Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

Tony Szamboti said:
As I said I would like the USGS to do testing on the material they have and to show the results, chain of custody, and methodology used in the testing, to those who wrote the Bentham paper and then to the world at large.

I think testing the actual material will be far more explanatory than arguments from those of us without access to it.

If you consider that to be taking some sort of position on this then I would have to say you are exhibiting a bias here.
Click to expand...

I can understand you would like them to. The fact that they do not says nothing. They have no responsibility to do so. They have no obligation to do so. There would be no more reason for the USGS to reply to this claim than to Tom Cruise and the Church of Scientology about their claims concerning science and the nature of reality. There has only been a claim made in a venue that has less merit to it than if it were made in a leading newspaper like the NY Times.

There is nothing unreasonable your desire, but to claim this your wish has any merit or meaning like Mossad provide access to its facilities to prove that they are not hiding the tons of nano-thermite some claim were used in the demolition.

I guess I am getting an answer to my question. Does Tony Szamboti believe in super duper super secret nano-thermite? I had wished the answer to be different than it is appearing.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
So let's suppose the USGS, an agency of the US Government, which you suspect of being complicit in the 9/11 attacks, were to issue a report saying that they had tested the dust and found no evidence of nanothermite. Would you consider this to have put the controversy to rest, or would you argue that the USGS could not be considered an unbiased observer and that therefore its results could not be taken at face value? Would you then accept the result, or would you go on to devote all your efforts to casting doubt on its findings by any means you could conceive of?

Let me remind you that NIST, an agency of the US Government, has produced reports saying that they had studied the collapse of WTC1, 2 and 7 and found them to be due to impact and fire damage, and this doesn't seem to have 'put the controversy to rest' as far as you're concerned. What would be the point of anyone simply generating more material for you to ignore?

Dave
Click to expand...

If the NIST would share all of their data and models and were verified as accurate there might not be as much skepticism of them. Unfortunately, in many cases the data they have shared thus far has been shown to not conform to observation. For example, the model they show of the collapse of WTC 7 cannot be taken seriously as in it the exterior deforms significantly, which is not see in the footage of the real collapse.

As for the USGS and testing of the dust I have answered what I think should be done there in other replies here in the last several minutes.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Bias, Tony, is an inability to be critical of people like Richard Gage and Steven Jones's claims or be critical of the way their paper was published in Bentham.

.
Click to expand...

On a side note, Tony was actually critical of Anders claims on the program, which I thought was nice. He even chuckled when 1/10th - 9/10th A, B, C was brought up.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
which is not see in the footage of the real collapse..
Click to expand...

Actually yes it clearly does.



It obviously deformed rather dramatically since it managed to fall accross a 4 lane street and critically damage 30 Westbroadway.
 
Last edited:
3bodyproblem said:
On a side note, Tony was actually critical of Anders claims on the program, which I thought was nice. He even chuckled when 1/10th - 9/10th A, B, C was brought up.
Click to expand...

Only because Anders' claim that you can drop the top part of the building from 2 miles above the building and have it bounce off (or whatever it is he says) is ******* crazy.

Tony still defends Heiwa's claim that the top part of a building cant crush down the rest of it, as we can see from this thread
 
Edx said:
Tony still defends Heiwa's claim that the top part of a building cant crush down the rest of it, as we can see from this thread
Click to expand...

Which is truly a bizarre interpretation of design. I've repeatedly asked people in the movement why such a simple principal isn't taught in the design curriculum... Afterall;there must not be much to worry about with accidental or eccentric loading if this is true... I mean you'd think I'd have at least been taught on this subject in my undergraduate education... Should I be expecting this to come up during the next two years in master's architecture? The idea that arbitrary proportions would you know... ease some worries about collapse scenarios in a range of design implementations... if it's such a profound matter.
 
Last edited:
3bodyproblem said:
On a side note, Tony was actually critical of Anders claims on the program, which I thought was nice. He even chuckled when 1/10th - 9/10th A, B, C was brought up.
Click to expand...

If you ask Tony here and now whether the lightest one-tenth of a structure when dropped a short distance onto the other similar but sequentially more heavily built nine-tenths of the same structure will crush that lower nine-tenths down level with the ground I think you will find that he is in full agreement with Heiwa. To wit it is absolutely impossible.

Further....you can give no other example of this happening in the entire recorded history of the planet. End of story.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
If you ask Tony here and now whether the lightest one-tenth of a structure when dropped a short distance onto the other similar but sequentially more heavily built nine-tenths of the same structure will crush that lower nine-tenths down level with the ground I think you will find that he is in full agreement with Heiwa. To wit it is absolutely impossible.

Further....you can give mo other example of this happening in the entire recorded history of the planet. End of story.
Click to expand...
Bill:
Please stop this 1/10th, 9/10th BS. It shows you have no clue as to what happened. 1/10th fell on 1/80th (ish)! Live with it.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
... Unfortunately, in many cases the data they have shared thus far has been shown to not conform to observation.

For example, the model they show of the collapse of WTC 7 cannot be taken seriously as in it the exterior deforms significantly, which is not see in the footage of the real collapse.
Click to expand...

You mean for example, the model you show of the collapse of WTC1,2 cannot be taken seriously as in it the collapsing load path is axially through the columns below, which is not seen in the footage of the real collapse.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
If you ask Tony here and now whether the lightest one-tenth of a structure when dropped a short distance onto the other similar but sequentially more heavily built nine-tenths of the same structure will crush that lower nine-tenths down level with the ground I think you will find that he is in full agreement with Heiwa. To wit it is absolutely impossible.

Further....you can give mo other example of this happening in the entire recorded history of the planet. End of story.
Click to expand...

There's a little French CD technique that shows you are wrong, unless you are saying that 10% is a magical number, and any upper part 11% or more can crush the lower part. But it's a moot point; That magical 10% fell on a single floor.
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
There's a little French CD technique that shows you are wrong, unless you are saying that 10% is a magical number, and any upper part 11% or more can crush the lower part. But it's a moot point; That magical 10% fell on a single floor.
Click to expand...

I don't want to spin off nto verinage but I would point out that in this attached example of the technique in action you can hear the concrete begin to grind as the upper load begins to apply. Why does it begin to apply ?. Answer; because they have just mechanically removed the support that was holding it up, They use cables and jacks to achieve this in place of explosives. Notice that the right side of the building remains unblemished. Why ? Answer: Bacause they have not yet mechanically removed the lower support for the upper black.When they do they will get the same result.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-npt5s grinding concrete
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
If you ask Tony here and now whether the lightest one-tenth of a structure when dropped a short distance onto the other similar but sequentially more heavily built nine-tenths of the same structure will crush that lower nine-tenths down level with the ground I think you will find that he is in full agreement with Heiwa. To wit it is absolutely impossible.

Further....you can give no other example of this happening in the entire recorded history of the planet. End of story.
Click to expand...

Someone with a better connection than me can look this up, but I'm positive he refutes it.

It's pretty clear his new pet theory is a combination of mass participation and the upper part being slowed so that the momentum isn't sufficient to dynamically load the columns without some sort of heat weakening.
 
heh so billy is still at it... :\
He exists in quoted form, but as I'm currently taking classes to enter this field, I can tell him and every other conspiracy guy who tries to use their authority as leverage that if it were such a stern absolute principal in design, I would have heard about it already. I'll put it simply; Architecture students are required to take materials and methods of design as well as two structures courses at my university during undergraduate studies. And we of course learn through applying the concepts taught that trying to arbitrarily attribute a proportional law to a building's vulnerability to collapse means basically you're full of <--- :) ----> regardless of whether or not you work in the related field. It's an absolutely incompetent claim backed by absolutely nothing in the principals discussed in my field of study. I have zero respect or tolerance for this kind of incompetence.
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
There's a little French CD technique that shows you are wrong, unless you are saying that 10% is a magical number, and any upper part 11% or more can crush the lower part. But it's a moot point; That magical 10% fell on a single floor.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what Tony was talking about when he laughs off Anders.

Tony has incorporated the verinage technique into his Irreducible Delusion. This is why he says 3/30 columns with a safety factor of 3 would slow the building to 0.7g, but the verinage technique removes all the columns and allows for a full 1g acceleration.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
heh so billy is still at it... :\
He exists in quoted form, but as I'm currently taking classes to enter this field, I can tell him and every other conspiracy guy who tries to use their authority as leverage that if it were such a stern absolute principal in design, I would have heard about it already. I'll put it simply; Architecture students are required to take materials and methods of design as well as two structures courses at my university during undergraduate studies. And we of course learn through applying the concepts taught that trying to arbitrarily attribute a proportional law to a building's vulnerability to collapse means basically you're full of <--- :) ----> regardless of whether or not you work in the related field. It's an absolutely incompetent claim backed by absolutely nothing in the principals discussed in my field of study. I have zero respect or tolerance for this kind of incompetence.
Click to expand...

Maybe you will see this in quoted form. Deny it if you can..

''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely at the point if contact. After that it depends which body is is worn away first by the mutual contact .

It is clear that the upper falling body anounting to only 10% of the mass will be gone long before the Anchored land braced ower and heavier built body of 9o% of the mass.

Keep on topic please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tony Szamboti said:
I am only saying that the issue has been raised by a published paper by several scientists and that there is an avenue to put the controversy to rest, as the U.S. government agency USGS has an abundance of the dust which could be tested in an unbiased way.
Click to expand...

Which published paper do you insist on using? What peer reviewed journal are you talking about?

or are you really trying to pass off the Bentham craptacular pile of fail as your "paper?"

Tony, tony, tony. Of all twoofs you should realize how science works, how journals work (but then again maybe not, after all you have "published" in JONES).

Again, which peer reviewed paper discusses this thermetic materials again? Maybe I missed it.

Wouldn't you want a definitive unbiased answer?
Click to expand...

BS. I'm not even sure what logical fallacy this is. What is an unbiased answer? If it comes back that it isn't thermitic you will just ignore it (look at the french researcher who examined the dust and didn't find anything... )

If you noticed I was not the one who brought it up in the debate. Ron Wieck brought it up and we discussed it for a couple of minutes. My point was essentially that if it is energetic material, as claimed by those who wrote the paper, then why was it there?
Click to expand...

I would have hoped that science would be with you... over 20 methodological errors, failing to disclose testing materials, burning it in an oxygen environment instead of an inert one... and the list goes ON and ON and ON....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom