Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[Baylor]

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.

We're looking for activity about your "missing jolt" theory in the scientific community. If you want to measure popularity by Internet fora, your "missing jolt" theory is considerably less popular than the flat earth theory-- which currently has over 500,000 posts on its forum.

 

[R.Mackey]

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.

Oh, I'm not. I did see it mentioned at Gregory Urich's place, for instance, and thoroughly repudiated by everyone but Heiwa the no-planer...

"Most," huh. I note you didn't specify who does take it seriously. Gee, I wonder why.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Can you explain how large this purported bulge was

I see something caught your interest.

 

[DavidJames]

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 won't judge by this forum. I'll judge by the engineer papers, none. I'll judge by the engineering articles published in industry publications, none. I'll judge by the list of engineers crying to industry organizations, none. I'll judge by anyone doing anything other then typing on CT forums, nothing.

Why do you do this? Why don't you actually do something honest?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Oh, I'm not. I did see it mentioned at Gregory Urich's place, for instance, and thoroughly repudiated by everyone but Heiwa the no-planer...

"Most," huh. I note you didn't specify who does take it seriously. Gee, I wonder why.

They couldn't repudiate it, and they did try. You aren't being truthful here. Your boy OWE tried like hell but fell on his face.

There was no dynamic load in the collapse of WTC 1 and I have shown that unequivocally. It is beyond doubt and you have been forced to admit there was no jolt or dynamic load.

I would also remind you that I told you I would show that there was no dynamic load a couple of years ago and you scoffed at what I said then. When I did it you were forced to agree that there is no jolt or dynamic load and shifted to a Bazant's analysis is a limiting case argument. I guess I will have to show you in no uncertain terms that your "the tilt explains it all" notion is all wet also.

Adios Ryan, I have work to do and would like to say this thread has served it's purposes for me.

We can start a new one when I have finished my work on why the tilt does not obviate the need for a jolt in a natural collapse propagation or explain the rapidness of the collapses of the first several stories in WTC 1.

 

[alienentity]

Tony, you've sunk to a new low. Instead of taking a couple of steps back from your conspiracy obsession (of course you can't, or won't, because of your obsession), you're following the unfortunate course of redoubling your commitment to it and your central delusion.
You can't accept that Nigro was competent, even though you have no real evidence to show otherwise.
You can't accept that WTC7 could have fallen due to fires, even though you lack the evidence to show otherwise (engineering model?).

Your deep need to believe that your government was in on it, and directing the attacks, the imagined demolitions, requires you to also include FDNY and the Mayor's office in your conspiracy to one degree or another.

However

If you step back from your personal need, your ego's investment, as it were, and simply accept that YOU MAY BE COMPLETELY WRONG, all of the other things fall away into nothing.

Nigro becomes just another victim of the circumstances, making difficult decisions after losing hundreds of his brothers, including his superiors. You could even allow yourself to feel some compassion for the man, instead of suggesting that he be dragged before some kind of inquisition to atone for his part in your imaginary plot.

Leave the man alone, and deal with your stuff on your own, Tony. You're not mentally healthy, and you're saying and writing things that are truly appalling.

Your need to scapegoat others is a sickness, it's not a virtue. I suspect you may have crossed the Rubicon into the land of madness.

As of this moment, I am putting you on ignore, and will not read your comments. They don't deserve further attention.

ETA: Don't forget that Tony has officially run away from the obvious tilt of WTC2 and is trying to 'prove' something (if that's the correct word for what he's attempting) with WTC1, since it tilted less. But while he tries to run from reality, it hasn't gone anywhere! It's still there for everybody to see.

(In case some of you have missed the implications of the difference between the two towers, WTC2 easily meets and exceeds the criteria set forth by Tony himself NOT to display a jolt, so it is therefore allowed to collapse without explosives. Tony is going to try to quibble about a slight difference 'proving' that explosives somehow erased the expected jolt in WTC1. It's obviously an extremely weak argument, because WTC2 is stronger evidence the other way! But count on him to try anyway....and fail.)

 

[R.Mackey]

They couldn't repudiate it, and they did try. You aren't being truthful here. Your boy OWE tried like hell but fell on his face.

