9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Sparkoflife's Comments

Comment Wall (9 comments)

You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

At 8:28am on July 26, 2012, sandy rose said…

good day, yawl, and ;methinks ya mighta ;pushed the wrong button somewhere

along the line.   good day.

At 10:17am on October 4, 2010, mabou juliet said…
Hello,
My name is juliet, i got you from 911scholars.ning.com, and i want to have a
good relationship with you, please i need your cooperation,
am yours juliet.
this is my email,
( jomabu116@yahoo.com )
At 7:54pm on July 3, 2009, Chuck Boldwyn said…
Have you had a chance to listen to the mp3 and to view the accompaning PDF? Let me know what you thought...

Chuck Boldwyn
At 3:21am on June 15, 2009, Chuck Boldwyn said…
At 3:20am on June 15, 2009, Chuck Boldwyn said… What I meant is that the towers collapse in a manner that the top blocks push down progressively from the top of the 94 floor block and the top of the 78 floor block. I am not considering the top or bottom of the top blocks or 16 floors and 32 floors. They wanted it to look like the top blocks crushed the bottom block by 100% gravity of weight forces.

It was an illusion of the top blocks crushing the botton blocks

If the top 16 floor block fell one floor or 4 meters, the energy needed to crush the bottom 94 block would have to be 52,000 time greater. The 32 floor block falling 4 meters would need to have an energy of 17,932 times greater that it was to collapse the lower 78 floor block.

That is what the physics of Vector Forces reveal. The collapse possibility is not even remotely close to happening, virtually impossible... Delete Comment
At 2:43am on June 15, 2009, Chuck Boldwyn said…
At 2:38am on June 15, 2009, Chuck Boldwyn said… Both Twin Towers feel from top to bottom, exactly the same and the mini nukes can explain the total collapses, total, of both towers and the other big holed buildings and maybe WTC 7, which could have been a regular demolition since gravity did much to assist it, but not the Twin Towers.

I am not dismissing your ideas, especially since you are so convinced that there is some connection there. I hope you can come up with some concrete proofs that can not be even remotely refuted. I leave all options open, but strongly favor my conclusions.

Take the time to review my paper and listen to my interview with Jim Fetzer. I am trying to get Jim to help me to get the leading scientists in the truth movement to also review my work. it is very, very simple and based of Vector Forces math, addition more to the point.

I understand where you are coming from. Please get back with me after reviewing my work.
The truth movement debunkers always ask for quantitative evidence for the collapses and no debater to date has been able to give it to them in any conculsive manner. That is what my work does give irrefutable quantitative evidence for energy equivalent to atomic bomb multiples and no contest support forces against gravity based collapse.

Your ideas and work are interesting and thought provoking, but keep working of the physics and physical and presentable evidence. Maybe you can team up with a strong physicist who works in these areas. I strong scientist on your side will give your theories much more credence as far as the public is concerned and the public is going to make and break this 911 criminal venture, once they can underestand it and the media allow it to come out or word of mouth finally lets the truthers be victorious.

Keep you your interesting and good work and I hope you can find out more in your future research...because we all want to know about these exotic things and events. Delete Comment
At 2:34am on June 15, 2009, sparkoflife said…
Correction:

The north tower was hit from north to south,
south tower from south to north.
At 12:13am on June 15, 2009, Chuck Boldwyn said…
Hi, I am new to this site also. I listened to your audio with christie. I am a retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor who has recently been interviewed by Jim Fetzer on my PDF Thesis on the Impossible WTC TT collapses.

Your theories on scalar weapons are new to me even confusing and vague and unclear.

Are you a scientist? If you are a scientist, then you should be able to explain you theories with hard core physics.
What is the essence of ufos for 911. What did they do? what was thier function concerning the explosions, fires and collapses. I have my own physics based hypothesis on how the towers were obliterated: mini nukes within the towers, many of them.

DEWs, for me, cannot explain the collapses of large holes in other buildings, whereas mini nukes can do with ease. You should listen to my interview with Jim and at the same time open my pdf thesis as the mp3 and the pdf work togethere much like a tutorial. I can explain everything without DEWs, easily and logically.

Plane shaped holes is a far out theory that needs much more physical evidence to get credibility. It all seems to be science fiction.

I do not completely reject your thesis, but need more physical and scientific evidence to take it seriously.

My thesis can easily explain everything, as Jim Fetzer and I discussed, where I answered his question concerning all of the destruction at the WTC TT and other buildings.

Check out the following:

http://www.freeamerican.com/Images/911Boldwynn.pdf

and the mp3

10 June 2009
Interview: The 58th broadcast of "The Real Deal"
on Revere Radio Network will feature my special
guest, Chuck Boldwyn, on the physics of 9/11;
5-7 PM/CT, http://www.revereradionetwork.com/.
Listen to the show.

The mp3 may not be posted yet, but hopefully by 6-16-09.
These only concern the WTC Twin Towers collapses and some of the other buildings.

I agree that chemtrails probably have something to do with controlling the weather on a chemical application, possibly with some source of assistive energy activation, maybe.

Let me know what you think of my work and Thesis and our mp3.

Even if you do not have a strong science background, you should be able to follow it.

What you are dealing with requires a very powerful science background, so I assume you have that background. Otherwise you will have an incredibly difficult time getting the community that counts most to accept your hypotheses and/or findings: the scientific community. You need solid hard core science with physical evidence or convincing math and physics. You are spinning your wheels until you get the confirmed science. Your ideas are interesting and entertaining, but are hard to accept, especially when I can explain everything with my simple Thesis.

Check it out and please get back to me, especially if you need help in understanding it as it is hard core quantitative science, i.e., Physics, Engineering, Chemistry, and Math.
At 12:04pm on June 14, 2009, Donald Edward Stahl said…
No, but I'll probably be getting Skype next month.
At 4:16am on June 14, 2009, Mark E. Smith said…
No, sorry, I don't use msn or skype. I used to, but the microphones I used with the computer stopped working so there was no point.

© 2014   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service