Gage and Szamboti to speak at New Jersey Institute of Technology

[WilliamSeger]

NJIT math professor Jay Kappraff has invited Gage and Szamboti to make presentations on November 11. The notice says some engineering faculty members will "present views that include those of the NIST," so they should be able to handle the structural engineering side, but they probably aren't up to date on the nanothermite nonsense. It would be nice if someone could get them some real facts before November 11 about Harrit's paint chips, and perhaps prepare them for other arguments Gage and Szamboti will make.

http://www.njit.edu/news/2015/2015-279.php

This scenario for Building 7’s collapse has been critically scrutinized by technical analysts who claim that other factors were responsible, including the mysterious presence of the incendiary thermite, which easily cuts through steel.


On Wednesday, November 11, architect Richard Gage and engineer Tony Szamboti will present the case for this alternate destructive scenario. Gage and Szamboti will share their views and invite questions from 2:30 to 4:00 p.m. in the Campus Center Ballroom.

*snip*
Faculty members from NJIT’s John A. Reif, Jr. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering will also participate to present views that include those of the NIST as part of exploring a topic with critical unanswered questions.

ETA: Actually, it would be nice if someone in the area could attend to ask a few questions.

 

[JSanderO]

I will attend and have two friends who taught at NJIT one was a department head and the other in architecture. This should be interesting!

 

[Criteria]

I will attend and have two friends who taught at NJIT one was a department head and the other in architecture. This should be interesting!

The truth is always interesting.

 

[JSanderO]

Lies, deception and false beliefs are interesting too... maybe more so.

 

[jaydeehess]

It certainly is "interesting" how Gage plays fast and loose with the term "truth".

As far as unanswered questions go:
-If thermite was used only as a fuse for conventional explosives then is it not rather odd how easily Harrit et al managed to find unignited thermite in a few small random samples of WTC site dust?
- If thermite was used solely for fuse of conventional explosives then is the claim of thermite being responsible for 'rivers of molten steel' ("meteorite", etc.) now abandoned?
- If conventional explosives were used then what happened to the sharp. very loud pressure waves from cutting large columns, where is the evidence of cut columns or explosive residue?

 

[JSanderO]

These guys have never presented anything close to a coherent scenario of how their CD devices actually made the towers collapse. What DID these devices do? Where were they placed? How were they detonated? How were they "protected" from the plane damage and fires they caused?

These are complete black box magic explanations... as far as I can tell.

And why after all these years and "research" can't they or haven't they laid out how to CD the buildings to match the visuals we saw? Who do they think will explain their CD if they won't?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

NJIT math professor Jay Kappraff has invited Gage and Szamboti to make presentations on November 11. The notice says some engineering faculty members will "present views that include those of the NIST," so they should be able to handle the structural engineering side, but they probably aren't up to date on the nanothermite nonsense. It would be nice if someone could get them some real facts before November 11 about Harrit's paint chips, and perhaps prepare them for other arguments Gage and Szamboti will make.

http://www.njit.edu/news/2015/2015-279.php



ETA: Actually, it would be nice if someone in the area could attend to ask a few questions.

Sorry... it's no where near me. I don't see the nano-thermite side of the argument being a problem... the structural engineering angle more than suffices in addressing the thermite argument as far as I'm concerned without having to deal with ultra-fine chemical reads.

 

[beachnut]

NJIT math professor Jay Kappraff has invited Gage and Szamboti to make presentations on November 11. The notice says some engineering faculty members will "present views that include those of the NIST," so they should be able to handle the structural engineering side, but they probably aren't up to date on the nanothermite nonsense. It would be nice if someone could get them some real facts before November 11 about Harrit's paint chips, and perhaps prepare them for other arguments Gage and Szamboti will make.

http://www.njit.edu/news/2015/2015-279.php

ETA: Actually, it would be nice if someone in the area could attend to ask a few questions.

It would make for a great example of failed education, paranoid conspiracy theorist symposium.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

These guys have never presented anything close to a coherent scenario of how their CD devices actually made the towers collapse. What DID these devices do? Where were they placed? How were they detonated? How were they "protected" from the plane damage and fires they caused?

These are complete black box magic explanations... as far as I can tell.

And why after all these years and "research" can't they or haven't they laid out how to CD the buildings to match the visuals we saw? Who do they think will explain their CD if they won't?

That is because they have no idea how, they just want to ask questions, not be asked them.

 

[DGM]

I think if the dynamic duo were really honest they would refute the opening statement to the announcement.

September 11, 2001 was a tragic turning point for the United States and the entire world. From one perspective the sequence of events is painfully clear: Two aircraft flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Center (WTC) caused the structures to collapse with massive loss of life.But another building in the area not hit by a plane also collapsed. It was 7 World Trade Center, often referred to as Building 7. The 2008 report of the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) attributed the collapse of this 47-story, steel-framed structure to “normal office fires” that buckled a critical internal column — the first time ever that such a structure had collapsed because of fire.

They should start out saying the don't believe the (hilite) to be true.

Don't hold back Tony, go in with both your guns blazing............

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I think if the dynamic duo were really honest they would refute the opening statement to the announcement.



They should start out saying the don't believe the (hilite) to be true.

Don't hold back Tony, go in with both your guns blazing............

Both guns blazing and aimed at his own feet, leaving him no arguments to stand on.

 

[DGM]

Prediction:
The dynamic duo will stick to the script and cast doubt on what the NIST reported. They will offer no alternative hypothesis. When (and if) they are presented with "hard" questions, they will dance like the Rockettes.

In other words, same old. The sponsor seems receptive to the "AE 9/11" teachings.

ETA: Gage has spoken at MIT. Odd how this never panned out...........................

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Prediction:
The dynamic duo will stick to the script and cast doubt on what the NIST reported. They will offer no alternative hypothesis. When (and if) they are presented with "hard" questions, they will dance like the Rockettes.

In other words, same old. The sponsor seems receptive to the "AE 9/11" teachings.

ETA: Gage has spoken at MIT. Odd how this never panned out...........................

Wish I were there, I would bring some true thermitic paint chips and ignite them in my
Hand.
PS, Yes you can do that if you know how, the dumbnamic duo probably doesn't know that.

 

[dudalb]

I guess they need a few laughs at New Jersey Tech.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I guess they need a few laughs at New Jersey Tech.

I hope they don't get injured rolling on the floor in fits of intense Laughter.

 

[JSanderO]

I hope they don't get injured rolling on the floor in fits of intense Laughter.

I am planning to go and I will convey my reaction to the event. I will not sit through ESO. My sense this is being "staged" by a truther.

 

[Oystein]

The host, Jay Kappraff, has been a signatory on Gage's "Petition" since about the late summer of 2008.

His bio, as per AE911Truth profile:

"Chemical engineer with Dupont 1960-1961, Aerospace Engineer with NADA 1963-1965, Ph.D. in mathematics from NYU Courant Inst. specializing in Plasma Physics, Assoc. Prof of Math. at New Jersey Inst. of Technology 1974-present, applied mathematician. Author of two books on Mathematics and Design, originator of a course on calculus and architectural structures."​

His education is listed by NJIT as:

• PhD, Applied Mathematics, New York University
• MS, Chemical Engineering, Iowa State University
• BChE, Chemical Engineering, New York Polytechnic

His personal statement on AE about 9/11 is:

"The analysis of the 3 collapses of the WTC as narrated by Richard Gage is very convincing. That the building collapsed near the speed of gravity has no other explanation other than controlled demolition. The symmetric collapse reinforces this hypothesis."​

It is interesting perhaps that Gage is coming with Tony Szamboti, one of the very few truthers who don't buy the Chandler mantra that "freefall means CD" - he doesn't believe the WTC7 perimeter columns must have been, or were, rigged with devices to explain g.

 

[JSanderO]

The host, Jay Kappraff, has been a signatory on Gage's "Petition" since about the late summer of 2008.
......
His personal statement on AE about 9/11 is:

"The analysis of the 3 collapses of the WTC as narrated by Richard Gage is very convincing. That the building collapsed near the speed of gravity has no other explanation other than controlled demolition. The symmetric collapse reinforces this hypothesis."​

It is interesting perhaps that Gage is coming with Tony Szamboti, one of the very few truthers who don't buy the Chandler mantra that "freefall means CD" - he doesn't believe the WTC7 perimeter columns must have been, or were, rigged with devices to explain g.

I have been communicating with Jay who will arrange parking for me. I have not taken the opportunity to compile and present to him materials which would make him re consider his "beliefs". He did mention that he was a good friend of my friend who is a Prof Emeritus in architecture so this may predispose him to give me a listen.

My hunch is they will claim:

that the "insides" did not collapse before the naked visible facade/curtain wall. (they are wrong about this)

That the NIST simulation does not match the real world visuals (it doesn't)

They will claim "symmetry" means CD and there was no "symmetry" and it does not mean CD regardless.

They will fail to explain how their CD was done... where the "thermite" was placed and what did it do.... and of course where is the evidence of this in a single piece of steel?

They will link eutectic burning of the webs of a few beams with a thermite attack, but this hardly would cause column failure especially in the usual example with the burnt beam is not buckled.

Their argument will be one of disbelief and a failure to examine the structure and all the "transfers" which were located between floor 5&7 which would likely cause the visuals if they failed... ie there was no need to destroy 57 columns over 8 floors simultaneously to cause the facade drop.

They will not explain the massive IB /kink in the entire north facade nor the fact that the entire exterior twisted around a virtual vertical hinge in the SW area of the building.

They will deny that there were extensive fires low down in the building.

'Their argument appears to be completely based on "disbelief" and the "collapse time" of the facade for 105'. (precisely the distance from the top of flr 7 which has only a dozen or so columns supporting it directly coupled to the foundation)

Their case is only compelling to those who don't know the facts, the observations, the actual structure and something about steel frames... the profile of their supporters.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I have been communicating with Jay who will arrange parking for me. I have not taken the opportunity to compile and present to him materials which would make him re consider his "beliefs". He did mention that he was a good friend of my friend who is a Prof Emeritus in architecture so this may predispose him to give me a listen.

My hunch is they will claim:

that the "insides" did not collapse before the naked visible facade/curtain wall. (they are wrong about this)

Obviously,

That the NIST simulation does not match the real world visuals (it doesn't)

It does if you look solely at the steel frame without the granite.

They will claim "symmetry" means CD and there was no "symmetry" and it does not mean CD regardless.

Symmetry only means a structure is acting in unison trying to resist disunification.

They will fail to explain how their CD was done... where the "thermite" was placed and what did it do.... and of course where is the evidence of this in a single piece of steel?

They have no clue on this, because it didn't happen.

They will link eutectic burning of the webs of a few beams with a thermite attack, but this hardly would cause column failure especially in the usual example with the burnt beam is not buckled.

Nonsense evidence they have no aluminum oxide in the eutectic steel thermite would leave an aluminum oxide aluminum sulfate contamination of the steel none is indicated in the chemistry!

Not having such contamination points to a reduction reaction with carbons and drywall dust,
Which I duplicated quite easily testing both thermate with sulfur and sulfidication with carbons in a multi staged chemical event shows the sulfidication could occur in the buildings
Or in the rubble pile, not from thermate.

Their argument will be one of disbelief and a failure to examine the structure and all the "transfers" which were located between floor 5&7 which would likely cause the visuals if they failed... ie there was no need to destroy 57 columns over 8 floors simultaneously to cause the facade drop.

Of course not, obviously.

They will not explain the massive IB /kink in the entire north facade nor the fact that the entire exterior twisted around a virtual vertical hinge in the SW area of the building.

Of course they will, it shows the most likely failure point.

They will deny that there were extensive fires low down in the building.

They will deny the building was leaning before the collapse, and that it was hit by a pressure
Wave from the towers collapse.

'Their argument appears to be completely based on "disbelief" and the "collapse time" of the facade for 105'. (precisely the distance from the top of flr 7 which has only a dozen or so columns supporting it directly coupled to the foundation)

Agreed most likely argument from ignorance.

Their case is only compelling to those who don't know the facts, the observations, the actual structure and something about steel frames... the profile of their supporters.

Yes completely agree.

 

[tsig]

I guess they need a few laughs at New Jersey Tech.

Isn't that Nu Joisey Tech?