Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,

Please read what Chief Nigro said about what you're assuming:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2990758&postcount=1



Tony,

I find it funny that you've just been proven wrong that Nigro was "influenced" in anyway other than what your lying eyes are telling you.

I find it amazing that there was no attempt to hook up lines to the siamese fittings on the building and Nigro doesn't address that here. I also do not understand his surety that the building was in danger of collapse other than that they were gun shy because of the towers. This is why I am wondering if he was influenced. It wouldn't have to be the mayor or the owner. A structural engineer sent by the plotters could have told him that the building was in danger and Nigro's comments would still be the truth.

This is why Nigro needs to be questioned about the entire affair under oath. If he can say he made the structural assessment himself without any influence whatsoever then maybe I could believe it. He has not said that here.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Logic: If elements of the USG and other institutions orchestrated the murder of 3000 Americans, they are not going to suddenly confess to anything SIMPLY because they are under oath.

Truther Logic: IF we can just get the bad guys subpoenaed, we can make them confess through tough cross examination UNDER OATH.

Logic: People with the same names as the hijackers turned up in parts of the world after 9/11 due to investigations by the FBI and CIA, and as a result of those same people wanting to clear their names.

Truther Logic: The hijackers are still alive.

Logic: Numerous people heard sounds that they described as explosions because they were in proximity to two 110 storey buildings that were hit by aircraft, burning on multiple floors, and had tremendous damage done to them. This is to be expected as many things can cause loud noises that would be described as explosions.

Truther Logic: Their testimony is evidence of explosives.


I mean the list goes on....

TAM

Who thinks people involved would confess? You are obviously being dramatic as you don't have a good argument.

When several people in a conspiracy are questioned separately they usually don't admit to it. The problem for them becomes keeping their stories straight when asked pointed questions they might not expect. That is how many plots are successfully prosecuted. A confession is not necessary for a conviction to occur and often times conspirators never confess even with overwhelming evidence against them.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I find it amazing that there was no attempt to hook up lines to the siamese fittings on the building and Nigro doesn't address that here. I also do not understand his surety that the building was in danger of collapse other than that they were gun shy because of the towers. This is why I am wondering if he was influenced. It wouldn't have to be the mayor or the owner. A structural engineer could have faslely told him that the building was in danger and Nigro's comments would still be the truth.

This is why Nigro needs to be questioned about the entire affair under oath. If he can say he made the structural assessment himself without any influence whatsoever then maybe I could believe it. He has not said that here.

Tony,

Questioning Nigro for the busted water mains, when the Towers collapsed, is hardly going to do anything to help prove what you say.

Are you going to take him to court over busted water mains?

 

[AZCat]

Holy crap.

I go off to the range for four hours, and come back to four pages of Tony arguing that FDNY was in on the plot, in which they exchange a few hundred of their own lives to let Enron off the hook (which didn't even happen).

Let me just say, without naming names, that it is getting increasingly difficult to find a Truther that isn't a broad-spectrum lunatic.

This is why engaging truthers in discussion always ends in a downward spiral. Tony may be an engineer, but he sacrificed any engineering approach to the issue once his pet theories were endangered and began dragging out the serious "woo" arguments. What's next? Implicating Silverstein because he's a jew?

 

[AZCat]

I find it amazing that there was no attempt to hook up lines to the siamese fittings on the building and Nigro doesn't address that here. I also do not understand his surety that the building was in danger of collapse other than that they were gun shy because of the towers. This is why I am wondering if he was influenced. It wouldn't have to be the mayor or the owner. A structural engineer sent by the plotters could have told him that the building was in danger and Nigro's comments would still be the truth.

This is why Nigro needs to be questioned about the entire affair under oath. If he can say he made the structural assessment himself without any influence whatsoever then maybe I could believe it. He has not said that here.

Tony, have you ever designed fire systems for buildings?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

This is why engaging truthers in discussion always ends in a downward spiral. Tony may be an engineer, but he sacrificed any engineering approach to the issue once his pet theories were endangered and began dragging out the serious "woo" arguments. What's next? Implicating Silverstein because he's a jew?

Can't you argue the details? You seem to be capable of nothing but ad hominem.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,

Questioning Nigro for the busted water mains, when the Towers collapsed, is hardly going to do anything to help prove what you say.

Are you going to take him to court over busted water mains?

He should be questioned about why the fires weren't fought in WTC 7 when there were other resources (fireboats, distant hydrants, pumper trucks, siamese fittings on the building, etc.) besides the water mains to do so and given his statement expressing his concern about the structural integrity of the building he should be questioned as to how he arrived at that assessment.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

He should be questioned about why the fires weren't fought in WTC 7 when there were other resources (fireboats, distant hydrants, pumper trucks, siamese fittings on the building, etc.) besides the water mains to do so and given his statement expressing his concern about the structural integrity of the building he should be questioned as to how he arrived at that assessment.

Tony,

Listen to what Chief Daniel Nigro says about WTC7:



Tony,

Why don't you contact Nigro by phone or e-mail and ask him that? Unless you're chicken!

 

[R.Mackey]

You have no proof that Nigro was not influenced in his decision.

Shifting burden of proof

I have not said anything about Chief Nigro being in on a plot

Weasel words

and it is obvious in my comments. Here again you are trying to put words in my mouth. Why would you do that?

Personalizing the argument

I have said that I believe Rudy Giulliani was involved in a plot and I stand by that assessment.

No logical fallacy, but totally insane

This is the guy who said "we were told the towers were going to collapse and then they did collapse", but won't tell anyone who told him that and how they would have known that. Giulliani needs to be investigated and questioned under oath also.

Argument to incredulity

As far as any tilt prior to vertical drop is concerned, it is absolutely impossible to see in the video I showed.

Bare assertion fallacy, also ignores the much better photograph that I brought, and the wealth of better videos in this thread

You were obviously making things up there by pretending to see it. You weren't very convincing.

Personalizing the argument

I have told you that we will be doing a precise analysis of the tilt with several videos and one thing I can say unequivocally right now is that it did not tilt 8 degrees or anywhere near that prior to the entire upper section dropping several stories.

Begging the question

Your statement that it tilted 8 degrees before it descended is nonsense and you can be forgiven if you were just touting the NIST line in the debate, but as an engineer you should be scrutinizing it now that you have been alerted to the fact that it is not an accurate assessment.

Bare assertion fallacy

Regarding your latest nonsense, I'm just going to leave you for the sharks. You've said nothing that requires my expertise to refute, and nothing that deserves any attention.

 

[johnny karate]

He should be questioned about why the fires weren't fought in WTC 7 when there were other resources (fireboats, distant hydrants, pumper trucks, siamese fittings on the building, etc.) besides the water mains to do so and given his statement expressing his concern about the structural integrity of the building he should be questioned as to how he arrived at that assessment.

On a day of such tragedy and loss, are you actually questioning a fire commander's sensible decision to err on the side of caution and not risk more lives fighting a fire in an empty building?

The mind boggles.

 

[Baylor]

On a day of such tragedy and loss, are you actually questioning a fire commander's sensible decision to err on the side of caution and not risk more lives fighting a fire in an empty building?

The mind boggles.

And it's just his beloved WTC 7 he wants to talks about. Why not ask why Chief Nigro didn't abandon rescue operations to prevent the collapse of WTC 5?

 

[T.A.M.]

Who thinks people involved would confess? You are obviously being dramatic as you don't have a good argument.

When several people in a conspiracy are questioned separately they usually don't admit to it. The problem for them becomes keeping their stories straight when asked pointed questions they might not expect. That is how many plots are successfully prosecuted. A confession is not necessary for a conviction to occur and often times conspirators never confess even with overwhelming evidence against them.

You are obviously putting words into my mouth because you are reading too much into my intent...

What does under oath have to do with having them testify and/or be questioned separately? The two are not mutually exclusive. Once again, another truther paradox...the evildoers are intelligent and powerful enough to carry out the largest, most complex cover up in world history, but too stupid or crappy at it to survive a cross examination when separated.

TAM

 

[BigAl]

He should be questioned about why the fires weren't fought in WTC 7 when there were other resources (fireboats, distant hydrants, pumper trucks, siamese fittings on the building, etc.) besides the water mains to do so and given his statement expressing his concern about the structural integrity of the building he should be questioned as to how he arrived at that assessment.

After 10:30, the FDNY commander saw much of his equipment destroyed and an unknown number of his men killed and yet another building, WTC7 damaged and on fire. For a while, at least, he was a commander without an army.

WTC7 was built to post-1938 fire codes. That means that with an hour or two of uncontrolled fire, the structure was toast. The time, an hour, hours?, needed to bring out-of-borough equipment in and get it delivering water would put WTC7 closer to the point of collapse. The streets of lower Manhattan were impassible where the in-line pumpers would have to be located.

In Report From Ground Zero (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures expert Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built to standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique in the minimal fireproofing.

Source: http://snurl.com/j54ud [Page 310, Report From Ground Zero]

Who is Vincent Dunn?
http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,

Listen to what Chief Daniel Nigro says about WTC7:



Tony,

Why don't you contact Nigro by phone or e-mail and ask him that? Unless you're chicken!

This looks like a take from BBC's The Third Tower. Nigro doesn't answer the types of questions I think need to be asked of him here. I do not believe he was involved in any conspiracy, but his comments here do not rule out influence as to whether the building's structural integrity was at risk.

The other thing that is interesting is that he orders the collapse zone drawback at 3:00 PM. Why weren't the fires fought in WTC 7 earlier?

I also thought it was interesting at 6:50 into the clip to see a fire hydrant with water in it being used by firemen to rinse off and cool down. They don't say exactly where it was located though.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Shifting burden of proof



Weasel words



Personalizing the argument



No logical fallacy, but totally insane



Argument to incredulity



Bare assertion fallacy, also ignores the much better photograph that I brought, and the wealth of better videos in this thread



Personalizing the argument



Begging the question



Bare assertion fallacy

Regarding your latest nonsense, I'm just going to leave you for the sharks. You've said nothing that requires my expertise to refute, and nothing that deserves any attention.

I would rather stick to the science with you Ryan and you shouldn't worry, as you will have your hands full trying to maintain your natural collapse delusion and explain the lack of a jolt and rapidness of the collapse of the first several stories of WTC 1, when your tilt argument is completely shredded before long.

 

[T.A.M.]

shredded by who? DRG? The Theologian seems to be the best you have on rebutting issues concerning WTC7...lol

TAM

 

[R.Mackey]

Promises, promises.

Nobody else cares about your theory, Tony. Not even other Truthers back you up on it. Your "missing jolt" is your own personal analogue of "North of CITGO" or "Pinocchio's Nose."

 

[BigAl]

The other thing that is interesting is that he orders the collapse zone drawback at 3:00 PM. Why weren't the fires fought in WTC 7 earlier?

If for no other reason than because there was no water with which to fight the fire.

Maybe the pullback was because they were watching the trend on the bulge.

FDNY Chief Haydem explains how they knew that WTC7 was beginning to collapse as early as 2:00PM.

FDNY Chief Hayden sighting it with a surveyor's transit: .. we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
​

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Promises, promises.

Nobody else cares about your theory, Tony. Not even other Truthers back you up on it. Your "missing jolt" is your own personal analogue of "North of CITGO" or "Pinocchio's Nose."

Hardly, there has been a lot of activity about it on various forums and most believe it is a serious problem for the present official story. You can't judge by this forum if that is what you are doing.

I think your "the tilt explains it all" theory is completely ridiculous and like I said will show definitively that it is.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

If for no other reason than because there was no water with which to fight the fire.

Maybe the pullback was because they were watching the trend on the bulge.

Can you explain how large this purported bulge was and how it would affect the overall structural integrity of this huge building?