David Chandler jumps the shark

[Oystein]

I wasn't going to - I've addressed all aspects of Tony's nonsense many times. And much of the recent discussion has been addressing points that Tony has made and playing the game within the false scenario that Tony has imposed.

We know Tony is wrong so rather than keep repeating the proofs of his errors why not simply explain what really happened. Tony's false assertions should then be obvious in contrast.

So on the issue of tilt the claim I would make is this:

Assertion re "Tilt" - Tilt is irrelevant to understanding of the collapse mechanism. It is a consequence of the mode of failure NOT a cause. It enters the sequence AFTER the key bits of mechanism are past.
...

All very well, understood and agreed.
A discussion with Tony cannot have the goal of "understanding the collapse mechanism", only to disabuse him of his misconceptions.
One being "there was no lateral motion whatsoever".
I brought up tilt not because it is the cause or effect of anything, nor because it furthers understanding of the real event, but because tilt means, by definition, lateral motion - something Tony denies. So I asked whether he accepts there was tilt - and was surprised at his answer.

 

[Dave Rogers]

That is right.

Thank you. That public retraction of your Missing Jolt theory is going in my sig when I have time to edit it.

Dave

 

[ozeco41]

Thank you. That public retraction of your Missing Jolt theory is going in my sig when I have time to edit it.

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Thank you. That public retraction of your Missing Jolt theory is going in my sig when I have time to edit it.

Dave

Dave, how you get what you are saying from what I have said about the perimeter not being able to support the static load due to it being cut is beyond me. You are twisting words in an indescribable way and playing games you shouldn't be, but then you have no other way to try and refute what I am saying because it is correct. You apparently have no shame either.

 

[Seymour Butz]

That is right.

Lmao.

I guess this means that your previous statements are untrue and that it doesn't matter what caused the collapse initiation.

1- enough columns cut with explosives reduces load carrying capacity resulting in structural failure = no jolt

2- the above, using thermxte = no jolt

3- fires weaken the load carrying system to the point that results in structural failure = no jolt


So then wtf have you been arguing for all these years?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Lmao.

I guess this means that your previous statements are untrue and that it doesn't matter what caused the collapse initiation.

1- enough columns cut with explosives reduces load carrying capacity resulting in structural failure = no jolt

2- the above, using thermxte = no jolt

3- fires weaken the load carrying system to the point that results in structural failure = no jolt


So then wtf have you been arguing for all these years?

It sounds more like you and other clownish cohorts here are willing to twist words and essentially lie to minimize the reality that the three building collapses that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001 in NYC were due to controlled demolition to hide the fact that others were involved. Without a jolt it could not have been a natural collapse and we see evidence of charges cutting the corners of the perimeter, which I have explained the purpose of.

Those on the aircraft could not have caused that, so there were additional terrorists involved who need to be apprehended and you and others here are covering for them. I can't be sure if it is witting or unwitting, but that is what you are doing.

 

[Oystein]

The argument is circular.

 

[Seymour Butz]

It sounds more like you and other clownish cohorts here are willing to twist words and essentially lie to minimize the reality that the three building collapses that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001 in NYC were due to controlled demolition to hide the fact that others were involved. Without a jolt it could not have been a natural collapse and we see evidence of charges cutting the corners of the perimeter, which I have explained the purpose of.

Those on the aircraft could not have caused that, so there were additional terrorists involved who need to be apprehended and you and others here are either wittingly or unwittingly covering for them.

Dude, you stepped on your dick.

That what happens when you can't remember all your lies. You eventually trip yourself up on it.

You now realize that you just, as Dave said, invalidated MJ.

This is too funny.

Where are the laughing dogs?????

 

[Oystein]

Seymour, can you explain how Tony invalidated MJ? I think it bears repeating.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Seymour, can you explain how Tony invalidated MJ? I think it bears repeating.

Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

You left out that I said the structural integrity was reduced to the point where it could not handle the static load by charges on the spandrel connections. Thus it was provably not a natural collapse and this is why there was no jolt.

Your attempts to twist words and omit the other pertinent points which make the case for controlled demolition are beyond disgusting. How do you look yourself in the mirror?

 

[Oystein]

Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

Well, Tony maintains that ONLY a deliberate CD, but not "natural" causes, could "reduce the load carrying ability of the lower structure to the point where it can no longer support the load above it".
Your explanation should include the bit where you argue why, in the fire-induced collapse scenario that was, "the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it". What load are we talking about here, how to describe the structure below, what is its capacity, and why is that capacity reduced?

 

[DGM]

You forgot to add that the structural integrity was reduced to the point where it could not handle the static load by charges on the spandrel connections. Thus it was provably not a natural collapse.

So there would be a "jolt" providing both blocks were in pristine condition and in perfect alignment.


Sounds realistic to me................

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Seymour, can you explain how Tony invalidated MJ? I think it bears repeating.

Unbelievable that you could out and out lie about this.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Seeing crap like that is why I firmly believe that when the owner at ATS - Skeptic Overlord - comes here and makes a statement that 9/11 twofers don't necessarily believe what they say and are in fact activists, willing to tell any outrageous lie if it furthers their cause..... I believe him.

Tony is obviously well enough educated to see the truth of things. But he doesn't care about that. His only purpose is to, as Jay Utah says, keep the conversation going so that he can hopefully bring light to what is, to him, the real issues.

War profiteering.

Bush is a war criminal.

American boys dying to further our oil industry.

Etc.....

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Well, Tony maintains that ONLY a deliberate CD, but not "natural" causes, could "reduce the load carrying ability of the lower structure to the point where it can no longer support the load above it".
Your explanation should include the bit where you argue why, in the fire-induced collapse scenario that was, "the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it". What load are we talking about here, how to describe the structure below, what is its capacity, and why is that capacity reduced?

Fires did not cause the separation of the corners of the perimeter walls. Who do you think you are kidding?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well, Tony maintains that ONLY a deliberate CD, but not "natural" causes, could "reduce the load carrying ability of the lower structure to the point where it can no longer support the load above it".

I'm not clear on how the steel knows that it was explosives and not fire that caused other parts of the structure to fail. Maybe Tony could elaborate on that.

Dave

 

[Criteria]

Goalposts Keep on Moving

It sounds more like you and other clownish cohorts here are willing to twist words and essentially lie to minimize the reality that the three building collapses that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001 in NYC were due to controlled demolition to hide the fact that others were involved.

Those on the aircraft could not have caused that, so there were additional terrorists involved who need to be apprehended and you and others here are either wittingly or unwittingly covering for them.

One thing is certain, they invest a great deal of time arguing against further investigation.

They casually embrace establishment explanations for the amazing fall of WTC 7.

They adopt strong support for flawed establishment research (Dr. Millette's study) while rejecting the research findings of the multiple accredited scientists who discovered nano-thermite in the WTC remains.

Obviously they do not want to know if there is more to the story that a deeper, more complete investigation risks uncovering.

For years they claimed that no one with significant academic and/or engineering credentials backed the need for further investigation.

When thousands of academics and engineers responded, the problem became one of percentages. The silent majority greatly outnumbered those protesting academics and engineers and of course that silence was believed to represent establishment support.

For years they hollered that if we believed more scientific investigation was required than we should sponsor it ourselves and not Bush's government.

When accredited scientists and engineers took up the challenge, their findings were unscientifically rebuked and their characters personally attacked.

What we see are goalposts on rails.

For those regulars here and elsewhere with their own pro-establishment agenda, there will never be a winning proof good enough to justify a full on investigation of 9/11.

 

[WilliamSeger]

... there will never be a winning proof good enough to justify a full on investigation of 9/11.

This is a great example of reaching a (probably) correct conclusion through invalid reasoning. I don't really object to another investigation, provided it's actually objective and people who know what they're talking about are allowed to refute Gage's "experts," but the reason that another investigation is pointless is that "truthers" will only accept one conclusion, and they already know what that is.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

One thing is certain, they invest a great deal of time arguing against further investigation.

They casually embrace establishment explanations for the amazing fall of WTC 7.

They adopt strong support for flawed establishment research (Dr. Millette's study) while rejecting the research findings of the multiple accredited scientists who discovered nano-thermite in the WTC remains.

Obviously they do not want to know if there is more to the story that a deeper, more complete investigation risks uncovering.

For years they claimed that no one with significant academic and/or engineering credentials backed the need for further investigation.

When thousands of academics and engineers responded, the problem became one of percentages. The silent majority greatly outnumbered those protesting academics and engineers and of course that silence was believed to represent establishment support.

For years they hollered that if we believed more scientific investigation was required than we should sponsor it ourselves and not Bush's government.

When accredited scientists and engineers took up the challenge, their findings were unscientifically rebuked and their characters personally attacked.

What we see are goalposts on rails.

For those regulars here and elsewhere with their own pro-establishment agenda, there will never be a winning proof good enough to justify a full on investigation of 9/11.

9/11 Truth= Fraud, that is now crystal clear, and your just perpetuating the Fraud!