IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags nist , structural engineering , tony szamboti , wtc , Zdenek Bazant

Reply
Old 23rd January 2010, 10:21 AM   #1121
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You need to look at the visualizations of column alignment in WTC 1 with the actual measurements of the tilt and drop taken into consideration. This was done recently and can be seen at http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wt...l-t308-15.html where the link takes you to the page and you just need to scroll down to the middle of the page.

So, you've got these massive columns, bent into giant arcs by a precariously tilting upper section, most of the beams loaded well past their theoretical load carrying capacities, and all of them inflicted with huge amounts of bending moments ...

... and then something snaps ...

... and all the beams remain stationary, no whipping back to straight sections, no dynamics...?

... and the beams just ever-so-serenely pass thru each other...??


[irony]
Sure, those are COMPLETELY REALISTIC models of what happened...
[/irony]


Tom
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 10:29 AM   #1122
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The Verinage demolition technique removes the columns of a couple of stories to allow a drop of the upper section and to build momentum and then uses a kinetic energy transfer at impact with the lower structure to accomplish the demolition. It is indeed a purely gravity driven collapse and is what proponents of the NIST/Bazant explanation claim occurred in the towers.

However, the velocity measurements of every Verinage technique demolition show their upper sections undergo a very definitive deceleration and velocity loss, bearing out what I am saying. This telltale deceleration and velocity loss of the upper section in a purely gravity driven collapse is not observed in the velocity measurements of the upper section of WTC 1.

Now, instead of just restating YOUR nonsense for the 1001st time, why don't you address the very pertinent points that I made relative to your flawed theory?

Evasion, much?

Anything you want to say today about weight, force & acceleration?

Tom
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 10:45 AM   #1123
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
STUNDIE...!!!!!

(...only because of the source...)

Tom.
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
So now you are resorting to childish behavior since you can't make your arguments work.

What a joke.
Tony,

There comes a point when one is faced with such a wall of ignorance, evasion, deception, irrationality, and stubborn defense of proven stupidity that "pointing fingers & laughing" becomes the ONLY REASONABLE RESPONSE.

Allow me to demonstrate:

Tony, is there anything that you'd like to offer about force, weight & acceleration of objects in static equilibrium??

Whatever reply you give (including "no reply") will perfectly illustrate the point above ...

You've attained "bill smith" levels of irrelevance, Tony. That's no small feat. But it is unimaginable for anyone who's gotten themselves - somehow - an engineering degree.


Tom
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 10:49 AM   #1124
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Now that it is shown that the columns don't miss ...

[raises hand] "... excuse me ..."
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 10:55 AM   #1125
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
Tony, an honest question:

Say you were to take your little theory on the road, tour the university circuit. How many people would it take to tell you are wrong before you'd at least begin to think that they may have a point?
If he did that I bet he'd talk exclusively to professors in the humanities departments, or theology...
__________________
Vive la libertť!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 11:23 AM   #1126
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Seymour Butz View Post
I was being generous for Tony's benefit.

They all agree that he's nuts, after reading through some posts. But they're being nice to him by not calling him a loon for his beliefs. Guess they need all the help they can get and don't want to alienate somebody that they can use for their delusional views and then throw into the trash when they're done besmirching his name.
The sad thing is that LOTS of people can try to besmirch Tony's name.

There is only one person that can really do it: Tony.

Originally Posted by Seymour Butz View Post
But they've reached the 100% concensus that Heiwa's nuts.
I guess that's a cheap imitation of "progress".

Tom
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 11:54 AM   #1127
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
The sad thing is that LOTS of people can try to besmirch Tony's name.

There is only one person that can really do it: Tony.



I guess that's a cheap imitation of "progress".

Tom
Your use of ad hominem is showing your desperation Tom.

What is your full name?
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 12:00 PM   #1128
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,796
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You need to look at the visualizations of column alignment in WTC 1 with the actual measurements of the tilt and drop taken into consideration. This was done recently and can be seen at http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wt...l-t308-15.html where the link takes you to the page and you just need to scroll down to the middle of the page.
Oh Tony Szamboti, that's just so desperate. You know this just doesn't make sense, don't you? Don't you???

Builders make every effort to keep things plumb. If anything deviated by a fraction of a degree they'd shut the project down. Now here you are claiming this building could lean like Pisa and still hold up the entire burning mass above it like no big deal. How foolish is that? I mean seriously, you don't expect the building to hold the weight, creep and keep burning forever do you? Oh Tony Szamboti, when will you learn? You get an "A" for effort but fail on everything else.

You haven't peaked any interest to a willing audience such as this. I don't know how you expect to garner any favour by the more critical professional public. You said you planned on taking this to the next level but I urge you to think about it again. Consider the helpful criticism offered here.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 12:08 PM   #1129
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,796
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Your use of ad hominem is showing your desperation Tom.

What is your full name?
Why? You taking out a marriage licence? You doing a background check? You think he might be related to you? Or is this a "double dog dare"? Tony Szamboti this is kinda creepy you asking for his last name. What exactly will you do with it once you have it? Will it change anything?
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 12:12 PM   #1130
Algebra34
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 637
I watched the debate against Macky at Walter Egos blog. I thought Szamboti really did well. Macky not so well. Is it Macky or Mackey? I can't remember. Thanks Walter.
Algebra34 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 12:16 PM   #1131
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,661
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Your use of ad hominem is showing your desperation Tom.

What is your full name?
Tony, why do you only address the messages that you claim are ad hominem and ignore the ones containing technical matters, instead of the opposite?

If that matters to you, *my* full name is Pedro Gimeno Fortea. I did some points about the Verinage in message #1112 that you are not addressing at all.

tfk, whatever his full name is, has also made many points in the technical field that you seem to prefer to ignore. Instead of acting like you were waiting for an excuse to avoid addressing his points, you could actually address them.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 12:48 PM   #1132
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Your use of ad hominem is showing your desperation Tom.

What is your full name?
And how would that change tfk's evidence in the postings?

You are being disingenuous Tony. You first elected to post here under a pseudonym and began using your name after you were outed. I don't see any revealing personal information on your profile.

The murderers, the ill, those with personal criminal problems, those who have threatened members here and been prosecuted, those who have threatened members here anonymously and not been prosecuted, those who show up unannounced at witnesses' homes and then publicly call them shills and liars, those who threaten arrests and execution come the revolution, are on the truther side.

Most truthers here do not post their real names.
Not using real names here is prudent condomwebbing if one wants to reduce the risk of truther creepness

Going to Suspect Dick Cheney's House.
http://www.infowars.com/sheehan-lead...cheneys-house/[/quote]
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 12:50 PM   #1133
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem View Post
Why? You taking out a marriage licence? You doing a background check? You think he might be related to you? Or is this a "double dog dare"? Tony Szamboti this is kinda creepy you asking for his last name. What exactly will you do with it once you have it? Will it change anything?
TFK challenged the members of AE911truth to a debate and while they all give their real names he continues to use a pseudonym. When they turned him down he disparaged them for it. I think that is rather disingenuous of someone using a pseudonym.

If TFK wants to debate he should use his full real name. Otherwise we don't even know if it is one person posting as TFK.

In the case of Ryan Mackey he was willing to appear in public to debate me and he gives his full name, which made it a legitimate debate.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 12:53 PM   #1134
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
And how would that change tfk's evidence in the postings?

You are being disingenuous Tony. You first elected to post here under a pseudonym and began using your name after you were outed. I don't see any revealing personal information on your profile.

The murderers, the ill, those with personal criminal problems, those who have threatened members here and been prosecuted, those who have threatened members here anonymously and not been prosecuted, those who show up unannounced at witnesses' homes and then publicly call them shills and liars, those who threaten arrests and execution come the revolution, are on the truther side.

Most truthers here do not post their real names.
Not using real names here is prudent condomwebbing if one wants to reduce the risk of truther creepness

Going to Suspect Dick Cheney's House.
http://www.infowars.com/sheehan-lead...cheneys-house/
At least you PM'ed me with your real name, which I will not reveal publicly. TFK has not done that.

Anyone who wants to be taken seriously should reveal their full name and state why they believe what they do. Anyone threatening violence against anyone on either side should be prosecuted.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 12:57 PM   #1135
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,731
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
TFK challenged the members of AE911truth to a debate and while they all give their real names he continues to use a pseudonym. When they turned him down he disparaged them for it. I think that is rather disingenuous of someone using a pseudonym.

If TFK wants to debate he should use his full real name. Otherwise we don't even know if it is one person posting as TFK.

In the case of Ryan Mackey he was willing to appear in public to debate me and he gives his full name, which made it a legitimate debate.
Tony, this is a stall. His real name does not in anyway effect his argument. If he argued through me would you answer any differently?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 01:03 PM   #1136
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
At least you PM'ed me with your real name, which I will not reveal publicly. TFK has not done that.

Anyone who wants to be taken seriously should reveal their full name and state why they believe what they do. Anyone threatening violence against anyone on either side should be prosecuted.
That was my choice, others feel differently about their privacy and I don't blame them.

You should reply to the factual portions of the postings so we can continue past this off topic.
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 01:09 PM   #1137
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
That was my choice, others feel differently about their privacy and I don't blame them.

You should reply to the factual portions of the postings so we can continue past this off topic.
I don't agree. TFK needs to remove the veil of anonymity if he wants to challenge others who have put their names in the public sphere concerning this issue.

Can you imagine a politician running for election with a pseudonym? Would you vote for them?

Debates between real people are all that really count. It is impossible to determine whether or not an anonymous person is just one person or a group or whether or not there is some possible conflict of interest.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 01:15 PM   #1138
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,731
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I don't agree. TFK needs to remove the veil of anonymity if he wants to challenge others who have put their names in the public sphere concerning this issue.

Can you imagine a politician running for election with a pseudonym? Would you vote for them?

Debates between real people are all that really count. It is impossible to determine whether or not an anonymous person is just one person or a group or whether or not there is some possible conflict of interest.
How does any of this effect the factual nature of an argument? tfk could be a garbage collector (a very bright one) would that make his argument any less valid?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 01:17 PM   #1139
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post

Debates between real people are all that really count. It is impossible to determine whether or not an anonymous person is just one person or a group or whether or not there is some possible conflict of interest.
Wrong! Content is all that counts, in the end .Either the argument stands on merit, or it fails. Strange, that you would see it any other way.
Dog Town is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 01:24 PM   #1140
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,731
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post

Can you imagine a politician running for election with a pseudonym? Would you vote for them?
It's funny you say this. I voted for Scott Brown and I never checked to see if that was his real name.


ETA: Oh crap I just reveled what state I from.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 23rd January 2010 at 01:35 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 01:26 PM   #1141
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
Originally Posted by Dog Town View Post
Wrong! Content is all that counts, in the end .Either the argument stands on merit, or it fails. Strange, that you would see it any other way.
Now, we see the cockroach tendencies. Instead of presenting facts, data, calculations, and assumptions (including definitions of terms-hint, hint) the truther retreats to wanting to debate 2+2=4, and the identity of the arguer that 2+2 does indeed equal 4 is of prime importance, because an anonymous debater may have a hidden motive for insisting that the answer is 4? Or he might be a group?
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 01:30 PM   #1142
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,661
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Anyone who wants to be taken seriously should reveal their full name and state why they believe what they do. Anyone threatening violence against anyone on either side should be prosecuted.
I guess you should take me seriously by your standards. Please address message #1112. Thanks.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 01:31 PM   #1143
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,796
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
TFK challenged the members of AE911truth to a debate and while they all give their real names he continues to use a pseudonym. When they turned him down he disparaged them for it. I think that is rather disingenuous of someone using a pseudonym.

If TFK wants to debate he should use his full real name. Otherwise we don't even know if it is one person posting as TFK.

In the case of Ryan Mackey he was willing to appear in public to debate me and he gives his full name, which made it a legitimate debate.
Giving it (or not) in confidence is different than posting it. I'll freely give you my name in confidence, but I'm not inclined to post it on the net. You were outted, which I don't agree with really, so you had to. Making an issue out of it is a little beneath you.

Last edited by Furcifer; 23rd January 2010 at 01:32 PM.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 02:17 PM   #1144
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem View Post
Giving it (or not) in confidence is different than posting it. I'll freely give you my name in confidence, but I'm not inclined to post it on the net. You were outted, which I don't agree with really, so you had to. Making an issue out of it is a little beneath you.

There are many reasons why 3bodyproblem, for example, wouldn't post his real name on the net.
He could be a Dubai prince, or an employee of AE911Truth.

And where would that leave him. Mmmm?
In Dubai you can be caned 20 times for removing your veil of anonymity in the public sphere.

Besides, all the crazy ones are on the other side.

Last edited by BasqueArch; 23rd January 2010 at 02:23 PM.
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 02:27 PM   #1145
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,796
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
There are many reasons why 3bodyproblem, for example, wouldn't post his real name on the net.
He could be a Dubai prince, or an employee of AE911Truth.

And where would that leave him. Mmmm?
In Dubai you can be caned 20 times for removing your veil of anonymity in the public sphere.

Besides, all the crazy ones are on the other side.
Being an employee of AE911 Truth is reason for a caning in these parts
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 02:31 PM   #1146
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Tony,

I mentioned a couple of times here that I've already had my internet stalker. That crazy person (they think of themselves as standing up for truth & justice) suggested that "the sight lines at an airport are excellent for a sniper rifle" when they thought that I was going to board an airplane whose departure time & location they knew. And then posted info about "the traitor in their midst" on my hometown web site.

Thank you, no. I decline to have my life turned upside down, like everyone else who has exposed their names to a bunch of delusional, disillusioned, paranoid or just plain bat-crap crazy whack jobs.

I am not a politician. I LIKE the ability to tell you, and other delusionists, that you are wrong, nuts, incompetent. I LIKE not having to sugar-coat it like some politician.

And, no thank you, I won't inflict upon you the burden of having to live up to your promise that you'll keep my identity confidential from other bat-crap crazies in your weakest moments when you are furious with me for exposing your monumental errors.

If you can think of any 3rd party, non-truther that you would trust, and that person is acceptable to me, then I will be happy to reveal my identity to them.

Tom

PS. Meanwhile, back to the objective issues, have you anything that you'd like to add about force, weight, or acceleration of objects in static equilibrium?

Would you like to answer my 5 questions about the velocity of the upper block of the towers between 1975 and 2000 now?

Last edited by tfk; 23rd January 2010 at 04:05 PM. Reason: Better phraseology, clarification
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 02:38 PM   #1147
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
The sad thing is that LOTS of people can try to besmirch Tony's name.

There is only one person that can really do it: Tony.
Tom
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Your use of ad hominem is showing your desperation Tom.

What is your full name?
That was NOT an "ad hominem", Tony.

That was one of the finest, most important pieces of advice ever given me by a very, very wise man.

You should ponder it carefully.


Tom

PS. I am proud to say that my last name is the same as that of the very wise man.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 03:06 PM   #1148
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
That was NOT an "ad hominem", Tony.

That was one of the finest, most important pieces of advice ever given me by a very, very wise man.

You should ponder it carefully.


Tom

PS. I am proud to say that my last name is the same as that of the very wise man.
Amazingly enough, mine is also the same as a very wise man who told me the same thing...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 03:11 PM   #1149
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,796
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Amazingly enough, mine is also the same as a very wise man who told me the same thing...
Me too. Apparently whoever this guy is he gets around.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 03:53 PM   #1150
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I don't agree. TFK needs to remove the veil of anonymity if he wants to challenge others who have put their names in the public sphere concerning this issue.

Can you imagine a politician running for election with a pseudonym? Would you vote for them?

Debates between real people are all that really count. It is impossible to determine whether or not an anonymous person is just one person or a group or whether or not there is some possible conflict of interest.
When you were realcddeal your posts contained the same junk your posts as Tony Szamboti do. The same lies. The same dodging. The same mistakes. The fact you have not fully read the report you disparage as an anonymous poster or as Tony makes no difference.
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 04:02 PM   #1151
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Amazingly enough, mine is also the same as a very wise man who told me the same thing...
Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem View Post
Me too. Apparently whoever this guy is he gets around.

Ix-nay on the ise-way an-may.

Mom is gonna be PISSED...!!

tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 04:42 PM   #1152
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
I don't agree. TFK needs to remove the veil of anonymity if he wants to challenge others who have put their names in the public sphere concerning this issue.
Quote:
Can you imagine a politician running for election with a pseudonym? Would you vote for them?
We ain't voting here, Tony-or whomever you are.
You don't vote on whether 2+2=4 or not. You don't vote on whether 36KSI steel fails at a stress level of 100KSI.
It's not a *********** debate-it's about whether sin(4 deg)=.06976.
And that is not subject to debate

Quote:
Debates between real people are all that really count. It is impossible to determine whether or not an anonymous person is just one person or a group or whether or not there is some possible conflict of interest.
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Now, we see the cockroach tendencies. Instead of presenting facts, data, calculations, and assumptions (including definitions of terms-hint, hint) the truther retreats to wanting to debate 2+2=4, and the identity of the arguer that 2+2 does indeed equal 4 is of prime importance, because an anonymous debater may have a hidden motive for insisting that the answer is 4? Or he might be a group?
Originally Posted by funk de fino View Post
When you were realcddeal your posts contained the same junk your posts as Tony Szamboti do. The same lies. The same dodging. The same mistakes. The fact you have not fully read the report you disparage as an anonymous poster or as Tony makes no difference.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 05:10 PM   #1153
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 18,449
Does anyone mind if I look for a different tack on this dispute? (That's a rhetorical question.)

I believe that the real problem here is simple incredulity. No matter what calculations and analysis show, Tony cannot accept that the lower part of a building can be destroyed by the dynamic load of the upper part falling on it. Therefore he concludes that any analysis that does show that must be wrong.

One likely contributing factor to the incredulity is that smaller scale objects, even fragile ones, do not behave that way. A stack of glass tumblers might very well shatter all the way to the bottom if an anvil is dropped onto it, but not if a smaller stack of the same type of tumblers is dropped on it.

And buildings aren't even fragile like glass. They're extremely strong. So it's even less likely -- to the point of being unthinkable -- that a steel office tower could collapse that way. Not unless some enormous additional factor is involved. One possible additional factor is magnification of the effective weight of the falling upper portion, resulting from high decelerations of the entire upper block acting as a monolithic mass to generate massive hammer blows. If that possibility is ruled out by failure to observe any such large decelerations, other possible additional factors such as explosives must be considered.

I offer a different explanation: no additional enormous additional factors are needed, because the premise that implies such a necessity is false. That premise is that buildings are very strong compared with drinking glasses or cardboard boxes or other small-scale objects.

It's just not true. In a very significant way, buildings are actually extremely fragile compared with small-scale objects. Specifically, in comparison with forces derived from their own mass (such as their weight), buildings are almost unimaginably fragile.

To illustrate this, I offer a simple thought experiment (which I've presented before on this forum, but not recently).

First, imagine a building. Actually, imagine four buildings, all the same, with normal contents, fifty or more stories tall, proportioned however you'd prefer.

Now, halfway up one of the buildings, build a big tray around it, strongly attached to the building's frame. Then, disassemble the other three identical buildings, and put all the materials and contents from all three buildings into the big tray. Imagine that the building survives -- perhaps creaking and groaning, maybe it would collapse if just one more brick were put in the tray, but it stands, supporting not only its own weight but an additional three times its own weight.

Would you agree that that must be an exceptionally strong building? Or at least, that such a building cannot be of below average strength? (That is a massive understatement, but if you'll admit that much, the argument will still work.)

Now, imagine another object: a wine glass. But it's a very delicate wine glass, with a bowl thinner than an egg shell and a stem thinner than a strand of thin spaghetti. It weighs only an ounce. And it is so delicate that if it were to be filled with more than four ounces (by weight) of wine, it would shatter.

Note that to fill such a glass, you'd have to use an eye dropper or some similar means, because the force of a normal stream of wine poured from a normal wine bottle landing in the bowl would exceed the force of four ounces of weight, and destroy it. When the glass is filled to its four-ounce capacity, don't even think about picking it up by the stem with your fingers. The stem would snap from the unbalanced sideways forces, or the upward acceleration of the wine when you lifted it would overload the stem. (It might be possible to pick it up by carefully cradling the bowl in your hand, but you'd have to have very steady hands; any tremble would shift the weight of the wine in the bowl, or apply torque to the base, causing the glass to exceed its limits and break.)

Would you agree that I've just described an extremely delicate wine glass? Or at least, a wine glass that's not of greater than average strength for a wine glass?

Here's the problem: if you accept that the building is strong and the wine glass is fragile, how do you explain the fact that as described, the wine glass is stronger than the building? The wine glass can (barely) support an additional four times its own weight, while the building can only (barely) support an additional three times its own weight.

And of course, real skyscrapers are not anywhere near strong enough to support an additional three times their own weight. And real wine glasses are amply strong enough to support at least 25 times their own weight when resting on a level surface, and are also strong enough to be picked up, moved around, and even (during toasts) impacted (albeit at low velocities) against other similar glasses.

The conclusion is that buildings, relative to forces derived from their own mass such as the weight of their upper floors, are really really really fragile. Far more fragile than wine glasses, by orders of magnitude.

Ditto cardboard boxes.

Ultimately, the reason for that is scale.

And that, folks, is the sought-after "additional factor" that explains why tall buildings can collapse the way the towers did on 9/11. Not explosives, and not massive high-deceleration hammer blows by the entire upper section. They're just very fragile, compared with the forces generated by large parts of themselves in motion.

Come to think of it, buildings are so fragile that many of them can actually be damaged by earthquakes! A mere few seconds of shaking! Can you imagine an empty cardboard box being damaged by being shaken by an earthquake (that is, without something else falling on it)? Ridiculous! Cardboard boxes are vastly stronger, that's why many of them able to support hundreds of times their own weight.

Intuition is usually very unreliable when it comes to effects of scale. Incredulity based on such intuition will lead even well-meaning and intelligent people to ridiculous conclusions. Correct quantitative analysis and intellectual honesty in accepting the results of such analysis even if counterintuitive, are the usual ways around that problem. But developing better intuition might also help.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 06:07 PM   #1154
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Does anyone mind if I look for a different tack on this dispute? (That's a rhetorical question.)

I believe that the real problem here is simple incredulity. No matter what calculations and analysis show, Tony cannot accept that the lower part of a building can be destroyed by the dynamic load of the upper part falling on it. Therefore he concludes that any analysis that does show that must be wrong.

One likely contributing factor to the incredulity is that smaller scale objects, even fragile ones, do not behave that way. A stack of glass tumblers might very well shatter all the way to the bottom if an anvil is dropped onto it, but not if a smaller stack of the same type of tumblers is dropped on it.


Respectfully,
Myriad
The problem is that there is no dynamic load. That would require deceleration greater than 1g and velocity loss. This is not observed.

I am looking at the actual sizes and strength of structural elements and loads, so scale is not an issue.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 23rd January 2010 at 07:17 PM. Reason: removed an extraneous s from the word "and"
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 06:12 PM   #1155
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Tony,

I mentioned a couple of times here that I've already had my internet stalker. That crazy person (they think of themselves as standing up for truth & justice) suggested that "the sight lines at an airport are excellent for a sniper rifle" when they thought that I was going to board an airplane whose departure time & location they knew. And then posted info about "the traitor in their midst" on my hometown web site.

Thank you, no. I decline to have my life turned upside down, like everyone else who has exposed their names to a bunch of delusional, disillusioned, paranoid or just plain bat-crap crazy whack jobs.

I am not a politician. I LIKE the ability to tell you, and other delusionists, that you are wrong, nuts, incompetent. I LIKE not having to sugar-coat it like some politician.

And, no thank you, I won't inflict upon you the burden of having to live up to your promise that you'll keep my identity confidential from other bat-crap crazies in your weakest moments when you are furious with me for exposing your monumental errors.

If you can think of any 3rd party, non-truther that you would trust, and that person is acceptable to me, then I will be happy to reveal my identity to them.

Tom

PS. Meanwhile, back to the objective issues, have you anything that you'd like to add about force, weight, or acceleration of objects in static equilibrium?

Would you like to answer my 5 questions about the velocity of the upper block of the towers between 1975 and 2000 now?
If you want to have an e-mail debate through DGM that is fine with me. He is a non-truther and offered that in this thread today. He has my e-mail address.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 23rd January 2010 at 06:14 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 06:16 PM   #1156
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The problem is that there is no dynamic load. That would require deceleration greater than 1g and velocity loss. This is not observed.

I am looking at the actual sizes of structural elements and loads, so scale is not an issue.
and round and round we go.
Tony, your argument is more full of stuff than a Thanksgiving turkey, and you know it.
1 m/sec velocity loss over 1/10 of a second is 10m/sec^2, or slightly over 1 g. do it in 1/100 second, you get over 10 g. Your data, the many-times copied and recopied videos of the collapse, cannot show you even 1 meter, and certainly can't show you time stems even as low as .05 seconds--and at 10g load on any part of the structure, it will have already failed and is not supporting anything. it is out of the load path. Non-existent for that purpose. It is an ex-load member.
You keep forgetting.a=dv/dt
time is important, and you ignore it.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 06:23 PM   #1157
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 18,449
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The problem is that there is no dynamic load. That would require deceleration greater than 1g and velocity loss. This is not observed.

It would require deceleration of what, exactly?

Quote:
I am looking at the actual sizes ands strength of structural elements and loads, so scale is not an issue.

Actually no, you are not, at least in any publication of yours that I've read.

You measured the movement of a roofline. How much does a roofline weigh? What are its dimensions? How strong is it?

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 06:26 PM   #1158
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
and round and round we go.
Tony, your argument is more full of stuff than a Thanksgiving turkey, and you know it.
1 m/sec velocity loss over 1/10 of a second is 10m/sec^2, or slightly over 1 g. do it in 1/100 second, you get over 10 g. Your data, the many-times copied and recopied videos of the collapse, cannot show you even 1 meter, and certainly can't show you time stems even as low as .05 seconds--and at 10g load on any part of the structure, it will have already failed and is not supporting anything. it is out of the load path. Non-existent for that purpose. It is an ex-load member.
You keep forgetting.a=dv/dt
time is important, and you ignore it.
No, I am not forgetting a = dv/dt. We discuss it in the Missing Jolt paper.

The video we used to measure the fall of the upper section was a purchased high fidelity copy of the Etienne Sauret video. The resolution is more than sufficient to pick up any deceleration required to amplify the load to what was necessary.

Many people have measured this fall in WTC 1 now and it is evident that there was no deceleration and that the upper section continuously accelerated during its fall.

You are amazingly making up a 10g load here out of whole cloth. If you read the paper you would see that we determine the energy dissipation in the columns which is equatable to loss of kinetic energy and velocity. This velocity loss can then be looked for since it requires time to recover. It just isn't there.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 23rd January 2010 at 06:45 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 06:36 PM   #1159
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Part of our problem here may be that it is assumed that there would be a jolt, as in verinage, because we are thinking of thje upper-block core columns taking part in driving the collapse, as do all the columns in a building taken down by verinage.

Problem with this thinking is that it is driven mostly by the floor slabs. Once enough of them collapsed or slumped out of their seats, starting a cascade of failures, any jolt would be rather minimal.

You don't even need the rest of the block to drive collapse of the floor slabs.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2010, 06:40 PM   #1160
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Part of our problem here may be that it is assumed that there would be a jolt, as in verinage, because we are thinking of thje upper-block core columns taking part in driving the collapse, as do all the columns in a building taken down by verinage.

Problem with this thinking is that it is driven mostly by the floor slabs. Once enough of them collapsed or slumped out of their seats, starting a cascade of failures, any jolt would be rather minimal.

You don't even need the rest of the block to drive collapse of the floor slabs.
Tony's problem is a whole lot more basic than that. He is hung up on principles a 3rd year engineering student will breeze past.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:08 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.