• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gage and Szamboti to speak at New Jersey Institute of Technology

Tony Szamboti said:
He said duration and chaotic activity are not linkable and they most certainly are. It takes time to go from an ordered system to a chaotic one. The collapse initiation in the North Tower was quite uniform and rapid and cannot be considered chaotic.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, you can not see the disorder occurring out of view, so that statement is Illogical, and nonsensical.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Nonsense, you can not see the disorder occurring out of view, so that statement is Illogical, and nonsensical.
Click to expand...

The collapse initiation of the North Tower across its 98th floor is quite uniform externally and that is indicative of internal uniformity. This is a very logical inference. Denial of this linkage is what would be illogical.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The collapse initiation of the North Tower across its 98th floor is quite uniform externally and that is indicative of internal uniformity. This is a very logical inference. Denial of this linkage is what would be illogical.
Click to expand...

No it is not two distinctly different load systems are at play, core and perimeter. You have no
Way to know where and how the core is failing.
You have shown nothing conclusive, or significant, missing Jolt was a joke solely on you.:D
 
Oystein said:
What is the source of the force that moves the material that constitutes these expulsions?

A) Demolition charges
B) Potential Energy of the building
C) ?!?

If your answer is A), why then can't you acknowledge that you are talking about explosives?

If your answer is B), why do these expulsions require CD charges?

If your answer is C), what the heck are you talking about?

If you can't answer the question, what are you doing here?
Click to expand...

Of course, the rapid and close expulsions are some form of demolition charge doing pressure volume work and their location gives a clue as to what they were intended to do (remove the spandrel beam connections to the corner). However, the observables alone do not allow any more specificity than that. An investigation would have to determine just what the actual charge was made of.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Of course, the rapid and close expulsions are some form of demolition charge doing pressure volume work and their location gives a clue as to what they were intended to do (remove the spandrel beam connections to the corner). However, the observables alone do not allow any more specificity than that. An investigation would have to determine just what the actual charge was made of.
Click to expand...
Would the new investigation also solve the mystery as to why a high explosive made no noise?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Of course, the rapid and close expulsions are some form of demolition charge doing pressure volume work and their location gives a clue as to what they were intended to do (remove the spandrel beam connections to the corner). However, the observables alone do not allow any more specificity than that. An investigation would have to determine just what the actual charge was made of.
Click to expand...

How about air and carbon induced by a pressurization even, do to floors collapsing?
 
DGM said:
I've never heard it on any recording made on that day. Are you now adding another layer of conspiracy?
Click to expand...

Would it be right to say that you think that because you can't hear it on a video made from a significant distance that there was no noise associated with the visible rapid and focused expulsions on the corners of the North Tower?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Would it be right to say that you think that because you can't hear it on a video made from a significant distance that there was no noise associated with the visible rapid and focused expulsions on the corners of the North Tower?
Click to expand...

It would be right to say that there are several videos that are NOT "from a significant distance." It would be right to say that if any of the buildings had been brought down by explosives, virtually everyone in Manhattan would have heard it, and we would too on the videos. It would be right to say that anyone who can protect his paranoid fantasies by ignoring this obvious fact has completely removed himself from the realm of reason.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The focused ejections I am talking about occur very rapidly on the corners and cannot be from collapsing floors.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of gun powder?

You can't say that without implying your own god hood, and omnipotent view!
Didn't know you were a god, carbon black, in carbon monoxide gas if contained by falling debris can easily make those explosives incidents with out any charges!
 
WilliamSeger said:
It would be right to say that there are several videos that are NOT "from a significant distance." It would be right to say that if any of the buildings had been brought down by explosives, virtually everyone in Manhattan would have heard it, and we would too on the videos. It would be right to say that anyone who can protect his paranoid fantasies by ignoring this obvious fact has completely removed himself from the realm of reason.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

...and it would be right to say that anyone who relies on unsupported - "bare" - assertions...

...and meets challenges to present reasoned argument by MORE bare assertions...

... and never responds to reasoned argument with reasoned counter arguments...

...and resorts to personal insults when faced with any moderately challenging argument...

...and has a record of basing all his personal claims on false premises selected to predetermine his desired false conclusions..

..and... :rolleyes:
 
Dave Rogers said:
You just disproved the existence of explosions.

Dave
Click to expand...

Hardly. It sounds more like your understanding is skewed.

Explosives can cause a much faster and more orderly collapse, whereas your chaotic collapse takes time to occur.

The collapse initiation across the entire 98th floor of the North Tower was very uniform (orderly) and if that happens rapidly, which it did (it occurred in under one second), then it could only have been due to some type of demolition charges being involved.

Don't just take my word for it though. Read what Fire Chief Ray Downey had to say when he was on the scene

When the WTC’s South Tower collapses, Father John Delendick—one of New York Fire Department’s chaplains—runs down a ramp to the garages below the nearby World Financial Center, to escape the dust cloud. He speaks there with Fire Chief Ray Downey, and asks him if the jet fuel from the plane had blown up, causing the collapse. [City of New York, 12/6/2001] Downey is in fact a renowned expert on building collapses. Robert Ingram, a battalion chief in the New York Fire Department later refers to him as “the premiere collapse expert in the country.” [US Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, 10/11/2001 pdf file] 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer calls Downey a “very, very respected expert on building collapse.” [9/11 Commission, 5/18/2004] And Fire Chief Mike Antonucci, who is a best friend of Downey’s, says he “was probably the most knowledgeable person on building collapses there was. That was his [hobby], to study building collapses—what affected the engineering of buildings, how they [would] weaken and how he could respond and stay safe.” [Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, 9/7/2006] In response to Delendick’s question, Downey replies that, “at that point he thought there were bombs up there because [the collapse] was too even.” [City of New York, 12/6/2001).

and he was only speaking of the South Tower here. The North Tower collapse initiation was even more even and uniform. Ray didn't get a chance to opine about the North Tower as he was killed by its collapse.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Hardly. It sounds more like your understanding is skewed.
Click to expand...

No, yours is. An explosion is a near-instantaneous transition from an ordered to a chaotic state. You've just claimed that can't happen, hence denying the possibility of explosions as a valid physical concept. Since your theory that the collapses were caused by explosions can only be supported by denying the physical reality of explosions, you've clearly reached a classic reductio ad absurdum, hence disproving your own theory.

Nice work.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, yours is. An explosion is a near-instantaneous transition from an ordered to a chaotic state. You've just claimed that can't happen, hence denying the possibility of explosions as a valid physical concept. Since your theory that the collapses were caused by explosions can only be supported by denying the physical reality of explosions, you've clearly reached a classic reductio ad absurdum, hence disproving your own theory.

Nice work.

Dave
Click to expand...

No, one has to speak about the details of what makes a situation chaotic or uniform and orderly.

Your comments about chaotic involves your opinion that column ends would be uneven and I say that type of collapse occurring naturally, as you want to believe, would take much more time to occur. With demolition devices the columns can be cut at the same level and maintain an even, ordered, and rapid horizontally propagating collapse, such as what is observed. The instantaneousness of the charge is not the consideration and hence why I say your understanding of the subject is skewed.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
No, one has to speak about the details of what makes a situation chaotic or uniform and orderly.
Click to expand...

You didn't. You just made a blanket declaration that the collapse couldn't have reached some unspecified level of chaos in one second, without bothering to even try and quantify anything or examine any details. You made up a new law of physics to lie your way out of a difficult spot, and it's just blown up in your face. Or rather, not blown up, because you've declared that impossible.

When lies get to the point they contradict one another, that's when it becomes clear that they're lies. You've just got there, and however much you wriggle on the hook, I suspect everyone can see it.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
You didn't. You just made a blanket declaration that the collapse couldn't have reached some unspecified level of chaos in one second, without bothering to even try and quantify anything or examine any details. You made up a new law of physics to lie your way out of a difficult spot, and it's just blown up in your face. Or rather, not blown up, because you've declared that impossible.

When lies get to the point they contradict one another, that's when it becomes clear that they're lies. You've just got there, and however much you wriggle on the hook, I suspect everyone can see it.

Dave
Click to expand...

It sounds like you don't believe what Ray Downey said had any merit either.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
No, one has to speak about the details of what makes a situation chaotic or uniform and orderly.

Your comments about chaotic involves your opinion that column ends would be uneven and I say that type of collapse occurring naturally, as you want to believe, would take much more time to occur. With demolition devices the columns can be cut at the same level and maintain an even, ordered, and rapid horizontally propagating collapse, such as what is observed. The instantaneousness of the charge is not the consideration and hence why I say your understanding of the subject is skewed.
Click to expand...

Explosive detonation waves, 4800 to 6000 meters per second with extremely loud pop noise. Energy transfer in steel, 5800 meters per second no extremely loud pop.

Looks like your wrong because you are wrong, totally completely positively, with out any doubt Wrong!:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom