Tony harasses Bazant

[MicahJava]

You claim you are a structural engineer. Why don't you answer the points in the letter which describe the errors in Dr. Bazant's papers instead of just complaining about it without giving a reason?

I am also wondering just what your comment concerning your estimate of how long I will live is about. My wife took it as a threat and is upset about it. I reported your post and asked the moderators to give me your real name.

I don't think there's anything to worry about. He just picked a random combination of words from his adhom generation program.

 

[Axxman300]

Your comment assumes that those on this forum who accept the present nonsensical story we have been given by NIST and others are sane to begin with.

It is very likely they at least suffer from a low level of cognizance and may in fact be less than sane. If they are sane, it is likely to be their job to disagree with anyone questioning the present nonsensical story, no matter how strong the argument, and they suffer from moral turpitude.

See, when I was a CT loon I thought the same as you do.

I had my cherry-picked evidence, my exclusive sources, and what I considered to be years of "research" on my various topics. Everyone who disagreed with me was considered blind, or poisoned by the mainstream media's lies.

I never once contemplated the idea that I was wrong.

Unlike you, I was never a famous face for my causes. It was easy for me to suck it up, and join the real world. I get it, you think you've come to far to change your tune. You've made friends in a bizzaro world where the impossible is commonplace and the facts don't matter. You get to wander around the internet promoting your groundless theory and make YouTube videos. I can see the appeal, you do a lot of stuff that makes you feel important, and quitting 9-11 Truth would take all of that away.

But you can quit. You can quit right now.

There were was no controlled demolition at the World Trade Center on 9,11, 2001. Deep down you know this is the real truth.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

See, when I was a CT loon I thought the same as you do.

I had my cherry-picked evidence, my exclusive sources, and what I considered to be years of "research" on my various topics. Everyone who disagreed with me was considered blind, or poisoned by the mainstream media's lies.

I never once contemplated the idea that I was wrong.

Unlike you, I was never a famous face for my causes. It was easy for me to suck it up, and join the real world. I get it, you think you've come to far to change your tune. You've made friends in a bizzaro world where the impossible is commonplace and the facts don't matter. You get to wander around the internet promoting your groundless theory and make YouTube videos. I can see the appeal, you do a lot of stuff that makes you feel important, and quitting 9-11 Truth would take all of that away.

But you can quit. You can quit right now.

There were was no controlled demolition at the World Trade Center on 9,11, 2001. Deep down you know this is the real truth.

I actually wish what you were saying was true as I don't really want to keep talking about this subject but there are problems that need to be resolved.

As far as being famous, I could care less.

I get more than enough satisfaction from my regular work and career. I honestly don't need recognition for what I do on this subject to feel important.

 

[NoahFence]

I actually wish what you were saying was true as I don't really want to keep talking about this subject but there are problems that need to be resolved.

The biggest one being your ability to tie in the entire days events.

When are you people going to work on that?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I actually wish what you were saying was true as I don't really want to keep talking about this subject but there are problems that need to be resolved.

As far as being famous, I could care less.

I get more than enough satisfaction from my regular work and career. I honestly don't need recognition for what I do on this subject to feel important.

Tony just one Question I know you will avoid it but just try and think, what if Jones was wrong about the microspheres, being the result of thermite reactions, what if microspheres produced in a chimney effect were actually the cause of much of what we saw on 9/11/2001.
What if they triggered reactions and hot microspheres dropping though the building enhanced the fires causing soot explosions?

Have you ever considered that Jones's early work was flawed because he used a forced air furnace in his experiments and did not attempt to recreate the conditions in the building and the fires as RJ Lee indicated with hurricane force winds.

Should he have used Jet fuel, and building contents, in environments that mimicked the fires as seen on 9/11/2001?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony just one Question I know you will avoid it but just try and think, what if Jones was wrong about the microspheres, being the result of thermite reactions, what if microspheres produced in a chimney effect were actually the cause of much of what we saw on 9/11/2001.
What if they triggered reactions and hot microspheres dropping though the building enhanced the fires causing soot explosions?

Have you ever considered that Jones's early work was flawed because he used a forced air furnace in his experiments and did not attempt to recreate the conditions in the building and the fires as RJ Lee indicated with hurricane force winds.

Should he have used Jet fuel, and building contents, in environments that mimicked the fires as seen on 9/11/2001?

It is much more than the work done by Steven Jones that convinced me there was something wrong with the story we have been given. His discussion of the molten metal in the rubble and the strange perplexing collapse of WTC 7 is what got me to start looking into it myself.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

It is much more than the work done by Steven Jones that convinced me there was something wrong with the story we have been given. His discussion of the molten metal and the strange collapse of WTC 7 is what got me to start looking into it myself.

But Jones proposed the thermite theory, and I agree thermite can cut though steel I even built a device I thought about patenting, that could cut though 4 inch thick vertical standing plate.
But it could not have survived a fire. If the aluminum melts the materials aluminum and Iron can separate.
To cut efficiently and quick with thermite or thermate you have to one use copper oxide thermite, faster reaction. You also need a preasuried oxydant, that way when the thermite heats the steel the oxygen will burn though it rapidly.
I don't see any such devices surviving a planes impact and the fires.

As far as explosive why didn't anyone see the white nitrate residue, shrapnel, or copper or other metal oxide of Monrue's effect cutter charges?

The evidence your referring to should have been everywhere, how come no one saw it?

 

[NoahFence]

It is much more than the work done by Steven Jones that convinced me there was something wrong with the story we have been given. His discussion of the molten metal in the rubble and the strange perplexing collapse of WTC 7 is what got me to start looking into it myself.

WTC7 was hardly perplexing. It was predicted by people orders of magnitude more qualified than you.

 

[skyeagle409]

It is much more than the work done by Steven Jones that convinced me there was something wrong with the story we have been given. His discussion of the molten metal in the rubble and the strange perplexing collapse of WTC 7 is what got me to start looking into it myself.

In that case, consider yourself another duped victim of Steven Jones. It seems that you are unaware that Steven Jones duped Truthers with photos, which he'd claimed, were photos depicting molten steel.

I will add that the photos were used to make a mockery of the Truth movement because it was later determined that what Steven Jones had claimed was molten steel, was nothing more than a reflection from a flashlight.

 

[skyeagle409]

I actually wish what you were saying was true as I don't really want to keep talking about this subject but there are problems that need to be resolved.

There is nothing to resolve because the fact of the matter is, no CD explosives were used to demolish the WTC buildings and experts have come to that conclusion. Furthermore, their conclusion is backed by evidence.

 

[beachnut]

It is much more than the work done by Steven Jones that convinced me there was something wrong with the story we have been given. His discussion of the molten metal in the rubble and the strange perplexing collapse of WTC 7 is what got me to start looking into it myself.

There is no melted steel for your fantasy of CD. You offer woo, CD without evidence.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

It is much more than the work done by Steven Jones that convinced me there was something wrong with the story we have been given. His discussion of the molten metal in the rubble and the strange perplexing collapse of WTC 7 is what got me to start looking into it myself.

Wouldn't the reactants in the rubble pile, going though reduction and oxidation reactions in complex air flows, be a more logical reason than thermite for the molten lead running down the channel rails from the amunition storage?

None of the material shown by Jones or mentioned had the potential to be molten steel, it all had to be low melt metals like aluminum and lead.

In many cases we actually have a pretty good Idea what the metals are, it's up to you Tony, what you wish to believe, but as far a science goes it is pretty well settled.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

In that case, consider yourself another duped victim of Steven Jones. It seems that you are unaware that Steven Jones duped Truthers with photos, which he'd claimed, were photos depicting molten steel.

I will add that the photos were used to make a mockery of the Truth movement because it was later determined that what Steven Jones had claimed was molten steel, was nothing more than a reflection from a flashlight.

Actually it was a halugen work light lowered into a hole to recover a victim's remains.

Other so called molten metal photos were actually emergency blankets, covering victims bodies, of course Tony missed Jones first paper published in 2005 at the time of his interview on MSNBC. It was actually someone with NBC that first told me about Jones.
I phoned Jones in 2005, at BYU, and he couldn't even understand the need to do credible experiments, in similar conditions to what actually occurred in the twin towers in 2001.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

WTC7 was hardly perplexing. It was predicted by people orders of magnitude more qualified than you.

Tony Doesn't realize he didn't read Jones's original work of Comedy, he got the highly edited version, he actually Joined after the Jones, Fezer, Woods breakup. When Scholars for truth broke up, World Trade 7 wasn't even mentioned by Jones and Woods until after the public argument between Jones and Woods over free fall of the towers.
I don't even remember Tony from the early days 2005-6.

 

[GlennB]

I actually wish what you were saying was true as I don't really want to keep talking about this subject but there are problems that need to be resolved.

Perhaps you should start from a different place? Start here:

Why did nobody notice the absolute minimum of 192 detonations, spaced over a second or so, that are required for your vision of the WTC7 CD?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Tony if you really believe the BS, your peddling then that is sad, but if your just trying to swindle and take advantage of loose change Losers, more power too you, get all their money you can don't leave them a dollar to buy a candy bar. We have enough stupid people in the world we don't need losers contamination of the gene pool any farther.
If the Loose Change Losers fail to breed maybe the future of humanity can be saved.

 

[catsmate]

ahhh, the old, missing jolt revisited.

How I didn't miss this.

It got pushed to the back of the fridge, behind the out-of-date goat's milk.

 

[jaydeehess]

It is much more than the work done by Steven Jones that convinced me there was something wrong with the story we have been given. His discussion of the molten metal in the rubble and the strange perplexing collapse of WTC 7 is what got me to start looking into it myself.

WTC7 was hardly perplexing. It was predicted by people orders of magnitude more qualified than you.

Neither is the molten metal unusual.
Examples of molten aluminum in many other fires are almost as commonplace as reports of molten metal, including molten steel.

As I point out so often that many readers will complete the thought before continuing to read;
the reports of molten steel in other fires are either correct (true) or incorrect (untrue). There are no other choices. If they are true then molten steel in the WTC is not unusual, and if untrue kt simply points out that erroneous reports of molten steel are commonplace and that such reports are not to be trusted without physical evidence to back them up. Such physical evidence is lacking.

 

[jaydeehess]

It got pushed to the back of the fridge, behind the out-of-date goat's milk.

Next to the frozen lettuce, I see it now.

 

[ozeco41]

Tony is like a pianist that only knows one note, and keeps playing it over and over and over.
You just have to walk away from it to save your sanity.

Your comment assumes that those on this forum who accept the present nonsensical story we have been given by NIST and others are sane to begin with.

Wrong Tony. The "One Note" that you keep playing is YOUR deliberate misuse of the Bazant & Zhou "limit case" when you have been advised many times as to YOUR error and the true explanation.

And it has nothing to do with any possible errors by NIST or any false claims you may make about NIST. So no point playing your #1 favourite red herring.

It is very likely they at least suffer from a low level of cognizance and may in fact be less than sane. If they are sane, it is likely to be their job to disagree with anyone questioning the present nonsensical story, no matter how strong the argument, and they suffer from moral turpitude.

Strawman, begging the question AND lie by innuendo Tony - those three most obvious.

The only "nonsensical story" in current consideration here is your nonsense. You have NEVER proved a significant flaw or weakness in the official narratives.

Neither you nor any other truther has ever put a "strong argument" for any significant WTC 9/11 claim. You rarely present ANY argument other than bare assertion and back those few years when you did occasionally engage in argument I don't recall you winning one or presenting a strong argument ever.

And this must rank as the most blatant example of projection:

I would say Zdenek Bazant would be in the latter category if he does not correct the errors in his analyses now that he has been made fully aware of them.

No way does your confused inaccurate open letter count as making anyone "fully aware" - when you open the comments by leading with your "one note lie". (And I am probably the only debunker who would give and has given you credit for ONE possible bit of true valid criticism. And even that one is past its use by date and irrelevant.)

Tony when you persist in making blatant false claims when you have been made aware by professionals of your source error you are in no position to criticise Bazant on the basis of false or dubious claims.

If he does correct them I would laud him as an honorable man.

That is ridiculous not the least because it is "circularly self rebutting". What you mean by "correct them" is that he joins you in promulgating deliberate professional dishonesty.

So you would be lauding him for dishonesty?

Neither is going to happen Tony.