Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

3bodyproblem said:
On a side note, Tony was actually critical of Anders claims on the program, which I thought was nice. He even chuckled when 1/10th - 9/10th A, B, C was brought up.
Click to expand...

And yet it is amazing that he tried to pull that craptacular pile of fail here less than 5 pages ago...
 
Last month I was at a French monastery on an island off Normandy, the architecture was very interesting, particularly the mentioning of sections of building that had fallen off the cliff at some point in time.

If there were any simple rules on building collapse like 1/10, don't you thing people would have figured it out from mediaeval times?

(I left the place still impressed by the buildings, but also realising that a 1000 year old building were not necessarily well thought out, it could just have been the lucky one . )
 
Bloody hell!

The dust has already been tested -- all the dust, definitely from the Towers, not just scraps flaked off of a railing somewhere and thrown in a baggie. Lioy et al., Environmental Health Perspectives, 2002. Cataloguing all the samples, not just the special flakes Dr. Jones picked out.

No nanothermite! None!!

Stop asking for yet another result proving you wrong! You're like kids taking on Olympic atheletes, calling us names when we won't go "best 11 out of 20" with you.
 
Well as long as Jones does not have large proportions of highly engineered nano particles in his dust that might be worth considering. On the other hand if there are large proportions of this exotic and-very-hard-to-get material in the dust that will be an entirely other matter. These materials do not does not occur naturally at the nano-scale in any quantity above the incidental..
 
bill smith said:
Well as long as Jones does not have large proportions of highly engineered nano particles in his dust that might be worth considering. On the other hand if there are large proportions of this exotic and-very-hard-to-get material in the dust that will be an entirely other matter. These materials do not does not occur naturally at the nano-scale in any quantity above the incidental..
Click to expand...

You calling nano-thermite "exotic" when it's been around since WWII as an incendiary & a thermite grenade used to fuse the breach of artillery pieces?

I thought an Iguana or guinea pig was exotic, not nano-thermite!

Get your exotic nano-thermite pets here! Half off for U.S. Government employees & NWO agents.

:dl:
 

Attachments

  • Guinea Pigs.jpg
    Guinea Pigs.jpg
    31.9 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
You calling nano-thermite "exotic" when it's been around since WWII as an incendiary & a thermite grenade used to fuse the breach of artillery pieces?
Click to expand...

Actually nano thermite has not been around since WW2. Thermite has, thermate has been around a good while. nano thermite has not. Of course truthers dont know what real nano thermite is but that is bescides the point.
 
Edx said:
Actually nano thermite has not been around since WW2. Thermite has, thermate has been around a good while. nano thermite has not. Of course truthers dont know what real nano thermite is but that is bescides the point.
Click to expand...

About Nano-thermite, I'm just making a point that it's still thermite. ;)
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Which is truly a bizarre interpretation of design. I've repeatedly asked people in the movement why such a simple principal isn't taught in the design curriculum... Afterall;there must not be much to worry about with accidental or eccentric loading if this is true... I mean you'd think I'd have at least been taught on this subject in my undergraduate education... Should I be expecting this to come up during the next two years in master's architecture? The idea that arbitrary proportions would you know... ease some worries about collapse scenarios in a range of design implementations... if it's such a profound matter.
Click to expand...

And why is 10% the magic number? He cant ever explain that. And why would it be relevant anyway? From the footage Ive seen more than 10% of the WTC crushed the rest of it.
 
Last edited:
At around 16:00 in Part 2 Ron and Tony start talking about CD.

Tony says that it's possible to protect the charges from the fires. He's not sure what, but something.

What are you talking about Tony? What should we be looking for when the second investigation happens? It was obviously, in your opinion, over looked, so what exactly are we going to look for?

Ron says the amount of charges need would require a very intense effort. Tony incredulously laughs it off as incredulity (sorry but that was ironic).

Tony makes mention of security. It seems pretty easy to find security people or workers there very Early or very late to confirm the number of people coming and going in both buildings, on the floors in question. Why hasn't that been done?


edit:Also Tony, are you limiting yourself to charges on the initiation floors now? You seem to be, and yet there are so many Truthers claiming they see explosives the whole way down. How do you explain that Tony?
I see at 18 minutes he says 8 or 9 floors from the initiation. Damn slow internet connection!
 
Last edited:
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
Nano-thermite is still thermite! Just a bit more powerful than regular thermite alone.
Click to expand...

And a duck is still a bird but not all birds are ducks, accuracy matters. Nano thermite as a substance isnt the same thing as thermite. If you wanted to make that point you shouldnt have said "nano" thermite has been around since WW2.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Tony makes mention of security. It seems pretty easy to find security people or workers there very Early or very late to confirm the number of people coming and going in both buildings, on the floors in question. Why hasn't that been done?
Click to expand...

Tony is just moving the goal posts here. He apparently realises that Bush's brother wasnt in charge of the company running security that day, but if thats proven wrong thats okay. Someone was still running security, we just cant connect it to Bush....


Also Tony, are you limiting yourself to charges on the initiation floors now? You seem to be, and yet there are so many Truthers claiming they see explosives the whole way down. How do you explain that Tony?
Click to expand...

I thought Tony was saying the opposite, that there had to be explosives all the way down.
 
Last edited:
'What would be the point of anyone simply generating more material for you to ignore?'

Hear hear!

I just received a comment on one of my vids today which sums up the attitude perfectly:

'Frankly none of the testimony of anyone who was officially involved in 9/11, such as the demolition company used to clean up or the FBI testimony about evidence can be relied upon because these people were hand picked by the perpetrators.

I relly on my intelligence, which seems to far outstrip yours. '

No amount of evidence or mathematics, no matter how carefully documented and proved, will be sufficient for hardcore truthers. While they do not, of course, apply the same impossible level of evidence to their own hypotheses, they expect it of anyone who argues against them.

It's another way to crudely skew the playing field, so in their minds, they always win.

Unfortunately, in most others minds, they fail. That's the real story.
 
Edx said:
I thought Tony was saying the opposite, that there had to be explosives all the way down.
Click to expand...

I just got to the 18 minute mark where he says it would have been 8 or 9 floors worth of charges.

I suppose this means we need to ask him why the pilots for 9/11 truth say these guys couldn't fly these birds, but Tony thinks they could fly them to within an 8 or 9 story (and different on each building) window of demolition.
:rolleyes:
 
I noticed that Mr. Szamboti failed to address the obvious counter to his WTC1 theory - the fact that WTC2 DID tilt as it began to collapse, thus removing the 'no jolt' excuse.

Tony still cannot or will not explain why this case, which destroys his argument, doesn't affect the tower next to it.

Sorry Tony, I'm not buying your story. You definitely have NOT proved that there was controlled demolition. And you never will, mark my words.

Apart from that you seem to be a reasonable enough person, too bad you've allowed yourself to be sucked into this truther madhouse. I hope you escape one day soon.
 
Edx said:
And a duck is still a bird but not all birds are ducks, accuracy matters. Nano thermite as a substance isnt the same thing as thermite. If you wanted to make that point you shouldnt have said "nano" thermite has been around since WW2.
Click to expand...

Thermite:
Thermite was also used in both German and Allied incendiary bombs during World War II. Incendiary bombs usually consisted of dozens of thin thermite-filled canisters (bomblets) ignited by a magnesium fuse. Also thermite is on a sparkler & can be used as a pyrotechnic.
Click to expand...

Nano-thermite:
MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as in applications in propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.
Click to expand...

I see a couple of things that are very consistant.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Thats great, but nano thermite as a substance has not been around since WW2. Just accept that you should have said "thermite" not "nano thermite".
Click to expand...
Don't tell Chewy he's wrong. It makes him very cranky, and no one likes a cranky Wookie. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom