• 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

Dave Rogers said:
You've got to wonder, haven't you, why he still posts here? He's never convinced anyone he was right - even he and the other truthers here only pretend to agree with each other to present a united front - he gets nothing but risicule from the rest of us, and he doesn't even have anything new to say. Simple attention seeking is the only reason I can think of.

Dave
Click to expand...

He posts here because I suspect he is incapable for some reason of seeing his errors... and undoubtedly believes his work, reasoning etc. is sound. I don't think it is that uncommon for people to not see flaws in their thinking... even when others attempt to show the flaws.

At this very event... while Gage was "setting up" I tried to speak with him about some "fundamental concepts" nothing complex that would require cals and so forth. So I asked him directly... why do you think that free fall acceleration can mean ONLY a CD.. Is there no other possible way that the facade would have collapsed at FF or close to it? And he affirmatively said... Free fall can mean only one thing... there were charges placed over 8 floors... it had to be a CD. Was he lying? Or does he believe this?

When I attempted to offer another possibility to consider... one of his guys inserted himself so that Gage could avoid having to listen to what I had to say. Now I had to deal with this guy... who changed the discussion to that he worked for the FBI and they were told to pick clean Fresh Kills for computer parts... As if this was the incriminating evidence of CD. When I asked him that perhaps these computer drives might have OTHER sensitive information which could cause problems in the wrong hands he dismissed that. This is another example of a steel trap mind... refusing to see anything other than they want to see. Of course he refused to discuss "engineering" issues... and one wonders why he as at NJIT for the "debate". These two brief exchanges were iconic. It's like talking to a stone wall... with a loudspeaker playing "pillars of truth". You can't have a dialog with a stone wall and a recording or parrot.
 
Fonebone said:
WTC1 FIREBALL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnuFACYc-Q4

Note that the fireball that initiated the collapse cover four stories
and neutralized exterior columns equally on all four faces of the north tower as tony states in post #544
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11002153#post11002153



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814d076c6bf2b51.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Tony/Fonebone,

Can you explain why we see no corner detonations within the red oval? This screenshot was taken from the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo

The roofline is already descending at this point.

 
Tony Szamboti said:
There is no dynamic load of the type needed unless there is an impact. You apparently don't have the right definition of a dynamic load.

Let me be more specific. For a load above to defeat a structure below supporting it with reserve strength an amplified load needs to be applied. That is what the dynamic load needed to do and the amplification can only happen when the impacting object decelerates because then you have

F = mg + m(deceleration)

where the m(deceleration is the amplified load.
Click to expand...
Tony,

Do you have a model and calculations available that you used in order to make this statement below?

Tony Szamboti said:
Additionally, to take down the Twin Towers it wouldn't be necessary to be artificially removing structural integrity all the way down the building, as at some point the falling debris is enough to cause overload. Something like ten to twenty stories would work and after that the collapse would be self-propagating.
Click to expand...

Please explain how you figured out that, let's use the lower portion of your range, that a 10 floor descent of the upper 12 floor section at 64% of g would be enough to create a self propagating collapse. Do you have a model and calculations for this?

How did you come up with the 10 to 20 floor range being enough to cause a self propagating collapse?
 
Gamolon said:
How did you come up with the 10 to 20 floor range being enough to cause a self propagating collapse?
Click to expand...

And how, I wonder, is this to be reconciled with David Chandler's New Physics, in which it's a fundamental law that 10 to 20 floors falling cannot possibly collapse more than 10 to 20 floors below, therefore there is no such thing and cannot be any such thing as a self-propagating collapse?

Dave
 
Oystein said:
IF the top pivots about a point at or near its base, not its CoG, THEN that means the CoG moves laterally.
This means there was a force accelrateing the top laterally.
This lateral force must at some level have been communicated through columns.
Tony would have to explain why this lateral force can't misalign the column ends.

IF the top pivots about it CoG, THEN EITHER the base of the top moves laterally, OR the entire structure of the top deforms in complicated ways.
Tony would have to explain why this entire deformation in 3D of the top can't misalign the column ends.
Click to expand...
Of course its both, by the time the upper section moves down by one level.
Before 'release' its rotation on a pivot, at and after 'release' its rotation about CoG.
caveat: its not quite so cut and dried as 'release' was close to, but not actually, instantaneous. During this period there is an off axis, not vertical, force exerted by the upper section columns, on the lower section columns.

To illustrate, hinge a vertical pole on a flat base plate that you then place on a frictionless table(ie. an air hockey table). now allow the pole to topple. The plate will move laterally as the pole topples
 
Fonebone said:
WTC1 FIREBALL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnuFACYc-Q4

Note that the fireball that initiated the collapse cover four stories
and neutralized exterior columns equally on all four faces of the north tower as tony states in post #544
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11002153#post11002153



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814d076c6bf2b51.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Umm, if this gif, the corner column seen shows no sign of having been severed. There is expulsion of flame out both side windows but no evidence of flame, or cutting, of the corner column itself.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
And how, I wonder, is this to be reconciled with David Chandler's New Physics, in which it's a fundamental law that 10 to 20 floors falling cannot possibly collapse more than 10 to 20 floors below, therefore there is no such thing and cannot be any such thing as a self-propagating collapse?

Dave
Click to expand...

Oh jeez, I never got used to quantum weirdness, and now this? :covereyes
 
Dave Rogers said:
And how, I wonder, is this to be reconciled with David Chandler's New Physics, in which it's a fundamental law that 10 to 20 floors falling cannot possibly collapse more than 10 to 20 floors below, therefore there is no such thing and cannot be any such thing as a self-propagating collapse?

Dave
Click to expand...
I asked Tony that same question not to long ago. He recently answered all my questions except for that one.
 
Dave Rogers said:
And how, I wonder, is this to be reconciled with David Chandler's New Physics, in which it's a fundamental law that 10 to 20 floors falling cannot possibly collapse more than 10 to 20 floors below, therefore there is no such thing and cannot be any such thing as a self-propagating collapse?

Dave
Click to expand...
I think Tony is saying that if the 12 floor section fell 10 floors, that would be enough momentum to destroy the remaining lower section.
 
JSanderO said:
The columns are mostly mis aligned at this point as well as the tilt is small but there. Tilt means failed and non axially "performing" columns.
Click to expand...
Tony said that the corners were cut by explosives in order to initiate the drop of the upper section. My point being, I see no explosions anywhere indicating the corners were cut anywhere during the video prior to the roofline beginning to drop.
 
Gamolon said:
I think Tony is saying that if the 12 floor section fell 10 floors, that would be enough momentum to destroy the remaining lower section.
Click to expand...

It was a little vague; that might be what he is saying despite that it contradicts Chandler's Law of Consumption of Momentum (12 floors can only destroy 12 floors). But perhaps he has discovered some boundary condition where the ignored momentum suddenly reappears to overwhelm the structure?
 
Gamolon said:
Tony/Fonebone,

Can you explain why we see no corner detonations within the red oval? This screenshot was taken from the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo

The roofline is already descending at this point.

[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC_Corner_zpsztkzz0gc.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Gamolon said:
Tony said that the corners were cut by explosives in order to initiate the drop of the upper section. My point being, I see no explosions anywhere indicating the corners were cut anywhere during the video prior to the roofline beginning to drop.
Click to expand...

^^^^ This

If the corner columns were cut, they were not cut by the time of either of these images, which are from a time AFTER collapse initiation.

That alone negates the premise that the corner columns were cut to cause collapse initiation.
 
WilliamSeger said:
It was a little vague; that might be what he is saying despite that it contradicts Chandler's Law of Consumption of Momentum (12 floors can only destroy 12 floors). But perhaps he has discovered some boundary condition where the ignored momentum suddenly reappears to overwhelm the structure?
Click to expand...

I think he's invoking the Szamboti Exception; the laws of physics clearly state that this cannot possibly happen unless Tony decrees otherwise, in which case it's inevitable.

Dave
 
jaydeehess said:
^^^^ This

If the corner columns were cut, they were not cut by the time of either of these images, which are from a time AFTER collapse initiation.

That alone negates the premise that the corner columns were cut to cause collapse initiation.
Click to expand...

And also negates the premise that the perimeter structure was unable to resist the static load of the upper section, if you accept that these "explosions" were the cause of that. Which they weren't. And that would also invalidate the claim that no jolt should have been observed if that actually followed logically from that premise. Which it doesn't.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The first story may have needed columns cut in the core, but after that is falling just removing joints works to eliminate structural integrity.

Additionally, to take down the Twin Towers it wouldn't be necessary to be artificially removing structural integrity all the way down the building, as at some point the falling debris is enough to cause overload. Something like ten to twenty stories would work and after that the collapse would be self-propagating.
Click to expand...
Tony,

Can you explain how your explanation above applies to the diagram below, shown while Chandler is talking at 1:56 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3keULhBlQc

How does 10 floors worth of a 64% of g descent equal total collapse? Chandler says that an amount of the lower section equal to the amount of upper section will only be destroyed before the collapse is arrested.

 
Newton's Third Law. it means exactly what you hope it might mean, except when you understand it. Then it does what it says on the tin.
 
jaydeehess said:
...
To illustrate, hinge a vertical pole on a flat base plate that you then place on a frictionless table(ie. an air hockey table). now allow the pole to topple. The plate will move laterally as the pole topples
Click to expand...

I learned this the hard way every time I tried to stand on a skateboard. Watch where the skateboard goes while my head topples toward North :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom