• 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.

Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

And, Tony, I'm still waiting for a more realistic assessment of how much "load amplification" was really necessary if the upper block was tilted when it fell. I'm not a physicist or structural engineer, but I do know enough about logic to know you can't build a sound hypothesis on faulty premises.
 
rwguinn said:
fixed it...
Actually, they are "a maze of twisty little passages, all different"
Click to expand...

The "all different" maze was easy if you paid attention to the details. The "all alike" maze was a biotch because no matter which direction you went, you ended up in the same place. I'd say arguing with Tony is the "all alike" maze.
 
I know that I'm not the only one, but it really seems obvious why Tony avoids my questions. I'm NOT an engineer, so I tend not to ask him about that stuff. However, when Tony says things like "Giuliani was in on it" he invites constructive criticism from ... well, anyone at all. Yet, he doesn't respond. Because he is a coward, I guess. Which makes one wonder why he ever posts here at all.

ETA - LOL, I just heard Richard Gage say "without a significant jolt" on the Richard Syrett show. Congrats, Tony.
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
Tony,

I'll just leave one of these each morning for awhile.

Fourth request...
Click to expand...

Sure there tfk.

I just want to mention to people here that I had agreed to debate you via e-mail through DGM and allow you to maintain your anonymity. The one stipulation I made in return was that nothing would be posted publicly without a resolution. You refused and now you act like I won't answer you.

You aren't genuine. It is obvious that you simply want to score cheap points with no accountability since you insist on being anonymous.

I'll provide public answers to you when you provide your real name and have some level of accountability. Until then you are off the screen as far as I am concerned.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The one stipulation I made in return was that nothing would be posted publicly without a resolution.
Click to expand...

What was your definition of a resolution?

And why did you insist on a private debate anyway? Who really cares?
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
Tony's picking up his ball and going home 'cuz we won't pitch underhand to him...
Click to expand...

Not exactly the analogy that comes to mind with you. In your case it would be more like you are pitching to first, second, or third base, while the person expecting a response from you is at the plate.

Have fun there guinn.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I'll provide public answers to you when you provide your real name and have some level of accountability. Until then you are off the screen as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...

I'm not concerned with the identity of people I speak with on an online forum, and knowing your real name doesn't change that. I care about one thing; whether or not the content you provide is accurate and is corroborated by your professional skills. You're a broken record; unable to read the NIST report competently, not distinguishing between limiting cases, errors so basic it undermines your credibility in areas you appear legitimately competent in. At this point I don't think anyone needs to care who you are, given you're history, you demonstrated that whether you're known as realcddeal or Tony Szamboti the legitimacy of your claims, and their impact in the professional practice have little to no bearing. Using anonymity as justification for discreditment is in my book a cop out. YOUR concern should be the content, is there a reason why you're not concerned with that?

If I told you the sun rose in the east and set in the west, would you ignore it because I use the alias "Grizzly Bear" on an internet forum and not my real name? Just curious...
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
... I just want to mention to people here that I had agreed to debate you ...
Click to expand...
You agreed to debate your delusions; how can anyone win against the the realcddeal. You will always win in your mind; you are the super-nano-skeptic.

The missing jolt; what is the velocity loss you are looking for; the number? You will win the debate since it is your delusion.


You can't present the facts, you will win your debate on your delusion.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
I'm not concerned with the identity of people I speak with on an online forum, and knowing your real name doesn't change that. I care about one thing; whether or not the content you provide is accurate and is corroborated by your professional skills. You're a broken record; unable to read the NIST report competently, not distinguishing between limiting cases, errors so basic it undermines your credibility in areas you appear legitimately competent in. At this point I don't think anyone needs to care who you are, given you're history, you demonstrated that whether you're known as realcddeal or Tony Szamboti the legitimacy of your claims, and their impact in the professional practice have little to no bearing. Using anonymity as justification for discreditment is in my book a cop out. YOUR concern should be the content, is there a reason why you're not concerned with that?

If I told you the sun rose in the east and set in the west, would you ignore it because I use the alias "Grizzly Bear" on an internet forum and not my real name? Just curious...
Click to expand...

An anonymous person has no fear of accountability and is not putting their credibility on the line, so it is really a farce to debate one.

As for your take on my credibility it isn't surprising that you give no basis for it, so it is just your opinion, which amounts to nothing coming from an anonymous person.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
An anonymous person has no fear of accountability and is not putting their credibility on the line, so it is really a farce to debate one.

As for your take on my credibility it isn't surprising that you give no basis for it, so it is just your opinion, which amounts to nothing coming from an anonymous person.
Click to expand...



Rather than traveling around Ad Hominem land, you may wish to put forward a constructive argument in favor of your case, and have it published in an accepted academic peer review journal.

Tony, are you yourself aware that you are desperate in holding onto your position?
 
NutCracker said:
Rather than traveling around Ad Hominem land, you may wish to put forward a constructive argument in favor of your case, and have it published in an accepted academic peer review journal.

Tony, are you yourself aware that you are desperate in holding onto your position?
Click to expand...

I think the desperation actually belongs to those who can't explain the lack of deceleration in WTC 1's upper section, while attempting to hold onto their belief that it was a natural collapse.

It is not surprising that it is mostly anonymous posters here continuing to just make an unsupported claim that there is nothing to what I am saying, in what appears to be an attempt to develop a chorus of consent. Since they don't give their names they apparently don't feel the need to back up what they say. If you give your name people expect you to back up what you say.

Ryan Mackey tried to make a case against it in our debate with a "the columns missed and everything landed on the floors" argument, which we now know has no validity as it was impossible. It has now been shown that the columns could not miss each other with the actual observed tilt and drop. Finally, Ryan could not back up what he said there so he has lost some credibility on this point. He at least had the temerity to attempt to argue his beliefs while putting his credibility on this issue on the line, as his identity is known.

Anonymous posters could have multiple pseudonyms so they have no standing as there is no fear of a loss of credibility on a particular issue.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom