I found the missing Jolt.

This is OT... I apologize.

I am now convinced that a significant element if paranoia is present amongst some of the truth movement people... based on two emails I received.

People are entitled to believe what they want... and try to influence and bring others along with them. I think this IS what the 9/11 truth movement does. However, I don't think they have made the case and have as noted above convinced mostly naive and politically driven people with a massive distrust of all things establishment.

Of course they occasionally do try to pitch their points to those who are objective and technically competent and have converted no one as far as I know after trying for a decade using AE911T as their platform.

We know AE911T conducts no research, has raised millions of dollars since its inceptions and is little more than a marketing operation repeating what is essentially "junk" science which it has not vetted and could not vet.

When pressed their proponents come up with "scenarios" which are simply impossible to pull off... such as the total simuiltaneous destruction of scores of columns over multiple continuous floors in buildings that have been burning for hours. And that is the CD version. Anti establishment truth people have come up with mini nukes, Directed energy weapons, non existent nano thermite, no planes, holograph planes, remote controlled planes. Whereas everyone one sees steel toppling and falling over from the twin towers... the truth people see it as being explosively ejected to one and a half times the distance it actually was (WFC damage).

And it's not as if people have given rational support to demonstrate that their ideas of wrong. They have for years.

A large aspect of their belief is that the "official" investigations were a "fraud" and a cover up... yet another layer of the conspiracy. Of course it is possible and likely that no precise detailed play by play explanation of chaotic and extremely complete events have some errors. Nit picking and finding the smallest mistake become proof that they "officials" had ti engage in deception to cover for the real cause... the inside job done as a false flag... presumably to start wars, grab oil, collect insurance and make out on the stock market, destroy damaging legal records, and kill whistle blowers who could expose their conspiracy.

No affirmative case has been made with evidence of an inside job false flag. It's a hard case to make and so they try to sow seeds of doubt... such as make false claims that free fall motion means CD. People are notoriously not skilled and trained observers and can easily be led by someone claims they are (Chandler for example). Cole produces experiments which easily convince only those who don't understand physics but don't demonstrate what he attempts and physicists and engineers see right through the ruse. Harrit et all... a bunch of co authors with no technical background publish in an unreputable pay to publish online journal and claim their work has been peer reviewed. Their "scientific" conclusion has not be reproduced.... as one is expects to be done. It's been falsified by others.

Because of the complexity of the collapse, there likely are alternate theories to explain the initiation phase of the three collapses. There was an absence of real time data which would have assisted in identifying the actual sequence. Reasonable assumptions were used based on the data that could be found. The official explanations are best educated guesses using known energy inputs and some assumed values for those inputs.

People CAN argue / discuss / debate the initiation... and the mechanisms of the progression to complete collapse. And they should. But these discussions will be driven by a different set of assumptions and values. Introducing DEWs or mini nukes of silent explosives cannot be taken seriously. And it is not by people who accept and practice science and engineering to explain the way the world works. This involves scientific principle and mathematical modeling of them and it does become complex beyond the reach for those who have not studied and completed physics or engineering at university level.

The truth movement will continue to recruit the naive... and fail to convince the engineers and scientists. When they do meet no minds are changed. The engineers find the truth guy's arguments absurd... and the truth guys think the engineers are part of the cover up and shills paid and unpaid for the cover up.

As someone who has been accused multiple times of being a paid shill, a dis info agent and worse by truth leaders and their followers... who has worked inside their movement for a while because of a genuine interest to see what the claimed "truth" might be... and found nothing but a marketing operation... I see no end to this squabble... which has degenerated into an online version of a schoolyard brawl. It is frustrating and amusing at the same time. It can be instructive as well because some decent science is exposed.

No minds are being changed and what happened is not a matter of opinion. People will cling to there opinions but they can't manufacture their own facts.
 
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.

I don't support fraud. And you have no shown any fraud. Even if the official explanation has errors, which wouldn't surprise me... the CD/false flag case as not been made affirmatively.
 
we will be held to account, so says the realcddeal

I come here to at least pinch the ass of the fraud supporters
You keep coming back to things related to... is it an obsession, from talk from, to pinching...

I expected you to come here and present evidence, instead you talk about bigger fantasy, the aircraft ruse you can't explain. How many bad guys does the aircraft ruse add? Does this mean the flight crew who reported the murder of crew and passengers is part of the aircraft ruse used to support your CD fantasy? How does that work?

and criminals who so far have gotten away with it.
No, they are dead, 19 murderers died in the planes, your ruse was no a ruse; your ruse of aircraft, like CD is BS.

