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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

Options
1…5556575961

Comments

  • Options
    #1742
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • Options
    #1743
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    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.


  • Options
    #1744
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • Options
    #1745
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    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.


  • Options
    #1746
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1747
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    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..  


  • Options
    #1748
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Options
    #1749
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    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.


  • Options
    #1750
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Options
    #1751
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1752
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    King Mob this statement rules out free fall...
    Again, this has been explained to you many times.

    But that's not the topic of this thread.

    You are trying deflect again because you realised yet again you've embarrassed yourself and are facing points you can't address.

    The topic of the thread is Hulsey's report.

    You said that Hulsey's report is wrong.
    You lied and denied you said this.
    You now are backtracking and trying to handwave things.
    You are also trying to deflect.


  • Options
    #1753
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, this has been explained to you many times.

    But that's not the topic of this thread.

    You are trying deflect again because you realised yet again you've embarrassed yourself and are facing points you can't address.

    The topic of the thread is Hulsey's report.

    You said that Hulsey's report is wrong.
    You lied and denied you said this.
    You now are backtracking and trying to handwave things.
    You are also trying to deflect.

    30 sentences or more spouting rubbish. When you going to get to the main point Freefall was denied by "NIST" and their statement and words confirm that:) Why did they deny give an explanation, be concise please.


  • Options
    #1754
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    30 sentences or more spouting rubbish. When you going to get to the main point Freefall was denied by "NIST" and their statement and words confirm that:) Why did they deny give an explanation, be concise please.
    I've already explained this concisely many times.
    You just ignored when I did and you are now pretending that I never explained it to you.

    You are just deflecting however.
    I am not going to be refering to the NIST.

    The topic of this thread is Hulsey's report.

    You said the report was wrong. (You then later lied and claimed you did not say this.)
    You said you agree with a study you know is wrong.
    This is dishonest.

    We have also seen that Hulsey and AE9/11 are committing fraud by promoting a study they know is wrong.
    Why do you support Hulsey and AE9/11 when they are committing such fraud?


  • Options
    #1755
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    I've already explained this concisely many times.
    You just ignored when I did and you are now pretending that I never explained it to you.

    You are just deflecting however.
    I am not going to be refering to the NIST.

    The topic of this thread is Hulsey's report.

    You said the report was wrong. (You then later lied and claimed you did not say this.)
    You said you agree with a study you know is wrong.
    This is dishonest.

    We have also seen that Hulsey and AE9/11 are committing fraud by promoting a study they know is wrong.
    Why do you support Hulsey and AE9/11 when they are committing such fraud?

    You have no answer.
    You just posted the correction in the final paper.

    What the analysis shows in Aug 2008 it was 40 percent slower than freefall
    What the analysis shows in Nov 2008 freefall happened:D

    It's unbelieveable people accept this bull****.

    There is a reason NIST will never release their FEA data to be checked by independent engineers all the mistakes will be found by others and crime will be there for everyone to see. NIST today still claiming the data is protected due to public safety concerns. Why would it to be protected for 18 years?


  • Options
    #1756
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You have no answer.
    You just posted the correction in the final paper.

    What the analysis shows in Aug 2008 it was 40 percent slower than freefall
    What the analysis shows in Nov 2008 freefall happened:D

    It's unbelieveable people accept this bull****.
    But again, this has been explained to you.

    You are deflecting and ignoring the topic of the thread because you've made a show of yourself again.

    You said Hulsey's study was wrong.
    We can conclude from that that he, and AE9/11 are frauds by promoting a false study.
    You are also being dishonest because you still say you argee with a study you stated was wrong. You then tried to lie about what you said.
    You aren't able and willing to address these points and you just want to deflect back to points that have already been explained to you repeatedly.

    This thread is done.


  • Options
    #1757
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But again, this has been explained to you.

    You are deflecting and ignoring the topic of the thread because you've made a show of yourself again.

    You said Hulsey's study was wrong.
    We can conclude from that that he, and AE9/11 are frauds by promoting a false study.
    You are also being dishonest because you still say you argee with a study you stated was wrong. You then tried to lie about what you said.
    You aren't able and willing to address these points and you just want to deflect back to points that have already been explained to you repeatedly.

    This thread is done.

    Why does NIST not release their work and prove everyone wrong? They know people don't believe them. It dishonest to not show your work. Hiding behind a wall of secrecy is not how you do things. AE911 truth has to go to court to get them to release their FEA data and hope they succeed.,


  • Options
    #1758
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Why does NIST not release their work and prove everyone wrong? They know people don't believe them. It dishonest to not show your work. Hiding behind a wall of secrecy is not how you do things. AE911 truth has to go to court to get them to release their FEA data and hope they succeed.,
    And around and around you go...

    You're so upset by the fact Hulsey and AE9/11 just pulled a fraud so obvious even you can see it, you're just pretending Hulsey's report doesn't even exist anymore.

    It's very sad.


  • Options
    #1759
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But again, this has been explained to you.

    You are deflecting and ignoring the topic of the thread because you've made a show of yourself again.

    You said Hulsey's study was wrong.
    We can conclude from that that he, and AE9/11 are frauds by promoting a false study.
    You are also being dishonest because you still say you argee with a study you stated was wrong. You then tried to lie about what you said.
    You aren't able and willing to address these points and you just want to deflect back to points that have already been explained to you repeatedly.

    This thread is done.

    Hulsey released 2.3 gigs of building seven structural engineering data.
    If they're flaws this where you find it.
    Independent engineers across the world have full access to it and can build their own models using the data.
    NIST they released 10 percent of the data- 90 percent of it never seen.
    Hulsey transparency is there for all to see, he did not hide behind a wall of secrecy


  • Options
    #1760
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Hulsey released 2.3 gigs of building seven structural engineering data.
    Sure. And you said his study was wrong without even looking at it.


  • Options
    #1761
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Sure. And you said his study was wrong without even looking at it.

     Explained it to you multiple times, the collapse of the Penthouse was an isolated event.
     In your mind if Hulsey wrong here the demolition theory wrong as well?
    Untrue, because free fall happened, it not speculation or a hypothesis the engineers had about the collapse. 
    You’re acting like i said there was no collapse underneath the Penthouse and oh Hulsey most be wrong then. The only difference he thinks the collapse began up top and i don’t rule it out at starting at the bottom.
     This is not really a decisive error,  just the failure began somewhere else on the same side, and the result is the same (failure of PH)
    You not get any of this because you just here to trash the Hulsey study. The reply will be the same, as others provided today.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1762
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
     
     In your mind if Hulsey wrong here the demolition theory wrong as well?
    Nope, that's not what I'm saying.

    You said he was wrong.

    If he was wrong about what happened in the penthouse house collapse, that means his models were wrong.

    If his models were right, then he wouldn't be wrong about the penthouse and his study would agree with your expert opinion.

    Since his models are wrong, then all of the conclusions in the study cannot be trusted as they are all based on a false model.

    Additionally, since you are not smarter or better trained than Hulsey, that means that Hulsey MUST have noticed the same problem you did. If you know his study is wrong, then he must know his study is wrong too.
    Similarly, you are not smarter or more well trained than any of the experts from AE9/11. So they also must know the study is wrong.

    But you all are promoting a study you know is wrong.
    That's dishonest.


  • Options
    #1763
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Nope, that's not what I'm saying.

    You said he was wrong.

    If he was wrong about what happened in the penthouse house collapse, that means his models were wrong.

    If his models were right, then he wouldn't be wrong about the penthouse and his study would agree with your expert opinion.

    Since his models are wrong, then all of the conclusions in the study cannot be trusted as they are all based on a false model.

    Additionally, since you are not smarter or better trained than Hulsey, that means that Hulsey MUST have noticed the same problem you did. If you know his study is wrong, then he must know his study is wrong too.
    Similarly, you are not smarter or more well trained than any of the experts from AE9/11. So they also must know the study is wrong.

    But you all are promoting a study you know is wrong.
    That's dishonest.

    It doesn't work like that when the Penthouse has "unique" columns supporting it. We have to look at both events differently.

    Penthouse sat under the main core, you have a point.

    The main core is in the middle, and exterior columns are around the corners. Something else happened there to remove them.


  • Options
    #1764
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    It doesn't work like that when the Penthouse has "unique" columns supporting it. We have to look at both events differently.

    Penthouse sat under the main core, you have a point.

    The main core is in the middle, and exterior columns are around the corners. Something else happened there to remove them.
    But you're not actually addressing what I'm saying. You're still trying to deflect.

    You said Hulsey was wrong about how the penthouse collapsed. (Again, after lying and denying that you said that.)

    He used his models to determine how the penthouse collapsed.

    Therefore you believe his model is wrong.

    Since you believe his model is wrong, then his whole paper is invalid.
    How can he reach valid conclusions when his model is wrong and lead to incorrect conclusions?

    And again, it bears reminding: You reached your conclusion that he is wrong without looking at any of the data he provided and without any relevant training in architecture and with very very poor math and science skills.

    You believe that not only is Hulsey wrong, he is so wrong that even you can tell he's wrong at a glance.


  • Options
    #1765
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you're not actually addressing what I'm saying. You're still trying to deflect.

    You said Hulsey was wrong about how the penthouse collapsed. (Again, after lying and denying that you said that.)

    He used his models to determine how the penthouse collapsed.

    Therefore you believe his model is wrong.

    Since you believe his model is wrong, then his whole paper is invalid.
    How can he reach valid conclusions when his model is wrong and lead to incorrect conclusions?

    And again, it bears reminding: You reached your conclusion that he is wrong without looking at any of the data he provided and without any relevant training in architecture and with very very poor math and science skills.

    You believe that not only is Hulsey wrong, he is so wrong that even you can tell he's wrong at a glance.

    Hulsey theory makes sense based on the observed data from the outside. 7 floors of windows cracked when the Penthouse fell in.
    If the Penthouse was collapsing, right down to the ground more windows should be cracking and breaking.
    I can see why Hulsey believes the Penthouse rested on 40th floor and did not fall right through.
    This would be a failure of 1 or 2 columns.
    Where exactly did the two columns collapse- it could be in the middle or up top.
    The main demolition likely occurred somewhere between the 15th and 30th floor. (what i call the bottom)


  • Options
    #1766
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,769 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Why does NIST not release their work and prove everyone wrong? They know people don't believe them.

    The NIST report on 9/11 is accepted, worldwide. Only a small bunch of cranks and conspiracy theorists attack these 911 reports and investigations in order to suggest that some conspiracy they can't detail took place

    You can simply ask on any proper engineering or structural engineering forum, but of course you never do this


  • Options
    #1767
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    The NIST report on 9/11 is accepted, worldwide. Only a small bunch of cranks and conspiracy theorists attack these 911 reports and investigations in order to suggest that some conspiracy they can't detail took place

    You can simply ask on any proper engineering or structural engineering forum, but of course you never do this

    Those you call cranks are the bravest people on the planet. They don't accept rubbish. We live in a world that run by crazies and nutters and we end up in difficult situations like this because of incompetence. Covid-19 is a another example of the lack of leadership.

    WHO and OPCW have been exposed this year, for lying and covering up, NIST just part of that deep corruption.


  • Options
    #1768
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,769 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Those you call cranks are the bravest people on the planet.

    Nope, they are either lunatics like Alex Jones, or fraudsters like his friend Gage who makes a living from truthers.

    From secret military jets, to an insurance scam, to a Saudi conspiracy, to a "secret Nazi" conspiracy - your views fit in perfectly


  • Options
    #1769
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Nope, they are either lunatics like Alex Jones, or fraudsters like his friend Gage who makes a living from truthers.

    From secret military jets, to an insurance scam, to a Saudi conspiracy, to a "secret Nazi" conspiracy - your views fit in perfectly

    Your position is the official version correct,  even though it proved fact, 9/11 hijackers came to the US in 2000 and CIA had learned of this- two years before 9/11. You seem to want to forget these men (later hijackers of flight 77) were filmed in Malaysia in 1999 and were linked to the Cole ship bombing in Yemen. The CIA knew then they were high level AL Qeada operatives. Did the CIA not get suspicious when they were taking flying lessons? These questions are never asked by reporters. If you tracking terrorist Cells you have a very good idea of what they are up to ahead of time. 


  • Options
    #1770
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe: you never looked at narrative here objectively. We know in early months of summer foreign agencies were warning operatives from the middle east were planning to hit the US. You telling me it didn’t dawn on the brass in the CIA the terrorists who were allowed to walk around free inside the US might be planning something big? The 19 were using their real names to buy goods, rent cars, rent apartments, take flight lessons. You find them in 48 hours. The whole narrative makes no sense when you find out Huffington Aviation was bankrupt and Dekkers received cash lump sum from a donor to buy more planes a year before 9/11. When the Saudis appeared in Florida in the US. There a big gaping hole here the media doesn’t touch. 


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1771
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,769 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Dohnjoe: you never looked at narrative here objectively.  

    According to you 9/11 was an "inside job", and every few months you change your story. You can never explain details, never give a timeline. It's just a unending stream of fabricated nonsense.

    Now it's "Nazi's", next month who knows.


Advertisement