Gage and Szamboti to speak at New Jersey Institute of Technology

[beachnut]

...

In order for the entire roof structure, the Antenna, and the 98th floor all
to fall in unison ...
- as one event as shown in exhibit A, every single exterior column,
ALL 59 box columns in all four sides,
a total of 236 would have to neutralized at the exact instant.
Additionally every single one of the 47 core columns would also have to be neutralized
at the exact same instant in time.

And what does neutralize mean? How was it done? Why is it invisible, this magical neutralization BS fantasy?

Got some math and physics to go with this BS?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, for the sake of argument, if the floors collapse x many stories on all 4 sides top-down so that a top portion of the perimeter walls caves in on all 4 sides...at what point would the core start to implode due to lack of support from perimeter walls/floors? That is, how many floors of floors and perimeter walls could you remove without collapsing the core from the top-down?

Could the entire core stand on its own without any perimeter walls?

Ziggi, the core would have been self-supporting as a unit.

 

[Spanx]

While you are online Tony, can you confirm if Ziggi is working on behalf of AE911truth regarding the Mark Basile study ?

I know it's a bit off topic for this thread and I can open a separate thread if you are going to reply ? I am only asking for the truth which is what you are all about

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

While you are online Tony, can you confirm if Ziggi is working on behalf of AE911truth regarding the Mark Basile study ?

I know it's a bit off topic for this thread and I can open a separate thread if you are going to reply ? I am only asking for the truth which is what you are all about

It's not off topic, I would ask Tony where the inert gas ignition tests are?

The nano thermite claims have to be tossed out without them,
for reasons that were obvious in 2009.
http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/947823-859JgA/

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ziggi, the core would have been self-supporting as a unit.

Bare assertion fallacy. Tony, can you please refer to the structural engineering qualification that backs up that remark? You see, you have a reputation round here for just making things up to support what you want to believe. And now, it's time for you to start pretending some more of the evidence doesn't exist. This time it's the well-known core spires that were left standing for a few seconds after the main collapses, before falling under their own weight. Clearly they weren't destroyed by explosives during the collapse, yet there they were. Are you going to make up a new fairy story about some of the charges failing to go off?

Now, in the light of a recent, much-praised (and with good reason) post of luchog's, I think it's worth pointing out for the impartial observer (Georgio, I think that may just be you at the moment) what Tony has been doing here. Let's start from his Missing Jolt model, which assumes the following:

The collapse starts by exactly one floor's worth of structural supports completely vanishing from an otherwise undamaged structure. This is the only possible way a "natural" collapse can possibly start, and it is impossible that the structure below this level is significantly weaker than when it was built. Also, every disappeared section of supports is exactly the same length and there is no deformation of the structure around it. The top block then falls through empty space on to the undamaged structure below it, at the acceleration due to gravity. It then hits the undamaged structure below it, and this causes a jolt. The only way that a jolt could possibly not happen is if the supports below are destroyed by explosives at precisely the moment the upper structure is about to hit them, removing them completely so that they cannot slow its fall in any way. The upper section then continues to fall, again at 1G acceleration, because nothing is stopping it.

Now, it should be obvious from the above that any impact on a structure below that's capable of causing resistance will give a jolt. But the most recent problem that's been pointed out with the above model - I say most recent, because it's already been repeatedly pointed out that the whole thing is complete nonsense from start to finish - is that the upper block didn't fall at 1G acceleration, but only about 2/3G. This means that something must have been resisting its fall, and it's obvious that this something, whatever it was, must have been just as able to cause some level of jolt; but Tony maintains that there was no jolt, because his interpretation demands that there was none.

Now he could claim that there were no explosives destroying the perimeter columns, and it was just the core columns that were destroyed, because that way he can explain away why none of the explosions were visible. But clearly the perimeter columns, which actually carried more loads than the core (they were designed to resist wind loads as well as structural and live loads) would still give more than half the jolt he predicts from the whole structure. So, in order to get round this, he's arbitrarily declared three new things to be true. Firstly, he's persuaded himself to believe that some of the dust thrown out by air being expelled in the fall of the towers was in fact explosives destroying the corners of the perimeter column structure, despite the absence of the unmistakable flashes seen from real world demolition charges. Secondly, he's then declared that, as a result of these, the remaining sheets of perimeter column weren't strong enough to carry the static load of the upper block - that, in itself, is reasonable, but he glosses over the fact that these explosions would weaken the structure so much that it would clearly collapse under its own weight and would offer no resistance to the falling block, and certainly not the one-third of its weight that he needs it to have had. And finally, he produces directly from his rectal orifice the claim that a structure that can't support the static weight of the upper block will produce no jolt at all - an utter absurdity, because it's immediately obvious that, if his model were correct, there would always be a jolt, but proportional in strength to the strength of the structure below. So he's trying to have his cake and eat it; he wants the resistance of the perimeter columns to be so insignificantly small that it produces no jolt, and at the same time large enough to reduce the acceleration of the top block by a third, effectively supporting a third of its weight.

It's obvious, first of all, that his Missing Jolt model has no predictive power at all; he has to make up extra conditions even to describe the single case he created it to describe, so clearly it has zero scientific merit. But even worse is that he has to make up conditions that contradict the evidence (for example, the inward bowing seen in both towers, that he has to deny the validity of because he knows it completely refutes his analysis), and that contradict each other. And all this in support of a model that starts from a perfectly ordered "natural" collapse, ordered to a level that could only be produced by demolition explosives in the first place; what else could precisely remove exactly one floor's worth of columns without damaging any other part of the structure? Not the complicated and chaotic destruction produced by the impact of an airliner and an hour or two of fires that continually moved location and caused floors to sag, columns to weaken and differential expansion and contraction to do all sorts of damage to the structure over several floors. But that's another part of the evidence Tony tries to pretend doesn't exist; just scroll up to see how barefacedly he pretends that there was nothing weakening the lower structure. Breathtaking dishonesty.

And finally, he says he can't think of any way the structure could have collapsed without producing a jolt. This is not just the argument from ignorance; it's the argument from wilful ignorance, because several of us have repeatedly told him how it could have happened. He chooses to ignore it all, because it's inconvenient.

Tony will probably reply to this post in one or more of four ways:

(1) I'm an engineer, so how dare you question what I say?
(2) It should be obvious to anyone that I'm right.
(3) You're not intelligent enough to understand that what you're saying is wrong.
(4) You're part of the conspiracy and you're lying to discredit me.

None of these have anything to do with the actual matter under discussion, so can be safely ignored.

As can Tony.

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Bare assertion fallacy. Tony, can you please refer to the structural engineering qualification that backs up that remark? You see, you have a reputation round here for just making things up to support what you want to believe. And now, it's time for you to start pretending some more of the evidence doesn't exist. This time it's the well-known core spires that were left standing for a few seconds after the main collapses, before falling under their own weight. Clearly they weren't destroyed by explosives during the collapse, yet there they were. Are you going to make up a new fairy story about some of the charges failing to go off?

Now, in the light of a recent, much-praised (and with good reason) post of luchog's, I think it's worth pointing out for the impartial observer (Georgio, I think that may just be you at the moment) what Tony has been doing here. Let's start from his Missing Jolt model, which assumes the following:

The collapse starts by exactly one floor's worth of structural supports completely vanishing from an otherwise undamaged structure. This is the only possible way a "natural" collapse can possibly start, and it is impossible that the structure below this level is significantly weaker than when it was built. Also, every disappeared section of supports is exactly the same length and there is no deformation of the structure around it. The top block then falls through empty space on to the undamaged structure below it, at the acceleration due to gravity. It then hits the undamaged structure below it, and this causes a jolt. The only way that a jolt could possibly not happen is if the supports below are destroyed by explosives at precisely the moment the upper structure is about to hit them, removing them completely so that they cannot slow its fall in any way. The upper section then continues to fall, again at 1G acceleration, because nothing is stopping it.

Now, it should be obvious from the above that any impact on a structure below that's capable of causing resistance will give a jolt. But the most recent problem that's been pointed out with the above model - I say most recent, because it's already been repeatedly pointed out that the whole thing is complete nonsense from start to finish - is that the upper block didn't fall at 1G acceleration, but only about 2/3G. This means that something must have been resisting its fall, and it's obvious that this something, whatever it was, must have been just as able to cause some level of jolt; but Tony maintains that there was no jolt, because his interpretation demands that there was none.

Now he could claim that there were no explosives destroying the perimeter columns, and it was just the core columns that were destroyed, because that way he can explain away why none of the explosions were visible. But clearly the perimeter columns, which actually carried more loads than the core (they were designed to resist wind loads as well as structural and live loads) would still give more than half the jolt he predicts from the whole structure. So, in order to get round this, he's arbitrarily declared three new things to be true. Firstly, he's persuaded himself to believe that some of the dust thrown out by air being expelled in the fall of the towers was in fact explosives destroying the corners of the perimeter column structure, despite the absence of the unmistakable flashes seen from real world demolition charges. Secondly, he's then declared that, as a result of these, the remaining sheets of perimeter column weren't strong enough to carry the static load of the upper block - that, in itself, is reasonable, but he glosses over the fact that these explosions would weaken the structure so much that it would clearly collapse under its own weight and would offer no resistance to the falling block, and certainly not the one-third of its weight that he needs it to have had. And finally, he produces directly from his rectal orifice the claim that a structure that can't support the static weight of the upper block will produce no jolt at all - an utter absurdity, because it's immediately obvious that, if his model were correct, there would always be a jolt, but proportional in strength to the strength of the structure below. So he's trying to have his cake and eat it; he wants the resistance of the perimeter columns to be so insignificantly small that it produces no jolt, and at the same time large enough to reduce the acceleration of the top block by a third, effectively supporting a third of its weight.

It's obvious, first of all, that his Missing Jolt model has no predictive power at all; he has to make up extra conditions even to describe the single case he created it to describe, so clearly it has zero scientific merit. But even worse is that he has to make up conditions that contradict the evidence (for example, the inward bowing seen in both towers, that he has to deny the validity of because he knows it completely refutes his analysis), and that contradict each other. And all this in support of a model that starts from a perfectly ordered "natural" collapse, ordered to a level that could only be produced by demolition explosives in the first place; what else could precisely remove exactly one floor's worth of columns without damaging any other part of the structure? Not the complicated and chaotic destruction produced by the impact of an airliner and an hour or two of fires that continually moved location and caused floors to sag, columns to weaken and differential expansion and contraction to do all sorts of damage to the structure over several floors. But that's another part of the evidence Tony tries to pretend doesn't exist; just scroll up to see how barefacedly he pretends that there was nothing weakening the lower structure. Breathtaking dishonesty.

And finally, he says he can't think of any way the structure could have collapsed without producing a jolt. This is not just the argument from ignorance; it's the argument from wilful ignorance, because several of us have repeatedly told him how it could have happened. He chooses to ignore it all, because it's inconvenient.

Tony will probably reply to this post in one or more of four ways:

(1) I'm an engineer, so how dare you question what I say?
(2) It should be obvious to anyone that I'm right.
(3) You're not intelligent enough to understand that what you're saying is wrong.
(4) You're part of the conspiracy and you're lying to discredit me.

None of these have anything to do with the actual matter under discussion, so can be safely ignored.

As can Tony.

Dave

Dave, even though you have taken the time to write the above bombastic nonsense, in which you ridiculously twist my words, you still haven't answered my simple question to you about what would have weakened the lower structure to the point where it could not withstand the static load above it.

 

[JSanderO]

Tony...

Have a look at Exhibit B and tell us how all the core columns were "rigged" by Ace Elevator... looks like 34 of the core columns were not even accessible from or within elevator shafts.

 

[JSanderO]

Dave, even though you have taken the time to write the above bombastic nonsense, in which you ridiculously twist my words, you still haven't answered my simple question to you about what would have weakened the lower structure to the point where it could not withstand the static load above it.

The structure was not weaken to withstand anything. What happened was the floor system destroyed "itself" the axial load system - the columns were completely bypassed and had nothing to do to resist or assist the floor collapse.

The axial systems (facade and core columns) were dependant on lateral bracing which was part of the floor system and with the collapse/destruction of the floor systems... the axial systems... columns were unstable and collapsed AFTER the floor systems was completely destroyed.

 

[Spanx]

While you are online Tony, can you confirm if Ziggi is working on behalf of AE911truth regarding the Mark Basile study ?

I know it's a bit off topic for this thread and I can open a separate thread if you are going to reply ? I am only asking for the truth which is what you are all about

How about it Tony ^ Fancy giving it a go?

Or shall we just assume that starting up a fundraiser and claiming to be part of AE911truth is all in the name of truth ? Some people paid money and got nothing (nothing new I guess)

The fact that you have ignored this question three times now pretty much shows you couldn't care less.

 

[ozeco41]

Tony, for the sake of argument¹, if the floors collapse x many stories on all 4 sides top-down² so that a top portion of the perimeter walls caves in on all 4 sides³...at what point would the core start to implode due to lack of support from perimeter walls/floors?^{4, 5} That is, how many floors of floors and perimeter walls could you remove without collapsing the core from the top-down?^{6, 7}
Could the entire core stand on its own without any perimeter walls⁸?

Ziggi, the core would have been self-supporting as a unit.⁹

I see that Tony is prepared to deceive those who could be on his "side" - unless Tony you have sent the correct answer by PM .

Ziggi - others have told you bits of the truth - here is a somewhat more comprehensive explanation. I see that I have "crossed in posting" with Dave Rogers. Slow typing.

The most important issue is that you are making the same error as Tony made with "Missing Jolt". That is starting from a fantasy scenario which could not exist as you describe it THEN confusing it with questions about what would really happen.

That is EXACTLY the fatal error Tony made with Missing Jolt. He started with an assumption abut the whole Top Block falling unsupported. He has never explained how that status could be reached. Not surprising because it couldn't. The Missing Jolt starting scenario was impossible - alternatively it could only be achieved by MAGIC. If you believe in magic there is little I or others can do to help.

Unlike Tony's Missing Jolt scenario - your scenario not impossible but it is not adequately defined - and the "logic" of your scenario would self destruct if you tried to fill in the missing bits of description of the starting point.

As a minimum you need to define how the "X many storeys" are made to collapse. But let's presume for purposes of discussion that you have achieved "X collapsed" by magic.

Here are some sound engineering comments indexed to your post as quoted:
1 Agreed for moot argument purposes.
2 This is the starting point - you got here by magic.
3 Almost certainly the perimeter would peel outwards - not inwards. But it depends on your so far undefined mechanism of the collapse of the floors.
4 It wouldn't "implode". In the scenario you are partially defining it would topple in buckling due to slenderness causing instability.
5 It would need a full analysis to predict how far down floors needed to be removed before instability. AND it would not be a precise guaranteed figure - failure in this form of instability is not predictable in that way. Extra details if needed - the two factors are (a) predicting failure reverses the normal need to design for an assurance of safety; AND (b) the normal need for a factor of safety becomes a factor of unsafety.
6 It wouldn't collapse from top down. -
7 Highly variable but I would not be surprised isit was tens of storetys - hundreds of feet. Needs full analysis - even that not a guaranteed prediction AND the "how did we get here" missing bits of your scenario setting.
8 Yes - but. How many floors AKA what height is the indeterminate bit. It certainly wouldn't be 'the full height" despite Tony's implication.
9 Not surprising that Tony tries to mislead - avoiding the point that your scenario is (nearly) as impossible as his scenario for "Missing Jolt".

 

[ozeco41]

And finally, he says he can't think of any way the structure could have collapsed without producing a jolt. This is not just the argument from ignorance; it's the argument from wilful ignorance, because several of us have repeatedly told him how it could have happened. He chooses to ignore it all, because it's inconvenient.

AKA "professional dishonesty" which arises when a professional person makes an error in a published professional assertion, is advised of that error and continues to assert the original false claim without acknowledging that there is a body of legitimate opposing opinion. The burden of proof is lower than proof of "lie" - where truly believing the assertion even tho it is wrong is a defense against "lying" Not so for professional dishonesty.

Tony will probably reply to this post in one or more of four ways:

(1) I'm an engineer, so how dare you question what I say?
(2) It should be obvious to anyone that I'm right.
(3) You're not intelligent enough to understand that what you're saying is wrong.
(4) You're part of the conspiracy and you're lying to discredit me.

Don't forget "ignore".
AND that "we" can calibrate the strength of our arguments by the response. Personal insults indicating a strong argument. Ignore is the pinnacle of avoidance due to fear.

None of these have anything to do with the actual matter under discussion, so can be safely ignored.

As can Tony.

Dave

It is a long time since there was anything worthy of discussion.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

AKA "professional dishonesty" which arises when a professional person makes an error in a published professional assertion, is advised of that error and continues to assert the original false claim without acknowledging that there is a body of legitimate opposing opinion. The burden of proof is lower than proof of "lie" - where truly believing the assertion even tho it is wrong is a defense against "lying" Not so for professional dishonesty.

Don't forget "ignore".
AND that "we" can calibrate the strength of our arguments by the response. Personal insults indicating a strong argument. Ignore is the pinnacle of avoidance due to fear.
It is a long time since there was anything worthy of discussion.

It has gone beyond professional dishonesty at this point it's fraud.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

For anyone who cares, David Chandler did an excellent expose' of the issue with the lack of deceleration in a five minute video seen at the link below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

This is a severe problem for those who continue to deny that there were charges in the buildings and it seems they will do anything to disabuse others of this notion and try to discredit things like the lack of deceleration that shows there had to be charges involved. What is perplexing is why anyone would have an objection to an investigation to identify the terrorists who planted charges in the buildings. Are they just stupid or is there a more insidious reason for their intransigence concerning the need for more investigation?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

For anyone who cares, David Chandler did an excellent expose' of the issue with the lack of deceleration in a five minute video seen at the link below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

This is a severe problem for those who continue to deny that there were charges in the buildings and it seems they will do anything to disabuse others of this notion and try to discredit things like the lack of deceleration that shows there had to be charges involved. What is perplexing is why anyone would have an objection to an investigation to identify the terrorists who planted charges in the buildings.

Because there were no freaking charges!
You have only fraudulent evidence that Chandler was involved with! Why should we believe some one who participated in publishing known fraudulent material just trying to use pesudo physics to cover his own behind?

AE9/11 Truth seems to be nothing but Fraud, and Fraudulent attempts to cover your own behinds!

 

[JSanderO]

This discussion is insane. First Tony needs to be prepared to walk back some of his statements. He's not.

Second there is nothing wrong with a new or further investigation analysis. In fact some of this has been done by independent people for years. And by independent I mean not sponsored or associated with the USG or any official "professional" group. I don't that one of them provided any support to CD.

The complexity of the collapses makes it difficult to model them... But to undertake an "objective" investigation with the aim of proving there were placed devices to demolish the buildings is more than irony... it's intellectually dishonest and a sham.

I think this new investigation has an agenda... and it is flawed from the get go. But let's see what they publish.

No one disputes that explosives etc. CAN undermine a structure... but there has been no affirmative evidence to support this. It's all projection and confirmation bias which sees things which aren't there... or refuses to see things which are.

And the most cynical has been the economic exploitation of the naive public who has bought into a shoddy case of smoke and mirrors and mostly junk science. There are people, such as Tony who is too smart to know that something is terribly wrong with the truther arguments, I think it's hubris or ego which drives their denial. It's damn hard for these loudmouths to recant their nonsense... admit they made mistakes. Much much easier to carry on their show sowing doubt and using smoke and mirrors than show the courage to admit they were wrong.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

This discussion is insane. First Tony needs to be prepared to walk back some of his statements. He's not.

Second there is nothing wrong with a new or further investigation analysis. In fact some of this has been done by independent people for years. And by independent I mean not sponsored or associated with the USG or any official "professional" group. I don't that one of them provided any support to CD.

The complexity of the collapses makes it difficult to model them... But to undertake an "objective" investigation with the aim of proving there were placed devices to demolish the buildings is more than irony... it's intellectually dishonest and a sham.

I think this new investigation has an agenda... and it is flawed from the get go. But let's see what they publish.

No one disputes that explosives etc. CAN undermine a structure... but there has been no affirmative evidence to support this. It's all projection and confirmation bias which sees things which aren't there... or refuses to see things which are.

And the most cynical has been the economic exploitation of the naive public who has bought into a shoddy case of smoke and mirrors and mostly junk science. There are people, such as Tony who is too smart to know that something is terribly wrong with the truther arguments, I think it's hubris or ego which drives their denial. It's damn hard for these loudmouths to recant their nonsense... admit they made mistakes. Much much easier to carry on their show sowing doubt and using smoke and mirrors than show the courage to admit they were wrong.

Exactly Just another fraud from Gage and company, like the lie of nano thermite, nothing AE/ 9/11 truth puts out can be considered anything but fraud.

A neutral investigation of building behavior, would be welcome but that is not what this is.

 

[tsig]

This discussion is insane. First Tony needs to be prepared to walk back some of his statements. He's not.

Second there is nothing wrong with a new or further investigation analysis. In fact some of this has been done by independent people for years. And by independent I mean not sponsored or associated with the USG or any official "professional" group. I don't that one of them provided any support to CD.

The complexity of the collapses makes it difficult to model them... But to undertake an "objective" investigation with the aim of proving there were placed devices to demolish the buildings is more than irony... it's intellectually dishonest and a sham.

I think this new investigation has an agenda... and it is flawed from the get go. But let's see what they publish.

No one disputes that explosives etc. CAN undermine a structure... but there has been no affirmative evidence to support this. It's all projection and confirmation bias which sees things which aren't there... or refuses to see things which are.

And the most cynical has been the economic exploitation of the naive public who has bought into a shoddy case of smoke and mirrors and mostly junk science. There are people, such as Tony who is too smart to know that something is terribly wrong with the truther arguments, I think it's hubris or ego which drives their denial. It's damn hard for these loudmouths to recant their nonsense... admit they made mistakes. Much much easier to carry on their show sowing doubt and using smoke and mirrors than show the courage to admit they were wrong.

Money in Gages' pocket.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Money in Gages' pocket.

Money in Gages and Tony's pocket, Tony probably builds Gages piggy banks, considering his record here that's the only structure he should be allowed to engineer.

 

[JSanderO]

You can't pile on Gage for trying to hold on to his new job / income. The alternative is for him to get a job... like the supposed very high paying one he left behind.. not travel all over the country and the world... not get interviewed and so on. THIS IS his chosen work and he needs to find ways to exploit the market. He's an entrepreneur. And he's done pretty well for himself and most of the others get little compensation... aside from book sales revenues.

There are so many better causes to devote one's time to... including peace, election reform... and the list goes on and on...

 

[WilliamSeger]

For anyone who cares, David Chandler did an excellent expose' of the issue with the lack of deceleration in a five minute video seen at the link below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

The most obvious problem with Chandler's argument is that he is averaging the net result at the roof of thousands of individual failure events down below and calling it "constant acceleration" just because he can draw a straight line through his points. Apparently neither of you can explain any plausible failure modes that would actually produce uniform resistance and constant acceleration (and the idea that removing 90% of the columns would do it is pretty idiotic). Nor can you give any justification for ignoring the dynamic forces and not putting the structure into dynamic equilibrium before assessing the effects, which I find pretty shocking from a mechanical engineer. But in the thread where this video was already discussed, I didn't see your response to this, and I asked specifically if you agree with it:

At 4:00 in the video, Chandler claims that the Verinage video shows another "important conclusion": that the top and bottom sections are destroyed "at the same time" which "is a clear consequence of Newton's third law, which says that when bodies interact, the forces act equally in both directions." Chandler claims this is why Verinage demolitions start in the middle of the building. You might expect a high school physics teacher to recognize that the accumulating debris layer was a third "body" in the interactions, but Chandler actually tells us why he ignores it: imaginary physics! He claims that if the north tower collapse had been driven by gravity, "at most, the top 12 floors might have destroyed an additional 12 floors, but the top section would have been consumed in the process, leaving nothing to crush the rest of the building."

Yes, this high school physics teacher believes that the mass and momentum of the debris from those 24 floors disappeared into an alternate universe when the top section was "consumed."

Does your endorsement of the video here mean that you agree with Chandler's Law of Consumption of Momentum?