"My boy..?" Dr. Benson also told you it was crap. So did Gregory. So did Dr. Greening. So did others. Did they "fall on their face?"

Let me be more specific, since you're not playing with a full deck here. You are a prominent member of AE911T, as has been mentioned here a few times. Yet I haven't seen Richard Gage use your argument -- and he believes in all kinds of stupidity. Why is that?


Everything else you wrote is utter babble. There can indeed be dynamic loading -- but little ones, individual failures that happen so quickly there's no discernible net deceleration. Oh, right, you don't understand vector addition, either, as Dave Rogers has demonstrated repeatedly.

The denial is strong with this one.

 

[T.A.M.]

An engineer not understanding vector addition is akin to a Doctor not understanding human physiology....oih!

TAM

 

[BigAl]

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

Tri saw the bulge. Ask him.

Are you really an engineer? I have physics and a bit of what would now be called finite element analysis and I've worked on scaffolding. As I understand it, out-of plumb puts an structure at serious risk.

FDNY deals with the collapse of smaller buildings on a regular basis. If Chief Hayden and the people that advised him say the building was due to come down, who am I to second guess them when in fact, they were right.

Hayden, of course knew that WTC7 was on massive fire.

I'm reading Hayden's deposition. On page three he mentions that FDNY has a collapse unit (no surprise) and it was on the scene.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110139.PDF

Page 3: "We brought collapse units and additional units over"

 

[newton3376]

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 is a point that needs repeating...

Why don't truthers just pick up the damn phone and CALL SOMEONE or SEND THEM AN EMAIL?

Always good to go directly to the source instead of just investigoogling.

 

[alienentity]

To add another parting shot, I'll respond to two things Tony wrote today:

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

They have been answered. You're not listening.

Most of the official story supporters I have encountered here at JREF have all the symptoms of Ryan Mackey's Irreducible Delusion. They simply cannot contemplate, under any circumstances, that the three building collapses were finally a result of anything but fires.

False. The evidence just isn't there, so we go with the stronger hypothesis. If this were not so, most of us would probably agree with you. I know I would.

It is interesting how much attention was drawn to this thread when it was brought up that the fires in WTC 7 could have easily been fought with available equipment and the firefighting contingency design of the building.

Yes, because it is such an egregious fallacy, and very offensive to most of us. Your attempts to slander FDNY were duly noted.....and rejected as empty slander.

 

[newton3376]

Oh, right, you don't understand vector addition, either, as Dave Rogers has demonstrated repeatedly.

The denial is strong with this one.

Please please tell me this isn't true.....

 

[bardamu]

Bardamu, the idea of irreducible delusion is not a smear, it is a theory, as elucidated by Mr. Mackey. You would do well to read his words.

Recognizing and Classifying Irreducible Delusion

Refusal to change the belief at any cost, leading to increasingly improbable excuses;

eg. from 'no core in towers' to 'fire melts steel core', from 'fire melts steel core' to 'fire weakens steel core', from 'pancake collapse' to 'rubble crush-front', from 'diesel tank fires' to 'normal office fires'

Demands for a disproof, rather than providing any evidence;

eg. prove columns weren't buckling inside of building, prove rubble wasn't crushing core columns behind dust cloud, prove girders weren't knocked hundreds of feet sideways by other girders, prove Giuliani wasn't lying about being told of collapses, prove firefighters weren't lying about explosions

Dogged avoidance of direct discussion, either through distraction or total refusal to give debate;

eg. videos don't count because we have thousands of eyewitnesses, physics don't count because we have thousands of eyewitnesses, logic doesn't count because we have thousands of eyewitnesses, your eyewitnesses don't count because they contradict our eyewitneses

Dropping discussion of the belief altogether, in seeming acquiescence of superior logic, only to bring it up again unchanged at a later date.

eg. google con edison substation, fully-laden planes hit the towers, diesel burns like crazy, jet fuel burns like crazy

 

[R.Mackey]

Please please tell me this isn't true.....

Of course it's true. Read here, and watch it bounce off at free-fall speed.

 

[bill smith]

What happenes if they need them in another building??

You mean trouble with the unions ?

