17-08-2013, 05:04 PM
Tony Szamboti Wrote:It is hardly reckless to connect the structural behavior which has the fingerprints of controlled demolition, such as no columns being involved in the resistance to collapse, with anecdotal evidence of charges in the building. This should be investigated and it hasn't been. The points you make that there was no sound picked up by microphones is spurious at best. Charges can be tamped and we know nano-thermite can be tailored for sound levels and explosiveness.
What I would call reckless and actually ridiculous is your characterization of the focused corner blowouts seen in the Chandler video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8 as being due to ROOSD.
You're speechifying Mr Szamboti. As Jeffrey pointed-out we have explained why no columns were involved yet you enter the same thing as if the entire previous thread didn't exist.
You are the one who is hand-waving here. I made a very specific point that if your people who you showed in your video heard the booms so clearly then why didn't Burkett's microphone pick that up? You have real problem here because Banfield's booms were barely audible yet the were picked-up at the audio frequency level as Chandler showed. Burkett was standing right under the friggin Tower. You show persons who clearly expressed that they heard loud and audible booms. Yet when we review Burkett's video there is no sign of any such explosions. Nothing. Your response to this is to claim my arguments are spurious, but once again you fail to enter any detail and any fool could see you haven't answered at the necessary technical level you pretend. Your arguments are weak and easily-refuted because if sound dampening devices were used then you have to ask the obvious question how then did those witnesses hear them so loudly? You once again offer mush as responses and try to have it both ways - just like you did with the initiating charges that you claim were burn packs yet Chandler claims were explosives. Is there a reason you ignored that now for the 3rd time? Could it be because it exposes the weakness of your case and methods? Where is the direct answer to that? Why do you and Chandler directly conflict on such an important detail?
Again, your competency is at stake here. You can't just offer the Chandler video as a response to technical points. You have to answer those points. Those points were: That the stainless steel facia Chandler shows on the corner comes off at too slow a speed to be caused by explosives. You have to remember that the corner columns are right there flush with the face. If they were exploded by charges the stainless steel facia would blast off violently. It didn't. The video shows it fell off slowly. Chandler realizes this so he suggests the corner columns might have been cut with thermite burning packs. However, as I pointed-out, the corner columns are flush with the face of the building. If they had been cut by burning thermite that thermite would burn white hot like it is known to do. It also burns with distinguishable sparkles. Since the video is focused on that spot there's no way we wouldn't have seen those tell-tale forensic signs. Additionally that thermite would most-likely have cut the facia in half as well since they were flush with each other. None of these necessary forensic signs are there and what you see is the corner separating as it necessarily would in the catastrophic failure of the structure.
Forgive me Mr Szamboti if I find your responses less than adequate. Try answering what I wrote next time. It's very obvious you can't live up to your claims.