Monday, June 20, 2011

Chuck Boldwyn

Thermite at the WTC?
Posted by at

13 comments:

  1. stevie.tJune 29, 2011 at 1:27 PM

    oh brother.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Robert B. LivingstonJune 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Robert B. LivingstonJune 29, 2011 at 3:30 PM

    The two of you almost went there: about the source of Steve Jones' dust sample, and the chain of custody surrounding it.

    I would have liked to hear more.

    ReplyDelete
  4. jakeJune 30, 2011 at 12:48 AM

    Please explain in vivid detail AGAIN how you believe the toasted cars happened.

    Please in vivid detail explain what a mini nuke is, and why you believe a mini nuke could produce the destruction of the WTC as we saw it.

    Please in vivid detail explain how thermite was used in concert with mini nukes to produce the observed effects exactly.

    Please in vivid detail explain why the claimed "thermite latent" dust cloud was so large and why it burned nobody.

    Please in vivid detail explain why not one picture of a pool of molten metal at the WTC exists.

    Please explain in vivid detail why so little remains of WTC 1&2 were found

    Chuck has made more bare assertion claims than can be tolerated. He is often bumbling around from point to point, leaving off on bare non proven assertions each time, please reconsider his appearances.

    ReplyDelete
  5. stevie.tJune 30, 2011 at 2:22 PM

    please (in vivid detail) don't.

    ReplyDelete
  6. jakeJune 30, 2011 at 3:26 PM

    Please dont? Why not?! he hasnt explained any of this, he just asserts that certain things happen without locking it down as an iron clad fact, chuck falls into the same trap as the government has. He is trying to set a story in stone, as oppose to simply explaining how the offical story cannot be true, and that is all you need.....we could march down to the white house right now, ALL of us, and demand them prove a plane hit any of the three locations, and we would win right there.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Chuck BoldwynJuly 4, 2011 at 2:23 PM

    I have done 27 hours of "Real Deal" shows with Jim Fetzer during which I have answered nearly all of the proposed questions above.
    type in " Chuck Boldwyn " and 14 shows will appear. listen to all of them, 27 hous worth of to find the answers to questions and learn a Lot more about The WTC Complex obliterations from a Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, & Math point of view

    Chuck Boldwyn

    ReplyDelete
  8. jakeJuly 6, 2011 at 6:02 AM

    Charles i have listened to them all and your statements contradict all over the place back and fourth, id be glad to go over them all with you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. jakeJuly 6, 2011 at 6:05 AM

    Oh and by no means are you going to pass it off again.......by no means whatsoever have you explained what a "mini nuke" is. You always claim something broad like "third or fourth generation nukes" but that equates to nothing real regarding what a mini nuke actually is, and whether or not it had anything to do with 9/11

    ReplyDelete
  10. jakeJuly 6, 2011 at 6:21 AM

    Additionally your comment is basically hand waving, asserting that
    1. i havent listened to your shows
    2. i dont have comprehensive knowledge of 9/11.
    Both you passively assert are true by guiding me to your shows (where you confuse talking about something as answering it), and side step answering my questions, i will not let you do this. You must tell me how a cloud latent with thermite does not burn people or buildings, but burns cars. Any non hear-say evidence for molten metal. And basically what the hell a mini nuke is .......along with many many many more.

    And just so you can be sure i have listened to your shows, i can tell you your first shows were about the nist report and john skilling. You described how his safty factor plus the basic vector force calculations blew the offical story out of the water. But now u have morphed into a thermite warrior, and its depressing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Chuck BoldwynJuly 9, 2011 at 4:34 PM

    Scientists have ignored Dr. Judy because her explanations are not "Scientific" according to all of the steps of the "Scientific Method" , including all of the steps. All of her "facts" are only "suggestions" and "innuendo" with no detailed explanations. Scientists, most of them, do not pay attention to "unscientific" and "wishful hoping" explanations....

    Where's the Beef, the meat of her "suggestive" theory...?

    Chuck Boldwyn

    ReplyDelete
  12. RalphJuly 19, 2011 at 1:22 PM

    I'm still waiting to read Chuck's answer.

    ReplyDelete
  13. jakeJuly 30, 2011 at 12:49 AM

    thank you ralph, indeed i was aiming straight for charles, and was in know way defending judy.

    So please Mr. Boldwyn answer my questions.

    Additionally i accept your debate challenge, the topic thermite at the WTC

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)