 

[bardamu]

No they wouldnt since theres no evidence of that, whereas with Building 7 we can see the interior is clearly collapsing inside.

Only you can see it, because you were born with the ability to see through walls. Even NIST say it's not observable.

What are the characteristics of an explosive demoltion bardamu? LOUD BANGS, since there are no loud bangs whatsoever in any WTC7 video we can tell that it couldnt have been explosives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg

Testimony of firefighters from first responder documents.

"it was like a bomb went off, we thought we were dead, the whole building shook"
"it was like an earthquake, a giant, giant explosion...my ears were, like, deaf"
"there was a heavy duty explosion"
"it was as if they had detonated it"
"I saw flash, flash, flash...you know like when they demolish a building"
"there was this orange and red flash coming out...popping all around the building, and that building had started to explode"

Professor Graeme McQueen, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario:

The controlled demolition hypothesis is much stronger than the other hypotheses. Those who have suggested that this is an inside job have a much stronger case than those who are trying to support the official narrative of the 19 hijackers.

You are also ignoring all the "expert" truthers saying that WTC7 fits a classic demolition perfectly, yet when its pointed out it doesnt look like one they start making excuses like you are. No loud bangs? Silent explosives. No flashes? They covered up the flashes. etc.

At least one demolition expert has no doubt whatsoever that WTC7 was demolished by "a team of experts". I have no reason to believe he's unqualified, dishonest or deluded

Had the situation with this building been like that on 911 with WTC7 we would have reason to think it collapsed from fire as well.

Why do demolition teams go to all the trouble of wiring a building for demolition when they could just throw a match in?

Please, be more vague.

Debunkers go quiet when it's pointed out to them that their beliefs are based on assumptions, not observations.

The list of all the FDNY apparently, you truthers are such a fine bunch. Why dont you go picket the FDNY and accuse them all of covering up the conspiracy? But you wont because you want to pretend you are on their side.

The list includes counter-terrorism experts who were on TV, fake eyewitnesses, cameramen, officials and debunkers. It appears that a few Fire Department officials were among the fake eyewitnesses, but the debunkers want people to believe that truthers are accusing all firefighters.

 

[Edx]

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

Exactly, that is exactly what truthers think.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Testimony of firefighters from first responder documents.

Study literature

Professor Graeme McQueen, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario:

Study fallacies

At least one demolition expert has no doubt whatsoever that WTC7 was demolished by "a team of experts". I have no reason to believe he's unqualified, dishonest or deluded

Do it twice for good measure

That is all. Done with you.

 

[bill smith]

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.

Hey Johnny can I slightly change the words in the banner you carry for me ?

 

[bardamu]

Here's a bunch of FDNY reports, Do you believe them ? if you cannot show what they say they are seeing and reporting here I submit that what they are saying is not true. So prove to me here and now that they are not lying. If you cannot show that I think that we can safely say that they were LYING.

' "The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak

"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild" - Ground Zero Superintendant Charlie Vitchers

"We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors"
–FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca

"Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down" –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

"I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke" - FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories"
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers ''

Six more for the list.

And you have not explained why firefighters would lie about WTC7 yet not lie about WTC1+2.

Why would they lie about 1 & 2 but tell the honest truth about 7? The firefighters had been pulled from WTC7, so they wouldn't know first hand what was going on.

It is interesting how much attention was drawn to this thread when it was brought up that the fires in WTC 7 could have easily been fought with available equipment and the firefighting contingency design of the building.

There's a panicky feel to this thread today. Edx is in headless-chicken mode.

Tony,

You're not a Controlled Demolitions expert or a firefighter. You have no credentials for both.

Danny Jowenko is a controllled demolition expert and he says it was a "hired job".

Please do, and I can easily show you how they were datamined and quotemined and taken out of context.

Just do it in another thread.

Yeah, they believed the 118 firemen who said there were explosions rather than the 10 who said the towers pancaked.

Bill doesn't know how fire can spread on 1 floor.

Take a look Bill, the 12th floor fire spreading from 1 small area to a much larger area:



WTC7 was an office building with combustible items in it. You Truthers really don't understand the nature of fire.

We understand the nature of NIST's imagination.