did not want to go there. Their model showed there was support below slowing the fall. NIST covered it up with another lie in their final paper.

Nal it is strongest evidence there is for demolition.
There was no free fall in their collapse scenario. Which of course leaves you with only one option- the 8 floors of columns got removed by explosives.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The Demoltion removes structural support below, that’s why NIST had no answer. They did not want to go there. Their model showed there was support below slowing the fall. NIST covered it up with another lie in their final paper.

Nal it is strongest evidence there is for demolition.
There was no free fall in their collapse scenario. Which of course leaves you with only one option- the 8 floors of columns got removed by explosives.