Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[R.Mackey]

You know when that might be? Are we talking days, weeks or years? Good first show!

The first show had a unique technical issue, so there should be no undue delays in the second and third. But I remind you, Gary is doing this on his own time, so cut him some slack. It's not like you all paid him to deliver on a specific date.

If you liked the first show, I wonder what you'll all think of the second. Some real fireworks on that one.

 

[grandmastershek]

Some real fireworks on that one.

Were they thermitic?

 

[DropGems]

Good episode with some decent "pwnage" towards the end. Looking forward to the others.

 

[alienentity]

I thought Mr. Mackey handled himself very well - composed, focused and polite.

Kudos to Tony S. for agreeing to do the show. I still find his main arguments rather weak, since they hinge on a denial of the initial tilt, and a denial that rubble could transmit enough energy.

If you don't buy into the denials, his arguments are rather empty.

Ryan mentioned the water-dumping experiments, so I dug one up and posted a link on the Hardfire youtube video.

I think it makes the point quite well.... ETA I hope there were no defiant truthers in the car shouting 'it can't hurt us!!'

 

[LashL]

Good stuff, indeed. Very much looking forward to parts 2 and 3.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I thought Mr. Mackey handled himself very well - composed, focused and polite.

Kudos to Tony S. for agreeing to do the show. I still find his main arguments rather weak, since they hinge on a denial of the initial tilt, and a denial that rubble could transmit enough energy.

If you don't buy into the denials, his arguments are rather empty.

Ryan mentioned the water-dumping experiments, so I dug one up and posted a link on the Hardfire youtube video.

I think it makes the point quite well.... ETA I hope there were no defiant truthers in the car shouting 'it can't hurt us!!'

Obviously just local failures

 

[Baylor]

"You're putting my words in my mouth." - Tony Szamboti.​

Ha!

 

[tsig]

"You're putting my words in my mouth." - Tony Szamboti.​

Ha!

You would've thought he would have sounded smarter if that was the case.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I thought Mr. Mackey handled himself very well - composed, focused and polite.

Kudos to Tony S. for agreeing to do the show. I still find his main arguments rather weak, since they hinge on a denial of the initial tilt, and a denial that rubble could transmit enough energy.

If you don't buy into the denials, his arguments are rather empty.

Ryan mentioned the water-dumping experiments, so I dug one up and posted a link on the Hardfire youtube video.

I think it makes the point quite well.... ETA I hope there were no defiant truthers in the car shouting 'it can't hurt us!!'

The volume of water in that bucket is at least 10'x10'x10' which is 1,000 cubic feet and would weigh 62,000 lbs., yet the only thing it really collapses/crushes is the relatively flimsy roof of the car. Obviously most of the mass was not participating in a singular impact or the entire vehicle would have been crushed to a solid mass.

In addition to Anders Bjorkman's challenge to build a structure where 1/10th can one-way crush 9/10ths, you should do a rubble load application test.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

"You're putting my words in my mouth." - Tony Szamboti.​

Ha!

Yes, although there is an extra word in there, the connotation was obvious that I meant "You're trying to put words in my mouth".

 

[Edx]

In addition to Anders Bjorkman's challenge to build a structure where 1/10th can one-way crush 9/10ths, you should do a rubble load application test.

We've already shown him examples of that happening but he denies it apparently so do you, no reason at all is given.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

We've already shown him examples of that happening but he denies it apparently so do you, no reason at all is given.

As far as I know nobody has shown that rubble could demolish the structure of the towers. If they have please show me where.

 

[Edx]

As far as I know nobody has shown that rubble could demolish the structure of the towers. If they have please show me where.

These examples especially the last example given satisfy what he is asking for.

So why does he say it doesnt count?

Because it was a "controlled" collapse.

However this is absolutely irrelevant.

The issue is... if the supporting columns of one floor are removed or weakened can the smaller top section of a building crush down the lower section.

As you can see especially by the last example all they have to do is remove one floor and the top 3 or 4 floors can be seen crushing down at least around 17 floors with ease.

There is also no need to weaken the structure in these techniques, so quite literally these more than satisfy the challenge.

Yet Heiwa believes that you couldnt even drop the top section on top of the lower section and have it collapse.

PS: Also note the following observations:

1. Large dust clouds
2. Puffs of air and
3. Explusions of debris.

Guys like Richard Gage claims these are indications of explosive demolition. Since that clearly isnt the case, how then are these indicators of explosives? If a building collapsed we would expect these effects.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

These examples especially the last example given satisfy what he is asking for.

So why does he say it doesnt count?

Because it was a "controlled" collapse.

However this is absolutely irrelevant.

The issue is... if the supporting columns of one floor are removed or weakened can the smaller top section of a building crush down the lower section.

As you can see especially by the last example all they have to do is remove one floor and the top 3 or 4 floors can be seen crushing down at least around 17 floors with ease.

There is also no need to weaken the structure in these techniques, so quite literally these more than satisfy the challenge.

Yet Heiwa believes that you couldnt even drop the top section on top of the lower section and have it collapse.

PS: Also note the following observations:

1. Large dust clouds
2. Puffs of air and
3. Explusions of debris.

Guys like Richard Gage claims these are indications of explosive demolition. Since that clearly isnt the case, how then are these indicators of explosives? If a building collapsed we would expect these effects.

As has been pointed out many times, the Balzac-Vitry building demolition does not in any way represent 1/10th of a structure crushing down the lower 9/10ths of the structure. It can also be seen that the upper section of the building is being simultaneously destroyed.

I think you really need to do a model as there are no examples of what Bjorkman is asking you to show.

 

[TruthersLie]

ah... is that how you will try to shift the goal posts?

We can see that 1/4 will crush down 3/4.

and according to the now banned heiwa 49% couldn't possibly crush down 51%... and if you dropped that upper 15% from 2 miles up it wouldn't do anything...

do you really support that kind of wackiness?

And anders only shifted to the 10% answer after 2 months of dodging, whinging and attempting to LIE about the technique.

Is that really the best you have? REally? And you are supposed to be a mechanical engineer? wow....

 

[Edx]

As has been pointed out many times, the Balzac-Vitry building demolition does not in any way represent 1/10th of a structure crushing down the lower 9/10ths of the structure.

As it can clearly be seen, the building at the end only stopped collapsing because there was nothing left to crush.

If it wasnt 1/10 crushing 9/10s then it was at least 2/10 crushing 8/10's.

And btw where do you get this idea that the WTC collapse was 1/10 of the structure crushing 9/10's? It clearly wasnt that much.

It can also be seen that the upper section of the building is being simultaneously destroyed.

No, they clearly use cables to pull out the supports of one, maybe two floors. A section of the side even falls out, according to truther logic the top section should have fallen over to where that damage was.

 

[Justin39640]

The volume of water in that bucket is at least 10'x10'x10' which is 1,000 cubic feet and would weigh 62,000 lbs., yet the only thing it really collapses/crushes is the relatively flimsy roof of the car. Obviously most of the mass was not participating in a singular impact or the entire vehicle would have been crushed to a solid mass.

In addition to Anders Bjorkman's challenge to build a structure where 1/10th can one-way crush 9/10ths, you should do a rubble load application test.

nope
It came out pretty much the same.

You seem to ignore the fact a good portion of the core actually survived the initial collapse then fell under its own weight a few seconds later. I wonder what destroyed all those floors and outer columns?
Your debate was about 9/11 not the ramblings of a failed engineer.

Maybe you should think about what all that rubble from 13 floors would do to the floor below it.

Here's a video from an accident in my industry.

One support collapsed the majority of the racking. Why?
Those racks stood for years without a problem. Inside job? lol

I also have seen falling unstrapped wood and other loose loads destroy the overhead guards on machines, other merch, racking, ceilings, rooms, etc, etc.

I may not be an engineer but I've seen the results of what you think is impossible.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

nope
It came out pretty much the same.

You seem to ignore the fact a good portion of the core actually survived the initial collapse then fell under its own weight a few seconds later. I wonder what destroyed all those floors and outer columns?
Your debate was about 9/11 not the ramblings of a failed engineer.

Maybe you should think about what all that rubble from 13 floors would do to the floor below it.

Here's a video from an accident in my industry.

One support collapsed the majority of the racking. Why?
Those racks stood for years without a problem. Inside job? lol

I also have seen falling unstrapped wood and other loose loads destroy the overhead guards on machines, other merch, racking, ceilings, rooms, etc, etc.

I may not be an engineer but I've seen the results of what you think is impossible.

The loads are relative to the failure loads required. Please be specific.

 

[Justin39640]

The loads are relative to the failure loads required. Please be specific.

How much load does it take to destroy the floor directly under the collapse zone in the north tower?
Way less than what hit it.
Your idea that the columns hit dead on square is ludicrous. Nothing in real life fails like that. Only on paper. (courtesy of real world experience)

 

[Tony Szamboti]

ah... is that how you will try to shift the goal posts?

We can see that 1/4 will crush down 3/4.

and according to the now banned heiwa 49% couldn't possibly crush down 51%... and if you dropped that upper 15% from 2 miles up it wouldn't do anything...

do you really support that kind of wackiness?

And anders only shifted to the 10% answer after 2 months of dodging, whinging and attempting to LIE about the technique.

Is that really the best you have? REally? And you are supposed to be a mechanical engineer? wow....

If you can't provide an example of a 1/10th upper section causing the destruction of a lower 9/10ths section of a redundant structure then maybe you can show us some calculations showing it is viable.

Bazant's theory cannot be used as it has been shown to not conform to observation since there is no velocity loss which his jolt would cause.

You also really can't use any of the Verinage techniques as they require impulses and their velocity loss has been verified.

Let's see those calculations.