Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Dave,....It can be shown structurally that if the outer core columns were dropping they would in fact pull the perimeter columns inwardly through the floor system, which would then cause them to buckle....

...that bit is true. Only bit missing is that there was no demolition.

Quote:

...It is very plausible that a demolition could be set up to remove the outer core columns. If the corners of the perimeter are then cut the building will come straight down with the perimeters losing their orthogonal support and petaling outward as observed.

...don't forget that, as you fantasise situations, the real process was happening and it was already peeling off the outer wall columns in the sheets which fell unbuckled etc....

So again the reality of no demolition does not require the fantasy mechanisms....whether they are plausible or not....they did not happen.

[Lamafarmer]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

But, I did get to fight some fire last night.....WOOT!!

So tell me, do firemen have a seperate sleeping place for the time they come home extra smokey crispy?

[Rage_Against_Machine]

Thuder wrote on page 1...

my prediction?

no one will care. this story is over.


14 pages later shows more BS lies from JREF'ers

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Rage_Against_Machine

Thuder wrote on page 1...

my prediction?

no one will care. this story is over.


14 pages later shows more BS lies from JREF'ers

Yet you cared enough to post your first post in this very thread.

[Tony Szamboti]

Dave,

On your site you mention the Missing Jolt paper, of which I am a co-author. You claim that we are trying to measure the impulse itself and are unable to do so since it occurs over a shorter duration than what the frame durations are. In other words, you claim we can't measure it because the impulse is a few milliseconds long and the videos are composed of frozen frames with 33 milliseconds between them.

While it may be true that the impulse could be shorter in duration than the time between frames, it is not true that we are trying to see the impulse itself. What we actually did was determine the energy of dissipation and looked for the attendant velocity loss, which would then take about 600 to 800 milliseconds to recover and would be very observable with a 30 frame per second video and measurements taken every 167 milliseconds.

I would appreciate a retraction on your website to clarify the matter.

I also don't see how you can possibly determine that a velocity loss of just 1 mph would be sufficient to accomplish the task of column deformation required to continue the collapse. We conservatively calculated the loss to be 76% of the velocity during the first impact. 76% of 19 mph is about 14.5 mph, not 1 mph. You have a serious error here and I can't correct it for you as you show no calculations to back up your assertion.

You've already garnered a modbox warning about staying on-topic, the topic being the actual debate. So stop trying to derail this thread to other 'pet' topics. As has already been mentioned, there are plenty of other threads to discuss those.

Posted By:LashL

[Lamafarmer]

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

3) The meat of the show

You have the second part twice in there. The part around 20 minutes in to 45 minutes is being repeated. Thanks!

God did that bore me. I skipped and skipped through creepy Gage and when they both came together I was so bored of listening to the crap Gage would dish out I couldn't but shut it off.

[fourtoe]

Originally Posted by Rage_Against_Machine

Thuder wrote on page 1...

my prediction?

no one will care. this story is over.


14 pages later shows more BS lies from JREF'ers

Welcome to the boards!

[moorea34]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Dave,

On your site you mention the Missing Jolt paper, of which I am a co-author. You claim that we are trying to measure the impulse itself and are unable to do so since it occurs over a shorter duration than what the frame durations are. In other words, you claim we can't measure it because the impulse is a few milliseconds long and the videos are composed of frozen frames with 33 milliseconds between them.

While it may be true that the impulse could be shorter in duration than the time between frames, it is not true that we are trying to see the impulse itself. What we actually did was determine the energy of dissipation and looked for the attendant velocity loss, which would then take about 600 to 800 milliseconds to recover and would be very observable with a 30 frame per second video and measurements taken every 167 milliseconds.

I would appreciate a retraction on your website to clarify the matter.

No Tony, Dave is right and you are wrong...

http://www.bastison.net/FAQ/Answer.pdf

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Lamafarmer

So tell me, do firemen have a seperate sleeping place for the time they come home extra smokey crispy?

Yes, usually couch with the dog.......

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by moorea34

No Tony, Dave is right and you are wrong...

http://www.bastison.net/FAQ/Answer.pdf

And, while we are on it...

Tony, will you please insist to your association that they correct the multiple mistakes in their web?

For example, the "pyroclastic flow". The dust cloud is in no way a pyroclastic flow^WP, and especially, the dust cloud is not an distinctive indication of a controlled demolition unlike what is stated here:

www.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/10min/slideshow.php?i=34

Instead, it is a characteristic of collapses due to fire as can be seen e.g. here:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

and here:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

and here:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

They also state that "pools of molten metal" are a distinctive characteristic of controlled demolition, something that can't be seen in any demolition whatsoever. Could you please also direct them to get this fixed?
www.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/10min/slideshow.php?i=37

Also, they say that a free fall is a characteristic of controlled demolition:
www.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/10min/slideshow.php?i=26

However, we know well that the towers did not fall in free fall, thus they lack at least one characteristic of controlled demolition, yet they are insinuating that the towers meet the 10 criteria they state for controlled demolition, of which some are clearly wrong as stated above. This is obviously incorrect and needs clarification.

Also, in this article:
www.ae911truth.org/info/7

it says the following:

NIST has not yet released a final report on the proposed cause for the collapse of WTC 7, nor did the Commission mention that building in its Final Report.

By the time that news item was released, NIST had indeed not yet released its report, that part is accurate. However, the second part stating that the Commission didn't mention that building is blatantly inaccurate, as can be quickly checked by going to any online version and doing a text search for "7 WTC". These kinds of mistakes make one think that the basis for accusing is only hearsay and not a reading of the criticized material, which clearly undermines the credibility of the 9/11™.

The same mistake appears actually several times in that web, e.g. here:

Also the 9/11 Commission Report did not mention the 47-story WTC 7, which fell the afternoon that the two towers fell in the morning! A sure sign of a false report.

www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/127-60-aerospace-engineers-call-for-new-911-investigation.html

which is a bit strong an accusation for being based on hearsay, or also here:

World Trade Center 7, a 47-story, properly secured steel building, in which the CIA and the secret service resided, collapsed about seven hours after the Twin Towers did, although it was never hit by any plane. In the official "9/11 Commission Report", this building is not mentioned at all.

www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/111-we-do-not-believe-you.html

So, please take the necessary steps within your association to get all of these corrected. You surely can find many more mistakes, being part of the association.

[ProfJoey223]

Dave Thomas and the debunkers won this debate. They won it by actually showing up and talking. Because when anything as obvious as the controlled demolition of three huge skyscrapers is left "open" for "debate" the debunkers automatically win.

It's like saying, "The earth is flat!" and then walking out. "I win!! I win!!"

Yup. You sure do.

Congratulations to the debunkers!

[TheRedWorm]

The controlled demolition is so obvious that not CTist has ever been able to show any evidence for in the last 9 years. Yep, so very, very obvious.

[Sabretooth]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Yes, usually couch with the dog.......

Wow! I'm not allowed near any furniture coming home from a fire

At least, not til I scrub that smokey flavor off my skin...

[TruthersLie]

Originally Posted by ProfJoey223

Dave Thomas and the debunkers won this debate. They won it by actually showing up and talking. Because when anything as obvious as the controlled demolition of three huge skyscrapers is left "open" for "debate" the debunkers automatically win.

It's like saying, "The earth is flat!" and then walking out. "I win!! I win!!"

Yup. You sure do.

Congratulations to the debunkers!

Hey PROF..

what class do you teach again? We are still waiting in that other thread for you to come back and finish the discussion....
Feel free....

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Post #433, p.11

Dave,

I went to your NMSR site per the link provided on this thread and have to say I was surprised to see that you had Dr. Bazant's early hypothesis of a 31 g dynamic load posted there. This has been shown to be impossible by those arguing for the present official hypothesis as well as those arguing against it.

First, it isn't possible for an impacting object with a factor of safety of 3.00 to 5.00 to transmit a dynamic load of 31 g's. The upper section would have come apart and that would have been the end of the pile driver.

Second, Dr. Bazant is off by a factor of ten on the axial stiffness of the columns in the tower. Their stiffness was 7.1 GN/m not 71 GN/m. Maybe it was a misplaced decimal point, but nonetheless his stiffness estimate is seriously erroneous.

Third, your test of loose rice in a bag does not legitimately represent loose rubble as the bag provides a restraint causing the rice to act somewhat in unison, which would not be true of loose rubble developed in a building collision.

With the real axial stiffness of 7.1 GN/m the largest dynamic load possible was 11 g's and even then, with the full mass of the upper section participating, the impacting structure could not survive that and thus could not transmit it. This is not to say that a dynamic load was not possible but it would have to be a lower value to conform to the observation of the upper section remaining somewhat intact past the first several floor collisions.

However, to have a dynamic load the the impacting object needs to decelerate at a rate greater than 1 g and the amplification depends on how many multiples of g the deceleration value is. There was no deceleration in the descent of the upper section of WTC 1 and the perimeter walls of the upper section were stiff enough to transmit it if there had been any. Thus the lack of deceleration or constant acceleration of the upper section proves there was no dynamic load.

Apparently, in an article to be published in the Sept. 2010 issue of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Dr. Bazant himself has finally entered the debate on this issue and attempts to argue that the velocity drop would have been imperceptible at the roofline. His opinion is refuted by every single Verinage demolition, where deceleration of the upper section does occur and is very perceptible and measureable at the roofline.

The evidence is that there was no dynamic load in the collapse of WTC 1. Ryan Mackey recognized this in our debate on Hardfire and tried to argue that the upper section fell on the floors due to the tilt causing misalignment of the upper and lower columns. Unfortunately for his argument, it has been shown that the tilt was not nearly significant enough to cause the columns to miss each other, and there should have been a perceptible jolt if the collapse was natural. The only reason there wouldn't be is if the column strength below was being largely removed in an unnatural way.

Please keep on-topic. This thread is about the actual debate. There are plenty of other threads to discuss specific 9/11 issues.

Posted By:Gaspode

Mods, I beg your indulgence to respond to this comment on the thread I started about the C2C debate.

Tony, I tried out your lower value of the stiffness parameter (7.1 GN/m), and while the dynamic forces were reduced accordingly, they were still more than enough to exceed the safety factor you cite, 3.00 to 5.00. In other words, the towers still fell.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

#502, p. 13
Dave,

In the first part of the debate you stated there was a velocity drop by the upper section at each floor collision.

What evidence do you have for any velocity loss by the upper section of WTC 1?

Good question!

Per my new article "Chandler's Data Support a Gravitational Collapse!",

I show that the average acceleration of the series of freefalls and brief decelerations I calculated in this article is 6.19 m/sec^2.

I submit as supporting evidence the careful measurements of David Chandler, which show that the average acceleration of WTC1 for the first four seconds of descent was 6.31 m/s^2.

That is, unless you think the collapse was some weird sort of quantum or cosmic physics that locally reduced the acceleration of gravity to two-thirds of its actual value.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

#506, p. 13

Dave,

You made a comment at the end of the debate that no controlled demolition mechanism can account for the inward pull on the perimeter columns.

It can be shown structurally that if the outer core columns were dropping they would in fact pull the perimeter columns inwardly through the floor system, which would then cause them to buckle.

It is very plausible that a demolition could be set up to remove the outer core columns. If the corners of the perimeter are then cut the building will come straight down with the perimeters losing their orthogonal support and petaling outward as observed.

Urm, I was talking about this gradual pulling of the perimeter walls inward.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

#525, p. 14
Dave,

On your site you mention the Missing Jolt paper, of which I am a co-author. You claim that we are trying to measure the impulse itself and are unable to do so since it occurs over a shorter duration than what the frame durations are. In other words, you claim we can't measure it because the impulse is a few milliseconds long and the videos are composed of frozen frames with 33 milliseconds between them.

While it may be true that the impulse could be shorter in duration than the time between frames, it is not true that we are trying to see the impulse itself. What we actually did was determine the energy of dissipation and looked for the attendant velocity loss, which would then take about 600 to 800 milliseconds to recover and would be very observable with a 30 frame per second video and measurements taken every 167 milliseconds.

I would appreciate a retraction on your website to clarify the matter.

I also don't see how you can possibly determine that a velocity loss of just 1 mph would be sufficient to accomplish the task of column deformation required to continue the collapse. We conservatively calculated the loss to be 76% of the velocity during the first impact. 76% of 19 mph is about 14.5 mph, not 1 mph. You have a serious error here and I can't correct it for you as you show no calculations to back up your assertion.

I encourage readers to look over this article, especially the last figure.

Regarding your claim that the velocity loss should be about 14.4 mph for the first impact, I disagree. I would rather use a calculation that adheres to the principle of conservation of momentum.

Cheers, Dave

[dc1971]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Next you I will be saying that a Spaceship landed on the Loch Ness monster's head with Elvis at the controls..lol

Corrected yet another one of your statements, Bill!

[cantonear1968]

Gage:
"I don't claim that 100% of the concrete floors were vaporized, but 99% were".

What a buffoon!

[dc1971]

Originally Posted by cantonear1968

Gage:
"I don't claim that 100% of the concrete floors were vaporized, but 99% were".

What a buffoon!

Hey there Cantonear!! You might know me as jazzfan5000!! How's things?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR

I encourage readers to look over this article, especially the last figure.

So in Chandlers & Szamboti's "reality", gravity wasn't the cause for collaspe of all 3 buildings?

Well those 2 aren't Greek Gods, that's for sure!

[cantonear1968]

Originally Posted by dc1971

Hey there Cantonear!! You might know me as jazzfan5000!! How's things?

Hey there. You're right! I recognize you from a video response you made to musicmaker. He's such a clown! I can't even engage him anymore because he's just so ridiculous. He constantly asks for proof and then hand waves that proof away when you show it to him. Short of him actually being on one of the planes that were hijacked himself, he's simply not going to believe anything! I like to stop by and ridicule him every so often because that's all he's worth. I'm trying to get him to answer how many people were involved in "the conspiracy" and he's doing his best to weazel out of an answer.

For those of you who probably don't know, musicmaker on youtube is most probably (and someone may know defintitvely) Ace Baker.

Otherwise, things are good! Have you engaged mooners40 over there? He's the only other thorn in my side, as he has a new cut-and-paste theory every week, yet easily defeated because he doesn't really understand what he is talking about and doesn't have a readily available cut-and-paste response. Another Griffin follower who can't think for himself and actually thinks Griffin has debunked NIST!
It's sad really!
His latest theory is that NIST's explanation hinges on thermal expansion of shear studs and since concrete has an equal expansion coefficient it shouldn't have happened. Five minutes of research shows what an ignoramus he is!

Cheers!

[CompusMentus]

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

I forget who it is here that has all of the 9/11 debates compiled in one location so if someone remembers who it is I'd appreciate it if you could PM him/her about these.

That might be me Sam....

9/11debates.com fell by the wayside in in Jan/Feb when I had a serious illness.

I've been meaning to get it up and running again but just haven't had the time. I am definitely going to get stuck into it agian soon though and will gladly host it there.

Haven't downloaded your file yet will be doing so tonight and it's headed for my iPod soon as. Thanks for the effort btw.

Compus

[cantonear1968]

And sorry, didn't want to get off topic.

Dave, great job with Gage, but I have to agree with Mackey that there are no fence sitters anymore. There are no people who are "weighing the evidence" because there is no evidence on the truther side to weigh. There are fancy terms and......
that's it! Fancy terms for truthers to refer to as an appeal to authority, but does not stand up to any scientific scrutiny. Which is why these "1200 professionals" do not get together to brainstorm theories, have not written any published papers themselves, and have not presented their theories to boards of their respective organizations! In short, Gage's "1200 professionals", is the equivalent of (and I'm stealing this from someone else) a facebook page of friends!

But Dave, I applaud you your efforts in dealing with Gage and exposing his incompetence and deception!

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by cantonear1968

And sorry, didn't want to get off topic.

Dave, great job with Gage, but I have to agree with Mackey that there are no fence sitters anymore. There are no people who are "weighing the evidence" because there is no evidence on the truther side to weigh. There are fancy terms and......
that's it! Fancy terms for truthers to refer to as an appeal to authority, but does not stand up to any scientific scrutiny. Which is why these "1200 professionals" do not get together to brainstorm theories, have not written any published papers themselves, and have not presented their theories to boards of their respective organizations! In short, Gage's "1200 professionals", is the equivalent of (and I'm stealing this from someone else) a facebook page of friends!

But Dave, I applaud you your efforts in dealing with Gage and exposing his incompetence and deception!

`
Yes Dave destroyed `Richard Gage even more than Kim Hill did.`````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````

[rubber_ritchie]

It's telling me "The file you are trying to access is temporarily unavailable."

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by cantonear1968

Gage:
"I don't claim that 100% of the concrete floors were vaporized, but 99% were".

What a buffoon!

If Gage believes that, Gage is mentally ill. However, he is a fraud spreading lies and taking money from ignorant people on 911.

[cantonear1968]

Originally Posted by bill smith

`
Yes Dave destroyed `Richard Gage even more than Kim Hill did.`````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````

No. I didn't say destroyed. I pointed out that there are those who believe in scientific facts and there are those who want to watch Gage rattle a pair of shiny keys in front of them.

Where do you come down Bill?

[cantonear1968]

Originally Posted by beachnut

If Gage believes that, Gage is mentally ill. However, he is a fraud spreading lies and taking money from ignorant people on 911.

It was the one segment that actually made me laugh out loud. Hard! Gage was reacting to a statement from Dave, indignantly as if Dave tried to put words in his mouth, and then Gage rattled off that truther Gem!

I'm going to have to start using that as my signature!

[Sam.I.Am]

Originally Posted by rubber_ritchie

It's telling me "The file you are trying to access is temporarily unavailable."

I just checked and got the same thing (you'd think that at least I could get to them).

The last one is still available.

All I can think of is that some DL limit has been met over the last 24 hours. Try again around 6pm PST is all I can suggest for now.

Hey what can you expect for free right?

If someone has a better host location they can either send me the info or put it up themselves.

[TexasJack]

It's also up on youtube now. Here's the first part:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[fourtoe]

Originally Posted by CompusMentus

That might be me Sam....

9/11debates.com fell by the wayside in in Jan/Feb when I had a serious illness.

I've been meaning to get it up and running again but just haven't had the time. I am definitely going to get stuck into it agian soon though and will gladly host it there.

Haven't downloaded your file yet will be doing so tonight and it's headed for my iPod soon as. Thanks for the effort btw.

Compus

For now we can post it in the thread that is in my sig. I don't wanna do it meself yet cause I wanna listen to it again and review it. I was trying to call in so the last 2 hours were kind of a blur to me.

Originally Posted by cantonear1968

It was the one segment that actually made me laugh out loud. Hard! Gage was reacting to a statement from Dave, indignantly as if Dave tried to put words in his mouth, and then Gage rattled off that truther Gem!

I'm going to have to start using that as my signature!

Yeah I laughed out loud to that as well. And every time someone brought more assertions that dogs did in fact go over all the steel and Gage kept digging himself closer to China in denying it, I cracked up as well.

[PlanosLie]

"It burns nice and bright and hot until its oxygen supply is used up. A coat of mystical thermite paint isn't going to burn long enough to do much of anything."
>>>

Wasn't there like 10 tons of Thermite in the rubble? Paint? Pft...
How did building 7 go down again? No jet fuel in that one...

[carlitos]

Hi PlanosLie!

Thermite burns. If there was "10 tons of thermite" in the rubble, then that means it didn't burn. If the 10 tons of thermite did not burn, what brought the buildings down?

Also, thermite burns gravitationally, which is why we know that it couldn't have compromised a vertical column.

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by PlanosLie

"It burns nice and bright and hot until its oxygen supply is used up. A coat of mystical thermite paint isn't going to burn long enough to do much of anything."
>>>

Wasn't there like 10 tons of Thermite in the rubble? Paint? Pft...
How did building 7 go down again? No jet fuel in that one...

Thermite will burn without oxygen as well. If thermite was used, which it wasn't, they wouldn't be any in the rubble.

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

3) The meat of the show (9 segments total) minus any segment that didn't have either guests or callers (I did however include the 1st hours show intro) (no doubled up segments in this one either) in 1 zipped mp3 file @32 kbs. http://www.megaupload.com/?d=1G1TQYDD (35,522 kb,~2.6 hours)

....

This one is the smallest in size and the smaller 3-4 minute intro sections (bumpers) with no guests or callers involved are not included except for the ~4 minute intro at the very beginning of the show. This is essentially the debate and callers only.

For those who don't like to download files, I made a video from this file and put it on my blog. I can't be seen/heard here:

http://911vids.blogspot.com/2010/08/...11-debate.html

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR

That is, unless you think the collapse was some weird sort of quantum or cosmic physics that locally reduced the acceleration of gravity to two-thirds of its actual value.

The lower than freefall acceleration value is easily possible if some minor resistance is left which can be overcome with a static load. You have no proof whatsoever of dynamic loads occurring and it is astonishing that you claim they did.

Quote:

Regarding your claim that the velocity loss should be about 14.4 mph for the first impact, I disagree. I would rather use a calculation that adheres to the principle of conservation of momentum

You can disagree all you want but the kinetic energy loss values we came up with in the Missing Jolt paper are a minimum for what would be necessary to continue the collapse. Conservation of momentum is not the whole story. The column strength needs to be overcome and conservation of momentum equations do not do the job there. You do not show any calculations to support your claims for what kind of energy dissipation would occur and the kinetic energy usage which would be necessary. The kinetic energy loss in going from 19 to 18 mph is ridiculously insufficient to cause the columns of the 97th and 99th stories to fail in the first collision which would have occurred.

You apparently don't see the fact that no deceleration is measurable in the descent of WTC 1 as a problem. I would be interested to hear your rationale as to why you don't, when every single Verinage demolition shows what would be expected in a naturally caused impulse driven type collapse, and that is a significant measurable deceleration of the roof line at impact between the intact upper and lower sections. This is in true even though none of those buildings were built with the column reserve strength of the Twin Towers.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

...

You can disagree all you want but the kinetic energy loss values we came up with in the Missing Jolt paper are a minimum for what would be necessary to continue the collapse. Conservation of momentum is not the whole story. ... .

Nonsense. Prove it! Publish a paper in a real journal and show your proof! You and Gage have all those experts; do it! lol

Do you support all of Gage's delusions he made public on Coast to Coast? You guys have failed for 8 years to produce any evidence.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Yet you cared enough to post your first post in this very thread.

He cared enough to post his very best.

[plumjam]

Here's a YT playlist:

http://www.youtube.com/user/cosmicpr.../1/VuvqZWq0SOY

click on 9/11 debate and then 1 of 11

[Orphia Nay]

So, what was the final tally of Gage's website pimpings?

I lost track at 9.

Originally Posted by tsig

He cared enough to post his very best.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Rage_Against_Machine

Thuder wrote on page 1...

my prediction?

no one will care. this story is over.


14 pages later shows more BS lies from JREF'ers

This is the all-time best GOTCHA!

Who cares if the controlled demolition "hypothesis" is laughable, my own misrepresentaion of Thuder[sic]'s prediction was WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! [cue: hysterical cackling]