Gage and Szamboti to speak at New Jersey Institute of Technology

[Oystein]

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.

You repeat the bare assertion.

I am waiting for your reasoned argument.

[edit: Deleted a question that, as I found after posting, was already responded to]

 

[Oystein]

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.

The "spandrel beam connections" are steel elements, and they are on the perimeter of an structure that is not rigidly enclosed (has windows, open office spaces...). Are you suggesting that some source of expanding gas inside the tower would have "pushed" the spandrels and columns sufficiently to break those connections? It should be pretty easy to calculate the minimum pressure that can do this, and determine from there possibly blast scenarios.

However, in true explosive CDs of steel structures, it is never the "pressure volume work" that "pushes" the steel element appart (that's what certain types of bombs do in military applications) - it is the shockwave wiithin the steel, produced by a supersonic explosion in direct contact with the steel, that shatters it. This is much more efficient than bombs. A few ounces of high explosive placed smartly on the steel does easily what a hundred pounds of a gas-expanding bomb blast do if detonated away from the steel members.

And we both know how awesomely, insanely loud the ounces of CD explosives go BANG in real CDs.
Bombs, on account of being much larger, are louder.

The source of the force exerted by both bombs and explosive CD charges are "explosives", not? I had asked you

What is the source of the force that moves the material that constitutes these expulsions?​

And you apparently picked this option as your answer:

A) Demolition charges​

I then asked:

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

It seems bleedingly obvious that any "demolition charge doing pressure volume work" would be powered by some kind of "explosive" - by definition, Tony!
Why could you not make yourself say that? You implicitly claim "explosives", but at the same time seem to doubt your own claim!?



Anyway - before you gave your vague answer, I had presented you with 6 points, of which you addressed only one (number [3]), and only vaguely. What about the others?

[1] Most truthers think "freefall" of the north wall is "evidence" for the instantaneous destruction of the WTC7 perimeter columns by explosives ober 8 stories. YOU, Tony, are one of the few truthers who realize that this is FALSE - that failure of the core could result in this freefall episode. So why do YOU bring this up?

[2] You fail to convince on that point here, and have continued failing for many years now.

[3] What do you claim those expulsions are? Explosions? Why are they not accompanied by extremely loud BANGs?

[4] Explosions do not create bulk amounts of molten metal, so it is a mystery, and has been for many years, why truthers are so married to the idea that the ALLEGED presence of molten steel (you must know very well that there is no ACTUAL evidence for bulk amounts of molten steel) has anything to do with a "controlled" demolition. Be the first truther in your universe to explain how any feasibly method of demolition would result in bulk amounts of molten steel long after the debris came to rest!

[5] "Symmetry" is a mantra. There is no actionable metrics to determine whether or not a given collapse is "symmetric", and there exists no reasoned argument why symmetry is impossible for a fire-induced collapse. You are appealing to the layman's "common sense". Haven't you heard the bon mot, sometimes attributed to Albert Einstein, that "common sense is the sum of the prejudices acquired by the age of 18"?

[6] "The" charges, Tony? Which? What kind? There were no explosions consistent in loudness, timing, number and brisance with CD, and there was no thermite, and there exists no theory that explains all of the relevant observations of the day with explosive or thermitic charges!​

I had predicted:

And you must intimately know all of this, Tony. You will not rebut a thing I wrote with reasoned arguments!​

And indeed, you did not rebut a single thing with reasoned arguments. You only addressed one point with a bare and vague assertion.

So many years, and you cannot argue a thing, Tony! Isn't it time to fundamentally reconsider your positions?

 

[Dave Rogers]

You said it takes time, reality shows more than adequate time.

Ah, but your mistake is in referring to reality. Tony has made up a non-quantitative law of physics, such that in his world a second is too long for a building, yet not for an explosive, to go from some unspecified level of order to some equally unspecified level of chaos. From here in reality, how are we to tell what time is needed for order to become chaos in Szamboti Universe?

Dave

 

[JSanderO]

See the NIST report.

I looked at their inventory list and there were no core columns from floors 96-98

This was table 5-2 on page 83.

When you have pics of the core columns from the plane crash zone or above it please post the link(s)

In table 6-2 they have a handful of columns listed
the only ones barely of interest in their inventory were

603 from flr 92-95
605 from flr 98-101

They make an incorrect statement in the caption on figure 6-30... core column ends were not located at the floor 94 level!

They had a party with the facade columns! But did very little with the core columns. I find this insufficient to draw an conclusions about what happened in the core at or above the plane strike zones.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The "spandrel beam connections" are steel elements, and they are on the perimeter of an structure that is not rigidly enclosed (has windows, open office spaces...). Are you suggesting that some source of expanding gas inside the tower would have "pushed" the spandrels and columns sufficiently to break those connections? It should be pretty easy to calculate the minimum pressure that can do this, and determine from there possibly blast scenarios.

However, in true explosive CDs of steel structures, it is never the "pressure volume work" that "pushes" the steel element appart (that's what certain types of bombs do in military applications) - it is the shockwave wiithin the steel, produced by a supersonic explosion in direct contact with the steel, that shatters it. This is much more efficient than bombs. A few ounces of high explosive placed smartly on the steel does easily what a hundred pounds of a gas-expanding bomb blast do if detonated away from the steel members.

And we both know how awesomely, insanely loud the ounces of CD explosives go BANG in real CDs.
Bombs, on account of being much larger, are louder.

The source of the force exerted by both bombs and explosive CD charges are "explosives", not? I had asked you

What is the source of the force that moves the material that constitutes these expulsions?​

And you apparently picked this option as your answer:

A) Demolition charges​

I then asked:

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

It seems bleedingly obvious that any "demolition charge doing pressure volume work" would be powered by some kind of "explosive" - by definition, Tony!
Why could you not make yourself say that? You implicitly claim "explosives", but at the same time seem to doubt your own claim!?



Anyway - before you gave your vague answer, I had presented you with 6 points, of which you addressed only one (number [3]), and only vaguely. What about the others?

[1] Most truthers think "freefall" of the north wall is "evidence" for the instantaneous destruction of the WTC7 perimeter columns by explosives ober 8 stories. YOU, Tony, are one of the few truthers who realize that this is FALSE - that failure of the core could result in this freefall episode. So why do YOU bring this up?

[2] You fail to convince on that point here, and have continued failing for many years now.

[3] What do you claim those expulsions are? Explosions? Why are they not accompanied by extremely loud BANGs?

[4] Explosions do not create bulk amounts of molten metal, so it is a mystery, and has been for many years, why truthers are so married to the idea that the ALLEGED presence of molten steel (you must know very well that there is no ACTUAL evidence for bulk amounts of molten steel) has anything to do with a "controlled" demolition. Be the first truther in your universe to explain how any feasibly method of demolition would result in bulk amounts of molten steel long after the debris came to rest!

[5] "Symmetry" is a mantra. There is no actionable metrics to determine whether or not a given collapse is "symmetric", and there exists no reasoned argument why symmetry is impossible for a fire-induced collapse. You are appealing to the layman's "common sense". Haven't you heard the bon mot, sometimes attributed to Albert Einstein, that "common sense is the sum of the prejudices acquired by the age of 18"?

[6] "The" charges, Tony? Which? What kind? There were no explosions consistent in loudness, timing, number and brisance with CD, and there was no thermite, and there exists no theory that explains all of the relevant observations of the day with explosive or thermitic charges!​

I had predicted:

And you must intimately know all of this, Tony. You will not rebut a thing I wrote with reasoned arguments!​

And indeed, you did not rebut a single thing with reasoned arguments. You only addressed one point with a bare and vague assertion.

So many years, and you cannot argue a thing, Tony! Isn't it time to fundamentally reconsider your positions?

Oystein, explosive use in controlled demolition generally shatters the steel with a hypersonic shockwave of gas which in reality is a very high pressure which produces a high gas velocity. RDX produces a pressure of about 3 million psi against the steel and has a propagation velocity of about 27,000 ft/sec., which is about 18,000 mph.

The reason I say demolition devices is that some might try to say explosives have to be things like RDX and that isn't true. There are composite charges that could have done the job. Nano-thermite would produce high heat and fairly high pressure to do the job, while RDX would use extremely high pressure alone. The blowouts at the spandrel connections could easily be from a composite charge.

The use of a form of thermite would have caused molten metal in the rubble of the three collapsed buildings.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Oystein, explosive use in controlled demolition generally shatters the steel with a hypersonic shockwave of gas which in reality is a very high pressure which produces a high gas velocity. RDX produces a pressure of about 3 million psi against the steel and has a propagation velocity of about 27,000 ft/sec., which is about 18,000 mph.

The reason I say demolition devices is that some might try to say explosives have to be things like RDX and that isn't true. There are composite charges that could have done the job. Nano-thermite would produce high heat and fairly high pressure to do the job, while RDX would use extremely high pressure alone. The blowouts at the spandrel connections could easily be a composite charge.

The use of a form of thermite would have caused molten metal in the rubble of the three collapsed buildings.

Non sense, usually the Monrue effect is used usually a shaped charge with copper,
the copper is converted to a hot plazma by the detonation wave, and burns though the steel,
Like a hot knife though butter.

There saw never any evidence of Monrue's effect, or shrapnel, and certiantly none of thermite,
such Ideas are nonsense.
The Munroe Effect - Demonstrated with Armstrong's…: http://youtu.be/SJGq0E6EqYU

 

[WilliamSeger]

Oystein, explosive use in controlled demolition generally shatters the steel with a hypersonic shockwave of gas which in reality is a very high pressure which produces a high gas velocity.

No, that is not correct. Controlled demolitions use shaped cutter charges, which create a focused, supersonic jet of metal atoms (usually copper), having much more kinetic energy than the gas from the explosives.

(ETA: CC beat me.)
(ETA again: however, CC, the effect is almost entirely kinetic, not heat.)

 

[beachnut]

Oystein, explosive use in controlled demolition generally shatters the steel with a hypersonic shockwave of gas which in reality is a very high pressure which produces a high gas velocity. RDX produces a pressure of about 3 million psi against the steel and has a propagation velocity of about 27,000 ft/sec., which is about 18,000 mph.

The reason I say demolition devices is that some might try to say explosives have to be things like RDX and that isn't true. There are composite charges that could have done the job. Nano-thermite would produce high heat and fairly high pressure to do the job, while RDX would use extremely high pressure alone. The blowouts at the spandrel connections could easily be from a composite charge.

The use of a form of thermite would have caused molten metal in the rubble of the three collapsed buildings.

And sounds of explosives not heard on 911. Darn, you debunked using RDX, a sound approach for debunking, unsound for the idiotic CD inside job fantasy. Do we get paid when the 911 truth pusher of CD lies debunk themselves unknowingly?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And sounds of explosives not heard on 911. Darn, you debunked using RDX, a sound approach for debunking, unsound for the idiotic CD inside job fantasy. Do we get paid when the 911 truth pusher of CD lies debunk themselves unknowingly?

We have not apprehended everyone involved in the three NYC building collapses yet.

 

[DGM]

The reason I say demolition devices is that some might try to say explosives have to be things like RDX and that isn't true. There are composite charges that could have done the job. Nano-thermite would produce high heat and fairly high pressure to do the job, while RDX would use extremely high pressure alone. The blowouts at the spandrel connections could easily be from a composite charge.

The use of a form of thermite would have caused molten metal in the rubble of the three collapsed buildings.

How does this "high pressure" relate to sound levels? The problem you have is time. The less pressure the more time.

You can't escape the truth...............

 

[Tony Szamboti]

How does this "high pressure" relate to sound levels?

You can't escape the truth...............

Composite charges don't have the same high pressure and velocity as RDX and don't produce the sound level you think should have occurred. I also think your basis for saying there was no sound from charges (from long distance video) is quite poor. The visual indications of some form of charges are certainly there.

 

[DGM]

Composite charges don't have the same high pressure and velocity as RDX and don't produce the sound level you think should have occurred. I also think your basis for saying there was no sound from charges (from long distance video) is quite poor. The visual indications of some form of charges are certainly there.

So they work without high velocity gas? Kind of a problem if you want precise timing don't you think?

Can you show examples of these in action? The visual shows air escaping, far too slow to be destructive.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

How does this "high pressure" relate to sound levels? The problem you have is time. The less pressure the more time.

You can't escape the truth...............

How does it relate to the massive echoes though the steel, that would have been felt for blocks, as well as heard for miles.

You should have heard them shoot the carbon dioxide well next to me.

http://www.uky.edu/KGS/kyccs/wkydeep.html

Nothing like going to sleep listening to a constant 24/7 massive deep well drilling operation.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Composite charges don't have the same high pressure and velocity as RDX and don't produce the sound level you think should have occurred. I also think your basis for saying there was no sound from charges (from long distance video) is quite poor. The visual indications of some form of charges are certainly there.

Composite Charges of what, RDX and thermite don't mix the thermite just burns off the RDX.

My thermite cutter I designed only fizzled while cutting though a standing 6 inch cast steel plate.

But it would be impossible to use during a fire!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So they work without high velocity gas? Kind of a problem if you want precise timing don't you think?

Can you show examples of these in action? The visual shows air escaping, far too slow to be destructive.

The pressure in a composite charge is much lower than RDX, but it still generates significant pressure and with heat would do the job and you would see an expulsion at the spandrel connections.

There is information on the Internet about composites if you are interested. Here are a couple of links http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1926.htm and https://books.google.com/books?id=s...LTAC#v=onepage&q=composite explosives&f=false

Something else you should know is that the velocity of an explosive decays as a function of the square of the distance.

 

[DGM]

The pressure in a composite charge is much lower than RDX, but it still generates significant pressure and with heat would do the job and you would see an expulsion at the spandrel connections.

There is information on the Internet about composites if you are interested.

Something else you should know is that the velocity of an explosive decays as a function of the square of the distance.

What kind of composite charge? Significant pressure also means a pressure wave (sound).

Got a link?

Remember, you're claiming split second timing.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The pressure in a composite charge is much lower than RDX, but it still generates significant pressure and with heat would do the job and you would see an expulsion at the spandrel connections.

There is information on the Internet about composites if you are interested. Here are a couple of links http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1926.htm and https://books.google.com/books?id=s...LTAC#v=onepage&q=composite explosives&f=false

Something else you should know is that the velocity of an explosive decays as a function of the square of the distance.

Black powder like charges damaging steel, that's hilarious best yet Thanks for the laughs you
Have no clue.

 

[DGM]

Something else you should know is that the velocity of an explosive decays as a function of the square of the distance.

I love this. Tony is trying to sound like this supports his claims.

So Tony, what is the base velocity? You seem to think it could be low enough to not be heard at the distance where video was recorded and still effect the steel.

Good luck with that.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I love this. Tony is trying to sound like this supports his claims.

So Tony, what is the base velocity? You seem to think it could be low enough to not be heard at the distance where video was recorded and still effect the steel.

Good luck with that.

The only way to cut steel and not make a sound is to use the energy stored in the refined
Metal.
Tony has no clue what a composite cutter would be or how it would work just like old Dr.
Jones himself.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The reason I say demolition devices is that some might try to say explosives have to be things like RDX and that isn't true. There are composite charges that could have done the job. Nano-thermite would produce high heat and fairly high pressure to do the job,

Since there is no known example of this ever having actually been done, why should anyone believe your assertion? The use of nanothermite in building demolitions is pure fantasy, backed up by nothing more than the usual bare assertion fallacy. And I'm sure you're going to back it up by a series of additional assertions which we're supposed to take on faith. The truth is that you're making this up as you go along.

The use of a form of thermite would have caused molten metal in the rubble of the three collapsed buildings.

And here's one of the standard lies by implication of the truth movement: blurring the distinction between molten metal, molten iron and molten steel. Molten metal is entirely unremarkable in the rubble, given the amount of aluminium present in the buildings. Molten iron would be produced by thermite, but there is still nothing more than anecdotal evidence for it being present. And molten steel would be very unlikely to be produced in significant quantities, because no device that could possibly have been present in the towers could have held thermite in contact with the vertical columns long enough for significant amounts of them to melt.

And, of course, here we go with the contradictory lies that (a) there was molten steel in the rubble pile and (b) there was no evidence of any core columns having got any hotter than 250C, as you said earlier. You really ought to make your mind up which lie you want to go with, because it's confusing when you tell both of them so close together.

Dave