I found the missing Jolt.

Tony Szamboti said:
tfk, the 911 free forum has said it was willing to host a debate between you and I where the thread would be dedicated to it with no other posters.

I would also want it to be limited to one post per day per person to allow for thoughtful discussion.

Are you willing to try to defend your wild assertions in that type of format?
Click to expand...

Sure. I've got no problem posting over there.

In my experience, it is far, far from a neutral forum. I posted over there for a grand total of about 3-4 months or so, before they banned me.

You'll have to get them to lift that ban.

But the comments that I'd make are no different, no matter where they're posted.

And since there are people here who are interested, I suggest that we mirror the comments in a thread here.

So, fine with me.

How shall we start?

I'd suggest we get right to the heart of the matter: CD or no CD.

So something on the order of, "state your 3 or 4 strongest pieces of evidence for, or against, CD" as a start.

I'd suggest that both of us be required to address each major point that the other brings up.

I'd suggest that each post be 2 part:
Part 1. addressing the points that the other person made in the previous post,

Part 2: making any new points that we wish to bring up.

I'd suggest that, after a few posts addressing the first post (3 or 4 strongest evidence for/against CD), that we keep each post to a single new point.

And I promise that I'll try my best to keep my comments technical & not personal.
 
I predict that this debate, if it occurs, will be no less futile than any other debate on matters of fact rather than policy, nor any less futile than any other debate in which one side considers it its prerogative to declare any part of the evidence on offer to be faked without corroboration. Waste your time arguing with a liar if you want, tfk, but the best case is that he'll simply stick his fingers in his ears and declare you an accessory to mass murder, as he's been doing consistently for the last ten years.

Dave
 
GlennB said:
I've just read chapter 3.3 again and found:

"Figure 3.1 shows the results for two shaped charges applied to column 79 on a tenant floor that was highly partitioned, such as floor 12. Nearly all the windows in the NE section would have been broken, even by the smaller charge"

My bolding. The "smaller charge" was a test they ran to see the effect of charges deemed too small to sever the column.

In your "192 blasts in a second" scenario some of those floors would have had less partitioning and all the windows on every floor subject to multiple blasts. On top of which, in reality, there's no way for conspirators to torch the webs of those columns let alone install shaped charges. The NIST calculations are ultra conservative yet yield results that leave your ridiculous theorising dead in the water. But still you remain devoted to it.
Click to expand...

There is no physical way it could occur, none no physical evidence, none, No valid scientific
Claims, none.

Only people who argue their own Ignorance trumps science and logic.
It has always been the argument or personal ignorance, from the ignorant, and uneducated.
Pesudo Science run amuck, ignorant people finding fools follies, or pursuing hucksterism for personal gain, and false Celebrity.
The sad part about it is they don't care or give a dam about who they hurt in the process of selling lies.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Additionally, the microphones in use were low gain, which are only for close proximity and not for capturing sound at a distance.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the sound of the collapse was louder than the one from the explosives? Because the sound of the collapse was clearly audible in quite some videos, but no explosives were heard. Yet in most CDs the explosives are clearly much louder than the collapses.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Actually, on videos which are close to the towers there was a large roar and then movement was observed and the roar continued during the collapse. There are also firefighters on tape saying there were big bangs right before it came down. I am sure you have seen the firefighter in the hospital bed saying this. There is also testimony that there was something that sounded like a clap of thunder right before the bottom caved out and WTC 7 came down.

It sounds like you can't answer the question as to what the sound level was of the twin tower collapses.
Click to expand...

Yes, the initiation of collapse occurred 1000 feet from the cameras recording it. a few seconds delay between sight and sound is absolutely expected.
 
I've tried to corroborate tfk's 2.5° lean but I was unable.

wtc7-alignment-1.jpg
wtc7-alignment-2.jpg


The tall image is from something between a few minutes and a few seconds before the EPH fell. The short one is from one to a few seconds before.

Both are stills from https://youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo. I rotated the image until WTC7 was straight and then checked the other vertical lines. The tall image was rotated by 2.0°; the other by -0.5°.

If there was a lean, it may not have been global (others talked about a bulge) or it may have been much smaller, or it may have been in the N-S direction, although I couldn't notice any clearly measurable lean from other angles either.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
There is testimony that something quite loud happened right before WTC 7 came down.

First, I think the decibel level you are referring to is for C-4 in air with no obstacles to the sound pressure wave. That is not what would be experienced outside from something going off inside a building. See http://www3.nd.edu/~powers/paper.list/powers10.pdf to get an idea.

Second, it would not necessarily have to be C-4.

Third, there is also a practice called tamping which reduces noise level. See http://aquafoam.com/papers/Raspet2.pdf

Additionally, the microphones in use were low gain, which are only for close proximity and not for capturing sound at a distance.
Click to expand...
OFFS Tony, next time a thunderstorm moves through your area get inside a modern high rise and tell me you cannot hear the thunder! Hell you can even measure the distance between you and the lightning that produced it. Note how loud the ones that take only two seconds between lightning and thunder are!
 
pgimeno said:
Are you saying that the sound of the collapse was louder than the one from the explosives? Because the sound of the collapse was clearly audible in quite some videos, but no explosives were heard. Yet in most CDs the explosives are clearly much louder than the collapses.
Click to expand...

ambient sound mics, such as those built in mics on consumer camcorders, or what you see mounted to the top right side of professional ENG cameras, capture sound quite well. If you could hear traffic noise in the background you would most certainly hear a freakin explosion!

Personal Lavalier mics are lo gain designed to be placed close to the speaker's mouth in order to focus more on the speaker than ambient sound.

Tony is so completely out to lunch on this one its embarrassing.
 
Last edited:
pgimeno said:
I've tried to corroborate tfk's 2.5° lean but I was unable.

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/wtc7-alignment-1.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/wtc7-alignment-2.jpg[/qimg]

The tall image is from something between a few minutes and a few seconds before the EPH fell. The short one is from one to a few seconds before.

Both are stills from https://youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo. I rotated the image until WTC7 was straight and then checked the other vertical lines. The tall image was rotated by 2.0°; the other by -0.5°.

If there was a lean, it may not have been global (others talked about a bulge) or it may have been much smaller, or it may have been in the N-S direction, although I couldn't notice any clearly measurable lean from other angles either.
Click to expand...

Yes, the NIST report describes it as a lean/bulge of the SW portion of the building. IMHO its one reason why the western portion of WTC7 fell to the south. It was already being pulled that way.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I haven't actually said precisely how it would have been done, only that the dynamics of the collapse suggest (actually prove) that there had to be some form of demolition devices used to remove structural integrity from at least 8 stories of the core.
Click to expand...

No in fact all you have done is declare this conclusion and expect people to believe you.
Where is the research, where are the studies, where is the FEA, where is your most probable detailed scenario? Something other than your personal "intuition".
 
jaydeehess said:
ambient sound mics, such as those built in mics on consumer camcorders, or what you see mounted to the top right side of professional ENG cameras, capture sound quite well. If you could hear traffic noise in the background you would most certainly hear a freakin explosion!

Personal Lavalier mics are lo gain designed to be placed close to the speaker's mouth in order to focus more on the speaker than ambient sound.

Tony is so completely out to lunch on this one its embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Any and all mics would be effected by hypersonic waves, such waves from explosives can cause internal bleeding with out penitration of human skin.

The very Idea that a cutter charge was used with RDX, or any high explosive is a fallacy simply placing the charge in close enough proximity to the steel, means the explosive would burn off before detonation occurred in a fire.

Charges would have also been sugceptible to being set of with the planes strike from the impact vibration, that is why Jones proposed stupid thermite, in the first place.
 
jaydeehess said:
Yes, in fact even with Lav mics, very loud sounds, even those behind the speaker, get picked up.
Click to expand...


Are they still on about mics?

I love that one. It's my new favourite.
It used to be "They used green screen" but this is a Bobby Dazzler.
Truly hilarious. And dumb.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
No in fact all you have done is declare this conclusion and expect people to believe you.
Where is the research, where are the studies, where is the FEA, where is your most probable detailed scenario? Something other than your personal "intuition".
Click to expand...
AFAIK he has only made FEAs to try to prove how it could not be.
 
MicahJava said:
It would seem like a lot of you guys have realized how crazy the engineer story really is, and have opted for the "lucky guess" theory.
Click to expand...

Nah. I'd say that a whole bunch of guys here, including me, have realized how pedestrian the engineer story is, & how crazy is the guy trying to infuse it with weighty significance.
 
MicahJava said:
The firefighter claimed that you can see the building leaning (with the naked eye). Tfk posted a screenshot of something he says might be leaning, but I'm looking at all the other WTC 7 videos and I don't see anything matching his screenshot.
Click to expand...

What do you know about photogrammetry?

Did you look at the NIST camera 2 videos?

Did you pull a screen shot from around the time that I told you this one was extracted?

The amount of tilt that is visible is dependent upon the observation angle. Do you account for this in the other videos?

Do you think that your inability to see this in the other videos negates it in this video?

Why don't you start by trying to replicate what I did. That's always a useful exercise.
 
tfk said:
Do you think that your inability to see this in the other videos negates it in this video?
Click to expand...

Ah, now there's a blast from the past. I remember one of the more idiotic truthers arguing that the top block of WTC1 didn't rotate during collapse. His argument was that, although it could clearly be seen rotating in one video, another video taken from a different angle didn't show the rotation - because, in fact, the second video was taken from a direction perpendicular to the rotation axis, but he wasn't capable of understanding that subtle piece of complex geometry - and the second video was of somewhat higher quality, therefore the first one didn't count. It's one of the fundamental truth movement rules of evidence; if you want to prove something didn't happen, and you have two pieces of evidence, one proving that it did happen and the other inconclusive, then the first one is invalid because reasons, and the second one proves it didn't happen.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom