Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

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".

It's not wise to upset a Wookie! LOL!

Thermite

Super THERMITE

Nano THERMITE

All end in the word THERMITE. Coicidence?

 

[R.Mackey]

Can we at least try to hold a more intelligent discussion in my thread, please? I do so hate asking the moderators to split it apart again.

 

[Edx]

Apparently you dont get it Chewy. I give up.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Apparently you dont get it Chewy. I give up.

I do get it! Let me show you a drawing of an incendiary bomb from 1938.

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/11816

Back On Topic:

I wonder where Tony went off too? He hasn't answered anyones questions.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Here's something everyone can look at from our friend Tony Szamboti:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...itionHypothesisForDestructionofTwinTowers.pdf

Find subjects which Tony has brought up or hasn't. Enjoy!

 

[Scott Sommers]

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.

I understand this thread was created to allow the technically adept to talk about the engineering the WTC collapse. The problem my original post was trying to raise was that no matter how sophisticated Tony's response may be, once he admits the role of 'energetic materials', he reduces his argument to a non-teachnical one that draws in all the crazies.

It's neither necessary nor important to his technical argument. It's not supported by the opinions of anyone in the scientific community that deal with these materials. There is no meaningful statement in the scientific literature than needs to be addressed. The US government and its agents have no responsibility to address this. 'Demands' that they do so are laughable.

My questions weren't intended to drag the crazies over into this argument. I had hoped for a more personal response from Tony concerning why he continues to dirty the only argument that has any hope of touching a more technical audience.

 

[newton3376]

Apparently you dont get it Chewy. I give up.

I wouldn't bother with him Edx....he is almost as bad as a truther.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I wouldn't bother with him Edx....he is almost as bad as a truther.

Would you like to clearify that Newton?

Atleast I don't make up stuff like a Truther does. Just because you don't like me doesn't mean other people should follow you.

You feel like you want to attack me personally? Send me a PM instead!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

WTC 2 did tilt right away and it's fall is more complicated and does not lend itself to measurement.

However, this in no way contradicts what is being said about WTC 1, and to the contrary if there was no jolt in WTC 1 it would lend credence to the notion that there probably wasn't one in WTC 2.

I think you have the logic backwards.

What we have proved is that the NIST/Bazant hypothesis does not conform to observation and that the collapse mechanisms have yet to be explained officially.

 

[R.Mackey]

There is no "NIST / Bazant hypothesis." You're conflating two reports with differing purpose and differing assumptions. On purpose, since I know you're smart enough to understand both, and because I've already explained to you the differences.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

There is no "NIST / Bazant hypothesis." You're conflating two reports with differing purpose and differing assumptions. On purpose, since I know you're smart enough to understand both, and because I've already explained to you the differences.

Ryan, at this moment we have no solid natural explanation for the collapses of those towers. Both NIST and Bazant require an impulsive load which is not observed.

If you think you can explain it as a natural occurrence, without any need for an impulsive load and force amplification, then you should write it up complete with calculations. However, I don't think you can get away with saying the entire upper section mass just plopped on the floors only and down it went.

I suggested this to Dave Rogers this weekend, and he feigned away mumbling something along the lines that he would not spend the time as everybody accepts the present explanation etc.

 

[R.Mackey]

Ryan, at this moment we have no solid natural explanation for the collapses of those towers.

Yes we do.

Both NIST and Bazant require an impulsive load which is not observed.

No they don't. Neither even considers the observed collapse. What gall.

If you think you can explain it as a natural occurrence, without any need for an impulsive load and force amplification, then you should write it up complete with calculations. However, I don't think you can get away with saying the entire upper section mass just plopped on the floors only and down it went.

Don't have to. If as little as 20% hits the floors, that corresponds to a load of 318 lb/ft², which plus their self-weight exceeds design limit by a factor of three. Bye bye floors.

Plus, the write-up you clamor for is rendered irrelevant by Dr. Bazant's papers and what they actually say, which is that even under much more conservative assumptions, the structure is coming down.

Seriously, you've been told this so many times, you have to be pulling our legs or exuding denial.

I suggested this to Dave Rogers this weekend, and he feigned away mumbling something along the lines that he would not spend the time as everybody accepts the present explanation etc.

No, he said he'd already done the work, and that there was no requirement for us to write things that you will find excuses to ignore anyway. I sympathize.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Ryan, at this moment we have no solid natural explanation for the collapses of those towers. Both NIST and Bazant require an impulsive load which is not observed.

If you think you can explain it as a natural occurrence, without any need for an impulsive load and force amplification, then you should write it up complete with calculations. However, I don't think you can get away with saying the entire upper section mass just plopped on the floors only and down it went.

I suggested this to Dave Rogers this weekend, and he feigned away mumbling something along the lines that he would not spend the time as everybody accepts the present explanation etc.

Tony,

Fire is a natural element! Or did that slip your mind?

Your bad misconception that a single floor would just plop on the next without affecting it structurally.

Once a collaspe starts with a driving force of 100,000 to 35,000 + tons of force, there's no way in hell to stop it from destroying the rest of the structure.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,

Fire is a natural element! Or did that slip your mind?

Your bad misconception that a single floor would just plop on the next without affecting it structurally.

Once a collaspe starts with a driving force of 100,000 to 35,000 + tons of force, there's no way in hell to stop it from destroying the rest of the structure.

There is no physical evidence whatsoever that fire caused those collapses.

Add to that the fact that the NIST couldn't get their model to produce the alleged south wall bowing and had to add artificial forces. Even then they don't show the loads required to collapse the east and west walls and remaining north wall of WTC 1. Nobody could get away with this in industry, they would be thrown out of a design review.

Add to that the fact that there is no evidence of the dynamic load that Dr. Bazant simply presumed there was, to cause propagation. It is understandable as to why he would say this, because he knew a dynamic load was necessary for a natural collapse which he had no reason to doubt at the time. However, we have since learned that there wasn't one.

Finally , the present official causes for the collapses are not backed by any evidence at all, yet all I hear from some here is that the collapses have been explained. That is pure unadulterated baloney and it seems many here are the ones who are actually guilty of Ryan's "Irreducible Delusion", including Ryan himself.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Being unable to distiguish between limiting case and real world events, as well as completely misrepresenting a report you're criticizing are hardly any excuse to justify your position bud. Ryan's explained it to you, I've explained it to you, just about anyone who has competently read those papers have corrected you. It's beyond anyone's control if you continue ignoring those corrections even after having them explained at the most basic level possible hundreds of times.

I liken this discussion to speaking with a brick wall.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

There is no physical evidence whatsoever that fire caused those collapses.

Add to that the fact that the NIST couldn't get their model to produce the alleged south wall bowing and had to add artificial forces. Even then they don't show the loads required to collapse the east and west walls and remaining north wall of WTC 1. Nobody could get away with this in industry, they would be thrown out of a design review.

Add to that the fact that there is no evidence of the dynamic load that Dr. Bazant simply presumed there was, to cause propagation. It is understandable as to why he would say this, because he knew a dynamic load was necessary for a natural collapse which he had no reason to doubt at the time. However, we have since learned that there wasn't one.

Finally , the present official causes for the collapses are not backed by any evidence at all, yet all I hear from some here is that the collapses have been explained. That is pure unadulterated baloney and it seems many here are the ones who are actually guilty of Ryan's "Irreducible Delusion", including Ryan himself.

Tony,

You know nothing about what fire can do to a steel structure. You're not qualified enough to make that kind of judgement call, if you had researched about fire you'd know that it weakens steel.

Steel is a great conductor of heat Tony. You think some magic pixie dust brought down the WTCs'?

If you were any mechanical engineer Tony, you'd drop this whole sham & not risk your professional career over a stupid conspiracy theory.

Remember what happened to Steven Jones, James Fetzer & the rest of the crazies that lost their jobs because of this? Want to end up like them Tony?

Save your grace & drop the CTs.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Tony,

You know nothing about what fire can do to a steel structure. You're not qualified enough to make that kind of judgement call, if you had researched about fire you'd know that it weakens steel.

Steel is a great conductor of heat Tony. You think some magic pixie dust brought down the WTCs'?

If you were any mechanical engineer Tony, you'd drop this whole sham & not risk your professional career over a stupid conspiracy theory.

Remember what happened to Steven Jones, James Fetzer & the rest of the crazies that lost their jobs because of this? Want to end up like them Tony?

Save your grace & drop the CTs.

The error(?) he makes is denying that there was any evidence that it was the principal cause. And that denial is based on a gross misrepresentation of what the NIST actually writes. He's otherwise aware of what fire does to the material. Be careful not to confuse what he's saying.... Getting him to represent those works correctly on the otherhand...

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The error(?) he makes is denying that there was any evidence that it was the principal cause. And that denial is based on a gross misrepresentation of what the NIST actually writes. He's otherwise aware of what fire does to the material. Be careful not to confuse what he's saying.... Getting him to represent those works correctly on the otherhand...

I know Grizzly!

I've got something for Tony to look at anyways.

CHECK IT OUT TONY:

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Here's another picture that Tony should look at:

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I know Grizzly!

I've got something for Tony to look at anyways.

CHECK IT OUT TONY:

I know what temperature the overpass beam connections got to and their is NO evidence for those types of temperatures in the twin tower steel that the NIST got. You have no evidence for the kind of actual steel temperatures needed to cause the steel to lose enough strength to collapse, yet you act like you do.

The tiny I-beams you show in your thumbnail are a far cry from the tower columns thermal capacity wise, it doesn't say how long the fires lasted, what loads were on those beams, or even if some were deformed in a collapse and not the fire. That thumbnail is baseless for this argument.

You simply have no argument.