Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[bill smith]

Tony,

Please tell me that you have been drinking. Please, for the sake of the Flying Spagetti Monster.

Do you know of any building that could survive having a multi-floor bulge in one side?? How about one that is on fire?? And been hit by another skyscraper?? Not to mention the lack of water being put on the fire.

Maybe it's best if you tell the readers all you know of the bulge Tri. Just so that we can cross reference anything we might know with what you actually saw and remove any possible suspicion that you are mistaken.

 

[funk de fino]

It is hard to understand why anyone would think that a leaning or bulging wall, on a building with a footprint the size of a football field and an inner core, means that the entire structure will collapse.

Do you know of any photos of this purported lean or bulge?

Mike Catalano the building engineer (with years of experience) said it was a huge fire and the building was going to collapse regardless. He was there, he saw the fire inside. He had intimate knowledge of the building.

Are you saying he is wrong and on what grounds/experience do you say this?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Mike Catalano the building engineer (with years of experience) said it was a huge fire and the building was going to collapse regardless. He was there, he saw the fire inside. He had intimate knowledge of the building.

Are you saying he is wrong and on what grounds/experience do you say this?

I think many of us would simply like some details other than "the building had a bulge and we knew it was going to collapse".

Do you even know what wall this supposed bulge was on?

 

[twinstead]

I think many of us would simply like some details other than "the building had a bulge and we knew it was going to collapse".

Do you even know what wall this supposed bulge was on?

I think that those "many of us" (in other words the tiny group of conspiracy theorists who think 911 was an inside job) couldn't care less about those details. If Catalano personally came to your house, had a couple beers, and explained to you exactly what he saw and what his observations were, are you telling us you'd say, "oh. I get now. You know, this whole collapse thing may have just been possible with the airliner impact and fires alone. Thank you, sir"?

I think not.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I think that those "many of us" (in other words the tiny group of conspiracy theorists who think 911 was an inside job) couldn't care less about those details. If Catalano personally came to your house, had a couple beers, and explained to you exactly what he saw and what his observations were, are you telling us you'd say, "oh. I get now. You know, this whole collapse thing may have just been possible with the airliner impact and fires alone. Thank you, sir"?

I think not.

You are right I wouldn't. I want details. Sorry about that but that is how engineers think and work.

The engineered items you enjoy in your modern life weren't designed by handwaves, which you apparently have no problem accepting. The engineers needed to know and show the details to prove they could work.

 

[funk de fino]

I think many of us would simply like some details other than "the building had a bulge and we knew it was going to collapse".

Do you even know what wall this supposed bulge was on?

So you do think you know more than the engineer who was in the building and had to escape from the huge fires? What gives you the right to think you know better than someone who was there at the time?

If I was to speculate (allowable as it seems that is all you do) I would say it was on the face that was opposing the WTC towers. We have quite a lot of pictures of the other walls but little from this one. It was also the most damaged face.

Have you tried to contact anyone? Nigro, Protec, Mike Catalano?

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

There are plenty of names and companies listed in that paper Tony. Feel free to pick apart that paper if you have the cahonies.

 

[funk de fino]

You are right I wouldn't. I want details. Sorry about that but that is how engineers think and work.

The engineered items you enjoy in your modern life weren't designed by handwaves, which you apparently have no problem accepting. The engineers needed to know and show the details to prove they could work.

What you are displaying is not how engineers work. Its a travesty. Incompetency, handwaving and lies is not normally engineers MO.

Found your made up Silverstein footage yet?

 

[NutCracker]

You are right I wouldn't. I want details. Sorry about that but that is how engineers think and work.

The engineered items you enjoy in your modern life weren't designed by handwaves, which you apparently have no problem accepting. The engineers needed to know and show the details to prove they could work.

Ah, I see, That's why you do not need to show evidence in favour of your position. That's how engineers work. Right.


I get it.

 

[BigAl]

I think many of us would simply like some details other than "the building had a bulge and we knew it was going to collapse".

Do you even know what wall this supposed bulge was on?

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

Here ya' go. (You've been shown this before.)

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​

 

[bill smith]

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

Here ya' go. (You've been shown this before.)

Ah....I well remember the debunker who once told me that they could see the transit moving and that it was clear from as early as 2;00 PM that it could never stop the building from ccollapsing .

It's nice to see a willingnness for full disclosure here. A reader wuld only have to skim through the recent debunker posts to see that . lol

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You are right I wouldn't. I want details. Sorry about that but that is how engineers think and work.

The engineered items you enjoy in your modern life weren't designed by handwaves, which you apparently have no problem accepting. The engineers needed to know and show the details to prove they could work.

As far as I'm aware we design things based on anticipated circumstances and as code dictates. There is absolutely no measure to anticipate every conceivable circumstance. Some of the worst case situations fall outside of the scope of the design. If you want to nit pick about precedents or details, then the NFPA adds that there is no record of a fatality in a fully sprinklered building outside the point of fire origin. Then again, there aren't too many cases where this protection had been totally disrupted. Likewise, having the upper section of a building lose all of its support systems is generally outside the scope of designs as well. :\

 

[twinstead]

You are right I wouldn't. I want details. Sorry about that but that is how engineers think and work.

The engineered items you enjoy in your modern life weren't designed by handwaves, which you apparently have no problem accepting. The engineers needed to know and show the details to prove they could work.

So then what am I to think when an engineer IS shown all the details that could possible be known, yet he STILL refuses to accept it? When does a layman start wondering about the competency of an engineer when other, even more qualified engineers become exasperated trying to explain something to him? How many real engineers need to tell another engineer he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about before a layman gets frustrated as well?

IMHO like many truthers, you have some ideological issues with 911 that are totally unrelated to the science involved. I'm a little disappointed that you constantly play the "I'm an engineer; I need details" card when your posts suggest that you are simply desperately trying to argue an untenable position that other engineers know is untenable.

 

[DGM]

Ah....I well remember the debunker who once told me that they could see the transit moving and that it was clear from as early as 2;00 PM that it could never stop the building from ccollapsing .

It's nice to see a willingnness for full disclosure here. A reader wuld only have to skim through the recent debunker posts to see that . lol

Transit moving? "It" couldn't stop it? What the hell are you talking about?

 

[dafydd]

Transit moving? "It" couldn't stop it? What the hell are you talking about?

Ignore it,Bill is a troll who will spout any old nonsense just to provoke a reaction.

 

[TruthersLie]

Bump for Tony since he seems to want to ignore these question. Come on tony, man up

Obviously you don't. Handwave noted.

Obviously you think you could do a better job in a completely FUBAR situation. How many more dead firefighters would have made you happy tony?

should they have run up to a seriously damange building to hook hoses up to it to try to fight fires when the building could come down with very little notice (like wtc1 and 2 did on top of the marshalling firefighters)?

Huh tony?

It is nice to know that you are "rambo" and can do a much better job. So again tony.

How many more dead firefighters would have made you happy tony?

 

[WildCat]

I think many of us would simply like some details other than "the building had a bulge and we knew it was going to collapse".

Do you even know what wall this supposed bulge was on?

You and your ilk have been given the details. Then you accuse the eyewitnesses of being in on it, because there's no youtube video to watch.

 

[WildCat]

You are right I wouldn't. I want details. Sorry about that but that is how engineers think and work.

The engineered items you enjoy in your modern life weren't designed by handwaves, which you apparently have no problem accepting. The engineers needed to know and show the details to prove they could work.

Engineers have worked out the details. The only ones who don't accept it are the <1% who drank the David Ray Griffin kool-aid.

And frankly, most of those have obvious mental health issues. Like the AE911truth guru who thinks nuclear weapons brought down the towers.

 

[bill smith]

So where is the Super-Truther bardamu ? Was he knifed in some dark alley of the jref? Anybody know ?

 

[WildCat]

You are right I wouldn't. I want details. Sorry about that but that is how engineers think and work.

The engineered items you enjoy in your modern life weren't designed by handwaves, which you apparently have no problem accepting. The engineers needed to know and show the details to prove they could work.

Tell me Tony, in what world do engineers publish papers exclusively in tin-foil hat conspiracy web sites?

You don't have a single paper published in an actual peer-reviwed engineering journal, and we all know why. It's because your paper and theory is a joke amongst the engineering community, except for the <.1% at Richard Gage's little club of nutters.

But it is interesting watching you flail about so, particularly with the revelation that non-existent pools of molten steel is what sent you to the cesspool of Trutherville.

 

[Edx]

Its funny Tony asks about the specifics of where the buldge was on Building 7 showing he has not read even the summaries of the firefighter interviews.

I am not shocked at his incompetence.