| Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| OPINIONS WANTED - what should be done about AE911T? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 9 2011, 10:02 AM (142 Views) | |
| broken sticks | Feb 9 2011, 10:02 AM Post #1 |
|
I think most people agree that trying to debunk yourself as best you can is a necessity to test a theory or an analysis well. You've all heard of (and maybe some of you have read) the Jones and Harrit paper on Active Thermitic Material. As far as I can tell, the nanothermite paper does not try to debunk itself in any way. That's just the first clue. It was peer-reviewed by two people, one of whom is a 911 truther who Steven Jones at least already knew about, we don't know his relationship to the other authors, and we still haven't been told who the other reviewer was. Only two reviewers! And you won't believe the journal it was published in. Bentham Open is an author-pays-to-publish journal. Here's an example of their standards... The Society for Scholarly Publishing posted an amazing story in 2009 about how a Postdoctoral Associate at Cornell University had got so sick of the Bentham Open sending him spam, which invited people to publish in their online journal, that he used a piece of software to generate grammatically correct, “context-free” (i.e. nonsensical) papers, and had it accepted for publication!! When you hear claims of "peer-reviewed" and "published", you really should be glad you have this information, because you all want to know the facts so you can get a balanced view on AE911T, Steven Jones, and Richard Gage. Because I'm hearing a lot of people using it as facts to spread the word about 911. Just for their never-ending stream of latest "must-donate" causes, like the recent TV commercial, they receive thousands of dollars every single month. And that's going to be dwarfed by the general donations, merchandise sales, the tickets to their shows... I was accidentally included in an email exchange between Richard Gage, his assistant, and a truth convention organiser, where richard gage is invoicing for his travel fare - which is getting paid for him by the convention he was going to. The donations don't actually pay for these things! The very first piece of evidence on the AE911T evidence page is a commercial for a $20 DVD. Reminiscent of CIT, they sell a $230 Specialist Activist Pack, as well as T-shirts, brochures, DVDs, papers, postcards, letters, multipacks, bumper stickers, posters... They use freefall of the roofline of building 7 as a key argument. This is something I want to make a standalone video about, but there's a part of me that says "you're wasting your time on frauds", but people are being misled, and, we DO make a difference down here it would appear. It used to feel like we were the gutter rats of 911 research, but the Pentagon situation has shown we can kickstart a good cleaning out of the lies and get to the facts. In fact, everything people here have dealt with has shown that. The problem with the WTC7 freefall entire way of thinking might be that people seem to think the entire building is falling at freefall just because the roofline is. What you need to think about to understand what we see is the point of the collapse. Obviously this isn't helped by the fact that no video seems to show the destruction that occurs at the point of collapse, but think about the point of collapse as you've seen the top section of the twin towers collapsing and that will help illustrate some of my point. With WTC7, the point of initiation is about floor 13 or 14 or thereabouts. When it goes, whatever causes this (and i'm not ruling out controlled demolition, just showing that its not necessary for what we see in the videos), at about floor 13 or 14, the floor gives way, and thirty stories of building begin to descend on the floor below. Now this accelerates, but when it meets the next floor, not only does it do damage to the floor below, but it also does damage to the floor that is descending, like a destructive crumpling effect. In essence, the building around the initiation point is crumpling above and below this point. As the top section gathers speed, it gains momentum. The two things slowing it down are the integrity of what it is landing on, and the integrity of itself at the point of impact (the ass of the falling section). The floors at the destuction zone simply cannot resist the sudden massive load in a significant way, they're only used to a standing load, but the kinetic energy of a falling building is very different. By the time the building gathers a bit of speed, the floors both above and below that point on the 13th floor or wherever it is now are giving way so readily that, from the point of view of the roofline, it looks like the entire building is going down at freefall. Freefall acceleration of the roofline for the middle two seconds of the main collapse is not evidence of foul play. Initiation may be if evidence can be found for it. I still investigate explosions seriously. But this is another of AE911T's key points of evidence - witness testimony of explosions... I mean, we know how many burnt out vehicles there were better than anyone. There'd be plenty of explosions throughout the morning. So if explosives were spaced out throughout the day, or if something was used to disintegrate the building more silently, then ok, but WTC7 burned for a very long time. And those towers that burned for 18 hours or 24 hours or whatever, they were built after 911, to standards learnt from 911, and in at least one case was a new building, a skeleton with nothing like office materials and drywalls and furnshing and computers and power supply rooms etc etc. So when I see thousands and thousands of dollars, airtime on mainstream TV, campaigns for adverts on TV, and I have a 99% certainty they're snakeoil salesman (or whatever the best description should be), I feel like a wrong is being done, and I think I can help to fix it. Their presentations are as much NLP as anything! They start off by playing to people's hearts for half an hour, tell people some hard sounding science from a distorted viewpoint, then hit them with the "we can't do this for free - we need your money to 'get the word out'" pitch. They have a new DVD coming soon, so expect it to employ the same tactic. Con-men act like that. I think Richard Gage is a con man. He presents stupid arguments on TV like that whole dropping a cardboard box to represent the towers collapsing joke, then they sell their tours on the basis of irrelevant points like "the firemen heard explosions", "the firemen reported molten metal flowing like lava", which from a phonecall to the firemen it was made pretty clear that this is entirely normal for a long-burning massive fire like that, with things like aluminium cladding and ducting and other elements. Yet these are supposed to be the scientists! Then there's things like the completely unproven "nanothermite" claim - where they do no comparisons of the red/grey chips to chips of building materials, and no comparisons of the iron spheres to what we might expect from a building collapse involving the world trade centre's various elements. They don't even speculate where these things might have come from. And, worst of all, no comparisons of any of their data to nanothermite. It would appear that whatever they look at through a microscope, they just leap to nanothermite. And they can get away with this because anything containing aluminium and iron-oxide can be called thermitic. But that's just a name. On building 7 I fully understand if people don't believe me on this because it looks so suspicious. But if people like AE911T lead the public debate for 911 truth, the whole thing will go down like this: when controlled demolition gets ruled out as being unnecessary by any scientific scrutiny (the equivalent of a follow-up investigation like the House Assassinations Committee with JFK), the public will turn off 911 truth forever. We only get one good shot at turning the public and the slightly more mainstream channels like social networks. Its gotta be with facts. You know yourself the importance of trying to debunk your own work, and that's what a truly scientific paper does as well. But the nanothermite paper does not try to debunk its conclusions at all. But of course i'm not an architect, so what do i know?! So if I want to make a really good video i've got to go down the university and speak to a metalurgical professor, and try and get him to actually look at this stuff that I myself know is boloni, and no-one credible can be bothered lookng intently at this stuff. I feel like I can't let them get away with it anymore, just like I did with CIT. Everytime I hear a great podcast like Visibility 911, it'll be a really good show, and then they'll say something about how AE911T are right and my heart will sink. The 10th anniversary is coming up, the trials of KSM and whoever else... who do we want spearheading the campaign? Nobody in particular would be the best approach, but if the evidence we all present to the public is made up of AE911T's errors then the bigger the publicity, the harder the nail is driven into the coffin of 911 truth. Anyway, that's my thoughts based on my experience. I'd like anyone who reads this to help me decide what I should do about it, because i'm on the verge of spending a considerable amount of time on them. Edited by broken sticks, Feb 9 2011, 10:30 AM.
|
 |
 
|
| chrisbornag | Feb 9 2011, 11:12 AM Post #2 |
|
Have you read this one?: Government Computer News: Walsh, T. 2002. Handheld app eased recovery. Government Computer News. URL: http://gcn.com/articles/2002/09/09/handheld-app-eased-recovery-tasks.aspx "For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher." Is that "entire normal"? Remember that you started the next one: http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3845174/1 What about that one? Did you just forgot all about it?: Remember that you wrote: "I'd like to talk about the possible use of something akin to nanothermite/mate in the twin towers" "But here's where a thermitic reaction comes into it (for me)." "From my understanding, nanothermite would react like thermite." "with a thermitic reaction, its more like a persistent fizzle." So, BS, where is your golden 9/11 research? As I asked you before, have you published anything, even if in a small journal like the one you are demoting now? You need to prove your genuine 9/11 contributions with your own and useful work. Or do you just enjoy debunking others? So, my suggestion is for you to go for it! Go and try to debunk AE911 with all you got! One, two, three, c'mon, start! But please, don't be again just a lousy inciter as you have been before (is that 'the big plan' or just a coincidence?  ).Read the most recent publication by Kevin Ryan and start from there: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/04/energetic-materials-as-a-potential-cause-of-the-911-first-responder-illnesses/all/1 Do you think it's fair to start by ridiculing the journal itself? But remember to weight carefully your own words. Your best publications are, thus far here  .
|
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Feb 9 2011, 12:25 PM Post #3 |
|
yes, i'm aware of this. there was a fire. it burned for a long time. yes, yes, i've talked about it a lot. i used to think things that were wrong. everyone does. This is beside the point. I've put a lot of work into 911 over the years. Some people thank me for it sometimes, as i thank others for theirs. I guess you didn't read my post. To recap, i don't like spending time on the work of frauds, but it can help. OK, that's your opinion noted. I'll add you to the reasons i want to do it. I get random messages all the time telling me i've done a good job on this or that, so i don't take offence to your opinion. Which journal? The Journal Of Nine Eleven Studies, started to enable peer-reviewing of a groups own work? Or the Bentham Open, criticised in the scientific community as i have demonstrated? Are you suggesting that posts here are worthless? |
|
|
|
| A Storm is Coming | Feb 9 2011, 01:59 PM Post #4 |
|
Quote: You need to prove your genuine 9/11 contributions with your own and useful work. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who was first on this site to provide enough evidence that no-planers didn't know what they were talking about? (Me, of course) Who was first on this site to provide enough evidence that the 2nd plane could both be diving and flying nearly level into tower 2 back when Genghis was saying it could not do both (He probably still says this though) (Me, of course) Who was first on this site to show that those promoting bombs in the buildings had no evidence to make such a statement (Me, of course) Who was first on this site to provide enough evidence that William Rodriguez was lying in public speaches or that the 1st plane obviously hit before the explosion occured below ground level (Me, of course) How could I possibly have known that a plane hit the Pentagon and then accuratly described that final 5 seconds of its flight to Jeff before he made any of his Pentagon Witness calls (One of which convinced "MYSELF" that the video I saw was real and not a fake) By going back over all my posts, is there ANY wild claim I have made that turned out not to be true? (Other than the Jennifer Spell Laser Dot incident for which I spoke too soon) Although I did "THINK" that a missile "HAD TO" have hit the pentagon due to all the phoney data coming in from CIT, I don't think I ever stated it as a fact or demanded an investigation over it back when Jeff began making his Pentagon witness calls did I? No, I waited for "EVIDENCE" that came in the form of a phone call Jeff made to another witness that confirmed to "ME" that the video I saw was real and not disinfo OK, OK, OK, I got it! I'm an azzhole, but was I wrong? Or, could I have gotten so many people in the "Truth" movement to finally come to my point of view by NOT being an azzhole when I need to? I don't give a ratz azz if anyone gives me credit for my work. But when they start claiming that all my hard work is "Their" work, then they better have it publicly stated on the Internet before mine was posted Go ahead, read all my back posts and then show me somebody else who had those same views (That have turned out to be true) before I did, and stated in a more convincing manner "WITHOUT" being an azzhole about it? The "Truth" movement has turned me into an Azzhole! So what? It doesn't make me wrong If you really want to spearhead the "Truth" on this 10th anniversary, then link to it everywhere you go and yak about it> http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/4103260/1/#new You're not afraid of the truth are you?  Edited by A Storm is Coming, Feb 9 2011, 02:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Feb 9 2011, 06:26 PM Post #5 |
|
Right, well, i guess i got an answer by being moved to the Drama club. Not even chrisbornag argued with any of the points i raised. But no-one wants to hear that AE911T are ripping everybody off. OK. |
|
|
|
| A Storm is Coming | Feb 9 2011, 08:09 PM Post #6 |
|
 Edited by A Storm is Coming, Feb 10 2011, 03:36 AM.
|
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Feb 9 2011, 08:40 PM Post #7 |
|
Richard Gage's salary: $75,000/year. anyone here making that money? http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/2010/ae911truth/75450/ |
|
|
|
| A Storm is Coming | Feb 9 2011, 09:31 PM Post #8 |
|
k Nothing to see here folks, move along...
Edited by A Storm is Coming, Feb 10 2011, 03:36 AM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The Drama Club · Next Topic » |
11:40 AM Jul 13