Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

Part 3 Is Up!



Ha! Beat you this time!

I'm having extreme trouble accessing the JREF Forums right now -- probably the only reason I beat you to it for once -- so I'll put together an anthology post later.

Hehe, yeah.. I could have posted it a lot earlier. But JREF was down.. and it was time to go to work! So congratulations! :D I have seen the 3. program now.. good job Mackey!
 
Last edited:
Part 3 Is Up!



Ha! Beat you this time!

I'm having extreme trouble accessing the JREF Forums right now -- probably the only reason I beat you to it for once -- so I'll put together an anthology post later.

Cool....I'll have to watch it tonight.
 
Part 3 Is Up!



Ha! Beat you this time!

I'm having extreme trouble accessing the JREF Forums right now -- probably the only reason I beat you to it for once -- so I'll put together an anthology post later.

DUN DUN DUNNN! I am glad the truth is finally out that you're an official NIST shill!:jaw-dropp
 
Great job Mr. Mackey, and also to Ron for hosting. Kudos to Tony for showing up an presenting his POV.

I'd love to see a frame-by-frame of WTC1 to demonstrate the tilt, since i think Tony is incorrect (along with most of you, I guess).

I still find it peculiar that Tony refuses to deal with WTC2, since there was a very clear tilt on collapse initiation. It is possible to calculate the average acceleration of the upper block as it begins to fall.

I made a fairly serious attempt to do so in my recent video, by running elapsed time for the topmost section of the roof to descend to roughly the 90th floor. My measurements show at least 5 to 6 seconds for this, while freefall would have done this in less than 4 seconds.

So we have both towers falling slower than freefall acceleration, both tilting to various degrees, and we certainly wouldn't expect a jolt in the case of WTC2, let alone with WTC1.
They seem to behave roughly the same way, and collapsed due to very similar types of failures.

It really ought to be 'case closed' on this subject. There's just no engineering requirement for explosives to produce the fx seen.
Even if there were a jolt the conclusion would be the same. Obviously the impacts were not symmetrical enough to produce that kind of effect.

Why continue flogging this dead horse Tony?
 
I see that Tony hasn't come back to the thread to discuss his explosives, thermite & WTC2 section topple theories.

I guess the reality that his own conclusions weren't plausible or practical in real world physics. If he had looked at the evidence that RJ Lee Group, Inc. provided, he would've came to the same conclussions that we all see.

It's unfortunant that someone with expertise in their field of study & research would be labeled something other than what they thought they would turn out to be.

Failures do happen & will occur from time to time. I believe Tony has seen his own failures & is hopefully coming to terms with them.

If Tony's here, there's no hard feelings. Just don't let your mind wonder into the unknown.
 
Tony: "I'm going to have to get back to you on this graph...because I, because I don't..."

... I say give him 8 more years. Then we call him on it.

Ron: "Greg Urich, I so sorry"

I thought it was pretty nice of Ron give props to GU. It just shows his charcater.

Tony, you just didn't convince anyone that there was no tilt. That's being as objective as I can. Sorry.

I'd just like to say Jon Luvitz is one of my favourite SNL charcters. I don't know where that came from.
 
Further to Tony S's insistence on a jolt, I'm going to look at the angles frame-by-frame, 'cause I'm pretty sure there's going to be a tilt before Tony says there is - but in themeantime have a look at this:



ETA: Sorry, I included an extra character, the vid should play now.

If you look at the lowest reaches of fires, let's call that the lowest point of damaged/compromised floors - then look at the building as the collapse begins, and you'll see the initial failures are well above the lowest fires.
(YOu can tell roughly where the initial collapse zone was from the black plumes which shoot out in all directions)

So IMHO, the collapse zone itself is quite a few floors, not just one, and the number of compromised floors is even larger still. There's no way you're going to get a single impact between two intact blocks in that situation. It's not physically possible.

I don't even need the tilt to explain why a jolt wasn't detected.
 
Last edited:
Further to Tony S's insistence on a jolt, I'm going to look at the angles frame-by-frame, 'cause I'm pretty sure there's going to be a tilt before Tony says there is - but in themeantime have a look at this:




If you look at the lowest reaches of fires, let's call that the lowest point of damaged/compromised floors - then look at the building as the collapse begins, and you'll see the initial failures are well above the lowest fires.
(YOu can tell roughly where the initial collapse zone was from the black plumes which shoot out in all directions)

So IMHO, the collapse zone itself is quite a few floors, not just one, and the number of compromised floors is even larger still. There's no way you're going to get a single impact between two intact blocks in that situation. It's not physically possible.

I don't even need the tilt to explain why a jolt wasn't detected.

The initial failure was at the 98th floor, which had almost no aircraft damage as it was only hit by about five foot of the end of the right wing, and then the fully intact floors 99 to 102 collapsed, without a jolt. Please explain how that happened.
 
The initial failure was at the 98th floor, which had almost no aircraft damage as it was only hit by about five foot of the end of the right wing,
And fully involved in fire apparently. Along with 6 other floors.
1018892.jpg



and then the fully intact floors 99 to 102 collapsed, without a jolt. Please explain how that happened.
Can somebody please tell me the relevance of the bolded? When the entire floor plan of a level in the building somewhere below said floors is severely compromised is the idea that the floors above are intact even relevant?
 
Earth to "engineer'... heat and fire rises.

The initial failure was at the 98th floor, which had almost no aircraft damage as it was only hit by about five foot of the end of the right wing, and then the fully intact floors 99 to 102 collapsed, without a jolt. Please explain how that happened.

And how far above the fire initiation zone where the plane and all its jet fuel impacted was that tony? ever wonder why the steak on the grill is cooked but not actually in the charcoal itself? but above it? Don't you remember the nist report tony? the buildings withstood the impact but the fires doomed the building?

ETA, thanks Grizz for illustrating my (our) point. You beat me too it.
 
Last edited:
The initial failure was at the 98th floor, which had almost no aircraft damage as it was only hit by about five foot of the end of the right wing, and then the fully intact floors 99 to 102 collapsed, without a jolt. Please explain how that happened.

Tony,

You really need to look at it from a different point of view.

Gravity doesn't need a "jolt" to cause a building to collapse.

However, an earthquake could collapse a building with a jolt.

But since no earthquakes weren't recorded on the seismic recorders on 9/11, the only possible conclusion is the plane damage + the fires + gravity = collapse.

Study a bit more & you'll get the idea! ;)
 
And how far above the fire initiation zone where the plane and all its jet fuel impacted was that tony? ever wonder why the steak on the grill is cooked but not actually in the charcoal itself? but above it? Don't you remember the nist report tony? the buildings withstood the impact but the fires doomed the building?

ETA, thanks Grizz for illustrating my (our) point. You beat me too it.

Floor 97 didn't have much aircraft impact damage either and we weren't seeing 97 and down move first so Grizzly's theory has no basis.

Additionally, there was not much fire on floors 99 to 102, and the NIST has no physical evidence for high steel temperatures on these floors, but according to you it was hot air that caused 99 to 102 to collapse. Steaks cook at a lot lower temperatures than steel does. The steel would need to be enveloped by fire to have any chance of weakening.
 
Last edited:
Floor 97 didn't have much aircraft impact damage either and we weren't seeing 97 and down move first so your theory has no basis.

Additionally, there was not much fire on floors 99 to 102, and the NIST has no physical evidence for high steel temperatures on these floors, but according to you it was hot air that caused 99 to 102 to collapse. Steaks cook at a lot lower temperatures than steel does. The steel would need to be enveloped by fire to have any chance of weakening.

Tony,

Since jet fuel is a liquid, what happens to that liquid when gravity gets ahold of it? Where's it going to go inside both Towers after the plane impacts?
 
Floor 97 didn't have much aircraft impact damage either and we weren't seeing 97 and down move first so Grizzly's theory has no basis.

Additionally, there was not much fire on floors 99 to 102, and the NIST has no physical evidence for high steel temperatures on these floors, but according to you it was hot air that caused 99 to 102 to collapse. Steaks cook at a lot lower temperatures than steel does. The steel would need to be enveloped by fire to have any chance of weakening.

And you completely missed my point . steak on the grill? Does heat rise tony? yes or no?

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixh.pdf
H.6.1 WTC 1
It has already been mentioned that substantial fireballs formed on the north, east, and south faces
immediately following the plane strike. A brief period of intense burning from openings on these faces
was observed after the fireballs dissipated, but in a short period (on the order of 60 seconds) the fires
seemed to “damp down” and very little flame and only light smoke was evident from the outside. This
period of light burning lasted several minutes before fires began to reappear.
Rapid early fire growth was observed on the east side of the north face on floor 96 and floor 97, the center
of the east face on floor 94 and floor 97, and the western side of the south face on floor 96. Even though
relatively little initial damage was sustained by the west face, heavy smoke followed shortly by flame
appeared around window 97-437 at 8:55 a.m. After this time, a very rapid fire spread was observed
across the west face on this floor. Within a couple of minutes, over half of the windows were emitting
smoke, and flames were visible in many. Even though floor 92 was not directly struck by the airplane,
fire appeared on the east side of the tower on this floor shortly after 9:00 a.m.
Following the initial development of large fires, fire spread continued until WTC 1 collapsed around
10:28 a.m. At times the fires displayed the systematic, relatively slow spread expected for fire growth in
a typical building. For instance, after the initial rapid growth phase, fires on floors 92, 94, 96, and 97 on
the east face began to move deliberately toward the south. As they spread, the fires would burn intensely
at a given location for a while before dying down. As a result, these fires developed the appearance of a
wave moving slowly across the building.
There were also certain times and locations during which fire appeared to spread quite rapidly. Some of
these episodes were clearly connected with rapid fire growth and likely flashover in rooms. During the
first half hour, significant fires were observed toward the centers of floors 92, 94, 96, and 97 on the east
face that were spreading towards the north. Each of these fires eventually reached a certain point where
further fire spread was inhibited for many minutes. A review of building plans showed that walls of
offices or meeting rooms were presented at the locations where fire spread was inhibited.
Apparently, these walls served as effective fire breaks that protected against further fire spread. However,
for each of these floors fire and smoke eventually appeared at one of the windows beyond the walls, and
after one of these windows was broken fire growth was extremely rapid and robust across the remaining
windows. These observations are consistent with the occurrence of flashover within an enclosed space.
At other times, unusually rapid fire growth apparently occurred in areas that are believed to have been
relatively open and not constrained by walls. One of these episodes occurred around 9:54 a.m. on the
north face. Fire suddenly appeared on floor 96, a location to the west of the damage inflicted by the
airplane. Within a very short period of time, fire could be seen in roughly 10 windows covering a
distance of more than 30 ft.
Another example of very rapid fire growth appeared to take place on floor 98. In the early period of the
fire, this floor did not appear to be heavily involved, and this remained true for quite a while. However,
after 9:30 a.m., fire began to appear on this floor and by 10:00 a.m., fires were observed over significant
lengths on all four faces of the tower.


One of the more unusual fire spread episodes in WTC 1 occurred just after the collapse of WTC 2 around
9:59 a.m. Within a couple of minutes, a large intense fire suddenly appeared on the south side of the west
face on floor 104 in an area well above any other apparent fire. This unusual jump in fire location is
difficult to explain, but is likely associated with vertical shafts located in the core of the tower.

For most of the time following the plane strike, no fire was observed on any of the floors on the south
face over lengths extending from the eastern edge of the tower to near the center of the face. Fires were
not observed in this region of the building until around 10:00 a.m. By the time this tower collapsed
roughly 25 minutes later, intense fires extending over significant lengths of the originally uninvolved area
were burning on floor 94 to floor 98 in this area.
A final example of rapid fire spread and growth in WTC 1 was described previously in the May 2003
Progress Report for the Investigation (NIST 2003). In this case, a line of smoke appeared suddenly over
a significant length of floor 92 on the north face of WTC 1 at 10:18:48 a.m., or roughly 9 minutes before
the collapse of the tower. Puffs of smoke were observed simultaneously on the north face from floors 94,
95, and 97. More isolated puffs were seen at the same time from floor 92 and floor 95 on the west face
and from floor 92 on the south face. Very shortly (seconds) after the appearance of the smoke, a localized
fire on floor 95 to the west of the plane strike location grew very rapidly and flames erupted from
windows. Following the smoke release, a large fire began to spread rapidly across the western side of
floor 92 on the north face. Previous to the appearance of the smoke, only small fires were evident on this
floor. By the time the tower collapsed, this fire had spread across most of the floor and had reached the
western wall. This fire was responsible for the large burst of flame from the north face observed when
this tower collapsed.
 
Additionally, there was not much fire on floors 99 to 102

And this is supposed to be relevant because....?
.....?

and the NIST has no physical evidence for high steel temperatures on these floors.
One would think that repeating a lie this often when people have long since moved on would send the message that it gets a little old. I absolutely implore you to consider a new pet peeve after you've addressed my other question.
 
The initial failure was at the 98th floor, which had almost no aircraft damage as it was only hit by about five foot of the end of the right wing, and then the fully intact floors 99 to 102 collapsed, without a jolt. Please explain how that happened.

Hi Tony,

Now I've fixed the video link, take a careful gander at the black plumes, and you'll notice the failures were quite extensive and involved a lot of floors.

I don't care what NIST says about it, there's no other way to explain why, 4 seconds into this clip, that you've got masses of smoke being pushed out way above the point you say was the collapse point.

It just doesn't work for me.

Guys, just estimate for me how many floors above the lowest visible line of flames those big plumes are. It's quite a few.

You see, if you look at verinage videos and make a note where the majority of plumes come out, it's right at the heart of the collapse zone. You also get some secondary amounts above and below. I've looked at these things over and over, so I'm pretty confident about it.

Again, Tony, the main point is that there is quite clear evidence of damage on many floors - there's a lot of fire in there, so a lot of heat and hot steel.

As soon as you take away a rigid, square impact zone, you lose the jolt. That's just not the way either building fell. In WTC2's case, your jolt idea is completely moot, as I said. So if you see no jolt, it just means that your theory is incorrect, that's all. It's very simple.
 
.. and the NIST has no physical evidence for high steel temperatures on these floors, ..

You don't need very high temps for viscoplastic buckling. That's a fact. What matters is the stress applied to the column.

You can't just ignore these things and make a good argument. It won't work. You must account for the eccentric loads, the asymmetry of the collapses, etc... otherwise you're just making theoretical points which have little relevance to what actually happened.
 
Look, this whole premise is self-defeating anyway:

We look at real demolitions, like the verinages, and what do we see? A jolt, because support is simultaneously removed across the whole structure.

The JOLT is proof of CD, for crying out loud!

The absence of a jolt shows conclusively that the failures were not simultaneous and symmetrical, ie: NOT like any controlled demolition.

You're making the wrong argument with the data. This is getting ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom