Hardfire: Ryan Mackey destroys Tony Szamboti, Part 1

[Bolo Boffin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1u3KO9kUdE

Please remember in comments that Tony Szamboti is currently a member here at DU.

ETA: This is the first of three 30-minute programs.

[reinvestigate911]

1. destroys?

1. mackey concedes szamboti's point by stating that bazants' limited case was presented in "an early paper".
   
2. there is no "2" - mackey fails to disprove szamboti's case.
   mackey simply makes a bunch of pussy assertions and proves NOTHING.
   
3. FAIL.
   

so how can you claim that mackey "destroys" anything here other than his own credibility?
szamboti clearly has this debate... it's patently silly that you would claim otherwise.

mr. mackey is better suited for debunking the no-planers -- he can't hold his own against someone who knows wtf they're talking about.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Destroys.

Despite your silly reframing, Mackey demonstrates several times that it is Szamboti who is floundering here, not Bazant and not himself. The video is right there, reinvestigate911. I don't know why you'd make such a silly claim when the video is right there for people to watch.

[AZCat]

4. The only thing Szamboti clearly has...

is an unshakable delusion.

[AZCat]

3. I have become convinced that Tony Szamboti...

is incapable of seeing where he has gone wrong. It has been pointed out to him so many times here and elsewhere that he can't have missed it, yet he continues to make the same mistakes. It's just pathetic.

[whatchamacallit]

9. With all due respect AZ

This show starts out with a speech from Mackey about how difficult it can be for people to admit when they're wrong, and that they will create new, more elaborate, scenarios to maintain their beliefs. Bazant's revisions: jolt necessary... jolt unnecessary... seem to fit that to a tee. Much like the now abandoned pancake theory. While Mackey would like to project that mindset to "truthers", it seems to me it applies to OCTers as much if not more.

Also, Tony Szamboti is not an idiot or moron... You may disagree with his views, but such a harsh personal denouncement of a professional, especially someone who obviously has some idea what he's talking about, smacks of fear-motivated character assassination.

Finally Bolo, you are so hungry for validation you're imagining things. That exchange wasn't even a wash, yet you think it destroyed Szamboti's credibility. I think that destroys yours.

[AZCat]

10. I think we're going to have to disagree here.

I don't think "irreducible delusion" applies at all to the work of the so-called "OCT" contingent.

I never claimed Tony was an idiot or a moron, but I did mean my denouncement to be harsh. He is not putting either his education or his experience (what that might be, I don't know) to good use.

[whatchamacallit]

11. Fair enough. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. huh

After watching that, I sort of thought someone would complain that Wieck didn't give Szamboti a chance to make his case.

Stupidly, I didn't think someone would argue that "mackey concedes szamboti's point" and "'destroys'... his own credibility." In retrospect, I see my mistake.

[AZCat]

6. Part 2 is up.

More Szamboti smack-down

[rollingrock]

7. Ryan Mackey destroys

...Ryan Mackey!

fail.

[AZCat]

8. Hmmm. Really?

Why would you think that?

[rollingrock]

12. Why do you think the opposite?

the OP has yet to explain it either. you know, his assertion might be more credible if he could actually back it up. just a thought.

[AZCat]

13. Because I watched it.

Ryan Mackey pointed out several times obvious flaws in Szamboti's approach, his assumptions, and his observations. It was clear to me that Mackey's arguments were far more strongly supported than Szamboti's. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone else, since Tony has made his arguments here and had the same flaws pointed out by members of DU.

[rollingrock]

14. Because you watched it?

so you back your assertions with...more assertions. gee, that's real convincing. :eyes:

the key things for me were...mackey freely admits that one, there was no jolt, no wham. two, he admits the nist report doesn't bother to explain what happened beyond initiation, it doesn't bother to explain how the core columns were destroyed, etc. in other words, the nist report fails to explain anything. and three, there is no evidence the rigid block mackey describes that is supposed to have provided the crushing force which crushes the entire building even existed after the first few seconds or that it remained intact on the way down. there is no evidence for this 'sledgehammer' effect, because the 'sledgehammer' ceases to exist as an intact unit by the time the lower block starts to come down.

[eomer]

15. Mackey asserts that Bazant, Zhou was a limiting case that proves progressive collapse was inevitable

But his assertion that Bazant's calculation is a limiting case is a naked assertion. There is no detailed analysis demonstrating how it must by necessity limit or box in the actual case.

Here is an excerpt from a paper by Mackey where he discusses the point:

On the other hand, there have
been several published results in support of the progressive collapse hypothesis. Perhaps
the best known is from Drs. Bazant and Zhou, who concluded the following, regarding
the situation after the first floor’s collapse:

To arrest the fall, the kinetic energy of the upper part, which is equal to the potential energy
release, would have to be absorbed by the plastic hinge rotations, i.e., W_p would have to be larger
than W_g. Rather,

W_g / W_p = 8.4 (3)

So, even under the most optimistic assumptions by far, the plastic deformation can dissipate only a
small part of the kinetic energy acquired by the upper part of the building.

And, regarding the second and successive floor collapses:

When the next buckle with its group of plastic hinges forms, the upper part has already traveled
many floors down and has acquired a much higher kinetic energy; the percentage of the kinetic
energy dissipated plastically is then of the order of 1%. The percentage continues to decrease
further as the upper part moves down. (64)

This is part of the reason why NIST did not consider the entire duration of the collapses.
Early results from engineers and scientists indicated that, once the upper stories began to
fall, the complete collapse of the structure was not in doubt, and there was no credible
result to the contrary. There still are none.

http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Bazant's statement that his calculation looks at the event "even under the most optimistic assumptions by far" is not demonstrated. It is merely asserted.

Bazant's alleged limiting case artificially creates an "all or nothing" straight-on, perfectly vertical collision between the upper and lower blocks. While it may be true that this maximizes the possibility of resistance in one way, it also minimizes the possibility of resistance in other ways. It maximizes by allowing the lower block to present its strongest possible face. But it minimizes by focusing the face-off into the shortest possible interval of time. And finally, it ignores areas of uncertainty that would need to be treated in their best case if a limit is to be established.

We all agree, I believe, that the actual interface between the upper and lower blocks was extremely different than Bazant's idealized version. Where we disagree is on the point of the relationship between the idealized version and the real version. Mackey claims that the former is limiting of the latter. But that would be demonstrated only if all aspects of the idealized version skew away from collapse and then collapse still occurs. But some aspects of the idealized version skew toward collapse and some away from it, and no demonstration has been provided for which of these unrealistic assumptions in opposite directions outweigh the others. Therefore the idealized version simply does not shed much light on the real version because there is no analytical way to establish toward which side (collapse or no collapse) the idealized version skews in the net.

On the timing aspect of the collision, Bazant's idealized straight-on, vertical collision artificially causes the two blocks to contact each other in one perfect instant of time as all the columns of the upper block contact all the columns of the lower block at precisely the same time. The artificially rigid upper block then applies all its momentum at that one instant and it is a sudden-death playoff that lasts a fraction of a second. In reality no such perfect collision would have occurred. The jagged and twisted structures would have engaged each other at a few points first and started their face-off. Then as the collision progressed some of the earliest contacting members would already fail or be failing as other members begin to make contact. The collision would obviously not occur at a single precisely timed instant as Bazant assumes but would rather extend over some larger interval of time during which a partial application of the upper block's total momentum would be applied by the imperfect, sometimes failing leading edge of the upper block.

This idealized, single-instant-of-time contact skews in favor of collapse in two ways: by focusing all the energy transfer into one fraction of a second and by erroneously assuming there is no structure failure in the upper block. The energy transfer would in fact be spread out over time, allowing the early-failing members to be sacrificial elements that potentially save later contacting elements. And the structure failures in the upper block would be an additional energy sink that is unaccounted for; another way in which Bazant's idealized version skews toward collapse.

Bazant's idealized case ignores at least one obvious aspect of uncertainty introduced by the totally unknown mechanics of how the upper and lower blocks actually interface with each other. The particulars of this interface could accidentally cause the lower block members to fail first, the upper block members to fail first, or some combination of the two. It is at least arguable that the visual evidence shows that the upper block tended to fail more than the lower and that the failure of the upper block structure lasted for at least several seconds during which the upper block descended through the height of multiple floors. If true, such a collision would provide a buffering effect such that the application of force by the upper block onto the lower block was spread out over several seconds. This spreading out of the force application may be as much as several orders of magnitude less focused than Bazant's artificially precise straight-on perfect collision.

A more likely candidate for a truly limiting case would be an assumption that the upper block behaved in a way that was the opposite of Bazant's assumption that it is rigid. The best case for lower block survival might be that the upper block is unlucky in each of its unpredictable encounters with the lower block and that the upper block members tended to fail quickly and without being able to get a good purchase on the lower and give it a shove. A series of glancing blows, if you will, in which the upper is always unlucky and snaps off relatively harmlessly. The net effect of this limiting case could then be approximated by treating the upper block as a totally disconnected swarm of individual elements that are going to rain down on the lower block. If Bazant or someone else can show that such a model would result in collapse then they may have succeeded in producing a limiting case. But Bazant, Zhou is not a limiting case; rather, it is a case that they knew all along was rigged to result in collapse.

[eomer]

16. Szamboti's missing jolt theory, by being based on Bazant, Zhou, is missing the point.

I agree with Mackey that the missing jolt evidence is not convincing because it is based on Bazant's idealized case rather than on any realistic case. As I said in another post, I don't agree that Bazant's idealized case is a limiting case but, either way, we all agree that it is an idealized case, which is enough for this context.

If Szamboti wants to demonstrate a missing jolt that insinuates tampering in some way with the buildings' structures, then he needs to redo his calculations based not on Bazant's idealized case but rather on a much more chaotic interaction between the upper and lower blocks. I just don't see how the columns, once disconnected, are going to land precisely on top of each other. If that is what is required to produce a jolt then the missing jolt theory is not convincing.

[Tony Szamboti]

17. Random interactions would still cause a large velocity loss in a natural collapse

eomer,

In the third show we discuss Ryan Mackey's postulation that there were many smaller jolts due to the tilt. He wants to say that they then would not result in a jolt being observed. Unfortunately for him the energy dissipation, due to the column deformation and buckling, is still the same and the aggregate dissipation should have still caused a significant deceleration and velocity loss, which is not observed. The Missing Jolt paper was written to show that the NIST/Bazant hypothesis does not conform to observation and that we presently do not have a viable official explanation.

As for your take that the collapse would have been some random chaotic mix of column on column and column on floor impact, that too should have produced a significant deceleration and velocity loss. One also needs to remember that the columns would not just disconnect after buckling. A fully random natural collapse, if possible, would have had a large amount of rigid item collisions producing a significant velocity loss.

The 0.3 g resistance experienced by the upper section is equal to only 10% of the column strength. Even if 75% of the columns were missed completely, which is highly unlikely due to inertia, the resistance would have still been in the 0.8g range.

Ryan Mackey complains that others have irreducible delusions, since he thinks things have been properly explained, yet he ignores the fact that he has moved from accepting Bazant's initial large jolt hypothesis, to a gradual collapse with many smaller jolts, to the columns were completely missed and the floors could not take the load. It would appear to me that those who are continuing to come up with these ever more tortured and improbable explanations, which still cannot explain the very low resistance, are the ones with the irreducible delusion.

The reality is that the constant acceleration of the upper section at 0.7g, with no velocity loss at any time, proves that something was removing the strength of a majority of the columns below.

This is really no different than the lack of any official explanation for the full freefall acceleration of WTC 7 for eight stories (104 feet). There is only one legitimate answer for that and the NIST completely ignores it.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. "which is not observed" because your method of observation is inferior

Your times of observation are far too long to catch what you're looking for, Tony. In fact, your times of observation are guaranteed to miss the event you claim to be looking for.

And again and again it is pointed out to you that your own calculations show a massive amount of missing energy. You don't catch a "deceleration" period, though your observation methods point to one reason why, but you do see several times where acceleration drops dramatically, almost to zero by your own calculation. Clearly some other force is participating in this system. What do you think it is if it's not the lower structure being torn apart by the descending upper section?

[Tony Szamboti]

19. Change in acceleration is not deceleration

A change in acceleration is not an indication of an impulse required to naturally collapse the building below. Deceleration and velocity loss is necessary to transfer the kinetic energy required to naturally collapse a lower structure which was capable of supporting several times the load above it. There is no velocity loss at any time.

Boloboffin, you apparently don't want to understand. It seems you are among those with an "Irreducible Delusion". I have told you and others many times that you don't need to see the actual impulse to discern whether or not it had occurred. The velocity loss which should have occurred would be easy to discern as it would take a significant time to recover to pre-impact velocity. Our measurement technique was more than adequate to determine if there was any velocity loss and the measurements we took have been verified by many people.

Your explanations simply do not work.

[AZCat]

20. Still trying to pretend you know what you're talking about, Tony?

We dealt with your arguments months ago and you ran away with your tail between your legs. Do you think it will be any different this time?

[Tony Szamboti]

21. AZCat, why don't you discuss the details?

It would be interesting if you would discuss technical details. I can imagine a reason that you don't.

You haven't dealt with anything and your assertions that you have fall flat.

Please explain why the resistance in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1 is only 0.3g and why it experienced no deceleration or velocity loss at any time.

[AZCat]

23. I have explained this before, and you ran away.

Whatever reasons you imagine are probably incorrect, just like your arguments. Get a fucking clue, Tony - you're wasting your engineering education and experience trying to rationalize a nutjob theory.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. What is keeping the upper section from falling at G, Tony? n/t

[AZCat]

24. Bingo. n/t

[Tony Szamboti]

25. What an incredible question

The towers were taken down by removing the strength of the outer core columns and separating the perimeters at the corners. This method will produce the observed behavior of the building and can be replicated.

It is simply the small amount of structure that wasn't removed, like the sides of the perimeter walls and inner core columns, which provides the extremely low resistance of 0.3g to the fall of the upper section of WTC 1.

You guys are really struggling. AZCat is now even resorting to profanity in lieu of providing an adequate explanation.

[Bolo Boffin]

26. So kinetic energy IS being transferred to the lower section, despite your silly attempts to minimize

0.3g - you mean 30% of G is being removed from the energy? At what point in time? Your own calculations show that at time 75% of G or more is being removed from the system. Instead of accelerating at G, the system is only acclerating at 25% of G.

And now you are on record that it is "resistance" that accounts for this -- i.e., that kinetic energy IS being transferred from the upper section to the lower section. So will you now apologize for stating otherwise and forswear any such claim in the future?

[Tony Szamboti]

27. Not nearly enough

You simply can't get it through your head that not nearly enough kinetic energy is being transferred to demolish the structure due to natural forces.

I explain this in the show with the 100 lb. plate sitting on thirty columns which can each handle 10 lbs. of force. If 27 of the columns are removed the 100 lb. plate will then fall at a rate of 0.7g.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Tony, the only thing that has to be destroyed below are the floor trusses

You're including column buckling in your calculations, and straight-on column buckling at that.

But when the upper sections twist and turn, they're not hitting straight on anymore. Please stop using the "can't get it through your head" rhetoric when you display this type of obstinance. And the structural debris that is torn loose (along with all other descending mass) is being directed by the nature of the building itself to load the floor structures, ripping loose the floor trusses all the way down.

[William Seger]

42. It wouldn't fall very far at 0.7g

It would fall at 0.7g only as long as the columns could provide 10 lbs. resistance. When the columns begin to bend and buckle, that resistance would drop off rapidly, which would mean that the acceleration of the plate would just as rapidly rise toward 1g. If the columns fractured, then the acceleration would become exactly 1g.

If the columns were 12 feet tall, how far would they fall at 0.7g?

If we looked at the final velocity when the plate hit the ground and incorrectly assumed that the acceleration had been constant during the fall, what we calculate for the average acceleration?

[AZCat]

40. This is quite impressive.

The more you're shown wrong, the more you claim we're struggling. What a fucking joke.

[Bonobo]

41. I'm not saying you ARE one, but...

You certainly do a great job of acting like a foul-mouthed jerk who resorts to name-calling instead of mounting arguments.

[AZCat]

65. There's really no point in arguing with Tony.

He's failing to grasp concepts that should be familiar to any mechanical engineer.

[eomer]

28. Thanks, I haven't watched the third segment yet.

Over what time interval did you measure constant acceleration at 0.7g?

Edit to add: and can you give a link to a paper that lays it out? Does the actual curve look like it is a smooth curve underlying that is pixelated or does it look like there is some jerkiness other than that of the pixels/frames?

[Tony Szamboti]

30. The paper has the graphs

The paper shows the data and graphs. It is here http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

[eomer]

31. Oh, thanks, you were quicker than my edit.

I will look at it.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. From which you will see that his measurement intervals are too wide to catch the kind of information

he's looking for. The decelerations are too quick and his methods flatten out the estimated velocities.

[eomer]

34. It depends on which aspect we're talking about.

If we're talking about the occurrence or not of a strong straight-on collision at some distinct point in time then the measurement resolution wouldn't be enough to hide it. As long as that straight-on collision is large enough relative to the mass and momentum of the upper block then you would see the deceleration show up as a discontinuity even in a smoothed curve.

If, on the other hand, we're discussing Tony's different point, which is that 0.3g resistance over a longer interval is less than would be expected from an untampered lower structure, then the resolution of the measurements is plenty to determine that. We're talking about an effect that shows up over a 3-second interval.

[Tony Szamboti]

37. Bolo you just don't know

You are talking baloney here.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. There are 90 minutes of Hardfire demonstrating this is actually true about you, Tony. n/t

[William Seger]

33. "The 0.3 g resistance experienced by the upper section ..."

"... is equal to only 10% of the column strength."

The total column resistance to buckling, correct? Even if we ignore column failures that occurred because they were no longer restrained by destroyed floors, and therefore were pushed aside rather than buckled, your observation immediately leads to an alternate explanation for why there was no jolt: What we are seeing is, on average, approximately 10% of the columns being destroyed at any given point in time, in succession, due to the asymmetric nature of the collapse initiation -- i.e. the obvious tilting that you keep denying.

After the initial asymmetric collapse of the first impacted floor, another point that you didn't adequately address when you were here before is that there would be a lot of loose debris causing damage and "jolting" in the process, which would not cause any deceleration of the roof.

(Ed: sp)

[Tony Szamboti]

36. There was no impact to start with

The tilt does not explain why no velocity loss is observed and any attempt to use the rubble to cushion the roof removes the force necessary to continue the collapse.

You argument is circular.

[William Seger]

39. Try again

I do believe the tilt would explain why there would be no velocity loss if it obviates the need for your "force amplification." If no "force amplification" was required to cause structural elements to fail successively, rather than all at once, then no "jolt" should be expected. Another way to look at it is that the tilt disqualifies the assumption in your argument that the columns could support three times the weight of the upper block, because that would be true only if they all acted together to resist the load. If, however, the load was applied to columns successively and those columns would not have been able to support even that static dead load, then no deceleration of the falling mass would be observed: All we would see is a reduction in the acceleration due to gravity.

Furthermore, you continue to duck the issue that the columns could support three times the weight of the upper block only if structural integrity was maintained, i.e. that they remained restrained enough that they could only fail by buckling. Again, if no "force amplification" was necessary to cause other failure modes, then no "jolt" should be expected.

The argument about the rubble causing damage is that again you are assuming without proof that "force amplification" of the upper block was necessary. But it isn't really necessary for the rubble to do all the damage. If the rubble applied enough force on the columns below (and/or caused enough loss of structural integrity) that the force contribution necessary from the intact structure above was less than the static weight of that structure, then no deceleration would be observed: All we would see is a reduction in the acceleration due to gravity.

What we really have is a combination of all these factors and probably several more -- I'm definitely interested in what Mackey says in part 3 -- rather than the "clean" scenario where "force amplification" would be necessary to cause structural failure. When you conclude that "no jolt" means that the columns could not have been acting together to offer resistance equal to three times the static weight of the block above, I have to agree. But before you jump to the conclusion that that must have been because explosives were used to remove columns, you need to consider all the possible failure modes, not just the limiting-case buckling that Bazant analyzed, and you need to rule them out, not just ignore them.

[Tony Szamboti]

43. So you agree that the present official investigation is not adequate

William,

I am sure you realize that the present official explanations for the collapses of the twin towers require an amplified load due to a jolt, which requires velocity loss.

Now that you admit that there is no velocity loss in WTC 1, which proves that no jolt occurred, you should be insisting on a new investigation to determine the actual mechanism for the collapse.

[William Seger]

44. Nope, I don't "admit there is NO velocity loss"

I agree with Mackey that there could indeed be many small jolts, spread out in time, that your method of analysis completely misses, particularly during the critical first few floors. You assume that the falling mass would gain a fair amount of velocity between each "clean" floor-to-floor collision, such that the velocity loss would also need to be fairly large at each collision, so your sampling method would detect that large loss because the falling mass couldn't "recover" that much lost velocity soon enough. But lots of small jolts, spread out over time, could prevent the falling mass from gaining (and therefore needing to lose) as much velocity as you assume at any one time. Your analysis points would then just detect fairly smooth average velocity changes because it's not see those small velocity increases punctuated with small jolts. Substantiation for that view would be that your analysis does not ever show any brief periods of near free-fall between the time columns failed and the falling mass encountered the next floor. That was my reason for asking above how long the three 10-lb-capacity columns would hold your 100 lb plate at 0.7g: They could only resist acceleration up to the point they buckled, not all the way down. Your analysis doesn't show anything like that for WTC1. Why not, if 70% of the columns were blown out as you assume? You say you don't believe natural progressive collapse could explain what you see in your analysis, but I fail to see how any form of column demolition could cause what looks like smooth acceleration in your analysis, either. Unless you have some third hypothesis that leads to smooth acceleration, I believe that proves your smooth acceleration conclusion must be wrong.

But here, I am simply offering an alternate explanation for why there might not be any jolts at all, or at least "force amplification" requirements so small and brief at any point in time that your analysis misses them.

And I do believe that Bazant's energy argument still holds: If the towers would collapse under the conditions he analyzed, then they would certainly collapse under failure modes requiring less energy.

On the other hand, I don't object to "investigation" of the matter until the cows come home. But instead of doing a partial analysis and then jumping to conclusions, why don't you and the other "961 architectural and engineering professionals" get together and do your own FEA sim?

[Tony Szamboti]

45. The velocity loss would be significantly higher than it was

If was just a matter of some of the columns being left intact and buckling under the static weight then the energy dissipation would diminish as the buckling progressed, and there could have been a period of freefall in between.

However, it wouldn't have just been the intact inner core columns buckling that provided resistance, but perimeter walls that were severed at the corners and then pushed outward. This would be a contiguous process and would not allow full freefall acceleration.

Your multiple smaller jolt scenario does not account for the small resistance observed. The multiple jolts would still have the same energy dissipation requirements and would have slowed the descent much more dramatically than 0.3g.

The present official story is null and void as it requires an impulsive load and the observations do not support this contention.

I think our government has the resources and obligation to resolve the question here.

[William Seger]

46. You're just repeating yourself

... and not really addressing any of my concerns or answering my questions.

I guess we're finished.

[Bonobo]

47. Here's how it looks like that exchange ended:

Tony: I think this shows another investigation is warranted.

Will: I don't disagree. You should do it yourself.

Tony: The US govt. should do it. It is their responsibility and they have the resources.

Will: I'm done talking.


MY CONCLUSION: Given that a reasonable line of enquiry has been opened, why would we not all agree that a deeper study/investigation should be done. It seems to me that, in bringing up a reasonable question of a doubt about the 'official story', Tony has already DONE what he can and the rest should be supported by ANYONE who is interested in learning the truth. What would be the downside of another investigation or another study into particulars? The answer, of course, is none.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. Bonobo's summation is 100% bullshit.

William (and others) laid out reasons and argument till the cows came home why Tony is off-base. Tony stuck to his silliness. The cows came home.

Conclusion: Bonobo isn't looking for the truth but for ways he can keep believing what he believes.

[Bonobo]

51. You will say it is bullshit, but you will NEVER be able to explain why.

Because I gave a completely unbiased view of that little exchange.

Also, to repeat, I seem to be the only one who's mind is NOT made up.

You are STUCK where you are, Bolo. Stuck in your preformed opinions. Like a fly in amber.

[William Seger]

52. I seriously doubt that

You don't seem to be aware that most people who aren't convinced by the "truth movement" arguments have rational reasons for that skepticism. I don't see any indication in your accounting of my conversation with Szamboti that you really understand what my reservations are about his "missing jolt" theory, or any indication that you appreciate that he is simply repeating his arguments without addressing my rebuttal.

Until the "truth movement" comes up with that "smoking gun" it's searching for, you have no basis for claiming that Bolo or anyone else is so stuck in his beliefs that nothing could change his mind. Yes, when you hypothesize something as implausible on its face as controlled demolition, then you really do need a true "smoking gun" to make that the most probable explanation. If Szamboti or anyone else ever does come up with completely reliable and irrefutable evidence that tells one and only one story, then (and only then) will you be justified in accusing anyone who doesn't accept it as being intransigent.

[Bonobo]

53. Can you acknowledge that coming up with a "smoking gun" requires resources?

Why is the burden of proof (i.e coming up with a smoking gun) placed on individuals?

Is it not the purpose of the govt's investigation to satisfactorily address all questions?

No, I do not really fully understand, despite my continuing work to do so, your reservation about the "missing jolt". But that fact does not carry any deep significance wrt the issue of whether or not more study is warranted.

[William Seger]

54. Whoa, that goalpost ended up in the next county

Are you retracting your accusation?

But to answer your question: No, I have not yet seen any challenge to the "natural collapse" theory that I would personally consider serious enough to warrant any kind of official reinvestigation; and no I do not acknowledge that the government has a responsibility to take on the impossible task of convincing "truthers" that there wasn't any controlled demolition; and no I do not acknowledge that the FEA analysis I suggested AE911truth & Co. should take on if they do think there's a good reason for it requires any resources that they can't put together, with the very possible exception of the requisite knowledge of structural mechanics.

[Bonobo]

55. I didn't make an accusation.

Here is your direct quote about investigations, Perhaps I misinterpreted.

"On the other hand, I don't object to "investigation" of the matter until the cows come home."

But I do not see any accusation in my post, so I don't know what you think I should retract.

[William Seger]

56. "You are STUCK where you are, Bolo...."

"... Stuck in your preformed opinions. Like a fly in amber."

And no, as I said, I have no objections whatever to AE911truth or no-planers or whoever continuing their "investigation." Hey, I come here at least every few days to see if they've made any progress.

[Bonobo]

57. More of an opinion than an accusation.

It was following Bolo's statement that I am the one who has made up his mind and that I am being dishonest in saying I have not.

And as for progress, It seems that at least the Engineers are speaking the same language, albeit with some disagreements. But THAT suggests further study is warranted in and of itself.

[William Seger]

58. Gordon Ross was "speaking the same language"

... in his attempt to show that momentum transfer would create an energy deficit that would prevent total collapse. Unfortunately, people who actually understand that language found that his analysis contained serious flaws, and if you just corrected those flaws, then his analysis was actually yet another that predicted collapse. The simple fact that it was offered and scrutinized, does not imply in and of itself that it was a challenge to the "official story" sufficient to "warrant" an official re-investigation. And anyway, a re-investigation by the same people that the "truth movement" explicitly accuses of murder would be perfectly pointless.

[Bonobo]

59. But even you know that there is no single "truth movement" like you imply.

So you are being disingenuous to say the least with this Straw Man.

[William Seger]

60. Well, no, I consider that to be the ONE thing that unites all the "movement" sects (n/t)

[OnTheOtherHand]

49. why did you butcher Seger's post?

At best you're wildly equivocating about the meaning of "warranted." Why?

[Bonobo]

50. Again, how is more study a threat to anything?

You guys amaze me.

What on Earth does asking questions threaten?

And HOW does my RESPONSE butcher Will's response? That makes zero sense.

[OnTheOtherHand]

61. you misrepresented his position, and now you misrepresent mine

Or, in the alternative, you ask rhetorical questions for no intelligible reason whatsoever. Who said that "more study" is "a threat to anything"?

Seger didn't agree or not-disagree that "another investigation is warranted." He said, "I don't object to 'investigation' of the matter until the cows come home." How you get from that post, through "another investigation is warranted," to the insinuation that we think that "more study" or "asking questions" is a "threat," is beyond me.

[Bonobo]

62. He said he does not object. Do you? Stop obscuring this simple question. nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

64. WTF, mate?

Isn't it about time for you to answer one of my questions? Where the hell do you get off accusing me of obscuring anything?

[William Seger]

35. Eomer, at least Szamboti understands

... that Bazant's argument is basically an energy argument, and that Bazant-like collapse is possible (as proved by verinage demolitions). Please don't derail this thread with more of your misconceptions about Bazant's arguments.

[freedom fighter jh]

63. Tony Szamboti gets the physics and engineering perfectly, but he's not a polished debater.

Mackey frames the debate to take place in an alternate universe, and Szamboti allows it.

There's this discussion about whether the already-smashed floors pack the same punch as they would if they were still in one piece. Mackey argues that they do, because they all come down and hit the next floor at the same time.

But look at a picture of the "collapses." The pulverized floors are shot out all over the place. Each floor cannot possibly be hitting the next floor all at once when large amounts of each floor fail to hit the next floor *at all*. Therefore each floor cannot have the same impact it would if it remained intact and fell right into the next floor. Mackey has made an inaccurate assumption that favors his conclusion. No one calls him on it.

Zamboti refers to other energy sinks besides the destruction of the columns, but does not emphasize them or go into detail. It sounds like not much energy to speak of.

But, again, take a look at a picture of the towers' fall. Stuff is getting spewed out in all directions, mostly upward. The concrete floors have been pulverized. Big pieces of the towers were shot into neighboring buildings. All that takes energy. Those are substantial energy sinks.

Zamboti concedes that there was no audio evidence of explosions. Yet firefighters, in their oral histories, testified that they heard explosions.

The biggest and most misleading frame is the idea that you haven't shown that the official story is wrong until you've proved a different story. Mackey sets as his standard of proof that someone, presumably Zamboti, has to prove an alternative scenario. Then Wieck and Mackey beat up on Zamboti because real demolitions differ in some important ways from the towers' collapse. Hey, if you're going to blow up a building as part of a cover story to a terrorist plot you might go about it differently than someone would who just wanted to get rid of a building in the least expensive, least disruptive way possible. So the demolition would look different.

But where Zamboti does argue the physical issues he does it flawlessly.