Gage and Szamboti to speak at New Jersey Institute of Technology

[Tony Szamboti]

Why... for the same reason that you and Gage and countless others won't walk back their mistakes and admit they were wrong.... EGO, and protecting a franchise... of some sort.

I am not protecting any franchise. I have never made a dime off anything related to what I have said about the collapses on 911.

I have shown the math in my points about the NIST WTC 7 report being non-explanatory. What mistakes do you claim I made where you can show mathematically that I did so?

Excuse me for saying so, but it sounds like you are talking out of your hat here. You really should actually apply some rigor to your claims if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Nano Thermite was how AE911T got me off their board... I refused to sign some stupid letter from the board members confirming that NT was used in destroying the WTC. I refused and said at the time... Fall 2009.. that I knew nothing about NT and would not sign their letter... which was a litmus test. I failed and was tossed out... which was fine... I had come to the conclusion that they were not interesting in finding out how the towers collapsed. They were interested in raising money to pitch the inside job, false flag, CD and all manner of unsupported speculation.

AE9/11T is just an old style medicine show selling snake oil, if I gave them the data on recreation of the sulfidication reaction that occurred, or how the microspheres were formed they would never accept it they have no honesty,
They are totally worthless!

 

[DGM]

You really should actually apply some rigor to your claims if you want to be taken seriously.

Where exactly are you taken seriously? (9/11 wise)

 

[ozeco41]

Nobody was being dishonest at NJIT.

Did R Gage assert that there was CD at WTC1 and/or WTC2?
-- if he did he was being dishonest.
Did he renounce his false claims for CD?
Did he apologise to anyone who he had misled by his false claims for CD?
-- if he did neither of those he was being dishonest.

Did you Tony assert your claims about a "Missing Jolt"?
-- if you did you were being dishonest. You have been made aware of the falsity of your Missing Jolt claims AND given detailed reasoning why there never could have been the "Missing Jolt" you were looking for.

Did you Tony renounce "Missing Jolt"?
Did you explain why it was wrong?
Did you explain or attempt to explain what really happened?
Did you apologise to any of those persons you have misled with your false claims?
-- if you did none of those things Tony you were being dishonest.

So start the honesty now - agree that "Missing Jolt" was an error. I'll leave it to you to decide who you should apologise to.

It is honest discussion we seek.

Both of your personal records and the record of AE911 clearly say otherwise. Honest discussion with competent persons is the last thing you want.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Did R Gage assert that there was CD at WTC1 and/or WTC2?
-- if he did he was being dishonest.
Did he renounce his false claims for CD?
Did he apologise to anyone who he had misled by his false claims for CD?
-- if he did neither of those he was being dishonest.

Did you Tony assert your claims about a "Missing Jolt"?
-- if you did you were being dishonest. You have been made aware of the falsity of your Missing Jolt claims AND given detailed reasoning why there never could have been the "Missing Jolt" you were looking for.

Did you Tony renounce "Missing Jolt"?
Did you explain why it was wrong?
Did you explain or attempt to explain what really happened?
Did you apologise to any of those persons you have misled with your false claims?
-- if you did none of those things Tony you were being dishonest.

So start the honesty now - agree that "Missing Jolt" was an error. I'll leave it to you to decide who you should apologise to.
Both of your personal records and the record of AE911 clearly say otherwise. Honest discussion with competent persons is the last thing you want.

You haven't refuted the Missing Jolt paper. You simply have asserted a nonsensical claim that the columns would miss each other before they had a chance to contact. This is ridiculous on its face. I have explained that a 73 million lb. 12 story upper section in WTC 1 would not move sideways due to inertia and that the tilt was one degree or less for the first couple of stories of the collapse and that one degree doesn't misalign the columns horizontally more than a fraction of an inch.

Your claim has no rigor behind it and is baseless like many others on this forum.

It is time the discussion moves into venues like the NJIT forum where real people have real points to discuss and away from these silly forums with people hiding behind pseudonyms.

 

[DGM]

Did R Gage assert that there was CD at WTC1 and/or WTC2?
-- if he did he was being dishonest.
Did he renounce his false claims for CD?
Did he apologise to anyone who he had misled by his false claims for CD?
-- if he did neither of those he was being dishonest.

Did you Tony assert your claims about a "Missing Jolt"?
-- if you did you were being dishonest. You have been made aware of the falsity of your Missing Jolt claims AND given detailed reasoning why there never could have been the "Missing Jolt" you were looking for.

Did you Tony renounce "Missing Jolt"?
Did you explain why it was wrong?
Did you explain or attempt to explain what really happened?
Did you apologise to any of those persons you have misled with your false claims?
-- if you did none of those things Tony you were being dishonest.

So start the honesty now - agree that "Missing Jolt" was an error. I'll leave it to you to decide who you should apologise to.
Both of your personal records and the record of AE911 clearly say otherwise. Honest discussion with competent persons is the last thing you want.

OK ...............both guns blazing.

All true but, Just felt like venting?

 

[JSanderO]

I am not protecting any franchise. I have never made a dime off anything related to what I have said about the collapses on 911.

I have shown the math in my points about the NIST WTC 7 report being non-explanatory. What mistakes do you claim I made where you can show mathematically that I did so?

Excuse me for saying so, but it sounds like you are talking out of your hat here. You really should actually apply some rigor to your claims if you want to be taken seriously.

I never said YOU were making money from 9/11 or were "in it" to make money. I have written that Gage has himself a new career and travels expenses paid all over the world preaching to the converted. I have asserted that AE911 which you were presented as a KEY member have never done a research, given a grant to a independent lab for any materials testing or modeling or any manner of investigation.

All they seem to be doing is asserting unfounded claims... publish pamphlets and CDs and doing presentations and raising money to more of the same. If you can show that this is not true... be my guest.

 

[ozeco41]

No. Does this also qualify as proof that 9/11 was an "inside job"?

Tell you what. I'll support your "new investigation" if you drop the stupid CD and "inside job".

That is the strategic stupidity of the AE911 position - if they were serious about a "New Investigation" into political management of the event plus causes/consequences.

There may well be some management aspects which need further review.

Whether or not such a review in the full context of US Governance - Constitution - rule of law and political processes - is a separate and I suspect insurmountable barrier.

BUT

They will never progress that political agenda whilst they premise it on the blatant and obvious falsehood claims for CD at WTC. The AE911Truth strategy was dead in the water before they launched it.

UNLESS the real agenda is creating a retirement job for one plus ego tripping for a select few. IF that is the objective they can probably spin it out for a few years yet.

Deal? or do you actually have evidence to support some CD "inside job" fantasy?

I know you want to back door this but no one is stupid enough to buy it.

Agreed.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I never said YOU were making money from 9/11 or were "in it" to make money. I have written that Gage has himself a new career and travels expenses paid all over the world preaching to the converted. I have asserted that AE911 which you were presented as a KEY member have never done a research, given a grant to a independent lab for any materials testing or modeling or any manner of investigation.

All they seem to be doing is asserting unfounded claims... publish pamphlets and CDs and doing presentations and raising money to more of the same. If you can show that this is not true... be my guest.

Richard Gage took a pay cut to take on the spokesman role for AE911 from what he had been making as an architect in industry. He also got ill several times over the last 8 years from exhaustion, so the claim that he is just doing it for the travel and expenses is garbage.

I have done a significant amount of research and analysis. I have also been involved in published papers. How you can say I haven't done research is beyond me.

There has been modeling done. Did you miss the FEA I showed where the girder could not possibly fall off its seat? There is more modeling and analysis being done that will further show what we are saying is correct. You just don't know about it.

NIST should redo their analysis and come clean on WTC 7 before it all comes down on them.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

You haven't refuted the Missing Jolt paper. You simply have asserted a nonsensical claim that the columns would miss each other before they had a chance to contact. This is ridiculous on its face. I have explained that a 73 million lb. 12 story upper section in WTC 1 would not move sideways due to inertia and that the tilt was one degree or less for the first couple of stories of the collapse and that one degree doesn't misalign the columns horizontally more than a fraction of an inch.

Your claim has no rigor behind it and is baseless like many others on this forum.

It is time the discussion moves into venues like the NJIT forum where real people have real points to discuss and away from these silly forums with people hiding behind pseudonyms.

Tony why can't Ae9/11 trurth do proper simple experiments?

 

[DGM]

Richard Gage took a pay cut to take on the spokesman role for AE911 from what he had been making as an architect in industry.

Build him a shrine. He makes more money now then he did before "truth". His form 990's prove this. Want to be schooled?

 

[JSanderO]

Richard Gage took a pay cut to take on the spokesman role for AE911 from what he had been making as an architect in industry. He also got ill several times over the last 8 years from exhaustion, so the claim that he is just doing it for the travel and expenses is garbage.

I have done a significant amount of research and analysis. I have also been involved in published papers. How you can say I haven't done research is beyond me.

There has been modeling done. Did you miss the FEA I showed where the girder could not possibly fall off its seat? There is more modeling and analysis being done that will further show what we are saying is correct. You just don't know about it.

Pay cut my culo.... stop the BS...

FEA modeling of a stupid mythical girder walk off is not research. it's a waste of time.

Where's your research and evidence of 81 columns destroyed over 8 floors? Something asserted for the last 8 years...

 

[JSanderO]

This conversation is going no where. I reported on the NJIT event that there was not a shred of new in the presentation... certainly nothing from AE and Tony and obviously nothing from NJIT engineering representing NIST who refused the invitation. NJIT was not prepared and so this was just a platform for AE to present their bullet points. Tony attempted some rigor in his presentation... but had little time and I believe his focus on the girder walk off gets us no where. NJIT was not interested in girder walk off.

Like most people who are interested... they wanted to know how the towers collapsed... WHAT WERE THE MECHANISMS INVOLVED? If you want to prove CD... where were the devices placed and so on? None of that was presented. No engineers were convinced of CD... no case was made. But Gage asserted it several times in his rap.

 

[ozeco41]

You haven't refuted the Missing Jolt paper.

Tony that is an outright untruth as you know and most members here are aware. And that includes some debunker allies of yours who have fallen for your false premise(s) on "Missing Jolt".

You simply have asserted a nonsensical claim that the columns would miss each other before they had a chance to contact.

Begging the inference that YOU find it "nonsensical" - I could possible write it in language simpler that high school student level if you want to rebut my arguments.

STATUS is - I have posted several fully reasoned explanations. You have never responded other than by bare assertion, personal attack OR ignore.

Put up or shut up time Tony. If you ask explicitly I will repost the explanation step by step for you to agree or rebut.

This is ridiculous on its face.

Possible to someone who has started from a false premise and stubbornly refuses to put brain in gear and THINK. Actually the previous assertion - "before they had a chance to contact" - is FALSE - the relevant columns NEVER LOST CONTACT - they NEVER FELL THROUGH A GAP to come into your fantasy contact. Read the BLOCK CAPITALS a few times Tony till the meaning sinks in. That is your fundamental error which arises from applying the Bazant limit case assumptions as if they actually happened. They didn't.

I have explained that a 73 million lb. 12 story upper section in WTC 1 would not move sideways due to inertia¹ and that the tilt was one degree or less² for the first couple of stories of the collapse and that one degree doesn't misalign the columns horizontally more than a fraction of an inch³.

I'm familiar with your three legged straw-man. The premise is wrong therefore the "three legs" are moot and irrelevant.

Here - in brief in case you have forgotten:
1 Agreed in general - but it is a straw-man. You've been reading Heiwa. There was no need for the "block" to move sideways as an entity - individual columns failed by some version of either cutting OR overload in axial compression - why and how a single column failed is the best starting point - try thinking it through from there Tony.
2 Another straw-man. Tilt is irrelevant. Tilt resulted from columns failing - by the time there was tilt the lower side columns had already moved past the point of axial contact. That much should be bleedingly obvious Tony. The gap got shorter - the original column length could not fit there. AND there was no "dropping to impact". Tilt came AFTER failure of those affected columns. How does your model give Tilt BEFORE failure so that the failing columns' ends can impact???? Even simpler how can there be tilt WITHOUT failure of columns having happened - already?
3 Same straw-man recycled.

Your claim has no rigor behind it and is baseless like many others on this forum.

I wont speak globally for "others" BUT - if my claim has no rigor - prove it Tony. Man up and stop the bare assertions. I've offered to repost it STEP BY STEP.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony why can't Ae9/11 trurth do proper simple experiments?

Can you describe what you think should be done that hasn't been already?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony that is an outright untruth as you know and most members here are aware. And that includes some debunker allies of yours who have fallen for your false premise(s) on "Missing Jolt".

Begging the inference that YOU find it "nonsensical" - I could possible write it in language simpler that high school student level if you want to rebut my arguments.

STATUS is - I have posted several fully reasoned explanations. You have never responded other than by bare assertion, personal attack OR ignore.

Put up or shut up time Tony. If you ask explicitly I will repost the explanation step by step for you to agree or rebut.

Possible to someone who has started from a false premise and stubbornly refuses to put brain in gear and THINK. Actually the previous assertion - "before they had a chance to contact" - is FALSE - the relevant columns NEVER LOST CONTACT - they NEVER FELL THROUGH A GAP to come into your fantasy contact. Read the BLOCK CAPITALS a few times Tony till the meaning sinks in. That is your fundamental error which arises from applying the Bazant limit case assumptions as if they actually happened. They didn't.

I'm familiar with your three legged straw-man. The premise is wrong therefore the "three legs" are moot and irrelevant.

Here - in brief in case you have forgotten:
1 Agreed in general - but it is a straw-man. You've been reading Heiwa. There was no need for the "block" to move sideways as an entity - individual columns failed by some version of either cutting OR overload in axial compression - why and how a single column failed is the best starting point - try thinking it through from there Tony.
2 Another straw-man. Tilt is irrelevant. Tilt resulted from columns failing - by the time there was tilt the lower side columns had already moved past the point of axial contact. That much should be bleedingly obvious Tony. The gap got shorter - the original column length could not fit there. AND there was no "dropping to impact". Tilt came AFTER failure of those affected columns. How does your model give Tilt BEFORE failure so that the failing columns' ends can impact???? Even simpler how can there be tilt WITHOUT failure of columns having happened - already?
3 Same straw-man recycled.

I wont speak globally for "others" BUT - if my claim has no rigor - prove it Tony. Man up and stop the bare assertions. I've offered to repost it STEP BY STEP.

Bazant tried to refute the Missing Jolt and couldn't. You couldn't possibly get a paper published with your reasoning because it is simple nonsense.

It actually hurts to read what you are saying about this, it is that bad.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Pay cut my culo.... stop the BS...

FEA modeling of a stupid mythical girder walk off is not research. it's a waste of time.

Where's your research and evidence of 81 columns destroyed over 8 floors? Something asserted for the last 8 years...

8 stories of free fall acceleration, that NIST never explained, can certainly be explained by taking out 8 stories of core columns. There is no need to put charges on the exterior columns. They will be pulled inward by the core and buckle with little resistance due to the loss of lateral support for 8 stories and the eccentricity caused by the inward pull. I have done the calculations for this and it would also replicate the observations where there is no deformation of the exterior up high like the NIST model shows.

I would say the waste of time is any time I spend here, but there might be some merit to it as occasionally I see someone who actually makes sense here like Criteria and others. Most of you are just clucking around without a clue or are actually making your living this way. Everybody knows.

 

[NoahFence]

Did you have fun, kiddo?

 

[beachnut]

Bazant tried to refute the Missing Jolt and couldn't. You couldn't possibly get a paper published with your reasoning because it is simple nonsense.

It actually hurts to read what you are saying about this, it is that bad.

The missing jolt paper is a joke. The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis, failed to refute anything.

Knowing V1 from the actual measurements and solving we find the new velocity V1′ = 21.06 ft./s reflecting a reduction in velocity due to conservation of momentum of 1.75 ft./s.

The collapse begins with the velocity profile of a simple momentum model, not sure what your point was; oh, it is BS to support the delusional inside job BS CD stuff, with thermite icing.

We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.

Why does the speed/timing of collapse match the physics of a momentum model, using each floor as added mass. The missing jolt paper is BS, and failed to refute Bazant's paper.

LOL, the 9 stories match the momentum timing... what is the point?

Then we have WTC which collapsed internally and the facade without support fell with gravity. Do you understand the interior was failing before the roof fell? No, 911 truth ignores reality and adds BS to mock the murder of thousands by 19 terrorists. How do 19 terrorists, Flight 93, and Flight 77 fit in the missing jolt weak attack on Bazant, and NIST?


Graeme MacQueen received his Ph.D. in Asian religion and literature from Harvard University, and you fooled him with BS? How did you fool Graeme; did you keep him from checking the collapse timing compared to the momentum models? Why can't you get other engineers to co-author a paper to back in CD?

 

[ozeco41]

Bazant tried to refute the Missing Jolt and couldn't. You couldn't possibly get a paper published with your reasoning because it is simple nonsense.

It actually hurts to read what you are saying about this, it is that bad.

Tony - which part of:

....prove it Tony. Man up and stop the bare assertions.

..do you not comprehend.

Here is just one section of the post you are not prepared to respond to - it is at high school language level - I've parsed the relevant clauses - colour coded and numbered them as:
Assertions of technical fact, assertions of argument process and a couple of questions challenging your nonsense.:

Another straw-man.
Tilt is irrelevant.
1 Tilt resulted from columns failing
2 - by the time there was tilt the lower side columns had already moved past the point of axial contact.
That much should be bleedingly obvious Tony.
3 The gap got shorter
4 - the original column length could not fit there.
5 AND there was no "dropping to impact".
6 Tilt came AFTER failure of those affected columns.
A How does your model give Tilt BEFORE failure so that the failing columns' ends can impact????
B Even simpler how can there be tilt WITHOUT failure of columns having happened - already?

Which of those asserted facts 1 thru 6 do you claim are wrong Tony? Either agree they are correct OR prove them wrong.

Once you get those bits right we can move on to the two challenge questions A and B which address fundamental errors in your Missing Jolt fantasy.

Time to stop the snide commentary and bare assertions Tony. Put up or shut up.