Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Tony,

Why would the top of WTC 2 just tilt to 1 side, where the plane impacted, & the other side didn't?

If there was a CD, wouldn't the other side be blown out to make it look like the whole top of WTC 2 fell symmetrically?

Also I'd like to point out that WTC 1 looked like it fell symmetrical is because whole floors were on fire.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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?

So you think it flew up to the 99th thru the 102nd floors?

Read what the estimates are. FEMA and NIST estimate that the 98th floor only got 240 gallons. and the 99th 68 gallons. They don't even mention above that.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

So you think it flew up to the 99th thru the 102nd floors?

Read what the estimates are. FEMA and NIST estimate that the 98th floor only got 240 gallons. and the 99th 68 gallons. They don't even mention above that.

Tony,

I didn't say anything about that.

Just how many gallons of jet fuel did the planes carry at the time?

Figure that out & minus the 68/240 gallons & you'll get your answer.

You still think that I'm Blanchard?

 

[BigAl]

So you think it flew up to the 99th thru the 102nd floors?

Read what the estimates are. FEMA and NIST estimate that the 98th floor only got 240 gallons. and the 99th 68 gallons. They don't even mention above that.

"Only"? That much gas would make one hell of a fireball when constrained within a floor and a fine firestarter for all the in flammables on each floor.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

In the real world demolitions are done by removing a certain amount of structure and allowing momentum to build and then there is a jolt to destroy the lower intact structure.

I guess it is too hard for you to realize that the structure can just as well continue to be removed but it is cheaper to let gravity do some of the work in a legitimate CD. In the real world buildings with huge amounts of reserve strength do not crumble without any evidence of a dynamic load. Ryan didn't explain how the central core came down without a jolt.

Additionally, the NIST does a gigantic hand wave to get the east and west walls to just sympathetically fail due to the alleged demise of the south wall. They don't have the stresses in their analysis to show why they would collapse.

No jolt does imply controlled demolition and nobody has shown any calculations to prove otherwise.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

In the real world do buildings with huge amounts of reserve strength do not crumble without any evidence of a dynamic load. Ryan didn't explain how the central core came down without a jolt.

Tony,

In the real world other buildings has concrete around their inner core & outter structural steel supports.

The Twin Towers were built without concrete around their structures.

 

[BigAl]

In the real world do buildings with huge amounts of reserve strength do not crumble without any evidence of a dynamic load. Ryan didn't explain how the central core came down without a jolt.

I'm not an expert on the details of the collapse but I know of a video that shows the core column for one of the towers was left standing for several seconds after the exterior columns and floors were on the ground, or close to it.

 

[WildCat]

No jolt does imply controlled demolition and nobody has shown any calculations to prove otherwise.

Just curious, what color is the sky in your world?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

No jolt does imply controlled demolition and nobody has shown any calculations to prove otherwise.

Tony,

But you have no Controlled Demolition credentials. So why bring that up when you're not an expert in that field?

http://www.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=999907
v
v
v

Personal 9/11 Statement:

After watching the twin tower collapses live I wondered to myself where all of the energy came from to cause such rapid collapses. At the time I did not know how the buildings were designed and also heard a few days later about a civil engineering professor saying there was a 30g dynamic load. This was probably Dr. Bazant of Northwestern University. I somewhat accepted this but still wondered. After hearing about Dr. Steven Jones bringing up issues with molten metal in the rubble in early 2006 I decided I should read his paper. I found it on the Internet and after reading it started looking much harder at those collapses myself. Unfortunately, there is little doubt that the collapses were caused by controlled demolitions and it appears the aircraft impacts were causal ruses.

OMG Tony!

 

[A W Smith]

Ryan didn't explain how the central core came down without a jolt.

.

Say what? Did you completely miss slide five and Ryans explanation of why there was no jolt? Are you being deliberately ignorant?

No jolt does imply controlled demolition and nobody has shown any calculations to prove otherwise.

Perhaps Tony, you will show us an example of a controlled demolition where there was no jolt?

 

[BigAl]

In the real world demolitions are done by removing a certain amount of structure and allowing momentum to build and then there is a jolt to destroy the lower intact structure.

Demolition makes a seismic record. There were two independent seismic recording systems in operation on 9/11. Neither of them recorded any impulse that can't be explained by either the impact of a plane or parts of a tower hitting the ground.

I guess the core would be standing to this day but for lack of latteral support.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Somewhere in there, we have to have thermite. Thermite explains everything and that's why the US government should mobolize it's entire scientific resources to look for thermite. If only there were thermite at the WTC...

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Demolition makes a seismic record. There were two independent seismic recording systems in operation on 9/11. Neither of them recorded any impulse that can't be explained by either the impact of a plane or parts of a tower hitting the ground.

There would be no seismic record if joints were heated or hydraulics were used to remove the columns of the first eight to nine floors to collapse in WTC 1. Even small explosives used that high probably wouldn't produce a seismic record. After that the collapse could probably proceed on it's own as at that point the floors outside the core would collapse due to a quasi-static overload.

The problem is that in the early stages there needed to be a jolt and there isn't one. You can't take out the core without one. It really is that simple.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

There would be no seismic record if joints were heated or hydraulics were used to remove the columns of the first eight to nine floors to collapse in WTC 1. Even small explosives used that high probably wouldn't produce a seismic record. After that the collapse could probably proceed on it's own as at that point the floors outside the core would collapse due to a quasi-static overload.

The problem is that in the early stages there needed to be a jolt and there isn't one. You can't take out the core without one. It really is that simple.

Tony,

It's either "hydraulics" or "small explosives". Can't have both!

Here's a song for ya Tony:

 

[Scott Sommers]

There would be no seismic record if joints were heated or hydraulics were used to remove the columns of the first eight to nine floors to collapse in WTC 1. Even small explosives used that high probably wouldn't produce a seismic record. After that the collapse could probably proceed on it's own as at that point the floors outside the core would collapse due to a quasi-static overload.

The problem is that in the early stages there needed to be a jolt and there isn't one. You can't take out the core without one. It really is that simple.

What did I tell ya'? Thermite saves the day. But I guess this shows how wrong I was about you. In the end, all this comes back to back to superduper supersecret nanothermite. And when all that fails, you become a no-planer.

Any bets on how long it takes Tony to become a no-planer?

 

[BigAl]

There would be no seismic record if joints were heated or hydraulics were used to remove the columns of the first eight to nine floors to collapse in WTC 1. Even small explosives used that high probably wouldn't produce a seismic record. After that the collapse could probably proceed on it's own as at that point the floors outside the core would collapse due to a quasi-static overload.

hydraulics ?????

Can you make a hypothesis as to the placement of charges and the size of each one? You can use this blaster's manual to make an accurate calculation of the amount of charge for each beam based on it's shape and size.

FM 5-250 Explosives & Demolition
http://www.militarynewbie.com/pubs/FM 5-250 Explosives And Demolitions Manual.pdf
​

Making such a plan that fits the evidence and video record would be a breakthrough in the field of quantitative Truthology. Posting it for review would be a major contribution.

I suggest that the detonation of so much as a single C4 block at any above-ground spot in a tower would be heard all over WTC plaza and caught on the audio track of every video camera in operation at the time. Others here have first-hand experience with the stuff and are welcome to comment on my assertion.

 

[BigAl]

The problem is that in the early stages there needed to be a jolt and there isn't one. You can't take out the core without one. It really is that simple.

For one tower, the core stood for several seconds after the exterior columns and floors left the building, so to speak.

 

[LashL]

I've just watched the third segment. Very nicely done, indeed, Mr. Mackey.

Mr. Szamboti, you have been well and truly (not to mention completely and utterly) served.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I'm not an expert on the details of the collapse but I know of a video that shows the core column for one of the towers was left standing for several seconds after the exterior columns and floors were on the ground, or close to it.

It was in both. At least 40 stories of the south tower's core, and 60 of the north tower's. And, the next thing you're going to hear from him is that they were the inner core columns. Regardless of which it proves that the core below the impact points were not the source of the collapse in either tower. They weren't 'cut' and they weren't 'blown.'

The steel examined at fresh kills showed absolutely no signs of explosive trauma; instead they exhibited bolt failure at the ends as the collapse progressed:

The columns struck by the planes failed in a nearly identical manner. The connections were sheared.

And of course TS still wants to speculate that columns might have been 'heated' while also arguing that no evidence was found to suggest the presence of high temperatures.

Nothing particularly surprising... :\

 

[alienentity]

There would be no seismic record if joints were heated or hydraulics were used to remove the columns of the first eight to nine floors to collapse in WTC 1. Even small explosives used that high probably wouldn't produce a seismic record. After that the collapse could probably proceed on it's own as at that point the floors outside the core would collapse due to a quasi-static overload.

The problem is that in the early stages there needed to be a jolt and there isn't one. You can't take out the core without one. It really is that simple.

Tony, that's just silly. You're just fantasizing about this now - there is not a shred of evidence which supports the idea that the joints were artificially heated and that hydraulics were used.

What there is abundant evidence of, but you refuse to accept (for an emotional reason, not a logical one) is that the towers were hit by planes and then experienced large fires without any fire suppression, or proper insulation.

Your elaborate and fantastical ideas are utterly redundant and unnecessary to explain the events accurately. I admit the jolt idea is intriguing, but we have now explored that question honestly and thoroughly with you, and it does not fit with the evidence. Sorry.

WTC2 had a strong tilt, so there was no need for a jolt, so it is logical to accept it collapsed just from the fires. Your own criteria allow this. And if they allow one, they must allow the other as well, since the evidence is overwhelming that they experienced similar traumas.

It's your business if you want to wallow in this stuff until well past it's due date, (which was some time ago, frankly), but if you harbour further fantasies about swaying the engineering community over to your POV don't bother, it will never happen.
I commend your persistence, but you must know that your efforts are futile if you wish to find and prosecute any alleged perps in this vast and fantastic conspiracy you are erroneously pursuing.

That's a polite way of saying that I think you're a little nuts. But that's your problem, not mine. You really ought to listen to a very smart man like Ryan, it would do you some good, sir. Sincerely.