• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The physics toolkit

W.D.Clinger said:
Evidence?

Tony seldom agrees with people who possess real technical ability, so we can't just take his word for it.

No competent scientist would ever use the MacQueen-Szamboti data to argue that no jolts occurred during the collapse. Even Tony appears to have acknowledged that the data presented in his paper do not support that argument.

Despite its obvious nonsense, that paper has not been retracted, repudiated, or withdrawn by its authors.
Click to expand...

That's the ludicrous part of arguing with Tony. Not only does he pretend to have reached conclusions that based on his own data are incorrect, he claims to have a superior grasp of the core concepts when has demonstrated he does not.
 
DGM said:
You didn't really answer my question. Is CD really a requirement for MIHOP? I really don't think so, LIHOP on the other hand definitely excludes it.
Click to expand...

If the plane strikes had anything to do with the buildings actually coming down then maybe your point would be well taken, but there is no chance they did. The wings never made it to the central cores and volumetrically the fuselage could have flown clear through the building and still not have caused a structural concern. They were nothing but a causal ruse.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
If the plane strikes had anything to do with the buildings actually coming down then maybe your point would be well taken, but there is no chance they did. The wings never made it to the central cores and volumetrically the fuselage could have flown clear through the building and still not have caused a structural concern. They were nothing but a causal ruse.
Click to expand...
OK, Thanks.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Evidence?

Tony seldom agrees with people who possess real technical ability, so we can't just take his word for it.

No competent scientist would ever use the MacQueen-Szamboti data to argue that no jolts occurred during the collapse. Even Tony appears to have acknowledged that the data presented in his paper do not support that argument.

Despite its obvious nonsense, that paper has not been retracted, repudiated, or withdrawn by its authors.
Click to expand...

There is no deceleration in the fall of WTC 1 and you have to know it.

Even if you accept that the feeble little blips in femr2's graphs are some sort of miniscule deceleration they are nowhere near enough to cause building collapse.

You should really be trying to figure out just what could have taken those buildings down if there was no deceleration. The fact that you aren't is puzzling and sort of says you are not interested in what actually happened.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
If the plane strikes had anything to do with the buildings actually coming down then maybe your point would be well taken, but there is no chance they did. The wings never made it to the central cores and volumetrically the fuselage could have flown clear through the building and still not have caused a structural concern. They were nothing but a causal ruse.
Click to expand...


That's about the most detailed analysis I've ever seen from a truther.

Tony has slipped into Christophera land......
 
AZCat said:
Gravity.

It's always been gravity, deceleration or no deceleration.
Click to expand...

Really, so I guess you have some sort of different phenomena to explain why the buildings could stand to begin with.

You really are quite amazingly talented when it comes to not providing technical detail in your responses.

The reality is that a deceleration is necessary to provide an amplified load since the building structure below was designed to handle several times the load above it.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Even if you accept that the feeble little blips in femr2's graphs are some sort of miniscule deceleration they are nowhere near enough to cause building collapse.
Click to expand...
It's this kind of thing that results in me responding to you Tony.

What ? Cause building collapse ? That's what I was trying to get you to see by saying *wrong end of the chain*.

The low magnitude points of deceleration (which are definitely there) don't cause anything at all. They are the result of some collision events which produce jolts at the NW corner.

Now then...

There are NO large magnitude jolts traceable at the NW corner. No-one is arguing that point in the slightest. They are not there.

Everyone OK with that, yes ?

Observation shows that the perimeter sheets do not collide, but overlap as they descend, so no ginourmous jolts are expected from perimeter-perimeter collisions.

That leaves core and OOS regions.

The ROOSD study shows visually confirmable detail which indicates that the internal *debris avalance* consisting essentially of pancaking floors descended far in advance of the trailing level of perimeter destruction, which consisted primarily of *peeling* (caused by the debris funnel descending behind the *crush fronts* pressing outwards upon the perimeter).

As the floor descents preceed the outwardly visible destruction, there's no reason to think there should be any OOS-OOS floor collisions that are traceable at the NW corner.

The core destruction is not well described imo, but it's feasible that the upper 50/60 floors of the core could have been dismembered by the descending debris. CC's are surprisingly skinny up there.

But as I've just described the floors descending first, there's very little connecting the core to the NW corner (hat truss, yeah, but soon as the cap separates, nowt), and again, I wouldn't expect to see huge jolts in that scenario. I know you don't agree.

Elements of initiation, I'm not happy about, but am not going to be jumping up and down making claims without getting my hands very dirty first.

Now, Tony, reading between the lines of what I've just written, I've put on the table... a mechanism which strips the floors from the core and perimeter, and forces the perimeter outwards in peeling motion, leaving only the lower portion of the core standing.

And barring said initiation unhappiness :( there's nowt there that intrinsically requires anything except gravity.

I've also described where and why I don't think the observed mechanism of destruction leaves much room for the sort of jolts you're looking for.

I'm also firmly leaving the door open on the initiation side of things.

Stop talking about jolts. It's boring. They are not there.

Apply your time to a detailed description of initiation that supports your position, and absolutely matches observables.
 
Last edited:
Seymour Butz said:
That's about the most detailed analysis I've ever seen from a truther.

Tony has slipped into Christophera land......
Click to expand...

Dangerously close to Jammoniousville. After all saying the planes were a ruse is right next to saying there were no planes.
 
Tony,

Why are you so constantly sloppy. It is not possible to be technically competent if you're sloppy.

Tony Szamboti said:
If you are actually claiming that NIST does not admit that WTC 7 fell at freefall acceleration for 2.25 seconds ...
Click to expand...

That's not what you said. You're sloppy.

That's not what I objected to. You're sloppy.

This was your comment.

Tony Szamboti said:
These methods also showed WTC 7 was undergoing full freefall acceleration during the first 2.25 seconds of its fall, which NIST admitted was true.
Click to expand...

It's sloppy & wrong.

Tony Szamboti said:
... then you aren't worth responding to.
Click to expand...

You're unremitting sloppiness makes conversation with you tedious, Tony.
It's also what makes your analyses so consistently flawed.

Why don't you try again to state what NIST really said accurately?


Tom
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Really, so I guess you have some sort of different phenomena to explain why the buildings could stand to begin with.

You really are quite amazingly talented when it comes to not providing technical detail in your responses.

The reality is that a deceleration is necessary to provide an amplified load since the building structure below was designed to handle several times the load above it.
Click to expand...

The building structure was no longer intact due to collision damage and was further weakened by fire till it failed due to gravity.
 
tfk said:
Tony,

Why are you so constantly sloppy. It is not possible to be technically competent if you're sloppy.



That's not what you said. You're sloppy.

That's not what I objected to. You're sloppy.

This was your comment.



It's sloppy & wrong.



You're unremitting sloppiness makes conversation with you tedious, Tony.
It's also what makes your analyses so consistently flawed.

Why don't you try again to state what NIST really said accurately?


Tom
Click to expand...

Tom,

After this reply there is only one way I will respond to you and your spin, and that is in a televised debate like you challenged me to on Hardfire through its host Ron Wieck about six to eight months ago.

I told Ron I would be glad to debate you as long as you publicly stated who you were. He said you would have to and then I didn't hear any more about it. What happened?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom