• 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

GUY ON THE INTERNET CONTESTS ENGINEERING THEORY​
THAT COMPOSITE CONCRETE FLOOR AND ATTACHED TRUSSES SUPPORTED 200 FOOT LONG WTC WALLS​
CLAIMS IF TWO WINDOWS NEXT TO THE CORNERS HAD NOT BEEN SILENTLY BLOWN UP​
THE TOWERS WOULD STILL BE STANDING TODAY.​
 
Last edited:
“A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.” ― Saul Bellow
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
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
Click to expand...

jaydeehess said:
Everything 'south' of your CoG heads,,, south.
Click to expand...

Oystein said:
Yes, and it has always surprised me how fast.... :D
Click to expand...

Don't forget to reverse those directions if you are in AU/NZ - Southern Hemisphere.

upover2.jpg
 
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.
Click to expand...

Remember that in Tony Physics "after" means what the rest of us call "before".

This is another example of TFP3 ("Tony's False Premise number 3") in my glossary of Tony TFPs. ( TFP3 == "AFTER and BEFORE are reversed in Tony physics.")

So - in our normal unreversed use of language - he goes looking for something to happen AFTER point in time "T" when - in this case for the assertion to be true it has to happen BEFORE time T.

The same error of sequence - reversal of "before" and "after" - applies to his claims about axial contact - and the "Missing Horizontal Force" - where - in normal English - the column ends have missed and bypassed BEFORE the time he uses as reference point. Stated in the alternate - he looks for an axial impact AFTER point T when the falsifying event already happened BEFORE time T.

And the same error is one of the handful of fatal mistakes in "Missing Jolt".
 
ozeco41 said:
Remember that in Tony Physics "after" means what the rest of us call "before".

This is another example of TFP3 ("Tony's False Premise number 3") in my glossary of Tony TFPs. ( TFP3 == "AFTER and BEFORE are reversed in Tony physics.")

So - in our normal unreversed use of language - he goes looking for something to happen AFTER point in time "T" when - in this case for the assertion to be true it has to happen BEFORE time T.

The same error of sequence - reversal of "before" and "after" - applies to his claims about axial contact - and the "Missing Horizontal Force" - where - in normal English - the column ends have missed and bypassed BEFORE the time he uses as reference point. Stated in the alternate - he looks for an axial impact AFTER point T when the falsifying event already happened BEFORE time T.

And the same error is one of the handful of fatal mistakes in "Missing Jolt".
Click to expand...

Not to mention, 'delayed gravity' wrt inward bowing.
 
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...

Still no explanation as to how images, taken after collapse initiation, that do not show the corner columns having been explosively severed are evidence that the corner columns were explosively severed.

I don't think I need an engineering degree to notice this apparent incongruity.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Come on now, be fair. Tony's explained that the inward bowing pictures were fakes, based on the incontrovertible evidence that he really, really wants them to be fakes.

Dave
Click to expand...

Oh, of course, just like WTC 7's col 79 was destroyed a few floors below the rooftop because he really really wants it to be true.

Just like he really really wants the corner columns to have been explosively severed despite images showing no such thing just after collapse initiation.
 
jaydeehess said:
Oh, of course, just like WTC 7's col 79 was destroyed a few floors below the rooftop because he really really wants it to be true.

Just like he really really wants the corner columns to have been explosively severed despite images showing no such thing just after collapse initiation.
Click to expand...

I can't play this game of whack a truther with him anymore, it's just too said.
Like Teasing an insect with a stick.
 
Fonebone said:
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
Click to expand...
Really? Did they?



I think you're badly mistaken.
 
Gamolon said:
Really? Did they?



I think you're badly mistaken.
Click to expand...

Not even seeing a 'fireball' there either.
The expulsions of flame and smoke lag collapse initiation slightly, about one second behind the beginning of movement of the upper section. If there were explosions taking out perimeter columns that expulsion of smoke and flame would slightly lead collapse initiation.
Those expulsions indicate they are the result of air being pushed out of floors on which a large area of office space is on fire. The air is being pushed out by the falling upper section,that's why it lags the initiation of that upper section fall!
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Not even seeing a 'fireball' there either.
The expulsions of flame and smoke lag collapse initiation slightly, about one second behind the beginning of movement of the upper section. If there were explosions taking out perimeter columns that expulsion of smoke and flame would slightly lead collapse initiation.
Those expulsions indicate they are the result of air being pushed out of floors on which a large area of office space is on fire. The air is being pushed out by the falling upper section,that's why it lags the initiation of that upper section fall!
Click to expand...

stop making sense!
 
jaydeehess said:
Seriously, Fonebone and TSz see things that do not make sense in temporal order, because Truth?
Click to expand...

I find it hard to be surprised. I set a bench mark for this last year which matches well with the irreducuble delusion clause. I'll try digging up the link if interested. It was an exchange with someone else though, not fonebone or TS... but it was useful in the sense that i gave conditions in my presentation that would be the least in my favor to see how far it went. And for what it did... it was useful
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
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
Click to expand...

Dave, you really do play fast and loose to try and support your untenable position. <snip>


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for Rules 0/12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jaydeehess said:
Seriously, Fonebone and TSz see things that do not make sense in temporal order, because Truth?
Click to expand...
Sequence misdirection is probably a factor in all of Tony's false claims.

These are the three sub-stage periods relevant to "tilt" AND "Missing Jolt" arguments.

A) The BEFORE period. Start of "initiation cascade failure" collapse - it starts at the level of "Micro" movements - individual columns fail and their ends inevitably bypass. This is the stage "BEFORE" the dividing point in time "T" < Missing Jolt AND "tilt v axial contact" are both falsified AT THIS STAGE

B) The Reference Point in Time "T" is the start of "macro" movements - movement of the whole "Top Block" including tilt, rotation and horizontal displacements.

C) The period AFTER point "T" - macro movements of the Top Block - This is where Tony positions his arguments re tilt and axial contact. To bleeding late. The column ends already missed in the "BEFORE" period before "T".

Hence my semi facetious comments that Tony gets "BEFORE" and "AFTER" confused.

He certainly, repeatedly and consistently relies on errors in the sequencing or temporal domain.

All those discussions about whether or not tilt would cause/prevent axial impact are irrelevant in this AFTER period because the ends have already missed. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom