Dave Thomas' Take on 911 WTC Complex 3 Towers Collapses & Thermite - Strongly Supporting the OCT of NIST & Bazant & Sunder - 9/11 Scholars Forum2024-03-29T05:00:41Zhttps://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/dave-thomas-take-on-911-wtc-complex-3-towers-collapses-thermite?commentId=3488444%3AComment%3A51192&feed=yes&xn_auth=noJeannine, I just saw your pos…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2016-12-11:3488444:Comment:751982016-12-11T19:29:31.403ZChuck Boldwynhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/ChuckBoldwyn
Jeannine, I just saw your post of 8-24-16<br />
My strongest point against Dave Thomas is his use of phony or hoax momentum collision physics. Dave Thomas is a smart and deceptive character but I have never met him nor had any direct communication with him.<br />
He uses unacceptable high school elementary level adulterated physics momentum equation(s) to falsely try to support his and Sunder's and Bazant's pile driver theory. I have not seen anyone disprove his physics like I have and there should be…
Jeannine, I just saw your post of 8-24-16<br />
My strongest point against Dave Thomas is his use of phony or hoax momentum collision physics. Dave Thomas is a smart and deceptive character but I have never met him nor had any direct communication with him.<br />
He uses unacceptable high school elementary level adulterated physics momentum equation(s) to falsely try to support his and Sunder's and Bazant's pile driver theory. I have not seen anyone disprove his physics like I have and there should be other physicists or engineers or scientists with adequate multi-scientific backgrounds with real world experience who should be debunking him with valid and acceptable physics, but I am aware of no one else who has gone after Dave Thomas who appears to see can or has debunked his scientifically absurd theory. Who else has exposed the falseness of Dave Thomas' phony physics-based Theory...<br />
I finally got my ideas and scientifically-backed theses on YouTube in a -part interview video by Dr Jim Fetzer, much of which was the same content presented by me in Vancouver.<br />
<br />
Again, I am not on this site to debate, specifically, but to report on data and information I have actively researched and present novel ideas and information for members of this site to contemplate and to consider.<br />
<br />
I consider myself a science analyst who uses my long gained science skills to see behind the unscientific lies and false news they are continuously propagandizing.<br />
<br />
I enjoy using my scientific analysis expertise to debunk much of the false MSM and USA Government false scientific scenarios, allowing me to continue my long career in the multi-scientific fields that I have acquired knowledge in.<br />
<br />
If one wants to criticize my posts or ask for further explanations to my posts, I will probably reply, but I am not on this site to find debates, but mostly to inform members of my findings. Most of my posts are informational in terms of news, debates, interviews, graphics I create, materials I support or debunk or just present as informational on site-related topics.<br />
<br />
What do you want to debate about or criticize my posting habits about.<br />
If you think my posts are for worn out topics, just skip over them. Other members seem to be interested in them<br />
<br />
Perhaps you can find other members who are on this site to provoke debating which may fulfill you thirst and hunger for debating.<br />
<br />
Finally, I use this site as I value the postings of those few members who consistently make postings to further my understanding and knowledge of those posted subjects & issues.<br />
<br />
My purpose here is not to provoke debate but to educate and inform fellow members where as my multiscientific fields background can be and is useful...<br />
<br />
<br/>
<br/>
<cite>Jeannon Kralj said:</cite><blockquote cite="http://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/dave-thomas-take-on-911-wtc-complex-3-towers-collapses-thermite?xg_source=activity#3488444Comment51286"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Chuck,</p>
<p>It is nice to know about all these "debates" and to have the links. However, you mainly just do a data dump. You do not want to discuss or engage fellow forum members on any of the many many issues raised in your original posting.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Do you or do you not wish to debate and discuss any point or do you wish to keep dumping links on us with no idea of why you are doing this or what your position is.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I will tell you that this can be quite confusing because you seem to support the independent WTC dust study contracted by Mohr and conducted by Dr. Millette. Dave Thomas of NMRS group is someone who also supports this dust study and NMRS members include Mohn and Thomas. Dave Thomas posts under his real name at the JREF forum. Yet Dave Thomas is someone you disagree with because Thomas supports the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT), what I call the "pile driver theory" of the top floors pushing down on the bottom section of the building cause the "collapse." driver theory" .</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So your data dump is full of things you agree with and things you disagree with but you will never initiate an orderly discussion on this forum.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>P.S.</p>
<p>The pile driver theory has so long ago and so thoroughly and professionally been debunked on about 20 old YouTube videos that I do not see much point in debating that at this time. I feel sure you are correct in your statements debunking this theory, and it is good to be reminded that NIST actually had the chutzpah to make this assertion in writing, but I have to wonder why of why are you rehasing this very very old matter in relation to the historical records of 9-11 truth seeking?</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> Well, thanks for the clarific…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2012-08-24:3488444:Comment:512912012-08-24T17:07:08.879ZJeannon Kraljhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JeannonKralj
<p>Well, thanks for the clarification. You are not on this forum to discuss or debate. I realize how busy you are in the more important hard science 9-11 truth efforts. Guess I will not be opening any more of your posts since they are not meant to evoke responses and it would be impossible to find anything to respond to anyway since you just fire links at us with no commentary whatsoever.</p>
<p>Well, thanks for the clarification. You are not on this forum to discuss or debate. I realize how busy you are in the more important hard science 9-11 truth efforts. Guess I will not be opening any more of your posts since they are not meant to evoke responses and it would be impossible to find anything to respond to anyway since you just fire links at us with no commentary whatsoever.</p> Jeannon,
I am in the proces…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2012-08-24:3488444:Comment:511922012-08-24T15:10:15.717ZChuck Boldwynhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/ChuckBoldwyn
<p>Jeannon,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am in the process of writing evidentiary statements so the 2 Vancouver Judges can decide the worthiness of their indictments they will ultimately make.</p>
<p>I am writing up the 3 most-major crush-down scientists on the following:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>shyam Sunder</p>
<p>Zednek Bazant</p>
<p>Dave Thomas</p>
<p> </p>
<p>all of which support the OCT, and these 3 are the main, main basis and the originators of the crush-down theory for the OCT and The 911 Commission…</p>
<p>Jeannon,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am in the process of writing evidentiary statements so the 2 Vancouver Judges can decide the worthiness of their indictments they will ultimately make.</p>
<p>I am writing up the 3 most-major crush-down scientists on the following:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>shyam Sunder</p>
<p>Zednek Bazant</p>
<p>Dave Thomas</p>
<p> </p>
<p>all of which support the OCT, and these 3 are the main, main basis and the originators of the crush-down theory for the OCT and The 911 Commission Report. Shyam Sunder gives Bazant his full support as Sunder and all of the NIST scientists are totally incapable of finding a workable real world Newtonian Physics quantitative explanation for the collapse of the TT at near free fall speed. They have already discovered the "truth" and that is the demolishments/collapses can not be explained adequately by any theory that can not be shown to be corrupted in some manner along their "logical" processes in formulating their theory(s).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>They all have been debunked to some extent, but none of the dubunkers have explained the problems with their math and have left their dibunking hanging, incomplete, saying that they do not agree with something, but not further pursueing the supposed flaws in their theories.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>When I post I do not ususally post to get a debate, I post mainly to provide new and old sources of available information.</p>
<p>I post these as I go through my email and at the same time I am working of my evidentiary statements and doing in depth research in areas I have not much touched for some years now and have not much interest in debates, nor do I have the time, usually, though I do answer most posts that have questions or are critical of me or my work and I see the need for a response.</p>
<p>I am not on this site to debate what I post, most usually.</p>
<p>I hope that I am doing a service, like you, in posting what I feel will be of interest to most members, most...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Since I do not have a personal website, I use this just as if it were my own, where I can display and store my research materials for my interviews with Jim.</p>
<p>Most of the new informtion that I provide for the Truth Movement, I find on my own, and there is still a lot of new discoveries to be had, and I will be going after them when time permits. I am always looking for new contributions from other reseachers that can either enhance my own research of will be able to modify my ongoing conclusions, after in depth analysis of their work.</p>
<p>I do not look to criticize others on this site, only if I feel unjustly criticized by others, which is rare.</p>
<p>I do not mind telling anyone my opinion on my research or their research, even in an assertive manner.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I do not lack for confidence nor research knowledge and ability... to find answers to whatever scientific topic.</p>
<p>I guess I am in for the long haul and this has, delightfuly, extended my scientific research career which has gone on continuously for some 40 years now and I have been retired for at least 6 years now.</p>
<p>I am anxious to work on Jeff Prager's nuclear loaded dust data, but just have not had adequate time as I feel there are lots more great answers to be revealed on the nukes used, not DEWs, not HARP, not FIRES.</p>
<p>IMO, all destructions comes from incendiaries, high-explosive directed shape charges, and finally micro nukes or mini nukes as directed shape charges.</p>
<p>I would rather spend my time researching for new info than to subject myself to unending debate that mostly goes nowhere, especially in the case of Judy Wood devotees. The explosives evidence is massively powerful and most convincing, both qualitatively and quantitatively in terms of forces and energies required.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If Steve Jones was to calculate the energy requirements, maybe he can be persuaded to visit nukes, unless he has a pre-ordained agenda...</p>
<p>I am just too busy for debating much for the near future. But I will keep on posting.</p>
<p>If you do not find one of my posts relavant for you, just ignore it and move on. I do not care what other people post and I do not criticize them if I feel it is irrelevant or out of date or whatever.</p>
<p>Maybe you can forgive or ignore my shortcomings in the future.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Peace</p> Chuck,
It is nice to know abo…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2012-08-24:3488444:Comment:512862012-08-24T14:10:40.345ZJeannon Kraljhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JeannonKralj
<p>Chuck,</p>
<p>It is nice to know about all these "debates" and to have the links. However, you mainly just do a data dump. You do not want to discuss or engage fellow forum members on any of the many many issues raised in your original posting.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Do you or do you not wish to debate and discuss any point or do you wish to keep dumping links on us with no idea of why you are doing this or what your position is.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I will tell you that this can be quite confusing…</p>
<p>Chuck,</p>
<p>It is nice to know about all these "debates" and to have the links. However, you mainly just do a data dump. You do not want to discuss or engage fellow forum members on any of the many many issues raised in your original posting.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Do you or do you not wish to debate and discuss any point or do you wish to keep dumping links on us with no idea of why you are doing this or what your position is.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I will tell you that this can be quite confusing because you seem to support the independent WTC dust study contracted by Mohr and conducted by Dr. Millette. Dave Thomas of NMRS group is someone who also supports this dust study and NMRS members include Mohn and Thomas. Dave Thomas posts under his real name at the JREF forum. Yet Dave Thomas is someone you disagree with because Thomas supports the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT), what I call the "pile driver theory" of the top floors pushing down on the bottom section of the building cause the "collapse." driver theory" .</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So your data dump is full of things you agree with and things you disagree with but you will never initiate an orderly discussion on this forum.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>P.S.</p>
<p>The pile driver theory has so long ago and so thoroughly and professionally been debunked on about 20 old YouTube videos that I do not see much point in debating that at this time. I feel sure you are correct in your statements debunking this theory, and it is good to be reminded that NIST actually had the chutzpah to make this assertion in writing, but I have to wonder why of why are you rehasing this very very old matter in relation to the historical records of 9-11 truth seeking?</p>