Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[Newtons Bit]

How many of them are licensed engineers and architects? Does it matter?

It doesn't matter. AE911 is just one big giant attempt at an appeal to authority. Speaking as one of many engineers on the planet, I'm not swayed by a group of engineers claiming something. What I want to see is research and reason backing up their claims.

So far the only attempts at mathematical reasoning from them (truther engineers) have involved gross misconceptions of physics and/or engineering.

 

[fitzgibbon]

NB

I expect that working Architects and Engineers looking for substantive reasoning from AE911Truth is kind of like television professionals looking for substantive reasoning from Ace Baker.

 

[Newtons Bit]

NB

I expect that working Architects and Engineers looking for substantive reasoning from AE911Truth is kind of like television professionals looking for substantive reasoning from Ace Baker.

We're definitely not holding our breath. If it could be done, it would have already been done.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Pomeroo has the key shortciruiting to Ace Baker's video screeds should he ever feel the need to trot it out.

 

[R.Mackey]

Ahem...

Again, this is not an AE911T thread. If you want to argue about their stupid membership or Richard Gage and his Falling Cardboard Tour or what have you, do it elsewhere.

As I've already explained, the existence of the group has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion:

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.

 

[Edx]

Just to be sure, did the debate take place?

If so, where can we watch it?

 

[R.Mackey]

Patience. Give it a week or two.

 

[Edx]

Patience.

...is not my virtue.

 

[Mr.D]

Patience.

...is not my virtue.

If patience is a virtue,
virtue is it's own reward,
and good things (like rewards) come to those who wait ...


Then patience will come to those who wait.

 

[TruthersLie]

no. patience is a virgin...
her sister charity on the other hand isn't.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This little manipulation sounds impressive at first unless one is keen enough to realize that the building structure was designed to hold several times 100% of the potential energy.

Good God, Tony, can you honestly hold your head up in public after uttering gibberish like this? Do you honestly not understand the difference between force and energy? I'd expect this from the vast majority of the truth movement, but you normally give the impression that you actually understand some physics. The structure was designed to exert a maximum upward force greater than 100% of its weight at any point. If a structural engineer were to design a building that could absorb more than 100% of its own gravitational potential energy before collapsing, it wouldn't be a building, it'd be a slab.

Dave

 

[Bad_Doggie]

What you've just witnessed is why debating the Truth Movement is a waste of time.

The producer informed me that he should be able to salvage the second show, despite my equipment failures. Probably another week or so until they're done. I'll keep you posted.

I'll also open up a new thread, when the time comes, for future ideas and desires. Personally, I am rather disgusted with how direct debate turns out and would rather do more educational shows, but I will be interested to see what you all think. But that will be another thread.

Ok I’m jumping the gun a bit and should wait for the new thread, but I’ve gotta say:

I think that you are right, direct debate achieves nothing positive where the TM is concerned. It only gives them a platform to further publicise their self serving issues. By debating them you are, in effect, assisting them. Starved of the publicity they crave and need to keep their story and various money making projects alive, they will continue to wilt.

The educational shows are always informative, accessible and make the events of 9/11 understandable. But, I would go further and say that they also spark an interest in Science, Engineering and how scientists and engineers operate in the real world. It is quite rare to see Scientists and Engineers in action. Although an Engineer my training is in an unrelated field and whilst following the debates, principally here on JREF, I have learn and re-learn many things. The important, and perhaps difficult thing is to bring this opportunity to the “masses” in an accessible way.

Hard core Truthers will never allow education to impinge on their fantasies. Those that are genuinely seeking answers, often as an artefact of running into trutherism, need these resources available to them. The white paper and the modelling shows go a long way in this direction.

Woof!

 

[Scott_Milner]

Ryan Mackey actually says he sees an immediate tilt to the south of the building itself in the video you link to here, and then has the audacity to say others are denying reality if they claim they don't see it.

Of course there are others here who say it can't be discerned but offer no credible reason for this.

I believe the immediate tilt to the south is nothing but a bluff which cannot be substantiated by those using it to argue that a jolt would not be expected. The additional bluff they use, which they also don't substantiate, is that the tilt would have caused a series of separate jolts which aren't discernable. This argument fails since the aggregate energy dissipation would cause the same velocity loss as one large jolt. There was no velocity loss in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1. It continually accelerated at 70% of gravity, and no argument put forth so far, for this acceleration having a natural cause, has been satisfactorily explained with analysis.

I find it strange that none of them can explain how the upper section stops tilting, and what force caused the upper section from falling over. These people also forget most of the core columns were still intact.

 

[twinstead]

I find it strange that none of them can explain how the upper section stops tilting, and what force caused the upper section from falling over. These people also forget most of the core columns were still intact.

You have it totally opposite. In order for it have "fallen over", there would have needed to be more force acting to send topple it than gravity was pushing down on it. I've seen no video or any other images that show the top portion in any position that would have made gravity do anything but push straight down on it.

The floor directly below it could never support the entire top portion, so it failed. as did the next floor, as did the next. Until there was no building left.

 

[funk de fino]

I find it strange that none of them can explain how the upper section stops tilting, and what force caused the upper section from falling over. These people also forget most of the core columns were still intact.

You corrected for spelling but the sentence still makes no sense.

You told a little lie also.

 

[BasqueArch]

- News Flash –​

Twin Towers' Missing Jolts Discovered Behind Szamboti's Basement False Bookcase Doors.
​

 

[Dave Rogers]

I find it strange that none of them can explain how the upper section stops tilting, and what force caused the upper section from falling over.

What's the basis for your belief that the upper sections stopped tilting? We see on videos a rotation of the upper block that continues until it disappears in the dust clouds, and certainly at no time does it show any signs of any rotation in the opposite direction.

And since "falling over" would consist of a composite motion, in which the upper block rotated and its centre of gravity moved laterally, there was no need for any force to prevent the upper section from falling over. The rotation was observed, and there was no force to move the centre of gravity laterally. In effect, the "force" that stopped the upper section from falling over is Newton's First Law.

These people also forget most of the core columns were still intact.

When, exactly? We know that some, but not all, survived up to about the 50th or 60th floor, well below the point of collapse initiation, for a few seconds after the main collapse. We also know that they all failed within about 25-30 seconds of collapse initiation. Is that what you're talking about, or are you making a claim about some time between the airliner impact and the main collapse? If the latter, how do you know what was intact when, given that there was a building in the way of you seeing it?

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

I find it strange that none of them can explain how the upper section stops tilting, and what force caused the upper section from falling over. These people also forget most of the core columns were still intact.

You are making some basic mistakes.

1. the towers were not a solid object like a tree for example. The towers were hundreds of thousands of interconnected parts, which when standing are stable, but once the collapse started reverted to hundreds of thousands of individual parts all of which could snap, buckle or break.

2. The core did not fall directly on other core columns. Because it wasn't a straight collapse core column on core column this is irrelevant.

But lets take that idea and run with it. EVEN IF IT WAS core on core (sounds like bad engineering porn), Bazant already SHOWED (repeatedly)
that there was not enough to arrest the collapse. As such it is irrelevant.

Now lets look at other collapses where it is CORE ON CORE


So even with core on core gravity driven collapses, you still end up with the building collapsing. (bad analogy because they are a different construction, which I understand, but it is still valid because it is STILL core on core. In the verinage technique does have core on core and a noticable JOLT.)

ETA: 3. Why does the upper section stop tilting? This has been explained MULTIPLE TIMES. So please don't say no one has answerd this... You may not understand it, but it has been explained. This is simple physics. Why is the upper part tilitng? Because the lower section in a portion of the towers has given way. The part that is STILL standing right after the start of the collapes becomes a fulcrum and the top tilts. Now when the collapse gets to the point where the fulcrum is, it collapses and the tilt stops because it no longer has a fulcrum and is being pulled straight down by gravity.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ryan Mackey actually says he sees an immediate tilt to the south of the building itself in the video you link to here, and then has the audacity to say others are denying reality if they claim they don't see it.

Of course there are others here who say it can't be discerned but offer no credible reason for this.

I believe the immediate tilt to the south is nothing but a bluff which cannot be substantiated by those using it to argue that a jolt would not be expected.

Let's take a look at the initial movement of the upper block.



There's a clearly visible tilt in the second frame, before the topmost corner of the roofline has moved more than a single pixel (less than a quarter of a storey). I've measured it at about two degrees.

The additional bluff they use, which they also don't substantiate, is that the tilt would have caused a series of separate jolts which aren't discernable. This argument fails since the aggregate energy dissipation would cause the same velocity loss as one large jolt. There was no velocity loss in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1. It continually accelerated at 70% of gravity, and no argument put forth so far, for this acceleration having a natural cause, has been satisfactorily explained with analysis.

This has been explained to you so many times that I don't for one moment believe that you're going to get it; however, the above argument is completely physically absurd. If the acceleration is 70% of gravity, then the missing 30% is the velocity loss you're looking for. There's a force downwards of mg on the upper block, and a time-averaged upward force of 0.3mg, giving a resultant downward force of 0.7mg and a downward acceleration of 0.7G, in the most basic possible example of vector arithmetic. The time-averaged upward force includes the force exerted upwards by the columns as they collapse.

Your missing jolt and the missing 30% of gravitational acceleration are one and the same, and everyone can see that but you.

Dave

 

[R.Mackey]

I find it strange that none of them can explain how the upper section stops tilting, and what force caused the upper section from falling over. These people also forget most of the core columns were still intact.

Total balderdash. Apparently I have to repeat myself on this topic every month or two.