Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[BigAl]

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




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

Testimony of firefighters from first responder documents.

"Explosion" is a good word for loud noise. There were lots of loud noises at WTC on 9/11.

There were no noises loud enough or timed to be consistent with man-made demolition.

None of the firemen describe man-made demolition. We know this by reading their entire statements instead of cherrypicking quotes and then looking at where and when they heard the noise.

A loud noise way before or after a collapse has nothing to do with man-made demolition. That's what most of them heard.

 

[Edx]

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

You can see the east penthouse collapse INTO the building, just what do you think held that up? Fairy dust?

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

Testimony of firefighters from first responder documents.

All these are out of context anyway but guess what.... THIS IS NOT ABOUT BUILDING 7.

Professor Graeme McQueen, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario:

And AE911 Truth have some "experts" that think the towers were demolished by space beams, that there were no planes and believe that the towers fell faster than free fall. I really dont care what their moronic opinions are, unless they back them up with reason.

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

Jowenko was shown a video without sound and not told any details about the building or events that day, he also says WTC1+2 could not have been demolitions. But of course like everything else you cherry pick your data.

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?

If you're suggesting that no one would think that the building could pancake collapse why did all the firefighters think it was going to with no dissenting opinions anywhere? Why did structual engineers 10 years before 911 think One Meridian Plaza was at risk of a pancake collapse?

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

Truthers hear things that arent there like explosions, squibs, flashes... but also deny the building was heavily damaged and had heavy fires on many floors. Who's ignoring observations?

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.

Why do you say a few FDNY?

ALL of them would have to be in on it, why cant you, Bill and Tony just admit it?

If they are keeping quiet that means they are lying. nevertheless we still have dozens and dozens that are recorded saying specificailly they had no problem with 7's collapse.

 

[bardamu]

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.

The ones that are being leaned on might feel more inclined to blow the whistle if they had the protection of the law.

Could you please provide a link to an explosive demolition which uses the silent explosives your hypothesis requires? Or are you just talking out of your butt?

Watch this at 7 minutes in:

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

It is educational, if not scary, to see the scapegoating process at work.

You saw the scapegoating process on 9/11. What you're witnessing here is the de-scapegoating process.

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....

Mackey humiliates himself one day, then the next day everybody wants to get in on the act.

Using the passive voice and avoiding a subject when making these accusations is despicable. Unless you have proof that SOMEONE "manipulated" Daniel Nigro, shut your mouth and go away.

You seem to believe that honouring the dead means sheltering their murderers. I hope your grandchildren are proud of you.

Have you ever had some two-bit PUNK come along afterward and, from the snuggly warmth of abject ignorance, start to lecture you on what you did wrong?? What you SHOULD have done. And what HE would have done. (If he'd ever gotten his lard ass out from in front of a TV and done something useful with his life.)

Have you ever had to resist the urge to reach across a table & squeeze the two-bit punk's head like a zit, Tony?

This really is a despicable line of conversation for you. You may want to go back & re-think it.

And if you still think that it's appropriate, I suggest that you bring it where it'll do some real good: a firefighter's bar in the Bronx.

Let me know how that goes, OK?

Tom

An overdramatic appeal to the emotions.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

And the repetition thereby continues with a guy who is going to regurgitate it over and over and over.... (infinity).

 

[Edx]

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? .

Im not saying they lied about 1 and 2, you are.

Im saying hypothetically if they were telling the truth about WTC1+2 which is what you believe, why are you saying they are too scared to tell the truth about WTC7?

The firefighters had been pulled from WTC7, so they wouldn't know first hand what was going on

They werent pulled that quickly, also interesting choice of words haha. They did know what was going on, you can tell from the reading their interviews. Have you tried doing that? I bet you like just reading the quote-mined versions truthers show you.

There's a panicky feel to this thread today. .

I call it playing with the "special" people.

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

They heard explosion sounds in the Windsor building fire in Madrid as well, are you going to say that means there were bombs in that building?

Of course not because explosion doesnt mean bomb, if we look at video footage we have no demolition explosion sounds just a slow progressive rumble.

 

[BigAl]

The ones that are being leaned on might feel more inclined to blow the whistle if they had the protection of the law.




Watch this at 7 minutes in:

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

Fake explosion noises! Oh My!

Were these noises real, they would be on every one of the many video cameras in use close to WTC even if the cameras were not pointed at that tower.

The book Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11 By David Friend describes the number of cameras in operation at WTC.


There would also be explosions that preceded the visible beginning of the collapse. That's how demolition of huge buildings works.

 

[bill smith]

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'




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




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




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

See highlight

 

[Edx]

Watch this at 7 minutes in:

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

That was proved to be fake, just like Sophia from 911 Mysteries added in explosion sounds calling them "sound design"

I wonder if you're going to be like Bill and insist its real anyway because it suits your beliefs.

 

[bill smith]

Fake explosion noises! Oh My!

Were these noises real, they would be on every one of the many video cameras in use close to WTC even if the cameras were not pointed at that tower.

The book Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11 By David Friend describes the number of cameras in operation at WTC.


There would also be explosions that preceded the visible beginning of the collapse. That's how demolition of huge buildings works.

Al. Shape up Soldier. You are of no use to he NWO if you panic like ths..

 

[Mr. Skinny]

It wouldn't be hard to know the approximate location of the breaks so how long would it take for the Water Dept. to shut down water to the WTC area?

One to two hours, I'd guess...on a good day. Considering the destruction around the WTC, it might have been difficult to get a water department truck into the area.

Anyhow, I think your idea that the fires could have been fought by pumping water from thousands of feet away is just silly, given the situation, resources available, etc.

And BTW, you don't think a siamese connection on a building is a water supply, do you?

 

[Edx]

Al. Shape up Soldier. You are of no use to he NWO if you panic like ths..

ahaha, my my you are so delusional. I give up with you

 

[WildCat]

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.

So Tony, are you going to go next to a 47 story building already damaged beyond repair, which is already leaning/bulging, which has already been fully evacuated, in order to hook up hoses which don't have a prayer of delivering enough water to fight the fires? Oh, and then go inside said building? When there are other buildings in the area which do have a chance of being saved, with little risk of losing more lives in the process?

You really need to use whatever mass you have between your ears, and stop the fanatical delusional rantings.

 

[Edx]

@Tony

The firefighters talk of WTC7 leaning, bulging, groaning, creaking and that things were crackling and falling and that it had a massive gash to the south side

Like Wildcat said, why would they risk trying to fight a fire in a buidling as unstable as they realised Building 7 was?

Thats why they made the collapse zone in the first place, and its a good thing too since if they hadnt firefighters would have died when it collapsed onto them.

 

[WildCat]

I would rather stick to the science with you Ryan

You'd first have to introduce some science before you can stick to it.

Since you can't even admit what everyone can see for themselves, that the building had a definite tilt, I won't be holding my breath. 9/11 conspiracy theories are a religion to you, and no facts can change your mind.

 

[tsig]

The Enron California electricity swindle case did go down with WTC 7. Are you saying it didn't?

3000 killed just to cover up a swindle?

 

[beachnut]

3000 killed just to cover up a swindle?

When you can't do engineering, you make up wild ideas.

 

[bill smith]

When you can't do engineering, you make up wild ideas.

tsig thinks nobody notices.

 

[tsig]

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. 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.

You say it did not tilt before you do the analysis.

 

[twinstead]

You say it did not tilt before you do the analysis.

How dare you suggest that Tony is guilty of predisposition. That would mean his method is flawed. Now that just CAN'T be!

 

[triforcharity]

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.

If you actually read what I said you would realize that I do not think any member of the FDNY had to be in on any conspiracy and that it could have been done by simply manipulating Daniel Nigro. I would also be asking severe questions of those in the Giulliani administration who put the word out that WTC 7 was lost at 12:30 PM. What basis was there for that?
You seem to want to call people delusional simply because what they say doesn't fit with your actual delusion. Talk facts not nonsense.

Well, considering the fact that we had no water, no way of fighting the blaze, and knew of it's construction, why would there be any suprise in that?
Hell, I saw that building around 3 ish, and I knew it was coming down, and I had been on the other side of the complex all day long.

Why is it such a hard concept from some people to grasp that firefighters know what happenes when you combine Fire+Steel framed buildings+no water= bad things?? Why is that so hard to understand Tony??

We know what fire is capable of doing. Many of us have a BS in fire science. All have at LEAST an AS, some have Masters' degrees.