Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

Tony Szamboti said:
Why don't you try a little experiment to see some things for yourself? Take any square structure which is stable vertically and has it's sides supported from side to side on the inside and remove one wall. See if it overturns. Let me know how it goes.
Click to expand...

Are cardboard boxes OK?

Oops when I splashed kerosene on them and set them on fire they burned to the ground.
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
Just for grins:
3 each 5 g "jolts" of, say, 100 lb:
Force (Max)=500 lbf
1 each 15 g "jolt" on the same 100 lb.
Force (Max)=1500lb

If your design capability is 300 lb (SF=3), which one of the above scenarios fails the structure?
This is a trick question
Click to expand...

I think you are misinterpreting the argument made by those who claim that a series of smaller jolts would not be discernable.

In your terms their argument would be that if there were three columns which could all take a 500 lb. load under a 100 lb. plate then there could have been three separate 5 g jolts due to a tilt to take out the columns individually. They then say that this would not be discernable as opposed to a single 15g jolt taking out all three columns at once. The problem with their argument is that the energy dissipation and velocity loss is the same whether it is done cumulatively in a short time frame or all at once.

We looked for the velocity loss which was correlatable to a required energy dissipation in the Missing Jolt paper. It wasn't there. The upper block of WTC 1 never had a velocity loss. It continuously accelerated and gained velocity as though 90% of the column strength below had vanished.
 
Why is anyone bringing up Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

Tony, as you may be aware, is a member of that group, and indeed one of the more prominent members. His name appears on their arrogant letter to NIST regarding WTC 7, for instance (the one in which among other things they claim that nanothermite is not an explosive, and where they focus on BBC "foreknowledge" as an important topic), and he is one of the very few who has had training in a relevant field. So the existence of this group adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. If they have an argument to make, it is safe to assume that Tony is capable of articulating it.

Of course, this hasn't happened. Indeed, his bumbling errors and rejection of reality only serve to cast further doubt on AE911T as a valid authority.

Tony Szamboti said:
Mackey gave nobody a hiding except in his own mind maybe. He is full of bluff and bluster but his actual arguments on collapse intitiation and propagation consist of nothing but grand scale sophistries which are defined below.
Click to expand...

I never heard of "giving a hiding" before (British witticism?), but this is quite clearly an unsophisticated ad Hominem argument. It's pathetic.

One more time, until you accept the following:

  • That you lied about the Factor of Safety in the core being 3.0
  • That the south wall visibly deformed for several minutes before collapse
  • That the core collapse initiated with south wall buckling, followed by a tilt towards the south wall, before descent of the upper stories

... there is no point to speaking to you whatsoever. Some ground rules must be observed, and one of them is acceptance of plain, obvious, and well-documented reality.

Let me know when you accept the above, otherwise, I've wasted far too much time talking to the obstinate.
 
Last edited:
scott.in.taiwan said:
Did you notice no sign of controlled demolition? That's why the person who posted it believes in space-based energy weapons. How about you? Are you a supporter of Dr. Judy Wood Ph.D.?
Click to expand...

What do you think the antenna falling into the building before any other movement occurred was ? Do you think that happened naturally ? If Judy has something to add I am all ears. Nothing is off the table .
 
Tony Szamboti said:
As for creep buckling the NIST does not have sufficient temperatures to cause much of that in the core. But if you want you can remove much of the core to replicate that claim also.
Click to expand...

Oh, wait, new lies to add to the pile. Creep buckling can set in as low as 250oC, and NIST's temperature predictions are considerably above this in most of the affected regions.

Now cue the tired argument about "NIST never recovered steel above blah blah blah..."

It just never ends with these people, does it?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
We looked for the velocity loss which was correlatable to a required energy dissipation in the Missing Jolt paper. It wasn't there. The upper block of WTC 1 never had a velocity loss. It continuously accelerated and gained velocity as though 90% of the column strength below had vanished.
Click to expand...

Almost as though your theory was incorrect...hmmm, ya think? Maybe the column strength is irrelevant when the impacts are not column-to-column. Maybe if you paid attention to the videos and documented bowing, you'd recognize this.

Viscoplastic buckling would occur at temps as low as 150◦ C so long as affected columns were experiencing enough stress. Maybe if you paid attention to these facts you'd come to the correct conclusions.

It's a helluva lot to ask a truther to pay attention to the facts, but we can try.

I doubt you can do it though. Your need to believe in your delusion prevents this.
 
Hokulele said:
Wait, velocity loss?

1st derivative, 2nd derivative, 3rd derivative...

Hm.
Click to expand...

Is Szamboti confusing 'reduced acceleration' with 'velocity loss' ? Surely not ?
Now, pulling away up a hill my car might experience 'reduced acceleration' compared with similar gas on flat ground. But not 'velocity loss'. That would be an actual slowing down, according to my 'A level' physics. There is no 'jolt' when I fail to accelerate to the max uphill.

I wonder if he'll have edited his post by the time our little exchange hits the waiting world?
 
Last edited:
jhunter1163 said:
It appears to be impossible to get off the AE911 list once you're on it. I know that several of the listed "members" have tried to have their names removed, to no effect.
Click to expand...


Which members are you referring to? Please provide names.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Why don't you try a little experiment to see some things for yourself? Take any square structure which is stable vertically and has it's sides supported from side to side on the inside and remove one wall. See if it overturns. Let me know how it goes.
Click to expand...

Ok.


It looks like it rolled over... wowsers... that would be overturning.
 
Mr.Herbert said:
My fake name I created is still on his home page.

Cameron Porter PHD.
(Brady Bunch doctors)
Click to expand...


Yes - we've been over this. The name is visible in an old flash movie - it does not appear in the membership list.
 
of course at one point their esteemed engineers included
george jetson
fred flintstone
and even barney rubble.

So I do have to question the veracity (and authenticity) of the vast majority of their membership.

At the same time DEEP, I ask you what kind of movement LIES about the qualifications of the people who join it? there are NOT 904 degreed AND licensed engineers and architects who are part of the movement.

Even if the # is 904 people who are degreed OR licensed, that is VASTLY different.

Of course with normal truther reading comprehension, I think that is overlooked, after all it isn't a BIG thing... AND/OR... My ESL students get them mixed up all the time (with gender pronouns... I can't tell you how many times I have heard, My father, she is very handsome....
 
R.Mackey said:
I never heard of "giving a hiding" before (British witticism?), but this is quite clearly an unsophisticated ad Hominem argument. It's pathetic.
Click to expand...



Giving someone a "hiding" is usually used here in the context of beating somebody up, eg in "she gave him a good hiding". Perhaps derives from "tanned his hide"

Poor Tony being skinned alive here is a good living embodiment of the metaphor methinks.


Compus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom