Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[DGM]

t's worth noting the scale of the Enron California electricity swindle that was partially covered up by the destruction of so many original documents held in WTC7 on 9/11..

Sixy-Seven thousand million dollars.

PS.
The Worldcom investigaion among others was compromised too.

No it wasn't. I'd ask you to back up your statement but I don't want to watch another idiotic Youtube video produced by clueless morons.

 

[T.A.M.]

The AE911truth petition, which I am a signatory of, is asking for a new investigation with subpoena power to depose a number of people who were involved in the events of Sept. 11, 2001 in NYC. Chief Daniel Nigro, elevator maintenance and security co. employees from the towers, Giulliani administration officials, and Larry Silverstein would be among those who should be put under oath.

A lot of these unanswered questions could be answered that way.

I can't depose anyone and put them under oath and it is silly to even suggest that I go asking these questions of these people myself.

That is ****ing insane. Do you really think that anyone willing to assist, or even turn a blind eye to the intentional demolition of those buildings is gonna suddenly sing because they are under oath...yah, right.

 

[T.A.M.]

It is ludicrous to even suggest that a paper shredder could be used to eliminate a case such as the Enron California electricity swindle of 2001.

I don't think any member of the FDNY had to be in on anything. I already said it could be as simple as the manipulation of Chief Daniel Nigro.

So we should look forward to other demolitions, according to you the way to eliminate Corporation scandal files, every time such an issue comes up?

Laughable.

TAM

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Well files come in 2 versions...paper and electronic. A magnet or software can destroy one kind, a paper shredder the other. Neither require BUILDING DEMOLITION. However, if that is what you are suggesting, I would like to nominate such a thought for stundie.

TAM

Nominate whatever you want but the fact remains that the Enron California electricity swindle case was very paper intensive and never went anywhere after WTC 7 went down.

Somebody else here said it went down when Ken Lay died. That is not true. There would have been a lot more people involved in the California swindle than just Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling. Those two got indicted for other crimes which were exposed due to Enron's bankruptcy later on and had nothing to do with the California energy swindle.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So we should look forward to other demolitions, according to you the way to eliminate Corporation scandal files, every time such an issue comes up?

Laughable.

TAM

You are simply arguing from incredulity and thus have no business calling anything laughable.

 

[GlennB]

...

Oh, yeah. We need that plan NOW, Tony. Right the f'k NOW! Because these buildings are falling down around us. There are thousands of people dead and injured. And a significant percentage of your fire department is dead. And all the rest of them are exhausted.

But, you get working on that plan, Tony.

And come back & tell us why YOU weren't able to bring in enough water to save the day.

You're really starting to piss me off.

...

I was going to ramble on about the crazy logistics of pumping water from The Hudson and driving it over to WTC7 in trucks around a totally devastated Lower Manhattan, but you put it much better.

 

[beachnut]

Nominate whatever you want but the fact remains that the Enron California electricity swindle case was very paper intensive and never went anywhere after WTC 7 went down.

Somebody else here said it went down when Ken Lay died. That is not true. There would have been a lot more people involved in the California swindle than just Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling. Those two got indicted for other crimes which were exposed due to Enron's bankruptcy later on and had nothing to do with the California energy swindle.

Sad to see your political bias and paranoid conspiracy fantasies form your delusional real-cd-deal. If you put engineering first you would not be pushing failed moronic CD tripe.

 

[bill smith]

You've yet to show me or anyone else anything except your blind insinuations.

Give me a reason to suspect the firefighters are too scared to tell the truth! A Reason!

Well obviously the best thing to do now is show the acientific study of the sworn statements of 503 firemen on 9/11. 118 of them ( a massive proportion) described explosions- for instance '' Ypu know when you see controlled demolition ?- that pop-pop-pop-pop-pop sound ? Well that's what I thought I heard ''

They thought that these explosions were involved in what had brought down the buildings. What more do you need to know ?

Now it will be totally obvious to you that lots of people badly want to talk to these firefighters . So what do you think ? Are they scared to talk ? I guess they are . Enjoy the scientific study.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study

 

[bill smith]

I was going to ramble on about the crazy logistics of pumping water from The Hudson and driving it over to WTC7 in trucks around a totally devastated Lower Manhattan, but you put it much better.

No problem Glenn. You just connect a few lines of fire tucks from the river and pump from truck to truck right up to the fire. Got a problem with that ? The trucks had nothing else to do evidently.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I was going to ramble on about the crazy logistics of pumping water from The Hudson and driving it over to WTC7 in trucks around a totally devastated Lower Manhattan, but you put it much better.

What are you even saying here? There is no need to drive it. That is why they make long lengths of hoses.

 

[DGM]

What are you even saying here? There is no need to drive it. That is why they make long lengths of hoses.

Tony, You still haven't made your case for why that building and not any one of the many in the area or the search and rescue efforts. Why would WTC 7 warrant this precious water over anything else?

(just doing my job )

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Well files come in 2 versions...paper and electronic. A magnet or software can destroy one kind, a paper shredder the other. Neither require BUILDING DEMOLITION. However, if that is what you are suggesting, I would like to nominate such a thought for stundie.

TAM

Even burning the damn building completely would have been easier than a full out demolition... the collapse could have just been a bonus result of the fire if they really wanted to get rid of incriminating documents that badly... :\

I don't see how you can say asking why the fires weren't fought in WTC 7 is anything but a legitimate question. I would have brought it up in the debate if Ron and Ryan had been willing to discuss WTC 7 further than the couple of times I mentioned something about it.

There are plenty of reasons not to endanger more lives in a building which the structural integrity is in serious question if you seriously want to have reservations about the water supplies being destroyed.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, You still haven't made your case for why that building and not any one of the many in the area or the search and rescue efforts. Why would WTC 7 warrant this precious water over anything else?

(just doing my job )

Because this isn't even an intelligently asked question. You aren't saying what the resources were and what other buildings needed water for fires.

 

[tfk]

What are you even saying here? There is no need to drive it. That is why they make long lengths of hoses.

You don't know wtf you are talking about.

Yeah, you have this ONE ****ING question correct. Congratulation, "engineer". They can pump a ****ING tiny amount of water (perhaps 1% of what was needed) thru tiny ****ING hoses.

The building was doomed anyway. They KNEW it. Because they are professionals & you are a ****ING amateur who gets off on second guessing the people who actually DID SOMETHING that day.

They can NOT get it to the upper floors of a sky-scraper. Without it getting to the upper floors, the ONLY thing that hosing down the lower floors did was to guarantee that several hundred more firefighters would have gotten killed when it collapsed. Congrats, again. "Engineer".

They were in danger of CAUSING collapse by water-logging floors. They were in danger of drowning victims. There were OTHER tasks that might have actually, you know, made a difference.

But this is a democracy.

Go ask your moronic questions....

 

[dc1971]

Many of you know of Hardfire and the series, hosted by Ron Wieck (formerly known here as pomeroo), that examines the Truth Movement and its theories. I spoke with Ron again today, and he informed me that Tony Szamboti and David Chandler were interested in appearing and discussing their theories with me. So we're on, taping date and release to be announced when available.

Apparently this is not a direct response to my previous shows on Hardfire, which is a pity -- absolutely no one took me up on my Hardfire Modeling Challenge -- but, so far as I can tell, the debate is open to a wide range of topics but focusing on the World Trade Center and the NIST investigations thereof.

I have in the past given both Tony and David my feedback (see here and here, along with followups in the respective threads). In fact, after the latest exchange with Tony, I had not expected him to surface again. However, leaving the past in the past, they have both had quite some time to think about my concerns as well as those of others, so I am hopeful that they can provide a thoughtful response in this format.

To avoid sandbagging the debate, I will avoid engaging in discussion with them on their own personal theories until taping is completed. In the meantime, I encourage respectful discussion here of other viewpoints both pro and con their positions and mine, and if there are suggestions for the show (questions, related material, anyone else wants to participate, whatever) that's welcome too. I make no promises but I'll do the best I can.

Those of you who enjoy highjacking threads (I'm looking at you, Heiwa), don't bother, you're already on Ignore and you will be reported on sight. Let's keep this clean, I always say, and this time maybe I'll get my wish. Thanks.

I watched your previous showing on Hardfire. I got some good information from that program. Thank you for your insight.

DC

 

[bill smith]

Because this isn't even an intelligently asked question. You aren't saying what the resources were and what other buildings needed water for fires.

This building in the clip with fires far far larger than anything seen in WTC7 had a water supply for the FDNY. In fact though the building had very light steel being only 8 floors or so it did not fall down at all. Compare this to the massive heavy-duty WTC7 with a few small fires. There is ZERO to compare. Yet WTC7 fell like a Victorian Heroine swooning. No way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ

 

[DGM]

Because this isn't even an intelligently asked question. You aren't saying what the resources were and what other buildings needed water for fires.

Nether are you. Your saying that water could have been supplied despite the fact the FDNY said they were doing everything they could. Your the one saying they could have done better. OK, Monday morning QB. Show us how.

ETA; And while your at it, try to make a compelling case for WTC7 over anything else.

 

[Edx]

Well obviously the best thing to do now is show the acientific study of the sworn statements of 503 firemen on 9/11. 118 of them ( a massive proportion) described explosions- for instance '' Ypu know when you see controlled demolition ?- that pop-pop-pop-pop-pop sound ? Well that's what I thought I heard ''

They thought that these explosions were involved in what had brought down the buildings. What more do you need to know ?

Now it will be totally obvious to you that lots of people badly want to talk to these firefighters . So what do you think ? Are they scared to talk ? I guess they are . Enjoy the scientific study.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study

Even if you didnt quote mine those firemen about WTC1+2... we are talking about BUILDING 7.

But thanks for pointing out your contradiction, firemen talk about explosion sounds with WTC1+2, but they are lying when they dont talk about WTC7?

So they are lying about one but not the other? Yeeaaa ok Bill....

 

[Edx]

WTC7 with a few small fires.

Ergo all the firefighters are lying... around and around we go.

 

[bill smith]

Even if you didnt quote mine those firemen about WTC1+2... we are talking about BUILDING 7.

But thanks for pointing out your contradiction, firemen talk about explosion sounds with WTC1+2, but they are lying when they dont talk about WTC7?

So they are lying about one but not the other? Yeeaaa ok Bill....

Well Edx,,,,it's what the outside readers think that counts really. I think I know what they are picking up from you. That's a good thing in my opinion..