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…3132333436

Comments

  • #1752
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #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.


  • #1754
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #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?


  • #1756
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #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.,


  • #1758
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #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


  • #1760
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #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
  • #1762
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #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.


  • #1764
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #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)


  • #1766
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #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.


  • #1768
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #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. 


  • #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
  • #1771
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #1772
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    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.

    9/11 is not an event that fits into a small box and can easily be explained. There stages of planning here placing operatives in the position to take down building. Even the hijackings plan were prepared and the operation took years. The 9/11 hijackers were coming in and out of the US for years. There a trail of movements you have to follow and see where they showed up, who met them, and who was funding them. 


  • #1773
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    There stages of planning here placing operatives in the position to take down building.

    Which operatives? who?

    Let's start with their names..


  • #1774
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Which operatives? who?

    Let's start with their names..

    I don't know. It be great if we knew the names of the demolition crew.
    Collapse evidence supports the controlled demolition theory.
    They're still out there somewhere.


  • #1775
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I don't know.

    Exactly. You have no idea. These "operatives" are figments of your imagination, no one in their right mind would take you seriously on this subject. You can't give the names, you can't provide the details, you can't provide the timeline to your own theory. A theory which changes all the time.


  • #1776
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Exactly. You have no idea. These "operatives" are figments of your imagination, no one in their right mind would take you seriously on this subject. You can't give the names, you can't provide the details, you can't provide the timeline to your own theory. A theory which changes all the time.

    Dohnjoe your logic is flawed. We observing the features of the collapse of the building on 9/11.
    When you get past that point. They're people who rigged the building then for demolition:)

    We don’t have names is irrelevant right now. The fire collapse theory is flawed.


  • Advertisement
  • #1777
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe for me this proves the truther theory correct.

    When their analysis showed NIST , there was no "freefall, how can you take their word seriously later? I don't get it. There entire progressive collapse scenario was already in place when the presented the draft paper and they had all the models and stuff ready to be shown.

    40 percent slower than freefall is not what happened here.

    Building seven experienced full freefall over 100 feet below. That's zero support on 8 floors.

    This statement will live infamy for me and is clear evidence of a cover up.

    NIST never explained why they denied freefall. Is the statement difficult to understand.
    A free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... this what the truthers claim happened and evidence supports it.

    NIST during their draft presentation said no you guys are wrong!
    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.”


  • #1778
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Hulsey theory makes sense based on the observed data from the outside. 7 floors of windows cracked when the Penthouse fell in.
    But you said he was wrong. His model showed the penthouse collapsing in the wrong way. Therefore his model is wrong.
    If his model is wrong, his whole study is invalid.

    Are you saying that a study can be valid even if the model isn't accurate?


  • #1779
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you said he was wrong. His model showed the penthouse collapsing in the wrong way. Therefore his model is wrong.
    If his model is wrong, his whole study is invalid.

    Are you saying that a study can be valid even if the model isn't accurate?

    It is information you will never understand.

    Hulsey theory is the Penthouse would collapse down at this stage here.
    512417.png

    You can see here he highlights noticeable deflection below these top floors, which backs up my theory, something was going on further down at the bottom. You can see the floor slabs move here in the model.

    512418.png

    Even here there noticeable deflection of the floor slabs.

    512419.png


  • #1780
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You can see here he highlights noticeable deflection below these top floors, which backs up my theory, something was going on further down at the bottom. You can see the floor slabs move here in the model.
    But you said he's wrong. You said his model is wrong.
    How can the model "Back you up" when it's wrong and invalid?

    it's very bizarre logic here...


  • #1781
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you said he's wrong. You said his model is wrong.
    How can the model "Back you up" when it's wrong and invalid?

    it's very bizarre logic here...

    I thought the claim was there be only real movement at the very top under the roof of the Penthouse. Closer look now he highlights "deflection" at the bottom when you pull out columns there. Deflection is buckling and movement of elements inside the building. Hulsey correct though the columns would have to break under the Penthouse for the structure to fall in, but where the deflection started underneath is the hard part of the analysis in all this. What floor and how it began.
    I don’t disagree these are the columns that lead to the collapse failure, you just don’t get that.


  • Advertisement
  • #1782
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,644 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I thought the claim was there be only real movement at the very top under the roof of the Penthouse. Closer look now he highlights "deflection" at the bottom when you pull out columns there. Deflection is buckling and movement of elements inside the building. Hulsey correct though the columns would have to break under the Penthouse for the structure to fall in, but where the deflection started underneath is the hard part of the analysis in all this. What floor and how it began.
    I don’t disagree these are the columns that lead to the collapse failure, you just don’t get that.

    You really are an expert in deflection, just not in this context.


  • #1783
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Hulsey correct though
    But you are just deflecting and backpedaling now. It's very sad and a bit pathetic.

    You said that he was wrong. You lied and tried to deny you said that. You are now trying to backpedal because you've embarassed yourself and painted yourself into a corner.

    So you've said that Hulsey was wrong. You can't change that.
    That means his model is wrong. You can't weasel out of that either.

    Why do you keep supporting his study when it's model is wrong?


  • #1784
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    You really are an expert in deflection, just not in this context.

    Timber you can see right under the roofline, the floors are giving way, the Penthouse is moving.

    512422.png


  • #1785
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Timber you can see right under the roofline, the floors are giving way, the Penthouse is moving.

    512422.png
    You've claimed this model is wrong. Why are you acting as if it helps your position?
    It disagrees with your expert opinion.


  • #1786
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    You've claimed this model is wrong. Why are you acting as if it helps your position?
    It disagrees with your expert opinion.

    You losing your **** calm down. I looked over some of the different models and now see Hulsey is not claiming no movement occurred below. Mick West was claiming Hulsey was showing no movement under the Penthouse. I had a problem too with that analysis! Hulsey does show movement under the Penthouse, I have looked at other models, i entitled to change my oipinion with more information.


  • #1787
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You losing your **** calm down.
    Lol, wut? :confused:

    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Mick West
    Again with your weird obessesion.

    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Hulsey does show movement under the Penthouse, I have looked at other models, i entitled to change my oipinion with more information.
    Ok. So now after all this you're saying that you were wrong when you stated as a fact that Hulsey was wrong?
    Lol


  • #1788
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol, wut? :confused:



    Again with your weird obessesion.



    Ok. So now after all this you're saying that you were wrong when you stated as a fact that Hulsey was wrong?
    Lol

    Explained to you multiple times in this thread the Penthouse is not what brought building seven down. Even if NIST was right about the collapse there, the main core and exterior, still have to be removed in way that makes sense.
    In this thread you constantly avoid talking about it
    I provided you the quote where NIST denied Freefall when the presented their draft paper in Aug 2008.
    40 percent slower than freefall and resistance underneath means the collapse it is happening a different way to the actual collapse on 9/11


  • #1789
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Explained to you multiple times in this thread the Penthouse is not ....
    Sorry you seem to have gotten distacted by off topic nonsense and rambling again.

    You previous said that Hulsey was wrong. You just now said you've changed your mind after dozens of pages of ignoring your statement and even lying outright about it.

    So which is it. Do you believe Hulsey was wrong or he was right?


  • #1790
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Sorry you seem to have gotten distacted by off topic nonsense and rambling again.

    You previous said that Hulsey was wrong. You just now said you've changed your mind after dozens of pages of ignoring your statement and even lying outright about it.

    So which is it. Do you believe Hulsey was wrong or he was right?

    This quote by NIST you can not avoid, as much you would like to.

    This is Freefall and this occurred inside the building.
    A free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it....

    NIST during their draft presentation denied it :eek:
    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.”


  • #1791
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    This quote by NIST you can not avoid, as much you would like to.
    But that has been explained to you many times.

    As I predicted now that you've come up against points you can't address you you circling back around to this off topic point.

    It's very silly.

    Again, you've claimed that Hulsey was wrong.
    You aren't interested in discussing this report, the topic of the thread, because you know his paper is a sham and you can't defend it.

    The last hope of the conspiracy theory turned out to be so utterly disappointing that even you are ignoring it.

    That's very funny.


  • Advertisement
  • #1792
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But that has been explained to you many times.

    As I predicted now that you've come up against points you can't address you you circling back around to this off topic point.

    It's very silly.

    Again, you've claimed that Hulsey was wrong.
    You aren't interested in discussing this report, the topic of the thread, because you know his paper is a sham and you can't defend it.

    The last hope of the conspiracy theory turned out to be so utterly disappointing that even you are ignoring it.

    That's very funny.

    How is 40 percent slower than free fall- real free fall? You have some explanation.

    Freefall means zero resistance. That means all the columns over 100 feet inside the building are gone plus the floors underneath are now missing. There was no collisions steel on steel over 100 feet when the top half slid into the bottom half.
    That’s indicative of a controlled demolition. Pulling out key support holding up the building from corner to corner.


  • #1793
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    How is 40 percent slower than free fall- real free fall? You have some explanation.
    Yes, we've told you before.
    I've no interest in repeating myself when you'll just ignore it like you do with every point.

    The topic is Hulsey's report which you've said is wrong.

    This thread should be locked since you've no interest or ability to discuss the report.


  • #1794
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, we've told you before.
    I've no interest in repeating myself when you'll just ignore it like you do with every point.

    The topic is Hulsey's report which you've said is wrong.

    This thread should be locked since you've no interest or ability to discuss the report.

    You want it locked because you can't answer why NIST denied Freefall after six years of work.

    I asked you for explantation for days now, and you avoid..

    Freefall is evidence for a controlled demolition. Freefall would not happen, if the girders and beams and columns were still in place over 100 feet.


  • #1795
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You want it locked because you can't answer why NIST denied Freefall after six years of work.

    I asked you for explantation for days now, and you avoid..
    But I have explained it many times. You keep pretending otherwise.
    If I explain it again, you will ignore it, go off on a tangent, then get all pissy when you corner yourself again, then jump back to this point and say that it's never been explained.

    You've done this many times.
    You'd just done this because you can't address the fact you believe Hulsey's Report is wrong.

    The topic of the thread is hulsey's report.
    You don't want to discuss this because you've admitted it's wrong.

    Unless you're going to discuss the actual topic of the thread, then that's it.


  • #1796
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But I have explained it many times. You keep pretending otherwise.
    If I explain it again, you will ignore it, go off on a tangent, then get all pissy when you corner yourself again, then jump back to this point and say that it's never been explained.

    You've done this many times.
    You'd just done this because you can't address the fact you believe Hulsey's Report is wrong.

    The topic of the thread is hulsey's report.
    You don't want to discuss this because you've admitted it's wrong.

    Unless you're going to discuss the actual topic of the thread, then that's it.

    More sentences and not addressing the topic here.
    Freefall is a discussion topic.
    Hulsey claim is the core and exterior were removed on 8 floors ( ie freefall) before the roofline moved and building collapsed.
    You can't wrap your head around why freefall is important here. It's the truther evidence the columns were not buckling but were removed by another energy placed inside the building to take them out.


  • #1797
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Explained to you multiple times in this thread the Penthouse is not what brought building seven down.

    You've never ever detailed what brought any of the buildings down

    You literally believe all three buildings were blown up. We've asked you for the details countless times, you can't provide them. On a normal forum you'd be booted off for that type of nonsense

    This is literally the only place where no one has to support their claims, they can just make them, over and over.


  • #1798
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You've never ever detailed what brought any of the buildings down

    You literally believe all three buildings were blown up. We've asked you for the details countless times, you can't provide them. On a normal forum you'd be booted off for that type of nonsense

    This is literally the only place where no one has to support their claims, they can just make them, over and over.

    Dohnjoe the proof is in NIST statement.

    40 percent slower then freefall is indicative of a fire collapse model. With columns slowing buckling and floor collapsing at a slower rate underneath
    That’s why NIST said their anyasis showed 40 percent slower than freefall.
    Actual freefall- full removal of columns there is no resistance. Only known method to take out columns across the width of building at a freefall time is by demolition.


  • #1799
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    More sentences and not addressing the topic here.
    Yes, I've explained why I'm not going to repeat myself to you.
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Freefall is a discussion topic.
    Hulsey claim is the core and exterior were removed on 8 floors ( ie freefall) before the roofline moved and building collapsed.
    You can't wrap your head around why freefall is important here. It's the truther evidence the columns were not buckling but were removed by another energy placed inside the building to take them out.
    But you said that Hulsey is wrong. You said his models are wrong.


  • #1800
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Dohnjoe the proof is in NIST statement.

    No it isn't.

    You, and groups of like-minded individuals on the internet, think that your ignorance and non-understanding of investigations is "proof" that something else you can't detail happened.


  • Advertisement
  • #1801
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    No it isn't.

    You, and groups of like-minded individuals on the internet, think that your ignorance and non-understanding of investigations is "proof" that something else you can't detail happened.

    You wrong. This statement is a denial. I let you guys believe what you like. :)

    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.”


Advertisement