Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

twinstead said:
Well, my observation and discussions with people who know what they are talking about, both on this forum and in real life, makes it obvious that your only criteria for winning the debate is being told what you want to hear.
Click to expand...

you know me?:confused:
 
bio said:
you know me?:confused:
Click to expand...

Yes. We know you. At least how your mind regarding 9/11 works.

You twoofies are a kind of predictable. You see, there is this Universal Thruther Machine working inside your brain that follows a rather simple algorithm.
 
NutCracker said:
Yes. We know you. At least how your mind regarding 9/11 works.

You twoofies are a kind of predictable. You see, there is this Universal Thruther Machine working inside your brain that follows a rather simple algorithm.
Click to expand...

when did I make you so angry?
 
bio said:
you know me?:confused:
Click to expand...

Frankly, I can't imagine any rational person with even a passing knowledge of physics and engineering looking at those videos and declaring Tony the winner, but you got me, I don't KNOW you. I do however have access to your body of posts on this forum.
 
I have just downloaded the first section.

My first thought is wonder at how this subject got onto a serious tv-program instead as a youtube video.
How does Pomero stay so calm?
He got pretty excited when Heiwa first answered the 2 mile drop, and Tony gives a rather dodgy answer to it.

ETA: It looks like some of the confusion is due to messing up momentum/kinetic energy in collisions, and yes it is rather tricky.
#2 just finished downloading. :)
 
Last edited:
It's a topic that seems all too common and I've asked about it before... but if it's supposed to be a rule that 1/10 of a structure can't cause the failure of the other 9/10... then why aren't we taught about this principal in our design studios? Should this be taught in the structural design curriculum? Just curious for those arguing it...
 
Water or nanothermite? Isn't it obvious?

'yet the only thing it really collapses/crushes is the relatively flimsy roof of the car'

Sure thing. There's no way water alone could do this kind of damage. If you look at the last picture, you can see nanothermite squibs going off. :)







 
Tony Szamboti said:
What a load you are throwing here. What is unfortunate is that most of the people here wouldn't understand well enough to see what you are doing.
Click to expand...

I think this applies to most people in general Tony. Hence, why you people really need to start publishing your work in legitimate publications.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
What a load you are throwing here. What is unfortunate is that most of the people here wouldn't understand well enough to see what you are doing.
Click to expand...

Most people will recognize your failure to point out how and why RM is supposedly wrong here.


Oh, and most people will recognize your denialism for what it is. Most people will recognize your lack of a constructive argument in favor of your case.
Edited by Lisa Simpson: 
Edited to remove personal remarks.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
911kongen said:
Here is the second part; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Guz04iFYxXY&feature=sub
Did I beat Mackey again? :D
Click to expand...

You not only beat me, you beat Gary. You must have some automatic alert tied to his account...

The audio is rough, and again, that's my fault -- I thought I was recording, but I wasn't. To make up for it, while I sat home with a stomach bug today, I wrote up a transcript so you can figure out what I'm actually saying back there. It's 5500 words and too long for a forum post, but I've given it to Gary, and I'll make it available along with the slides that keep getting mentioned but haven't appeared yet... So stay tuned. One more show to go.
 
Another good one (aside from the audio feedback and Mackey's frozen pose for 20 mins straight). Tony's dodges and weaseling out of things with logical fallacies were ridiculous. He simply doesn't take a specific position thus allowing himself to squirm away from the dangerous questions and traps, where he knows he'd be pinned instantly. His multiple attempts to shoot holes through the most plausible scenarios are juvenile as well. It's not an "appeal to authority" when the entire scientific consensus and the totality of demolition experts are in agreement with the same conclusion. It's more like an appeal to plausibility or appeal to consensus at this point.

Then Ron points out how impossible it would be under the circumstances to plant, execute, and cover up such an intricate plot and Tony goes with "argument from incredulity", ha. These are 7 year old twoofer comebacks that aren't even being properly applied. It's not incredulity when the chances of pulling off every intricate detail perfectly without anyone noticing or blowing the whistle are the statistical equivalent of hitting the lotto 10 times in a row. It's probability and common sense. Not incredulity anymore.

What else... Tony the detective. This guy would be the worst friggin' detective in the world. He'd have the smoking gun, the prints, and dna and he still wouldn't make the bust. The captain would tell Tony that forensics made a positive id on the suspect and Tony would say "appeal to authority".

Tony stop the charade.
 
TexasJack said:
Argumeted? Is this trutherspeak?
Click to expand...

Its simple....

... truthers dont understand or care about what either of them are saying only that Tony is the truther and Mackey seems to be disagreeing with him...

... therefore Tony must have won.
 
Last edited:
DropGems said:
Then Ron points out how impossible it would be under the circumstances to plant, execute, and cover up such an intricate plot and Tony goes with "argument from incredulity", ha. These are 7 year old twoofer comebacks that aren't even being properly applied. It's not incredulity when the chances of pulling off every intricate detail perfectly without anyone noticing or blowing the whistle are the statistical equivalent of hitting the lotto 10 times in a row. It's probability and common sense. Not incredulity anymore..
Click to expand...

Its completely implausible for us to all be in The Matrix!

Its completely implausible for you to have walked on water!

Its completely implausible for you to have psychic powers!

Its completely implausible for it to have been Space Lasers that destroyed the WTC!

Its completely implausible for the TV stations to have inserted fake planes into the live footage!


"argument from incredulity"
 
Last edited:
It takes me forever to make sense of all this technical stuff, but I have one question.

Are all these calculations based on structures that have not been damaged by planes and then burnt for almost an hour? Are we only talking about the possibility that the top part is capable of crushing down the bottom part period?

I don't think I've heard anything about the damage to the structure being at all involved in what is being debated here...

Also, Tony did you get to keep the Hardfire mug?
 
knife fight colobus said:
Are all these calculations based on structures that have not been damaged by planes and then burnt for almost an hour? Are we only talking about the possibility that the top part is capable of crushing down the bottom part period?
Click to expand...

Yup. As I note persistently, you can't apply a strength calculation of an intact structure, loaded how and where it was intended, to the resistance of a damaged structure in the process of falling on itself. Not with a straight face, anyway, but the Truth Movement tries.

I'd be more sympathetic if they at least got the computation right, and merely applied it wrong, but they screw that up too.
 
R.Mackey said:
Yup. As I note persistently, you can't apply a strength calculation of an intact structure, loaded how and where it was intended, to the resistance of a damaged structure in the process of falling on itself. Not with a straight face, anyway, but the Truth Movement tries.

I'd be more sympathetic if they at least got the computation right, and merely applied it wrong, but they screw that up too.
Click to expand...

Aiight, I think that clears it up to me.

I enjoyed the explosives and verinage technique part. The last 20 min. of the 2nd show were really great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom