The Hulsey Report

Discussion in '9/11' started by Shinebox, Jun 20, 2018.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Go back and read for comprehension. It seems you're either pretending to be dense or you really are that dense.

    I can't believe you have zero understanding of what I post, so I'll go with you're pretending. I'm certain you're really not that dense.

    One who exhibits an incredible lack of understanding based on severe reading comprehension issues should not be insulting anyone else's intelligence.
     
  2. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's where you're wrong Bobby. I understand that what you post is extremely stupid. That's why I keep pointing it out.
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can point out anything you like, unfortunately it rarely has anything to do with what I post. And that's why you perceive it as "stupid". Like I said, this is really old, you're always trying to spin what I post to pretend it means something entirely different then argue YOUR version of what I post then declare it "stupid". I read that time and time again, this is as phony as a 3 dollar bill.
     
  4. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nah. Your claims really are stupid. That's the whole point.
     
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    48
    There is no "spin" Bobby.

    You think his experiment was a good one. It was meant to show the physics involved in the twin towers and leads "the uninitiated" to believe that that the collapse should have arrested. The experiment uses washers as "floors", paper loops as the "floor supports", and a wooden dowel as the "core".

    You're just not intelligent enough to figure that out.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What's "stupid" is you trying to spin everything I post in order to try to defend the OCT.

    Yep, I think it was brilliant.

    And apparently you're not intelligent enough to figure out that:

    1. If such a simple structure can arrest a collapse how is it possible that 3 structures such as the WTC towers could not?

    2. How is it possible that all 3 towers "collapsed" through the path of highest resistance (according to the OCT) while the experiment shows that could not happen?

    3. Why did the experiment require a wooden dowel to keep all the collapsing material from falling to the side while there was no such thing in the 3 WTC towers that could keep the collapsing material from falling to the side yet it allegedly (according to the OCT) destroyed everything below it vertically in accelerating fashion, defying basic laws of physics?

    4. Where is any experiment or computer model (even a simple one) that could duplicate to any reasonable extent what happened to the 3 towers on 9/11? Oh yeah still waiting for NIST.

    Try not to challenge another person's intelligence when you show all you do here is play all sorts of childish games in the hope that you can convince someone who is not already convinced that the OCT is fact.
     
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If you can't figure out why the washer/paper loop/wooden dowel model is a terrible representation of the towers to figure something like that out, then you're not going to be able to understand the explanation.
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL. Good way to avoid all my questions. Say nothing but challenge my intelligence. You are such a transparent phony, do you really believe there's anything genuine in your posts that anyone with any reasonable level of intelligence can't see through you?
     
  9. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How about this experiment Bobby? How did the smaller, upper section being dropped collapse the whole thing?
     
  10. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Then after discussing the post above, you can explain how the video below goes AGAINST the results of the experiment you so dearly love.
     
  11. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    48
    See above...
     
  12. Max Rockatansky

    Max Rockatansky Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    25,394
    Likes Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's a conspiracy!
    [​IMG]
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep thanks for showing how structure can be rigged for total CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

    These too:



    And that's the point.

    And also what happens when controlled demolitions don't work as planned:



    Again, where is the experiment that can duplicate or at least create a similar event as the 3 towers on 9/11?

    Why is it that there were at least 2 experiments with overstuffed fire hazards and exaggerated fires that failed to collapse steel framed structures?
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes 9/11 was a conspiracy, that's what the 9/11 Commission claims, the Bush administration claims and everyone with half a neuron knows. DUH! The issue here is why would anyone buy the official conspiracy theory given the massive contradictory, questionable and absence of evidence. Silly official conspiracy theorists trying to ridicule others by calling them conspiracy theorists.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2018
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Failed again Bob.

    Explain why the washer/paper loop/wooden dowel model is a better representation of the twin towers than Mick's model in the first video.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep you did fail to convince me if that's what you're trying to do. All you keep trying to do is insult my intelligence. The difference is I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I don't care what you believe or don't. I'm pretty sure I had you figured out long ago.

    I already did, the former is not rigged for total collapse, the latter is. There's a reason I emphasized that word, did you miss it? Talk about failed, you have to be joking, any fool can figure that out.
     
  17. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If you think the washer/paper loop/wooden dowel model was "brilliant" and is the perfect experiment of physics, explain why Mick's model completely collapsed.
     
  18. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Mick's model with the boards was "rigged" for collapse? How so?
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure I can explain it. Mick is just like you, hell bent on trying to convince his audience the OCT is 100% accurate and there are no flaws, no questions to be asked. Just like you, he never asks any. So for the ignorant and for his equal minded OCT worshipers he designed a structure rigged for total collapse to try to prove such a structure can totally collapse. LMFAO, I would ask if you're for real but I already know the answer.

    C'mon man now you're really trying to be stupid. Anyone can see all the connections are deliberately made to give way quite easily. He might as well have built a house of cards.
     
  20. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    48
    But I thought that a smaller, upper section, could not destroy a lower larger section Bob? Mick made a structure that supported itself and then dropped a smaller portion onto the lower, larger portion. Now you're adding a stipulation to it? If the structure has weak enough connections, then a smaller section of said structure CAN crush the larger lower half? Is that it Bobby?
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2018

Share This Page