Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

Dave Rogers said:
Except for the Bailey's Crossroads collapse, where the 23rd and 24th storeys of an unfinished building fell on the 22nd and collapsed the entire structure down to the ground. You're not allowed to ignore it just because it's inconvenient.

Dave
Click to expand...

Further comment is redundent .Already served I believe,
 
Fourbrick said:
That''s not what this photo shows.

http://www.structuremag.org/OldArchives/2005/January 2005/Great Achievements.pdf
Click to expand...

Failures_FairfaxCollapse.jpg



At Bailey’s Crossroads, concrete was placed on the 24th floor while shoring was prematurely removed from the 22nd, causing a progressive collapse down to the ground level.

http://www.djc.com/news/co/11155170.html

 
Tony, what caused WTC2 to tilt more than WTC1?

Whatever the possible reasons, try applying Occam's Razor, just for fun. That's what I've done. My list of possibilities is fairly short, only because I'm interested in the most plausible causes:

a) The damage caused by plane impacts was asymmetrical, which resulted in eccentric loading in the remaining structure
b) The fires caused random weakening of the floor trusses, and to some extent the core and perimeter columns.
c) A gradual failure of critical structures from combinations of 1 and 2 allowed the heavy upper sections to accelerate and destroy the structure below.
d) Thermite or thermate (nobody seems to know which), in quantities of several tons, was deposited on the impact floors, where the planes were expected to hit. It was ignited and burned, giving off huge quantities of telltale white smoke, which for some reason was not seen (How many times have we been lectured by truthers about the black smoke?)
e) nanothermite cutter charges were placed at the impact floors, where the planes were expected to hit. They were placed only on core columns, out of sight, so nobody, not NIST engineers or conspiracy theorists like Tony Szamboti would ever have direct evidence of them.
f) Both thermite and nanothermite devices were ignited or detonated in such a way as to mask their presence, by mimicking the effect of the plane impacts and fires, and fool the world's best forensic investigators.
g) In order to pull off this deception, all the calculations were made beforehand, and the flight paths of each jet were carefully controlled so they hit their designated spots on each building.
h) In a final feat of superhuman-level planning, the flaming debris from WTC1 was carefully calculated to impact WTC7 in such a way as to start multiple fires which would perfectly mimic a random situation.
i) All the conspiracy planning was done without a single notable leak from the conspirators, and without a single incident of detection by any of the 10's of thousands of employees who worked in the towers.
j) A feat of this magnitude would have required top engineers to be consulted and conscripted into the effort, as well as top demolition experts.

I could go on. In case Tony is wondering what the relevance of the last few points are, if you even try to seriously contemplate that the difference in the collapses was not random and natural, then you must believe that the differences were engineered on purpose.
The difference between WTC1 and WTC2 is not trivial - it is central to the issue at hand. For Tony to dismiss it with 'WTC 2 did tilt right away and it's fall is more complicated and does not lend itself to measurement.' is not good enough. It's a cop-out. The obvious conclusion is that the plane impacts and fires did have a real effect on the outcomes of the tower collapses, EVEN if you consider the placement of explosives and thermite.

But how great was this effect? Tony cannot answer this question intelligently, because there is no way to rationally intertwine both a natural collapse and a controlled demolition without admitting that the natural collapse could have been the main mechanism, not the secondary one.

As soon as Tony opens the door, even slightly, to the possibility that the buildings could have collapsed without explosives or thermite, his entire denial process itself collapses into nothing. Hence, where he vehemently denies an early tilt for WTC1, since it would ruin his argument, he cannot allow WTC2 to be admitted as valid evidence. Yet it is perfectly valid, and incontrovertible proof that the upper block did not impact the lower block uniformly, so we would not expect a jolt.
He argues that it is 'more' complicated, but I don't think it is. It's less subtle than the WTC1 collapse, but not less complicated.

Tony is depending on an oversimplified model to demonstrate his theory, but his model (and the original Bazant model) are not representative of the actual collapses in either case. If, in either building, the upper block does not impact the core or perimeter columns directly, it is game over. Tony knows it. We know it.

WTC2 is the definitive proof that it was possible. There is no point in further denial of that fact.

WTC2 did not require explosives to collapse, by Tony's own criteria. So why did WTC1 require them? Riddle me this, Tony.
 
Fourbrick said:
The construction pace for the 26-story project was quite rapid; one floor slab completed per week. At the time of the collapse, concrete was being placed on the 24th floor, and shoring was simultaneously being removed from concrete at the 22nd floor.
Click to expand...

That's actually not that fast paced. It' normal, at least by todays standards. I'm glad I never knew of this before I started working construction, I probably would have just served lattes. I coulda been a great barista.

You're right in a sense Fourbrick, that isn't like the WTC. From what I know steel structures are more susceptible to progressive collapse than SRC. I believe the load paths are such that damage, or failure in one area is much more easily transferred in SRC. I also believe SRC buildings deal with heat better. Like heat from a fire.
 
3bodyproblem said:
That's actually not that fast paced. It' normal, at least by todays standards. I'm glad I never knew of this before I started working construction, I probably would have just served lattes. I coulda been a great barista.

You're right in a sense Fourbrick, that isn't like the WTC. From what I know steel structures are more susceptible to progressive collapse than SRC. I believe the load paths are such that damage, or failure in one area is much more easily transferred in SRC. I also believe SRC buildings deal with heat better. Like heat from a fire.
Click to expand...

I think, in general, concrete buildings are still more susceptible to progressive collapse than steel structures. There's a number of reasons for this, but the simplest explanation is that concrete requires rebar to resist tension forces. If that rebar isn't in the right location and detailed correctly an entire concrete section could fail from load redistribution, the capacity of the original section before the collapse is irrelevant. With steel, the entire structure is capable of resisting both compression and tension. It's quite common for a steel structure to have good resistance towards single column failures. Concrete structures, on the other hand, have to be specifically designed for that load redistribution (and it's not required by code for most buildings).
 
Sorry for that long post. Reading it over, one might wonder why WTC7 is relevant to the other tower collapses, and a conspiracy to rig them with explosives or thermitic materials.

The reason is that, if WTC1 had collapsed very differently, let's say away from WTC7, then WTC7 might not have been impacted very much, and might not have been engulfed in fires.

In that case, the demolition explosives would have been impossible to camouflage. It is therefore necessary that the planners engineered the collapse of WTC1 to hit WTC7 in the manner it did.

Of course this leads to further questions as to why the other WTC buildings weren't rigged with thermite and cutter charges as well.

Whatever the hypothesis, the collapses are unlike any controlled demolition ever seen in history.
 
In addition, concrete must be allowed proper time to cure before load is applied and if the construction pace pushes this time is combined with adverse temperature and humidity conditions that slow the curing disaster can occur.

With steel, it goes up, gets attached and is ready.
 
alienentity said:
Sorry for that long post. Reading it over, one might wonder why WTC7 is relevant to the other tower collapses, and a conspiracy to rig them with explosives or thermitic materials.

The reason is that, if WTC1 had collapsed very differently, let's say away from WTC7, then WTC7 might not have been impacted very much, and might not have been engulfed in fires.

In that case, the demolition explosives would have been impossible to camouflage. It is therefore necessary that the planners engineered the collapse of WTC1 to hit WTC7 in the manner it did.

Of course this leads to further questions as to why the other WTC buildings weren't rigged with thermite and cutter charges as well.

Whatever the hypothesis, the collapses are unlike any controlled demolition ever seen in history.
Click to expand...

Yes, the TM does so love circular reasoning. Why destroy WTC 7? Because WTC 1 collapsed. Why destroy WTC 1? Because WTC 7 had to be brought down. Why destroy any WTC structure? Because they all were all to come down.
 
alienentity said:
Sorry for that long post. Reading it over, one might wonder why WTC7 is relevant to the other tower collapses, and a conspiracy to rig them with explosives or thermitic materials.

The reason is that, if WTC1 had collapsed very differently, let's say away from WTC7, then WTC7 might not have been impacted very much, and might not have been engulfed in fires.

In that case, the demolition explosives would have been impossible to camouflage. It is therefore necessary that the planners engineered the collapse of WTC1 to hit WTC7 in the manner it did.

Of course this leads to further questions as to why the other WTC buildings weren't rigged with thermite and cutter charges as well.

Whatever the hypothesis, the collapses are unlike any controlled demolition ever seen in history.
Click to expand...

I'm just going to say this because it needs to be said:

First time in history that a Controlled Demolition, with explosives, was silent.
 
Newtons Bit said:
I think, in general, concrete buildings are still more susceptible to progressive collapse than steel structures. There's a number of reasons for this, but the simplest explanation is that concrete requires rebar to resist tension forces. If that rebar isn't in the right location and detailed correctly an entire concrete section could fail from load redistribution, the capacity of the original section before the collapse is irrelevant. With steel, the entire structure is capable of resisting both compression and tension. It's quite common for a steel structure to have good resistance towards single column failures. Concrete structures, on the other hand, have to be specifically designed for that load redistribution (and it's not required by code for most buildings).
Click to expand...

I was going on the basis that steel buildings tend to "push the limits" on open spaces. This seem to result in "global" failure, as opposed to SRC that seems to fail in modules. In my limited experience, SRC tend to have more exterior load bearing walls, which compartmentalize a progressive collapse. Thus total global collapse like the WTC 1,2,7 are more common in steel structures, whereas Ronan Point and the others see it localized to certain areas.
 
I just watched the first Hardfire show. Hey...I got a mention. Ron Wieke tried to steal my thunder though by using a bullfighting expression as I recently did. He used 'carrentia' (sp?) whereas I used 'estocada' which is the killing stroke of the sword when the matador plunges the blade between the shoulders of the bull. I leave it to you to imagine the context that I was using it in.

One other thing- when Ryan and Tony are arguing at 24:15, why does Ron growl ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1u3KO9kUdE Show 1
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I just watched the first Hardfire show. Hey...I got a mention. Ron Wieke tried to steal my thunder though by using a bullfighting expression as I recently did. He used 'carrentia' (sp?) whereas I used 'estocada' which is the killing stroke of the sword when the matador plunges the blade between the shoulders of the bull. I leave it to you to imagine the context that I was using it in.

One other thing- when Ryan and Tony are arguing at 24:15, why does Ron growl ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1u3KO9kUdE Show 1
Click to expand...

Haha. What the hell was that?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Well... how much does a car slow down when it hits a horse fly on the expressway? Since the care continues moving may we assume that there was no force exerted on either object? :rolleyes:

Sorry I can't think of a better analogy to putting a light weight metal decking & concrete floor against well something like a 15 or 30 story building crashing down on it with a highly uneven load...

I'm sure someone who knows what I mean can word it better in the context of the discussion.
Click to expand...
Mine was--A bus company wanted us to put an accelerometer in the front of the bus, so that if the driver hit a deer, or elk, etc, the acceleration would trigger a signal to HQ.
We pointed out that the delta-V for a 48000 lb bus, doing 60 MPH hitting a Volkswagon was less that what we could do with the brakes alone...
 
alienentity said:
Tony, what caused WTC2 to tilt more than WTC1?

[...]

The difference between WTC1 and WTC2 is not trivial - it is central to the issue at hand. For Tony to dismiss it with 'WTC 2 did tilt right away and it's fall is more complicated and does not lend itself to measurement.' is not good enough. It's a cop-out. The obvious conclusion is that the plane impacts and fires did have a real effect on the outcomes of the tower collapses, EVEN if you consider the placement of explosives and thermite.

[...]

WTC2 did not require explosives to collapse, by Tony's own criteria. So why did WTC1 require them? Riddle me this, Tony.
Click to expand...

This is a good point, and one that I've made before regarding both Tony and Gordon Ross. The argument goes like this:

1. Tony has a calculation that he claims shows WTC 1 could not have completely collapsed. (Ignore for now that it doesn't, or that we've already shown its flaws, just focus on the claim.) Ergo, WTC 1 must have collapsed due to some other factor.

2. This same calculation, however, predicts a complete collapse for WTC 2.

3. Since it's an Inside Jorb, and the highjackers / radio controllers / whatever could hit the Towers at any floor, one concludes WTC 1 was hit high on purpose.

4. Thus we must rationally conclude that They loaded the WTC 1 building with explosives and hit it with an aircraft, a much more complicated endeavor, deliberately. But why??​

There is no "why." Therefore, this proposal makes no sense at all. Thus, we must have made a mistake. The source of this mistake is, of course, the calculation that says WTC 1 couldn't fall down in the first place. With this error rectified, there is no longer any conflict.

This is another textbook example of Irreducible Delusion at work. The one, simple error, i.e. the bad calculation above, leads us to conclude something truly complex and fantastic after we try to make it fit with other, actually correct facts. If we're not thinking scientifically and we allow ourselves to make excuses, no matter how improbable, we can make any conflict fit. This is the primary mechanism of conspiracy theory thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom