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

King Mob · 20-04-2020 7:03pm

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 · 27-04-2020 2:55pm

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

Dohnjoe · 27-04-2020 3:15pm

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

King Mob · 27-04-2020 3:45pm

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 1:36pm

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 · 09-05-2020 1:46pm

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

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 1:56pm

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 · 09-05-2020 2:00pm

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 2:08pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Timber you must not realise free fall means 8 floors from corner to corner were missing below before the fall? 100 feet. How does buckling remove the exterior columns at the corner wall and inner core instantly.
NIST realised that’s an impossibility in their draft paper.
Exterior columns would only be buckling, during a natural collapse.
What seems to have happened here based on the evidence the top half slipped into the empty space below. NIST does not explain how a natural collapse can remove every column below holding up the building.

Timberrrrrrrr · 09-05-2020 2:16pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Timber you must not realise free fall means 8 floors from corner to corner were missing below before the fall? 100 feet. How does buckling remove the exterior columns at the corner wall and inner core?
NIST realised that’s an impossibility in their draft paper.
Exterior columns would only be buckling, during a natural collapse.
What seems to have happened here based on the evidence the top half slipped into the empty space below. NIST does not explain how a natural collapse can remove every column below holding up the building.

Blah blah blah, rinse and repeat.

Hulsey's study was a sham, a money grifting exercise that sucked gullible fools in.

Better luck with the next great revelation.

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 2:19pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Blah blah blah, rinse and repeat.

Hulsey's study was a sham, a money grifting exercise that sucked gullible fools in.

Better luck with the next great revelation.

No offence "Freefall" is a measured feature of the collapse. It not make believe.
NIST denied it happened, then changed their mind and said it did happen and then hide the implications in the final paper.
The sham is the NIST study. If you understand their statement from 2008, you see they had no clue freefall happened,

Timberrrrrrrr · 09-05-2020 2:23pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

No offence "Freefall" is a measured feature of the collapse. It not make believe.
NIST denied it happened, then changed their mind and said it did happen and then hide the implications in the final paper.
The sham is the NIST study. If you understand their statement from 2008, you see they had no clue freefall happened,

Bye bye

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 2:25pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Bye bye

Struggle with facts i know.

Sunder: “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it....

If you understand this at all, this a denial Building seven had a freefall event.
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.”

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 2:36pm

, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. A slower time translates to buckling of columns.

Freefall time is a collapse that occurs almost instant. There no known way to remove columns instantly by physical principles. Only way to remove columns that fast and out of the way is by demolition.

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 2:39pm

Yawn away there statement says 40 percent slower than Freefall :eek:

Ted_YNWA · 09-05-2020 2:41pm

Don't fan the flames Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr · 09-05-2020 2:46pm

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Don't fan the flames Timberrrrrrrr

He has been posting the same shìte for months, these are the only responses worthy at this stage.

Hulsey report was a sham (he even admitted this himself) so now he has resorted to posting the same thing he posts in every other 9-11 thread.

You should close this one as we all know he won't be posting anything new in it and will continue to make the same claims every day.

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 2:57pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

He has been posting the same shìte for months, these are the only responses worthy at this stage.

Hulsey report was a sham (he even admitted this himself) so now he has resorted to posting the same thing he posts in every other 9-11 thread.

You should close this one as we all know he won't be posting anything new in it and will continue to make the same claims every day.

Timber that a quote from NIST. I have added nothing new to it. I never said Hulsey study was a sham this your opinion.
You guys have never replied and revealed why NIST said the collapse on video was 40 percent slower than freefall.
What made them believe freefall never happened in Aug 2008? Is not a failure to understand the actual collapse on 9/11. This denial was in their draft paper.

Don't take my word for it you hear the same words on video in Aug 2008. NIST denied freefall. David Chandler a Physics Teacher asked NIST why there modelling showed no freefall. NIST replied on video and you hear them.

King Mob · 09-05-2020 3:18pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I never said Hulsey study was a sham this your opinion.

Again, yes you have.
You believe his study is wrong and what you, someone with no relevant experience can tell it's wrong.
Thus you believe it's a sham.

If it's not a sham, why is he and AE9/11 promoting a study they know is wrong?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You guys have never replied and revealed why NIST said the collapse on video was 40 percent slower than freefall.

But we have many times in direct clear terms.

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 3:25pm

King Mob wrote: »

But we have many times in direct clear terms.

You have not, you posted NIST final paper.
You never commented to why NIST denied free fall when they presented their draft paper.
How can an impossibilty be possible in the space of a few months?
The draft paper took six years to finish, the final paper was just three months of fixes.

King Mob · 09-05-2020 3:27pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You have not, you posted NIST final paper.
You never commented to why NIST denied free fall when they presented their draft paper.
.

But we have many many times. You are just pretending otherwise.

And again:
You believe Hulsey's study is wrong and what you, someone with no relevant experience can tell it's wrong.
Thus you believe it's a sham.

Why are you bothering to post in this thread when we've already reached this conclusion.

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 3:33pm

King Mob wrote: »

But we have many many times. You are just pretending otherwise.

And again:
You believe Hulsey's study is wrong and what you, someone with no relevant experience can tell it's wrong.
Thus you believe it's a sham.

Why are you bothering to post in this thread when we've already reached this conclusion.

You haven't, its the reason i keep posting this info to show NIST slipped up and ruled out free fall in Aug 2008. A correction after six years of work has satisfied you guys, but if you look at the correction, they don't explain it.

There collapse modelling was completed in Aug 2008 and you guys overlook that.

King Mob · 09-05-2020 3:36pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You haven't, its the reason i keep posting this info

But we have. Many times in many ways. We explained it to you like we would to a small child. You ignored it and went on tangents until you soon ignored those and came back to this point.

You keep posting this info because you have nothing new or original and you have to fall back on this after you've admitted that Hulsey's study is a sham.

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 3:40pm

King Mob wrote: »

But we have. Many times in many ways. We explained it to you like we would to a small child. You ignored it and went on tangents until you soon ignored those and came back to this point.

You keep posting this info because you have nothing new or original and you have to fall back on this after you've admitted that Hulsey's study is a sham.

Explain here then for everyone. Just explain it based on the draft paper. Lets see if you're honest.

King Mob · 09-05-2020 3:44pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Explain here then for everyone.

No thanks. We've explained it many times before.
If I explained it again, you'd just ignore it and go off on another tangent and repeat the cycle again like you have done so many times before.

Similarly, you keep ignoring the fact that you've admitted that Hulsey's Study is a fraud. So not sure what the point would be.

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 3:54pm

King Mob wrote: »

No thanks. We've explained it many times before.
If I explained it again, you'd just ignore it and go off on another tangent and repeat the cycle again like you have done so many times before.

Similarly, you keep ignoring the fact that you've admitted that Hulsey's Study is a fraud. So not sure what the point would be.

You can't answer it. You keep pretending you addressed though in this thread. The limited and vague answers you gave satify your buddies on here.

King Mob · 09-05-2020 3:57pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You can't answer it. You keep pretending you addressed though in this thread. The limited and vague answers you gave satify your buddies on here.

But I have answered it many times. I'm not pretending anything.
Other posters have also explained it to you like a little kid. You just ignored it.
If we took the time to explain it again you'd just ignore it, go off on another tangent, give up in a few posts and repeat the same links and pretend it wasn't explained to you.
You've done this several times already.

You are also still ignoring the fact that you reject Hulsey's Report.
It's making you look very very foolish.

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 4:09pm

King Mob wrote: »

But I have answered it many times. I'm not pretending anything.
Other posters have also explained it to you like a little kid. You just ignored it.
If we took the time to explain it again you'd just ignore it, go off on another tangent, give up in a few posts and repeat the same links and pretend it wasn't explained to you.
You've done this several times already.

You are also still ignoring the fact that you reject Hulsey's Report.
It's making you look very very foolish.

Kingmob every post you make has a similar stye like this. It short, lines, with no explaining and just ramblings you answered in the past. If you provided context with good explantations, i take you seriously.

King Mob · 09-05-2020 4:11pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Kingmob every post you make has a similar stye like this. It short, lines, with no explaining and just ramblings you answered in the past.

Yes. I am using shorter sentences and simpler language. This is because you have issues with reading comphrension.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If you provided context with good explantations, i take you seriously.

We have provided the explanation many times. You just keep ignoring it.

Like you keep ignoring the fact you said that Hulsey's Study was wrong.

It's making you look silly.

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 4:18pm

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. I am using shorter sentences and simpler language. This is because you have issues with reading comphrension.

We have provided the explanation many times. You just keep ignoring it.

Like you keep ignoring the fact you said that Hulsey's Study was wrong.

It's making you look silly.

Your style of debating and how you write. I don't find any explantations in any of your posts. It's one line, hey i know more than you rubbish.

Debate the draft paper and why denied Freefall there.

King Mob · 09-05-2020 4:21pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Your style of debating and how you write.

Yes. I have lowered the level of my language down so you can actually understand it.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I don't find any explantations in any of your posts. It's one line, hey i know more than you rubbish.

But we have explained it to you. You just keep ignoring it.
Like you keep ignoring the fact you reject Hulsey's report.

You keep trying to change the subject away from the topic of the thread. But it's only making you look more and more silly.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Debate the draft paper and why denied Freefall there.

This sentence makes no sense I'm afraid.

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 4:24pm

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. I have lowered the level of my language down so you can actually understand it.

But we have explained it to you. You just keep ignoring it.
Like you keep ignoring the fact you reject Hulsey's report.

You keep trying to change the subject away from the topic of the thread. But it's only making you look more and more silly.

This sentence makes no sense I'm afraid.

You have written about 30 sentences 20 minutes. Should not take you long to provide an answer to why NIST denied freefall in Aug 2008, or better yet, show where you actually answered me in a thread. I read and commented on it.

Timberrrrrrrr · 09-05-2020 4:27pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You have written about 30 sentences 20 minutes. Should not take you long to provide an answer to why NIST denied freefall in Aug 2008, or better yet, show where you actually answered me in a thread. I read and commented on it.

Nothing to do with the thread title.

Do you agree with the Hulsey report?

King Mob · 09-05-2020 4:28pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You have written about 30 sentences 20 minutes. Should not take you long to provide an answer to why NIST denied freefall in Aug 2008, or better yet, show where you actually answered me in a thread. I read and commented on it.

But again, I've already addressed this:

We've already explained this to you many times.
You've ignored it many times and went off on random topics to avoid our explanation.
If we explain it to you again, you will just ignore it again, go off on a random topic and then once again lie and say we never explained it to you.
You have done this many times.

You are also still ignoring the fact that you reject Hulsey's study.

The topic of the thread is Hulsey's study.
If you want the thread to continue, we can discuss that and the fact you agree it's a sham.

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 4:31pm

King Mob wrote: »

But again, I've already addressed this:

We've already explained this to you many times.
You've ignored it many times and went off on random topics to avoid our explanation.
If we explain it to you again, you will just ignore it again, go off on a random topic and then once again lie and say we never explained it to you.
You have done this many times.

You are also still ignoring the fact that you reject Hulsey's study.

The topic of the thread is Hulsey's study.
If you want the thread to continue, we can discuss that and the fact you agree it's a sham.

8 lines again no substance, point proven.

Timberrrrrrrr · 09-05-2020 4:32pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

10 lines again no substance, point proven.

Do you agree with the Hulsey report?

King Mob · 09-05-2020 4:35pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

8 lines again no substance, point proven.

Nope, all direct points you are now igorning because you can't address them.

The topic of the thread is Hulsey's report.
You said that his report is wrong.

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 4:41pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Do you agree with the Hulsey report?

Yes. Reason I do believe is the building dropped at free-fall. That's a key signature event.

NIST statement in 2008 dismissed free fall. Six years after the study was complete, like how did it end up as impossibility to possible in space of couple of months.,. Final report is only a correction to minor mistakes. What happened to the structural resistance that was there in the draft paper stopping freefall? NIST ignores what they said in the past.

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.”

King Mob · 09-05-2020 4:45pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yes.

But you said he and his simulations were incorrect.

How can you agree with a flawed study?

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 5:17pm

King Mob wrote: »

But you said he and his simulations were incorrect.

How can you agree with a flawed study?

The problem King mob the building only comes down when you take out the key columns keeping it up. The Penthouse held up by "support columns” a collapse there would only be a local failure on the eastside. If you bringing down the building the central core and exterior columns have to give way.

There evidence on the outside of the building was not crumbling or breaking apart slowly. It went from full support to zero support in seconds.
With a free fall that means an event occurred below from corner to corner and all the columns there reinforcing the top half collapsed.

NIST in their draft paper said those key columns are still there providing resistance. What actually shown later the exterior and core was not there at all providing resistance. A pancaking event seems to have taken place below, the top half, we can see then collapsed.

King Mob · 09-05-2020 5:19pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The problem King mob the building only comes

Sorry, you're deflecting again as I predicted.
We're talking about Hulsey's report. That is the topic of the thread.

You said that it was wrong.
But you also said that you agree with it.

How can you agree with a report that is wrong?

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 5:23pm

King Mob wrote: »

Sorry, you're deflecting again.
We're talking about Hulsey's report.

You said that it was wrong.
But you also said that you agree with it.

How can you agree with a report that is wrong?

Agreed feature of the collapse is free fall. How we end up there is in dispute.
Penthouse collapse did not bring down the building, you simply not getting that.

Fact NIST denied Freefall, is key, their collapse hypothesis is wrong.

King Mob · 09-05-2020 5:27pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Agreed feature of the collapse is free fall. How we end up there is in dispute.
Penthouse collapse did not bring down the building, you simply not getting that.

Fact NIST denied Freefall, is key, their collapse hypothesis is wrong.

Sorry, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I said in my last post.

You said that Hulsey's report was wrong.
You said you agree with Hulsey's report.

You agree with a report that you believe is wrong.

Do you just ignore the fact he's wrong and committing fraud?

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 5:37pm

King Mob wrote: »

Sorry, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I said in my last post.

You said that Hulsey's report was wrong.
You said you agree with Hulsey's report.

You agree with a report that you believe is wrong.

Do you just ignore the fact he's wrong and committing fraud?

I didn't say it was wrong.
I just unsure what caused the support columns underneath the Penthouse to collapse.
Hulsey says that local failure isolated from the principal event. In my mind is true.
Hulsey doesn't say if its explosives, he doesn't mention controlled demolition in his paper to take out the support columns. If was explosives then it fits the evidence, some went off, took out the Penthouse and then the primary event took place the- exterior and core steel columns got removed.
All is a lack of information about one small part of the collapse seen on video. I would have to talk to Hulsey about that to confirm it.

King Mob · 09-05-2020 5:41pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I didn't say it was wrong.

But you did say it was wrong.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

I have my own opinion, what caused it.

You believe it's wrong. But you said you agree with it.

He is committing fraud and you also agree with that.

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 5:50pm

King Mob wrote: »

But you did say it was wrong.

You believe it's wrong. But you said you agree with it.

He is committing fraud and you also agree with that.

Hulsey said it took place up top the failure underneath the Penthouse. I think its 50/50 this and I can be wrong. Hulsey is spot on?
I don’t rule out an explosion at the bottom. If the free fall occurred at the bottom, why would the support coiumns explosives not follow along a similar path. Since Hulsey doesn’t outline what the failure mechanism is, i speculate.
He avoids talk about controlled demolition.
Overall this failure one portion of the puzzle and doesn’t explain the main event where the core and exterior got taken out and that’s how the building collapsed..

King Mob · 09-05-2020 6:02pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Hulsey said it took place up top the failure underneath the Penthouse. I think its 50/50 this and I can be wrong. Hulsey is spot on?

Sorry, you're backtracking now.

You just claimed:

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I didn't say it was wrong.

But you've been caught out as you previously said:

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I believe Hulsey and NIST are both wrong .

You are now contradicting yourself and you are trying to lie about your position.
You are being very very dishonest.

You said that the Hulsey Study is wrong.
You said that you still agree with Hulsey's study.
This is also a dishonest position to hold.

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 6:11pm

King Mob wrote: »

Sorry, you're backtracking now.

You just claimed:

But you've been caught out as you previously said:

You are now contradicting yourself and you are trying to lie about your position.
You are being very very dishonest.

You said that the Hulsey Study is wrong.
You said that you still agree with Hulsey's study.
This is also a dishonest position to hold.

Why you only interested in this one part of the collapse?
It doesn't change the findings about Freefall.
Even if Hulsey wrong here and that's only my opinion and i could be wrong, the key findings are not in dispute.
I agree 100 percent on the core and exterior was removed by controlled demolition
Fact backed up by NIST in Aug 2008. There no way the building came down by natural buckling whatever you think happened here.

King Mob · 09-05-2020 6:23pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Why you only interested in this one part of the collapse?
It doesn't change the findings about Freefall.

I'm not interested in one part of the collapse.
However, Hulsey's conclusions were based on his computer models.
If he is wrong about one part of the collapse, then his models are not valid.
If his models are not valid, then his entire study is a sham.

You said that he was wrong about one part of the collapse.
Therefore his models are all wrong.
Therefore his study is a sham.

In addition, you have another problem here.
You aren't an architect and you are very very bad at math, physics and reading.
Hulsey is an architect and is capable of doing math and physics and creating computer models.
Therefore if even you can see that his study is wrong, then Hulsey must be also able to see his study is wrong. Hulsey knows his study is wrong.
However he published his study despite knowing it's wrong. That's fraud.
AE9/11 is full of people all of which are better than you at math and physics and architecture. They also know that Hulsey's study is wrong. They are promoting a study they know is wrong and they are selling a documentary about it.
That's fraud.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Even if Hulsey wrong here and that's only my opinion and i could be wrong, the key findings are not in dispute.

But you said:

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I believe Hulsey and NIST are both wrong .

You are now trying to walk back from that statement after you previously lied and denied you said it.
That's very very dishonest.

Cheerful Spring2 · 09-05-2020 6:25pm

King Mob this statement rules out free fall below you simply don't get it yet. The even admitted their FEA models showed percent 40 slower than freefall. There no way you can change your FEA models in two months. They had six years and still missed this feature!

Sentences and words have meaning and can't be changed, it a record now.
Sunder: “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it....

NIST opinion about the freefall claim 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.”

Realiity Freefall happened. So if buckling was the reason the collapse was 40 percent slower, than what caused the freefall? It's a logic assumption it was a controlled demolition.

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

Comments