Chandler talk to Am Soc of Criminology 2009

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Wow! All this fluff and we don't even get to see you show us where the error analysis is for the data NIST shows in their graph. You are always harping about how everyone should do an error analysis even when it is obvious by inspection, so I am sort of wondering how you could miss pointing out that NIST didn't provide one either.

By the way, Dr. Sunder did explain that in order to have freefall acceleration there would have to be no structural resistance. Did you miss that in the videos? Of course, he said that before NIST admitted the 2.25 second freefall.

2.25 seconds doesn't prove that a CD occured with WTC7. No matter how many times you say it, Tony, it's not evidence to prove that the Laws of Physics was "broken".

Gravity is a very real thing, maybe in your messed up world it doesn't exist, but this is reality & it's very real.

Next time you gossip about: "Well NIST said 2.25 second freefall!" You should really think about the responses you're gonna get if you claim that it's "evidence" for a CD.

 

[tfk]

Wow! All this fluff and we don't even get to see you show us where the error analysis is for the data NIST shows in their graph...

BTW, wow, all that stuff, and the only response you give me is "fluff".

Are you EVER going to address any substantive issues?

Do you say that the videos show the fall of the WTC7 or of the north wall?

Do you say that it is impossible for the wall to fall at 'g'? How about near 'g'?

Do you say that it is impossible for the wall to fall, for brief moments, at an acceleration greater than 'g'?

Do you think that ole Derek Johnson was making compelling, informed, mature arguments regarding, say, the loading conditions of column 79 just before collapse.

Or say, the implications of the "Lagrangian dissipation term" in the energy calculations?

Or, are you going to pull a "Derek Johnson", and simply disappear from the discussion because you don't like where it's going.

[Or perhaps Derek Johnson pulled a "Tony Szamboti" for the same reason...]

C'mon, Tony.

Gimme something other than "fluff".


tom

 

[fitzgibbon]

There are some extraordinarily poor high school physics teachers in the world, and some extraordinarily good ones. Unless we know which end of the scale Chandler's at, we have to dismiss the appeal to authority.

I don't think it'd be too hard to guess given his predilection.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

BTW, wow, all that stuff, and the only response you give me is "fluff".

Are you EVER going to address any substantive issues?

Do you say that the videos show the fall of the WTC7 or of the north wall?

Do you say that it is impossible for the wall to fall at 'g'? How about near 'g'?

Do you say that it is impossible for the wall to fall, for brief moments, at an acceleration greater than 'g'?

Do you think that ole Derek Johnson was making compelling, informed, mature arguments regarding, say, the loading conditions of column 79 just before collapse.

Or say, the implications of the "Lagrangian dissipation term" in the energy calculations?

Or, are you going to pull a "Derek Johnson", and simply disappear from the discussion because you don't like where it's going.

[Or perhaps Derek Johnson pulled a "Tony Szamboti" for the same reason...]

C'mon, Tony.

Gimme something other than "fluff".


tom

Tom,

In my opinion, much of what you post on this and other forum's is veiled nonsense and unworthy of a response.

The only reason I did reply to your last post was that I couldn't pass up the opportunity to expose your hypocrisy concerning error analysis, as while you were castigating others for not doing it you did not point out that NIST did not do one for their velocity graph of WTC 7's fall. The potential error in the case of these measurements is +/- 1/2 pixel and it is obvious, so to anyone with a real technical background your complaint is clearly a case of "the man doth protest too much".

As I told you before, I will only debate you publicly, where we get to know who you are and your words have something to stick to reputation wise. Earlier this year you contacted Ron Wieck of Hardfire and challenged me to a debate. After I accepted on the condition that you identify yourself, and Ron said you would have to, you withdrew your challenge. I am ready to debate you on that show if you can muster the courage to identify yourself.

By the way "fluff" was my descriptive word for my opinion of your extremely long-winded comments that said very little on that particular post. You really should find your own descriptive word(s) to use when rendering your opinion of posts by others.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Tony,

Apropos of nothing in particular but what 's so vitally important about knowing tfk's name? Presumably you're going to be arguing facts in which case fact has no allegiance to a name. Either you can clearly and unequivocally prove the superior logic of your position or you can't.

If you're going to get into a pissing match over reputations, the debate is already over.

 

[tfk]

Tony,

While answering not a one of the technical issues I posed to you, you produce this steaming pile...

Just who do you think you're kidding, Tony?

Tom,

In my opinion, much of what you post on this and other forum's is veiled nonsense and unworthy of a response.

In other words, you have no competent response, and this is the only way that you can weasel out of a discussion.

The only reason I did reply to your last post was that I couldn't pass up the opportunity to expose your hypocrisy concerning error analysis, as while you were castigating others for not doing it you did not point out that NIST did not do one for their velocity graph of WTC 7's fall.

Ahh, then you didn't understand my central point: that an error analysis was insignificant to NIST's conclusions, but absolutely crucial to Chandler's conclusions.

Too bad that was too technical for ya.
Even tho we know your name...

The potential error in the case of these measurements is +/- 1/2 pixel and it is obvious, so to anyone with a real technical background ...

To bad you are 100% wrong in this statement.
Even tho we know your name.

±0.5 pixels is a fair approximation to the error IN POSITION.

But the position errors are irrelevant to Chandler's conclusions.
Care to try to pull acceleration error bands out of your butt?

Why don't you try again with that error analysis that is "obvious to anyone with a real tech background"???

Perhaps you'll get the answer right next time.
Based on your track record, I wouldn't bet on it.

If the problem's too hard for you, I'll be glad to help.
Even tho you don't know my last name.

As I told you before, I will only debate you publicly, where we get to know who you are and your words have something to stick to reputation wise.

You won't reply to me because you're not convinced that I'm an engineer? Not technically competent?

In the last couple of days, you've replied to:
… cooperman. Is he an engineer, in your estimation?

… bill smith...!
… and bill smith again…??!!!


Bill Smith, Tony. You'll debate … BILL … bloody ... SMITH, Tony.!!

Tell me again, Tony, how you won't reply to technically incompetent people? LMAO…

And let's not forget that you're getting your ass handed to you by femr2, who knows about as much engineering as my sister's chihuahua. That's GOTTA hurt, Tony...

Now let's look at the people who you absolutely won't debate, Tony.

You won't debate Mackey. You won't debate me. You won't debate anyone who knows mechanical engineering, and can point out the ludicrous flaws in your crappola.

You're a coward who runs from debate with other mechanical engineers.

Who do you think that you're fooling, Tony?
___

Hey, Tony, do you still believe that a object that has not moved a millimeter for 30 years has been accelerating at 32 ft/sec^2 for all that time.

I'm a musician*, and I know that's ludicrous.

Hey, Tony, do you still believe that all the stubs of the upper block core columns will pierce thru 3 stories of rubble & magically contact perfectly their mating stubs in the lower block?

I'm a cook*, and I know that's a joke.

Hey, Tony, do you still think that the upper stubs will hit the lower stubs after 1 & 2 stories of descent… even tho there are zero column surfaces for them to contact??

I'm a dishwasher*, and I know that's completely wrong.

Hey, Tony, do you still think that NIST believes the minimum force transmitted thru a buckled column is 25% of it's straight capacity?

I'm a chauffeur*, and I know that's totally hosed.

*Yeah, I'm all of these. At times. Like all of us are.
But mainly, I'm an ME, Tony.

And you KNOW it. And that is precisely why you won't debate me.

It was the same story with Hardfire.
It's the same story now.

You're a coward who runs from debate with other engineers.
Who do you think you're fooling?
Other than yourself, of course...


Tom

 

[DGM]

Even tho you don't know my last name.


Tom

Wait... I do know your last name. Whatever happened to his debating you here if I (Tony does know my name) verified your credentials (which I did)? If I recall he did agree to this.

 

[cantonear1968]

Yes, I know they do. What the OP was attempting to do was convince the casual reader that Chandler was using high school level physics. In other words, lying.

Why are you more interested in arguing semantics and insignificant points instead of attempting to present evidence of whatever 9/11 conspiracy theory you ascribe to?