• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

Tony Szamboti said:
You have no proof that Nigro was not influenced in his decision.

I have not said anything about Chief Nigro being in on a plot and it is obvious in my comments. Here again you are trying to put words in my mouth. Why would you do that? I have said that I believe Rudy Giulliani was involved in a plot and I stand by that assessment. 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.
Click to expand...
Hey tony.

I told my wife about 30 minutes before the towers were going to collapse that they would.

I also told her at noon that it looked like wtc7 was going to collapse and I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

I must be in on it.

or maybe, just maybe I have a working brain and some experience which can point it out.

na... must be the first one.

As far as any tilt prior to vertical drop is concerned, it is absolutely impossible to see in the video I showed. You were obviously making things up there by pretending to see it. You weren't very convincing.
Click to expand...

Man you really are sticking with that sinking ship. The key for you is that highlighted portion right? In YOUR video YOU can't see it. So you ignore all of the other video evidence which has been handed to you on a silver platter. Nice job. Please remind me of what you have "engineered" so I never use it.
 
TruthersLie said:
argument from ignorance?

Why don't we say a **** load?

Do you think firefighters carry around extra firetrucks in their back pockets?
Click to expand...

Well, we do have big pockets!!

I estimate that about 25% of the city's firetrucks were destroyed that day.

Now, to some, 25% might not seem like alot, but if you look at the list of WHAT they were, you will notice some pretty important trucks that were lost.

http://www.alf700.com/apparatus destroyed 9-11.htm

Some of the most specialized, and most important, were :

Tactical Support Unit 1
Mask Unit 4 (Refill station and SCBA supply house on wheels)
Sat 1 (Communications)

Including 3 HazMat trucks.

This put FDNY in a hurting condition, that is for damn sure.
 
I love ignorant twoofs who data mine.
bardamu said:
Testimony of firefighters from first responder documents.
Click to expand...

You really should try to go and READ for COMPREHENSION those datamined quotes you are trying to use. NOT ONE believe it was CD.

Of course there were like 40 or so of them that said something like
"it sounded just like a runaway train" so does that mean trains were involved? go back and READ FOR COMPREHENSION.

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
Click to expand...

Ah yes. Danny J. I'm glad you believe that is is not unqualified, dishonest or deluded. What does he say about wtc1 and 2?

i'm more than willing to accept ALL of his statements. Why aren't you? AGain, what does he say about wtc 1 and 2?

Didn't you just say he isn't unqualified not dishonest and isn't deluded?

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

Argument from ignorance and incredulity noted and rejected.
Now why would they actually do CD?

Lets see.
1. fires burn things, which cause other fires.
2. fires burn things which releases toxic smoke
3. buildings which collapse from fire are unpredictable and dangerous.
4. Nothing guarantees that a building that is allowed to burn will collapse.

Now why would they not just "throw a match in?" DUR.

Now if you want to be more accurate, Why don't they slam a hundred ton metal bullet into it and let it burn, OR why don't they drop thousands of tons of debris on the side of it and let it burn... at least that is a more accurate reflection of what happened.

But I think it is like your not understanding momentum...

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

Not at all. I fully accept that many of NISTs claims are basd on data that is from both observatin and their assumptions based on the observations..

Except that when someone with the relevant degrees and TONS of experience tells me they are making a claim, I listen to them.

When I have a head ache, I go see my Dr. If it continues I go to a neurologist. I don't go to a plumber. My neurologist then can make an assumption based on the observations about what my issue is.

NIST (and others who are structural engineers and qualified) has made their diagnosis. Please provide me with another qualified second opinion. I'll take any peer reviewed engineering journal from anywhere in the world which says NIST is wrong. Please provide JUST ONE.
 
Last edited:
Plus, not to mention, just throwing a match in an empty building, with no contents, might not get very hot.

Secondly, most buildings have concrete cores, and would most likely NOT collapse.

Ie: Mandarin Fire or the CCTY Fire in Asia.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tony,

Do you have Controlled Demolition or Firefighting credentials?

If not, why bother?
 
bardamu said:
We understand the nature of NIST's imagination.
Click to expand...

Bard,

You're not a firefighter, you don't have any credentials to prove what you say about fire protection in steel high rise buildings.

Read NISTs Chapter 9 about fire protection recommendations instead of shooting your damn mouth off like an idiot.
 
AZCat said:
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?
Click to expand...

End of debate. A jewish property developer is implicated in a fraud so it can't have happened.


T.A.M. said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are consistently pathetic. Most people would expect a judge to question a bunch of suspected conspirators separately, unless of course they are the President and Vice President. While the conspirators may be intelligent and powerful at the top level, the lower level operatives could never hope to survive a cross examination.


alienentity said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tony, if you can accept that that a series of events with odds of trillions to one against could have happened by chance, you may be completely wrong.


triforcharity said:
Please do, and I can easily show you how they were datamined and quotemined and taken out of context.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they heard the pop pop pops at a fireworks display the week before.


Mr.Herbert said:
Tony,

The crap scented spew in this thread from you is repulsive. I will be traveling to NYC tomorrow evening for a Monday meeting. Coincidentally, I will be in Lower Manhattan for this. If you have any conneries, why don't we meet me for coffee and then take a walk to one of the ladder companies down there and you can ask them why they didn't fight the fires. Explain to them how they intentionally failed to fight these fires. Will you? You spineless douche.
Click to expand...

While you're there you can call in on the 9/11 widows and tell them why you think there are no questions to be answered and why you think the government has been completely open about all the issues. If you haven't got the stomach to go on your own, you could always take Henry Kissenger along.


Grizzly Bear said:
Study literature
Click to expand...

Simile: "It was as if they had detonated a building" = there was a gust of wind.

Metaphor: "Then there was a heavy-duty explosion" = there was another gust of wind.


Grizzly Bear said:
Study fallacies
Click to expand...

That particular authority found that the testimony of 118 firefighters supports the controlled demolition hypothesis, whereas the testimony of only 10 firefighters supports the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. You can ignore those findings on the basis that I quoted the source of the research.
 
bardamu said:
End of debate. A jewish property developer is implicated in a fraud so it can't have happened.
Click to expand...

Noted.


You are consistently pathetic. Most people would expect a judge to question a bunch of suspected conspirators separately, unless of course they are the President and Vice President. While the conspirators may be intelligent and powerful at the top level, the lower level operatives could never hope to survive a cross examination.
Click to expand...


Judges don't question qitnessis in the US legal system. Where are you from?

Tony, if you can accept that that a series of events with odds of trillions to one against could have happened by chance, you may be completely wrong.
Click to expand...

You are as ignorant of probability and statistics as you are about US law and the details of what happened on 9/11.
 
bardamu said:
While you're there you can call in on the 9/11 widows and tell them why you think there are no questions to be answered and why you think the government has been completely open about all the issues. If you haven't got the stomach to go on your own, you could always take Henry Kissenger along.
Click to expand...

Let's start with the firefighters first. You can actually come with us tomorrow. I will have my camera ready when you repeat this statement to them:
bardamu said:
The Fire Department sacrificed their own.
Click to expand...

I will be clicking away as you and Tony get your asses kicked into next week. In reality, you are probably even a bigger coward than Tony Z.
 
bardamu said:
Simile: "It was as if they had detonated a building" = there was a gust of wind.

Metaphor: "Then there was a heavy-duty explosion" = there was another gust of wind.
Click to expand...

AS IF Which means "It looked like it did, but in fact it did not."

Now, please post the exact quote, with the name of the firefighter who said it, and I will show you the rest of the quote where it goes into more detail as to what really happened.


bardamu said:
That particular authority found that the testimony of 118 firefighters supports the controlled demolition hypothesis, whereas the testimony of only 10 firefighters supports the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. You can ignore those findings on the basis that I quoted the source of the research.
Click to expand...

"authority" Yeah, that is funny.

10 firefighters?? Not even close.

I didn't see the source. But, I did show you the complete testimony of all of the interviewers.
Now, I din't know if you saw it, but here it is again, just in case you missed it.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
 
bardamu said:
End of debate. A jewish property developer is implicated in a fraud so it can't have happened.
Click to expand...

Please... I'm begging you. Provide proof of any fraud. The insurance companies paid out. Insurance companies realllllly don't like paying out. If there was even a hint of fraud, they wouldn't have.

Oh wait... they must be in on it too... And the conspiracy grows and grows and grows.

You are consistently pathetic. Most people would expect a judge to question a bunch of suspected conspirators separately, unless of course they are the President and Vice President.
Click to expand...
Typical twoof tactic... dodge dodge dodge and shift shift shift. Good try, you might just want to look up the history of presidents speaking to investigations. Nothing is wrong with what GWB and DC did. Your ignorance is showing yet again.

While the conspirators may be intelligent and powerful at the top level, the lower level operatives could never hope to survive a cross examination.
Click to expand...

Not possible. I mean if the conspirators were "intelligent" they would never use the rube goldberg conspiracy machine. There were LOTS of other ways to attack, kill more people in more horrific ways with lots fewer people being involved which would point to Iraq (and give a clear path to invade)

Tony, if you can accept that that a series of events with odds of trillions to one against could have happened by chance, you may be completely wrong.
Click to expand...

Please compute the probabilities since you are claiming random crap. I'd love to see it.

again I await your mathematical proof. please provide it or admit you are talking out of your ass.

While you're there you can call in on the 9/11 widows and tell them why you think there are no questions to be answered and why you think the government has been completely open about all the issues. If you haven't got the stomach to go on your own, you could always take Henry Kissenger along.
Click to expand...

Appeal to emotion. Rejected. Try again. which 9/11 widows? Oh the Jersey girls? Or other ones?

Simile: "It was as if they had detonated a building" = there was a gust of wind.

Metaphor: "Then there was a heavy-duty explosion" = there was another gust of wind.
Click to expand...

again you should go and READ the full quotations. I know you can't. But if you want I can help you sign up for a READING FOR COMPREHENSION class my wife offers. Pm me and I'll see if we can sign you up. Be aware the vast majority of the students are from the middle east and ESL speakers. I'm sure you can catch up to their reading comprehension levels if you work hard though.

That particular authority found that the testimony of 118 firefighters supports the controlled demolition hypothesis, whereas the testimony of only 10 firefighters supports the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. You can ignore those findings on the basis that I quoted the source of the research.
Click to expand...
Truther LIE. Please go back and READ the FULL testimony. Not one supports controlled demolition hypothesis. Datamined quotes are ********.

try to not step on your dick so much... it has to hurt.
 
I love it when a no-planer calls me pathetic. There should be a badge given for such an honor.

TAM:)
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Can't you argue the details? You seem to be capable of nothing but ad hominem.
Click to expand...

There's no point in arguing the details with you when you can't even get the basic concepts right.

Are you going to answer my other question? Have you ever designed a fire protection system for a building?
 
newton3376 said:
I just read that post.....I honestly don't know what to say.

For the love of Zeus....
Click to expand...

Exactly. Dave Rogers isn't the first person to have pointed this out to Tony. This is why discussing the details with him is pointless, because he doesn't even understand the basics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom