Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[R.Mackey]

Many of you know of Hardfire and the series, hosted by Ron Wieck (formerly known here as pomeroo), that examines the Truth Movement and its theories. I spoke with Ron again today, and he informed me that Tony Szamboti and David Chandler were interested in appearing and discussing their theories with me. So we're on, taping date and release to be announced when available.

Apparently this is not a direct response to my previous shows (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137438) on Hardfire, which is a pity -- absolutely no one took me up on my Hardfire Modeling Challenge (http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:911physics_big.ppt) -- but, so far as I can tell, the debate is open to a wide range of topics but focusing on the World Trade Center and the NIST investigations thereof.

I have in the past given both Tony and David my feedback (see here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4350623#post4350623) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4227562#post4227562), along with followups in the respective threads). In fact, after the latest exchange (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4850740#post4850740) with Tony, I had not expected him to surface again. However, leaving the past in the past, they have both had quite some time to think about my concerns as well as those of others, so I am hopeful that they can provide a thoughtful response in this format.

To avoid sandbagging the debate, I will avoid engaging in discussion with them on their own personal theories until taping is completed. In the meantime, I encourage respectful discussion here of other viewpoints both pro and con their positions and mine, and if there are suggestions for the show (questions, related material, anyone else wants to participate, whatever) that's welcome too. I make no promises but I'll do the best I can.

Those of you who enjoy highjacking threads (I'm looking at you, Heiwa), don't bother, you're already on Ignore and you will be reported on sight. Let's keep this clean, I always say, and this time maybe I'll get my wish. Thanks.

[triforcharity]

Mr. Mackey,

First off, I have absolutely NO idea what "Hardfire" is, so forgive me.

Is it like an open debate?? Is the Hardfire host a Truther?? Forgive me, I am uneducate in this subject.

Keep us posted.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I'm looking forward to it. You know their M.O. very well by now. They're going to go right in for the kill. "NIST admits Free fall speed!" I would just look for the most persuasive ways to counter that nonsense i.e. inform the layman that it's meaningless.

[TruthersLie]

Tri.

go to youtube and look up hardfire ryan mackey physics of 9/11 (btw Ryan, they were Brilliant)

or look up hardfire and mark roberts.

or the classic hardfire and Richard Gage (and his fantastic (snicker) cardboard box demonstrations.)

It is public access channel out of New York. They have quite a "diverse" amount of shows, but they are pretty fair and honest.

[TexasJack]

Mr. Mackey,

First off, I have absolutely NO idea what "Hardfire" is, so forgive me.

Is it like an open debate?? Is the Hardfire host a Truther?? Forgive me, I am uneducate in this subject.

Keep us posted.

The host is Ron Wieck, who used to post here, is not a truther, far from it. In fact he got banned here because he could not control his vicious attacks on the poor truthers. However, when he moderates, he is very professional towards them. Here is an example:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5692853335910175330

[triforcharity]

Ok, I will watch those. Thanks for the info!!

BTW, I have a hard time with "truthers" myself given my background. I want to let loose and go off, but I know I would get banned. And quick too. I have a bit of a potty mouth.

[alienentity]

Good stuff Ryan. I'll do my best to dig up some points that might be relevant.

Let us know as soon as you have a taping date.

[Justin39640]

Ok, I will watch those. Thanks for the info!!

BTW, I have a hard time with "truthers" myself given my background. I want to let loose and go off, but I know I would get banned. And quick too. I have a bit of a potty mouth.

i hear ya bro lol

[Justin39640]

is there an audience?
its taped in brooklyn id like to go watch
dont look like it though :(
and mackey was live via logitech lol
i'd be out woo'd in studio

[Hokulele]

Do you have a rough idea of when you will start taping?

[alienentity]

That reminds me - Ryan, if you haven't already planned to do so, please get some proper light on yourself for the show. The first one made you look like you were in a cave somewhere.
Unless yer planning to tape in the studio..then disregard the above.

[Hokulele]

That reminds me - Ryan, if you haven't already planned to do so, please get some proper light on yourself for the show. The first one made you look like you were in a cave somewhere.
Unless yer planning to tape in the studio..then disregard the above.


And dress in solid colors, for Pete's sake.

Maybe let your wife pick your outfit? ;)

[Minadin]

That reminds me - Ryan, if you haven't already planned to do so, please get some proper light on yourself for the show. The first one made you look like you were in a cave somewhere.
Unless yer planning to tape in the studio..then disregard the above.


. . . because we all know that cave-men can't appear on Hardfire, much less destroy anything, ever, be they arguments, woo-fantasy, or very tall buildings.

[R.Mackey]

Do you have a rough idea of when you will start taping?

Not really, probably by end of month.

That reminds me - Ryan, if you haven't already planned to do so, please get some proper light on yourself for the show. The first one made you look like you were in a cave somewhere.
Unless yer planning to tape in the studio..then disregard the above.

The studio is a mere 2200 miles away... I'll see what I can do.

And dress in solid colors, for Pete's sake.

Maybe let your wife pick your outfit? ;)

Got a great shirt in red and green zig-zag picked out just for you. Unless Ron and Gary can shoot this one in HD, in which case I'll work up a fractal in contrasting primaries. ;)

[Hokulele]

Got a great shirt in red and green zig-zag picked out just for you. Unless Ron and Gary can shoot this one in HD, in which case I'll work up a fractal in contrasting primaries. ;)


So, turn the monitor off and leave the speakers on. Got it.

:cool:

[Minadin]

Got a great shirt in red and green zig-zag picked out just for you. Unless Ron and Gary can shoot this one in HD, in which case I'll work up a fractal in contrasting primaries. ;)

This would be a great shirt, if done right.

[Brainster]

I am confident that we are sending the best man in, armed with the facts. It's actually encouraging to me that we're getting down to technical analysis instead of the usual BS. They can't win on that field, all they can win on is the blizzard of factoids method, but even that's worn thin with the great job by Mark.

[R.Mackey]

So, turn the monitor off and leave the speakers on. Got it.

S'matter, you don't enjoy migranes..?

This would be a great shirt, if done right.

I have a rather shocking fluorescent green shirt and jittering paisley necktie combination. Wear it to weddings, mostly. It's quite nice, in its own way, though it tends to damage recording equipment.

[dropzone]

Don't get overconfident. Remember that most people are of lower-than-mean intelligence and that a large number of the rest are idiots who cannot be bothered to think. Most faceoffs like this leave the guys who are right scoring points for being right, but the crazies take the majority of points by being interesting.

[Grizzly Bear]

Good luck to all three of you... Tony and Cha--- well.... Tony anyway knows my opinion of his issues with the entire CD thing but I'll send my regards to him anyway. Hopefully it goes well for you guys. I'll provide pancakes and syrup, just don't step in my maple traps. :|

[Justin39640]

make sure you get a haircut
you wouldnt want to end up as a lego photoshop on some truther forum :D lol

[UNLoVedRebel]

Are Chandler and Tony gonna pull a Sarah Palin thing? You know, when asked a question, give a no response reponse and say "That's an interesting question but this is my chance to talk to the American people. Did you know Larry Silverstein said 'pull it' and the towers fell at free fall speed and there was molten metal at GZ?"

[R.Mackey]

Don't get overconfident.

After nearly 5,000 posts here against everyone from Ace Baker to Zlaya, and hardly a mark on me, what reason would I have to feel overconfident?

make sure you get a haircut
you wouldnt want to end up as a lego photoshop on some truther forum :D lol

Got one. Your avatar really creeps me out, incidentally.

Are Chandler and Tony gonna pull a Sarah Palin thing? You know, when asked a question, give a no response reponse and say "That's an interesting question but this is my chance to talk to the American people. Did you know Larry Silverstein said 'pull it' and the towers fell at free fall speed and there was molten metal at GZ?"

I can't imagine they'd try that, given they want to remain visible and continue pushing their own views. It would hardly serve them to behave in such a manner. I trust they'll conduct themselves more honestly, but we shall see.

[JoeyDonuts]

Do a Joaquin Phoenix. Or wear a "8-Bit Tie." (http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/hats-ties/9352/)

This should be interesting. I would expect them to go with something completely out of left field and pepper you with meaningless and unrelated canards the second you start pulling the blocks out of their Jenga tower.

Ohh...better yet, bring a goofy hat. Like a foam ten-gallon one. When one of them starts ranting and raving, don't even try to cut him off. Just don the goofy hat and kick back until he gets done. Then take it off when it's you're turn to talk.

Eventually you'll get asked "What's up with the hat?"

"Oh, this? I only wear this hat to signify that my opponent has completely run out of substantive arguments, and is only going to spew unrelated non-sequitirs in an attempt to hijack the debate. So rather than shouting him down, I put the hat on so people at home know what's going on. Plus, the hat is awesome."

[GlennB]

R.M ...

I can't quite work out from your o/p whether you will or will not be specifically debating their pet theories, or whether it will be freestyle.

[Bad_Doggie]

Having enjoyed your previous Hardfire shows and there informative and educational content I look forward to the forth coming show.

However, I do have a concern. In that by debating them that you give them a platform to promote their AGENDA, which to most of us has nothing to do with the truth or the lessons that can be learnt from these events. Someone of your stature debating them gives them recognition and validity that they crave.

I think Dawkins position of not debating Theists is probably the best stance.

What’s your take on it?

Woof!

[SezMe]

The host is Ron Wieck, who used to post here, is not a truther, far from it. In fact he got banned here because he could not control his vicious attacks on the poor truthers. However, when he moderates, he is very professional towards them. Here is an example:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5692853335910175330
I found that session to be quite frustrating to watch. Fetzer did most of the talking with Mark barely able to get his points in. I'm not going to go back to check, but I don't think Mark got to finish any of his points without being interrupted.

Ryan, I'd suggest that Ron take firmer control of the give and take and especially squash fillibustering.

[T.A.M.]

I would prefer to see two members against two. I fear they will try to drown you out or double team you Ryan.

Now I know you can more than handle yourself, however a TV show is far different then a forum, so just be cognizant of what I have said.

Also, be prepared for the usual, you know, burden of proof shift, topic switching, debating fallacies.

Hopefully Ron will keep them in line, and keep it fair...good luck.

TAM:)

[Newtons Bit]

If you need any help on structural specific topics, I'm available.

[Lennart Hyland]

Oh cant wait!

[newton3376]

This should be interesting....I enjoyed your two previous hardfire debates...free of any math or engineering errors as I remember......

Most online debates I have watched/listened to have the truthers on the losing end in a big way.

This will likely be another debate showing the complete lack of evidence for the truthers. I look forward to watching the slaughter.....

[alienentity]

Kevin Barrett, close associate of leaders of 9/11 truth, including Tony Szamboti, calls for the execution of 'anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream media'

He also alleged that no Israelis were killed in the WTC collapses (untrue), playing up the 'Jews did it' part of 9/11 'truth' doctrine.
From ScrewLooseChange http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/kevin-barrett-calls-for-mass-execution.html

Kevin Barrett
I think that anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past should be up on the scaffold for the crimes of high treason and crimes against humanity.
from We the People Radio Network

Barrett also accuses Senator John McCain of 'treason and complicity in mass murder'. McCain's crime? - writing the preface to Popular Mechanics book debunking 9/11 Myths.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/3491861.html?page=3
'Having John McCain as the man writing the preface [to the Popular Mechanics book] means he should not be allowed to have any public event without being repeatedly called on his treason and complicity in mass murder, and crimes against humanity.'

and on the Jewish conspiracy

'April 17, 2008:

One of the "very good" things about 9/11, from an Israeli perspective, was the miracle of the Twin Towers. Somehow all the Israelis just didn't happen to be there that day. The vile rumor that "no Jews died in the Towers" was probably spread by Mossad as a pre-emptive strike against people noticing that no ISRAELIS died in the Towers. This is what Ahmadinejad should be harping on!

It is an amazing fact that citizens of more than 100 nations died in the Twin Towers, but not a single Israeli was killed, despite the well-known heavy presence of Israelis in the World Trade Center. China lost 20 people, Columbia lost 18, the Dominican Republic lost 25, India lost 34, Ecuador and Italy both lost 13, the Phillipines lost 16, Japan and Jamaica both lost 21, Trinidad and Tobago lost 15, the UK lost 68, and indeed the majority of nations on earth lost people in the World Trade Center... and Israel lost exactly ZERO, zilch, nada... While the USA lost 2,464 people. '

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/kevin-barrett-but-not-single-israeli.html




Tony Szamboti had a long conversation with Kevin Barrett on Barrett's show, October 30, 2007. Mr. Szamboti discussed his belief in pyroclastic flows from WTC 1, 2 and 7, as well as evidence of explosives every 3 floors. I haven't listened to the entire interview yet, but thought it was interesting that Mr. Szamboti is so closely associated with a person like Barrett.
It should be noted that a similar relationship exists between Barrett and Dr. Steven Jones. An even more intimate part of this matrix of 9/11 truthers involves Jim Fetzer, who is a close colleague of Barrett, and is also batpoop crazy.(no planer etc..)

http://www.bomb-mp3.com/download.php?mp3_id=860874&title=Kevin+Barrett+-+Tony+Szamboti+%26amp%3B+Rolf+Lindgren

[alienentity]

I should point out that one of my criticisms toward Tony Szamboti is not just that he's looking at the physics of the WTC collapses - there's nothing wrong with this in itself.

It's his role in supporting the paranoid delusions of 9/11 truth, and the impact of these delusions:

1) Prominent leaders of the 9/11 'truth' movement are still implicating Israel, Mossad, and Jewish leaders in the planning and actual execution of the 9/11 terror attacks. This greatly increases the danger of 9/11 truth cultists attacking Jewish targets, as we have seen with James Von Brunn and the Holocaust museum.

2) Tony's participation in forums such as Barrett's lends support and credence to Barrett's attacks on prominent American (war hero, no less) John McCain and Barrett's obvious bloodlust for the mass media.
This is dangerous stuff, when broadcast to vulnerable and gullible listeners.

3)Tony's complete denial that the 9/11 hijackers were independent of the US government, instead trying to argue that the plane impacts were part of a smokescreen in the US government-led mass murder plot.

[TruthersLie]

Ryan.

I would prefer not to have a massive seizure while trying to watch you school those fools. Please, solid colors. :)

[KJC]

Expect Tony Szambozi to make a big deal about the "missing jolt" and the collapse initiating ABOVE the impact point of the planes (especially the 98th floor of the WTC1). He claims the bowing effect was not due to sagging floor trusses but something to do with the core columns.

What else.. He likes to talk about how the steel wasn't inspected. He once mentioned that thermite would have been used to weaken the joints and not used laterally on steel columns. He is a big fan of the red/grey paint chips.

[alienentity]

Here's some recent statements by Tony
'Deceleration of the impacting object beyond the rate of gravity and a velocity loss would prove a dynamic load took place. Otherwise the load can only be considered static.'

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4875026#post4875026

'If the collapse had been a natural event, the amount of energy loss which would have been incurred by the upper block, to just deform and buckle the columns on just the first floors on either side of the first collision, would have been about 87% of it's kinetic energy just prior to impact. That translates to a 75% velocity loss, so it wouldn't have been some undiscernable velocity loss we were looking for. If an impact capable of delivering the required energy had occurred, at a minimum, the upper block would have slowed from about 23 feet/second to about 5.5 feet/second and the video resolution and frame rate of 30 frames per second was more than up to that task.'

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4875068#post4875068

'In the case of an impact dynamic load or shock load it causes amplification of the static load due to rapid deceleration of the impacting object. The reality is that to defeat the reserve strength of the columns by the statically insufficient load of the upper block there needed to be a large dynamic load.

The general argument here is that the impacts occurred gradually and no large jolt was noticed. The problem with this is that the energy of deformation does not change and even separate impacts would still cause an aggregate energy drain from the upper block with a resultant velocity loss, which isn't observed.'

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4873064#post4873064

'We don't know exactly what happened to the columns and connections in the fire affected areas as the city of New York did not save the steel for investigators.'

Regarding explosives:

'As for lower noise level explosives being possible, the brisance and gas pressure of nanothermites used as explosives are tailorable by the sizing of the particles and the amount of organics used to generate gas pressure. Finally, it is the gas pressure velocity and it's range which causes the sound levels and the distance it travels.

A report from The 221st National Meeting of the American Chemical Society held during April 2001 in San Diego made the below comment:

At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives. Nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management. The feature of “impulse management” may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level'
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4870414#post4870414

'I believe that some type of explosive charge was used every third floor to break the welds of the outer core columns, after the collapse was underway for a few floors. As they were inside the tower, any blast from the charges would not be visible, and the debris falling outside would mask any escaping ejections and the collapse itself would mask the noise. I don't think much would have to be done to the perimeter columns except to separate the orthogonal walls at the corners every 10 to 20 floors. This could have been done by attacking the spandrel splices at the corners, allowing the perimeter walls to petal outward.'

'I do think artificial heat weakening was used to initiate the collapses. This heat weakening could have been used to weaken the joints of the structure. It would not have to mean cutting the columns with thermite. I am inclined to believe that the temperatures from this heat weakening were much higher than what fire could produce and that is why little to no steel evidence was saved from the fire affected areas for analysis.

In essence, I think the demolition was achieved by attacking joints with heat generating mechanisms and explosive charges rather than cutting columns.'

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4871961#post4871961

[R.Mackey]

It's his role in supporting the paranoid delusions of 9/11 truth, and the impact of these delusions:

I'm going to try to keep this scientific and above board, rather than bludgeon Tony over his associations or the statements of others. However, I note with some amusement that David Chandler apparently is planning to present some kind of preamble where he impugns Ron's impartiality -- an interesting trick, since Ron never claimed to be impartial in the first place... If they go negative, I'm sure they'll come off the worse for it.

Also, interestingly, nobody seems to care about David Chandler so far, everyone seems more interested in Tony.

I would prefer not to have a massive seizure while trying to watch you school those fools. Please, solid colors. :)

You do realize, the more you all whine, the more fun I can have antagonizing you, right? :vk:

I can't quite work out from your o/p whether you will or will not be specifically debating their pet theories, or whether it will be freestyle.

My feeling is it will gravitate to their own pet... observations (I doubt either one has anything approaching an actual "theory"). This is somewhat frustrating to me. I'd rather tackle a problem instead of going after personal beliefs, much as I'd prefer not to personalize the discussion. However, since there are no sane Truth Movement hypotheses to be found (Judy Wood's magic hurricane beam concentrator and Jim Hoffman's thousand tons of thermite ceiling tiles do not qualify as "sane"), the discussion will inevitably devolve onto one or two lone ideas and their proponents.

There just isn't any consensus in the Truth Movement. Nothing approaching the scientific solidarity regarding September 11th, anyway. So one either tackles isolated beliefs, or else one goes home having never sighted the opposition. Not my fault they're so disorganized.

However, I do have a concern. In that by debating them that you give them a platform to promote their AGENDA, which to most of us has nothing to do with the truth or the lessons that can be learnt from these events. Someone of your stature debating them gives them recognition and validity that they crave.

This is a valid concern as far as it goes, but I don't think I lend all that much "legitimacy" to them. Unless you move in the circles of scenario paintball, September 11th kookery, artificial intelligence, or prognostics, you're not likely to have heard of me. I in no way represent the government or any political body, nor am I much of a celebrity.

I also am not concerned simply because, as observed elsewhere, there are no "fence sitters" left anywhere. The worst that possibly comes out of this is I get quote-mined on obscure and irrelevant message boards (much like the jackals are currently heckling (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/newton-s-3rd-law-and-the-collapse-of-wtc-1-t153.html) Dr. Greening about "Newton's 3rd Law doesn't apply," when in fact he believes no such nonsense, of course). It just isn't going to make that much difference.

On the other hand, I may be able to reach a few of those in the Truth Movement. Or provide some education for others who are merely interested in science.

Or it may be a complete waste of time. I'd lay odds on this one, but one never knows. In any case, apart from my time, I really don't have much skin in the game. It's an opportunity, one without much downside from my perspective.

[T.A.M.]

ummm...Since Ron and his producer control the show, why would Chandler even attempt such a thing. Though I think Ron too honest to remove it, they (Chandler et al) must know if they go overboard with the pre-debate grandstanding, that it could simply be edited out.

What a turd.

TAM:)

Edit: as for Chandler. Well why should anybody care about him. His claim to fame is a debunked "WTC7 is in Freefall" argument, and that is it.

[JoeyDonuts]

Perhaps you'll debunk him right into a recursive loop where he says nothing but "Free Fall!" "Pyroclastic!" "Thermate!" "Bork!" "Progressive Collapse Arrest!" over and over again.

Wait a minute...

[tfk]

And now a word from "Capt. Obvious"...
Try to make sure that they apportion speaking time "by side" (in which case you'd get 50%) and not "by person" (in which case you'd get 33%).

tom

[Hokulele]

I have a rather shocking fluorescent green shirt and jittering paisley necktie combination. Wear it to weddings, mostly. It's quite nice, in its own way, though it tends to damage recording equipment.


If any CTist ever doubts your engineering credentials, I can just refer them to this post.



:p

[ElMondoHummus]

We now have a button to push to rile Hokulele. I'm thinking about going to the local Goodwill store to look for day-glo shirts with abyssmally complex patterns, just so I can photograph them and PM her the pictures. :D

[Tony Szamboti]

And now a word from "Capt. Obvious"...
Try to make sure that they apportion speaking time "by side" (in which case you'd get 50%) and not "by person" (in which case you'd get 33%).

tom

Like Ryan I will refrain from debating him on this forum until after the debate is over and will only make this one post here on his thread.

However, I just want it to be known that I would have preferred if there were two individuals on both sides of the argument. I mentioned this to Ron Wieck also, and he did say he had a couple of people in mind to appear with Ryan, but I am not sure how successful he was in getting someone.

As for time sharing it should not be by person and the opposing viewpoints should get 50% each.

Please don't expect me to respond to this any further or any post in this thread. I only wanted to say the debating rules should be fair to each side.

[bill smith]

And now a word from "Capt. Obvious"...
Try to make sure that they apportion speaking time "by side" (in which case you'd get 50%) and not "by person" (in which case you'd get 33%).

tom

Can't do that Captain. The Truth Movment do not have a unified view of say the collapse dynamics on 9/11 for instance. Given that all three participants are scientists with theeir own distinct analyses they will therefore need equal time to make their seperate cases. I thought that would be bleedin' obvious Captain ?

[Dave Rogers]

Ryan, in case you haven't seen it, take a look at post #1510 in the "Why a one-way crush down is not possible" thread. I've done some maths to put behind the rather obvious point that a jolt wouldn't be seen if the upper block is tilted. Tony's replied to it once, but now I think he's carefully pretending it doesn't exist. Let me know if you want a copy of the spreadsheet that I calculated it from (although it's one of mine so it may not be entirely clear, or even intelligible!)

Dave

[NutCracker]

Can't do that Captain. The Truth Movment do not have a unified view of say the collapse dynamics on 9/11 for instance. Given that all three participants are scientists with theeir own distinct analyses they will therefore need equal time to make their seperate cases. I thought that would be bleedin' obvious Captain ?

So there are multiple versions of the truth. Enlightening..

Unfortunately, there is only one version of reallity.

Thank you for pointing out that at least two of the 'scientists with their own distinct analyses' are wrong.


Oh, please do reread 'The Truth Movment do not have a unified view of say the collapse dynamics on 9/11 for instance.' It might be a hint to you that each member of the TM is talking from his R*** E**.

Thank you.

[bill smith]

So there are multiple versions of the truth. Enlightening..

Unfortunately, there is only one version of reallity.

Thank you for pointing out that at least two of the 'scientists with their own distinct analyses' are wrong.


Oh, please do reread 'The Truth Movment do not have a unified view of say the collapse dynamics on 9/11 for instance.' It might be a hint to you that each member of the TM is talking from his R*** E**.

Thank you.

No problem.

[tfk]

And now a word from "Capt. Obvious"...
Try to make sure that they apportion speaking time "by side" (in which case you'd get 50%) and not "by person" (in which case you'd get 33%).

tom


As for time sharing it should not be by person and the opposing viewpoints should get 50% each.



Can't do that Captain. The Truth Movment do not have a unified view of say the collapse dynamics on 9/11 for instance.
... blah, blah, nonsense, blah...
I thought that would be bleedin' obvious Captain ?

.
So, let's see.

• You claim the ability to decide something in which you have zero input, much less decision-making authority.
• Your rationalization is, in essence, "... because the Twoof Movement is too incompetent to string together a single cogent thesis".
• It appears certain that at least two of the three people involved (RM & TS, who will have a say in the matter) disagree with you. Including one that might consider you to be on his side of the argument. (Note: I emphasize the word "MIGHT" in the previous sentence. I don't know Tony's tolerance for embarrassing quacks, so I won't attempt to speak for him.)

The above three points are incontestable, were posted prior to your comment, and render your position laughable.

And yet you STILL assert your position to be "obvious"...??

There has to be some word for your particular pathology, bill.

Does anyone know of a psychological condition where someone attempts to make others feel awkward by publicly embarrassing themselves?

I am seriously curious about this. TAM? Anyone?

Tom

[newton3376]

Deleted

[bill smith]

.
So, let's see.

• You claim the ability to decide something in which you have zero input, much less decision-making authority.
• Your rationalization is, in essence, "... because the Twoof Movement is too incompetent to string together a single cogent thesis".
• It appears certain that at least two of the three people involved (RM & TS, who will have a say in the matter) disagree with you. Including one that might consider you to be on his side of the argument. (Note: I emphasize the word "MIGHT" in the previous sentence. I don't know Tony's tolerance for embarrassing quacks, so I won't attempt to speak for him.)

The above three points are incontestable, were posted prior to your comment, and render your position laughable.

And yet you STILL assert your position to be "obvious"...??

There has to be some word for your particular pathology, bill.

Does anyone know of a psychological condition where someone attempts to make others feel awkward by publicly embarrassing themselves?

I am seriously curious about this. TAM? Anyone?

Tom

Three opinions = three equal shares of the time allowed. It is a show run on democatic principles is it not ? Although if I remember correctly there was some dispute about that the last time

[GlennB]

.
Does anyone know of a psychological condition where someone attempts to make others feel awkward by publicly embarrassing themselves?

You have a pm.

[tfk]

Ryan, in case you haven't seen it, take a look at post #1510 in the "Why a one-way crush down is not possible" thread. I've done some maths to put behind the rather obvious point that a jolt wouldn't be seen if the upper block is tilted. Tony's replied to it once, but now I think he's carefully pretending it doesn't exist. Let me know if you want a copy of the spreadsheet that I calculated it from (although it's one of mine so it may not be entirely clear, or even intelligible!)
Dave



Hey Dave,

I'd like to see your numbers.

I scanned thru your post #1510. One thing that I don't get regarding your stress-strain model for A36. Perhaps I'm not reading it right.

You say


Next, I consider the case where an upper block of mass M of this structure falls on a lower block. I'm assuming that the angle of tilt is small enough that each column of the upper block impacts on the corresponding column of the lower block. For the behaviour on impact, I'm taking a greatly simplified model of column failure, in which the resistive force increases linearly up to the ultimate strength at 0.2% compression, then decreases linearly to zero at a further 3% compression. This has the useful property that the energy absorbed by the column is approximately correct, therefore the impulse applied to the upper block is reasonable."

.
It seems to me that this will give you only about 50% of the energy absorption capability of the steel.

Usually the 0.2% stain level is the yield strength, instead of the ultimate strength, of course.

NIST gives a good models for stress strain in NCSTAR 1-3D, Appendix D - for both room & elevated temperatures. Plus they give models for high strain rate properties in Appendix E.

Those ought to do you. But if you need something simpler...

A quick & dirty, but still accurate (in terms of energy absorption), would be a linear stress-strain up to the average stress between the yield & ultimate strengths ((sy + su)/2), and a constant stress from there up to failure strain levels.



I've taken the column length as 4m, representing the height of a single floor. I'm also assuming that the moment of inertia of the upper block is very large, and that its rotational velocity is zero throughout the collision; in other words, the tilt angle is taken to be invariant."

.
The use of 1 story columns will, I believe, result in significant errors. I believe that an unavoidable aspect of the 3 story, staggered columns produced an unexpected weakness to progressive collapse, and an effect that will have a significant impact on the specific effect that you are trying to model: the jolts.

The reason for this is, of course, the fact that, by the time the upper block has reached any particular floor, 2/3rds of the supports have already been destroyed prior to the impact, taking with them far more than 2/3rds of the stuctural integrity of that floor.

I don't have a bunch of time right now, but I'll offer comments once I see your spreadsheet.

BTW, I applaud this effort of yours.

Tom

[Dave Rogers]

It seems to me that this will give you only about 50% of the energy absorption capability of the steel.

Usually the 0.2% stain level is the yield strength, instead of the ultimate strength, of course.

NIST gives a good models for stress strain in NCSTAR 1-3D, Appendix D - for both room & elevated temperatures. Plus they give models for high strain rate properties in Appendix E.

Those ought to do you. But if you need something simpler...

A quick & dirty, but still accurate (in terms of energy absorption), would be a linear stress-strain up to the average stress between the yield & ultimate strengths ((sy + su)/2), and a constant stress from there up to failure strain levels.

I'll put that in and see how it changes things. I'm not a structural engineer so I don't know the details of this sort of thing; I started by using a guessed function and hoped that somebody who knows better would suggest something more appropriate.

The use of 1 story columns will, I believe, result in significant errors. I believe that an unavoidable aspect of the 3 story, staggered columns produced an unexpected weakness to progressive collapse, and an effect that will have a significant impact on the specific effect that you are trying to model: the jolts.

The reason for this is, of course, the fact that, by the time the upper block has reached any particular floor, 2/3rds of the supports have already been destroyed prior to the impact, taking with them far more than 2/3rds of the stuctural integrity of that floor.

That would be trickier, as I'd have to exclude specific columns. However, from what you're saying, it looks like I've underestimated the steel strength x2 but overestimated the structural strength by x3, giving an overall overestimate of about 50%. That means that I should have overestimated the jolt intensity rather than underestimated it, which makes the conclusion a conservative one.

Not sure when I'll get round to doing more on this. Life is busy.

Dave

[TruthersLie]

I just hope it is Mark Roberts.

Then we can see them both wipe the floor with you both.

[bill smith]

.
So, let's see.

• You claim the ability to decide something in which you have zero input, much less decision-making authority.
• Your rationalization is, in essence, "... because the Twoof Movement is too incompetent to string together a single cogent thesis".
• It appears certain that at least two of the three people involved (RM & TS, who will have a say in the matter) disagree with you. Including one that might consider you to be on his side of the argument. (Note: I emphasize the word "MIGHT" in the previous sentence. I don't know Tony's tolerance for embarrassing quacks, so I won't attempt to speak for him.)

The above three points are incontestable, were posted prior to your comment, and render your position laughable.

And yet you STILL assert your position to be "obvious"...??

There has to be some word for your particular pathology, bill.

Does anyone know of a psychological condition where someone attempts to make others feel awkward by publicly embarrassing themselves?

I am seriously curious about this. TAM? Anyone?

Tom

It would also be unfair to add another like RM to the government side. Then it would be two people supporting exactly the same immutable story against two guys who have seperate and individual opinions on the course of events on 9/11. It would look like the government was ganging up on the Truth Movement. So it looks like three equal shares of the time alotted is the only way to go.

[newton3376]

It would also be unfair to add another like RM to the government side. Then it would be two people supporting exactly the same immutable story against two guys who have seperate and individual opinions on the course of events on 9/11. It would look likehe government was ganging up on the Truth Movement. So it looks like three equal shares of the time alotted is the only way to go.

The government? ROFL

Last time I checked Mark Roberts didn't work for the government...

The problem here is that you seem to think the "official" story is just another "option" that has "supporters" like so many of the varied and whacko "truther" positions....

No one needs to "gang up" on the truthers because the physical evidence (indeed all the evidence) doesn't support their idiotic ideas.

Maybe you think that by giving the "truthers" 2/3 of the time slot they might not end up looking like moronic, raving lunatics.....




...I have some bad news for you.....

[moorea34]

Dave,

The idea that steal columns can reached 3% in compression strain is an urban legend that was initiated by Ross ... But it is a monumental ********... Szamboti has used 1.5% in "the missing jolt", but it remains a semi-monumental ********...

It makes laught anyone who has done a minimum of structural engineering...

That is explained very well here :

http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2007-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=3

Theoricaly, when you reach yield stress in compression, you don't have any rigidity for the column...
(E=0 for the elasto-plastic model)... And the column is in a buckling phase....
And I don't speak about shear buckling or torsional buckilng.... It's another story :)


So you will never reach 1, 2 or 3 % in a compression way for the whole column...

;)

[Dave Rogers]

The idea that steal columns can reached 3% in compression strain is an urban legend that was initiated by Ross ... But it is a monumental ********... Szamboti has used 1.5% in "the missing jolt", but it remains a semi-monumental ********...

For my purposes, what I want is an expression for force as a function of compression that I'm confident is an overestimate of the column resistance. If it's generally agreed that 3% is not only an overestimate, but a gross overestimate, then I can plug it into the model and see if there is still no jolt; if there isn't, then Szamboti's argument is refuted. At the moment I'm assuming linear increase in force up to the average of yield and ultimate strain at somewhere a bit above 0.2%, then constant force at that value up to 3%, which I think makes my columns twice as strong as Szamboti. I need to check the numbers again, but a first look indicates that the increase in energy absorption doesn't actually affect the jolt significantly; hardly surprising in retrospect, since it's the peaks in the acceleration I'm looking at rather than the collapse time (which is very much affected by the energy absorption). Since I was using ultimate strength rather than yield strength, the jolt is actually less. I'll post some results when I've checked them, but it still looks like - for the structure I've defined - no jolt by the time the angle reaches half a degree.

Ryan, sorry for intruding into your thread with a rather off-topic discussion. Maybe I should start my own thread some time.

Dave

[moorea34]

For my purposes, what I want is an expression for force as a function of compression that I'm confident is an overestimate of the column resistance. If it's generally agreed that 3% is not only an

...

Ryan, sorry for intruding into your thread with a rather off-topic discussion. Maybe I should start my own thread some time.

Dave

OK, I understand now ;)

[tfk]

moorea34,

Your objection was the same one that I originally had for Bazant's paper. Several of his assumptions were unrealistic. (i.e., the columns falling on the columns, the failure mode of buckled columns instead of fractured bolts & welds, etc.) His assumptions, as several here have noted, was a "limiting case", with every assumption favoring the interruption of the progressive collapse to the street.

But, clearly (well, clearly to me anyway), because of his wildly conservative assumptions, his analysis is not a close, realistic model of what really happened.

My inclination was to try to model it as accurately as possible, choosing conservative alternatives out of "most probable" events. If done right, this model would be much more representative of what really happened.

Each of these approaches has its own place & its own purpose.

If you want a model as close as possible to the real event (for whatever reason that might be), a realistic model is best.

But Bazant, and now DR, are absolutely right if your goal is to close the deal and ("O tempora! O mores!") end the debate.

Using a "realistic model", you simply have some buffoon disagree with one of 100 assumption, and they send you back to number crunching. To preempt such nonsense, the "limiting case model" is the only way to go.

tom

[Newtons Bit]

For my purposes, what I want is an expression for force as a function of compression that I'm confident is an overestimate of the column resistance. If it's generally agreed that 3% is not only an overestimate, but a gross overestimate, then I can plug it into the model and see if there is still no jolt; if there isn't, then Szamboti's argument is refuted. At the moment I'm assuming linear increase in force up to the average of yield and ultimate strain at somewhere a bit above 0.2%, then constant force at that value up to 3%, which I think makes my columns twice as strong as Szamboti. I need to check the numbers again, but a first look indicates that the increase in energy absorption doesn't actually affect the jolt significantly; hardly surprising in retrospect, since it's the peaks in the acceleration I'm looking at rather than the collapse time (which is very much affected by the energy absorption). Since I was using ultimate strength rather than yield strength, the jolt is actually less. I'll post some results when I've checked them, but it still looks like - for the structure I've defined - no jolt by the time the angle reaches half a degree.

Ryan, sorry for intruding into your thread with a rather off-topic discussion. Maybe I should start my own thread some time.

Dave

Yes, yes you should start your own thread :)

[alienentity]

Dave, I think that's a good idea also. Start another thread.

btw, what did you think of Moorea34's 'missing jolt' calcs?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4880046#post4880046

I believe it was you who pointed out a while ago that Mr. Szamboti's method smoothed out the data so it would fail to show any deceleration.

[moorea34]

Dave, I think that's a good idea also. Start another thread.

btw, what did you think of Moorea34's 'missing jolt' calcs?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4880046#post4880046

I believe it was you who pointed out a while ago that Mr. Szamboti's method smoothed out the data so it would fail to show any deceleration.

The speed was smoothed in the first version of the paper.

They have changed this stupid method a few days later...

But the quality of the paper is not best for all !

[GlennB]

The speed was smoothed in the first version of the paper.

They have changed this stupid method a few days later...

But the quality of the paper is not best for all !

I sincerely hope that they have kept a revision history ;)

[moorea34]

I sincerely hope that they have kept a revision history ;)

I've kept :D:D:D:D

[Dave Rogers]

Dave, I think that's a good idea also. Start another thread.

OK. I'll refine my calculations a little, then start one when I'm at a point I'm happy with.

btw, what did you think of Moorea34's 'missing jolt' calcs?

I agree with them entirely. I approached it from the opposite direction; the range of values for acceleration derived directly from McQueen and Szamboti's own data has outlier points as low as zero deceleration. Since they're assuming impacts on an undamaged structure, they must be overestimating the jolt; even so, the acceleration minima weren't very different to their predictions.

I believe it was you who pointed out a while ago that Mr. Szamboti's method smoothed out the data so it would fail to show any deceleration.

Yes, although Szamboti himself preferred not to admit to that. He has at least fixed that error.

Dave

[newton3376]

Any word or update on if and when the debate will take place?

:popcorn1

[R.Mackey]

Nobody's backed out yet. But no firm date yet, either.

[triforcharity]

Can I watch them live via internet by chance???

[R.Mackey]

Not a chance. It will be shot live, but then they have to interleave their studio footage, my camera, and David's camera. ETA is a few weeks. But it will be up on the 'net for free when it's done.

[boloboffin]

Can I watch them live via internet by chance???

I don't think the Hardfire show is played live, although they have had questioners call in. However the show has been very good about getting the tapes out quickly, even before they are played on the public access channel. The only delay I've seen was when they were waiting on Richard Gage to send them the footage of him recorded remotely.

[triforcharity]

The reason gage takes so long is becaause he is off playing with boxes and such. aAnd we ALL know how much he loves his boxes!!


Anyway, thanks guys!! I appreciate it. Please, keep us updated!!

[Edx]

Not a chance. It will be shot live, but then they have to interleave their studio footage, my camera, and David's camera. ETA is a few weeks. But it will be up on the 'net for free when it's done.

I hope you demolish them

(pun intended. :p)

[UNLoVedRebel]

Not really, probably by end of month.
It's the end of the month. Any taping yet?

[R.Mackey]

Negative.

At present it appears that David Chandler has dropped out. I won't pretend to know why.

Tony is still on board and isn't causing any trouble. We have a possible date for August 16 pencilled in; of course the show itself will take a couple of weeks to complete after we tape.

[LashL]

Negative.

At present it appears that David Chandler has dropped out. I won't pretend to know why.

Tony is still on board and isn't causing any trouble. We have a possible date for August 16 pencilled in; of course the show itself will take a couple of weeks to complete after we tape.

Interesting. Please keep us posted as to the dates when they are firmed up.

[Klimax]

Negative.

At present it appears that David Chandler has dropped out. I won't pretend to know why.

Tony is still on board and isn't causing any trouble. We have a possible date for August 16 pencilled in; of course the show itself will take a couple of weeks to complete after we tape.

How suprising...(Bolded)

[Mr.Herbert]

Negative.

At present it appears that David Chandler has dropped out. I won't pretend to know why.

Tony is still on board and isn't causing any trouble. We have a possible date for August 16 pencilled in; of course the show itself will take a couple of weeks to complete after we tape.

This is upsetting. I honestly thought he, of all people would stay.

Ryan, do you know if Hardfire has a studio audience? I will be in New York that week and would love to sit it!

[newton3376]

Negative.

At present it appears that David Chandler has dropped out. I won't pretend to know why.

Tony is still on board and isn't causing any trouble. We have a possible date for August 16 pencilled in; of course the show itself will take a couple of weeks to complete after we tape.

I'm not surprised a truther dropped out...

Let us know the status as the day approacheth........

[KJC]

Isn't it amazing how in atheism vs religion debates, there is no shortage of people wishing to stand up and debate the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, but in the troofer debate, despite the fact they claim to have the truth, they will not stand up and debate debunkers... Or at least when they do, it's rare.

The lack of coherence in the troofer movement is mind-boggling.

[Edx]

Yea, personally I wish Mackey and so on did more stuff like the Hardfire shows. As Mark Roberts says, theres lots of professionals here but they arent usually the most vocal like the truther lot.

[knife fight colobus]

Hardfire should be an hour long. I think that EVERY show that I've seen of theirs has always seemed way too short and even when they were two-parters it seemed like points that were cut off by the end of the last show were never really given closure the next show.

An hour would make a HUGE difference I think.

I cannot wait to see this, is it only going to be one show though?

[Bad_Doggie]

Hardfire should be an hour long. I think that EVERY show that I've seen of theirs has always seemed way too short and even when they were two-parters it seemed like points that were cut off by the end of the last show were never really given closure the next show.

An hour would make a HUGE difference I think.

I cannot wait to see this, is it only going to be one show though?

Seconded. It feels like the show is just getting going as the host winds it up.

The two show format makes what is being discussed disjointed and it’s hard cram everything into the shorter shows.

Woof!

[Gaspode]

Discussion on the WTC collapse split to new thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150415).

Back on topic please.

[newton3376]

Any updates on a possible taping date?

[psikeyhackr]

Discussion on the WTC collapse split to new thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150415).

Back on topic please.
.
What is there to say about the topic besides, "When does it air?" :D

psik

[Mr.Herbert]

Looks like it was pushed into September. :(

[UNLoVedRebel]

Looks like it was pushed into September. :(

Damn, goes to show how seriously truthers take their own theories.

[R.Mackey]

To be completely fair, I don't have any sense that Tony is stalling. He needs to do this on a weekend, and that's the hardest time to get reservations at the studio, and that's all.

David Chandler, on the other hand, struck me as quite difficult in the slice of e-mail that I was copied on. But since it appears he's dropped out, that shouldn't matter any more.

[boloboffin]

Is it possible that Chandler dropped out due to the impending school year?

[R.Mackey]

I have no idea. If so he didn't indicate as such. I'd rather not speculate.

[bill smith]

We've all seen the format used on the Hardfire Show for the last three-part series with Ryan Mackey. Below are links to the two Hardfire Shows with Richard Gage and Gravy. Different formats.Does anybody know what the format wil be on the next show with Ryan and Tony ?

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 Gravy's take

[alienentity]

Is it possible that Chandler dropped out due to the impending school year?

Why, is he going to study structural engineering and demolitions? I wonder where he's enrolled....:p

[Ragnarok]

Yea, personally I wish Mackey and so on did more stuff like the Hardfire shows. As Mark Roberts says, theres lots of professionals here but they arent usually the most vocal like the truther lot.

Well why would they need to be? They seem to think that there is no substance in claims that the system is rotten from the inside, and that the only problem is that there are a lot of USA-haters these days.

[UNLoVedRebel]

David Chandler, on the other hand, struck me as quite difficult in the slice of e-mail that I was copied on. But since it appears he's dropped out, that shouldn't matter any more.
Do you mean difficult as in Chandler is "difficult to schedule" or Chandler is "a total prick?" By this post and Chandler's attitude here, I took it as the latter.

[psikeyhackr]

Looks like it was pushed into September. :(
.
That does seem appropriate.

psik

[boloboffin]

Why, is he going to study structural engineering and demolitions? I wonder where he's enrolled....:p

lol - he's a high school physics teacher. Personally, I think it was more to do with his little dustup with us here at JREF a few weeks back, but I always try to think of a more innocent reason if I can. This one occurred to me.

[FineWine]

Well why would they need to be? They seem to think that there is no substance in claims that the system is rotten from the inside, and that the only problem is that there are a lot of USA-haters these days.

To be precise, they think that there is no substance in wild claims about a statistically-impossible conspiracy that are unsupported by even a shred of evidence.

[bill smith]

Considering That Tony is to be the invited guest on the Hardfire Show I think it only fair that he be allowed to make his case very much along he lines of the debate between Gravy and Richard Gage (above).

So introductions...then Tony shows some videos and voices over and then Ryan rebutts and Tony has the last word. Then maybe the reverse and so on. Any thoughts ?

[funk de fino]

Considering That Tony is to be the invited guest on the Hardfire Show I think it only fair that he be allowed to make his case very much along he lines of the debate between Gravy and Richard Gage (above).

So introductions...then Tony shows some videos and voices over and then Ryan rebutts and Tony has the last word. Then maybe the reverse and so on. Any thoughts ?

Tony is a proven liar who is incompetant. Not much to go up against.

[jhunter1163]

Happy birthday Mr. Mackey!

[Locknar]

Several posts have been dumped to AAH; please ensure your posts address the topic of this thread - which has nothing to do with buildings (or their components) weights.

[psikeyhackr]

Tony is a proven liar who is incompetant. Not much to go up against.
.
So Tony can be attacked but Ryan Mackey is sacred. ROFLMAO

psik

[TruthersLie]

.
So Tony can be attacked but Ryan Mackey is sacred. ROFLMAO

psik

If you have any thing to debunk on what ryan mackey has posted in his 300 page refutation of DRG, feel free to point out what he got wrong.

or if that is too tough, feel free to tell us what he got wrong on this 3 episodes of hardfire going over the physics of 9/11.

What exactly did he get wrong again? You should have a huge list.... I'll wait for it.

Tonys work shows that he is a quack who doesn't understand what he is trying to talk about... Feel free to show us what Ryan Mackey has gotten wrong.

Kind of like you being asked to show us what Mark Roberts has gotten wrong...

still waiting for those lists of errors...

[alienentity]

To be completely fair, I don't have any sense that Tony is stalling. He needs to do this on a weekend, and that's the hardest time to get reservations at the studio, and that's all.

David Chandler, on the other hand, struck me as quite difficult in the slice of e-mail that I was copied on. But since it appears he's dropped out, that shouldn't matter any more.

Happy B'day eh?

[knife fight colobus]

If you have any thing to debunk on what ryan mackey has posted in his 300 page refutation of DRG, feel free to point out what he got wrong.

or if that is too tough, feel free to tell us what he got wrong on this 3 episodes of hardfire going over the physics of 9/11.

What exactly did he get wrong again? You should have a huge list.... I'll wait for it.

Tonys work shows that he is a quack who doesn't understand what he is trying to talk about... Feel free to show us what Ryan Mackey has gotten wrong.

Kind of like you being asked to show us what Mark Roberts has gotten wrong...

still waiting for those lists of errors...

I saw a youtube video where someone said that Mackey and Wieck we're being dishonest about something to do with planes flying above 500 mph. Sorry, I'm super hazy on the specifics, I didn't really pay attention to it and I was just gonna do a forum search to see if you guys have already debunked the claims.

So I would like to see if there are errors in his paper or on the show too, if you can find any.

About the format, I didn't like how Gravy had to have pretty much everything he said cut off by Gage or Clifton. He had to quickly respond to Gage's points AND answer Clifton's questions.

I still don't like the idea even if they switch off the format. I think just point-counterpoint is best.

During the LC dbags vs. PM that moderator was really good. I wish we could have someone like that though again in that debate it seemed like the PM guys were also only able to play defense and not present anything that the LC dbags had to counter argue.

[bill smith]

I saw a youtube video where someone said that Mackey and Wieck we're being dishonest about something to do with planes flying above 500 mph. Sorry, I'm super hazy on the specifics, I didn't really pay attention to it and I was just gonna do a forum search to see if you guys have already debunked the claims.

So I would like to see if there are errors in his paper or on the show too, if you can find any.

About the format, I didn't like how Gravy had to have pretty much everything he said cut off by Gage or Clifton. He had to quickly respond to Gage's points AND answer Clifton's questions.

I still don't like the idea even if they switch off the format. I think just point-counterpoint is best.

During the LC dbags vs. PM that moderator was really good. I wish we could have someone like that though again in that debate it seemed like the PM guys were also only able to play defense and not present anything that the LC dbags had to counter argue.

I think Tony ought to be allowed to select the format. He is the invited guest after all and is walking into the lion's den in a lot of senses.

[Dave Rogers]

I think Tony ought to be allowed to select the format. He is the invited guest after all and is walking into the lion's den in a lot of senses.

When you've got your own cable TV show, then maybe somebody will consider your opinion.

Dave

[TruthersLie]

I saw a youtube video where someone said that Mackey and Wieck we're being dishonest about something to do with planes flying above 500 mph. Sorry, I'm super hazy on the specifics, I didn't really pay attention to it and I was just gonna do a forum search to see if you guys have already debunked the claims.

So I would like to see if there are errors in his paper or on the show too, if you can find any.

About the format, I didn't like how Gravy had to have pretty much everything he said cut off by Gage or Clifton. He had to quickly respond to Gage's points AND answer Clifton's questions.

I still don't like the idea even if they switch off the format. I think just point-counterpoint is best.

During the LC dbags vs. PM that moderator was really good. I wish we could have someone like that though again in that debate it seemed like the PM guys were also only able to play defense and not present anything that the LC dbags had to counter argue.

Hey KFC (sorry, those are your intials :)

The twoof claim goes something like this. A 757/767 can't fly over 500mph in level flight at under 1000 feet.

There is a twoof (I don't know who ... and don't really care) who calls up aerospace engineers and asks them if a 757/767 can fly at that speed. He doesn't tell them he is a truther, nor does he mention 9/11.

I've seen several of his videos, and the funny part is that he gets completely owned by a youtuber named terrymanning.

Here is a great rebuttal video about the "impossible speed" claims by twoofs.
9Wy1ZI0x-Co

[funk de fino]

.
So Tony can be attacked but Ryan Mackey is sacred. ROFLMAO

psik

Thats not a lie is it?

[knife fight colobus]

If you have any thing to debunk on what ryan mackey has posted in his 300 page refutation of DRG, feel free to point out what he got wrong.

or if that is too tough, feel free to tell us what he got wrong on this 3 episodes of hardfire going over the physics of 9/11.

What exactly did he get wrong again? You should have a huge list.... I'll wait for it.

Tonys work shows that he is a quack who doesn't understand what he is trying to talk about... Feel free to show us what Ryan Mackey has gotten wrong.

Kind of like you being asked to show us what Mark Roberts has gotten wrong...

still waiting for those lists of errors...

Hey KFC (sorry, those are your intials :)

The twoof claim goes something like this. A 757/767 can't fly over 500mph in level flight at under 1000 feet.

There is a twoof (I don't know who ... and don't really care) who calls up aerospace engineers and asks them if a 757/767 can fly at that speed. He doesn't tell them he is a truther, nor does he mention 9/11.

I've seen several of his videos, and the funny part is that he gets completely owned by a youtuber named terrymanning.

Here is a great rebuttal video about the "impossible speed" claims by twoofs.
9Wy1ZI0x-Co

Don't worry, I'm totally fine with kfc, haha.

Awesome, thanks for the video!

To respond to BS: I agree that the guest should get to choose the format but I think that if they want to have a legit debate he should choose a format that doesn't give one or another the advantage.

[bill smith]

Hey KFC (sorry, those are your intials :)

The twoof claim goes something like this. A 757/767 can't fly over 500mph in level flight at under 1000 feet.

There is a twoof (I don't know who ... and don't really care) who calls up aerospace engineers and asks them if a 757/767 can fly at that speed. He doesn't tell them he is a truther, nor does he mention 9/11.

I've seen several of his videos, and the funny part is that he gets completely owned by a youtuber named terrymanning.

Here is a great rebuttal video about the "impossible speed" claims by twoofs.
9Wy1ZI0x-Co

Check this one out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-9EMrna-WU&feature=PlayList&p=A4F8F4BD8543597E&index=9&playnext=5&playnext_from=PL

[A W Smith]

Check this one out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-9EMrna-WU&feature=PlayList&p=A4F8F4BD8543597E&index=9&playnext=5&playnext_from=PL

You know that is a game simulation right?

now lets try examples from real life

towards the end of this video come the low flying jet aircraft
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5lyya_low-pass-compilation_sport

and more

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x46bae_compil-aircraft-fly-low-2_events

and more

http://www.livevideo.com/video/4AADFF3B9F9D48DA93046EE7880BA067/insane-low-flying-aircraft.aspx

[bill smith]

When you've got your own cable TV show, then maybe somebody will consider your opinion.

Dave

When somebody is challenged to a duel he gets choice of weapons.

In this case Tony should get the choice of format.

[Wolrab]

When somebody is challenged to a duel he gets choice of weapons.

In this case Tony should get the choice of format.
Let me guess. Twenty nine minutes of you tube videos and one minute for Mackey to respond?

[Heiwa]

Let me guess. Twenty nine minutes of you tube videos and one minute for Mackey to respond?

Or Tony S rips the ideas of Mackey apart in two minutes and Mackey whines, whirs, whirls and whisks rest of the show?

[stateofgrace]

Or Tony S rips the ideas of Mackey apart in two minutes and Mackey whines, whirs, whirls and whisks rest of the show?

Or maybe you could make a guest appearance, make the same claim over and over and over again, ignore everything that shows you how completely wrong it is and then start dancing your victory dance as per norm.

See how easy and completely pointless it is to post snide remarks Heiwa?

Try it for a change, post on topic or get out of this thread.

[Gravy]

To be completely fair, I don't have any sense that Tony is stalling. He needs to do this on a weekend, and that's the hardest time to get reservations at the studio, and that's all.
Let me get this straight: Szamboti has the chance to finally present his damning 9/11 conspiracy case on television and on YouTube, and to take on one of the very best 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers, but he will only do so on a weekend?

That's how strong his convictions are?

Tony? What gives? You never contacted the engineers who worked on the FEMA and NIST reports, as you promised to do. You never brought your "absolute" WTC 7 evidence to a District Attorney, as you promised to do. When I challenged you about that, you said, well, you had a job to attend to, and you'd get around to visiting the DA when you had time. That was two years ago, and you've still done nothing. That's how much you believe in your "evidence." Further, you agreed to debate me about your own work and then fled.

Ryan, I know you're trying to be diplomatic, but Szamboti refused to appear on Hardfire with me, although he said he could show that I was full of BS and although no stipulation was made that the show(s) had to be taped on a weekday. To me, he's the very definition of a coward. That his damning evidence about these horrible crimes now has to wait until a weekend to be presented is utterly laughable. Honestly, can these people try to appear to be any more ridiculous and contemptible? I suggest not holding your breath for this show to happen.

[R.Mackey]

I just report the news, I don't make it.

Like I said before, though, Tony has been pretty accommodating (apart from needing to do it on a weekend). I have no sense that he's backing down or going to pull a David Ray Griffin. Mr. Chandler was difficult and I wouldn't be surprised if he's out for good, but Tony is not throwing up roadblocks.

Oh, I should also add, Tony is not whining about special treatment or extra time or presenting any demands like other Truthers in this thread are proposing. It should be pretty straight up.

ETA: Possible taping day is September 27th. The 20th was offered, but that's a day that I can't make. See, all of us have needs...

[bill smith]

I just report the news, I don't make it.

Like I said before, though, Tony has been pretty accommodating (apart from needing to do it on a weekend). I have no sense that he's backing down or going to pull a David Ray Griffin. Mr. Chandler was difficult and I wouldn't be surprised if he's out for good, but Tony is not throwing up roadblocks.

Oh, I should also add, Tony is not whining about special treatment or extra time or presenting any demands like other Truthers in this thread are proposing. It should be pretty straight up.

ETA: Possible taping day is September 27th. The 20th was offered, but that's a day that I can't make. See, all of us have needs...

Has David Chandler expressed any preference regarding the format ?. I can well imagine that he would appreciate the same format that was used in the Richard Gage/ Gravy debate (above). Most of his arguments are best illustrated with his videoclips. Not being able to show one or two might put him at some disadvantage.

[Architect]

Or Tony S rips the ideas of Mackey apart in two minutes and Mackey whines, whirs, whirls and whisks rest of the show?

I think you'll find we're waiting for your (ahem) interpretation of the Ronan Point collapse, mate.

[Dave Rogers]

When somebody is challenged to a duel he gets choice of weapons.

So if Tony Szamboti is trying to challenge the validity of the generally accepted narrative of 9/11...

In this case Tony should get the choice of format.

...is rather the opposite of the expected conclusion.

But perhaps being invited to debate on a TV show isn't quite the same as being challenged to a duel.

Dave

[Hokulele]

Differential equations at 10 paces. Go!

[Dave Rogers]

Curses, misfire! Quick, hand me my second derivative!

Dave

[TruthersLie]

Curses, misfire! Quick, hand me my second derivative!

Dave

I'll show you how integral that second derivative is!!!


and for those of you at home who don't know this
Pie r NOT square. Corn bread r2, pie r round.

[TjW]

Curses, misfire! Quick, hand me my second derivative!

Dave

Ha! Your puny acceleration doesn't work either. You'll have to go on to the third derivative, jerk.

[A W Smith]

Bill cannot grasp that they are BOTH guests.

[bill smith]

And now a word from "Capt. Obvious"...
Try to make sure that they apportion speaking time "by side" (in which case you'd get 50%) and not "by person" (in which case you'd get 33%).

tom

It seems obvious Captain that David Chandler will have to run his videos as most of his arguments are pretty dependent on the visuals therein.
What about starting the show with fullscreen of that video that shows the collapse of WTC1 in a continuous loop with commentary. They could run that and use it to show people what the argument is really about.

[boloboffin]

It seems obvious Captain that David Chandler will have to run his videos as most of his arguments are pretty dependent on the visuals therein.
What about starting the show with fullscreen of that video that shows the collapse of WTC1 in a continuous loop with commentary. They could run that and use it to show people what the argument is really about.

David Chandler already has an outlet for his silly little videos.

[longfellow]

I would rather see the use of videos of the collapses (WTC1 & 2) curtailed as much as possible.

People are dying in those videos and the thought of 'a continuous loop with commentary' turns my stomach. The callousness of the egregious '9/11 truth movement' knows no bounds.

[bill smith]

I would rather see the use of videos of the collapses (WTC1 & 2) curtailed as much as possible.

People are dying in those videos and the thought of 'a continuous loop with commentary' turns my stomach. The callousness of the egregious '9/11 truth movement' knows no bounds.

I think that the reality is that after a billion viewings and eight years, compassion fatigue has set in and is the order of the day as regards the falling buildings.
Images of people jumping is something else altogether but that is not a concern with the video I proposed.

[Hokulele]

I think that the reality is that after a billion viewings and eight years, compassion fatigue has set in and is the order of the day as regards the falling buildings.


Only to those who never had any compassion to begin with.

[Heiwa]

What about starting the show with fullscreen of that video that shows the collapse of WTC1 in a continuous loop with commentary. They could run that and use it to show people what the argument is really about.

Collapse? You mean destruction, of course. Just carry on as usual, though. You're great!

[newton3376]

Any news or updates on when the show will be taped?

[tuc0]

I would rather see the use of videos of the collapses (WTC1 & 2) curtailed as much as possible.

People are dying in those videos and the thought of 'a continuous loop with commentary' turns my stomach. The callousness of the egregious '9/11 truth movement' knows no bounds.

Exactly. This gloating over the images of destruction just for the sake of misinterpreting them is one of the more revolting aspects of the T.R.U.T.H. movement.

Conspiracy porn.

[Dave Rogers]

Collapse? You mean destruction, of course. Just carry on as usual, though. You're great!

Good work, Heiwa. It's important to make sure that the cult members use the correctly approved language, so that they won't start thinking for themselves. Shame on you, bill smith, for departing from the official dogma of your belief system; that sort of thing can lead to independent thinking, and we don't want that in a movement that's searching for truth, do we?

Dave

[bill smith]

Good work, Heiwa. It's important to make sure that the cult members use the correctly approved language, so that they won't start thinking for themselves. Shame on you, bill smith, for departing from the official dogma of your belief system; that sort of thing can lead to independent thinking, and we don't want that in a movement that's searching for truth, do we?

Dave

Speaking for myself Dave, I am not looking for the Truth of 9/11. I know that Truth. I am just trying to put the details together.

[ElMondoHummus]

Good work, Heiwa. It's important to make sure that the cult members use the correctly approved language, so that they won't start thinking for themselves. Shame on you, bill smith, for departing from the official dogma of your belief system; that sort of thing can lead to independent thinking, and we don't want that in a movement that's searching for truth, do we?

Dave

Hehe... remember Star Wars:

Who's the more foolish: The fool, or the fool who follows him?


In this case, it's kind of a toss-up, I'd say. :D

[Dave Rogers]

Speaking for myself Dave, I am not looking for the Truth of 9/11. I know that Truth.

Spoken like a loyal cult member.

Dave

[Justin39640]

Speaking for myself Dave, I am not looking for the Truth of 9/11. I know that Truth. I am just trying to put the details together.

if youre still putting the details together wouldnt that be the same thing as looking for the truth?

[beachnut]

Speaking for myself Dave, I am not looking for the Truth of 9/11. I know that Truth. I am just trying to put the details together. While posting lies?
Why does this sound like another false statement? You post false information as fast as it passes your, it is a lie I need to post it filter. You have failed to get anything right about 911; you have a perfect record of posting delusions.

The Hardfire show will be posted. Will you understand the math and physics, or continue to post lies instead of learning about 911? Will you prefer conspiracy theories to valid science? Can you learn the truth from Hardfire or will you continue posting the lies you support on 911?

[twinstead]

I get the impression that bill knows the truth like a Christian knows God exists.

[HyJinX]

Speaking for myself Dave, I am not looking for the Truth of 9/11. I know that Truth. I am just trying to put the details together.

But there are no details that support your "truth"... so all you have is empty faith-based delusions built on a foundation of lies, assumptions and a cornucopia of ridiculous crappola.

[R.Mackey]

Looks like we're on for 27 September. Also looks like David may be rejoining us after all, but he hasn't committed for sure in the e-mail I've seen. ETA: David is dropping out.

With any luck, the shows should be out a week or so after the debate. Updates as they arrive.

[LashL]

Looks like we're on for 27 September.


Excellent. Looking forward to it.

Also looks like David may be rejoining us after all, but he hasn't committed for sure in the e-mail I've seen. ETA: David is dropping out.


That does not surprise me in the least. He seems wholly incapable of defending his nonsensical recent video even in a discussion forum where he has lots of time to think about and formulate his responses to legitimate criticism, so I imagine that a live debate in which he would be called on said nonsense would be entirely beyond his abilities.

With any luck, the shows should be out a week or so after the debate. Updates as they arrive.


Ta.

[TruthersLie]

Hey Ryan.

Please make sure to reference the french collapse videos using hydraulics which show the gravity driven collapses.

Pretty please.... I'd love to see tony squirm. Can you take a copy of the video to the debate and have hardfire play them?

oh for TONY where is the missing JOLT from them? Is there one?

[knife fight colobus]

Looks like we're on for 27 September. Also looks like David may be rejoining us after all, but he hasn't committed for sure in the e-mail I've seen. ETA: David is dropping out.

With any luck, the shows should be out a week or so after the debate. Updates as they arrive.

Ahh! So far away, I cannot wait.

Have you done other live debates before Ryan? I saw the Hardfireseses you did at the end of last year and they were great. I was just wondering if there is other videos or audio of you debating some other Truther or something like that.

[Bad_Doggie]

Hey Ryan.

Please make sure to reference the french collapse videos using hydraulics which show the gravity driven collapses.

Pretty please.... I'd love to see tony squirm. Can you take a copy of the video to the debate and have hardfire play them?

oh for TONY where is the missing JOLT from them? Is there one?

You gotta link to the video you are referencing; I'd like to see it.

I think you may-be talking about Balzac which is also a compelling video. But, I thought that was done with explosives.


Woof!

[TruthersLie]

Instead explosives, they use hydraulic jacks that push the walls and columns of a single floor.

It's a demolition technique very common in France, called vèrinage.

Some examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woUXqe6Gsqo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04X4fGOh7WA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IU7eUny_5U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJLm5-be4LM


These two I found
this one shows you HOW the hydraulics work
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3vaow_destruction-du-batiment-andes-a-st_news

This is the balzac collapse, but it is in much better detail, with some GREAT slow motion and you can SEE the debris pile after the collapse.
http://www.strimoo.com/video/12509995/Mort-d-un-batiment-MySpaceVideos.html

This completely DESTROYS the no crushdown. The 3 and 5th of the youtube videos have a SMALLER part A crushing down a LARGER part C.

ETA: I can't forget

http://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/xrx9m_notche55_verinage/video/x8i32e_demolition-dimmeuble-a-vandoeuvrele_news

[Heiwa]

Hey Ryan.

Please make sure to reference the french collapse videos using hydraulics which show the gravity driven collapses.

Pretty please.... I'd love to see tony squirm. Can you take a copy of the video to the debate and have hardfire play them?

oh for TONY where is the missing JOLT from them? Is there one?

Pls remember how Bazant defines a gravity-driven progressive collapse of a tower in his latest paper:

"The gravity-driven progressive collapse of a tower consists of two phases—the crush-down, followed by crush-up (Fig. 2 bottom), each of which is governed by a different differential equation (Bazant and Verdure 2007, pp. 312-313). During the crush-down, the falling upper part of tower (C in Fig. 2 bottom), having a compacted layer of debris at its bottom (zone B), is crushing the lower part (zone A) with negligible damage to itself. During the crush-up, the moving upper part C of tower is being crushed at bottom by the compacted debris B resting on the ground."

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTCxx.jpg
...

"When the upper floor (of zone C) crashes into the lower one (zone A), with a layer of rubble between them (zone C), the initial height h of the story (zone A below) is reduced to lambda h, with lambda denoting the compaction ratio (in finite-strain theory, lambda is called the stretch). After that, the load can increase without bounds."

...
"Since the initial crush-up phase terminates at very small axial deformation, it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of one-way crushing is perfectly justified and causes only an imperceptible difference in results".

Now - this is the THEORY of NWO. If it works in THE REAL WORLD is another matter. Maybe Mackey can produce a new, real structure in the Hardfire show that shows us a gravity driven collapse of a tower?

[Justin39640]

<snip>

Now - this is the THEORY of NWO. If it works in THE REAL WORLD is another matter. Maybe Mackey can produce a new, real structure in the Hardfire show that shows us a gravity driven collapse of a tower?

fJLm5-be4LM

[twinstead]

Wow Heiwa. There are examples everywhere that are totally contradictory to everything you have been saying since you joined this forum. What's up with that?

[TruthersLie]

Pls remember how Bazant defines a gravity-driven progressive collapse of a tower in his latest paper:

"The gravity-driven progressive collapse of a tower consists of two phases—the crush-down, followed by crush-up (Fig. 2 bottom), each of which is governed by a different differential equation (Bazant and Verdure 2007, pp. 312-313). During the crush-down, the falling upper part of tower (C in Fig. 2 bottom), having a compacted layer of debris at its bottom (zone B), is crushing the lower part (zone A) with negligible damage to itself. During the crush-up, the moving upper part C of tower is being crushed at bottom by the compacted debris B resting on the ground."

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTCxx.jpg
...

"When the upper floor (of zone C) crashes into the lower one (zone A), with a layer of rubble between them (zone C), the initial height h of the story (zone A below) is reduced to lambda h, with lambda denoting the compaction ratio (in finite-strain theory, lambda is called the stretch). After that, the load can increase without bounds."

...
"Since the initial crush-up phase terminates at very small axial deformation, it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of one-way crushing is perfectly justified and causes only an imperceptible difference in results".

Now - this is the THEORY of NWO. If it works in THE REAL WORLD is another matter. Maybe Mackey can produce a new, real structure in the Hardfire show that shows us a gravity driven collapse of a tower?

YOu obviously haven't watched ANY of the 6 hydraulic french collapses. The balzac video that I posted DIRECTLY to you, show how the crush down, crush up actually happened. The slow motion shows that you are full of crap. The after shots show that you are full of crap...

Do some BASIC research twoof. To think you graduated from an "engineering" program somewhere with those skills... tsk tsk tsk.

[TruthersLie]

<snip>
Now - this is the THEORY of NWO. If it works in THE REAL WORLD is another matter. Maybe Mackey can produce a new, real structure in the Hardfire show that shows us a gravity driven collapse of a tower?

I guess the french never got that message.

Hey Anders, why don't you call the Ferrari demolitions and ask them to explain it to you.

maybe they can use SMALL words and explain it simply.

[R.Mackey]

There are at least four other threads where exactly this same information is being argued with (viz. ignored by) Heiwa. Not this one.

I have him on Ignore, and all of you should too. Just because he can't read Rule 11 of his membership agreement doesn't mean you have to pile on. I'm getting awful tired of saying this.

[Heiwa]

There are at least four other threads where exactly this same information is being argued with (viz. ignored by) Heiwa. Not this one.

I have him on Ignore, and all of you should too. Just because he can't read Rule 11 of his membership agreement doesn't mean you have to pile on. I'm getting awful tired of saying this.

I am just offering on-topic advice for your upcoming Hardfire showing. You know, a real, new structure that performs a gravity-driven progressive collapse in front of Tony S would really give your ideas some support and you might even win the debate. People like visible action in TV shows. Why not build a tower of Hardfire mugs and drop a mug on it? I would love to see all these mugs disintegrate.

[alienentity]

Heiwa, I think the verdict is in regarding your idea: it fails.

Your protestations will not help you if your idea is wrong. In fact it serves to make you a laughingstock, an irrelevancy to any serious discussion.

These two additional videos from Carlos are the final nail in the coffin for you. There is no question about it.

But more important, it falsifies the truther hypothesis (Tony Szamboti, Steven Jones, take your pick) that a moving block of upper floors cannot collapse a building down to the foundations. Q.E.D.

04X4fGOh7WA

fJLm5-be4LM

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, I think the verdict is in regarding your idea: it fails.

Your protestations will not help you if your idea is wrong. In fact it serves to make you a laughingstock, an irrelevancy to any serious discussion.

These two additional videos from Carlos are the final nail in the coffin for you. There is no question about it.

But more important, it falsifies the truther hypothesis (Tony Szamboti, Steven Jones, take your pick) that a moving block of upper floors cannot collapse a building down to the foundations. Q.E.D.

04X4fGOh7WA

fJLm5-be4LM

You are off topic - see Rule 11. This is the Hardfire thread. But you are wrong anyway.

[alienentity]

No Heiwa, it's not off-topic. Again you are incorrect. I referenced Tony Szamboti, who is taking part in the Hardfire debate.

The videos are specifically germane to Tony's concepts. I wonder if Tony would like to calculate the 'jolts' of those collapses also? It would certainly be interesting.

[bill smith]

I am just offering on-topic advice for your upcoming Hardfire showing. You know, a real, new structure that performs a gravity-driven progressive collapse in front of Tony S would really give your ideas some support and you might even win the debate. People like visible action in TV shows. Why not build a tower of Hardfire mugs and drop a mug on it? I would love to see all these mugs disintegrate.

I was thinking something similar. I imgine that it would be okay if Tony had a cheap but realistic cardboard model of WTC1 made in which he could lift up he top 10 or 15%. It could be an effective visual.

A bit like what Richard Gage did but somewhat less clumsily carried out (sorry Richard) Done carefully it would reinforce the idea that the top 15% of an item does not crush the other and sronger 85% of the same item down level with the floor.-ever.. Everybody already knows that in their bones.

Rightfuly so- because it has never ever happened in the recorded history of this Planet .

Above all the model should not wobble so a nice steady base would be a plus.. If anybody wants to actually drop the top piece Ryan should be given that honour.

[Edx]

A bit like what Richard Gage did but somewhat less clumsily (sorry Richard) Done carefully it would reinforce the idea that the top 15% of an item does not crush the other and sronger 85% of the same item down level with the floor.-ever.. Everybody already knows that in their bones.

Rightfuly so- because it has never ever happened in the recorded history of this Planet ..

So what is happening here Bill?

http://tinyurl.com/n3mfjp

[bill smith]

So what is happening here Bill?

http://tinyurl.com/n3mfjp

Yes, that was an effective demolition too.

[WildCat]

Why not build a tower of Hardfire mugs and drop a mug on it? I would love to see all these mugs disintegrate.

I imgine that it would be okay if Tony had a cheap but realistic cardboard model of WTC1 made in which he could lift up he top 10 or 15%.
OMFG, these are the funniest posts ever! Right after 7 videos showing gravity-driven collapses and crush-downs in real, actual structures Heiwa and Billy boy demand examples made of coffee mugs and cardboard!

:dl:

[Edx]

Yes, that was an effective demolition too.

You said:

"top 15% of an item does not crush the other and sronger 85% of the same item down level with the floor.-ever."

Yet that is exactly what is happening in that video.

Please explain.

(note that this demolition uses no explosives and RELIES on the top section crushing the bottom section)

[chillzero]

There are at least four other threads where exactly this same information is being argued with (viz. ignored by) Heiwa. Not this one.

I have him on Ignore, and all of you should too. Just because he can't read Rule 11 of his membership agreement doesn't mean you have to pile on. I'm getting awful tired of saying this.

Agreed (finally).
I subscribe to this thread to get news of the Hardfire episode, not to have to trawl through more of this nonsense.

Can we please keep this thread for its designed topic - information about when Hardfire will be filmed and presented for viewing?

[alienentity]

Let's take the discussion to an appropriate thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=152216)

[bill smith]

You said:

"top 15% of an item does not crush the other and sronger 85% of the same item down level with the floor.-ever."

Yet that is exactly what is happening in that video.

Please explain.

(note that this demolition uses no explosives and RELIES on the top section crushing the bottom section)

Yes that is one of the almost exclusively French systems of demolition.I can't remember he name right now.

It is a controlled demolition as the title says so you can be sure that the lower portion has been specially prepared to produce this result. Otherwise it would have fallen down long before this n'est pas ?

WTC1 was specially prepared too but in a different,uniquely American way.

[bill smith]

Agreed (finally).
I subscribe to this thread to get news of the Hardfire episode, not to have to trawl through more of this nonsense.

Can we please keep this thread for its designed topic - information about when Hardfire will be filmed and presented for viewing?

Okay...I agree.

[alienentity]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5054439#post5054439

[chillzero]

Thank you.
:)

[TruthersLie]

Chillzero and others.

I apologize for having this thread devolve from my request for Ryan to mention these gravity driven collapses.

I was asked to provide the specific videos, and I did. From there, I apologize that I violated rule 11.

[chillzero]

Easy done, easily remedied.
:)

So ... to recap on topic ... the taping is scheduled for 27th September.
Anyone know how long until we'd see it then?

[alienentity]

New thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=152382

[bill smith]

Easy done, easily remedied.
:)

So ... to recap on topic ... the taping is scheduled for 27th September.
Anyone know how long until we'd see it then?

RM reckoned it might be out in as little as a week.

[alienentity]

Here's what Ronald Wieck wrote to me today regarding Mr. Chandler pulling out (again) from the Hardfire debate. I think Ron makes some very good points - why is David Chandler avoiding debate?


...
Tired Routine
Well, Chandler has made it official: he's ducking the debate. You may use our exchanges for any purpose you deem appropriate.

Ron

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:03 PM, gary popkin <> wrote:

I have reserved the studio for Sunday afternoon, September 27, from 1PM to 4 Eastern Time. I will need Tony and Ron in their seats in the studio at 1:15.

David or Ryan will have to be designated as the "caller." The caller will have to call two telephone numbers. Ryan says that three-way calling is a pretty routine part of phone service these days. Around 1:30 I will call the designated caller and tell him to proceed to make the three-way call. Please use your best phone for this purpose.

We can then spend a few minutes adjusting volumes and so on, and testing whether all four participants can hear one another. When we are ready to begin taping, I will have Ron tell Ryan and David to start rolling their camcorders or web cams. If for any reason David can't accommodate to this procedure, we will go ahead without him.

I will need, in advance in electronic form, any visuals that you want to include in the program. You should also trade visuals in advance so everyone knows what we are looking at.

Gary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Chandler [mailto:d
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:51 PM
To: gary popkin
Cc: Ryan Mackey; Ronald Wieck; Tony Szamboti
Subject: Re: BAck onn Track



Hi All,
I talked it over with Tony and I am going to stay out of the debate. I signed onto this thing as something that was going to happen during the summer. I don't have the time to put in on it during the school year. Tony will do a fine job. Have a good one.
--David Chandler


On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Ronald Wieck <> wrote:

If I may inject a note of cynicism into these proceedings, you are saying that you can't find the time to break the biggest story in the history of journalism, one that will win you fame and fortune. You are attempting to overturn basic principles of physics, refute the professional opinions of every demolition expert in the world, establish the existence of heretofore unknown substances of extraordinary, indeed magical, powers—yet all of this takes second place to marking homework papers.



When your bizarre movement stops ducking real scientists and engineers, an honest debate will be possible.



Ron

...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Chandler [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 3:53 PM
To: Ronald Wieck
Subject: Re: Back on Track



You're out of line.
--David Chandler




(Ron Wieck wrote to David Chandler)

Yes, you now want a vigorous e-mail debate about your predictable behavior—of course you do. You will hurl abuse and feign anger, but you wont do your act for more than a handful of people. Will you defend your outlandish claims, the ones that have been thoroughly demolished on the JREF, in front of a television audience (an admittedly tiny one)? After your dismal performance on that forum, absolutely no one dreamed you would show up.



David Ray Grifter made us jump through hoops to arrange a format he would accept. When we finally surmounted all the hurdles, the publication of Mackey's devastating white paper sent him running for the hills. The fraud attempted feebly to distract from his contemptible, craven behavior by calling me dishonest.



Look, I understand—everyone understands-- that you dont care to try defending indefensible rubbish against a NASA engineer. Your realization, however, that the nonsense you promote has been exposed wont stop you from, well, promoting it. This incident encapsulates almost eight years of shenanigans by the grotesquely misnamed truth movement. There is even a name for the tactic of braying loud challenges to government agencies that aren't listening while avoiding all confrontations with real scientists and engineers: the Twoofer Two-step-and-Slide. Its buffoonish clumsiness still gets laughs from rationalists, but the novelty has worn off through excessive use.



Ron

[Edx]

Yes that is one of the almost exclusively French systems of demolition.I can't remember he name right now.

It is a controlled demolition as the title says so you can be sure that the lower portion has been specially prepared to produce this result. Otherwise it would have fallen down long before this n'est pas ?

WTC1 was specially prepared too but in a different,uniquely American way.

You're avoiding the point that what you see happen in that video you claim is impossible.

[Newtons Bit]

You're avoiding the point that what you see happen in that video you claim is impossible.

Truthers see a plane crashing into the WTC, "it didn't happen!" they claim. There's no evidence of explosives, no sight nor sound in the collapses, "it must be explosives" they say. When confronted with other collapses that have the same progession, "no way" they insist, "you must desist because my coffee mugs won't budge!"

[newton3376]

Looks like we're on for 27 September. Also looks like David may be rejoining us after all, but he hasn't committed for sure in the e-mail I've seen. ETA: David is dropping out.

With any luck, the shows should be out a week or so after the debate. Updates as they arrive.



Excellent.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Ron:
David Ray Grifter made us jump through hoops to arrange a format he would accept. When we finally surmounted all the hurdles, the publication of Mackey's devastating white paper sent him running for the hills. The fraud attempted feebly to distract from his contemptible, craven behavior by calling me dishonest.
:dl: Same old pomeroo.

[LashL]

Same old pomeroo.


Gotta' love him. :)

[triforcharity]

I am just offering on-topic advice for your upcoming Hardfire showing. You know, a real, new structure that performs a gravity-driven progressive collapse in front of Tony S would really give your ideas some support and you might even win the debate. People like visible action in TV shows. Why not build a tower of Hardfire mugs and drop a mug on it? I would love to see all these mugs disintegrate.

Lets see, so far, in the few months I have been on JREF, Heiwa has compared the WTC collapse to the following things:
Lemons
Pizza Boxes
Spagetti

And now, Coffee cups!! This is great!! When are you going to move OUT of the kitchen though?? Like maybe use pillows next time....




Anyway, thanks for keeping us updated on the Hardfire show. I will be certain to watch it.

BTW, are you the NASA engineer?? If you are, do you work nor NSA or NASA itself??

[knife fight colobus]

Lets see, so far, in the few months I have been on JREF, Heiwa has compared the WTC collapse to the following things:
Lemons
Pizza Boxes
Spagetti

And now, Coffee cups!! This is great!! When are you going to move OUT of the kitchen though?? Like maybe use pillows next time....

NASA itself??

Dude, they aren't just coffee cups.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2598/3866066073_6c6fe5786b_o.jpg

You could crash 100 planes into it and it will still stay standing.;)

[alienentity]

Dude, they aren't just coffee cups.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2598/3866066073_6c6fe5786b_o.jpg

You could crash 100 planes into it and it will still stay standing.;)

Not if they're filled with nanowater:cool:

[TruthersLie]

Dude, they aren't just coffee cups.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2598/3866066073_6c6fe5786b_o.jpg

You could crash 100 planes into it and it will still stay standing.;)

They should have built the towers from those!!!

[Sam.I.Am]

They should have built the towers from those!!!

I'm thinking that maybe they should've built them out of Twinkies.

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/1999/78909011618231.jpg

That stuff can apparently survive anything according to the documentary I saw that was narrated by Peter Griffin...

[bill smith]

Not if they're filled with nanowater:cool:

Alienentity
Can you explain more clearly what Ron Wieck meant by the following ? I am having some difficulty understanding it.

'' I have reserved the studio for Sunday afternoon, September 27, from 1PM to 4 Eastern Time. I will need Tony and Ron in their seats in the studio at 1:15.''

'' David or Ryan will have to be designated as the "caller." The caller will have to call two telephone numbers. Ryan says that three-way calling is a pretty routine part of phone service these days. Around 1:30 I will call the designated caller and tell him to proceed to make the three-way call. Please use your best phone for this purpose.''

[boloboffin]

Either David or Ryan would have called the other and then called the studio on the same line, using the three-way call setup. That way, both of them could hear each other and the set. Tony and Ron would be on set.

[bill smith]

Either David or Ryan would have called the other and then called the studio on the same line, using the three-way call setup. That way, both of them could hear each other and the set. Tony and Ron would be on set.

So Tony and RM will be in the studio and DC will participate by phone ?

[Klimax]

So Tony and RM will be in the studio and DC will participate by phone ?

RM will be on phone.

[TruthersLie]

RM will be on the phone and DC decided that he is tooooo busy during the school year to present his evidence in the mass murder of 3000 american civilians by the US government.

Hey, having to teach on monday morning is more important than showing the world that something is wrong with the common narrative

[Edx]

Wow, Chandler cant take out an hour or two out of his busy schedule.

LOL.

He might as well say he is scared.

[TjW]

Wow, Chandler cant take out an hour or two out of his busy schedule.

LOL.

He might as well say he is scared.

He shouldn't be scared -- what exactly, can Ryan Mackey do to him over the phone?
No, it's worse than that. He's not serious. Some people like pretending they live in renaissance times. Some people, apparently, like pretending they're intrepid investigators, uncovering nefarious deeds by an evil government. This is just a hobby, and he correctly wants to limit its impact on his real life.

[boloboffin]

Both DC and RM would have been on the phone. One would have called the other and then called the studio. This is how three-way calling works.

[alienentity]

Alienentity
Can you explain more clearly what Ron Wieck meant by the following ? I am having some difficulty understanding it.

'' I have reserved the studio for Sunday afternoon, September 27, from 1PM to 4 Eastern Time. I will need Tony and Ron in their seats in the studio at 1:15.''

'' David or Ryan will have to be designated as the "caller." The caller will have to call two telephone numbers. Ryan says that three-way calling is a pretty routine part of phone service these days. Around 1:30 I will call the designated caller and tell him to proceed to make the three-way call. Please use your best phone for this purpose.''

First email is actually from gary popkin (producer), RM and DC to be on phone.

[alienentity]

Wow, Chandler cant take out an hour or two out of his busy schedule.

LOL.

He might as well say he is scared.

So does that mean he's not going to show up on any more truther podcasts or the like? Or is it just the debate he has no time for?

Guess we'll find out....

[Edx]

So does that mean he's not going to show up on any more truther podcasts or the like? Or is it just the debate he has no time for?

Guess we'll find out....

Good point. I wonder how long it takes him to make his videos as well.

[Edx]

He shouldn't be scared -- what exactly, can Ryan Mackey do to him over the phone?
No, it's worse than that. He's not serious. Some people like pretending they live in renaissance times. Some people, apparently, like pretending they're intrepid investigators, uncovering nefarious deeds by an evil government. This is just a hobby, and he correctly wants to limit its impact on his real life.

Scared of being embarrassed on air I mean :)

[bill smith]

So does that mean he's not going to show up on any more truther podcasts or the like? Or is it just the debate he has no time for?

Guess we'll find out....

Unlike debunkers who are all hardwired to the same immutable government story Truthers came to their onclusions by their own seperate roads and following the evidence in their own seperate ways.

For that reason their hypotheses may differ slightly from point to point. There is some risk that they might not be entirely on the same page on some detail which would not work well on Television and could be exploited in a negative way.

Maybe it is better for the Movement for Truth that DC has decided to sacrifice this opportunity to expose the Truth by standing down on this particular debate and leaving the field open for Tony.

There will be other opportunties for David Chandler.

[Edx]

You said:

"top 15% of an item does not crush the other and sronger 85% of the same item down level with the floor.-ever."

Yet that is exactly what is happening in that video.

Please explain.

(note that this demolition uses no explosives and RELIES on the top section crushing the bottom section)


Come on Bill, you say what happens in that video is impossible.

Explain.

[Justin39640]

Unlike debunkers who are...

There will be other opportunties for David Chandler.

um theres a problem if your conclusions dont match what the majority of EXPERTS found to agree upon

like it was said before
how in the world can you miss an opportunity to uncover mass murder like DC thinks he has
i feel bad for the kids he teaches
what a fine example
"if you really believe in something, put out whatever crap you want all over the internet and allow no discussion when you can control it and when it comes time to back it up, slither out of it"

I'm thinking that maybe they should've built them out of Twinkies.

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/1999/78909011618231.jpg

That stuff can apparently survive anything according to the documentary I saw that was narrated by Peter Griffin...

is that a traditional birthday cake from the tribal region of Pakistan?

[bill smith]

Here's an interview with DRG about the techniques used in the National Geographic hit piece from a day or two ago. It might pay Tony and David to have a listen.
http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Jack-Blood-32k-090109.mp3

[scott.in.taiwan]

This is Jack Blood. If I wasn't convinced before, I sure am now. This is really the most amazing and original evidence I've ever heard about 911. Absolutely original. But he forgot the part about no Jews dieing on 911 and how it was the Israeli Secret Service.

What are you going to do in 5 or 10 years when it's only you and a couple of psychiatric patients at your 911 Truth rallies? Have a good life.

[TjW]

In five or ten years I expect the psychiatric patients will have moved on.

[knife fight colobus]

Bump

I thought that this was being taped sooner so that's why I came a-looking for this thread but it isn't being taped until the 27th :(

Still, bump!

[R.Mackey]

No change to the schedule.

Although it's getting a little strange. Tony is apparently planning to use videos, but he won't say which ones until Friday night, while we're taping on Sunday morning. I'm not sure what he's trying to do, but it makes little sense, given that we've been idling for months...

[knife fight colobus]

No change to the schedule.

Although it's getting a little strange. Tony is apparently planning to use videos, but he won't say which ones until Friday night, while we're taping on Sunday morning. I'm not sure what he's trying to do, but it makes little sense, given that we've been idling for months...

Any news about Charlie Sheen possibly stepping in to take Chandler's spot?

[bill smith]

No change to the schedule.

Although it's getting a little strange. Tony is apparently planning to use videos, but he won't say which ones until Friday night, while we're taping on Sunday morning. I'm not sure what he's trying to do, but it makes little sense, given that we've been idling for months...

Will you report which videos here on friday night/saturday morning so we can also speculate on where he is going with this ?

[Brainster]

No change to the schedule.

Although it's getting a little strange. Tony is apparently planning to use videos, but he won't say which ones until Friday night, while we're taping on Sunday morning. I'm not sure what he's trying to do, but it makes little sense, given that we've been idling for months...

Think about it from their standpoint; they've got no case so they must look to exploit every edge they can get. It's a small edge indeed assuming they will be very specific about the start and stop times of the videos they want to present; if they can say "We're using 5 minutes of clips from 9-11 Eyewitness and the Naudet brothers and various media sources," it'll be a nuisance at best.

Because in the end this is the technical debate.

Knock 'em dead, Ryan!

[bill smith]

Here's a mental exercise. Imagine only the four corners of WTC7 standing alone with no structure between. Then suddenly they all fall down together like mirror images of each other. This is completely impossibe you say ? Can't possibly happen.

Okay then. Now mentally add some structure between the four corners that will cause all four corners to fall down simultaneously like mirror images of each other.

Tough, ain't it ?

Anyway, If a person had a good video of the collapse of WTC7 they could overlay a thick red line along any visible roofline and call it say a ' brush handle '. Then they show the collapse and demonstrate that the bush handle does not roll off or tilt showing that he corners collapsed simltaneously.

Then they could ask the viewers how the collapsing steel inside all collapsed at the same time. All 40,0000 tons of it.

[tsig]

Here's a mental exercise. Imagine only the four corners of WTC7 standing alone with no structure between. Then suddenly they all fall down together like mirror images of each other. This is completely impossibe you say ? Can't possibly happen.

Okay then. Now mentally add some structure between the four corners that will cause all four corners to fall down simultaneously like mirror images of each other.

Tough, ain't it ?

Anyway, If a person had a good video of the collapse of WTC7 they could overlay a thick red line along any visible roofline and call it say a ' brush handle '. Then they show the collapse and demonstrate that the bush handle does not roll off or tilt showing that he corners collapsed simltaneously.

Then they could ask the viewers how the collapsing steel inside all collapsed at the same time. All 40,0000 tons of it.

You seem to be reduced to incoherence.

[Newtons Bit]

Here's a mental exercise. Imagine only the four corners of WTC7 standing alone with no structure between. Then suddenly they all fall down together like mirror images of each other. This is completely impossibe you say ? Can't possibly happen.

The four corners of the building can't stand with no structure between.

[Heiwa]

The four corners of the building can't stand with no structure between.

But the four legs in the corners of a table stand with no structure between! Now, try to crush them!

[triforcharity]

They have a table top in between them.

Edited for civility

Keep the tone civil, please.

[triforcharity]

They have a table top in between them.

Edited for civility

Keep the tone civil, please.


Sorry Ma'am.

[GlennB]

But the four legs in the corners of a table stand with no structure between! Now, try to crush them!

In which case it isn't a table.
So you're wrong.

[triforcharity]

Didn't someone post a video of some English guys (???) dropping bags of water from a height and crushing things like concrete, tables, a CAR, etc??

Who was that?? GREAT video!!

[GlennB]

Didn't someone post a video of some English guys (???) dropping bags of water from a height and crushing things like concrete, tables, a CAR, etc??

Who was that?? GREAT video!!

Sounds like the TV program Brainiac. They did that kind of stuff. Destroying things in the name of 'science', great prog :)

[TruthersLie]

Didn't someone post a video of some English guys (???) dropping bags of water from a height and crushing things like concrete, tables, a CAR, etc??

Who was that?? GREAT video!!

Tri.

The videos are from the british "science" show Brainiac... look them up on youtube. Lots of thermite, lots of things being smashed and blown up... It is designed to show school kids that science is fun.

[GlennB]

Tri.

The videos are from the british "science" show Brainiac... look them up on youtube. Lots of thermite, lots of things being smashed and blown up...

Lots of pneumatic babes ...

[triforcharity]

That is the one, thank you. I knew they had some funny accent.

[Justin39640]

That is the one, thank you. I knew they had some funny accent.

says the guy from Boston
DOH!
heheheh

[triforcharity]

Hey, ya'll heard me on the radio, it wasn't there. If I was really drunk, or mad, then it come RIGHT BACK TO ME!!! Or, if I go home.

[alienentity]

Before I forget, just wanted to wish Mackey all the best in todays's Hardfire debate with Tony Szamboti.

I also want to wish David Chandler all the best marking papers, or whatever it is that prevents him from facing his challengers in public.:D

[R.Mackey]

Well, debate's over. Went pretty much as expected. Tony still denies that the upper block tilted before it descended, and that appears to be his Irreducible Delusion.

My computer hiccoughed and I lost the entire second of three shows. My fault. I'm not sure how much Gary will have to work with, but maybe he can pull something off. The first and third should be fine. Sorry for the problems.

We both prepared some slides -- Tony had brought many slides -- but we only went through a few of them. I'm going to send mine to the usual suspects to see if they'd like to host them for your later perusal.

[Childlike Empress]

*yawn* Craig Ranke is still waiting for your reply (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=354).

This post is to give Ryan Mackey the opportunity to do what honest scientists do when they are proven incorrect.....and that is to admit their error.

[R.Mackey]

Yawn is right.

[jhunter1163]

CIT is likely to keep waiting.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3966936#post3966936

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, debate's over. Went pretty much as expected. Tony still denies that the upper block tilted before it descended...

:confused: In spite of all the pictures and video of it doing exactly that?? How??

[R.Mackey]

I don't know, but you'll get to see it in a couple of weeks for yourself. I was really hoping for a more interesting discussion. I warned him to bring his A-game, and he didn't do it...

[ElMondoHummus]

I don't know, but you'll get to see it in a couple of weeks for yourself. I was really hoping for a more interesting discussion. I warned him to bring his A-game, and he didn't do it...

The only thing he could claim is an optical illusion or some sort of perception error. And both would be a severe stretch.

I'm just mystified.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I don't know, but you'll get to see it in a couple of weeks for yourself. I was really hoping for a more interesting discussion. I warned him to bring his A-game, and he didn't do it...

Can you tell us his talking points? Were they Chandler-type 8 floors taken out at once=controlled demolition? Were they Jones & Co.'s nano-thermite/paint chips?

[R.Mackey]

It was basically a rehash of his "Missing Jolt" paper, really nothing new at all. All of the arguments against it by myself, Dave Rogers, Dr. Greening, Gregory Urich, remain in full force.

I was attempting to add further clarification with my own slides describing, in more detail, how I believe the collapse initiation really happened beyond the point NIST drops it, but we really didn't get that far. But I'll make the slides available.

[beachnut]

*yawn* Craig Ranke is still waiting for your reply (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=354). Ranke defends Balsamo's 11.2 g failed physics and you defend Ranke's failed delusion about Mackey. Why make a post that implies you can't do math or physics to save Ranke's failed ideas?

The debate with realcddeal and Mackey will be interesting. I look forward to seeing examples of the delusional work Tony did and how Mackey responded to the moronic delusions Tony presented.

[Toke]

I thought tilting were used as one of the main arguments for CD.
It appears to stop moving sideways when dropping, and that is clearly because being blown to dust negates any momentum. (or something like that)

[DGM]

I thought tilting were used as one of the main arguments for CD.
It appears to stop moving sideways when dropping, and that is clearly because being blown to dust negates any momentum. (or something like that)
Tilting would obscure the "jolt" that Tony said he can't detect (in his paper). I think.

[knife fight colobus]

Yeah CE I'm not seeing the appeal to authority either...

Could you elaborate?

[RedIbis]

Mackey,
Was the NIST collapse theory for WTC7 covered, or was this debate devoted to the towers?

[BasqueArch]

=
R.Mackey;5146789]Well, debate's over. Went pretty much as expected. Tony still denies that the upper block tilted before it descended, and that appears to be his Irreducible Delusion.

ElMondoHummus In spite of all the pictures and video of it doing exactly that?? How??

DGM
Tilting would obscure the "jolt" that Tony said he can't detect (in his paper). I think.

The tilting proves the upper block columns did not fall directly onto the columns below, they smashed the puny 2.5" (at the metal pan ribs) to 4" thick concrete floor slab below, therefore "no jolt". Hoisted by his own petard, "no jolt" Szamboti unintentionally proves gravity collapse, not CD of the towers.

You can't argue with facts. Instead of admitting this, he denies the nose in his face and claims the recorded visual facts are lying. To Szamboti, what he wants to believe is more important than facts.

__________________________________________________ _____________
You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into.

[scissorhands]

Tis funny, as Szamboti forgot that many truthers like to claim the tilting of the upper block would somehow be unstoppable and result in it falling sideways off the lower block in a cartoon like manner. :rolleyes:
If only these numptys could at least be consistent.

[bill smith]

That's a good parody -- you sound almost like one of those nuts. :D

If they ever find a way to explain away the radar evidence, let me know.

FtD4mn9CeH4

This is a police standard of investigation. I just watched it again. Don't worry your head about the radar- worry about the rest. Jeez you really are so hopelesly transparent. I bet you hope this never comes on top.

[R.Mackey]

I'm derailing my own thread with this post, which is dumb of me, but I just happened to be alerted to this little coincidence over at Screw Loose Change. Frank Legge at the Journal of 9/11 Studies has some thoughts on the Pentagon, responsive to that little needling attack about Craig Ranke and his truly insane delusions:

On the website of Pilots for 9/11 Truth we read: “Physically and aerodynamically, Arlington's unique topography and obstacles along American 77 "final leg" to the pentagon make this approach completely impossible as we will demonstrate”.
Transcribed from their G Force video we read: “As we can see, G loads required to pull out of a dive from the top of the VDOT antenna are impossible for a 757”. Given that it is clearly possible to find a flight path that does not stress the aircraft, with an entry angle which would not stress the pilot, one wonders how it comes about that Pilots for 9/11 Truth have produced such a contrary finding. The answer is readily found. Firstly, there are gross errors in their calculation of g-force, as already pointed out. Secondly, they assume that the pilot would be stupid enough to maintain a constant descent angle from the top of the antenna all the way to the impact point on the first pole before pulling up. [...]

Why Pilots for 9/11 Truth restrict calculations to the improbable straight line approach path from the antenna to the poles is unclear. It does not come from the FDR, which certainly does not show this uniform approach slope. Could it be that this group has an agenda to prove that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon, rather than a scientific determination to find the truth, come what may? Given the assertion of these pilots that they do not have a position on whether a 757 hit the Pentagon, their simultaneous assertion that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon is contradictory. They are adopting a position that will require them to accept that the plane flew over the Pentagon, and that the complex damage pattern to the poles and the interior of the Pentagon, which fit well enough with the 757 theory, was created by other means. This would appear to be an uncomfortable position for a team which has done much work to obtain and analyze the FDR data, enabling us to see its flaws.

Members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth have had over a year to address these concerns, but so far have shown themselves to be unwilling to do so. Whether this represents the position of the majority of members, or just of the executive, is not clear.

He also cites my own calculations on the subject, including this:
It could be that this work was ignored by the truth movement because Mackey is known to support the official story of 9/11. This does not, however, prove his calculations are wrong.
Source (http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf)

Understatement of the year, but maybe, micron by micron, some of these people are starting to get it.

I don't have to pay attention to them. Even other Truthers don't buy their crap. Their work is stupendously horrible. Please don't bring it up in my threads ever again.

[beachnut]

Ironic Frank's 911 work is delusional like Balsamo's/p4t/CIT. How is he able to turn on his rational mind for critiquing the Balsamo failure, but can't figure out the rest of 911? Frank believes the WTC can't fall in a gravity collapse or some nonsense. He can see Balsamo is delusional but fails to apply the same logic to his work.

[bill smith]

There is just no way around the unanimity of the witness statements in the CIT video let alone the piles of other evidence. If things were normal the perps would now be under arrest and awaiting trial.

[alienentity]

Well, debate's over. Went pretty much as expected. Tony still denies that the upper block tilted before it descended, and that appears to be his Irreducible Delusion.

My computer hiccoughed and I lost the entire second of three shows. My fault. I'm not sure how much Gary will have to work with, but maybe he can pull something off. The first and third should be fine. Sorry for the problems.

We both prepared some slides -- Tony had brought many slides -- but we only went through a few of them. I'm going to send mine to the usual suspects to see if they'd like to host them for your later perusal.

I'll look forward to seeing the shows. I really don't understand why Szamboti is denying the upper block tilt..... it's just too easy to demonstrate. Is he that insecure about his theory that he must rely on the ignorance of his audience? Sounds like a very weak position.

I'm a little disappointed to learn things like this, since I naturally assume that these guys bring more to the table scientifically-speaking. I suppose one should be relieved.

Thanks for getting out there and representing, Mackey. Much appreciated.

[jhunter1163]

There is just no way around the unanimity of the witness statements in the CIT video let alone the piles of other evidence. If things were normal the perps should now be under arrest and awaiting trial.

There's piles of something in the CIT vids all right, but it ain't evidence.

[bill smith]

I'll look forward to seeing the shows. I really don't understand why Szamboti is denying the upper block tilt..... it's just too easy to demonstrate. Is he that insecure about his theory that he must rely on the ignorance of his audience? Sounds like a very weak position.

I'm a little disappointed to learn things like this, since I naturally assume that these guys bring more to the table scientifically-speaking. I suppose one should be relieved.

Thanks for getting out there and representing, Mackey. Much appreciated.

Why don't you show us some video evidence of the 'tilt' of the upper block and right after I'll show you video that proves 'no tilt' ?

[Brainster]

*yawn* Craig Ranke is still waiting for your reply (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=354).

Who cares? I have been told by the supposedly responsible "Truthers" that Ranke and his idiot brigade aren't worth debating. There are excellent pages by Truthers like Jim Hoffman and Arabesque that dispense with the CIT gang.

I have appeared on a couple dozen radio programs over the last three years, on most of which callers were allowed (contrast that with DRG who generally does not allow callers), and on many of which the callers were mostly 9-11 Truthers. I have debated Bermas and Avery and Jon Gold and even that dolt Von Kleist.

So the idea that anybody here is ducking a debate with Ranke is silly. It's like saying I'm ducking a debate with Rosalee Grable or Paula Gloria.

[Cuddles]

Try keeping it on topic please.

[GlennB]

I really don't understand why Szamboti is denying the upper block tilt..... it's just too easy to demonstrate. Is he that insecure about his theory that he must rely on the ignorance of his audience?

Ego investment. His theory is utterly dependent on lack of tilt to produce the 'jolt' that might (note might) result from a pure axial impact, and he's put so much public work into it that accepting his mistake is now itself impossible. If he backed off, then his credentiials would be zilch on both sides of the 9/11 debate. This way he retains a following of a few CT dolts.

[triforcharity]

Why don't you show us some video evidence of the 'tilt' of the upper block and right after I'll show you video that proves 'no tilt' ?


Please show us this no tilt evidence. I think we might be able to prove it fale in 1 post.


With this video be on GoogleVideos, or YouTube, or hosted on another site??