The "Finding the Truth by Refusing to Act" Thread

Gravy

Downsitting Citizen
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
17,078
"The great virtue of a fake conspiracy is that it calls on you to do nothing." -George Monbiot

This thread is for keeping track of and staying on top of 9/11 deniers who make claims but do nothing about finding the truth. Sort of like Randi's Sylvia Browne clock. I always think we should demand to know what deniers are doing about gathering evidence to support these incredibly serious accusations and suspicions.

I could give dozens of examples, of course, but a few will suffice to start.
 
Tony Szamboti - realcddeal - to bring Silverstein evidence to DA.

Truther: Tony Szamboti, AKA realcddeal, mechanical engineer, "peer reviewer" for the Journal of 9/11 Studies, member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Claim: That he would be contacting a District Attorney by Friday, February 8, 2008 with his knowledge of Larry Silverstein's direct admission of WTC 7 being destroyed for safety purposes, and attempt to secure the History Channel program on which Szamboti says he "knows" Silverstein made that statement.

Date claim made: February 2, 2008

I did call and e-mail the History Channel to obtain a copy of the show when I learned two years ago that there was controversy over the events in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001. For the last time I will tell you that they said the show was not available to the public. They did not answer my e-mail.

http://couchville.com/show/history&#...ry-silverstein

I think there is one more thing I can do and that is call the NYC District Attorney and tell them I witnessed Silverstein making that comment on the History Channel. I will do that this week and you can check with them about it. Beyond that what would you suggest I do?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3397587&postcount=60


Background:
On the JREF forum, October 14, 2007:

I also told you via e-mail that I watched Larry Silverstein use the actual words "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a History Channel show called History's Business in late 2002, so I absolutely know I am right about that and none of yours or Popular mechanics non-engineering editors can say different.

Show: History's Business-Larry Silverstein. Original Airdate: Sunday, September 08, 2002.
 
William Rodriguez - to interview elevator operator Arturo Griffith

Truther: William Rodriguez

Claim: “(911myths.com) says 'A jet fuel fireball erupted upon impact and shot down at least one bank of elevators.' ...Very strange indeed, since there were only one elevator shaft (the 50A car) that went all the way to B6, the operator was inside, Mr. Griffith and he survived with a broken ankles. He should have died burnt since on this theory the ball of fire went down. He is alive and well and I will interview him in the future to clear the disinformation.” Source

Date Claim made: August, 2006
 
Sizzler - To contact experts about how iron microspheres result from WTC fires.

Truther: Sizzler

Claim: He will consult experts regarding how iron microspheres can be produced by fires like those in the WTC on 9/11. I showed him how to find several experts and reminded him that continued questions to laymen are simply JAQing off.

Date made: January 31, 2008

Background:
I asked you if you will contact experts. You said you would wait for publication of the paper that was written 7 months ago.

So why are you still asking us this question? Are you not feeling well?

Sizzler, what are you going to do about this issue which is so important to you?

Now, you know that iron microspheres were expected to be found in WTC dust, right?

So, Sizzler, for the umpteenth time I ask you: whom are you going to ask to learn more about this issue, which is of vital importance to you? Just a while ago you said you were going to wait until a certain paper is published. Now you've changed your mind.

So how are you going to learn about this? See if you can figure it out. I've tried to help with suggestions: review my earlier posts if necessary.

And yet experts – who were not consulted by Jones et al, seem to think otherwise. So what are you going to do about that?

So what are you going to do about this issue, which is vitally important to you? How do you intend to learn more about it? By continuing to ask the same questions of laymen, or by asking experts?

Which will it be, Sizzler? I eagerly await your response. Can it be that you don't want to catch the inside jobbers?

Yes, you already know several. And I gave you suggestions in my earlier posts. There are even suggestions in the JONES paper, and lots in the NIST, FEMA, and WPI studies.

Do you agree to pursue this issue, which is vitally important to you, with experts?

Then you won't have any problem listing the experts you've contacted since you agreed that was the right thing to do.

You wouldn't just be JAQing off all over this board, would you? I mean, you care, don't you? After all, this is your issue.

I intend to take his paper to the local university.

Should I watch American Next Top Model until I do, or is it ok for me to post on this site in the mean time?

I'm not refusing to contact experts Gravy.

I will take your advice, but that will entail me going to the university and asking an expert.


Until then, this is a blog for conspiracy, and I think I have every right to be asking all the questions I want.

If you think I am just JAQing, then stop communicating with me.

Why would you spend your time wandering from university to university (which I presume you do not attend) looking for people who are experts in these highly-specific fields, when you already have the names of such experts?

As with most truthers, it seems that you're avoiding doing anything about this pressing issue, Sizzler. Prove me wrong.

And how do I go about getting the e-mail address of these experts?

:eek: Geez, if only their workplaces and contact information were listed on their papers. I guess there's just no way to get a hold of these mysterious sciency people.

Sizzler, in the hours since we last communicated, what steps have you taken to contact experts in relevant fields, regarding this vital issue of yours? Have you done anything?

Well, I woke up, showered, brushed my teeth, walked my dog, ate breakfast, and now I am at work.

I'll get to it.


I haven't forgotten your advice.
 
Dylan Avery – To Donate a higher percentage of proceeds than major studios did.

Truther: Dylan Avery

Claim: "we'll be donating more [from the proceeds of LCFC, to victims' causes] than michael moore, oliver stone and paul greengrass have donated to date, which is right now at approximately 0%"

Date claim made: January 10, 2007
Date LCFC released: November 11, 2007

Proceeds from United 93 and World Trade Center donated to victims' causes as of January 10, 2007, when Avery falsely accused the studios of donating nothing: approximately $4 million.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti - realcddeal - to contact ASCE engineers

Truther: Tony Szamboti "realcddeal"

Claim: that he would be contacting the ASCE engineers who worked at the WTC and scrap yards, with important questions.

I would very much like to ask questions of the volunteer ASCE members like Gene Corley. You were right that that is where I should go for answers. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2659325&postcount=96


Date Claim Made: June 3, 2007.

Reminders:
realcd, whom have you contacted with your question? Gene Corley? Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl? Have you contacted ANY of the people who made the decisions that you're asking us – who had no say in the matter – about?

If not, why, and will you do so?

Gravy, you are right I should go ask the question of those who might actually have the answer.

I'm sure we'll be interested in what responses (if any) you get. The NIST and FEMA reports list the investigation leaders and their places of employment (as of 2005, in NIST's case). I know that many of them can be contacted at the listed companies.

Let us know what you hear. It's an interesting question that I believe is addressed in the NIST report, but perhaps you can glean more details.

Okay, realCD, you've made your beliefs clear.

Now what are you going to do about them? This seems to be a pressing issue for you. Will you contact the people who made the decisions? Will you start that process right now?

Your opinion is noted, as it was after your first post. ...I take it you're not going to contact the engineers involved, then?

I would very much like to ask questions of the volunteer ASCE members like Gene Corley. You were right that that is where I should go for answers.

I ask you yet again: will you start that process now? Yes or no?

I can't figure out why you're still opining on this subject. You made your opinion clear in your first post.

Fourth time, realcd: are you going to contact the people who can answer your question? You have twice agreed that you should do so.

Will you begin that process now? Yes or no?

As far as contacting people who were involved in the investigation I said I will and I mean that. I think it is a little impatient of you to presume I haven't done it fast enough as I just agreed to it this evening.

Sorry to be blunt, but I don't think that anyone here cares about your opinon. While you're attempting to debate people who weren't involved in the FEMA and NIST investigations, you could be having your questions answered by those who were involved. So get on with it. You've got work to do.

Dude, I thought you said you were going to contact these experts. Now you say you don't even know who they are? :con2: :confused:

On this page you'll find 145 structural and fire protection engineers who worked on the investigations. The list doesn't include most of the engineers who've written scholarly papers on the subjects.

Let's see the list of qualified engineers who support your claims. Fair enough?
 
I debate truthers, as I'm sure many others do, on other forums. I have thrown down this challenge to many of them, to date none as taken the challenge. Not one as the nerve or conviction to take their evidence to real investigators, not one has ever,to the best of my knowledge presented their evidence to these people.

The Interpol General Assembly, meeting in Budapest from 24 to 28 September 2001 at its 70th session:
RECALLING the murderous attacks perpetrated against the world’s citizens in the United States of America on 11 September 2001,
SHOCKED by the loss of and injury to thousands of innocent lives from over 80 countries, including scores of police officers, firefighters and other public servants called to the scene to aid those in need,
DETERMINED that this abhorrent violation of law and of the standards of human decency must be condemned by every civilized person,
CONSCIOUS of our special responsibility as upholders of the laws of almost every nation of the world,
BEARING IN MIND the consistent record of Interpol at past General Assembly sessions in opposing all acts of terrorism, most recently at the 67th session in Cairo (1998) and the 68th session in Seoul (1999),
CONDEMNS these attacks as cold-blooded mass murder;
CONSIDERS that they constitute a crime against humanity;
COMMENDS the General Secretariat for its swift and decisive response to the 11 September tragedy in establishing an immediate and permanent 24-hour capability to respond to all Interpol member countries’ needs;
HONOURS the memory of the law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency workers and private citizens who selflessly gave their lives to save others;
SHARES in the grief of all those who have been touched by this tragedy and other tragedies caused by terrorism;
REITERATES its unwavering commitment to the 'Cairo Declaration against Terrorism' (AGN/67/RES/12) and calls for enhanced international police and judicial collaboration to tackle terrorism and organized crime more effectively, for example by exploring all opportunities to co-ordinate legal, judicial and operational approaches;
EMPHASIZES the importance of making full use of the services available through Interpol to secure the arrest of fugitive offenders, to improve information sharing between member countries, to develop analysis of the threat more effectively and to facilitate the timely sharing of good practice;
REQUESTS that the General Secretariat afford the highest priority to the issuance of Interpol Red Notices for terrorist offenders whose arrest is sought by member countries and to accelerate the creation of an international database of counterfeit, forged and stolen identity documents;
URGES member countries to develop robust systems for the monitoring of suspicious financial transactions linked to terrorist activities in order to improve the ability of competent authorities to freeze such assets and so disrupt the funding of terrorism;
SOLEMNLY PLEDGES that the Organization and each of its Members endorsing the present resolution will collaborate without reservation, to the fullest extent permitted by law, in identifying every individual who assisted in committing these acts and bringing those who were responsible for them to justice.
http://www.interpol.int/public/ICPO/GeneralAssembly/AGN70/Resolutions/AGN70RES5.asp

Here is a solemn pledge to bring those who were responsible to justice.

So why do they refuse to act ?
 
Last edited:
We must not overlook Craig Ranke. This worthy promised to present his startling evidence for a Pentagon "flyover" to the authorities.

It turned out that his "evidence" consisted of three eyewitnesses, selected out of more than a hundred, who, according to him, described an impossible flight path for Flight 77. He refused to take the obvious next step of asking the cherry-picked trio to decide between their mutually-exclusive memories. Either the north of Citgo flight path or the actual crash of the plane into the Pentagon has to be jettisoned.

It further turned out that there isn't a single witness to a "flyover." None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Ranke acknowledged that fact.

And, finally, it turned out that Ranke has no intention of ever taking his "evidence" to a real news outlet because he claims that they're all in on it.

But, hurry and buy his DVD!
 
Last edited:
Steve Jones might be another candidate here, perhaps? You'd need to check his old PDFs, but I'm sure when he first started talking about WTC samples (so that's before the microspheres idea) he was also saying that he'd be submitting his samples to independent labs to corroborate his findings.
 
"Sizzler" – will post his inside job hypothesis "soon" as of Feb. 08.

Truther: Sizzler, who repeatedly lied about his inclinations regarding 9/11 "truth."

Claim: After being berated again and again (by myself and Ryan Mackey in particular) to provide his specific explanation of how the "engineered" job of destroying the WTC buildings – with explosives, rather than with fire – was accomplished, he AGREES!

Great idea. I will post it later.
But, lets leave this for later. I will post my hypothesis.


Date claim made
: Feb. 11, 2008

Reminders:
CD is an engineered event. Why don't you guys understand this?

I don't understand how your scenario was accomplished. I suggest you take a few weeks, start at the beginning, and explain step by step how this operation could have been engineered, how the workers and work remained unseen, how the work could have possibly survived the impacts and fires, what types of explosives/incendiaries/timers/detonating equipment, etc. would work reliably in those conditions, How much was needed and where it would need to be placed, why there were no explosions, why the work left no sign on any piece of steel or elsewhere, and how it corresponds to the observed events: buildings disintegrating, walls bowing inward, etc.

I've been asking people to tell us how it could be done since April, 2006. Not a single person has attempted it.

You say it's an engineered event, Sizzler.

Then show us the engineering. Fair enough? Or do you expect us to take your word for it?
 
Last edited:
Rob Balsamo was promising to have an expert corroborate some of his ridiculous claims. Whatever happened with that?

Oh right, he's a Truther...

I gave Balsamo what I thought was consructive advice concerning getting his message out to the public. I suggested they put together an cogent and technical article on the differences between the official flight path of Flight 77 and the data on the DFDR and submit it to Aviation and space tech magazine, Discover magazine and Sci-American or others like them.

Well Balsamo did not say this was agood idea or that he would try that tact. Instead he banned me and continued to call up and berate NTSB personel.
 
You say it's an engineered event, Sizzler.

Then show us the engineering. Fair enough? Or do you expect us to take your word for it

slight derail again;
An engineering approach would likely show that it would require putting explosives on column 79,80 or 81 at floor 7 and collapsing the column and contents above floor 7 onto truss #1 or #2 thus compromising the core and resulting in a horizontal collapse at the core.

Which oddly enough sounds to very much like the engineering report done by NIST except they say that debris and fire damage caused the initial failure.
 
slight derail again;
An engineering approach would likely show that it would require putting explosives on column 79,80 or 81 at floor 7 and collapsing the column and contents above floor 7 onto truss #1 or #2 thus compromising the core and resulting in a horizontal collapse at the core.

Which oddly enough sounds to very much like the engineering report done by NIST except they say that debris and fire damage caused the initial failure.
We were talking about the towers there, but I'm sure Sizzler appreciates your help with that "other" problem!
 
Last edited:
I think it might be worth including the claims that a police state will emerge soon, and that President Bush will suspend the Constitution so that he may stay in office longer.

Seems to be I'm told every few weeks that such a scenario is imminent, and that it must be fought.
 
I think it might be worth including the claims that a police state will emerge soon, and that President Bush will suspend the Constitution so that he may stay in office longer.

Seems to be I'm told every few weeks that such a scenario is imminent, and that it must be fought.
The idea here is to encourage these people to take the specific actions they say they will be taking, and to remind them when they fail to do so.

A Truther Promise Keepers, if you will. :D
 
Last edited:
Chris Sarns wants to help R.Gage

,,, and Gage could use all the help he could get.

Originally Posted by DavidJames
You have, in your hands, the evidence to bring down the Bush administration and ensure they pay for their crimes.

It's a very long thread, if you would be so kind as to point me to the post where you describe what you are doing to correct this miscarriage of justice.
^
When i have debated this point about the T2 factor to the point where i feel jaydeehess has explored every possible argument, i will send a summary to Richard Gage.

http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showpost.php?p=3422541&postcount=4317
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom