Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

[tfk]

You need to look at the visualizations of column alignment in WTC 1 with the actual measurements of the tilt and drop taken into consideration. This was done recently and can be seen at http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-1-core-3d-model-t308-15.html where the link takes you to the page and you just need to scroll down to the middle of the page.

So, you've got these massive columns, bent into giant arcs by a precariously tilting upper section, most of the beams loaded well past their theoretical load carrying capacities, and all of them inflicted with huge amounts of bending moments ...

... and then something snaps ...

... and all the beams remain stationary, no whipping back to straight sections, no dynamics...?

... and the beams just ever-so-serenely pass thru each other...??


[irony]
Sure, those are COMPLETELY REALISTIC models of what happened...
[/irony]


Tom

 

[tfk]

The Verinage demolition technique removes the columns of a couple of stories to allow a drop of the upper section and to build momentum and then uses a kinetic energy transfer at impact with the lower structure to accomplish the demolition. It is indeed a purely gravity driven collapse and is what proponents of the NIST/Bazant explanation claim occurred in the towers.

However, the velocity measurements of every Verinage technique demolition show their upper sections undergo a very definitive deceleration and velocity loss, bearing out what I am saying. This telltale deceleration and velocity loss of the upper section in a purely gravity driven collapse is not observed in the velocity measurements of the upper section of WTC 1.

Now, instead of just restating YOUR nonsense for the 1001st time, why don't you address the very pertinent points that I made relative to your flawed theory?

Evasion, much?

Anything you want to say today about weight, force & acceleration?

Tom

 

[tfk]

STUNDIE...!!!!!

(...only because of the source...)

Tom.

So now you are resorting to childish behavior since you can't make your arguments work.

What a joke.

Tony,

There comes a point when one is faced with such a wall of ignorance, evasion, deception, irrationality, and stubborn defense of proven stupidity that "pointing fingers & laughing" becomes the ONLY REASONABLE RESPONSE.

Allow me to demonstrate:

Tony, is there anything that you'd like to offer about force, weight & acceleration of objects in static equilibrium??

Whatever reply you give (including "no reply") will perfectly illustrate the point above ...

You've attained "bill smith" levels of irrelevance, Tony. That's no small feat. But it is unimaginable for anyone who's gotten themselves - somehow - an engineering degree.


Tom

 

[tfk]

Now that it is shown that the columns don't miss ...

[raises hand] "... excuse me ..."

 

[WildCat]

Tony, an honest question:

Say you were to take your little theory on the road, tour the university circuit. How many people would it take to tell you are wrong before you'd at least begin to think that they may have a point?

If he did that I bet he'd talk exclusively to professors in the humanities departments, or theology...

 

[tfk]

I was being generous for Tony's benefit.

They all agree that he's nuts, after reading through some posts. But they're being nice to him by not calling him a loon for his beliefs. Guess they need all the help they can get and don't want to alienate somebody that they can use for their delusional views and then throw into the trash when they're done besmirching his name.

The sad thing is that LOTS of people can try to besmirch Tony's name.

There is only one person that can really do it: Tony.

But they've reached the 100% concensus that Heiwa's nuts.

I guess that's a cheap imitation of "progress".

Tom

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The sad thing is that LOTS of people can try to besmirch Tony's name.

There is only one person that can really do it: Tony.



I guess that's a cheap imitation of "progress".

Tom

Your use of ad hominem is showing your desperation Tom.

What is your full name?

 

[Furcifer]

You need to look at the visualizations of column alignment in WTC 1 with the actual measurements of the tilt and drop taken into consideration. This was done recently and can be seen at http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-1-core-3d-model-t308-15.html where the link takes you to the page and you just need to scroll down to the middle of the page.

Oh Tony Szamboti, that's just so desperate. You know this just doesn't make sense, don't you? Don't you???

Builders make every effort to keep things plumb. If anything deviated by a fraction of a degree they'd shut the project down. Now here you are claiming this building could lean like Pisa and still hold up the entire burning mass above it like no big deal. How foolish is that? I mean seriously, you don't expect the building to hold the weight, creep and keep burning forever do you? Oh Tony Szamboti, when will you learn? You get an "A" for effort but fail on everything else.

You haven't peaked any interest to a willing audience such as this. I don't know how you expect to garner any favour by the more critical professional public. You said you planned on taking this to the next level but I urge you to think about it again. Consider the helpful criticism offered here.

 

[Furcifer]

Your use of ad hominem is showing your desperation Tom.

What is your full name?

Why? You taking out a marriage licence? You doing a background check? You think he might be related to you? Or is this a "double dog dare"? Tony Szamboti this is kinda creepy you asking for his last name. What exactly will you do with it once you have it? Will it change anything?

 

[Algebra34]

I watched the debate against Macky at Walter Egos blog. I thought Szamboti really did well. Macky not so well. Is it Macky or Mackey? I can't remember. Thanks Walter.

 

[pgimeno]

Your use of ad hominem is showing your desperation Tom.

What is your full name?

Tony, why do you only address the messages that you claim are ad hominem and ignore the ones containing technical matters, instead of the opposite?

If that matters to you, *my* full name is Pedro Gimeno Fortea. I did some points about the Verinage in message #1112 that you are not addressing at all.

tfk, whatever his full name is, has also made many points in the technical field that you seem to prefer to ignore. Instead of acting like you were waiting for an excuse to avoid addressing his points, you could actually address them.

 

[BasqueArch]

Your use of ad hominem is showing your desperation Tom.

What is your full name?

And how would that change tfk's evidence in the postings?

You are being disingenuous Tony. You first elected to post here under a pseudonym and began using your name after you were outed. I don't see any revealing personal information on your profile.

The murderers, the ill, those with personal criminal problems, those who have threatened members here and been prosecuted, those who have threatened members here anonymously and not been prosecuted, those who show up unannounced at witnesses' homes and then publicly call them shills and liars, those who threaten arrests and execution come the revolution, are on the truther side.

Most truthers here do not post their real names.
Not using real names here is prudent condomwebbing if one wants to reduce the risk of truther creepness

Going to Suspect Dick Cheney's House.
http://www.infowars.com/sheehan-leads-march-to-dick-cheneys-house/[/QUOTE]

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Why? You taking out a marriage licence? You doing a background check? You think he might be related to you? Or is this a "double dog dare"? Tony Szamboti this is kinda creepy you asking for his last name. What exactly will you do with it once you have it? Will it change anything?

TFK challenged the members of AE911truth to a debate and while they all give their real names he continues to use a pseudonym. When they turned him down he disparaged them for it. I think that is rather disingenuous of someone using a pseudonym.

If TFK wants to debate he should use his full real name. Otherwise we don't even know if it is one person posting as TFK.

In the case of Ryan Mackey he was willing to appear in public to debate me and he gives his full name, which made it a legitimate debate.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And how would that change tfk's evidence in the postings?

You are being disingenuous Tony. You first elected to post here under a pseudonym and began using your name after you were outed. I don't see any revealing personal information on your profile.

The murderers, the ill, those with personal criminal problems, those who have threatened members here and been prosecuted, those who have threatened members here anonymously and not been prosecuted, those who show up unannounced at witnesses' homes and then publicly call them shills and liars, those who threaten arrests and execution come the revolution, are on the truther side.

Most truthers here do not post their real names.
Not using real names here is prudent condomwebbing if one wants to reduce the risk of truther creepness

Going to Suspect Dick Cheney's House.
http://www.infowars.com/sheehan-leads-march-to-dick-cheneys-house/

At least you PM'ed me with your real name, which I will not reveal publicly. TFK has not done that.

Anyone who wants to be taken seriously should reveal their full name and state why they believe what they do. Anyone threatening violence against anyone on either side should be prosecuted.

 

[DGM]

TFK challenged the members of AE911truth to a debate and while they all give their real names he continues to use a pseudonym. When they turned him down he disparaged them for it. I think that is rather disingenuous of someone using a pseudonym.

If TFK wants to debate he should use his full real name. Otherwise we don't even know if it is one person posting as TFK.

In the case of Ryan Mackey he was willing to appear in public to debate me and he gives his full name, which made it a legitimate debate.

Tony, this is a stall. His real name does not in anyway effect his argument. If he argued through me would you answer any differently?

 

[BasqueArch]

At least you PM'ed me with your real name, which I will not reveal publicly. TFK has not done that.

Anyone who wants to be taken seriously should reveal their full name and state why they believe what they do. Anyone threatening violence against anyone on either side should be prosecuted.

That was my choice, others feel differently about their privacy and I don't blame them.

You should reply to the factual portions of the postings so we can continue past this off topic.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That was my choice, others feel differently about their privacy and I don't blame them.

You should reply to the factual portions of the postings so we can continue past this off topic.

I don't agree. TFK needs to remove the veil of anonymity if he wants to challenge others who have put their names in the public sphere concerning this issue.

Can you imagine a politician running for election with a pseudonym? Would you vote for them?

Debates between real people are all that really count. It is impossible to determine whether or not an anonymous person is just one person or a group or whether or not there is some possible conflict of interest.

 

[DGM]

I don't agree. TFK needs to remove the veil of anonymity if he wants to challenge others who have put their names in the public sphere concerning this issue.

Can you imagine a politician running for election with a pseudonym? Would you vote for them?

Debates between real people are all that really count. It is impossible to determine whether or not an anonymous person is just one person or a group or whether or not there is some possible conflict of interest.

How does any of this effect the factual nature of an argument? tfk could be a garbage collector (a very bright one) would that make his argument any less valid?

 

[Dog Town]

Debates between real people are all that really count. It is impossible to determine whether or not an anonymous person is just one person or a group or whether or not there is some possible conflict of interest.

Wrong! Content is all that counts, in the end .Either the argument stands on merit, or it fails. Strange, that you would see it any other way.

 

[DGM]

Can you imagine a politician running for election with a pseudonym? Would you vote for them?

It's funny you say this. I voted for Scott Brown and I never checked to see if that was his real name.


ETA: Oh crap I just reveled what state I from.