• 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.

Care to Comment

Tony Szamboti said:
...
Keep trying Dave. I was wondering today if you have a job other than posting on this forum. Do you?
Click to expand...
Do you type very slow? It takes seconds to read your real-cd-deal and label your 911 scam a delusion. You also lack a reality based physics background and need to review E=mgh. Missing jolt, is more like a missing education used practically. Is the job attack all you have to support your real-cd-deal. lol, 8 years and you still type slow and think it takes time to respond to your failed ideas on 911.

The OP show idiots at work; you support idiots. When will you take the time to learn that, or anything about 911?
 
Profanz said:
Yup. Same load it always was. Nothing magical. Nothing out of this world. Falling from a dead set position does not equate picking the top of the WTC up with the hand of God and dropping it. That's not what happened. In fact that wouldn't have even been enough to do what was witnessed anyway. It was just sitting there like it always had been. Even if one corner had failed, and then the rest of the corners failed because of that first failure, it wouldn't have been as uniform of a collapse that was witnessed. How instantaneous do some of you people think that kind of failure happens all the way around without incendiary assistance or explosives? Really?
Click to expand...
:dl:
I love when truthers try to get technical. You'll only find a meaningless term like "incendiary assistance" when a truther troll steps out of his comformt zone.
 
BasqueArch said:
My bolding


Wrong -TS’ own data (W.D.Clinger’s velocity vs time chart) shows this negative slope therefore deceleration occurred (assuming TS data) therefore the Missing Jolt paper based on no deceleration is wrong.


<snipped for brevity>

Another example of a concrete loadbearing wall structure
[qimg]http://www.cpci.ca/images/sectionpics/potm/22005/1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

You'll find that discussing different properties through a case study will be difficult to get across. You're speaking to somebody who thinks the WTC and the Murrah Building should have exhibited roughly the same behavior.
 
AZCat said:
The difference is between what Tony now claims he said, and what he really did.
Click to expand...

I try not to call anyone a liar unless it is very warranted. In this instance here you are lying.

I never said what you purport. I have said that zero acceleration does not allow for load amplification, but that isn't what you are saying.

It is possible that the problem may be your lack of understanding and maybe you aren't intentionally lying. However, either way you aren't telling the truth.
 
Last edited:
Tony, why don't you remove all doubt, and skip all the semantics and the parsing. Take your study and submit it to a peer-reviewed engineering journal. The work will speak for itself, and you won't have to worry about being mis-quoted.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Every engineer I talk to at work about this believes there should have been a deceleration, if the collapse of WTC 1 was due to natural forces.
Click to expand...
I hope these engineers don't work on anything taller than a sofa.
 
jammonius said:
Gravity is an incredibly weak force and could not have accounted for the destruction of the lower 80 floors of the the South Tower and the lower 95 floors of the North by the small fraction of floors above them.
Click to expand...

what's the point of debating people who have ZERO knowledge of what the other side believes..and who have such a pathetic understanding of such basic forces like gravity?

such a waste of time. I will never engage in a debate with Jamm regarding 9-11, ever again.

***please remind me of this promise if I forget.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I try not to call anyone a liar unless it is very warranted. In this instance here you are lying.

I never said what you purport. I have said that zero acceleration does not allow for load amplification, but that isn't what you are saying.

It is possible that the problem may be your lack of understanding and maybe you aren't intentionally lying. However, either way you aren't telling the truth.
Click to expand...

Not even six months later and you're claiming it didn't happen. Thank goodness JREF still has the post available.

For those who need a little help, here's the post:
Tony Szamboti said:
If the upper block only decelerates at 1g then the force applied is equal to the static load. If it decelerates at less than 1g then the force applied is less than the static load. Remember F = ma.

In order to get an amplification the deceleration needs to be greater than 1g.

If the deceleration were 2g then the force applied would be twice the static load.
Click to expand...

See, Tony used to think that a body had to decelerate at 1g in order to produce a force equal to the static load. This is incorrect. We corrected him - multiple times, across multiple forums. Now he thinks he can pretend he never made that claim.
 
See, Tony used to think that a body had to decelerate at 1g in order to produce a force equal to the static load. This is incorrect. We corrected him - multiple times, across multiple forums. Now he thinks he can pretend he never made that claim.
Click to expand...

So what, he is off by 1g, what is that among thruthers? :D
 
AZCat said:
Not even six months later and you're claiming it didn't happen. Thank goodness JREF still has the post available.

For those who need a little help, here's the post:


See, Tony used to think that a body had to decelerate at 1g in order to produce a force equal to the static load. This is incorrect. We corrected him - multiple times, across multiple forums. Now he thinks he can pretend he never made that claim.
Click to expand...

I was speaking of deceleration from full gravitational acceleration or a relative 2g deceleration there and what I said was correct. In other words a deceleration from +1g to -1g would cause the load to be 2x that of the static load. If it had decelerated at 1g from full gravitational acceleration then it would have zero acceleration and would apply the same load as the static load, and if it had decelerated at less than 1g from full gravitational acceleration the load it would be applying would be less than the static load.

If you did understand what I said there then you are obviously nothing more than a word twister. The only people you would impress with your deceptive word twisting are those who aren't knowledgeable in the area, as it is apparent you can't contribute much to the discussion and can't discount what I am saying.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I was speaking of deceleration from full gravitational acceleration or a relative 2g deceleration there and what I said was correct. In other words a deceleration from +1g to -1g would cause the load to be 2x that of the static load. If it had decelerated at 1g from full gravitational acceleration then it would have zero acceleration and would apply the same load as the static load, and if it had decelerated at less than 1g from full gravitational acceleration the load it would be applying would be less than the static load.

If you did understand what I said there then you are obviously nothing more than a word twister. The only people you would impress with your deceptive word twisting are those who aren't knowledgeable in the area, as it is apparent you can't contribute much to the discussion and can't discount what I am saying.
Click to expand...

So I was wrong - you haven't understood it yet. I am (yet again) amazed that a degreed engineer could make such a mess of basic physics principles.
 
Toke said:
So what, he is off by 1g, what is that among thruthers? :D
Click to expand...

I'm almost to the point of giving up on Tony. I don't know why he can't see what is quite obvious to everyone else, even non-technical people.
 
Toke said:
You are still 1g off.
Click to expand...
He does not understand gravity, or he thinks a WTC floor can hold more than 25,000,000, or was it 29,000,000 pounds. Just placing a certain weight on a floor in the WTC will fail the floor. CD delusions are hard for the fringe few to drop in favor of reality.

Poor Tony, going on 9 years of the real-cd-deal and missing jolts and he has no evidence to support his paranoid conspiracy theories.

Why do 911 cult delusion believers fall for the billiard-ball junk?
 
If it had decelerated at 1g from full gravitational acceleration then it would have zero acceleration and would apply the same load as the static load,
Click to expand...
If you examine this part of your newly edited word salad, you will find that the same object is both decelerating at 1g, and have zero acceleration, both at the same time.

You have to remember that a static load is the weight of the building when stationary, it does not disappear just because it is moving. So when something is moving downwards and decelerating the load will be the usual 1g plus the g of the deceleration.

Decelerating a drop at 0.2g would be mass times (1g+0.2g) for a total of 1.2 times static load.
 
Toke said:
Yes, I am impressed with me too. :D
Click to expand...

You should be commended, because reading through the gibberish produced by the truth movement (like Tony's most recent post) makes even technically-savvy people scratch their heads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom