Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[R.Mackey]

I agree with you MacKey! Debating a truther will never make him change his mind! But I dont think that is the purpose with this kinds of debates.. The debates is out there for people that is lost and looking for facts. Seeing you and Gage debating, will probably help them out. Just like debates with Mark Roberts and LC. And the debate with LC and PM! Two great debates that I know have helped a lot of people. The debate did not help Dylan og Jason.. but I dont think that was the purpose with the debate!

I think you just have to give up convincing the truth movment, but help people getting lost in this debate! That is what I think is the purpose with the debates.

My bold added. There are very, very few people such as you describe. The Truth Movement has had eight years to reach them, and if they haven't by now, they never will.

One thing you may have noticed about the Truth Movement is that it is practically impossible for them to admit to a mistake, no matter how simple or trivial. I would even go as far as to speculate that most cases of inflation (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2320446#post2320446) stem from being caught in a lie, and being unwilling or psychologically unable to own up to it.

There's a reason for this. It's because the Truth Movement is a small, closed community, and it bases virtually all of its conclusions on its own "common sense," its own opinions, and its own isolated research. If one pokes even the tiniest hole in this incestuous discussion circle, it raises doubt about the whole thing, the entire society.

This isn't like science. If we find an error in our theories, which happens frequently, this error leads us to favor a different theory, or propose a new one. But what about the Truth Movement? If we decide to finally retire one of their pillars, say the whole thermite thing is rejected once and for all, since those ideas are founded solely on the alleged credibility of certain individuals, it wipes out a whole swath of their Movement. Think about it -- if they suddenly admitted that the "Journal" of 9/11 Studies was a crock, it would bring down practically every talking point of theirs with it.

So, naturally, they cannot allow this to happen. They defend their ideas, tooth and nail, through every means available except the right one, namely whether or not those ideas make logical or scientific sense.

This is what makes them worthless in debate. They're playing by a different set of rules.

We see multiple examples of this in this very thread -- Tony, for instance, has made three flagrant lies. One, that there was no tilt in the upper structure of WTC 1 just before collapse. Two, that the bowing seen on the south wall of WTC 1 several minutes before collapse wasn't there at all, and according to him didn't occur until after the core failed. And three, the "safety factor of the core = 3." All three of these are strong irreducible delusions (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118389), because all three of them are quite easily and definitively disproven -- the first two by clear photography.

Now, I don't say this just to pick on Tony. The sad thing is, he's one of their more rational proponents. The only reason I agreed to debate him in the first place is because I honestly thought, desperately hoped, he'd react to criticism in a rational way.

Unfortunately, this didn't happen. Everything he said was the same crap he proposed here, months ago, without budging in any direction. I brought up stuff he'd said in 2007, really crazy stuff, to see if he'd learned anything, but he didn't -- he deflected until he could deflect no more, and then stood his ground and defended it all.

Ergo, forget future debates. They can't hold up their end of the bargain. Were there large numbers of people who might be swayed by the spectacle, then repeatedly destroying them in debate might be worth it, but there are no such people. This is nothing more than a playground struggle against a kid with delusions of taking on the champ.

We see exactly the same behavior in other conspiracy theories. Nobody I know of goes to conferences to debate Moon Landing deniers -- what's the point? Real evolutionary biologists don't bother debating creationists, either. We already know where it will lead. If they had real science, they'd present it. Since we know they don't, but they're still arguing, we know they'll never stop.

Same as the Truthers. Richard Gage claims to have 900-odd engineers behind him, and he goes to AIA conferences every time someone donates enough cash for him to do so, but does he present papers there? Heck no. The idea of going to a conference and not presenting is alien to me, and to most scientists. That's the whole point of the conferences.

So screw 'em. If I go on the air again, it'll be for educational purpose. I don't see the Truth Movement or anyone in it having a role in education. Again, if there's an exception, if I've overlooked someone, let them present their case. I won't hold my breath.

[Edx]

its very simple, deal with truthers the way we have been dealing with Creationists for decades. Debates and debunkings do work.

[Edx]

We see multiple examples of this in this very thread -- Tony, for instance, has made three flagrant lies. One, that there was no tilt in the upper structure of WTC 1 just before collapse. .Two, that the bowing seen on the south wall of WTC 1 several minutes before collapse wasn't there at all,

What does he say when you show him the pictures and video of the perimeter columns pulling in?

[Grizzly Bear]

What does he say when you show him the pictures and video of the perimeter columns pulling in?

I can't speak for Mackey but every time I've shown him otherwise it usually received no response what so ever from him. none... Not even an acknowledgement that that particular material even existed within my posts. And usually the claims get recycled after a few pages...

[Hokulele]

its very simple, deal with truthers the way we have been dealing with Creationists for decades. Debates and debunkings do work.


http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins

[Edx]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins

I know he says he wont, Im talking about other people like Aron Ra (http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa)and websites like talk.origins

[Hokulele]

I know he says he wont, Im talking about other people like Aron Ra and websites like talk.origins


It is his reasons for refusing to do so that I wanted to highlight.

[Edx]

I can't speak for Mackey but every time I've shown him otherwise it usually received no response what so ever from him. none... Not even an acknowledgement that that particular material even existed within my posts. And usually the claims get recycled after a few pages...

Sounds like Bill when I tried to get him to deal with that french demolition crushing most of the structure that he says is impossible.

[Edx]

It is his reasons for refusing to do so that I wanted to highlight.

I think he is wrong, if you ignore these guys then they get their stuff in public schools and win court cases.

[R.Mackey]

I think he is wrong, if you ignore these guys then they get their stuff in public schools and win court cases.

:wackytwitcy: Uh, no they won't. They've gotten nowhere.

The Truth Movement is not this big boogeyman that's going to ruin Western civilization. They're a fringe group of crazies that needs gentle herding back to the land of the sane.

I know some people tell themselves the Truthers are dangerous to justify the time they spend fighting Truthers, but it ain't so. They've been declining steadily for years, from a peak that barely registered in the public consciousness, and they only get wackier over time.

I'll bet you anything you like that this time next year, the same arguments will be going on, the same crazy ideas from them, the same individuals involved, and absolutely no progress on their part towards an understanding, a court victory, or mainstream acceptance. No matter what we do.

[ref]

I'll bet you anything you like that this time next year, the same arguments will be going on, the same crazy ideas from them, the same individuals involved, and absolutely no progress on their part towards an understanding, a court victory, or mainstream acceptance. No matter what we do.

Until last year they at least had something to wait for, the NIST report on WTC 7. Now it's all done. No more so-called official reports to come. So what next? It's all downhill for them, so they'll have to do something to maintain interest.

Gage will probably get his 1000th "A&E" next year. He'll try to put on a show with his 1000 names, trying to get mainstream attention going to DC, and fail. He probably tries to widen his audience with his new tactic, attending mosques, claiming success. He'll attend more AIA conferences trying to impress someone. He'll present nothing new, he's just a big yawner.

I don't know what's in it for Jones. Something thermitenanospectacular -related. Maybe more presentations at these truther conferences. He's even a bigger yawner.

No court success for any truther related cases. Their presentations are so embarrassing, it's unbelievable (and so expected) they see no flaws themselves.

Main truther figures spending more and more time presenting their crap abroad. WAC doing stupid stuff.

They'll in some form be here from now till infinity. Debating is completely useless. Let them live in their fantasy land. They'll never get any results, so why bother.

Adam (or was it Jamie) of Mythbusters said he does not know of a single convert as a result of their emmy-nominated special on moon-landing hoax. The science just doesn't do it, they'll believe what they want to believe, forever.

[Dave Rogers]

What does he say when you show him the pictures and video of the perimeter columns pulling in?

Scroll up far enough and you'll see. He pretends that it's all a matter of interpretation, and if you present something that's absolutely clear and unambiguous he vanishes for a few weeks.

Dave

[ref]

if you present something that's absolutely clear and unambiguous he vanishes for a few weeks.


That's must be the inner fighting period, pushing aside all the discomforting and annoying evidence that contradicts your own theories. After a few weeks he once again has convinced himself that maybe it was not so clear after all, and is able to continue from where he left off. :)

[triforcharity]

Ref,

I am picturing the scene from liar Liar with Jim Carrey beating the carp out of himmself in the bathroom!! Thanks!!!

[tsig]

R.Mackey, I think this relates to the OP as well as to the request to move the dialog forward that you made a few pages back. If it doesn't, feel free to request that this be split off somewhere.




That is certainly part of it, similar sentiments were expressed by Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould regarding creationists. I think there is a bit more to it than that. As I see it, there are essentially three reasons I recommend against people such as R.Mackey spending time in debates:

1) The credibility issue mentioned previously.
2) Scientific principles aren't determined by debate.
3) There are better uses for R.Mackey's time.

Any one of these reasons is good enough on its own for ignoring further challenges, so I will expand a bit on each.

The Credibility Issue

Many of the debate challenges that have come up in the past two years have been on very minor points that lead back to what is becoming known as an irreducible delusion. Some of these challenges are though live debates, others through published papers and rebuttals (although not in any reputable publication), and some posted in various fora. Ace Baker and his video manipulation, the Jones/Harritt nano-thermite, and most recently, Tony Szamboti and his missing jolt are all examples of obscure and isolated ideas that have been the subject of one challenge or another. Without the apparent credibility they receive from the acceptance of their challenges, very few people will be exposed to, much less swayed by their opinions.

In each of those cases, people with a relevant background have exposed the flaws central to each topic. As has been shown repeatedly on this forum, even those laypeople with a willingness to research a bit more into those topics can point out where and how each of those ideas previously mentioned fails. You can easily see how this type of debate is seen as a play for credibility by looking at who exactly is being challenged, and in which media those challenges are broadcast.

A classic example is Charlie Sheen's recent call-out of various Republican media personalities. Brainster is far more versed in the various elements of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but debating Brainster doesn't convey the same cachet as debating Rush Limbaugh (sorry Brainster, no offense). If Charlie Sheen truly wished to have an earnest debate with someone who knows what they are talking about, why ignore Brainster's acceptance of his challenge? It is all about the credibility factor. This is what Dawkins and Gould were referring to in the essay by Dawkins on why he doesn't debate creationists.

Science and Debate

Although scientific principles have been the topic of many, many debates, that really isn't how the scientific method works. The testing of hypotheses isn't something that is done by two or more people sneering at each other in public (although that can be fun too). Asking questions is all well and good, but finding answers to those questions and then trying, and failing, to falsify those answers is how we determine which answers are the correct ones.

Debates aren't always won by those who have the greatest command of science, but often by those who have the greatest command of oration. Debates are an excellent way to sway public opinion, which is why they feature prominently in political discourse. In a sense, debates are only about opinion. Some of these opinions may be based on facts, some on emotion, and some based on other motives such as greed, fear, or madness.

I would say that it is more than fair to call for a debate on a topic such as "Should There Be a New Investigation: Why vs. Why Not" or "What Should Be Done to Prevent Future Attacks", but not on a topic such as "Does Fire Weaken Steel: Yes or No".

Better Usage of Resources

After having seen many of the arguments put forth by the various conspiracy theorists that populate this forum, it is clear that most of them are based on other people's work. There is very little original research being done these days (Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin, I am looking at you). Even more obviously, those parroting the works of others apparently have very little understanding of what they are repeating. Simply posting the various point by point rebuttals to those arguments have little or no effect, as the CTist might have no idea what they are posting means in the first place. Sadly enough, this same ignorance sometimes applies to those who rebut as well, where they are simply reposting or linking to previous rebuttals made by those who do have the expertise.

Rather than simply rehashing debate points that have been made ad nauseum, a better approach would be to address the underlying deficiencies in the knowledge of those on both sides of the issues.

Now, none of this is to say that R.Mackey is bad at debating, but rather that there are better uses of his time. As he showed with the series of Hardfire appearances on the topic of the science of 9/11, he is quite capable of general science education, something that people on both sides of the 9/11 debate need and often sorely lack. Creating similar presentations on other topics would be a far more valuable contribution than another 2 hours of angular momentum calculations.

Not all of this needs to be done by R.Mackey, as there are many other topics related to 9/11 that could easily benefit from this treatment. For example, a presentation on how to do research would be an invaluable reference when dealing with the parrots. What are primary sources and why is citing them important? When two accounts conflict, how does a researcher resolve the contradictions (or even should they)? What is the best way to conduct an interview?

Other topics can include how scientific testing is supposed to work (i.e. the anti-Truthburn), what are the international contributions to what we know about 9/11, how to read and interpret the various financial documents cited and discussed (although not so much recently), and so forth.


In conclusion, I do believe there is still much to be discussed and even discovered regarding the events of September 11, 2001, but progress will not be made by engaging with those who are stuck in 2006 or with those whose work has been shown to be fatally flawed.

I especially like your point that science is not settled by live debates but by physical facts.

It's also bad strategy to do what your opponent wants you to do and I notice it's the TM that is always calling for one-on-one debate just like the creationists do and I think for the same reason. They have no facts so they must depend on appeals to emotion.

[newton3376]

Newton,

Money also plays a BIG role. How much money do you think Gage and his merry band of dolts make in a year?? A bunch I would bet.

They aren't even their OWN 501(c)(3), they use some other company called The Agaape Foundation.

Thats good point Tri.....you are correct.

[BigAl]

Thats good point Tri.....you are correct.

Is Agape still alive? The latest report available is 2004 and the last entries in the News and Blog sections are two years old.

[newton3376]

Is Agape still alive? The latest report available is 2004 and the last entries in the News and Blog sections are two years old.

Oh I don't actually know if Agape is still alive.....I was referring to Tri saying that money is still a likely factor for truthers motivations.

It's sad but true.

[Hokulele]

I especially like your point that science is not settled by live debates but by physical facts.

It's also bad strategy to do what your opponent wants you to do and I notice it's the TM that is always calling for one-on-one debate just like the creationists do and I think for the same reason. They have no facts so they must depend on appeals to emotion.


You must be channeling beachnut. ;)

[Tony Szamboti]

I especially like your point that science is not settled by live debates but by physical facts.

It's also bad strategy to do what your opponent wants you to do and I notice it's the TM that is always calling for one-on-one debate just like the creationists do and I think for the same reason. They have no facts so they must depend on appeals to emotion.

I think you are generalizing erroneously here. In this case it was the host of Hardfire who challenged me to debate Ryan on his show.

[Edx]

:wackytwitcy: Uh, no they won't. They've gotten nowhere.

Im refering to Dawkins' reasons for not debating Creationists.

[KJC]

It's also bad strategy to do what your opponent wants you to do and I notice it's the TM that is always calling for one-on-one debate just like the creationists do and I think for the same reason. They have no facts so they must depend on appeals to emotion.

Really? The impression I get is that twoofers are always trying to avoid confrontations with debunkers, and in the rare occassion they do, like when Gage met Mark Roberts, it isn't publicized by the twoof.

[Edx]

Really? The impression I get is that twoofers are always trying to avoid confrontations with debunkers, and in the rare occassion they do, like when Gage met Mark Roberts, it isn't publicized by the twoof.

Makes me wonder why he did it at all.

[alienentity]

Really? The impression I get is that twoofers are always trying to avoid confrontations with debunkers, and in the rare occassion they do, like when Gage met Mark Roberts, it isn't publicized by the twoof.

Both are true, AFAIK. Truthers will claim that nobody wants to debate them, or 'debunker X' is too chicken to debate, etc.. But they also duck offers and challenges to debate.

I think Mackey hasn't been able to get a response from DRG on his whitepaper yet. I can't remember if there was a debate offered as well.

[triforcharity]

Is Agape still alive? The latest report available is 2004 and the last entries in the News and Blog sections are two years old.

The Agape Foundation is still alive. That is where all their donations go, then they are distributed from there. So, there is no real accounting that I have found in their 2007 Form 990 from the IRS.

Sorry for the off topic. PM me if you want more.

[R.Mackey]

Both are true, AFAIK. Truthers will claim that nobody wants to debate them, or 'debunker X' is too chicken to debate, etc.. But they also duck offers and challenges to debate.

I think Mackey hasn't been able to get a response from DRG on his whitepaper yet. I can't remember if there was a debate offered as well.

The original reason I wrote the whitepaper was to help Ron Wieck prepare for a debate with Dr. Griffin. I'd originally planned something in the 30-40 page range, but I was unprepared for the sheer depth of deception I found in his book, and my paper grew into a 180-page monster (final version is closer to 300).

When Dr. Griffin got wind of it, he slunk out of the debate.

He's offered no response to it whatsoever. The funniest was when he ran from a hard copy of it in Japan last year. I don't expect him to ever reply, and I certainly don't expect him to fix his errors. It'd be difficult, since literally every single claim he made that I considered turned out to be wrong.

Truthers are following the pattern of the creationists. They all want debate, clamor for debate, set up fake media events and such, but -- this is the key point -- they only want to debate big name people who are unfamiliar with their work. They want to get a guy like Dr. Shyam Sunder on stage so they can blindside him with incoherent crap about nanothermites and exploding ceiling tiles, and then score audience points while Dr. Sunder blinks and tries to figure out if it's a joke, or if he's really talking to someone that stupid. A guy like Mark Roberts who actually knows their spiel and can send them packing, they're usually afraid to go near, and for good reason.

[TruthersLie]

Ref,

I am picturing the scene from liar Liar with Jim Carrey beating the carp out of himmself in the bathroom!! Thanks!!!

Tri..

just a simple question...

Why would someone beat this out of themselves?
http://paradoxoff.com/files/2007/08/biggest-carp-caught-3.jpg

OH... you mean crap... got it.

:)

[alienentity]

The original reason I wrote the whitepaper was to help Ron Wieck prepare for a debate with Dr. Griffin. I'd originally planned something in the 30-40 page range, but I was unprepared for the sheer depth of deception I found in his book, and my paper grew into a 180-page monster (final version is closer to 300).

When Dr. Griffin got wind of it, he slunk out of the debate.

He's offered no response to it whatsoever. The funniest was when he ran from a hard copy of it in Japan last year. I don't expect him to ever reply, and I certainly don't expect him to fix his errors. It'd be difficult, since literally every single claim he made that I considered turned out to be wrong.

Truthers are following the pattern of the creationists. They all want debate, clamor for debate, set up fake media events and such, but -- this is the key point -- they only want to debate big name people who are unfamiliar with their work. They want to get a guy like Dr. Shyam Sunder on stage so they can blindside him with incoherent crap about nanothermites and exploding ceiling tiles, and then score audience points while Dr. Sunder blinks and tries to figure out if it's a joke, or if he's really talking to someone that stupid. A guy like Mark Roberts who actually knows their spiel and can send them packing, they're usually afraid to go near, and for good reason.

Yes, that's right - they want to ambush someone while videoing the whole thing, to catch them off-guard.
My personal favorite of this genre is the priceless reaction of former PM Jean Chretien, who is given a copy of Loose Change, as I recall, and promptly uses it as a coaster.
But then Chretien was a battle-hardened and savvy person. Very, very hard to sneak up on :)

[tsig]

Both are true, AFAIK. Truthers will claim that nobody wants to debate them, or 'debunker X' is too chicken to debate, etc.. But they also duck offers and challenges to debate.

I think Mackey hasn't been able to get a response from DRG on his whitepaper yet. I can't remember if there was a debate offered as well.

Your post is truer to the mark. Lots of challenges, lots of running.

Tony showed up and gets a hat tip for that.

[911kongen]

The original reason I wrote the whitepaper was to help Ron Wieck prepare for a debate with Dr. Griffin. I'd originally planned something in the 30-40 page range, but I was unprepared for the sheer depth of deception I found in his book, and my paper grew into a 180-page monster (final version is closer to 300).

When Dr. Griffin got wind of it, he slunk out of the debate.

He's offered no response to it whatsoever. The funniest was when he ran from a hard copy of it in Japan last year. I don't expect him to ever reply, and I certainly don't expect him to fix his errors. It'd be difficult, since literally every single claim he made that I considered turned out to be wrong.

Truthers are following the pattern of the creationists. They all want debate, clamor for debate, set up fake media events and such, but -- this is the key point -- they only want to debate big name people who are unfamiliar with their work. They want to get a guy like Dr. Shyam Sunder on stage so they can blindside him with incoherent crap about nanothermites and exploding ceiling tiles, and then score audience points while Dr. Sunder blinks and tries to figure out if it's a joke, or if he's really talking to someone that stupid. A guy like Mark Roberts who actually knows their spiel and can send them packing, they're usually afraid to go near, and for good reason.

Wow, thats exactly what I think about this, and is the reason why I think You og Roberts should debate them.. not Larry King or something like that! They can make people not knowing about there lies look like fools!

[DGM]

Wow, thats exactly what I think about this, and is the reason why I think You og Roberts should debate them.. not Larry King or something like that! They can make people not knowing about there lies look like fools!
I think you missed the point. It's pointless to debate them because no one is really listening and it won't change a thing. Their attention whores, pure and simple.

[911kongen]

I think you missed the point. It's pointless to debate them because no one is really listening and it won't change a thing. Their attention whores, pure and simple.

Some one is listening. Griffin and Alex Jones and many more has debated on Fox news and Cnn. Its always them debating someone that dont know anything. The best thing would be if the called peoples lik Mackey to debate them. Not the TV show host debating the Nuts...

[DGM]

Some one is listening. Griffin and Alex Jones and many more has debated on Fox news and Cnn. Its always them debating someone that dont know anything. The best thing would be if the called peoples lik Mackey to debate them. Not the TV show host debating the Nuts...
And what has been the effects of these "debates"? Truth-ism is still a no starter and they are always ridiculed by the sane among us.

[R.Mackey]

Some one is listening. Griffin and Alex Jones and many more has debated on Fox news and Cnn. Its always them debating someone that dont know anything. The best thing would be if the called peoples lik Mackey to debate them. Not the TV show host debating the Nuts...


This may surprise and alarm you, but I have absolutely no say over who gets scheduled to appear on Fox or CNN. Take it up with them.

[liverleef]

The original reason I wrote the whitepaper was to help Ron Wieck prepare for a debate with Dr. Griffin. I'd originally planned something in the 30-40 page range, but I was unprepared for the sheer depth of deception I found in his book, and my paper grew into a 180-page monster (final version is closer to 300).

When Dr. Griffin got wind of it, he slunk out of the debate.

He's offered no response to it whatsoever. The funniest was when he ran from a hard copy of it in Japan last year. I don't expect him to ever reply, and I certainly don't expect him to fix his errors. It'd be difficult, since literally every single claim he made that I considered turned out to be wrong.

Truthers are following the pattern of the creationists. They all want debate, clamor for debate, set up fake media events and such, but -- this is the key point -- they only want to debate big name people who are unfamiliar with their work. They want to get a guy like Dr. Shyam Sunder on stage so they can blindside him with incoherent crap about nanothermites and exploding ceiling tiles, and then score audience points while Dr. Sunder blinks and tries to figure out if it's a joke, or if he's really talking to someone that stupid. A guy like Mark Roberts who actually knows their spiel and can send them packing, they're usually afraid to go near, and for good reason.

Didn't Kevin Ryan do this by seeking to debate college professors that clearly would not likely be familiar with truther woo?

[911kongen]

This may surprise and alarm you, but I have absolutely no say over who gets scheduled to appear on Fox or CNN. Take it up with them.

Hmm.. Im a bit disappointed! :p But why did you crash a spaceship yesterday in to the moon? :D

[Brainster]

The original reason I wrote the whitepaper was to help Ron Wieck prepare for a debate with Dr. Griffin. I'd originally planned something in the 30-40 page range, but I was unprepared for the sheer depth of deception I found in his book, and my paper grew into a 180-page monster (final version is closer to 300).

When Dr. Griffin got wind of it, he slunk out of the debate.

He's offered no response to it whatsoever. The funniest was when he ran from a hard copy of it in Japan last year. I don't expect him to ever reply, and I certainly don't expect him to fix his errors. It'd be difficult, since literally every single claim he made that I considered turned out to be wrong.

Truthers are following the pattern of the creationists. They all want debate, clamor for debate, set up fake media events and such, but -- this is the key point -- they only want to debate big name people who are unfamiliar with their work. They want to get a guy like Dr. Shyam Sunder on stage so they can blindside him with incoherent crap about nanothermites and exploding ceiling tiles, and then score audience points while Dr. Sunder blinks and tries to figure out if it's a joke, or if he's really talking to someone that stupid. A guy like Mark Roberts who actually knows their spiel and can send them packing, they're usually afraid to go near, and for good reason.

Exactly. I always remember going on a Troofer internet radio show for a debate with Bermas. During the show the host (Rob Bishop) mentioned on several occasions that the show was getting record traffic, and that they were having to add a few servers to handle all the listeners.

And I never got invited on a Troofer internet radio show again.

[bill smith]

This may surprise and alarm you, but I have absolutely no say over who gets scheduled to appear on Fox or CNN. Take it up with them.

I noticed a post you made which sseems to imply that Mark Boberts beat Richard Gage in a 'Hardfire' debate on 9/11 ? This confuses me somehat as I am only aware of one such debate in which the opposite happened. I attach links to the two parts of the show concerned plus Gravy's own somewhat pathetic response soon afterwards. Is this the same debate ? What a great exmple of the attempted rewriting of history if it is .lol.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3685846057748316809 Part 1 14.09.08

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-459844559898426929&hl=en Part 2

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3789539&postcount=128 Biotch,biotch..

[TruthersLie]

Breach of Membership Agreement removed.
Let's keep the tone civil and the posts on topic, please.

[newton3376]

So when is the projected date for the hardfire debate to be posted?

[R.Mackey]

About two weeks ago... :D

Gary was having trouble with his software and couldn't use my video files, though it looks like he's close to a solution. Updates when I get them.

[newton3376]

About two weeks ago... :D

Well then............

Gary was having trouble with his software and couldn't use my video files, though it looks like he's close to a solution. Updates when I get them.

Cool.....keep us posted...

[fourtoe]

Do you know what was wrong with the video files exactly?

[911kongen]

About two weeks ago... :D

Gary was having trouble with his software and couldn't use my video files, though it looks like he's close to a solution. Updates when I get them.

Cant wait MacKey! :)

[Mr. Skinny]

Cant wait MacKeyMackey! :)

Fixed!

[bill smith]

Do you know what was wrong with the video files exactly?

Tony will be able to tell us by what's missing.

[beachnut]

I noticed a post you made which sseems to imply that Mark Boberts beat Richard Gage in a 'Hardfire' debate on 9/11 ? This confuses me somehat ...
That is understandable, it takes some basic knowledge on 9/11 to understand Gage is a liar. You post lies like Gage spews lies. Based on your spamming post of delusions from 911Truth, you do not have exercise sound judgment and posses the knowledge to understand Gage is spreading lies to support his lecture circuit. Gage is a Capitalist, you are a follower who believes moronic lies and delusions he manufactures so you can spew them without the knowledge they are lies.

You are not skeptical and you post at a skeptics forum; irony. If you had knowledge and sound judgment you would be upset Gage has fooled you. I have not seen someone help dig the pit of ignorance Gage needs his followers to be in as willing as you do.

[Edx]

Come on this is silly now whens this debate going to be published on googlevideos or youtube or something

[Klimax]

Tony will be able to tell us by what's missing.

If he'll pay attention same way as he paid to 11/9 and in his studies,I doubt he'll be correct at all.

[Dave Rogers]

Tony will be able to tell us by what's missing.

Well done, bill. That was nearly a joke.

Dave

[dafydd]

Well done, bill. That was nearly a joke.

Dave

The closest that Bill has ever come.

[911kongen]

Fixed!

What????

[Mr. Skinny]

What????
His last name is Mackey not MacKey (the K is not capitalized).

[911kongen]

His last name is Mackey not MacKey (the K is not capitalized).

Hmm.. why not? Mac= son? So its Ryan son of Key? You know, like MacGyver.. :D

[Mr. Skinny]

Hmm.. why not? Mac= son? So its Ryan son of Key? You know, like MacGyver.. :D
Well, I think it's pronounced more like "mackie" rather than "mack-key".

Mr. Mackey can correct me if I'm wrong, but honestly, that's the only reason I bothered to correct your spelling (because I though you might be thinking it was "son of Key").

[911kongen]

Well, I think it's pronounced more like "mackie" rather than "mack-key".

Mr. Mackey can correct me if I'm wrong, but honestly, that's the only reason I bothered to correct your spelling (because I though you might be thinking it was "son of Key").

And you know its not "son of Key"? I wonder what door his father can open! :D

Anyway, my guess is that Ryans family tree is Irish or Scottish. But I dont know, america dont have any name law, like we do in Norway. So you can write it like you prefere. To me it feels logic to write MacKey, but if its just a family name, it logic to write Mackey. Then its more of a family name, not son of..

[fourtoe]

My last name is Creason. When I pretend to be an Indian I go as Joe Son of Cree. So by that logic (and I think it is absurdly logical imo) It would be Ryan Key of Mac.

Yeah Ryan is an Irish name so I would agree with you Kongen on that. But what is up with Norway having name laws? Like you can't spell Sarah without an h or something?

Hopefully, all this will be cleared up when these Hardfire episodes hit Google.videos.

[R.Mackey]

You people choose the strangest things to argue about.

It's "Mackey" with no capital K, but sometimes one gets added automatically and I really don't care either way. In my particular case the Mackey is Scottish, corrupted from MacKay, which is a rather large and famous clan with its origins in Ross. Most of my genetic makeup is Pictish, with a good dash of Welsh thrown in for extra stubbornness.

At various times people have encouraged me to legally change it back to MacKay. While somewhat interesting, my ancestors were mostly in the United States since before the Revolution, so at best I would be a faux Scotsman. There are already far too many of them, so I'm keeping it as it is. Despite the fact that I like Scotland, single malt, piobaireachd, and even haggis.

None of this will appear on the Hardfire shows. Those at least tried to remain on topic. ;)

[carlitos]

Every year around Christmastime, Whyte & MacKay goes on sale for £9.99. Scottish tradition.

Dude, you like Haggis? I lived there for a while and couldn't stomach the stuff.

I am discovering those old debates because of this thread, and enjoying them immensely.

[fourtoe]

None of this will appear on the Hardfire shows. Those at least tried to remain on topic. ;)

Curses. I wanted to know how Tony and Ron felt about your last name. You guys are just gonna about that sciency stuff aren't you?

[UNLoVedRebel]

We're still waiting with bated breath. :wackyjiggy:

[newton3376]

We're still waiting with bated breath. :wackyjiggy:

I know.....what in the name of Zeus is the holdup here? :confused:

[grandmastershek]

My bold added. There are very, very few people such as you describe. The Truth Movement has had eight years to reach them, and if they haven't by now, they never will.


I am sorry I have to say I disagree here RM. The TM will be like any other CT and will prosper where there is opportunity to prosper. Every generation new followers of CT's are created and more so now than ever since the internet. the internet like a circulatory system, while providing nourishment to the body, has also served as an express system for disease. Conspiracy theories as a whole have benefited in that children are exposed to nonsensical ideas and are being convinced that their methods and reasoning are legitimate. People who were born in the last couple decades are readily buying the JFK and moon landing crap. Also, we can see the ancient jewish conspiracy is very prevalent. 9/11 like all CT's will continue to spread and will be a spring board for future declines in rational thought. My $.02

[grandmastershek]

I know.....what in the name of Zeus is the holdup here? :confused:

Undersigned. I can't wait. this kind of stuff is like the playoffs of skepticism.

How Bill Smith can think Gage did anything of consequence during his debate with Gravy is about as rational as using chilies as a sexual aid. Lemme guess...he thinks his nanothermite nonsense was a home run? Well unfortunately it was just coming out that it was sham. Yet Gravy did field it and laid the foundation for what everyone was speculating and later turned out to fact.

Regardless, how anyone can think Gage was effective after his Kinkos demo, is beyond me. If God wanted to convince me of the afterlife and become his ever loving servant that would have been the time. Just materialize Mr. Wizard, bitch slap Richie & have him do a classic 80's Reading Is Fundamental tv spot. Oh god if you exist and want believers this would be the way.

[911kongen]

The show with Ryan and Tony is now up; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1u3KO9kUdE

[Edx]

YEYE

3 part show??

Whens the next one comin!!!?!???! I need my fix!

[Scott Sommers]

I am sorry I have to say I disagree here RM. The TM will be like any other CT and will prosper where there is opportunity to prosper. Every generation new followers of CT's are created and more so now than ever since the internet. the internet like a circulatory system, while providing nourishment to the body, has also served as an express system for disease. Conspiracy theories as a whole have benefited in that children are exposed to nonsensical ideas and are being convinced that their methods and reasoning are legitimate. People who were born in the last couple decades are readily buying the JFK and moon landing crap. Also, we can see the ancient jewish conspiracy is very prevalent. 9/11 like all CT's will continue to spread and will be a spring board for future declines in rational thought. My $.02

I think RM is saying something different. Like him, I doubt 911 Truth will ever go away completely. There will always be a Black Krishna in the mental wards or wandering the streets homeless babbling about how THEY used thermite to destroy the WTC. I think what he means is that 911 Truth will exist only in so far as it's able to incorporate itself into the world of CT thinking.

I now know probably hundreds of people who profess to believe in this 911 crap. Almost all of them are under 25. I don't know about you, but I believed some of the strangest things when I was in high school. From a rational point of view, I doubt 911 Truth is inferior.

But 911 Truth can hardly get more than a couple of dozen people out to a rally. This year's memorial demonstration in NY had less than 150 and they came from all over the country. No one os buying their movie. If you look at recently posted videos on Youtube, no one is watching them. Gage is going overseas to find an audience. How many more years can they keep this up?

[R.Mackey]

That was fast. Even I didn't know about it that quickly. However, yes, the above is the first of three shows. I'll post the other two when available, if I'm not beaten to it.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Thanks 911Kongen! Hope you don't mind if I changed it a bit. My computer messes up each time I try to see it on YouTube.

n1u3KO9kUdE

[911kongen]

That was fast. Even I didn't know about it that quickly. However, yes, the above is the first of three shows. I'll post the other two when available, if I'm not beaten to it.

You know when that might be? Are we talking days, weeks or years? ;) Good first show!

[grandmastershek]

I think RM is saying something different. Like him, I doubt 911 Truth will ever go away completely. There will always be a Black Krishna in the mental wards or wandering the streets homeless babbling about how THEY used thermite to destroy the WTC. I think what he means is that 911 Truth will exist only in so far as it's able to incorporate itself into the world of CT thinking.

I now know probably hundreds of people who profess to believe in this 911 crap. Almost all of them are under 25. I don't know about you, but I believed some of the strangest things when I was in high school. From a rational point of view, I doubt 911 Truth is inferior.

But 911 Truth can hardly get more than a couple of dozen people out to a rally. This year's memorial demonstration in NY had less than 150 and they came from all over the country. No one os buying their movie. If you look at recently posted videos on Youtube, no one is watching them. Gage is going overseas to find an audience. How many more years can they keep this up?

Fair enough. And upon giving it further thought, yes I too did believe some nonsensical stuff when I was a kid. More so because it sounded cool as opposed to being factual and/or rational. My students always seem to get disappointed when I explain how some of the things they claim are fact in class don't always stack up. Kind of reminds me of when a kid finds out Santa isn't real (yes it's true); "You mean Planet X isn't real!?". Even worse though is that I had a science teacher in my building telling them Planet X was real & another history teacher who believed in 9/11 truth. So I spent considerable time cleaning up after them when time allowed.

[grandmastershek]

Good job Ryan. You explained it cleanly in such a way that layman at least had a decent grasp of what you were contending. I didn't like that Ron took up the first few minutes. But I can't way to see more....SOON!

[fourtoe]

I'm watching it now. I love how cheesy and bizarre the theme song is, I always start cracking up when I hear it.

[Heiwa]

Interestingly enough my name pops up in the show at around 14.25 minutes! Edited for Rule 11.

[Edx]

Edited for response to modded post.

[fourtoe]

Edited for response to modded post.

[grandmastershek]

Edited for response to modded post.

[alienentity]

Looking forward to watching it!!!

(OT) I have just produced 2 videos addressing David Chandler's 'South Tower Smoking Guns' video. Part 1 is on my channel, Part 2 is still rendering.

These will probably be my last videos, hope you enjoy them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzTGMQcXP1Q

Thanks again to Ryan for all the great work you've done.

[Grizzly Bear]

Will watch the 1st part when I get home this evening

[grandmastershek]

This must be Christmas! A video of Mackey owning Tony & AE smacks around Chandler some more...next you're going to tell me being bald instantly gets you laid.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a19/grnadmastershek/guiness.jpg

[R.Mackey]

You know when that might be? Are we talking days, weeks or years? ;) Good first show!


The first show had a unique technical issue, so there should be no undue delays in the second and third. But I remind you, Gary is doing this on his own time, so cut him some slack. It's not like you all paid him to deliver on a specific date.

If you liked the first show, I wonder what you'll all think of the second. Some real fireworks on that one.

[grandmastershek]

Some real fireworks on that one.

Were they thermitic?

[DropGems]

Good episode with some decent "pwnage" towards the end. Looking forward to the others.

[alienentity]

I thought Mr. Mackey handled himself very well - composed, focused and polite.

Kudos to Tony S. for agreeing to do the show. I still find his main arguments rather weak, since they hinge on a denial of the initial tilt, and a denial that rubble could transmit enough energy.

If you don't buy into the denials, his arguments are rather empty.

Ryan mentioned the water-dumping experiments, so I dug one up and posted a link on the Hardfire youtube video.

I think it makes the point quite well.... ETA I hope there were no defiant truthers in the car shouting 'it can't hurt us!!' ;)

vqm6yh6333I

[LashL]

Good stuff, indeed. Very much looking forward to parts 2 and 3. :)

[Newtons Bit]

I thought Mr. Mackey handled himself very well - composed, focused and polite.

Kudos to Tony S. for agreeing to do the show. I still find his main arguments rather weak, since they hinge on a denial of the initial tilt, and a denial that rubble could transmit enough energy.

If you don't buy into the denials, his arguments are rather empty.

Ryan mentioned the water-dumping experiments, so I dug one up and posted a link on the Hardfire youtube video.

I think it makes the point quite well.... ETA I hope there were no defiant truthers in the car shouting 'it can't hurt us!!' ;)

vqm6yh6333I

Obviously just local failures ;)

[UNLoVedRebel]

"You're putting my words in my mouth." - Tony Szamboti.

Ha!

[tsig]

"You're putting my words in my mouth." - Tony Szamboti.

Ha!

You would've thought he would have sounded smarter if that was the case.

[Tony Szamboti]

I thought Mr. Mackey handled himself very well - composed, focused and polite.

Kudos to Tony S. for agreeing to do the show. I still find his main arguments rather weak, since they hinge on a denial of the initial tilt, and a denial that rubble could transmit enough energy.

If you don't buy into the denials, his arguments are rather empty.

Ryan mentioned the water-dumping experiments, so I dug one up and posted a link on the Hardfire youtube video.

I think it makes the point quite well.... ETA I hope there were no defiant truthers in the car shouting 'it can't hurt us!!' ;)

vqm6yh6333I

The volume of water in that bucket is at least 10'x10'x10' which is 1,000 cubic feet and would weigh 62,000 lbs., yet the only thing it really collapses/crushes is the relatively flimsy roof of the car. Obviously most of the mass was not participating in a singular impact or the entire vehicle would have been crushed to a solid mass.

In addition to Anders Bjorkman's challenge to build a structure where 1/10th can one-way crush 9/10ths, you should do a rubble load application test.

[Tony Szamboti]

"You're putting my words in my mouth." - Tony Szamboti.

Ha!

Yes, although there is an extra word in there, the connotation was obvious that I meant "You're trying to put words in my mouth".

[Edx]

In addition to Anders Bjorkman's challenge to build a structure where 1/10th can one-way crush 9/10ths, you should do a rubble load application test.

We've already shown him examples of that happening but he denies it apparently so do you, no reason at all is given.

[Tony Szamboti]

We've already shown him examples of that happening but he denies it apparently so do you, no reason at all is given.

As far as I know nobody has shown that rubble could demolish the structure of the towers. If they have please show me where.

[Edx]

As far as I know nobody has shown that rubble could demolish the structure of the towers. If they have please show me where.

RzovOlsWpT0

These examples especially the last example given satisfy what he is asking for.

So why does he say it doesnt count?

Because it was a "controlled" collapse.

However this is absolutely irrelevant.

The issue is... if the supporting columns of one floor are removed or weakened can the smaller top section of a building crush down the lower section.

As you can see especially by the last example all they have to do is remove one floor and the top 3 or 4 floors can be seen crushing down at least around 17 floors with ease.

There is also no need to weaken the structure in these techniques, so quite literally these more than satisfy the challenge.

Yet Heiwa believes that you couldnt even drop the top section on top of the lower section and have it collapse.

PS: Also note the following observations:

1. Large dust clouds
2. Puffs of air and
3. Explusions of debris.

Guys like Richard Gage claims these are indications of explosive demolition. Since that clearly isnt the case, how then are these indicators of explosives? If a building collapsed we would expect these effects.

[Tony Szamboti]

RzovOlsWpT0

These examples especially the last example given satisfy what he is asking for.

So why does he say it doesnt count?

Because it was a "controlled" collapse.

However this is absolutely irrelevant.

The issue is... if the supporting columns of one floor are removed or weakened can the smaller top section of a building crush down the lower section.

As you can see especially by the last example all they have to do is remove one floor and the top 3 or 4 floors can be seen crushing down at least around 17 floors with ease.

There is also no need to weaken the structure in these techniques, so quite literally these more than satisfy the challenge.

Yet Heiwa believes that you couldnt even drop the top section on top of the lower section and have it collapse.

PS: Also note the following observations:

1. Large dust clouds
2. Puffs of air and
3. Explusions of debris.

Guys like Richard Gage claims these are indications of explosive demolition. Since that clearly isnt the case, how then are these indicators of explosives? If a building collapsed we would expect these effects.

As has been pointed out many times, the Balzac-Vitry building demolition does not in any way represent 1/10th of a structure crushing down the lower 9/10ths of the structure. It can also be seen that the upper section of the building is being simultaneously destroyed.

I think you really need to do a model as there are no examples of what Bjorkman is asking you to show.

[TruthersLie]

ah... is that how you will try to shift the goal posts?

We can see that 1/4 will crush down 3/4.

and according to the now banned heiwa 49% couldn't possibly crush down 51%... and if you dropped that upper 15% from 2 miles up it wouldn't do anything...

do you really support that kind of wackiness?

And anders only shifted to the 10% answer after 2 months of dodging, whinging and attempting to LIE about the technique.

Is that really the best you have? REally? And you are supposed to be a mechanical engineer? wow....

[Edx]

As has been pointed out many times, the Balzac-Vitry building demolition does not in any way represent 1/10th of a structure crushing down the lower 9/10ths of the structure.

As it can clearly be seen, the building at the end only stopped collapsing because there was nothing left to crush.

If it wasnt 1/10 crushing 9/10s then it was at least 2/10 crushing 8/10's.

And btw where do you get this idea that the WTC collapse was 1/10 of the structure crushing 9/10's? It clearly wasnt that much.

It can also be seen that the upper section of the building is being simultaneously destroyed.

No, they clearly use cables to pull out the supports of one, maybe two floors. A section of the side even falls out, according to truther logic the top section should have fallen over to where that damage was.

[Justin39640]

The volume of water in that bucket is at least 10'x10'x10' which is 1,000 cubic feet and would weigh 62,000 lbs., yet the only thing it really collapses/crushes is the relatively flimsy roof of the car. Obviously most of the mass was not participating in a singular impact or the entire vehicle would have been crushed to a solid mass.

In addition to Anders Bjorkman's challenge to build a structure where 1/10th can one-way crush 9/10ths, you should do a rubble load application test.

lJC1unnuwds
nope
It came out pretty much the same.

You seem to ignore the fact a good portion of the core actually survived the initial collapse then fell under its own weight a few seconds later. I wonder what destroyed all those floors and outer columns?
Your debate was about 9/11 not the ramblings of a failed engineer.

Maybe you should think about what all that rubble from 13 floors would do to the floor below it.

Here's a video from an accident in my industry.
hqC2URQstz4
One support collapsed the majority of the racking. Why?
Those racks stood for years without a problem. Inside job? lol

I also have seen falling unstrapped wood and other loose loads destroy the overhead guards on machines, other merch, racking, ceilings, rooms, etc, etc.

I may not be an engineer but I've seen the results of what you think is impossible.

[Tony Szamboti]

lJC1unnuwds
nope
It came out pretty much the same.

You seem to ignore the fact a good portion of the core actually survived the initial collapse then fell under its own weight a few seconds later. I wonder what destroyed all those floors and outer columns?
Your debate was about 9/11 not the ramblings of a failed engineer.

Maybe you should think about what all that rubble from 13 floors would do to the floor below it.

Here's a video from an accident in my industry.
hqC2URQstz4
One support collapsed the majority of the racking. Why?
Those racks stood for years without a problem. Inside job? lol

I also have seen falling unstrapped wood and other loose loads destroy the overhead guards on machines, other merch, racking, ceilings, rooms, etc, etc.

I may not be an engineer but I've seen the results of what you think is impossible.

The loads are relative to the failure loads required. Please be specific.

[Justin39640]

The loads are relative to the failure loads required. Please be specific.

How much load does it take to destroy the floor directly under the collapse zone in the north tower?
Way less than what hit it.
Your idea that the columns hit dead on square is ludicrous. Nothing in real life fails like that. Only on paper. (courtesy of real world experience)

[Tony Szamboti]

ah... is that how you will try to shift the goal posts?

We can see that 1/4 will crush down 3/4.

and according to the now banned heiwa 49% couldn't possibly crush down 51%... and if you dropped that upper 15% from 2 miles up it wouldn't do anything...

do you really support that kind of wackiness?

And anders only shifted to the 10% answer after 2 months of dodging, whinging and attempting to LIE about the technique.

Is that really the best you have? REally? And you are supposed to be a mechanical engineer? wow....

If you can't provide an example of a 1/10th upper section causing the destruction of a lower 9/10ths section of a redundant structure then maybe you can show us some calculations showing it is viable.

Bazant's theory cannot be used as it has been shown to not conform to observation since there is no velocity loss which his jolt would cause.

You also really can't use any of the Verinage techniques as they require impulses and their velocity loss has been verified.

Let's see those calculations.

[NoZed Avenger]

This thread is about the debate video, not another incarnation of ring-around-the-rosy and demanding other people jump through hoops to justify their tentative belief that the laws of physics were probably in force, even on 9/11.

Please take that stuff to another thread -- maybe one of the other ten or twenty that have already hashed out that "challenge."

[Myriad]

Here's a video from an accident in my industry.
hqC2URQstz4



Holy crap! I hope the driver survived.

Years ago working as an industrial temp in a warehouse, a one-week job, a stack of boxes near me - a pretty small stack -- started tipping over. I pushed them back up straight and prevented the fall.

An experienced guy chewed me out good for that! That's when I learned that you should NEVER try to stop something once it starts falling in a warehouse. You run! It's so easy to underestimate the force that would be required to arrest the fall and the amount of hurt you'd be in if you fail.

By the way, I noticed that the driver's co-workers immediately started tossing boxes and shelving debris out of the way to reach him. They didn't wait to carefully catalog the debris and map where each box landed first! Didn't they realize they were tampering with material evidence?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Edx]

If you can't provide an example of a 1/10th upper section causing the destruction of a lower 9/10ths section of a redundant structure then maybe you can show us some calculations showing it is viable.

1. The WTC collapse didnt involve 10% crushing down 90%, so why do you ask for it?

2. The last example in that video only stopped crushing down because there was nothing left to crush.

You also really can't use any of the Verinage techniques as they require impulses and their velocity loss has been verified.

This is moving the goal posts even if we accept your claim.

Whether there is loss of velocity or not makes no difference to if 10% of a structure can crush down 90% of the structure.

You can accept the former without accepting the latter.

If you wish to argue that there was no loss of velocity fine, argue that point.

PS: Do you accept that Richard Gages' indications of explosive demoliton are clearly wrong? And if so, will you be telling him about it and asking him to correct his materials?

[Edx]

This thread is about the debate video, not another incarnation of ring-around-the-rosy and demanding other people jump through hoops to justify their tentative belief that the laws of physics were probably in force, even on 9/11.

Please take that stuff to another thread -- maybe one of the other ten or twenty that have already hashed out that "challenge."

To be fair the video is about Tony and he claims in the video that this hasnt happened. I know what Heiwa's opinion is but Tony and the subjects in the video is on topic.

[Justin39640]

Holy crap! I hope the driver survived.

Years ago working as an industrial temp in a warehouse, a one-week job, a stack of boxes near me - a pretty small stack -- started tipping over. I pushed them back up straight and prevented the fall.

An experienced guy chewed me out good for that! That's when I learned that you should NEVER try to stop something once it starts falling in a warehouse. You run! It's so easy to underestimate the force that would be required to arrest the fall and the amount of hurt you'd be in if you fail.

By the way, I noticed that the driver's co-workers immediately started tossing boxes and shelving debris out of the way to reach him. They didn't wait to carefully catalog the debris and map where each box landed first! Didn't they realize they were tampering with material evidence?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Yeah apparently he got out with only a minor leg injury. If you watch closely you can see them pull him out. Thank god for overhead guards! Early forklifts had no such device (ouch). That was in a vodka warehouse in Russia. Would that be considered a powder keg? lol jk

Yeah I learned that lesson the hard way when I was new to my job. I was changing tires on a three wheeled version (2 in the front 1 steer in the back). My job at the time gave me pretty crappy jacks to use and I had it on blocks. The machine started to tip to the side. I tried to steady it and it got to a point that I now call the "mouse trap" cause once it got past that point it came down like a hammer. A counter weighted door on the back slammed shut on my hand (2 doors opened on the back to kinda resemble Pac-Man if you were looking from the top). Needless to say I spent the next few hours at the hospital and was lucky I only needed a whole bunch of stitches. lol

HAHA
Excellent point lol

[R.Mackey]

Bazant's theory cannot be used as it has been shown to not conform to observation since there is no velocity loss which his jolt would cause.

Sheer idiocy. We've spent, what, 50 pages of Forum and I spent two hours in studio explaining, with graphics, why there's no jolt?

This is why debating the Truth Movement is a waste of time.

[cmcaulif]

The volume of water in that bucket is at least 10'x10'x10' which is 1,000 cubic feet and would weigh 62,000 lbs., yet the only thing it really collapses/crushes is the relatively flimsy roof of the car. Obviously most of the mass was not participating in a singular impact or the entire vehicle would have been crushed to a solid mass.

In addition to Anders Bjorkman's challenge to build a structure where 1/10th can one-way crush 9/10ths, you should do a rubble load application test.

Please stop using the term 'mass participation,' it's not applicable here.

The reason water or rubble does less damage than a rigid body with similar kinetic energy is some of that energy is wasted in causing the water to flow or deforming/scattering rubble particles.

And yes, Bazant does account for compaction and ejection of the rubble layer.

This has nothing to do with 'mass participation,' which implies you are talking about the effective modal mass for the residual vibrations of the structures involved in the impact.

[R.Mackey]

The volume of water in that bucket is at least 10'x10'x10' which is 1,000 cubic feet and would weigh 62,000 lbs., yet the only thing it really collapses/crushes is the relatively flimsy roof of the car. Obviously most of the mass was not participating in a singular impact or the entire vehicle would have been crushed to a solid mass.

Oh, let me respond to this, too.

The actual force of a car crusher is about 150 tons (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-crusher.htm/printable), considerably higher than the mere 31 tons you speculate in the bucket of the steam shovel.

Yes, this is static vs. dynamic, but you also need to note that most of the water missed the car entirely. Nonetheless, the effect is similar to the extremely large force imparted by a car crusher.

The point is that the mass does not have to be a solid block to cause damage during a collision. You stated in debate that pieces must hit at "exactly" the same time, and this is nonsense as the video shows. I stated that there is no practical difference provided it all impacts before the impacted object goes through its elastic response ("springs back") and this is correct. In the case of the WTC Towers, all the upper mass hits in a fraction of a second.

[NoZed Avenger]

To be fair the video is about Tony and he claims in the video that this hasnt happened. I know what Heiwa's opinion is but Tony and the subjects in the video is on topic.

Fair enough; I just see this spinning away into one more round of Joseph and the amazing, technicolor 450 MPH goalposts.

But you're right.

[Grizzly Bear]

Sheer idiocy. We've spent, what, 50 pages of Forum and I spent two hours in studio explaining, with graphics, why there's no jolt?

This is why debating the Truth Movement is a waste of time.
I don't think any debate is possible to begin with when the basis of their claims are on a fundamental inability to comprehend basic reading skills.
They should really abandon their rhetoric on Bazant's papers... :\

[CHF]

Wow.

Part 1 of the debate appears to be of a NASA engineer trying to explain engineering and physics to some plumber from the Bronx.

Tony you're so out of your league I almost feel embarrassed for you.

[TjW]

Fair enough; I just see this spinning away into one more round of Joseph and the amazing, technicolor 450 MPH goalposts.

But you're right.

I believe those goalposts were moving faster than free-fall.

[Edx]

I believe those goalposts were moving faster than free-fall.

That must mean theres some of those black hole explosives some truthers think exist pulling them.

[alienentity]

Tony wrote 'Bazant's theory cannot be used as it has been shown to not conform to observation since there is no velocity loss which his jolt would cause.

You also really can't use any of the Verinage techniques as they require impulses and their velocity loss has been verified.'

Tony, your list of excuses not to accept proofs is long. I haven't seen the rest of the debate yet, so I'll wait until then to comment on the above directly.

But if you insist on raising the level of proof to an impossible level, remember that nobody can find another example of a 110 story steel-frame building that was hit by a jet, suffered large fires, and then didn't collapse.
The only two examples in history, the WTC towers, did collapse. This forms our standard with which to judge every theory.

If we reverse your impossible criteria, the onus is on truthers to find an identical example which could refute the real-world data. Otherwise you ask us to accept a ridiculous double standard.

[alienentity]

Just a quick afterthought regarding rubble: Nobody, including Tony, knows precisely what ratio of compressed material, loose material and intact structure was falling at any given moment.

However, based on the level of pulverization of materials found after the collapses, a great deal of energy was available. Tony seems to be in a position denying that such energy could have been released during a gravitational collapse, but I think it's a futile position based on the engineering studies I've read.

It seems like Tony's not just holding out for a jolt, he's also avoiding a lot of other evidence. This has to be an ideological or doctrinal position, in defense of CD theory.

Just remove the artificial requirement of CD, and the evidence is coherent all by itself. Then you can allow a bit of tilt, the creation of rubble, and a number of other factors, all which coexist quite nicely in another, more plausible hypothesis.

[Tony Szamboti]

Just a quick afterthought regarding rubble: Nobody, including Tony, knows precisely what ratio of compressed material, loose material and intact structure was falling at any given moment.

However, based on the level of pulverization of materials found after the collapses, a great deal of energy was available. Tony seems to be in a position denying that such energy could have been released during a gravitational collapse, but I think it's a futile position based on the engineering studies I've read.

It seems like Tony's not just holding out for a jolt, he's also avoiding a lot of other evidence. This has to be an ideological or doctrinal position, in defense of CD theory.

Just remove the artificial requirement of CD, and the evidence is coherent all by itself. Then you can allow a bit of tilt, the creation of rubble, and a number of other factors, all which coexist quite nicely in another, more plausible hypothesis.

I can see a large volume of rubble moving at high speed possibly causing a collapse propagation. However, that would not happen until many stories were destroyed.

[Tony Szamboti]

Oh, let me respond to this, too.

The actual force of a car crusher is about 150 tons (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-crusher.htm/printable), considerably higher than the mere 31 tons you speculate in the bucket of the steam shovel.

Yes, this is static vs. dynamic, but you also need to note that most of the water missed the car entirely. Nonetheless, the effect is similar to the extremely large force imparted by a car crusher.

The point is that the mass does not have to be a solid block to cause damage during a collision. You stated in debate that pieces must hit at "exactly" the same time, and this is nonsense as the video shows. I stated that there is no practical difference provided it all impacts before the impacted object goes through its elastic response ("springs back") and this is correct. In the case of the WTC Towers, all the upper mass hits in a fraction of a second.

The elastic wave travels at about 15,000 feet per second. How long do you claim it will take to fully respond?

Only the relatively flimsy roof was crushed in that video. I don't think it is a good example at all.

[Tony Szamboti]

Sheer idiocy. We've spent, what, 50 pages of Forum and I spent two hours in studio explaining, with graphics, why there's no jolt?

This is why debating the Truth Movement is a waste of time.

All I have seen you do is make assertions as to why you don't think a jolt would be expected. Don't confuse bare assertions with a legitimate explanation.

At one point you said that the tilt obviates any need for a jolt, due to multiple separate smaller jolts. However, the energy dissipation requirement does not change and thus the velocity loss should be nearly the same, but it is not observed.

Now you want to say that the columns were misaligned and the upper block's columns hit the floors below, but you have no frame by frame analysis of video proving your claim for column misalignment? To the contrary, close up video shows the upper block of WTC 1 came straight down for several stories before it actually tilted. A case can be made for the inertia of the upper block keeping it in line allowing for axial column on column impacts, which would have caused severe velocity loss, if the column integrity had still been there.

Instead of spending 50 pages here just making bare assertions why don't you do something to actually prove what you believe. I think there is a reason that hasn't happened concerning these issues.

[Grizzly Bear]

I believe mangoose a few weeks ago posted a relatively good closeup of the WTC1 impact region at the moment of collapse initiation which showed the columns responding to the collapse initiation. And he post multiple animated gifs showing movement in the antenna before the descent even progressed.

EDIT:
This would be my reference....
Here is the moment when the columns on the North Face began to fail:

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/6802/94646677.gif

We can see that columns 146-150 on the 94th Floor, damaged by the impact of AA11, lean to the left. This is visually most obvious with column 150. On the 95th Floor, we can see the same columns 147-150 (covered with aluminum cladding) lean likewise. The more damaged columns 144-146, two of which are severed by AA11's wings on the 94th Floor, simply snap. Columns 135-143, which hang unsupported over the impact hole, begin to descend as well.

This was a full second after a fiery debris cloud was seen forming on the South Face in the area of the bowed columns (on the basis of synchronisms of events on the West Face, visible in both videos).

but then there's also all of the material posted in the same thread... with a few examples to boot...

Okay here is a really rough GIF of the West Face:

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/4963/r1a.gif

The quality is much, much better with the original so please consult it for full detail. This clip begins with the flaring out of the fire on the 95th Floor (I just checked...this is the correct floor) at the southwest corner. Bear in mind that prior to this moment, the antenna was already descending. Then there is visible activity on the 96 and 97th Floors above the flare-up just north of the southwest corner, looking like it is caving inward and or undergoing some sort of collapse (it is more visible on the original video). And then on the 98th Floor, there is a line of dust clouds that shoot across rapidly northward. While this is happening, the fires on the 104th Floor begin to descend. And about two or three frames later, the white structure on the northwest corner of the roof begins its descent. It starts to fall before the line of dust on the 98th Floor reaches the northwest corner. This clip ends with the moment when the dust begins to be expelled on the 98th Floor on the North Face (you can notice it especially on the changeover).


Here is the South Face video I mentioned (sped up a little):

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/8177/asas.gif

You can see the same flame at the southwest corner. The clip ends with the exact moment the 98th Floor dust cloud reached the North Face. Compare with the video you just posted and notice all the activity in the area of the bowed columns on the South Face prior to this event at the southwest corner.

Since the northward formation of the dust cloud along the 98th Floor occurred AFTER this flame flickering at the southwest corner of the West Face at the 96th Floor, this helicopter view of the South Face shows quite clearly that the initiation of the collapse was BEFORE this along the South Face.

And this is the East Face video showing the collapse along the East Face with the upper block tilting to the south:

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2857/aniv.gif


IIRC Tony's measurements in his jolt paper took the white structure at the northwest corner of the roof as its main point of reference (particularly of the start of the descent), measuring the distance in pixels of the top of this structure and the upper border of the image. The collapse however was already in progress prior to any movement of this structure:

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/9404/output2.gif

So Tony's measurements begin sometime after the initiation of the collapse on the South Face.

Also because of the tipping of the upper block, the white structure moved in three dimensions -- not simply down but also southward:

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2857/aniv.gif

The Sauret footage from the north obscures such movement to the south. Tony's measurements thus do not capture the full three-dimensional movement of the white structure on the roof.

[TruthersLie]

The elastic wave travels at about 15,000 feet per second. How long do you claim it will take to fully respond?

Only the relatively flimsy roof was crushed in that video. I don't think it is a good example at all.

What is it with twoofs? Do piss poor observational skills and shoddy reading comprehension skills come with the tinfoil badge?

You might just want to watch that video again. (like the verinage techniques I posted for you which show they do not preweaken lower floors, and they do crush down floors below them) The suspension is shot, the entire body is damaged and the roof is completely caved in.

Do all twoofs need glasses? Or maybe just to sit closer to the screens?

[Edx]

Whats funny is Tony still wont acknowledge the fact that Gage's explosive demolition "indicators" are shot to hell when you look at those verinage demolitons.

[R.Mackey]

The elastic wave travels at about 15,000 feet per second. How long do you claim it will take to fully respond?

This is why you have no business debating this subject. The elastic wave travels at such a speed in a solid block of steel, yes, but we're talking about loading, not the elastic wavefront, and we're talking about a structure with a much lower spring constant than solid steel. What happens is that each individual impact creates an individual displacement, and further impacts add to this displacement if the structure hasn't yet sprung back. When the aggregate displacement matches the yield strain, the structure loses its ability to spring back and will almost certainly break if it continues to be hit.

The time constant for the structures is on the order of a second. Plenty of time for rubble etc. to all contribute in a manner indistinguishable from a solid object impacting.

Dynamics 101, Tony. Take it, you must.

Only the relatively flimsy roof was crushed in that video. I don't think it is a good example at all.

Look again. You're wrong.
To the contrary, close up video shows the upper block of WTC 1 came straight down for several stories before it actually tilted.

By all means, keep repeating this lie. It destroys your credibility just as thoroughly as if you were a no-planer, and with it, any risk that anyone else will listen to your nonsense.

[Tony Szamboti]

This is why you have no business debating this subject. The elastic wave travels at such a speed in a solid block of steel, yes, but we're talking about loading, not the elastic wavefront, and we're talking about a structure with a much lower spring constant than solid steel. What happens is that each individual impact creates an individual displacement, and further impacts add to this displacement if the structure hasn't yet sprung back. When the aggregate displacement matches the yield strain, the structure loses its ability to spring back and will almost certainly break if it continues to be hit.

The time constant for the structures is on the order of a second. Plenty of time for rubble etc. to all contribute in a manner indistinguishable from a solid object impacting.

Dynamics 101, Tony. Take it, you must.



Look again. You're wrong.


By all means, keep repeating this lie. It destroys your credibility just as thoroughly as if you were a no-planer, and with it, any risk that anyone else will listen to your nonsense.

What a load you are throwing here. What is unfortunate is that most of the people here wouldn't understand well enough to see what you are doing.

[Justin39640]

What a load you are throwing here. What is unfortunate is that most of the people here wouldn't understand well enough to see what you are doing.

Why don't you explain it for the layman? :D

[cmcaulif]

At one point you said that the tilt obviates any need for a jolt, due to multiple separate smaller jolts. However, the energy dissipation requirement does not change and thus the velocity loss should be nearly the same, but it is not observed.


Give this calculation a try:

a = g - U/(hm)

where a is the net acceleration

U is the total energy dissipated by collapsing one floor

h is story height and m is the mass of the upper block.

Note that there is the same total energy dissipated in collapsing a story, but the strain energy is being distributed over the height of a story. This is about what is expected in a collapse where there is tilting, and several small impacts rather than one large one.

All values are known from your observations or from known info about the building, except U.

Plug in the numbers and see if the value you get for U is similar to the numbers calculated by Newton's Bit's theoretical calculation

[beachnut]

What a load you are throwing here. What is unfortunate is that most of the people here wouldn't understand well enough to see what you are doing.
Credibility is zero when claiming CD was the cause of the WTC towers collapse. No one who claims CD will build the real-skyscraper-deal after 8 years of failed real-cd-deal. Why did your paper on the jolt fail to gain any support from other engineers outside of the failed truth movement?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

What a load you are throwing here. What is unfortunate is that most of the people here wouldn't understand well enough to see what you are doing.

Well I give R. Mackey credit, he presents something substantual while all you've got is words & nothing substantual.

You either have physcial evidence of a controlled demolition or you don't. Stop pressing that issue on people.

[Justin39640]

Only the relatively flimsy roof was crushed in that video. I don't think it is a good example at all.
Only the roof was crushed?
It popped the tires and compressed the suspension permanently. Looks like it bent the hell outta the unibody frame too.
I'd love to see close ups of the damage.

Remember, most cars are designed to flip over onto their roofs and not cave in. I saw an Accord do that a couple of years ago. She blew a red light and clipped an Exploder.. um.. I mean Explorer at about 70. Never seen a car roll in midair like that and land square on its roof. Amazingly, she walked out, crying, but apparently unhurt.

I don't know why you refuse to see what is apparent to experts and dummies like myself. Even that video it's clear the water destroyed the car. A roof you can fix. That car was FUBAR'd.

[alienentity]

I can see a large volume of rubble moving at high speed possibly causing a collapse propagation. However, that would not happen until many stories were destroyed.

Yes, well as I said it's impossible to know exactly what happened in the midst of all that chaos. However, because I just finished work on my WTC2 video, I know that building tilted immediately to the East (because it failed on that side first) and almost immediately there was no possibility of much column alignment, so it is obvious that the impacts would have been to the floor slabs as well, which were not designed to carry the load of the upper stories.

So your argument really doesn't carry any force for that collapse, and yet both buildings collapsed on the same day. The evidence and physics suggest that the upper blocks didn't fall squarely onto the structures below, as the verinage demolitions do, and that's why the Bazant jolt never appears.

You'll never be able to prove otherwise using physics, if you include the conditions correctly. That's my opinion.

I know you can make this connection yourself, but I'll put it another way: Since we can show WTC2 meets the necessary conditions to fail without explosives, it would be silly to propose that WTC1 had them, because the conditions were a bit more subtle.

Explosives are not necessary to explain the collapses. Surely you must know that. It seems senseless to keep arguing about the issue.

[alienentity]

Tony, the other really obvious thing you're not connecting is that you had intact structure, compressed material, loose material in various quantities accelerating down onto already weakened floor systems.
We're not just discussing rubble, we're also discussing intact columns ramming down onto floor slabs and shattering them. Within a very small time period this would be an overwhelming force, given the constant acceleration.

Nobody should expect the buildings to stand up under those conditions, it seems to me. There's no good reason why they would.

Next time some guy with one of those big Liebherr monsters is fixing to drop water on you, don't argue that the damage will be minor. Get out and run as fast as you can ;)

[funk de fino]

What a load you are throwing here. What is unfortunate is that most of the people here wouldn't understand well enough to see what you are doing.

You are a liar. The videos clearly show tilt before any drop. How sad.

[Disbelief]

Only the roof was crushed?
It popped the tires and compressed the suspension permanently. Looks like it bent the hell outta the unibody frame too.
I'd love to see close ups of the damage.



Just add something else that Tony does not understand. I would like to see the close ups as well, just to see the damage to the structural components. While you can see some damage to the fenders and quarters, I would be curious how the welds held up and what happened to the fasteners.

[Justin39640]

Just add something else that Tony does not understand. I would like to see the close ups as well, just to see the damage to the structural components. While you can see some damage to the fenders and quarters, I would be curious how the welds held up and what happened to the fasteners.

I'm sure bolts were ripped straight out of their threads and the spot welds probably tore. I would imagine the A-arms were bent or broken. The A-pillars probably tore or folded over. I'd imagine the steering components broke or bent (tie rods, rack, spindles, etc) I'd love to see what it did to the steering wheel, the rest of the interior, and the floorboards. I'd imagine that the rear rolling axle (I think that's a geo metro but I don't remember if they had a solid or independent rear rolling axle) broke or bent. Could have very well tore the front end supports from the unibody. Probably pushed the engine way down or broke its mounts which could have damaged the bell housing or the tranny housing. Hyper extended CV joints and axle shafts. I wonder if it crushed the air horn on the fuel system and what damage it did to more fragile parts under the hood. I wonder what the struts looked like after.

It would have been great if they had a longer video of the aftermath.

Tony really needs to have some time out of the office (IMO). I'm not that far from him (I think). He can come swing some wrenches with me if he needs a lil time in the field. Though if he starts stripping bolts left and right I'll have to fire him. lol

[Justin39640]

Tony, the other really obvious thing you're not connecting is that you had intact structure, compressed material, loose material in various quantities accelerating down onto already weakened floor systems.
We're not just discussing rubble, we're also discussing intact columns ramming down onto floor slabs and shattering them. Within a very small time period this would be an overwhelming force, given the constant acceleration.

Nobody should expect the buildings to stand up under those conditions, it seems to me. There's no good reason why they would.

Next time some guy with one of those big Liebherr monsters is fixing to drop water on you, don't argue that the damage will be minor. Get out and run as fast as you can ;)

Aside from the structural elements, what kind of equipment and anything else you can thing of was above the collapse zone that was falling as well. You have giant elevator motors, the sway dampening system, transformers and other electrical equipment, elevator cars, at least one UPS room (those batteries are not light). Maybe someone had a Nakatomi corp. sized safe in there. Just a million things that add to the equation.

[911kongen]

Here is the second part; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Guz04iFYxXY&feature=sub
Did I beat Mackey again? :D

[Dave Rogers]

At one point you said that the tilt obviates any need for a jolt, due to multiple separate smaller jolts. However, the energy dissipation requirement does not change and thus the velocity loss should be nearly the same, but it is not observed.

I've shown you, repeatedly, the calculations that demonstrate this to be untrue. I'd show you again if I thought you were capable of understanding them.

Dave

[Hokulele]

It would have been great if they had a longer video of the aftermath.


Ask, and ye shall receive.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xacbds_galileo-wasser-fall-liebherr-r9800_auto

This gives the entire thing in the context of the original show. I don't speak German, but it reminds me a bit of Mythbusters.

[bio]

Here is the second part; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Guz04iFYxXY&feature=sub
Did I beat Mackey again? :D

Unfortunately Tony Szamboti argumeted mostly well, and won the debate.

[twinstead]

Unfortunately Tony Szamboti argumeted mostly well, and won the debate.

Well, my observation and discussions with people who know what they are talking about, both on this forum and in real life, makes it obvious that your only criteria for winning the debate is being told what you want to hear.

[911kongen]

Unfortunately Tony Szamboti argumeted mostly well, and won the debate.

What planet are you coming from? :boggled:

[bio]

Well, my observation and discussions with people who know what they are talking about, both on this forum and in real life, makes it obvious that your only criteria for winning the debate is being told what you want to hear.

you know me?:confused:

[NutCracker]

you know me?:confused:

Yes. We know you. At least how your mind regarding 9/11 works.

You twoofies are a kind of predictable. You see, there is this Universal Thruther Machine working inside your brain that follows a rather simple algorithm.

[bio]

Yes. We know you. At least how your mind regarding 9/11 works.

You twoofies are a kind of predictable. You see, there is this Universal Thruther Machine working inside your brain that follows a rather simple algorithm.

when did I make you so angry?

[twinstead]

you know me?:confused:

Frankly, I can't imagine any rational person with even a passing knowledge of physics and engineering looking at those videos and declaring Tony the winner, but you got me, I don't KNOW you. I do however have access to your body of posts on this forum.

[Toke]

I have just downloaded the first section.

My first thought is wonder at how this subject got onto a serious tv-program instead as a youtube video.
How does Pomero stay so calm?
He got pretty excited when Heiwa first answered the 2 mile drop, and Tony gives a rather dodgy answer to it.

ETA: It looks like some of the confusion is due to messing up momentum/kinetic energy in collisions, and yes it is rather tricky.
#2 just finished downloading. :)

[Grizzly Bear]

It's a topic that seems all too common and I've asked about it before... but if it's supposed to be a rule that 1/10 of a structure can't cause the failure of the other 9/10... then why aren't we taught about this principal in our design studios? Should this be taught in the structural design curriculum? Just curious for those arguing it...

[alienentity]

'yet the only thing it really collapses/crushes is the relatively flimsy roof of the car'

Sure thing. There's no way water alone could do this kind of damage. If you look at the last picture, you can see nanothermite squibs going off. :)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_304704afc6deb81f81.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18176)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_304704afc6dfe8989a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18177)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_304704afc6e0c51f64.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18178)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_304704afc6eda2d0e7.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18179)

[Toke]

Does anybody have a picture of a nano-hydraulic jack?

[NutCracker]

when did I make you so angry?


Deflection. As I said, you twoofies are predictable.

[grandmastershek]

What a load you are throwing here. What is unfortunate is that most of the people here wouldn't understand well enough to see what you are doing.

I think this applies to most people in general Tony. Hence, why you people really need to start publishing your work in legitimate publications.

[NutCracker]

What a load you are throwing here. What is unfortunate is that most of the people here wouldn't understand well enough to see what you are doing.

Most people will recognize your failure to point out how and why RM is supposedly wrong here.


Oh, and most people will recognize your denialism for what it is. Most people will recognize your lack of a constructive argument in favor of your case.
Edited to remove personal remarks.
Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

[Justin39640]

Does anybody have a picture of a nano-hydraulic jack?
http://www.mooresfarmtoys.com/images/New%20floor%20jack.jpg

[R.Mackey]

Here is the second part; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Guz04iFYxXY&feature=sub
Did I beat Mackey again? :D

You not only beat me, you beat Gary. You must have some automatic alert tied to his account...

The audio is rough, and again, that's my fault -- I thought I was recording, but I wasn't. To make up for it, while I sat home with a stomach bug today, I wrote up a transcript so you can figure out what I'm actually saying back there. It's 5500 words and too long for a forum post, but I've given it to Gary, and I'll make it available along with the slides that keep getting mentioned but haven't appeared yet... So stay tuned. One more show to go.

[DropGems]

Another good one (aside from the audio feedback and Mackey's frozen pose for 20 mins straight). Tony's dodges and weaseling out of things with logical fallacies were ridiculous. He simply doesn't take a specific position thus allowing himself to squirm away from the dangerous questions and traps, where he knows he'd be pinned instantly. His multiple attempts to shoot holes through the most plausible scenarios are juvenile as well. It's not an "appeal to authority" when the entire scientific consensus and the totality of demolition experts are in agreement with the same conclusion. It's more like an appeal to plausibility or appeal to consensus at this point.

Then Ron points out how impossible it would be under the circumstances to plant, execute, and cover up such an intricate plot and Tony goes with "argument from incredulity", ha. These are 7 year old twoofer comebacks that aren't even being properly applied. It's not incredulity when the chances of pulling off every intricate detail perfectly without anyone noticing or blowing the whistle are the statistical equivalent of hitting the lotto 10 times in a row. It's probability and common sense. Not incredulity anymore.

What else... Tony the detective. This guy would be the worst friggin' detective in the world. He'd have the smoking gun, the prints, and dna and he still wouldn't make the bust. The captain would tell Tony that forensics made a positive id on the suspect and Tony would say "appeal to authority".

Tony stop the charade.

[TexasJack]

Unfortunately Tony Szamboti argumeted mostly well, and won the debate.

Argumeted? Is this trutherspeak?

[Edx]

Argumeted? Is this trutherspeak?

Its simple....

... truthers dont understand or care about what either of them are saying only that Tony is the truther and Mackey seems to be disagreeing with him...

... therefore Tony must have won.

[Edx]

Then Ron points out how impossible it would be under the circumstances to plant, execute, and cover up such an intricate plot and Tony goes with "argument from incredulity", ha. These are 7 year old twoofer comebacks that aren't even being properly applied. It's not incredulity when the chances of pulling off every intricate detail perfectly without anyone noticing or blowing the whistle are the statistical equivalent of hitting the lotto 10 times in a row. It's probability and common sense. Not incredulity anymore..

Its completely implausible for us to all be in The Matrix!

Its completely implausible for you to have walked on water!

Its completely implausible for you to have psychic powers!

Its completely implausible for it to have been Space Lasers that destroyed the WTC!

Its completely implausible for the TV stations to have inserted fake planes into the live footage!


"argument from incredulity"

[fourtoe]

It takes me forever to make sense of all this technical stuff, but I have one question.

Are all these calculations based on structures that have not been damaged by planes and then burnt for almost an hour? Are we only talking about the possibility that the top part is capable of crushing down the bottom part period?

I don't think I've heard anything about the damage to the structure being at all involved in what is being debated here...

Also, Tony did you get to keep the Hardfire mug?

[R.Mackey]

Are all these calculations based on structures that have not been damaged by planes and then burnt for almost an hour? Are we only talking about the possibility that the top part is capable of crushing down the bottom part period?

Yup. As I note persistently, you can't apply a strength calculation of an intact structure, loaded how and where it was intended, to the resistance of a damaged structure in the process of falling on itself. Not with a straight face, anyway, but the Truth Movement tries.

I'd be more sympathetic if they at least got the computation right, and merely applied it wrong, but they screw that up too.

[fourtoe]

Yup. As I note persistently, you can't apply a strength calculation of an intact structure, loaded how and where it was intended, to the resistance of a damaged structure in the process of falling on itself. Not with a straight face, anyway, but the Truth Movement tries.

I'd be more sympathetic if they at least got the computation right, and merely applied it wrong, but they screw that up too.

Aiight, I think that clears it up to me.

I enjoyed the explosives and verinage technique part. The last 20 min. of the 2nd show were really great.

[LashL]

I believe that the polite way to say this to Tony Whatziz is, "You have been served."

Truly and totally.

[911kongen]

You not only beat me, you beat Gary. You must have some automatic alert tied to his account...

The audio is rough, and again, that's my fault -- I thought I was recording, but I wasn't. To make up for it, while I sat home with a stomach bug today, I wrote up a transcript so you can figure out what I'm actually saying back there. It's 5500 words and too long for a forum post, but I've given it to Gary, and I'll make it available along with the slides that keep getting mentioned but haven't appeared yet... So stay tuned. One more show to go.

Will this be added to the video? Like subtitles? I personaly think that would be a smart thing to do. But just a transcript can work to.. I guess Gary dont want to uploade the video of the second show again but with subtitles?

[newton3376]

The second video was much better as far as Ryans side goes....Tony did worse I thought.

He (Tony) seems to believe the core columns can stand up all by themselves without the rest of the structure....that seems just a tad bit silly.

I'm also not sure where exactly Tony believes the "resistence" to arrest the collapse will come from...if the upper columns or even the debris from the upper floors impacts a floor beneath it I would think that would be more than enough force to snap the connections between the floors and columns.

How much force does he think those connections can withstand before breaking?

[Edx]

How much force does he think those connections can withstand before breaking?

Its very simple.

Tony doesnt think 10% of a building can crush down 90% of it.

It doesnt matter that this didnt happen with the WTC nor does it matter to him to explain why he arbitrarily chooses to say 10% is the impossible percentage.

[Edx]

Will this be added to the video? Like subtitles? I personaly think that would be a smart thing to do. But just a transcript can work to.. I guess Gary dont want to uploade the video of the second show again but with subtitles?

You can add closed captions ("non-destructive" subtitles, like annotations), its doable.

[Grizzly Bear]

He (Tony) seems to believe the core columns can stand up all by themselves without the rest of the structure....that seems just a tad bit silly.
He's made this known for some time now even before the hardfire debate. His usual reason for concluding so is that the core was braced on every floor height, but he seems to think that the bracing in the core was independent of the bracing provided to the exterior columns by the floor spans.

I'm also not sure where exactly Tony believes the "resistence" to arrest the collapse will come from...if the upper columns or even the debris from the upper floors impacts a floor beneath it I would think that would be more than enough force to snap the connections between the floors and columns.
You're treating the response of the towers with the understanding that individual structural elements don't have the capacity to take the impact. In contrast he thinks the entire building below the impact region was responding to the impact of the upper section as a single unit. Those are two radically different properties and the former interpretation you're going by is the more accurate.

[twinstead]

I'm still confused. After racking my non-engineer brain trying to get this stuff from reading these debates, I finally understood it when I realized that the upper section wasn't impacting the lower section as a whole, but each floor as a separate unit. The floor directly below the upper portion could never hope to support that mass and failed, having its mass added to the upper portion as it came down upon the next floor, until there weren't any floors left.

I realize it's simplistic, but is this correct? And if so, why don't these truthers understand it?

[Newtons Bit]

The second video was much better as far as Ryans side goes....Tony did worse I thought.

He (Tony) seems to believe the core columns can stand up all by themselves without the rest of the structure....that seems just a tad bit silly.

I'm also not sure where exactly Tony believes the "resistence" to arrest the collapse will come from...if the upper columns or even the debris from the upper floors impacts a floor beneath it I would think that would be more than enough force to snap the connections between the floors and columns.

How much force does he think those connections can withstand before breaking?

Mr. Szamboti's assertion of such has already been shown to false. He has seen the critique as well.

[R.Mackey]

I'm still confused. After racking my non-engineer brain trying to get this stuff from reading these debates, I finally understood it when I realized that the upper section wasn't impacting the lower section as a whole, but each floor as a separate unit. The floor directly below the upper portion could never hope to support that mass and failed, having its mass added to the upper portion as it came down upon the next floor, until there weren't any floors left.

I realize it's simplistic, but is this correct? And if so, why don't these truthers understand it?

This is basically correct. The reason is that no structural element can transmit a force greater than its own ultimate strength, so if the force from above exceeds this, the impacted member feels a higher force than everything below it. Dr. Bazant talks about this in his response to critics -- one of the many papers Tony neglects when claiming Dr. Bazant never improved his original paper.

It also misses the point that, as I refer to in the debate, the upper mass is mostly not landing on the columns, but instead on the floors. The floors break easily. The quoted figure in debate is 29 million pounds per floor, well, that's a "best case" figure that leads to total failure of all connections. The real figure is considerably lower. But we know even this generous figure is exceeded. When the floor gives way, it dramatically lowers the strength of both perimeter and core columns, and it exposes them to forces from the side, which they can't resist at all.

When I get a word in edgewise, this is covered in the third show.

Why can't they understand this? I think it's equal parts having a poor grasp of the subject, leading to a linearized, "net force = 0" style understanding that doesn't apply here; and the simple fact that they don't want to.

[Dave Rogers]

Why can't they understand this? I think it's equal parts having a poor grasp of the subject, leading to a linearized, "net force = 0" style understanding that doesn't apply here; and the simple fact that they don't want to.

I don't think Tony can claim part A there. He's clearly intellectually capable of understanding things like simple vector subtraction or Euclidian geometry, yet he so clearly and repeatedly fails to understand them. I think he is simply idealogically incapable of assimilating knowledge that would refute his beliefs.

Dave

[Julio]

Will this be added to the video? Like subtitles? I personaly think that would be a smart thing to do. But just a transcript can work to.. I guess Gary dont want to uploade the video of the second show again but with subtitles?

uh, those of us who do not master the language of Shakespeare would appreciate that very much :D

[Edx]

Hey Ryan, does Hardfire record these shows all at the same time and then split them up?

[Oscar]

Well, after watching Tony in action in those two Hardfire episodes I couldn't help asking myself a hypothetical question:

Would you buy a secondhand car from him?

I don't think I need to tell you my answer.

[Toke]

It looks like they are split up by at most a coffee break.

[Toke]

I'm still confused. After racking my non-engineer brain trying to get this stuff from reading these debates, I finally understood it when I realized that the upper section wasn't impacting the lower section as a whole, but each floor as a separate unit. The floor directly below the upper portion could never hope to support that mass and failed, having its mass added to the upper portion as it came down upon the next floor, until there weren't any floors left.

I realize it's simplistic, but is this correct? And if so, why don't these truthers understand it?

I think it was Heiwa who made some graphic where the first pictures showed the columns spearing through the floor. Tilting of the building and a story or two of bended/buckled columns between upper and lower part almost guarantees that the columns of the upper section will impact the edges of the floor* and rip it off/zip through.
(he continued with something:tinfoil about friction stopping the whole thing)

*Or at least not prettily on top of the lower columns, as in Bazant's best case calculation.

[Justin39640]

When the floor gives way, it dramatically lowers the strength of both perimeter and core columns, and it exposes them to forces from the side, which they can't resist at all.
(my bold)
Would this have effects on the floors below the rubble zone? Like disconnecting floors prior to them being hit.

Great job on the show. Cant wait for part three. :popcorn6

[alienentity]

Here's my comments on the 2nd show:

At roughly the 15min point, Ron has a list of demolition companies that he's spoken with.
Astoundingly, Tony Szamboti virtually ignores what Ron tells him.
Truthers are in the sad position of having to ignore or deny the opinions and analysis of actual experts, simply because these experts come to conclusions which threaten 9/11 truth myths.

And yet they are quick to trumpet the opinions of pseudo-experts or non-experts if those agree.

That's one fatal flaw of 9/11 truth.

Tony complains that citing experts is merely an appeal to authority.
About 22min in, Tony takes the time to try to discredit the expertise of Brent Blanchard, who did write a paper addressing specifics.
There are at least two problems with this:

1) If it doesn't matter what the expertise of a person is, why taking pains to discredit their credentials in the first place? It seems Tony does realize that expertise matters. (even if he is loath to admit it)

2) He mischaracterizes Brent Blanchard's credentials, by stating that Blanchard doesn't know how to demolish a building. That is sheer speculation. Blanchard is Director of Field Operations for Protec, which is a company that specializes in documentation of building demolitions. To do this, they must know a great deal about demolitions themselves - that is their business. They are also uniquely qualified to look for the evidence and effects of demolition, which is something that Tony completely misses.

[Tony Szamboti]

Also, Tony did you get to keep the Hardfire mug?

No, they are just for on-air guests. Ron says he doesn't have one at home himself.

[Scott Sommers]

What a load you are throwing here. What is unfortunate is that most of the people here wouldn't understand well enough to see what you are doing.

But you have also argued that appeal to authority is not a convincing technique. This is now a very strange argument. It's almost like you're saying that there is nothing worth talking about except things that you can talk about. I guess talking with Mackay is meant to be different and his appeal to authority does make it difficult to answer, no matter how well intentioned you are.

But it does seem strange that you seem to alone on this. There is no sea of expertise rising up to support you. There are a couple of guys with some degree of education willing to state in public that the standard engineering explanation for the WTC collapse is problamatic. There is a large body of scientific publication supporting the engineering explanation. This discrepancy is important and would need to be explained.

The explanations I have been given by people who support Tony's work involve bizarre cooperation between scientists who don't know each other to keep secrets and construct mathematical explanations for things they know are not true. This may be convincing for high school students and business majors. And since almost every member of a a 911 Truth group or We Are Change is one, this is not hard to understand.

But Tony, why is that you are so alone on this? What is it that the scientific community just doesn't get?

[fourtoe]

Hey Ryan, does Hardfire record these shows all at the same time and then split them up? Yeah that is usually how they do it.

If you watch the other Hardfire debates (if you haven't then do so right away! They're great!) they're wearing the same clothes as the previous episode. There is footage of Gravy and the LC boys with Ron waiting in between shows and discussing stuff.

Also in the Fetzer shows Ron makes a couple of jokes about how they haven't changed their clothes at all during the week since the show prior.

No, they are just for on-air guests. Ron says he doesn't have one at home himself.

Lame! Did you get free anything?

[Edx]

There is footage of Gravy and the LC boys with Ron waiting in between shows and discussing stuff.

WHAT! I totally havent seen that! Where is that!

[Tony Szamboti]

Lame! Did you get free anything?

There were bagels and pastry but I didn't have any. As you can see I wouldn't wither away without them.

[Edx]

At least you have a sense of humour, Tony...

[Mr.Herbert]

Well, after watching Tony in action in those two Hardfire episodes I couldn't help asking myself a hypothetical question:

Would you buy a secondhand car from him?

I don't think I need to tell you my answer.

I think you're on to something!


http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/tonyz.jpg



http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/used-car-salesman.jpg

[Tony Szamboti]

I think you're on to something!


http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/tonyz.jpg



http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/used-car-salesman.jpg

How original. Is this the best you can do?

[Edx]

How original. Is this the best you can do?

Wel maybe if you would address the actual points instead of insults maybe?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

How original. Is this the best you can do?

Golly, jeez Tony! Where's your sense of humor?

[Furcifer]

Tony I'm just watching Part 1, and brother you gotta think about things before you speak. You're doing a lot of stuttering and shuffling of papers and looking down that just doesn't make you seem credible.

I will say however that you seem genuinely ambushed by the Anders Bjorkman issue. Ron and Ryan should be a little ashamed for trying to make you explain his craziness. At the same time you should have distanced yourself from him beforehand.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony I'm just watching Part 1, and brother you gotta think about things before you speak. You're doing a lot of stuttering and shuffling of papers and looking down that just doesn't make you seem credible.

I will say however that you seem genuinely ambushed by the Anders Bjorkman issue. Ron and Ryan should be a little ashamed for trying to make you explain his craziness. At the same time you should have distanced yourself from him beforehand.

It seems that in your mind you have it all figured out and know just what to look for when judging an oral debate. I'm impressed.

I think I have had enough dealings with clowns like you and some of the others on this forum for awhile.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

It seems that in your mind you have it all figured out and know just what to look for when judging an oral debate. I'm impressed.

I think I have had enough dealings with clowns like you and some of the others on this forum for awhile.

Next time you might consider looking at the evidence before debating with people or just bring your evidence Tony.

[Tony Szamboti]

Next time you might consider looking at the evidence before debating with people or just bring your evidence Tony.

Chewy you would be one of the anonymous clowns I was thinking of when I said it.

Even though we may disagree, one thing I can say about Ryan Mackey, Dave Rogers, and a few others, are that they are man enough to use their real names and don't hide behind pseudonyms while attempting to ridicule others.

[Furcifer]

http://i35.tinypic.com/v8kjdf.jpg

"Seriously Ron, just take him and shake him like this for me!"

Don't get your knickers in a knot Tony. I'm just making an observation. You made some remarks that seemed like you were very uncomfortable.

And I wouldn't be talking smack realcddeal. It wasn't until Ron exposed your identity that you became Tony Szamboti. I think it garnered you some respect, perhaps not for your beliefs, but certainly for you as a person.

[fourtoe]

I will say however that you seem genuinely ambushed by the Anders Bjorkman issue. Ron and Ryan should be a little ashamed for trying to make you explain his craziness. At the same time you should have distanced yourself from him beforehand.

I agree with this. I thought they spent too much time on Heiwa. I mean, this is already pretty technical stuff and pretty soon it started to become a live rendition of a JREF thread discussion! :p

[Furcifer]

I agree with this. I thought they spent too much time on Heiwa. I mean, this is already pretty technical stuff and pretty soon it started to become a live rendition of a JREF thread discussion! :p

in Part 3, there is a 3 minute interlude where Tony tries to clap 110 times.

[R.Mackey]

I will say however that you seem genuinely ambushed by the Anders Bjorkman issue. Ron and Ryan should be a little ashamed for trying to make you explain his craziness. At the same time you should have distanced yourself from him beforehand.

I agree with this. I thought they spent too much time on Heiwa. I mean, this is already pretty technical stuff and pretty soon it started to become a live rendition of a JREF thread discussion! :p

I agree with this too. You'll note I didn't bring him up.

Ron told me ahead of time that he was going to mention Heiwa's bizarre theories, which I discouraged, but he did it anyway, justifying it because both Tony and Heiwa are prominent members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

They also have taken similar positions in the past. In fact, just a couple of pages back you see Tony taking up the banner of the "Heiwa Challenge."

However, again, this was not my decision, and I think we wasted valuable time recounting Heiwa's incredible insanity. Similar thing happened in my physics lectures, where you'll note Ron brings him up out of the blue and I deflect away from the topic. There's no point to picking on individuals, simply pointing out the nonreality of their ideas is enough. They should be smart enough to figure out the rest without heaping ridicule on top of it.

[R.Mackey]

Addendum! Ron sent me e-mail on this topic, justifying his choice. Again, he recounts that Heiwa and Tony are in the same organization, so he thinks Tony should justify why he supports Heiwa's beliefs. As he puts it, "They pretend that Gage's frauds present a united front."

I can see the logic of this, but again, I disagreed with it and I still do. It's painfully obvious to me that AE911T is just one of many "Big Top" Truther clubs, willing to take practically anyone, rather than actually looking for a legitimate alternate hypothesis. I don't see why we need to dwell on it. Gage lost any hope at credibility when he self-destructed against Mark Roberts. Stick a fork in him, already. :p

[Furcifer]

I agree with this too. You'll note I didn't bring him up.


And rightly so. At the same time, from the little I know of Ron he's got to be chewing at the bit over the whole Heiwa and bill smith nonsense. There's no physical facepalm, but the metaphorical one is there. I can't blame him for pointing this out though, it really is a pet peeve of mine. Tony had plenty of time to distance himself from the issue and make a case for himself. By riding Anders coat tales he left himself open to this. He had plenty of time to correct the 2 mile drop BS before tape started rolling. Scrambling to do so was personally fulfilling, but in terms of the presentation it meant very little to anyone outside the forum. (for the rest of us I think it was priceless)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Chewy you would be one of the anonymous clowns I was thinking of when I said it.

Even though we may disagree, one thing I can say about Ryan Mackey, Dave Rogers, and a few others, are that they are man enough to use their real names and don't hide behind pseudonyms while attempting to ridicule others.

Tony,

Sometimes it's always best not to give out names. But if you actually looked through the JREF forum you will be able to find my name instead of assuming everything, like you're doing now.

I'll give you a hint to search my name Tony: Look for a thread by me about Jim Fetzer!

Calling me or anyone a "Clown" only makes you look unintelligent, to say the least.

FYI Tony: Everyone here is rediculing your topic that there were "explosives" in the buildings & not attacking you personally. I think you feel like it's a personal thing but it's not. Either you have evidence of what you say or you don't. If you don't, please do a more thorough research on 9/11 before assuming something which has no physcial evidence to help back it up.

[deep]

How original. Is this the best you can do?


Yes; unfortunately, it is.

[funk de fino]

How original. Is this the best you can do?

If we were nasty liars we could say we saw a documentary where someome admitted that WT7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons. But we are not, so we won't.

Your performance was very poor.

[Scott Sommers]

It seems that in your mind you have it all figured out and know just what to look for when judging an oral debate. I'm impressed.

I think I have had enough dealings with clowns like you and some of the others on this forum for awhile.

Tony, you don't seem to get it. The reality is that there is no sea of structural engineers and demolitions experts rising up in support of you. Your argument is not convincing to recognized authorities. Is this not true?

That being the case, you are speaking to people who can not construct your argument. The point raised was that you don't come across as credible to them, either.

So you're not convincing experts and you're not convincing spectators. It seems the only people left feeling your arguments are well-constructed already believe in FEMA death camps and H1N1 as bioweapons.

But then, maybe talking to yourself is not a problem.

[riptowtan]

Tony Szamboti: "I have read it. How can I mistake micron size for nanometer size."

From the Paper:

"The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to
their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major
dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from
roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray)."

[Mr.Herbert]

Yes; unfortunately, it is.


And it was damn funny, truther.:D

[Scott Sommers]

Tony Szamboti: "I have read it. How can I mistake micron size for nanometer size."

From the Paper:

"The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to
their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major
dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from
roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray)."

The nano-thermite thing fails once again.

Tony, could this be why there is no support for you rising up amoung the other washing machine engineers? Let me help you out here, Tony. Nano-thermite might be OK to convince kids in those high school 911 Truth clubs. And if you're trying to climb to the top of the 911 money chain, all this just might be a good thing. But why would you bother coming here and thinking it would generate anything except ridicule?

If you're going to talk about thermite and red chips, it's better to imitate Dick Gage and talk at churches filled with burned out hippies and radical conservative kids. It's fine for all the folks here. We need a laugh now and then, but I doubt you're posting here because you enjoy being humiliated.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony Szamboti: "I have read it. How can I mistake micron size for nanometer size."

From the Paper:

"The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to
their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major
dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from
roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray)."

It was the particle thickness which was being discussed not the full chip thickness. From page 12 of the paper

The results indicate that the small particles with very high BSE
intensity (brightness) are consistently 100 nm in size and
have a faceted appearance. These bright particles are seen
intermixed with plate-like particles that have intermediate
BSE intensity and are approximately 40 nm thick and up to
about 1 micron across.

To say the particles were not nanometer size is not accurate.

[Scott Sommers]

Chewy you would be one of the anonymous clowns I was thinking of when I said it.

Even though we may disagree, one thing I can say about Ryan Mackey, Dave Rogers, and a few others, are that they are man enough to use their real names and don't hide behind pseudonyms while attempting to ridicule others.

Well then Tony, you can never accuse me of this.

[twinstead]

Tony, I am honestly curious as to your thoughts about the fact that no real experts-experts who could actually DO something about getting the rank-and-file scientific and engineering community behind you-give you the time of day.

[Justin39640]

Well then Tony, you can never accuse me of this.

I might be a clown but at least I use my real name. :D lol

[Justin39640]

Tony, I am honestly curious as to your thoughts about the fact that no real experts-experts who could actually DO something about getting the rank-and-file scientific and engineering community behind you-give you the time of day.

Tony seems to be thinking "I see what no one else can" while it should be "what does everyone else see that I'm missing".

[Bluesky]

I was totally confused by most of Tony's arguments, but I am an engineer. The one that I found most bizarre was the argument that if a plate was supported by 30 columns and 27 of them were removed than that would fail at 70% gravity. Seems complete nonsense to me. A buckling failure is a rapid failure and once initiated there is little or no resistance ..

If the towers fell at 70%g, then that implies that 30% of the energy was absorbed by the impact. The jolt that resists the impact is indeed the difference between 100%g and 70% g

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I've got a question for Tony.

If there was military grade "nano-thermite" within the dust from Ground Zero, then how come there were no military demolition experts involved in the investigation to confirm it?

Before Tony answers this, I'll have to remind him that the military used all kinds of thermite during WWII to the present. So it's no secret that they used the stuff.

[Furcifer]

I was totally confused by most of Tony's arguments, but I am an engineer. The one that I found most bizarre was the argument that if a plate was supported by 30 columns and 27 of them were removed than that would fail at 70% gravity.

Welcome to CT Physics 101.

Think about this, by Tony's logic, if you removed 27 columns, but doubled the weight, it would fall at 140% of gravity!

or

If you put 10 plates on 30 columns it falls at 1g, with 11 plates? Yep you guessed it, 110% of gravity!

[Tony Szamboti]

Welcome to CT Physics 101.

Think about this, by Tony's logic, if you removed 27 columns, but doubled the weight, it would fall at 140% of gravity!

or

If you put 10 plates on 30 columns it falls at 1g, with 11 plates? Yep you guessed it, 110% of gravity!

Now you are proving why you deserve to be called a clown.

There is a limit to an unresisted acceleration due to gravity and that would be 100% of gravity.

[UNLoVedRebel]

And I wouldn't be talking smack realcddeal. It wasn't until Ron exposed your identity that you became Tony Szamboti. I think it garnered you some respect, perhaps not for your beliefs, but certainly for you as a person.
Ron exposed his identity? Shame on pomeroo. That's extremely immoral and truther-like and a breach of rule 8 (if he were still a member). Tony probably would've revealed his identity eventually, but he shouldn't have been forced into it. Anyone can stay anonymous if he wants to.

[Furcifer]

There is a limit to an unresisted acceleration due to gravity and that would be 100% of gravity.

Tony you've presented this idea that the acceleration of the upper block is directly related the number of columns holding it up. It's just plain silly.

[Furcifer]

Ron exposed his identity? Shame on pomeroo. That's extremely immoral and truther-like and a breach of rule 8 (if he were still a member). Tony probably would've revealed his identity eventually, but he shouldn't have been forced into it. Anyone can stay anonymous if he wants to.

I think it was Ron. It was a while ago, but I seem to recall him being the first to call him Tony.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony you've presented this idea that the acceleration of the upper block is directly related the number of columns holding it up. It's just plain silly.

Show us why.

[Furcifer]

Show us why.

Show you? I'm sure you've seen loading failures. I've linked the balsa wood bridge competitions before. When the structures are overloaded the failure is sudden and the acceleration is very close to g.

Here's one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKGJi3CqdPg&feature=related)

and another one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAzctypvWTs&feature=related)

The second one's great, it explodes!!!!

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I think Tony needs to tell us why he thinks that static failure (a 100,000 ton structure) couldn't collapse part of a building on top of itself to bring down what were essentually tube within a tube structures & turn it into a global collaspe.

[beachnut]

Show you? I'm sure you've seen loading failures. I've linked the balsa wood bridge competitions before. When the structures are overloaded the failure is sudden and the acceleration is very close to g.

Here's one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKGJi3CqdPg&feature=related)

and another one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAzctypvWTs&feature=related)

The second one's great, it explodes!!!!
Thermite did it, a realcddeal. It went up, must of been super-nano-ct-stuff.

8 years of failed engineering, the truth movement, Jones, Gage and fellow anti-intellectual kool-aid drinkers.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Of course the most spectacular bridge that was destroyed by wind was the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

j-zczJXSxnw

Truthers who think that structural failure requires explosives for all structures are wrong.

The WTCs' might've had design flaws built into them, but they held for quite a while before collapsing.

[Grizzly Bear]

Show you? I'm sure you've seen loading failures. I've linked the balsa wood bridge competitions before. When the structures are overloaded the failure is sudden and the acceleration is very close to g.

Here's one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKGJi3CqdPg&feature=related)

and another one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAzctypvWTs&feature=related)

The second one's great, it explodes!!!!

I would have thought something about design would have entered the picture with his question...
Things like... Where's the load applied? How are columns distributed within the building floor plan? Design doesn't just consider the number of columns necessary to hold something up, it also considers load paths. You can have a sufficient number of coulmns that could be capable of supporting the loads above assuming that the loads run vertical with the columns, but then the same assembly may fail if the load if off axis; for example if it must not only support a vertical load, but a moment as well.

Why he's asking when he should already have been aware of this is beyond me.

[Tony Szamboti]

I think Tony needs to tell us why he thinks that static failure (a 100,000 ton structure) couldn't collapse part of a building on top of itself to bring down what were essentually tube within a tube structures & turn it into a global collaspe.

The building structure below was designed to handle several times the load above it.

This is why in the Verinage demolitions they drop the upper section through a distance to develop enough momentum to crush the lower section and itself through successive impacts where there is evidence of deceleration and load amplification.

Of course, the upper section experiences little resistance and accelerates while going through the removed stories in the Verinage demolitions.

The velocity curve for WTC 1 looks very similar to that measured of the fall of the upper section through the removed stories in a Verinage demolition.

[NutCracker]

Now you are proving why you deserve to be called a clown.

There is a limit to an unresisted acceleration due to gravity and that would be 100% of gravity.

Hmm.. the consequences of your logic are absurd. Therefore your logic does not hold. Reductio Ad Absurdum it is called.

[Julio]

The building structure below was designed to handle several times the load above it.

I guess that's the "factor of 3" you mention from time to time. What does it exactly mean?

If the falling upper section of WTC1 had 17 floors, does it mean that the floor below could had handled up to 17*3=51 floors? Is that what you mean?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The building structure below was designed to handle several times the load above it.

This is why in the Verinage demolitions they drop the upper section through a distance to develop enough momentum to crush the lower section and itself through successive impacts where there is evidence of deceleration and load amplification.

Of course, the upper section experiences little resistance and accelerates while going through the removed stories in the Verinage demolitions.

The velocity curve for WTC 1 looks very similar to that measured of the fall of the upper section through the removed stories in a Verinage demolition.

Tony, those are very good observations but do you have evidence that it was a demolition?

The floors were already pre-weakened by Flight 175 & 11's impact. Then you have the resulting fires which made the structure already unsound because it weakened the steel to cause a collapse.

[Toke]

I guess that's the "factor of 3" you mention from time to time. What does it exactly mean?

If the falling upper section of WTC1 had 17 floors, does it mean that the floor below could had handled up to 17*3=51 floors? Is that what you mean?

I am not sure where he got the 3 from, but more importantly the floors are not designed to hold the building above, the columns are.

(it is not just semantics, but a rather important part in his missing jolt)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

LOL! I just love this little skit from the Muppets called "Pigs in Space":

EnDS_Td0KIg

Could there be some kind of Truther connection in that skit? ;)

[Tony Szamboti]

I guess that's the "factor of 3" you mention from time to time. What does it exactly mean?

If the falling upper section of WTC1 had 17 floors, does it mean that the floor below could had handled up to 17*3=51 floors? Is that what you mean?

Yes.

[newton3376]

I fail to see why some posters here find it necessary to try and make fun of how Tony looks or how he performed in an oral debate....seems a bit childish.

Attack the argument not the person.

I disagree very strongly with Tony and I think he is allowing his ideology to overrule his engineering sense, but that is no reason to try and take cheap shots against the guy.

[Julio]

Yes.

Then you should check equation 1 in Bazant's paper.

The dynamic load was 31 times higher than the static load. That means that the impact was equivalent to statically supporting 31*17=517 floors. So according to your "factor of 3" critera, the building falls anyway.

[Grizzly Bear]

I am not sure where he got the 3 from, but more importantly the floors are not designed to hold the building above, the columns are.

(it is not just semantics, but a rather important part in his missing jolt)

And of course the factor of 3 refers to a static load in as-built condition. The impact load would have been something closer to 8x the static load if not more since the 8-fold figure assumes a one-floor drop, not the 4-6 floors damaged in the event. His missing jolt paper of course denies there was such a dynamic load present.

[Tony Szamboti]

I am not sure where he got the 3 from, but more importantly the floors are not designed to hold the building above, the columns are.

(it is not just semantics, but a rather important part in his missing jolt)

The columns at each floor are designed to hold several times the load above them.

As for the factor of safety, the core column cross sections and steel type have been released, we know the weight of the building above the 98th floor of WTC 1 from Gregory Urich's mass analysis, and we can determine cross section of the perimeter columns from Urich's mass anlysis also.

The core cross sectional area at the 98th floor was 2,645 sq. inches and the perimeter 3,682 sq. inches for a total of 6,327 sq. inches. The weight above was 69,303,00 lbs. We also know from the Engineering News Record that the unit stress of both the core columns and perimeter columns was kept the same at each story to avoid differential deflection and floor warpage so the core and perimeter columns at each story had the same stress.

To find the stress divide the total weight above by the cross section of the columns at a particular story. For the 98th floor you get 10,953 psi, and if you look at other stories you will find the column compressive stresses to be approximately 11,000 psi.

The core columns were made from 36,000 and 42,000 psi steel. Divide that by the 11,000 psi stress and you get a minimum of 3.27 factor of safety. This is for compressive rupture. Buckling could occur at about 95% of that so the factor of safety was actually about 3.00 to 1 for the worst case which is buckling.

The perimeter columns were made from 65,000 psi steel at the 98th floor and were stressed to 11,000 psi by gravity loads.

[Tony Szamboti]

And of course the factor of 3 refers to a static load in as-built condition. The impact load would have been something closer to 8x the static load if not more since the 8-fold figure assumes a one-floor drop, not the 4-6 floors damaged in the event. His missing jolt paper of course denies there was such a dynamic load present.

There is no evidence of a dynamic load. You need velocity loss to show there was one and there is no velocity loss observed, the upper block of WTC 1 continuously accelerates.

[Tony Szamboti]

Then you should check equation 1 in Bazant's paper.

The dynamic load was 31 times higher than the static load. That means that the impact was equivalent to statically supporting 31*17=517 floors. So according to your "factor of 3" critera, the building falls anyway.

You should read the Missing Jolt paper and see where Dr. Bazant is wrong. He never measured the fall of the upper block and was presuming there was a jolt.

A 31g dynamic load was impossible and to get any amplification requires deceleration and velocity loss. There is no velocity loss observed in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1. There was no dynamic load.

[Algebra34]

Good job Tony.

[Furcifer]

I fail to see why some posters here find it necessary to try and make fun of how Tony looks or how he performed in an oral debate....seems a bit childish.


I wasn't making fun of how he performed in the debate. I was making an observation that he just didn't seem prepared or composed. It translated on tape to hand waving.

I did poke fun at Ryan though, that screen shot was horrible. I couldn't figure out if it was part of the technical difficulty or they used it on purpose for effect.

[Grizzly Bear]

There is no evidence of a dynamic load. You need velocity loss to show there was one and there is no velocity loss observed, the upper block of WTC 1 continuously accelerates.
No need to repeat yourself... the idiocy of your claim to the contrary has been repeated multiple times. Whether or not you can demonstrate an understanding for why your assertion is incorrect is something I have no control over.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The columns at each floor are designed to hold several times the load above them.

As for the factor of safety, the core column cross sections and steel type have been released, we know the weight of the building above the 98th floor of WTC 1 from Gregory Urich's mass analysis, and we can determine cross section of the perimeter columns from Urich's mass anlysis also.

The core cross sectional area at the 98th floor was 2,645 sq. inches and the perimeter 3,682 sq. inches for a total of 6,327 sq. inches. The weight above was 69,303,00 lbs. We also know from the Engineering News Record that the unit stress of both the core columns and perimeter columns was kept the same at each story to avoid differential deflection and floor warpage so the core and perimeter columns at each story had the same stress.

To find the stress divide the total weight above by the cross section of the columns at a particular story. For the 98th floor you get 10,953 psi, and if you look at other stories you will find the column compressive stresses to be approximately 11,000 psi.

The core columns were made from 36,000 and 42,000 psi steel. Divide that by the 11,000 psi stress and you get a minimum of 3.27 factor of safety. This is for compressive rupture. Buckling could occur at about 95% of that so the factor of safety was actually about 3.00 to 1 for the worst case which is buckling.

The perimeter columns were made from 65,000 psi steel at the 98th floor and were stressed to 11,000 psi by gravity loads.

If you were to strip away all supports on 1 floor, what would happen to the structure above it if it was 100,000 tons?

A: Would it drop suddenly & halt it's drop at the next floor.
B: Drop suddenly & keep going with inertia driving it downward causing global collapse.
C: Tip over & away from the structure below.
D: None of the above.

[Furcifer]

There is no evidence of a dynamic load. You need velocity loss to show there was one and there is no velocity loss observed, the upper block of WTC 1 continuously accelerates.

All you need to show is velocity. Why do you think you need to show velocity loss?

[Tony Szamboti]

If you were to strip away all supports on 1 floor, what would happen to the structure above it if it was 100,000 tons?

A: Would it drop suddenly & halt it's drop at the next floor.
B: Drop suddenly & keep going with inertia driving it downward causing global collapse.
C: Tip over & away from the structure below.
D: None of the above.

There is a good chance it would halt it's drop at the next floor due to energy dissipation in deforming and buckling the columns and other energy sinks.

At a minimum there would be a very large velocity loss of about 90% and then continue. However, there is no velocity loss observed at all. The upper section of WTC 1 continuously accelerates.

If you are talking about WTC 1 the weight of it's upper section (floors 99 through 110 plus the roof and antenna) was actually about 35,000 tons.

[NutCracker]

There is no evidence of a dynamic load. You need velocity loss to show there was one and there is no velocity loss observed, the upper block of WTC 1 continuously accelerates.

Even the most superficial observation of the collapse footage shows this to be false.

The footage show an umbrella shaped debris plume. The perimeter of which fell at close to 1g. We observe the crush front to lag behind. Therefore the crush front acceleration was below 1g. Therefore there was dynamic load.


Cut the comedy. You are no fun anymore. You are embarrassing yourself beyond belief.

[Tony Szamboti]

All you need to show is velocity. Why do you think you need to show velocity loss?

Because that indicates kinetic energy was transferred in an impulsive load which is required for a natural collapse propagation. Look at the Verinage demolition velocity curves and you will see they need to do this to collapse the building below where they have removed columns.

[Tony Szamboti]

Even the most superficial observation of the collapse footage shows this to be false.

The footage show an umbrella shaped debris plume. The perimeter of which fell at close to 1g. We observe the crush front to lag behind. Therefore the crush front acceleration was below 1g. Therefore there was dynamic load.


Cut the comedy. You are no fun anymore. You are embarrassing yourself beyond belief.

You don't sound like you understand what a dynamic load is, why it is necessary, or how it is accomplished.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

There is a good chance it would halt it's drop at the next floor due to energy dissipation in deforming and buckling the columns and other energy sinks.

At a minimum there would be a very large velocity loss of about 90% and then continue. However, there is no velocity loss observed at all. The upper section of WTC 1 continuously accelerates.

If you are talking about WTC 1 the weight of it's upper section (floors 99 through 110 plus the roof and antenna) was actually about 35,000 tons.

Tony,

We're talking about 100,000 tons of driving force on the next floor below.

100,000 to 35,000 tons, it's still alot of weight Tony.

You put 100,000 to 35,000 tons of pressure per square inch on your thumb, what'll happend to your thumb?

[Newtons Bit]

There is a good chance it would halt it's drop at the next floor due to energy dissipation in deforming and buckling the columns and other energy sinks.

At a minimum there would be a very large velocity loss of about 90% and then continue. However, there is no velocity loss observed at all. The upper section of WTC 1 continuously accelerates.

If you are talking about WTC 1 the weight of it's upper section (floors 99 through 110 plus the roof and antenna) was actually about 35,000 tons.

No it wouldn't. I've already done the energy balance.

Cheers!

[Grizzly Bear]

the funny thing is the entire premise behind the acceleration issue is as simple as a misunderstanding of vectors. Net gains in velocity and acceleration come to mind.

[Tony Szamboti]

No it wouldn't. I've already done the energy balance.

Cheers!

Did you assume a dynamic load?

[Julio]

You should read the Missing Jolt paper and see where Dr. Bazant is wrong. He never measured the fall of the upper block and was presuming there was a jolt.

I'll read it.

A 31g dynamic load was impossible and to get any amplification requires deceleration and velocity loss. There is no velocity loss observed in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1. There was no dynamic load.

As far as I know, Bazant can be wrong in the mass considered for the upper block, and only approximate on the spring constant C he uses. Just a matter of using the right numbers, but the idea is right.

So you are speaking about free fall. And dit it free fall all the way down to the ground?

[NutCracker]

You don't sound like you understand what a dynamic load is, why it is necessary, or how it is accomplished.

Well, here you have an opportunity to demonstrate your superior knowledge.

Please explain what I do not understand.

Prediction: your silence will be deafening.