Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[NoZed Avenger]

This thread is about the debate video, not another incarnation of ring-around-the-rosy and demanding other people jump through hoops to justify their tentative belief that the laws of physics were probably in force, even on 9/11.

Please take that stuff to another thread -- maybe one of the other ten or twenty that have already hashed out that "challenge."

 

[Myriad]

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

Holy crap! I hope the driver survived.

Years ago working as an industrial temp in a warehouse, a one-week job, a stack of boxes near me - a pretty small stack -- started tipping over. I pushed them back up straight and prevented the fall.

An experienced guy chewed me out good for that! That's when I learned that you should NEVER try to stop something once it starts falling in a warehouse. You run! It's so easy to underestimate the force that would be required to arrest the fall and the amount of hurt you'd be in if you fail.

By the way, I noticed that the driver's co-workers immediately started tossing boxes and shelving debris out of the way to reach him. They didn't wait to carefully catalog the debris and map where each box landed first! Didn't they realize they were tampering with material evidence?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Edx]

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.

1. The WTC collapse didnt involve 10% crushing down 90%, so why do you ask for it?

2. The last example in that video only stopped crushing down because there was nothing left to crush.

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

This is moving the goal posts even if we accept your claim.

Whether there is loss of velocity or not makes no difference to if 10% of a structure can crush down 90% of the structure.

You can accept the former without accepting the latter.

If you wish to argue that there was no loss of velocity fine, argue that point.

PS: Do you accept that Richard Gages' indications of explosive demoliton are clearly wrong? And if so, will you be telling him about it and asking him to correct his materials?

 

[Edx]

This thread is about the debate video, not another incarnation of ring-around-the-rosy and demanding other people jump through hoops to justify their tentative belief that the laws of physics were probably in force, even on 9/11.

Please take that stuff to another thread -- maybe one of the other ten or twenty that have already hashed out that "challenge."

To be fair the video is about Tony and he claims in the video that this hasnt happened. I know what Heiwa's opinion is but Tony and the subjects in the video is on topic.

 

[Justin39640]

Holy crap! I hope the driver survived.

Years ago working as an industrial temp in a warehouse, a one-week job, a stack of boxes near me - a pretty small stack -- started tipping over. I pushed them back up straight and prevented the fall.

An experienced guy chewed me out good for that! That's when I learned that you should NEVER try to stop something once it starts falling in a warehouse. You run! It's so easy to underestimate the force that would be required to arrest the fall and the amount of hurt you'd be in if you fail.

By the way, I noticed that the driver's co-workers immediately started tossing boxes and shelving debris out of the way to reach him. They didn't wait to carefully catalog the debris and map where each box landed first! Didn't they realize they were tampering with material evidence?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Yeah apparently he got out with only a minor leg injury. If you watch closely you can see them pull him out. Thank god for overhead guards! Early forklifts had no such device (ouch). That was in a vodka warehouse in Russia. Would that be considered a powder keg? lol jk

Yeah I learned that lesson the hard way when I was new to my job. I was changing tires on a three wheeled version (2 in the front 1 steer in the back). My job at the time gave me pretty crappy jacks to use and I had it on blocks. The machine started to tip to the side. I tried to steady it and it got to a point that I now call the "mouse trap" cause once it got past that point it came down like a hammer. A counter weighted door on the back slammed shut on my hand (2 doors opened on the back to kinda resemble Pac-Man if you were looking from the top). Needless to say I spent the next few hours at the hospital and was lucky I only needed a whole bunch of stitches. lol

HAHA
Excellent point lol

 

[R.Mackey]

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.

Sheer idiocy. We've spent, what, 50 pages of Forum and I spent two hours in studio explaining, with graphics, why there's no jolt?

This is why debating the Truth Movement is a waste of time.

 

[cmcaulif]

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.

Please stop using the term 'mass participation,' it's not applicable here.

The reason water or rubble does less damage than a rigid body with similar kinetic energy is some of that energy is wasted in causing the water to flow or deforming/scattering rubble particles.

And yes, Bazant does account for compaction and ejection of the rubble layer.

This has nothing to do with 'mass participation,' which implies you are talking about the effective modal mass for the residual vibrations of the structures involved in the impact.

 

[R.Mackey]

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.

Oh, let me respond to this, too.

The actual force of a car crusher is about 150 tons, considerably higher than the mere 31 tons you speculate in the bucket of the steam shovel.

Yes, this is static vs. dynamic, but you also need to note that most of the water missed the car entirely. Nonetheless, the effect is similar to the extremely large force imparted by a car crusher.

The point is that the mass does not have to be a solid block to cause damage during a collision. You stated in debate that pieces must hit at "exactly" the same time, and this is nonsense as the video shows. I stated that there is no practical difference provided it all impacts before the impacted object goes through its elastic response ("springs back") and this is correct. In the case of the WTC Towers, all the upper mass hits in a fraction of a second.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

To be fair the video is about Tony and he claims in the video that this hasnt happened. I know what Heiwa's opinion is but Tony and the subjects in the video is on topic.

Fair enough; I just see this spinning away into one more round of Joseph and the amazing, technicolor 450 MPH goalposts.

But you're right.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Sheer idiocy. We've spent, what, 50 pages of Forum and I spent two hours in studio explaining, with graphics, why there's no jolt?

This is why debating the Truth Movement is a waste of time.

I don't think any debate is possible to begin with when the basis of their claims are on a fundamental inability to comprehend basic reading skills.
They should really abandon their rhetoric on Bazant's papers... :\

 

[CHF]

Wow.

Part 1 of the debate appears to be of a NASA engineer trying to explain engineering and physics to some plumber from the Bronx.

Tony you're so out of your league I almost feel embarrassed for you.

 

[TjW]

Fair enough; I just see this spinning away into one more round of Joseph and the amazing, technicolor 450 MPH goalposts.

But you're right.

I believe those goalposts were moving faster than free-fall.

 

[Edx]

I believe those goalposts were moving faster than free-fall.

That must mean theres some of those black hole explosives some truthers think exist pulling them.

 

[alienentity]

Tony wrote '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.'

Tony, your list of excuses not to accept proofs is long. I haven't seen the rest of the debate yet, so I'll wait until then to comment on the above directly.

But if you insist on raising the level of proof to an impossible level, remember that nobody can find another example of a 110 story steel-frame building that was hit by a jet, suffered large fires, and then didn't collapse.
The only two examples in history, the WTC towers, did collapse. This forms our standard with which to judge every theory.

If we reverse your impossible criteria, the onus is on truthers to find an identical example which could refute the real-world data. Otherwise you ask us to accept a ridiculous double standard.

 

[alienentity]

Just a quick afterthought regarding rubble: Nobody, including Tony, knows precisely what ratio of compressed material, loose material and intact structure was falling at any given moment.

However, based on the level of pulverization of materials found after the collapses, a great deal of energy was available. Tony seems to be in a position denying that such energy could have been released during a gravitational collapse, but I think it's a futile position based on the engineering studies I've read.

It seems like Tony's not just holding out for a jolt, he's also avoiding a lot of other evidence. This has to be an ideological or doctrinal position, in defense of CD theory.

Just remove the artificial requirement of CD, and the evidence is coherent all by itself. Then you can allow a bit of tilt, the creation of rubble, and a number of other factors, all which coexist quite nicely in another, more plausible hypothesis.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Just a quick afterthought regarding rubble: Nobody, including Tony, knows precisely what ratio of compressed material, loose material and intact structure was falling at any given moment.

However, based on the level of pulverization of materials found after the collapses, a great deal of energy was available. Tony seems to be in a position denying that such energy could have been released during a gravitational collapse, but I think it's a futile position based on the engineering studies I've read.

It seems like Tony's not just holding out for a jolt, he's also avoiding a lot of other evidence. This has to be an ideological or doctrinal position, in defense of CD theory.

Just remove the artificial requirement of CD, and the evidence is coherent all by itself. Then you can allow a bit of tilt, the creation of rubble, and a number of other factors, all which coexist quite nicely in another, more plausible hypothesis.

I can see a large volume of rubble moving at high speed possibly causing a collapse propagation. However, that would not happen until many stories were destroyed.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Oh, let me respond to this, too.

The actual force of a car crusher is about 150 tons, considerably higher than the mere 31 tons you speculate in the bucket of the steam shovel.

Yes, this is static vs. dynamic, but you also need to note that most of the water missed the car entirely. Nonetheless, the effect is similar to the extremely large force imparted by a car crusher.

The point is that the mass does not have to be a solid block to cause damage during a collision. You stated in debate that pieces must hit at "exactly" the same time, and this is nonsense as the video shows. I stated that there is no practical difference provided it all impacts before the impacted object goes through its elastic response ("springs back") and this is correct. In the case of the WTC Towers, all the upper mass hits in a fraction of a second.

The elastic wave travels at about 15,000 feet per second. How long do you claim it will take to fully respond?

Only the relatively flimsy roof was crushed in that video. I don't think it is a good example at all.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Sheer idiocy. We've spent, what, 50 pages of Forum and I spent two hours in studio explaining, with graphics, why there's no jolt?

This is why debating the Truth Movement is a waste of time.

All I have seen you do is make assertions as to why you don't think a jolt would be expected. Don't confuse bare assertions with a legitimate explanation.

At one point you said that the tilt obviates any need for a jolt, due to multiple separate smaller jolts. However, the energy dissipation requirement does not change and thus the velocity loss should be nearly the same, but it is not observed.

Now you want to say that the columns were misaligned and the upper block's columns hit the floors below, but you have no frame by frame analysis of video proving your claim for column misalignment? To the contrary, close up video shows the upper block of WTC 1 came straight down for several stories before it actually tilted. A case can be made for the inertia of the upper block keeping it in line allowing for axial column on column impacts, which would have caused severe velocity loss, if the column integrity had still been there.

Instead of spending 50 pages here just making bare assertions why don't you do something to actually prove what you believe. I think there is a reason that hasn't happened concerning these issues.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I believe mangoose a few weeks ago posted a relatively good closeup of the WTC1 impact region at the moment of collapse initiation which showed the columns responding to the collapse initiation. And he post multiple animated gifs showing movement in the antenna before the descent even progressed.

EDIT:
This would be my reference....

Here is the moment when the columns on the North Face began to fail:

[qimg]http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/6802/94646677.gif[/qimg]

We can see that columns 146-150 on the 94th Floor, damaged by the impact of AA11, lean to the left. This is visually most obvious with column 150. On the 95th Floor, we can see the same columns 147-150 (covered with aluminum cladding) lean likewise. The more damaged columns 144-146, two of which are severed by AA11's wings on the 94th Floor, simply snap. Columns 135-143, which hang unsupported over the impact hole, begin to descend as well.

This was a full second after a fiery debris cloud was seen forming on the South Face in the area of the bowed columns (on the basis of synchronisms of events on the West Face, visible in both videos).

but then there's also all of the material posted in the same thread... with a few examples to boot...

Okay here is a really rough GIF of the West Face:

[qimg]http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/4963/r1a.gif[/qimg]

The quality is much, much better with the original so please consult it for full detail. This clip begins with the flaring out of the fire on the 95th Floor (I just checked...this is the correct floor) at the southwest corner. Bear in mind that prior to this moment, the antenna was already descending. Then there is visible activity on the 96 and 97th Floors above the flare-up just north of the southwest corner, looking like it is caving inward and or undergoing some sort of collapse (it is more visible on the original video). And then on the 98th Floor, there is a line of dust clouds that shoot across rapidly northward. While this is happening, the fires on the 104th Floor begin to descend. And about two or three frames later, the white structure on the northwest corner of the roof begins its descent. It starts to fall before the line of dust on the 98th Floor reaches the northwest corner. This clip ends with the moment when the dust begins to be expelled on the 98th Floor on the North Face (you can notice it especially on the changeover).

Here is the South Face video I mentioned (sped up a little):

[qimg]http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/8177/asas.gif[/qimg]

You can see the same flame at the southwest corner. The clip ends with the exact moment the 98th Floor dust cloud reached the North Face. Compare with the video you just posted and notice all the activity in the area of the bowed columns on the South Face prior to this event at the southwest corner.

Since the northward formation of the dust cloud along the 98th Floor occurred AFTER this flame flickering at the southwest corner of the West Face at the 96th Floor, this helicopter view of the South Face shows quite clearly that the initiation of the collapse was BEFORE this along the South Face.

And this is the East Face video showing the collapse along the East Face with the upper block tilting to the south:

[qimg]http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2857/aniv.gif[/qimg]

IIRC Tony's measurements in his jolt paper took the white structure at the northwest corner of the roof as its main point of reference (particularly of the start of the descent), measuring the distance in pixels of the top of this structure and the upper border of the image. The collapse however was already in progress prior to any movement of this structure:

[qimg]http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/9404/output2.gif[/qimg]

So Tony's measurements begin sometime after the initiation of the collapse on the South Face.

Also because of the tipping of the upper block, the white structure moved in three dimensions -- not simply down but also southward:

[qimg]http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2857/aniv.gif[/qimg]

The Sauret footage from the north obscures such movement to the south. Tony's measurements thus do not capture the full three-dimensional movement of the white structure on the roof.

 

[TruthersLie]

The elastic wave travels at about 15,000 feet per second. How long do you claim it will take to fully respond?

Only the relatively flimsy roof was crushed in that video. I don't think it is a good example at all.

What is it with twoofs? Do piss poor observational skills and shoddy reading comprehension skills come with the tinfoil badge?

You might just want to watch that video again. (like the verinage techniques I posted for you which show they do not preweaken lower floors, and they do crush down floors below them) The suspension is shot, the entire body is damaged and the roof is completely caved in.

Do all twoofs need glasses? Or maybe just to sit closer to the screens?