WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44 - Page 59

Tony Szamboti · 30th May 2012, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by tfk

tmd,

You have no feeling for, sense of, engineers & engineering.

You should stop trying to assert what they can and cannot do.

Oh, if only you really intended to stop. But we both know that this statement is false.

You will continue going around & around & around in circles with anyone who disagrees with you.

The Hamster Wheel of Stupid.

Yup, I choose to do so. Because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've even done it on hundreds of occasions. (And have been right often enough that they still give me a sizable paycheck & call me an engineer.)

One famous example: the engineers at Morton-Thiokol predicted that the shuttle Challenger had a significant chance to blow up if they launched it that cold day in 1986. Even tho it had never happened before. They felt strongly enough that they refused to sign the launch authorization, even under tremendous pressure from management.

Care to reply to this incident? All details of the event are explicitly documented.

You never would have predicted the catastrophe.
"Most people" would never have predicted it.

Do you understand that some educated, specialized, experienced people may possess knowledge that you, and most people, do not?

Not 1 person in 1000 is a mechanical or structural engineer (or firefighters).
Who gives a flying fart what that 99.9% of the population think would or would not happen.

Now let's get to the structural & mechanical engineers & firefighters.
Not 1 in 1000 of those people are truthers.

Starting to get the picture?

No, I strongly suspect not. I suspect that, unless I can produce a signed document with all of their names on it, then you'll continue to write the same clap-trap: "Most people don't know that a 3rd tower collapsed that day…" Drivel.

You've finally said something right.

Yes, I choose to believe it.
And, yes, since I'm a mechanical engineer, it is "my business".
Thanks for recognizing that point.

Btw, i do not believe that he gave any precision to the time estimate. I think that part of the story may have "ripened" over time. I also believe that if he had said, "Jeez, I don't know. Maybe 2 hours, maybe 5 hours", then if had come down anywhere between 1 & 8 hours later, the firefighter may well have evaluated the estimate as "pretty much right on the mark".

YES THEY HAVE BEEN "hurt in some way". A significant number of the people that have been perceived by truthers, with zero evidence, as possibly "part of the conspiracy" have been hounded mercilessly for years.

Jane Standley
Reporter McIntyre
Ms. McClatchy (??), photographer of "End of Innocence" in Shanksville
Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien, pilot of C130 at Pentagon
Mark Roberts
the families of the airline passengers
Larry Silverstein
Principle engineers at NIST
… and lots more.

ALL of the above have told explicit stories of being stalked, harassed, etc. for years.

… oh yeah, including me.
(I was stalked to my home town internet board by some bona fide crazy truther lady, who went to a lot of effort in a (gratefully) futile effort to find out who I am. She also threatened to shoot me.)

You see, the situation AIN'T symmetric. It doesn't matter that Tony Szamboti & Richard Gage, et al, disclose their names. They are just idiots & fools. And the sane people will simply blow them off & tolerate them for the idiots & fools that they are.

But the truth movement is littered with crazies. From Judy Wood (harmless) to Balsamo (who bragged that it would be his pleasure to put a bullet in Mark Robert's brain), to my crazy lady.

The asymmetry is that truthers are dealing with (mostly) sane people in the debunker camp.
We are dealing with (mostly) sane people, but with a significant percent of crazies, in the Truther camp.

Sorry to break it to you. You should be more careful about the people with whom you get into bed. You've caught a new form of STD: Socially Transmitted Dementia.

So tell us who has hurt the people you mention being hurt due to their position on what occurred on 911 and what court cases were brought as a result of it.

Has anyone threatened or hurt official story supporters who give their names like Ryan Mackey, Ron Wieck, Dave Thomas, or Zdenek Bazant?

It sounds like you can't provide that part of the information and are just out here yapping away like a big anonymous blowhard again.

AJM8125 · 30th May 2012, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Has anyone threatened or hurt official story supporters who give their names like Ryan Mackey, Ron Wieck, Dave Thomas, or Zdenek Bazant?

ETA: Link contains NSFW language.

Yes.

enik · 30th May 2012, 08:59 PM

On May 26th, Tony quoted over at the 911FreeForums:

Originally Posted by Tony

Enik, I believe you know as well as I do that a FEA analysis is only as reliable as its input. Otherwise, it is GIGO.

And two days later, your quote.

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Remember "GIGO" introduced to be a cautionary comment on reliance on computers. FEA requires the same caution. If the assumptions/setting/context are wrongly defined FEA will produce either GO (garbage out)

I don’t think it was simple coincidence that the two of you use the same verbiage, are you taking Tony’s position? If so, where are your calculations to support my GIGO? Tony supplied his.

Originally Posted by ozeco41

"it may be producing the right results for the wrong reasons - I have not studied it deeply enough to say...yet" Which, despite all the adverse commentary directed my way, is still a professionally sound interim position.

You still have not identified what you meant by me getting the right results for the wrong reasons yet you now claim it is a professionally sound interim position. When are you going to “study [it] deeply enough”? There is nothing in your quote to suggest you are saying something that means anything, yet I look forward when you do.

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Enik initially followed the same technical limit, then expanded his technical boundary but is still tending to follow the procedural error.

None of this makes much sense. What technical limit? What technical boundary expansion? I asked you for your “technical boundary” or simply what you define it to be. What does it mean to “still tending to follow the procedural error”? It’s simply an FEA.

ergo · 30th May 2012, 09:27 PM

Wow. This just doesn't end.

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Tony;

You have made a claim that NIST is wrong. I say it is your responsibility to support or "prove" your claim.

He has done so. In both forums.

Quote:

You have not accepted that responsibility. That responsibility includes support of the assumptions on which you base your claim.

He has done so. In both forums. The assumptions are the same assumptions that NIST used. Tney are not for Tony to defend, since he is merely showing how their use does not lead to the conclusion NIST came to.

You, however, continue to claim the assumptions are invalid while providing no analysis of your own. When are you going to join the discussion at the level you aspire to?

Quote:

It is not my responsibility to either prove NOR disprove your assumptions.

See above. If you are claiming that the NIST assumptions are invalid, you need to explain why and what they should have included. That is your claim to defend. If you don't want to defend it, you will continue to get the same results you are getting now, which is, no one is listening to you because you aren't saying anything.

Quote:

What I have done is to identify one essential assumption which you have not supported. That is all I need to do to show that your claim is UNPROVEN. NOTE carefully I do not say "WRONG" merely "UNPROVEN".

If you are talking about your vague allusion to "single point of failure" you are again referring to NIST's assumption. You are again tasked with providing the elements you think they should have included. It indeed IS your burden of proof. I notice that everyone else here has been telling you that too. Apparently, it's not sinking in. Instead, you're desperately clinging to some illusion of authority on the matter when in fact you've provided no useful technical input.

Christopher7 · 30th May 2012, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by Tony S

Has anyone threatened or hurt official story supporters who give their names like Ryan Mackey, Ron Wieck, Dave Thomas, or Zdenek Bazant?

Originally Posted by AJM8125

ETA: Link contains NSFW language.
Yes.

That page was about Mark Roberts, not the people Tony asked about. Most of the posts at that page are very similar to the insults posted here. Kevin Barrett talked about a trial. The only post that could be considered a threat was by Rob Balsamo and he was talking about "if America fell into civil war". None the less, his comment is clearly over the line and unacceptable.

000063 · 31st May 2012, 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

What's truly stupid is the completeness of the so called collapse.

Oh, look, Clay responds with a one liner that doesn't actually address a single point made or answer a single question asked in the post he's responding to.

Originally Posted by Christopher7

That page was about Mark Roberts, not the people Tony asked about.
...

Quote:

Has anyone threatened or hurt official story supporters who give their names like Ryan Mackey, Ron Wieck, Dave Thomas, or Zdenek Bazant?

Originally Posted by Chris7

Most of the posts at that page are very similar to the insults posted here.

I disagree.

Quote:

If you are not aware that you're covering up for that traitor and mass murderer and yes insurance fraudster Silverstein, you'll figure it out when you're beside him on the scaffold. I'll be saving this email as evidence for your trial
+++
You obviously have you head in your ass,or better yet a paycheck comming from some OTHER means. Bottom line you sold the USA out. Your kind wil eventually get what you have comming.
+++
Merry Kristmas Gravy you slimy treacherous shill
+++
When the truth comes out, that Mark Roberts twat deserves to be executed, certainly not for being a danger to the movement's progress but just for being an inherently loathesome, bile-inducing, shill TWAT! He's a dirty shill and ALL SHILLS will be covered in piss and petrol and shot when the truth comes out.
+++
Like I have stated before people such as yourselves are revealed to be one of two things, government agents on a payroll or brainwashed morons who refuse to accept the truth. Have a Nice 4th of July, and remember you won't be portrayed as someone who just mindlessly let something happen in history, you will be portrayed as a Traitor to your own country!”
+++
"(Mark Roberts is) just as evil as Hitler...just as evil as Mao...just as evil as Stalin...that is no exaggeration– "28th Kingdom," on the JREF forum.
+++
Tony Szamboti: I would like to know how a dual citizen has the audacity to act like such a smart ass to sole American citizens who are simply asking questions, of their sole government, about those events when things don't seem to add up.

I'm trying to recall the last time I saw a debunker accuse a Truther of treason for not believing in the official story or compared anyone but suspected anti-Semites to Hitler. I'm drawing a complete blank.

000063 · 31st May 2012, 02:40 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

So tell us who has hurt the people you mention being hurt due to their position on what occurred on 911 and what court cases were brought as a result of it.

I'm sorry, I don't recall anyone asserting anything about court cases. I do recall the very poster you are responding to saying he was harassed himself, in addition to saying other people, who he specifically named, were also harassed.

Quote:

Has anyone threatened or hurt official story supporters who give their names like Ryan Mackey, Ron Wieck, Dave Thomas, or Zdenek Bazant?

Why is that relevant? If the claim is that people who have their names publicly associated with 9/11 evidence Truthers take issue with are often harassed, regardless of whether they argue on the Internet or not, why are you asking about only a subset of such?

Quote:

It sounds like you can't provide that part of the information and are just out here yapping away like a big anonymous blowhard again.

And it looks like you're strawmanning furiously to avoid addressing the actual claim being made.

LSSBB · 31st May 2012, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Wow. This just doesn't end.

He has done so. In both forums.

He has done so. In both forums. The assumptions are the same assumptions that NIST used. Tney are not for Tony to defend, since he is merely showing how their use does not lead to the conclusion NIST came to.

You, however, continue to claim the assumptions are invalid while providing no analysis of your own. When are you going to join the discussion at the level you aspire to?

See above. If you are claiming that the NIST assumptions are invalid, you need to explain why and what they should have included. That is your claim to defend. If you don't want to defend it, you will continue to get the same results you are getting now, which is, no one is listening to you because you aren't saying anything.

If you are talking about your vague allusion to "single point of failure" you are again referring to NIST's assumption. You are again tasked with providing the elements you think they should have included. It indeed IS your burden of proof. I notice that everyone else here has been telling you that too. Apparently, it's not sinking in. Instead, you're desperately clinging to some illusion of authority on the matter when in fact you've provided no useful technical input.

Tony is not making the same assumptions as NIST, he has placed additional constraints on the beams and girders and assumed linearity, all without explicit mathematical or computational justification. And since the NIST study has already been accepted by the scientific and engineering community at large, your mere wish it were so will not transfer away from him the burden of proof.

Christopher7 · 31st May 2012, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Tony is not making the same assumptions as NIST, he has placed additional constraints on the beams and girders and assumed linearity, all without explicit mathematical or computational justification.

Why don't y'all cut the crap and figure out how much a 53' 4" W24x55 floor beam would sag between 600^oC and 700^oC in 1 degree increments? Use all those degrees you say you have.

Put up or all your bla-bla about Tony's calcs is just a cover for the fact that not one of you guys knows how.

NoahFence · 31st May 2012, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Why don't y'all cut the crap and figure out how much a 53' 4" W24x55 floor beam would sag between 600^oC and 700^oC in 1 degree increments? Use all those degrees you say you have.

Put up or all your bla-bla about Tony's calcs is just a cover for the fact that not one of you guys knows how.

As soon as YOU cut the crap and give us your theory on the ENTIRE day's events....

thedopefishlives · 31st May 2012, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Why don't y'all cut the crap and figure out how much a 53' 4" W24x55 floor beam would sag between 600^oC and 700^oC in 1 degree increments? Use all those degrees you say you have.

Put up or all your bla-bla about Tony's calcs is just a cover for the fact that not one of you guys knows how.

There's a huge difference between knowing how and knowing that it's completely irrelevant. It has been explained to you by multiple people more qualified than I how the assumptions used by Tony may not be valid. Tony has not demonstrated the validity of his assumptions, so if I were you, I would be asking him to put up or shut up.

DaveThomasNMSR · 31st May 2012, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

So tell us who has hurt the people you mention being hurt due to their position on what occurred on 911 and what court cases were brought as a result of it.

Has anyone threatened or hurt official story supporters who give their names like Ryan Mackey, Ron Wieck, Dave Thomas, or Zdenek Bazant?

It sounds like you can't provide that part of the information and are just out here yapping away like a big anonymous blowhard again.

I have received numerous accusations of being a traitor, a Zionist shill, and more.

One of the instances of harrassment that I recall involved a truther demanding information about my background and associations and motivations.

It happened right here on JREF.

Sources:

The most humorous was one loon shouting in full caps in an e-mail that "WEIGHT IS NOT A FORCE!!!!"

Oh well.

alienentity · 31st May 2012, 08:31 AM

Precisely the reason I choose not to use my real name in this paranoid realm.

A sample of comments made to me:

'gawd you sicken me, how much are you paid for pushing the wtc BS .... you are exposed as a shill or traitor to country ... do you hate muslims? do you think zionism is a good thing?'
pt1gard

' Luckily there are lot's of people dedicated to exposing this fraud, and they won't go away until this has succeeded. And u can be counted on to be treated as a traitor to ur own country'
Sandberg1972

'Only IDIOTS believe you AlienEntity, People who know not Chemistry or Physics! YOU ARE A TRAITOR TO THE UNITED STATES PEOPLE!'
ZipOnOver

'Go watch loose change 2nd edition. Don't say anything until you do that. And if you have, and you still defend a maggot like larry, all due respect, you deserve NO respect. You would then qualify as a blind, stupid piece of traitor ****.'
sssssjjjj1

' How do you sleep at night knowing what a traitor you are to the people. I can only pray there is a place for people who sell out their own kind. Your karma will get you. Pathetic excuse for a human being. Maybe you are an alien.'
godbluffvdgg

''Either way f off or I'll make some calls and have your life changed.''

'You go to hell you propagandist traitor'
dieyoubastards

'YOU ARE A *********** TRAITOR! I DON''T LIKE TRAITORS.
ANYONE WHO HAS LOOKED AT ALL THE EVIDENCE ABOUT 9/11 CAN COME AWAY WITH NO OTHER CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB FROM START TO FINISH.

YOU DENY THE VERY FACTS THAT PROVE IT! LIKE THE ADMITTED - BY NIST NO LESS - FREE-FALL SPEED OF THE COLLAPSES OF ALL THREE BUILDINGS! THIS FACT ALONE PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT IT WAS CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

SO YOU DENY THAT FACT AND LIE YOUR SILLY ASS OFF THINKING YOUR KOOL-AID DRINKING FOLLOWERS AT THE "AMAZING RANDI" MESSAGE BOARD WILL DRINK IT! HA! WHEN WE TAKE THIS COUNTRY BACK I WANT TO SEE YOU PUT ON TRIAL FOR AIDING AND ABETTING TREASON, MY FINE FEATHERED FRIEND!

I WANT TO SEE YOU BEHIND BARS SERVING A LIFE STRETCH AT MARION! YOU GOT THAT?'
uhlijohn

alienentity · 31st May 2012, 08:33 AM

That's just a small sample of the violent and abusive messages you get when you try to kick at the darkness until it bleeds daylight.

I'm quite sure Tony Z was unaware of the malevolent paranoia which dominates the 9/11 Truth movement. At least he know has that knowledge, although I doubt he will make much use of it.

alienentity · 31st May 2012, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

We're talking about the concept of an iceberg sinking a ship (has happened) and the concept of fire collapsing a steel sky scraper (has not happened except for 9/11 of course)

Hahaha. No, we're talking about fire destroying a steel building vs icebergs sinking steel ships.

Nice try at shifting the goalposts though. Many steel buildings have failed in fires, and certainly ships prior to the Titanic had sunk due to icebergs. Had a ship with the design of Titanic sunk before? Certainly not.
Nor had a building or buildings of the WTC's designs failed before. That cannot possibly mean that it couldn't happen, and happen the way it did, due to fires and other damage.

Your objections and equivocations are not succeeding.

GlennB · 31st May 2012, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR

The most humorous was one loon shouting in full caps in an e-mail that "WEIGHT IS NOT A FORCE!!!!"

You should bear in mind that Szamboti is not far from being that class of scientist, given his claims that static objects are accelerating at g and that the EMP might have fallen off sideways.

Newtons Bit · 31st May 2012, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Why don't y'all cut the crap and figure out how much a 53' 4" W24x55 floor beam would sag between 600^oC and 700^oC in 1 degree increments? Use all those degrees you say you have.

Put up or all your bla-bla about Tony's calcs is just a cover for the fact that not one of you guys knows how.

Please specify the in-service live load, the dead load, any point loads acting on the beam, the connection types at both ends of the beam and the material of the beam. If the floor is composite, please specify the angle of the flutes in relation to the flange, the thickness of the decking, the spacing of the flutes, the depth of the flutes, the height of concrete over the top of flute, the width of the flutes, the type of shear studs, the size of shear stud, the expected height of the head of the shear studs above the flutes and the compressive strength of the concrete.

triforcharity · 31st May 2012, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Please specify the in-service live load, the dead load, any point loads acting on the beam, the connection types at both ends of the beam and the material of the beam. If the floor is composite, please specify the angle of the flutes in relation to the flange, the thickness of the decking, the spacing of the flutes, the depth of the flutes, the height of concrete over the top of flute, the width of the flutes, the type of shear studs, the size of shear stud, the expected height of the head of the shear studs above the flutes and the compressive strength of the concrete.

Lol! C7 will ignore this, and repeat his assertions that it's "technobabble".

LSSBB · 31st May 2012, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Please specify the in-service live load, the dead load, any point loads acting on the beam, the connection types at both ends of the beam and the material of the beam. If the floor is composite, please specify the angle of the flutes in relation to the flange, the thickness of the decking, the spacing of the flutes, the depth of the flutes, the height of concrete over the top of flute, the width of the flutes, the type of shear studs, the size of shear stud, the expected height of the head of the shear studs above the flutes and the compressive strength of the concrete.

Let's not forget, the distribution of the manufacturing variabilties of length, width, height, skew torsion, material distribution of all physical members, the impact of wind, the actual degree of spalling of all concrete surfaces impacting the steel members, the presence of internal fracturing and voids in all physical members, variabilities in as-built quality of all welds, threaded and non - threaded fasteners, the effects of wind on the sail area of the building causing tilt and tortion, vibrational analysis from other cataclysmic events . . .

And so on.

But then again, I don't have the burden of proof, do I? Who has to take this to The Man and get his voice heard? Not me. I'm just a schmoe on the internet, giving Tony (or C7, if they are a team) the value of my expertise in validating his case. Should he go anywhere out there in legal land with his conjectures, it should be bullet proof before it hits a phalanx of PhDs, no?

tfk · 31st May 2012, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

So tell us who has hurt the people you mention being hurt due to their position on what occurred on 911 and what court cases were brought as a result of it.

Do you consider constant harassment to fall into the category of "hurt"?
I do.

Do you consider threats against one's life to fall into that category?
I do. It forces one to change one's attitude towards strangers & chance meetings with people.

Every one of the people that I cited (including me) has stories about people harassing them and/or threatening them.

Regardless of whether or not you choose to believe that.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Has anyone threatened or hurt official story supporters who give their names like Ryan Mackey, Ron Wieck, Dave Thomas, or Zdenek Bazant?

What a brain-dead attempt at an argument, Tony.

Doesn't matter one iota.

Any more than the obvious fact that none of those four select individuals have been murdered negates the existence of murder.

I brought up the names of people who have explicitly stated that they have been harassed or threatened.

Why don't you ask those people if they've been hurt?
Why are you asking me about these four individuals?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

It sounds like you can't provide that part of the information and are just out here yapping away like a big anonymous blowhard again.

Ahhh, now I see why you are asking me.

You want to get back to the "anonymous" point again.

Well, when you've got no other arrow in your quiver…

LoL.

Sword_Of_Truth · 31st May 2012, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Has anyone threatened or hurt official story supporters who give their names like Ryan Mackey, Ron Wieck, Dave Thomas, or Zdenek Bazant?

Originally Posted by Christopher7

That page was about Mark Roberts, not the people Tony asked about.

Understanding basic english fail.

Clayton Moore · 31st May 2012, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Have truthers ever heard of this thing called gravity?

The three WTC buildings had been built and therefore prepared for and protected from your gravity for decades.

thedopefishlives · 31st May 2012, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

The three WTC buildings had been built and therefore prepared for and protected from your gravity for decades.

And then a couple of airliners hijacked by fanatical terrorists came along and blew all of those preparations and protections away. Although I am highly amused at the notion of being "prepared for and protected from" gravity.

newton3376 · 31st May 2012, 12:14 PM

Why do truthers always want to know peoples real names?

Why can't they just debate the issues......or at least try?

carlitos · 31st May 2012, 12:16 PM

Same reason as they fantasize about hanging / jailing those who defend the "OCT" - at heart they are a bunch of authoritarian thugs.

twinstead · 31st May 2012, 12:23 PM

Yea, it's all fun and games until somebody gets hanged...

Clayton Moore · 31st May 2012, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by thedopefishlives

And then a couple of airliners hijacked by fanatical terrorists came along and blew all of those preparations and protections away. Although I am highly amused at the notion of being "prepared for and protected from" gravity.

A comparatively light 1/3 of a tower, even lighter after fires, crushes a much stronger 1/3 and then crushes the bottom 1/3 which is even stronger. At what point does the gravity driven 1/3 destroy itself? Each contact would have to deplete hit and hitter equally. The hitter would lose force upon each contact.

The gravity nonsense of the lightest 1/3 of a building pushing through the rest of the building and pulverizing much of the entire building in less than 20 seconds is pure insanity.

thedopefishlives · 31st May 2012, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

A comparatively light 1/3 of a tower, even lighter after fires, crushes a much stronger 1/3 and then crushes the bottom 1/3 which is even stronger. At what point does the gravity driven 1/3 destroy itself? Each contact would have to deplete hit and hitter equally. The hitter would lose force upon each contact.

The gravity nonsense of the lightest 1/3 of a building pushing through the rest of the building and pulverizing much of the entire building in less than 20 seconds is pure insanity.

It's been 11 years and all you've got is your own personal incredulity and lack of knowledge of high-school physics. 0/10, try harder next time.

Clayton Moore · 31st May 2012, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by thedopefishlives

It's been 11 years and all you've got is your own personal incredulity and lack of knowledge of high-school physics. 0/10, try harder next time.

You could probably drop the the upper 1/3 from 50 feet and you wouldn't get a like result.

I have the knowledge that I'm right and that I have the courage and integrity to say so.

carlitos · 31st May 2012, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

You could probably drop the the upper 1/3 from 50 feet and you wouldn't get a like result.

I have the knowledge that I'm right and that I have the courage and integrity to say so.

You're not alone. Ex-member Heiwa believed you could drop the upper block from a couple of miles and it still wouldn't collapse the building. Member ergo thinks that a "moon sized field of rubble" might not crush the WTC. So at least your delusions are not unique.

thedopefishlives · 31st May 2012, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by carlitos

You're not alone. Ex-member Heiwa believed you could drop the upper block from a couple of miles and it still wouldn't collapse the building. So at least your delusions are not unique.

And current member ergo believes you could drop a moon-sized field of rubble on the tower and it wouldn't collapse. We get all kinds here, don't we?

ETA: Damn, beaten to it.

Sword_Of_Truth · 31st May 2012, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

A comparatively light 1/3 of a tower,

Your ignorance is astounding.

The Twin Towers weighed 500,000 tons a piece.

To you, "comparatively light" means the USS Missouri and the USS Iowa and the USS Wisconsin and the USS New Jersey.

What happened on 9/11 is exactly what we would expect to see if you drop four gawddamn battleships on an office building.

Newtons Bit · 31st May 2012, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Let's not forget, the distribution of the manufacturing variabilties of length, width, height, skew torsion, material distribution of all physical members, the impact of wind, the actual degree of spalling of all concrete surfaces impacting the steel members, the presence of internal fracturing and voids in all physical members, variabilities in as-built quality of all welds, threaded and non - threaded fasteners, the effects of wind on the sail area of the building causing tilt and tortion, vibrational analysis from other cataclysmic events . . .

Those actually wouldn't be necessary for a typical floor beam. AISC LRFD already accounts for manufacturing tolerances and normal wear/tear, spalling won't be an issue in the compression region of concrete floors, wind forces only apply to perimeter beams or beams that are part of the MWFRS.

The items I listed off are what's actually necessary to perform a basic calculation independent of the rest of the building design/condition.

alienentity · 31st May 2012, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

A comparatively light 1/3 of a tower, even lighter after fires, crushes a much stronger 1/3 and then crushes the bottom 1/3 which is even stronger. At what point does the gravity driven 1/3 destroy itself? Each contact would have to deplete hit and hitter equally. The hitter would lose force upon each contact.

The gravity nonsense of the lightest 1/3 of a building pushing through the rest of the building and pulverizing much of the entire building in less than 20 seconds is pure insanity.

Your post is pure nonsense, actually. Based on ignorance and an unwillingness to learn.

Quote:

I have the knowledge that I'm right

Wrong. You have a belief that you're right. But in reality you're wrong.

Belief and knowledge are not the same thing; please do not confuse the two.

uke2se · 31st May 2012, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by carlitos

You're not alone. Ex-member Heiwa believed you could drop the upper block from a couple of miles and it still wouldn't collapse the building. Member ergo thinks that a "moon sized field of rubble" might not crush the WTC. So at least your delusions are not unique.

I love to be reminded of these twoofer epic fails. Always brings a smile to my face.

LSSBB · 31st May 2012, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Those actually wouldn't be necessary for a typical floor beam. AISC LRFD already accounts for manufacturing tolerances and normal wear/tear, spalling won't be an issue in the compression region of concrete floors, wind forces only apply to perimeter beams or beams that are part of the MWFRS.

The items I listed off are what's actually necessary to perform a basic calculation independent of the rest of the building design/condition.

Thanks, I will defer to the expert on this. That was off the top of my head coming from a more materials centered background.

LSSBB · 31st May 2012, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by alienentity

Your post is pure nonsense, actually. Based on ignorance and an unwillingness to learn.

Wrong. You have a belief that you're right. But in reality you're wrong.

Belief and knowledge are not the same thing; please do not confuse the two.

That appears to be the general problem here. Lynch mob mentality.

Christopher7 · 31st May 2012, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by C7

Why don't y'all cut the crap and figure out how much a 53' 4" W24x55 floor beam would sag between 600oC and 700oC in 1 degree increments? Use all those degrees you say you have.

Put up or all your bla-bla about Tony's calcs is just a cover for the fact that not one of you guys knows how.

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Please specify the in-service live load, the dead load, any point loads acting on the beam, the connection types at both ends of the beam and the material of the beam. If the floor is composite, please specify the angle of the flutes in relation to the flange, the thickness of the decking, the spacing of the flutes, the depth of the flutes, the height of concrete over the top of flute, the width of the flutes, the type of shear studs, the size of shear stud, the expected height of the head of the shear studs above the flutes and the compressive strength of the concrete.

Tony was able to find all the necessary info and do a spreadsheet on sagging vs expansion. Don't demand that I spoon feed you.

It is axiomatic that the floor beams will sag at temperatures over 600^oC. Do a spreadsheet showing how much if you know how. Gerrycan did one without my help.

ozeco41 · 31st May 2012, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Tony was able to find all the necessary info and do a spreadsheet on sagging vs expansion....

Yes - there were several. All mathematically correct AFAICS within the boundary assumptions adopted by the authors.

Originally Posted by Christopher7

...It is axiomatic that the floor beams will sag at temperatures over 600^oC. .

True.

Whilst the real issue remains....

newton3376 · 31st May 2012, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Tony was able to find all the necessary info and do a spreadsheet on sagging vs expansion. Don't demand that I spoon feed you.

It is axiomatic that the floor beams will sag at temperatures over 600^oC. Do a spreadsheet showing how much if you know how. Gerrycan did one without my help.

Well hell Im convinced!

We have one ME who is well known on this forum for his basic, fundamental engineering, math, and physics errors....

And then we have "gerrycan" with no expertise whatsoever being able to do a spreadsheet without the help from a carpenter..........

Um yeah........IF THAT ISN'T PROOF I don't know what is

Maybe you, tony, and gerrycan should alert the engineering world to these major developments and get SOMETHING PUBLISHED.

PUBLISH.........either put up or shut up already.

30th May 2012, 07:27 PM	#2321
Tony Szamboti Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,661	Originally Posted by tfk tmd, You have no feeling for, sense of, engineers & engineering. You should stop trying to assert what they can and cannot do. Oh, if only you really intended to stop. But we both know that this statement is false. You will continue going around & around & around in circles with anyone who disagrees with you. The Hamster Wheel of Stupid. Yup, I choose to do so. Because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've even done it on hundreds of occasions. (And have been right often enough that they still give me a sizable paycheck & call me an engineer.) One famous example: the engineers at Morton-Thiokol predicted that the shuttle Challenger had a significant chance to blow up if they launched it that cold day in 1986. Even tho it had never happened before. They felt strongly enough that they refused to sign the launch authorization, even under tremendous pressure from management. Care to reply to this incident? All details of the event are explicitly documented. You never would have predicted the catastrophe. "Most people" would never have predicted it. Do you understand that some educated, specialized, experienced people may possess knowledge that you, and most people, do not? Not 1 person in 1000 is a mechanical or structural engineer (or firefighters). Who gives a flying fart what that 99.9% of the population think would or would not happen. Now let's get to the structural & mechanical engineers & firefighters. Not 1 in 1000 of those people are truthers. Starting to get the picture? No, I strongly suspect not. I suspect that, unless I can produce a signed document with all of their names on it, then you'll continue to write the same clap-trap: "Most people don't know that a 3rd tower collapsed that day…" Drivel. You've finally said something right. Yes, I choose to believe it. And, yes, since I'm a mechanical engineer, it is "my business". Thanks for recognizing that point. Btw, i do not believe that he gave any precision to the time estimate. I think that part of the story may have "ripened" over time. I also believe that if he had said, "Jeez, I don't know. Maybe 2 hours, maybe 5 hours", then if had come down anywhere between 1 & 8 hours later, the firefighter may well have evaluated the estimate as "pretty much right on the mark". YES THEY HAVE BEEN "hurt in some way". A significant number of the people that have been perceived by truthers, with zero evidence, as possibly "part of the conspiracy" have been hounded mercilessly for years. Jane Standley Reporter McIntyre Ms. McClatchy (??), photographer of "End of Innocence" in Shanksville Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien, pilot of C130 at Pentagon Mark Roberts the families of the airline passengers Larry Silverstein Principle engineers at NIST … and lots more. ALL of the above have told explicit stories of being stalked, harassed, etc. for years. … oh yeah, including me. (I was stalked to my home town internet board by some bona fide crazy truther lady, who went to a lot of effort in a (gratefully) futile effort to find out who I am. She also threatened to shoot me.) You see, the situation AIN'T symmetric. It doesn't matter that Tony Szamboti & Richard Gage, et al, disclose their names. They are just idiots & fools. And the sane people will simply blow them off & tolerate them for the idiots & fools that they are. But the truth movement is littered with crazies. From Judy Wood (harmless) to Balsamo (who bragged that it would be his pleasure to put a bullet in Mark Robert's brain), to my crazy lady. The asymmetry is that truthers are dealing with (mostly) sane people in the debunker camp. We are dealing with (mostly) sane people, but with a significant percent of crazies, in the Truther camp. Sorry to break it to you. You should be more careful about the people with whom you get into bed. You've caught a new form of STD: Socially Transmitted Dementia. So tell us who has hurt the people you mention being hurt due to their position on what occurred on 911 and what court cases were brought as a result of it. Has anyone threatened or hurt official story supporters who give their names like Ryan Mackey, Ron Wieck, Dave Thomas, or Zdenek Bazant? It sounds like you can't provide that part of the information and are just out here yapping away like a big anonymous blowhard again.
	Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 30th May 2012 at 07:49 PM.

30th May 2012, 08:21 PM	#2322
AJM8125 NWO Black Ops Tagger Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: **** Creek, California Posts: 15,254	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti Has anyone threatened or hurt official story supporters who give their names like Ryan Mackey, Ron Wieck, Dave Thomas, or Zdenek Bazant? ETA: Link contains NSFW language. Yes.
	Last edited by AJM8125; 30th May 2012 at 08:24 PM.

30th May 2012, 08:59 PM	#2323
enik Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 193	On May 26th, Tony quoted over at the 911FreeForums: Originally Posted by Tony Enik, I believe you know as well as I do that a FEA analysis is only as reliable as its input. Otherwise, it is GIGO. And two days later, your quote. Originally Posted by ozeco41 Remember "GIGO" introduced to be a cautionary comment on reliance on computers. FEA requires the same caution. If the assumptions/setting/context are wrongly defined FEA will produce either GO (garbage out) I don’t think it was simple coincidence that the two of you use the same verbiage, are you taking Tony’s position? If so, where are your calculations to support my GIGO? Tony supplied his. Originally Posted by ozeco41 "it may be producing the right results for the wrong reasons - I have not studied it deeply enough to say...yet" Which, despite all the adverse commentary directed my way, is still a professionally sound interim position. You still have not identified what you meant by me getting the right results for the wrong reasons yet you now claim it is a professionally sound interim position. When are you going to “study [it] deeply enough”? There is nothing in your quote to suggest you are saying something that means anything, yet I look forward when you do. Originally Posted by ozeco41 Enik initially followed the same technical limit, then expanded his technical boundary but is still tending to follow the procedural error. None of this makes much sense. What technical limit? What technical boundary expansion? I asked you for your “technical boundary” or simply what you define it to be. What does it mean to “still tending to follow the procedural error”? It’s simply an FEA.
	__________________ TFK: You think that you've stumbled on a cute little argument that boxes debunkers in a corner. Last edited by enik; 30th May 2012 at 09:27 PM. Reason: corrected name

30th May 2012, 09:27 PM	#2324
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853	Wow. This just doesn't end. Originally Posted by ozeco41 Tony; You have made a claim that NIST is wrong. I say it is your responsibility to support or "prove" your claim. He has done so. In both forums. Quote: You have not accepted that responsibility. That responsibility includes support of the assumptions on which you base your claim. He has done so. In both forums. The assumptions are the same assumptions that NIST used. Tney are not for Tony to defend, since he is merely showing how their use does not lead to the conclusion NIST came to. You, however, continue to claim the assumptions are invalid while providing no analysis of your own. When are you going to join the discussion at the level you aspire to? Quote: It is not my responsibility to either prove NOR disprove your assumptions. See above. If you are claiming that the NIST assumptions are invalid, you need to explain why and what they should have included. That is your claim to defend. If you don't want to defend it, you will continue to get the same results you are getting now, which is, no one is listening to you because you aren't saying anything. Quote: What I have done is to identify one essential assumption which you have not supported. That is all I need to do to show that your claim is UNPROVEN. NOTE carefully I do not say "WRONG" merely "UNPROVEN". If you are talking about your vague allusion to "single point of failure" you are again referring to NIST's assumption. You are again tasked with providing the elements you think they should have included. It indeed IS your burden of proof. I notice that everyone else here has been telling you that too. Apparently, it's not sinking in. Instead, you're desperately clinging to some illusion of authority on the matter when in fact you've provided no useful technical input.
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853	__________________ “Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.

31st May 2012, 02:39 AM	#2326
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,735	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore What's truly stupid is the completeness of the so called collapse. Oh, look, Clay responds with a one liner that doesn't actually address a single point made or answer a single question asked in the post he's responding to. Originally Posted by Christopher7 That page was about Mark Roberts, not the people Tony asked about. ... Quote: Has anyone threatened or hurt official story supporters who give their names like Ryan Mackey, Ron Wieck, Dave Thomas, or Zdenek Bazant? Originally Posted by Chris7 Most of the posts at that page are very similar to the insults posted here. I disagree. Quote: If you are not aware that you're covering up for that traitor and mass murderer and yes insurance fraudster Silverstein, you'll figure it out when you're beside him on the scaffold. I'll be saving this email as evidence for your trial +++ You obviously have you head in your ass,or better yet a paycheck comming from some OTHER means. Bottom line you sold the USA out. Your kind wil eventually get what you have comming. +++ Merry Kristmas Gravy you slimy treacherous shill +++ When the truth comes out, that Mark Roberts twat deserves to be executed, certainly not for being a danger to the movement's progress but just for being an inherently loathesome, bile-inducing, shill TWAT! He's a dirty shill and ALL SHILLS will be covered in piss and petrol and shot when the truth comes out. +++ Like I have stated before people such as yourselves are revealed to be one of two things, government agents on a payroll or brainwashed morons who refuse to accept the truth. Have a Nice 4th of July, and remember you won't be portrayed as someone who just mindlessly let something happen in history, you will be portrayed as a Traitor to your own country!” +++ "(Mark Roberts is) just as evil as Hitler...just as evil as Mao...just as evil as Stalin...that is no exaggeration– "28th Kingdom," on the JREF forum. +++ Tony Szamboti: I would like to know how a dual citizen has the audacity to act like such a smart ass to sole American citizens who are simply asking questions, of their sole government, about those events when things don't seem to add up. I'm trying to recall the last time I saw a debunker accuse a Truther of treason for not believing in the official story or compared anyone but suspected anti-Semites to Hitler. I'm drawing a complete blank.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo Last edited by 000063; 31st May 2012 at 02:42 AM.

30th May 2012, 10:28 PM	#2325
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by Tony S Has anyone threatened or hurt official story supporters who give their names like Ryan Mackey, Ron Wieck, Dave Thomas, or Zdenek Bazant? Originally Posted by AJM8125 ETA: Link contains NSFW language. Yes. That page was about Mark Roberts, not the people Tony asked about. Most of the posts at that page are very similar to the insults posted here. Kevin Barrett talked about a trial. The only post that could be considered a threat was by Rob Balsamo and he was talking about "if America fell into civil war". None the less, his comment is clearly over the line and unacceptable.

31st May 2012, 02:40 AM	#2327
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,735	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti So tell us who has hurt the people you mention being hurt due to their position on what occurred on 911 and what court cases were brought as a result of it. I'm sorry, I don't recall anyone asserting anything about court cases. I do recall the very poster you are responding to saying he was harassed himself, in addition to saying other people, who he specifically named, were also harassed. Quote: Has anyone threatened or hurt official story supporters who give their names like Ryan Mackey, Ron Wieck, Dave Thomas, or Zdenek Bazant? Why is that relevant? If the claim is that people who have their names publicly associated with 9/11 evidence Truthers take issue with are often harassed, regardless of whether they argue on the Internet or not, why are you asking about only a subset of such? Quote: It sounds like you can't provide that part of the information and are just out here yapping away like a big anonymous blowhard again. And it looks like you're strawmanning furiously to avoid addressing the actual claim being made.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo Last edited by 000063; 31st May 2012 at 02:43 AM.

31st May 2012, 05:16 AM	#2328
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery Posts: 4,498	Originally Posted by ergo Wow. This just doesn't end. He has done so. In both forums. He has done so. In both forums. The assumptions are the same assumptions that NIST used. Tney are not for Tony to defend, since he is merely showing how their use does not lead to the conclusion NIST came to. You, however, continue to claim the assumptions are invalid while providing no analysis of your own. When are you going to join the discussion at the level you aspire to? See above. If you are claiming that the NIST assumptions are invalid, you need to explain why and what they should have included. That is your claim to defend. If you don't want to defend it, you will continue to get the same results you are getting now, which is, no one is listening to you because you aren't saying anything. If you are talking about your vague allusion to "single point of failure" you are again referring to NIST's assumption. You are again tasked with providing the elements you think they should have included. It indeed IS your burden of proof. I notice that everyone else here has been telling you that too. Apparently, it's not sinking in. Instead, you're desperately clinging to some illusion of authority on the matter when in fact you've provided no useful technical input. Tony is not making the same assumptions as NIST, he has placed additional constraints on the beams and girders and assumed linearity, all without explicit mathematical or computational justification. And since the NIST study has already been accepted by the scientific and engineering community at large, your mere wish it were so will not transfer away from him the burden of proof.
	__________________ "Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993) "Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012) "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)

31st May 2012, 05:37 AM	#2329
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by LSSBB Tony is not making the same assumptions as NIST, he has placed additional constraints on the beams and girders and assumed linearity, all without explicit mathematical or computational justification. Why don't y'all cut the crap and figure out how much a 53' 4" W24x55 floor beam would sag between 600^oC and 700^oC in 1 degree increments? Use all those degrees you say you have. Put up or all your bla-bla about Tony's calcs is just a cover for the fact that not one of you guys knows how.

31st May 2012, 05:52 AM	#2330
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,322	Originally Posted by Christopher7 Why don't y'all cut the crap and figure out how much a 53' 4" W24x55 floor beam would sag between 600^oC and 700^oC in 1 degree increments? Use all those degrees you say you have. Put up or all your bla-bla about Tony's calcs is just a cover for the fact that not one of you guys knows how. As soon as YOU cut the crap and give us your theory on the ENTIRE day's events....
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

31st May 2012, 06:01 AM	#2331
thedopefishlives Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 763	Originally Posted by Christopher7 Why don't y'all cut the crap and figure out how much a 53' 4" W24x55 floor beam would sag between 600^oC and 700^oC in 1 degree increments? Use all those degrees you say you have. Put up or all your bla-bla about Tony's calcs is just a cover for the fact that not one of you guys knows how. There's a huge difference between knowing how and knowing that it's completely irrelevant. It has been explained to you by multiple people more qualified than I how the assumptions used by Tony may not be valid. Tony has not demonstrated the validity of his assumptions, so if I were you, I would be asking him to put up or shut up.
thedopefishlives Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 763

31st May 2012, 08:02 AM	#2332
DaveThomasNMSR Muse Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Nuevo Mexico, USA Posts: 620	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti So tell us who has hurt the people you mention being hurt due to their position on what occurred on 911 and what court cases were brought as a result of it. Has anyone threatened or hurt official story supporters who give their names like Ryan Mackey, Ron Wieck, Dave Thomas, or Zdenek Bazant? It sounds like you can't provide that part of the information and are just out here yapping away like a big anonymous blowhard again. I have received numerous accusations of being a traitor, a Zionist shill, and more. One of the instances of harrassment that I recall involved a truther demanding information about my background and associations and motivations. It happened right here on JREF. Sources: Tony Szamboti Carlitos Tony Szamboti Tony Szamboti Carlitos W. D. Clinger The most humorous was one loon shouting in full caps in an e-mail that "WEIGHT IS NOT A FORCE!!!!" Oh well.
	__________________ "This explanation is priceless, and wipes out Drosnin with laughter, which is the correct weapon to use here." - James Randi Ergo beedunked here. Skeptical Inquirer July/August 2011 issue on 9/11 Truth

31st May 2012, 08:31 AM	#2333
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Somewhere between Here and There Posts: 4,240	Precisely the reason I choose not to use my real name in this paranoid realm. A sample of comments made to me: 'gawd you sicken me, how much are you paid for pushing the wtc BS .... you are exposed as a shill or traitor to country ... do you hate muslims? do you think zionism is a good thing?' pt1gard ' Luckily there are lot's of people dedicated to exposing this fraud, and they won't go away until this has succeeded. And u can be counted on to be treated as a traitor to ur own country' Sandberg1972 'Only IDIOTS believe you AlienEntity, People who know not Chemistry or Physics! YOU ARE A TRAITOR TO THE UNITED STATES PEOPLE!' ZipOnOver 'Go watch loose change 2nd edition. Don't say anything until you do that. And if you have, and you still defend a maggot like larry, all due respect, you deserve NO respect. You would then qualify as a blind, stupid piece of traitor **.' sssssjjjj1 ' How do you sleep at night knowing what a traitor you are to the people. I can only pray there is a place for people who sell out their own kind. Your karma will get you. Pathetic excuse for a human being. Maybe you are an alien.' godbluffvdgg ''Either way f off or I'll make some calls and have your life changed.'' 'You go to hell you propagandist traitor' dieyoubastards 'YOU ARE A ********* TRAITOR! I DON''T LIKE TRAITORS. ANYONE WHO HAS LOOKED AT ALL THE EVIDENCE ABOUT 9/11 CAN COME AWAY WITH NO OTHER CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB FROM START TO FINISH. YOU DENY THE VERY FACTS THAT PROVE IT! LIKE THE ADMITTED - BY NIST NO LESS - FREE-FALL SPEED OF THE COLLAPSES OF ALL THREE BUILDINGS! THIS FACT ALONE PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT IT WAS CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. SO YOU DENY THAT FACT AND LIE YOUR SILLY ASS OFF THINKING YOUR KOOL-AID DRINKING FOLLOWERS AT THE "AMAZING RANDI" MESSAGE BOARD WILL DRINK IT! HA! WHEN WE TAKE THIS COUNTRY BACK I WANT TO SEE YOU PUT ON TRIAL FOR AIDING AND ABETTING TREASON, MY FINE FEATHERED FRIEND! I WANT TO SEE YOU BEHIND BARS SERVING A LIFE STRETCH AT MARION! YOU GOT THAT?' uhlijohn
	__________________ Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

31st May 2012, 08:33 AM	#2334
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Somewhere between Here and There Posts: 4,240	That's just a small sample of the violent and abusive messages you get when you try to kick at the darkness until it bleeds daylight. I'm quite sure Tony Z was unaware of the malevolent paranoia which dominates the 9/11 Truth movement. At least he know has that knowledge, although I doubt he will make much use of it.
	__________________ Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

31st May 2012, 09:08 AM	#2335
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Somewhere between Here and There Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by tmd2_1 We're talking about the concept of an iceberg sinking a ship (has happened) and the concept of fire collapsing a steel sky scraper (has not happened except for 9/11 of course) Hahaha. No, we're talking about fire destroying a steel building vs icebergs sinking steel ships. Nice try at shifting the goalposts though. Many steel buildings have failed in fires, and certainly ships prior to the Titanic had sunk due to icebergs. Had a ship with the design of Titanic sunk before? Certainly not. Nor had a building or buildings of the WTC's designs failed before. That cannot possibly mean that it couldn't happen, and happen the way it did, due to fires and other damage. Your objections and equivocations are not succeeding.
	__________________ Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

31st May 2012, 09:13 AM	#2336
GlennB Jellied eel and offal fancier Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia Posts: 8,952	Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR The most humorous was one loon shouting in full caps in an e-mail that "WEIGHT IS NOT A FORCE!!!!" You should bear in mind that Szamboti is not far from being that class of scientist, given his claims that static objects are accelerating at g and that the EMP might have fallen off sideways.

31st May 2012, 09:17 AM	#2337
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,899	Originally Posted by Christopher7 Why don't y'all cut the crap and figure out how much a 53' 4" W24x55 floor beam would sag between 600^oC and 700^oC in 1 degree increments? Use all those degrees you say you have. Put up or all your bla-bla about Tony's calcs is just a cover for the fact that not one of you guys knows how. Please specify the in-service live load, the dead load, any point loads acting on the beam, the connection types at both ends of the beam and the material of the beam. If the floor is composite, please specify the angle of the flutes in relation to the flange, the thickness of the decking, the spacing of the flutes, the depth of the flutes, the height of concrete over the top of flute, the width of the flutes, the type of shear studs, the size of shear stud, the expected height of the head of the shear studs above the flutes and the compressive strength of the concrete.
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,899	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website. Last edited by Newtons Bit; 31st May 2012 at 09:18 AM.

31st May 2012, 09:21 AM	#2338
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,198	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit Please specify the in-service live load, the dead load, any point loads acting on the beam, the connection types at both ends of the beam and the material of the beam. If the floor is composite, please specify the angle of the flutes in relation to the flange, the thickness of the decking, the spacing of the flutes, the depth of the flutes, the height of concrete over the top of flute, the width of the flutes, the type of shear studs, the size of shear stud, the expected height of the head of the shear studs above the flutes and the compressive strength of the concrete. Lol! C7 will ignore this, and repeat his assertions that it's "technobabble".
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

31st May 2012, 10:56 AM	#2339
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery Posts: 4,498	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit Please specify the in-service live load, the dead load, any point loads acting on the beam, the connection types at both ends of the beam and the material of the beam. If the floor is composite, please specify the angle of the flutes in relation to the flange, the thickness of the decking, the spacing of the flutes, the depth of the flutes, the height of concrete over the top of flute, the width of the flutes, the type of shear studs, the size of shear stud, the expected height of the head of the shear studs above the flutes and the compressive strength of the concrete. Let's not forget, the distribution of the manufacturing variabilties of length, width, height, skew torsion, material distribution of all physical members, the impact of wind, the actual degree of spalling of all concrete surfaces impacting the steel members, the presence of internal fracturing and voids in all physical members, variabilities in as-built quality of all welds, threaded and non - threaded fasteners, the effects of wind on the sail area of the building causing tilt and tortion, vibrational analysis from other cataclysmic events . . . And so on. But then again, I don't have the burden of proof, do I? Who has to take this to The Man and get his voice heard? Not me. I'm just a schmoe on the internet, giving Tony (or C7, if they are a team) the value of my expertise in validating his case. Should he go anywhere out there in legal land with his conjectures, it should be bullet proof before it hits a phalanx of PhDs, no?
	__________________ "Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993) "Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012) "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)

31st May 2012, 10:57 AM	#2340
tfk Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,978	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti So tell us who has hurt the people you mention being hurt due to their position on what occurred on 911 and what court cases were brought as a result of it. Do you consider constant harassment to fall into the category of "hurt"? I do. Do you consider threats against one's life to fall into that category? I do. It forces one to change one's attitude towards strangers & chance meetings with people. Every one of the people that I cited (including me) has stories about people harassing them and/or threatening them. Regardless of whether or not you choose to believe that. Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti Has anyone threatened or hurt official story supporters who give their names like Ryan Mackey, Ron Wieck, Dave Thomas, or Zdenek Bazant? What a brain-dead attempt at an argument, Tony. Doesn't matter one iota. Any more than the obvious fact that none of those four select individuals have been murdered negates the existence of murder. I brought up the names of people who have explicitly stated that they have been harassed or threatened. Why don't you ask those people if they've been hurt? Why are you asking me about these four individuals? Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti It sounds like you can't provide that part of the information and are just out here yapping away like a big anonymous blowhard again. Ahhh, now I see why you are asking me. You want to get back to the "anonymous" point again. Well, when you've got no other arrow in your quiver… LoL.
tfk Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,978

31st May 2012, 11:37 AM	#2341
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti Has anyone threatened or hurt official story supporters who give their names like Ryan Mackey, Ron Wieck, Dave Thomas, or Zdenek Bazant? Originally Posted by Christopher7 That page was about Mark Roberts, not the people Tony asked about. Understanding basic english fail.

31st May 2012, 12:02 PM	#2342
Clayton Moore Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 6,198	Originally Posted by dafydd Have truthers ever heard of this thing called gravity? The three WTC buildings had been built and therefore prepared for and protected from your gravity for decades.
	__________________ Shitat Matzliach is why the Holohoax works. The same neoconservative scum who engineered 9/11 and got the US into two wars want American troops to sacrifice their lives in Syria and Iran. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhc7M...Mc4eb2TClVRQws http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/#aevideo http://www2.ae911truth.org/actionale...rBuilding7.php

31st May 2012, 12:08 PM	#2343
thedopefishlives Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 763	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore The three WTC buildings had been built and therefore prepared for and protected from your gravity for decades. And then a couple of airliners hijacked by fanatical terrorists came along and blew all of those preparations and protections away. Although I am highly amused at the notion of being "prepared for and protected from" gravity.
thedopefishlives Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 763

31st May 2012, 12:14 PM	#2344
newton3376 The Truth Movement.....still not at 1% Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,315	Why do truthers always want to know peoples real names? Why can't they just debate the issues......or at least try?
	__________________ AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%

31st May 2012, 12:16 PM	#2345
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,543	Same reason as they fantasize about hanging / jailing those who defend the "OCT" - at heart they are a bunch of authoritarian thugs.

31st May 2012, 12:23 PM	#2346
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,578	Yea, it's all fun and games until somebody gets hanged...
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

31st May 2012, 12:33 PM	#2347
Clayton Moore Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 6,198	Originally Posted by thedopefishlives And then a couple of airliners hijacked by fanatical terrorists came along and blew all of those preparations and protections away. Although I am highly amused at the notion of being "prepared for and protected from" gravity. A comparatively light 1/3 of a tower, even lighter after fires, crushes a much stronger 1/3 and then crushes the bottom 1/3 which is even stronger. At what point does the gravity driven 1/3 destroy itself? Each contact would have to deplete hit and hitter equally. The hitter would lose force upon each contact. The gravity nonsense of the lightest 1/3 of a building pushing through the rest of the building and pulverizing much of the entire building in less than 20 seconds is pure insanity.
	__________________ Shitat Matzliach is why the Holohoax works. The same neoconservative scum who engineered 9/11 and got the US into two wars want American troops to sacrifice their lives in Syria and Iran. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhc7M...Mc4eb2TClVRQws http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/#aevideo http://www2.ae911truth.org/actionale...rBuilding7.php

31st May 2012, 12:35 PM	#2348
thedopefishlives Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 763	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore A comparatively light 1/3 of a tower, even lighter after fires, crushes a much stronger 1/3 and then crushes the bottom 1/3 which is even stronger. At what point does the gravity driven 1/3 destroy itself? Each contact would have to deplete hit and hitter equally. The hitter would lose force upon each contact. The gravity nonsense of the lightest 1/3 of a building pushing through the rest of the building and pulverizing much of the entire building in less than 20 seconds is pure insanity. It's been 11 years and all you've got is your own personal incredulity and lack of knowledge of high-school physics. 0/10, try harder next time.
thedopefishlives Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 763

31st May 2012, 12:45 PM	#2349
Clayton Moore Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 6,198	Originally Posted by thedopefishlives It's been 11 years and all you've got is your own personal incredulity and lack of knowledge of high-school physics. 0/10, try harder next time. You could probably drop the the upper 1/3 from 50 feet and you wouldn't get a like result. I have the knowledge that I'm right and that I have the courage and integrity to say so.
	__________________ Shitat Matzliach is why the Holohoax works. The same neoconservative scum who engineered 9/11 and got the US into two wars want American troops to sacrifice their lives in Syria and Iran. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhc7M...Mc4eb2TClVRQws http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/#aevideo http://www2.ae911truth.org/actionale...rBuilding7.php

31st May 2012, 12:46 PM	#2350
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,543	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore You could probably drop the the upper 1/3 from 50 feet and you wouldn't get a like result. I have the knowledge that I'm right and that I have the courage and integrity to say so. You're not alone. Ex-member Heiwa believed you could drop the upper block from a couple of miles and it still wouldn't collapse the building. Member ergo thinks that a "moon sized field of rubble" might not crush the WTC. So at least your delusions are not unique.

31st May 2012, 12:47 PM	#2351
thedopefishlives Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 763	Originally Posted by carlitos You're not alone. Ex-member Heiwa believed you could drop the upper block from a couple of miles and it still wouldn't collapse the building. So at least your delusions are not unique. And current member ergo believes you could drop a moon-sized field of rubble on the tower and it wouldn't collapse. We get all kinds here, don't we? ETA: Damn, beaten to it.
thedopefishlives Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 763

31st May 2012, 01:50 PM	#2352
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore A comparatively light 1/3 of a tower, Your ignorance is astounding. The Twin Towers weighed 500,000 tons a piece. To you, "comparatively light" means the USS Missouri and the USS Iowa and the USS Wisconsin and the USS New Jersey. What happened on 9/11 is exactly what we would expect to see if you drop four gawddamn battleships on an office building.

31st May 2012, 02:09 PM	#2353
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,899	Originally Posted by LSSBB Let's not forget, the distribution of the manufacturing variabilties of length, width, height, skew torsion, material distribution of all physical members, the impact of wind, the actual degree of spalling of all concrete surfaces impacting the steel members, the presence of internal fracturing and voids in all physical members, variabilities in as-built quality of all welds, threaded and non - threaded fasteners, the effects of wind on the sail area of the building causing tilt and tortion, vibrational analysis from other cataclysmic events . . . Those actually wouldn't be necessary for a typical floor beam. AISC LRFD already accounts for manufacturing tolerances and normal wear/tear, spalling won't be an issue in the compression region of concrete floors, wind forces only apply to perimeter beams or beams that are part of the MWFRS. The items I listed off are what's actually necessary to perform a *basic* calculation independent of the rest of the building design/condition.
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,899	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.

31st May 2012, 02:18 PM	#2354
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Somewhere between Here and There Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore A comparatively light 1/3 of a tower, even lighter after fires, crushes a much stronger 1/3 and then crushes the bottom 1/3 which is even stronger. At what point does the gravity driven 1/3 destroy itself? Each contact would have to deplete hit and hitter equally. The hitter would lose force upon each contact. The gravity nonsense of the lightest 1/3 of a building pushing through the rest of the building and pulverizing much of the entire building in less than 20 seconds is pure insanity. Your post is pure nonsense, actually. Based on ignorance and an unwillingness to learn. Quote: I have the knowledge that I'm right Wrong. You have a belief that you're right. But in reality you're wrong. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing; please do not confuse the two.
	__________________ Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

31st May 2012, 02:45 PM	#2355
uke2se Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,129	Originally Posted by carlitos You're not alone. Ex-member Heiwa believed you could drop the upper block from a couple of miles and it still wouldn't collapse the building. Member ergo thinks that a "moon sized field of rubble" might not crush the WTC. So at least your delusions are not unique. I love to be reminded of these twoofer epic fails. Always brings a smile to my face.
uke2se Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,129