... make them worry that there is actually a possibility, however slight, that they might be held to account.
Who will hold you to account for being paranoid and spreading lies about the murder of thousands? ... This is rich, you will arrest us for knowing you have a fantasy of CD and the inside job of aircraft ruse. You sound like Balsamo.

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.
Your CD claims are fraud based on BS and hate. Why do you hate us.
What did the FBI say about your evidence? I mean your lack of evidence.
 
Last edited:
I come here to at least pinch the ass of the fraud supporters and criminals who so far have gotten away with it.


My ass is amazingly lean and tight for my age. I doubt you have the grip strength to pinch it. It would be like trying to noogie a bowling ball. Like trying to nipple-tweak the Venus de Milo. Like trying to Indian burn a tree limb. You might as well try to spank the Rock of Gibraltar. Or just The Rock. Either way. I'm saying it's firm, baby. Mosquitoes bounce off.

Nope, if you want to assault my ass I strongly suggest sinking your teeth in and applying your jaw strength.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.
 
................An engineer I work with, that I gave the link to, watched it and said it was impressive.

You keep claiming that most of the engineers you present your evidence to support you. Where is this support?

You obviously can't convince them enough to tell their colleagues, or AE's growth would be exponential not linear like we see. How do you explain this? Let me guess, it's just another distraction?
 
Last edited:
I do not receive money from AE911Truth. In fact, it is just the opposite, as I contribute to its cause with a small amount monthly.

Although I don't believe your version of 9/11 events. I do believe that you don't receive money. I do believe you contribute monthly.

Have you thought about cancelling your contribution to see if you are still welcome? You can always stock pile the money and give at a later date if you are still welcome.

The reason I say the above is because I think you are being used.
 
I do not receive money from AE911Truth. In fact, it is just the opposite, as I contribute to its cause with a small amount monthly.

I saw 911 for the fraud it was a number of months before AE911truth was started. I signed its petition to voice my support for the real investigation we need, but have never had.

So Tony, you haven't figured out that Gage is a con artist and is only in the 911 Truth Movement for the money. And he doesn't even believe his own line of B.S.

Tony take a look at his organization, it not about finding the truth, it is not about a new investigation, it only about making money.
 
It appears to me that Tony is totally on board with AE911T's bullet points especially that the buildings were made to come down with CD as part of a inside job false flag. AE doesn't generate technical materials on its own to support its mission. It uses the work of people like Tony, Cole, Chandler, Harrit and so on. There is a hand in glove relationship between AE and those who supply material/presentations and papers. AE does not send those papers to independent groups for review / vetting. They accept them on face value and consider the work flawless. (it's definitely not)

AE's latest effort is the Hulsey FEA. No one can predict the outcome. But if it doesn't confirm AE's "beliefs" it will be branded incompetent... or similar. If the thrust of the report doesn't support AE... it will not change their position. They are sort of a trapped in maintaining their position because I suppose they fear the backlash from their supporters... who might demand their money back feeling they were scammed or lied to. So as long as they can go on.... claiming CD and asking for an independent investigation.... they will continue to raise money to raise money... and not alienate their supporters who will parrot their talking points and deny all the work which refutes it. Until their mothership cries UNCLE... they will follow the leader.

You have a situation which allows AE and the people who produce material to support them... to maintain their "fiction" because the official engineering world doesn't refute them... most likely because they don't take their work seriously. Why bother giving quacks the standing by responding. This would be like having creationists present papers at a science conference on evolutionary biology. Creationists use all manner of "tricks" to try to gain acceptance including calling their beliefs creation science. And this is hardly different from letting someone like Harrit or Cole of Tony claims professional standing in the engineering community for their "engineering and science".
 
Why Tony fails is that while he has done some calculation he doesn't move to the next steps and explain how the charges were brought into the buildings, how they were attached without anybody seeing them, and how they were detonated.

Yet he insists a crime was committed, but won't say how it was done, nor who did it.

In the end he's just another C-List CTist.
 
Why Tony fails is that while he has done some calculation he doesn't move to the next steps and explain how the charges were brought into the buildings, how they were attached without anybody seeing them, and how they were detonated.

Yet he insists a crime was committed, but won't say how it was done, nor who did it.

In the end he's just another C-List CTist.

He claims it was done by the fake Ace Elevator guys in the twin towers... Not sure who he things went into the burning building 7 and rigged that up.
 
He claims it was done by the fake Ace Elevator guys in the twin towers... Not sure who he things went into the burning building 7 and rigged that up.


Which is sad because WTC2's collapse initiation point was to one side, and not the core, and WTC1's face was buckling inward where the fires where the worst.

Plus, they still would have had to get past Port Authority security - every day for the three or four months needed to wire the complex.
 
You have a situation which allows AE and the people who produce material to support them... to maintain their "fiction" because the official engineering world doesn't refute them... most likely because they don't take their work seriously. Why bother giving quacks the standing by responding. This would be like having creationists present papers at a science conference on evolutionary biology. Creationists use all manner of "tricks" to try to gain acceptance including calling their beliefs creation science. And this is hardly different from letting someone like Harrit or Cole of Tony claims professional standing in the engineering community for their "engineering and science".

Although this is a little off topic, this reminds me of the Tom Crawford eviction in the Uk.

Have a look Tony, you will see how it works.

I don't think there is a thread about it on this forum.
 
He claims it was done by the fake Ace Elevator guys in the twin towers... Not sure who he things went into the burning building 7 and rigged that up.

It was a dedicated CD team, following the arson team, both ready to roll from the outset. Why is a little unclear.

The arson team was a requirement as he has clearly stated that the dust from WTC1 would have put out any fires arising in WTC7 as a result of WTC1's collapse. The WTC7 fires *cannot* have occurred naturally, in his view.

This is a bit odd as we know for sure that WTC1 set fires in Barclay St, slightly to the north of WTC7. What's more it set fires in a casual parking lot way over beyond the Verizon building, though Judy Wood might disagree.
 

Attachments

  • burning cars location.jpg
    burning cars location.jpg
    71.3 KB · Views: 1
  • burning cars.jpg
    burning cars.jpg
    88.6 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:
Can I see some math from you or are you going to be bombastic like tfk?
No math is needed to note the differences between the damage and failure mode considered by NIST and that considered by Nordenson which you have adopted for your analysis. That alone renders your analysis invalid, even if you were right that Nordenson made a mistake.


tfk shows no calculation and his comments are nothing but denigration garbage. There is no substance to what he is saying.
Our definition of substance must differ, because I've seen quite a lot of substance in his post, including noting what I've highlighted above.
 
No math is needed to note the differences between the damage and failure mode considered by NIST and that considered by Nordenson which you have adopted for your analysis. That alone renders your analysis invalid, even if you were right that Nordenson made a mistake.



Our definition of substance must differ, because I've seen quite a lot of substance in his post, including noting what I've highlighted above.

You are saying there is no need to show calculations and that you can render my analysis invalid without talking any science or math. Just unbelievable.

You either don't have a clue as to what you are looking at or you are being bombastic and trying to bluff your way through an attempt to diminish my work (ala tfk). I would bet it is the latter and of course you have to bluff because you can't refute what I am saying scientifically.

There is no chance for the northeast corner floor area of WTC 7 falling one story onto the next floor down and breaking it loose. The actual numbers that NIST never provided show it simply cannot happen. tfk is blowing smoke saying it could or maybe he has simply talked himself into it. Of course, he offers no calculation because he can't.

I would really like to debate tfk one on one with no interference from other posters on a different forum. Maybe the 911 free forum will host it if tfk agrees.
 
Last edited:
You are saying there is no need to show calculations and that you can render my analysis invalid without talking any science or math. Just unbelievable.

You either don't have a clue as to what you are looking at or you are being bombastic and trying to bluff your way through an attempt to diminish my work (ala tfk). I would bet it is the latter and of course you have to bluff because you can't refute what I am saying scientifically.
That's not what he's saying (and you know it). He's saying you need to not only show the NIST made errors but you have a theory that is correct. You fail at the latter.
 
What's disingenuous about calculating the minimum number of charges required according to your proposed scenario, and using the time for their synchronised discharge proposed by you to draw attention to the fact that this would have been a very loud event indeed?

An explosive event whose very obvious quietness you don't even begin to explain.

This thread is overpolluted with crap about silent explosives. Although passages in the NFPA 921 clearly match some of the events on 9/11 that warrant an explosive investigation, the dynamics issue warrants an investigation for different reasons. It has already been pointed out that almost totally silent demolition fittings do exist.
 
I would really like the chance to face you in a one on one public debate. I don't think you will do it, as you probably realize your bombast won't fly there.

In each one of the following posts, I made engineering statement (just about all of them correcting some clueless assertion that you'd made), explicitly inviting a technical response from you.

Your responses are noted.
Especially the ones that read "silence".
__

Why don't you stop with these incompetent arguments, and address the ones that matter.

  • Other tall building fires did not have the physical damage & massive stress increases that resulted from jet impacts, and
  • the effect of stress levels on creep, even at very modest temperatures (<350°C)
Let's see you attempt to construct an argument [that doesn’t] ignore those factors.

Your response: silence.
__

And you think that this willfully deceptive statement carries any weight??

Tell me, Tony, is there any contradiction, any at all, with a fire burning out, in 30 - 40 minutes in specific areas, and yet lasting for 4 hours within the entire building?

Your response: silence.
__

In engineering terms, your moronic assertion translates PRECISELY into "you wouldn't call 25,000 tons of force significantly greater than Zero."

Your response:
tfk, I consider you one of the most bombastic, and unreasonable persons I have ever come across. A real curmudgeon. Nobody even cares what you say in the nonsensical tomes you write here.

A woefully incompetent technical reply.
__

So, let me get this straight ...
Planes flew into the sides of those two towers ...
Huge amounts of damage was done to the external columns, the internal columns & the floor systems on the impact floors ...
Massive fire broke out ...
The fires burned for just shy of 1 & 2 hours in the 2 towers ...
The towers collapsed ...

And you assert, with the "authority" of your mechanical engineering degree, that "the collapse was NOT caused by the plane impacts & subsequent fires, but due to a completely different cause.

Is that about right?

And your response: silence.
__

tfk; said:
Here are the facts, Tony.
Why don’t you sit your incompetent self down and address the facts, Tony.

Acceleration of upper block | Force exerted by upper block on lower
0 g |~60,000 tons
0.25 g |~45,000 tons
0.50 g |~30,000 tons
0.64 g |~25,000 tons
0.75 g |~15,000 tons
1.00 g |~0 tons

Your statement that “I also wouldn't call the 64% of g descent acceleration of the North Tower, significantly less than g” is precisely equivalent to stating that you “wouldn't call 25,000 tons of force applied by the upper block on the lower, significantly greater than zero tons.”

Please explain how you managed to get a mechanical engineering degree, while being so totally clueless of trivial concepts as force & acceleration that it would result in your making such blatantly stupid assertions.

If it'll make you feel better, why don’t you call me “a big old meanie” again…
… and then address the *********** issue, you incompetent boob.

Your response: silence
__

In this post and this post, I addressed several erroneous technical comments that you made about the collapse of WTC7.

Your response: silence.
__

In this post, I made some detailed observations about failure mode errors that you made in some of your erroneous, misleading calculations.

Your response: silence.
__

For example in this post, I addressed directly some tech claims that you made.

Your response:
Once again, the bombastic one (tfk) asks us to experience the pain of his nonsensical drivel. No thanks.

Damn incompetent response, Tony.
Interesting to see you throw in the tower before the first round.
__

So, Tony, time after time after time after time, you post something stupidly clueless, I’ll correct it & you just run away.

Or whine that “I’m a big meanie, and nobody likes me.”

Then you have the unmitigate balls to say this...???

I would really like the chance to face you in a one on one public debate. I don't think you will do it, as you probably realize your bombast won't fly there.

Do you see the irony here, Tony.??

This IS “a public debate”.

And every single time I correct some stupid statement of yours, your reply is to whine like a little girl, or run away.

:dl:
 
It is totally intellectually dishonest of you to say someone is disingenuous Tony, when you provide no credible or relevent evidence of Claim, you appear to me not as an engineering professional, or someone with any experience, but as an uninformed Lay person.
That is giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you are not a willing and deliberate fraud.
I know that Johnathan Cole is a fraud, by his experiments Tony, I give you the benefit of the doubt as a point of courtesy as a fellow member of ISF, but that is as much courtesy that I as
Someone who actually knows something can give you.
I think it is impossible for you to admit how totally silly your claims are in light of the evidence, as I told an old friend recently, your pride simply will not allow you to admit you were and are wrong.
You will fight over this old dry bone forever, you're stuck in the quicksand of Trutherism.

Do you really think your ideas are correct? YOU asserted to me, without explanation or evidence, that the creep measured on WTC 7 could determine whether or not it would collapse, and that the measurement could predict the approximate time in which the building would collapse. I asked why that measurement couldn't just be a small insignificant portion of the facade warping from heat later in the afternoon, and you gave no strong reasons to think otherwise.

Whatever "creep" there may have been measured on WTC 7, it doesn't fit in with any collapse scenarios given over the years. You just said that because you understand that what Peter Hayden said about what the engineer told him at the scene makes no sense in retrospect.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom