Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[LashL]

I believe that the polite way to say this to Tony Whatziz is, "You have been served."

Truly and totally.

 

[911kongen]

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.

Will this be added to the video? Like subtitles? I personaly think that would be a smart thing to do. But just a transcript can work to.. I guess Gary dont want to uploade the video of the second show again but with subtitles?

 

[newton3376]

The second video was much better as far as Ryans side goes....Tony did worse I thought.

He (Tony) seems to believe the core columns can stand up all by themselves without the rest of the structure....that seems just a tad bit silly.

I'm also not sure where exactly Tony believes the "resistence" to arrest the collapse will come from...if the upper columns or even the debris from the upper floors impacts a floor beneath it I would think that would be more than enough force to snap the connections between the floors and columns.

How much force does he think those connections can withstand before breaking?

 

[Edx]

How much force does he think those connections can withstand before breaking?

Its very simple.

Tony doesnt think 10% of a building can crush down 90% of it.

It doesnt matter that this didnt happen with the WTC nor does it matter to him to explain why he arbitrarily chooses to say 10% is the impossible percentage.

 

[Edx]

Will this be added to the video? Like subtitles? I personaly think that would be a smart thing to do. But just a transcript can work to.. I guess Gary dont want to uploade the video of the second show again but with subtitles?

You can add closed captions ("non-destructive" subtitles, like annotations), its doable.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

He (Tony) seems to believe the core columns can stand up all by themselves without the rest of the structure....that seems just a tad bit silly.

He's made this known for some time now even before the hardfire debate. His usual reason for concluding so is that the core was braced on every floor height, but he seems to think that the bracing in the core was independent of the bracing provided to the exterior columns by the floor spans.

I'm also not sure where exactly Tony believes the "resistence" to arrest the collapse will come from...if the upper columns or even the debris from the upper floors impacts a floor beneath it I would think that would be more than enough force to snap the connections between the floors and columns.

You're treating the response of the towers with the understanding that individual structural elements don't have the capacity to take the impact. In contrast he thinks the entire building below the impact region was responding to the impact of the upper section as a single unit. Those are two radically different properties and the former interpretation you're going by is the more accurate.

 

[twinstead]

I'm still confused. After racking my non-engineer brain trying to get this stuff from reading these debates, I finally understood it when I realized that the upper section wasn't impacting the lower section as a whole, but each floor as a separate unit. The floor directly below the upper portion could never hope to support that mass and failed, having its mass added to the upper portion as it came down upon the next floor, until there weren't any floors left.

I realize it's simplistic, but is this correct? And if so, why don't these truthers understand it?

 

[Newtons Bit]

The second video was much better as far as Ryans side goes....Tony did worse I thought.

He (Tony) seems to believe the core columns can stand up all by themselves without the rest of the structure....that seems just a tad bit silly.

I'm also not sure where exactly Tony believes the "resistence" to arrest the collapse will come from...if the upper columns or even the debris from the upper floors impacts a floor beneath it I would think that would be more than enough force to snap the connections between the floors and columns.

How much force does he think those connections can withstand before breaking?

Mr. Szamboti's assertion of such has already been shown to false. He has seen the critique as well.

 

[R.Mackey]

I'm still confused. After racking my non-engineer brain trying to get this stuff from reading these debates, I finally understood it when I realized that the upper section wasn't impacting the lower section as a whole, but each floor as a separate unit. The floor directly below the upper portion could never hope to support that mass and failed, having its mass added to the upper portion as it came down upon the next floor, until there weren't any floors left.

I realize it's simplistic, but is this correct? And if so, why don't these truthers understand it?

This is basically correct. The reason is that no structural element can transmit a force greater than its own ultimate strength, so if the force from above exceeds this, the impacted member feels a higher force than everything below it. Dr. Bazant talks about this in his response to critics -- one of the many papers Tony neglects when claiming Dr. Bazant never improved his original paper.

It also misses the point that, as I refer to in the debate, the upper mass is mostly not landing on the columns, but instead on the floors. The floors break easily. The quoted figure in debate is 29 million pounds per floor, well, that's a "best case" figure that leads to total failure of all connections. The real figure is considerably lower. But we know even this generous figure is exceeded. When the floor gives way, it dramatically lowers the strength of both perimeter and core columns, and it exposes them to forces from the side, which they can't resist at all.

When I get a word in edgewise, this is covered in the third show.

Why can't they understand this? I think it's equal parts having a poor grasp of the subject, leading to a linearized, "net force = 0" style understanding that doesn't apply here; and the simple fact that they don't want to.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why can't they understand this? I think it's equal parts having a poor grasp of the subject, leading to a linearized, "net force = 0" style understanding that doesn't apply here; and the simple fact that they don't want to.

I don't think Tony can claim part A there. He's clearly intellectually capable of understanding things like simple vector subtraction or Euclidian geometry, yet he so clearly and repeatedly fails to understand them. I think he is simply idealogically incapable of assimilating knowledge that would refute his beliefs.

Dave

 

[Julio]

Will this be added to the video? Like subtitles? I personaly think that would be a smart thing to do. But just a transcript can work to.. I guess Gary dont want to uploade the video of the second show again but with subtitles?

uh, those of us who do not master the language of Shakespeare would appreciate that very much

 

[Edx]

Hey Ryan, does Hardfire record these shows all at the same time and then split them up?

 

[Oscar]

Well, after watching Tony in action in those two Hardfire episodes I couldn't help asking myself a hypothetical question:

Would you buy a secondhand car from him?

I don't think I need to tell you my answer.

 

[Toke]

It looks like they are split up by at most a coffee break.

 

[Toke]

I'm still confused. After racking my non-engineer brain trying to get this stuff from reading these debates, I finally understood it when I realized that the upper section wasn't impacting the lower section as a whole, but each floor as a separate unit. The floor directly below the upper portion could never hope to support that mass and failed, having its mass added to the upper portion as it came down upon the next floor, until there weren't any floors left.

I realize it's simplistic, but is this correct? And if so, why don't these truthers understand it?

I think it was Heiwa who made some graphic where the first pictures showed the columns spearing through the floor. Tilting of the building and a story or two of bended/buckled columns between upper and lower part almost guarantees that the columns of the upper section will impact the edges of the floor* and rip it off/zip through.
(he continued with something about friction stopping the whole thing)

*Or at least not prettily on top of the lower columns, as in Bazant's best case calculation.

 

[Justin39640]

When the floor gives way, it dramatically lowers the strength of both perimeter and core columns, and it exposes them to forces from the side, which they can't resist at all.

(my bold)
Would this have effects on the floors below the rubble zone? Like disconnecting floors prior to them being hit.

Great job on the show. Cant wait for part three.

 

[alienentity]

Here's my comments on the 2nd show:

At roughly the 15min point, Ron has a list of demolition companies that he's spoken with.
Astoundingly, Tony Szamboti virtually ignores what Ron tells him.
Truthers are in the sad position of having to ignore or deny the opinions and analysis of actual experts, simply because these experts come to conclusions which threaten 9/11 truth myths.

And yet they are quick to trumpet the opinions of pseudo-experts or non-experts if those agree.

That's one fatal flaw of 9/11 truth.

Tony complains that citing experts is merely an appeal to authority.
About 22min in, Tony takes the time to try to discredit the expertise of Brent Blanchard, who did write a paper addressing specifics.
There are at least two problems with this:

1) If it doesn't matter what the expertise of a person is, why taking pains to discredit their credentials in the first place? It seems Tony does realize that expertise matters. (even if he is loath to admit it)

2) He mischaracterizes Brent Blanchard's credentials, by stating that Blanchard doesn't know how to demolish a building. That is sheer speculation. Blanchard is Director of Field Operations for Protec, which is a company that specializes in documentation of building demolitions. To do this, they must know a great deal about demolitions themselves - that is their business. They are also uniquely qualified to look for the evidence and effects of demolition, which is something that Tony completely misses.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Also, Tony did you get to keep the Hardfire mug?

No, they are just for on-air guests. Ron says he doesn't have one at home himself.

 

[Scott Sommers]

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.

But you have also argued that appeal to authority is not a convincing technique. This is now a very strange argument. It's almost like you're saying that there is nothing worth talking about except things that you can talk about. I guess talking with Mackay is meant to be different and his appeal to authority does make it difficult to answer, no matter how well intentioned you are.

But it does seem strange that you seem to alone on this. There is no sea of expertise rising up to support you. There are a couple of guys with some degree of education willing to state in public that the standard engineering explanation for the WTC collapse is problamatic. There is a large body of scientific publication supporting the engineering explanation. This discrepancy is important and would need to be explained.

The explanations I have been given by people who support Tony's work involve bizarre cooperation between scientists who don't know each other to keep secrets and construct mathematical explanations for things they know are not true. This may be convincing for high school students and business majors. And since almost every member of a a 911 Truth group or We Are Change is one, this is not hard to understand.

But Tony, why is that you are so alone on this? What is it that the scientific community just doesn't get?

 

[fourtoe]

Hey Ryan, does Hardfire record these shows all at the same time and then split them up?

Yeah that is usually how they do it.

If you watch the other Hardfire debates (if you haven't then do so right away! They're great!) they're wearing the same clothes as the previous episode. There is footage of Gravy and the LC boys with Ron waiting in between shows and discussing stuff.

Also in the Fetzer shows Ron makes a couple of jokes about how they haven't changed their clothes at all during the week since the show prior.

No, they are just for on-air guests. Ron says he doesn't have one at home himself.

Lame! Did you get free anything?