I found the missing Jolt.

[GlennB]

The arguments of the anti-controlled demolition regulars here, like you, are disingenuous. They are of your making, so it is on you. I am merely pointing it out, along with others who have seen through the deceit.

Your claims about your debate opponents being paid shills, disingenuous, deluded, whatever, doesn't cover up the fact that you refuse to support your claims about the use of explosives in 9/11 CD by referring to the supposed placing and power of those explosives.

The current discussion is about WTC7, and your claim requires a minimum of 192 explosive charges, right up to 1000+ for a more conventional method using 2 cutter charges per flange per 'I' column per storey plus a kicker charge per column section (actually a good argument could be made for a requirement to have 4 cutter charges top and bottom of each section, in which case we're pushing 2000). I thought we'd keep it ultra-conservative and go for 192 to see how you explain it, but every time the subject is raised you divert the argument onto shills and new investigations and the like.

Bottom line - you have no clue whatsoever how your own proposal would actually be implemented in practice, do you?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

it isn't pesudo science you are using it is pseudo science. Once you get that straightened out I might be able to believe you can even possibly do some of the other things you claim. First things first you know.

La La Land is the present official story we have had crammed down our throats.

Your opinion has no basis in reality Tony, any more than Steven, or Judy's did.

Have a nice life chasing rainbows and spotted unicorns, you are like Cole, not worth my time better to sit back and Laugh.

Like I do at Cole, especially his idiotic models and experiments, which I recently discussed with Dr. G. and a structural engineering friend of mine.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Your claims about your debate opponents being paid shills, disingenuous, deluded, whatever, doesn't cover up the fact that you refuse to support your claims about the use of explosives in 9/11 CD by referring to the supposed placing and power of those explosives.

The current discussion is about WTC7, and your claim requires a minimum of 192 explosive charges, right up to 1000+ for a more conventional method using 2 cutter charges per flange per 'I' column per storey plus a kicker charge per column section (actually a good argument could be made for a requirement to have 4 cutter charges top and bottom of each section, in which case we're pushing 2000). I thought we'd keep it ultra-conservative and go for 192 to see how you explain it, but every time the subject is raised you divert the argument onto shills and new investigations and the like.

Bottom line - you have no clue whatsoever how your own proposal would actually be implemented in practice, do you?

You started this thread claiming to have explained the dynamics of the collapse of the North Tower naturally. It is clearly you who haven't made your case, and that is proven by your diversion to topics which can't be known with the same certainty, but can certainly be inferred from the dynamics.

 

[Spanx]

There are others here who I am sure are simply lying through their teeth and trying to stand up the fraud for money, or to protect someone they are ingratiated to, or very possibly themselves.

Tony,
Being the fine upstanding member of society you are, isn't it your duty to report these people ?

Why aren't you doing this?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Your opinion has no basis in reality Tony, any more than Steven, or Judy's did.

Have a nice life chasing rainbows and spotted unicorns, you are like Cole, not worth my time better to sit back and Laugh.

Like I do at Cole, especially his idiotic models and experiments, which I recently discussed with Dr. G. and a structural engineering friend of mine.

Steven Jones' points about the collapses not being natural have a basis in reality. Judy Woods' do not.

To lump them together is disingenuous on its face and says a lot about your thinking and that you are trying to deceive.

Jon Cole's models and experiments certainly have merit and your criticisms of them are actually ridiculous and nothing more than trying to say something that isn't true a lot with the hope that people start believing it.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Your claims about your debate opponents being paid shills, disingenuous, deluded, whatever, doesn't cover up the fact that you refuse to support your claims about the use of explosives in 9/11 CD by referring to the supposed placing and power of those explosives.

The current discussion is about WTC7, and your claim requires a minimum of 192 explosive charges, right up to 1000+ for a more conventional method using 2 cutter charges per flange per 'I' column per storey plus a kicker charge per column section (actually a good argument could be made for a requirement to have 4 cutter charges top and bottom of each section, in which case we're pushing 2000). I thought we'd keep it ultra-conservative and go for 192 to see how you explain it, but every time the subject is raised you divert the argument onto shills and new investigations and the like.

Bottom line - you have no clue whatsoever how your own proposal would actually be implemented in practice, do you?

He can't even show the wedge shaped intrusion characteristics of a Monroe's effect cutter charge, on any of the steel he believes was cut pathetically inept behavior from a self proclaimed expert.
No intrusion of the metal plasma of a cutter charge means no freaking charge.
No abrasions, deformations, intrusions, or shrapnel means no explosives.

Typical woo is all their is shown in the post he makes.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

You started this thread claiming to have explained the dynamics of the collapse of the North Tower naturally. It is clearly you who haven't made your case, and that is proven by your diversion to topics which can't be known with the same certainty, but can certainly be inferred from the dynamics.

He didn't start this Thread, I did.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,
Being the fine upstanding member of society you are, isn't it your duty to report these people ?

Why aren't you doing this?

What should I report? That somebody using a pseudonym is lying about a crime that law enforcement has intentionally not investigated?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

He didn't start this Thread, I did.

Sorry, I thought GlennB's post was yours. The point I made was intended to be addressed to you. However, GlennB is a disingenuous poster also and is also trying to divert the discussion, so I could say it applies to him too.

 

[GlennB]

... your diversion to topics which can't be known with the same certainty, but can certainly be inferred from the dynamics.

And absence of explosives can't be inferred by the lack of 192+ explosions?

You seem to have a very one-sided logic going on there.

 

[Spanx]

What should I report? That somebody using a pseudonym is lying about a crime that law enforcement has intentionally not investigated?

Good point, you have no evidence.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Good point, you have no evidence.

You are claiming a meaning which does not exist from what I said. It is clear that evidence for controlled demolition exists and that the collapses were not investigated properly. The NIST reports on them have been shown to be fraudulent. People like you are just another tier in the cover-up and lying needed to support the fraud.

 

[Myriad]

I don't think my reputation has any problems. The webinar I did on WTC 7 for AE911Truth a few weeks ago had 300 people watching live and it is over 2,700 views now. An engineer I work with, that I gave the link to, watched it and said it was impressive.

I also get thanked for speaking out about the problems with the 911 story we were told by authorities quite often. I'll bet none of the anti-controlled demolition regulars here can say they are thanked for trying to stand up and keep the fraud which has been perpetrated intact.

And yet, you come here to argue. Could it be that your appreciative audience of thousands has, like yourself, been unable to get your and their ideas accepted by the engineering, historian, law enforcement, insurance, political activist, journalist, or politician communities?

Preaching to the converted is unsatisfying in the long term. At least, in environmental activism I've found it so. One gets the feeling that one is successfully entertaining the audience, perhaps even teaching them details they didn't appreciate before, but is not really changing their world views in any way. When I'm out petitioning, I feel more accomplished having fully presented my position to someone who continues to waver or disagree and doesn't sign, than getting a signature because someone sees the word "environment" and immediately signs without even wanting to hear what the petition is really for.

The high fives from the likes of FalseFlag and Criteria can't really be worth the effort you put in here. So, what is?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And yet, you come here to argue. Could it be that your appreciative audience of thousands has, like yourself, been unable to get your and their ideas accepted by the engineering, historian, law enforcement, insurance, political activist, journalist, or politician communities?

Preaching to the converted is unsatisfying in the long term. At least, in environmental activism I've found it so. One gets the feeling that one is successfully entertaining the audience, perhaps even teaching them details they didn't appreciate before, but is not really changing their world views in any way. When I'm out petitioning, I feel more accomplished having fully presented my position to someone who continues to waver or disagree and doesn't sign, than getting a signature because someone sees the word "environment" and immediately signs without even wanting to hear what the petition is really for.

The high fives from the likes of FalseFlag and Criteria can't really be worth the effort you put in here. So, what is?

I come here to at least pinch the ass of the fraud supporters and criminals who so far have gotten away with it. It is the least I can do to make them worry that there is actually a possibility, however slight, that they might be held to account.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Steven Jones' points about the collapses not being natural have a basis in reality. Judy Woods' do not.

To lump them together is disingenuous on its face and says a lot about your thinking and that you are trying to deceive.

Jon Cole's models and experiments certainly have merit and your criticisms of them are actually ridiculous and nothing more than trying to say something that isn't true a lot with the hope that people start believing it.

As much merit as the belief in pink flying winged pigs.

Steven's paint chips haven't helped your cause lately have they?

Cole's experiments are a total Joke, way to simplified and simplistic to be of any value to anyone other than those with less IQ, than bacteria.

Just dropping different weights on a diet mountain dew can shows his fallacy, the response of a structure to energy apllied to it is directly porpotional to MA-R MA<R collapse stops, MA>R Collapse increases in speed do to gravity.

I could go on but like I said your not worth my time, just like Steven and Woods.

 

[Spanx]

You are claiming a meaning which does not exist from what I said. It is clear that evidence for controlled demolition exists and that the collapses were not investigated properly. The NIST reports on them have been shown to be fraudulent. People like you are just another tier in the cover-up and lying needed to support the fraud.

Tony,

You have evidence of a crime and you are telling me that you can't report it.

Then you accuse me of being part of the cover up.

Just report it and you will see I am not part of the cover up.

If I had evidence of a crime I would report it and I would like to think most people would.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Sorry, I thought GlennB's post was yours. The point I made was intended to be addressed to you. However, GlennB is a disingenuous poster also and is also trying to divert the discussion, so I could say it applies to him too.

Interesting that Myself and my friend Frank were discussing this very topic, lately and I did the calculations that showed the Jolt even if it did occur was too fast and too short to be captured by the video equipment in usage at the time.
Less than 8 tenths of a second with continuous gravitational acceleration during that travel time. The jolt would have appeared as disunity, rather than a bounce effect even if all core columns magicly aligned.
In effect it would be like chasing the mythical pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I come here to at least pinch the ass of the fraud supporters and criminals who so far have gotten away with it. It is the least I can do to make them worry that there is actually a possibility, however slight, that they might be held to account.

Oh my nights are sleepless worrying that I will one day be hung from a NewYork lamp post for my crimes, in fact I will provide my own rope, and tie my own noose with thirteen rounds just to make it safer for truthers. Wouldn't want them getting hurt trying to do something in the real world.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Oh my nights are sleepless worrying that I will one day be hung from a NewYork lamp post for my crimes, in fact I will provide my own rope, and tie my own noose with thirteen rounds just to make it safer for truthers. Wouldn't want them getting hurt trying to do something in the real world.

I also come here to force the fraud supporters to try to explain their position and show the inanity of it for all to see.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I also come here to force the fraud supporters to try to explain their position and show the inanity of it for all to see.

You have indeed shown insanity, but most likely not in the way you wished it to be shown.