• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New Article about iSkep and AeTruth and 9/11

The Big Dog said:
Comparing Tony's completely inappropriate comments to the unfettered antisemitism to the AE911 followers is really something.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I have trouble parsing this post, where to set the grammatical parentheses: Are you saying that Tony commented somewhere on/about (to) the unfettered antisemitism by AE911 followers? Then I missed this comment - where is it?
Or are you recommending for us to compare Tony's comments here with the unfettered antisemitism by AE911 followers? Then I don't get the point.
 
AJM8125 said:
Sergei Walankov said:
If, as you said earlier by way of disputing that he contacted you at all, "Linked In sends messages to your regular e-mail", did he not, in effect, email you?
Click to expand...

Quite logical, but he may have the 12 step authentication enabled on his NoidMail account and that email was automatically deleted by the jew filter.
Click to expand...

:bigclap
 
The oddest thing about this whole fiasco is that Weinberg offered Tony a chance to add his comment to the Gizmodo article, but Szamboti was so intent on proving the author's malfeasance that he pissed away the opportunity:

If Mr. Szamboti has a statement, I will gladly forward it to my editor to add to the article. He can email me at this address.
Click to expand...

And currently, the article still says "He [Szamboti] did not respond to request for comment on this article," with no further comment from Tony.

Well played, Tony. Well played.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
The oddest thing about this whole fiasco is that Weinberg offered Tony a chance to add his comment to the Gizmodo article, but Szamboti was so intent on proving the author's malfeasance that he pissed away the opportunity:



And currently, the article still says "He [Szamboti] did not respond to request for comment on this article," with no further comment from Tony.

Well played, Tony. Well played.
Click to expand...

Dave,

Alex Weinberg offered to provide a statement from me to his editor. I think a full article explaining the other side, and without Alex acting as an intermediary, is what is appropriate and required.

I am going to tell the Gizmodo editor that he/she is morally obliged to tell both sides of a controversial issue. The Europhysics News editors allowed Zdenek Bazant to publish an article taking issue with what we said in 15 Years Later: On the physics of high-rise building collapses.

Of course, your somehow imagining here that Gizmodo would have already put something out from me, had I accepted Alex's paltry offer, has no basis. That isn't much of a surprise though, as it is similar to your convoluted non-viable views on the causes of the three building collapses in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001. People should be reminded that you think the North Tower was freefalling between floors and had a jolt at impact and that the average of that would be 2/3rds g with the deceleration being masked. They and you should know that free fall between stories can't happen with columns there, especially in the first several stories of the collapse.
 
Last edited:
Tony,
The collapses you and AE911T advocate as controversial are not controversial. That controversy exists in your minds only.

Total building collapses are rare. And the WTC ones were examined in detailed and perfectly rational explanations... physics and engineering based were presented.

Gage's falling blocks is embarrassing... and you should know this. If you don't you need to go back to school and find out why.

For starters the collapses were no at free fall acceleration... components mave have fallen close to FF just as any other object that falls. Buildings are 95% air so the notion that 95 "solid" stories were crushed by a puny 15 story block is nonsense. No columns were crushed in the collapsing... it's right there on the videos... they buckled at their end to end connections or toppled over. The floor slabs without adequate support collapsed and the dynamic load of them falling on slabs below shattered the slabs. These were vertical avalanches and all the light weigh no stone aggregate concrete was pulverized in the collapse of thousands of tons of material.

There is no controversy. There was no active fire fighting... and it's common knowledge that the structural system of the twin towers... light weight floor truss supported floors... could not resist the dynamic loads from the collapsing mass from above.

AE is an embarrassment and it's a disgrace to mislead people with explanations which are not rooted in science or engineering... Pure fantasy.

Time to give it up Tony. Accept that you were wrong and disabuse the truthers... they were being misled. You're too smart to fall for this nonsense. But too stubborn to admit you were wrong.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Dave,

Alex Weinberg offered to provide a statement from me to his editor. I think a full article explaining the other side, and without Alex acting as an intermediary, is what is appropriate and required.

I am going to tell the Gizmodo editor that he/she is morally obliged to tell both sides of a controversial issue. The Europhysics News editors allowed Zdenek Bazant to publish an article taking issue with what we said in 15 Years Later: On the physics of high-rise building collapses.

Of course, your somehow imagining here that Gizmodo would have already put something out from me, had I accepted Alex's paltry offer, has no basis. That isn't much of a surprise though, as it is similar to your convoluted non-viable views on the causes of the three building collapses in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001. People should be reminded that you think the North Tower was freefalling between floors and had a jolt at impact and that the average of that would be 2/3rds g with the deceleration being masked. They and you should know that free fall between stories can't happen with columns there, especially in the first several stories of the collapse.
Click to expand...
Why is it so hard to imagine columns being misaligned?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Dave,

Alex Weinberg offered to provide a statement from me to his editor. I think a full article explaining the other side, and without Alex acting as an intermediary, is what is appropriate and required.

I am going to tell the Gizmodo editor that he/she is morally obliged to tell both sides of a controversial issue. The Europhysics News editors allowed Zdenek Bazant to publish an article taking issue with what we said in 15 Years Later: On the physics of high-rise building collapses.

Of course, your somehow imagining here that Gizmodo would have already put something out from me, had I accepted Alex's paltry offer, has no basis. That isn't much of a surprise though, as it is similar to your convoluted non-viable views on the causes of the three building collapses in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001. People should be reminded that you think the North Tower was freefalling between floors and had a jolt at impact and that the average of that would be 2/3rds g with the deceleration being masked. They and you should know that free fall between stories can't happen with columns there, especially in the first several stories of the collapse.
Click to expand...

Everything you just wrote was false, and the assertion that the tower that collapsed in Iran was also CD is not remotely "controversial" it is utterly asinine.

Anyway, write your own article about why Plasco was an inside jobby job, Gizmodo's readers could use the laugh.
 
Oystein said:
Could be a problem with your device - mine doesn't show comments at all. I guess I have deactivated something like Java script that would be needed.

But you know who heavily moderates comments? Truthers do. Almost all of them, almost everywhere. It is practically impossible to comment to Truther media without getting censored and blocked in very short time. Where approval is required, it is almost never given. The Truth Movement is the biggest champion of total, heavy handed, totalitarian censorship I ever had to deal with.
Click to expand...

Yup, no doubt about it. I've been banned from multiple subreddits because I dared to question truthers on their beliefs. They aren't interested in anything that makes them think, they'd rather exist in an echo chamber.
 
Sergei Walankov said:
If, as you said earlier by way of disputing that he contacted you at all, "Linked In sends messages to your regular e-mail", did he not, in effect, email you?
Click to expand...

Not just email. I have LinkedIn on my smartphone, I get instant notifications if someone messages me on the app.
 
the article tells ae911t side, a tale of lies based on overwhelming woo

Tony Szamboti said:
... I am going to tell the Gizmodo editor that he/she is morally obliged to tell both sides of a controversial issue...
Click to expand...
LOL, they told your side!. The fantasy side was told, the article was one sided. It left out 19 terrorists did 9/11, and no one else.

You are not paying attention, the article was all about your paranoid nutty side which at best is delusional fantasy, at worse fodder for idiots like the Boston bombers to feel better about taking action to kill.

You are having problems with perception... The story was one sided, about your fantasy CD inside job delusion projected to another fire failed building; wake up
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), a organization which promotes the conspiracy theory about a “controlled demolition”
Click to expand...
It was one sided, your fantasy CD side.

The article skips the biggest investigation in history by the FBI, and presents the sick side of blaming others for the acts of 19 failed UBL followers.
a subsequent “cover-up.”
Click to expand...
Your side again, your fantasy cover-up you can't back up with evidence.

AE911Truth concluded that Plasco was also a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...
Your side is covered again. What article did you read? You failed to put forth evidence for your "side", the fantasy of CD. You can't name anyone who did 9/11, as you ignore 19 terrorists to blame your fellow citizens you can't name. ae911t spread treasonist lies of an inside job with no evidence.

The other side is 19 terrorists did 9/11, the article covers your cartoon like side of woo.
Richard Gage, a wide-tied former architect who demonstrates his understanding of structural mechanics using cardboard boxes.
Click to expand...
Your side again.

It is all your side of woo.
Instead it argues that unnamed nefarious entities demolished the towers with well-hidden pre-planted explosives. To explain away the absence of audio or visual evidence of typical demolition charges, AE911Truth argues that the buildings were brought down by nano-thermite
Click to expand...
One sided? lol, you can't find any evidence anyone planted anything in the WTC complex except paper, and you ignore 19 followers of UBL who were killing your fellow Americans. I would expect the lies and nonsense from a Russian hacker trying to mislead americans, but from a US citizen... you got problems, or is it one problem, spreading lies without evidence.

Have you taken your overwhelming evidence to the FBI? What did they say? oops, you lost your evidence... where, did the dog eat it.

They covered your side.
The conspiracy theory presented by Gage and AE911Truth is based on three core axioms: 1) Steel skyscrapers cannot collapse due to fire, 2) buildings that collapse should tumble down slowly (rather than at what they call “free-fall speed”), and 3) a collapsing building should topple over eccentrically rather than falling straight down.
Click to expand...
Silly taglines from a failed movement which funds an out of work Richard Gage. I don't know if Gage is as dumb as his claims on 9/11, or smart, bilking the gullible to support him. The article tells your side of the story. A fantasy built on the ignornace of the believers. Got any evidence yet Tony?

If 9/11 was an inside job there would be evidence, it would be solved in less than a year. Why was it so easy to identify suspects (suspects Tony, the FBI had to work for years to follow threads to be sure it was 19 terrorists) on four planes? Because only 19 people on four planes had the motive to kill Americans. Why was it so easy to pull off fake hijacking to use planes as weapons of mass destruction? Because our culture, our handingly of hijacked planes. Someone in UBL's camp figured out they could pretend to hijack planes and use them as weapons. Why is it so easy to fly planes today - because engineers have designed flight systems which removed all the poor handling characteristics of jets. Someone with no training could fly as good as the terrorists.

The reality of 9/11 is so simple to figure out, it is amazing any engineers support the wild claims you do. You have failed to offer valid evidence. It has been over 16 years, and you have failed to do what the FBI did in days; name the suspects and provide evidence.

After 16 years you still "we" are shills, that is much more likely to be projection based on the fantasy version of 9/11 you Quixotically support.
 
Here's the "Official" response:

ae911-plasco.jpg


A snippet:

First, let’s get one thing straight: AE911Truth has never argued that tall buildings “cannot” collapse due to fire, nor have any of the architects, engineers, or scientists affiliated with AE911Truth, as far as I’m aware. The undisputed fact we cite is that, putting aside the issue of the World Trade Center’s destruction (and now the Plasco incident), no steel-framed high-rise has ever completely collapsed due to fire.
Click to expand...

There's more artful twisting like the above, for the curious.
 
So apart from the buildings that have completely collapsed due to fire, no building has ever completely collapsed due to fire, and therefore inside job?

Well I'm convinced. 100%, that. Only a fool would deny it.

Does this void my shill pension rights?
 
I had to read it twice to grok what they said. No high rise steel buildings have ever collapsed due to fire, except for the ones that did.

Undisputed fact, folks.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I had to read it twice to grok what they said. No high rise steel buildings have ever collapsed due to fire, except for the ones that did.

Undisputed fact, folks.
Click to expand...

No, that's not it. They're saying that steel high rises can collapse due to fire, but none ever actually have.

They've completely undermined their entire argument, of course, by saying that.

Dave
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Here's the "Official" response
Click to expand...

Wow, poor Ted. He's taking this pretty hard. Must suck when the world finally takes notice of your life's work and immediately realizes its garbage.

Ted--I find it especially rich that you, who ostensibly runs AE911Truth's incredibly dishonest advertising campaigns that use dishonestly truncated quotes of 9-11 first responders out of context to imply they believe the buildings were intentionally demolished, chastises Weinburg for not conducting new interviews with Iranian firefighters, many of whom, by the way, are already on record saying fire was responsible for the Plasco collapse. Did you ever think to conduct an interview with Mr. Coyle before you ripped his quote out of context, edited it, and put it up on a bill board in NYC?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom