Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[WildCat]

It's in the 2008 WTC7 report. P 599, table 12.2

-6.0 seconds Start of cascading failure of floors surrounding column 79 (observed, building began to oscillate)
0 s. Start of descent of E PH

etc etc
6.9 s Initial downward motion of the N. Face roofline at the E section of bldg
9.3 sec Descent of W PH below roofline

Global collapse

Damn, poor ol' RedIbis still doesn't have a single fact with which to start his 9/11 Fact Movement!

 

[alienentity]

We'd have to know the angle of inclination.

Get out your calipers.
Source of images: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOIebjT2jaM

 

[TruthersLie]

You forgot the angle of inclination. Don't forget to post a link to videos or photos so we can measure it and verify that the lean doesn't just exist in your vivid imagination.

no, No, NO! BAD TWOOF.

You are the one who uses made up discussion points with no facts. At least get your FACTS straight.

Or do you admit that neither the towers nor wtc7 collapsed into their own footprint?

Or do you admit the facts that neither the towers nor wtc7 collapsed at "near freefall?"

Try again twoof. This time, use facts or even basic science.

 

[R.Mackey]

In what world do rocket scientists only take part in debates that are moderated by a host who is so biased he has to make a disclaimer at the start of the show?

As you all know, I have this particular joker on Ignore, as he believes all kinds of fantastic things -- no planes hit the World Trade Center, the FDNY is part of the Vast Conspiracy, and that the Moon Landings were faked, at minimum -- making any rational discussion with him unlikely, to put it mildly. However, I was alerted by another reader to this particular post as a singular example of Truther dishonesty.

The most correct answer that can be provided is, of course, the Planet Earth. Which leaves one to wonder upon which celestial body this question was penned.

The question is, however, a classic example of the Fallacy of Many Questions. It is loaded from the outset, as follows:

• Whether or not I am a rocket scientist has little to do with the answer, so why was it included in the question? There are plenty of other aerospace engineers and space scientists here at the JREF, and indeed one (apparently only one) former NASA employee on the side of the Truthers, as well.

• Who said the only debate I take part in is the show Hardfire? Science doesn't typically work that way, and neither do I. There is no requirement for a face-to-face discussion, which is a good thing, otherwise Einstein would never have been able to improve upon Newton, as Newton had been dead for a considerable length of time and would have proved indefatiguable in debate. Instead, I've written a great deal, notably my 300-page summary paper analyzing Dr. Griffin and popular mystifications of the NIST report, and Truthers are encouraged to respond to it intelligently. Years roll on, and they still haven't.

• The host of Hardfire was not, as the question presupposes, forced to explain his bias because of its severity. Rather, he explained his bias because he is honest. Try getting that on a Truther radio show. Everyone has a bias, and he declared his at the outset without prompting, yet he is criticized for this. The Truthers have it backwards, as always.

• The question also implies that the show Hardfire, thanks to this bias, is an unsuitable ground for discussion. However, this flies in the face of the established fact that Ace Baker, bardamu's own idol (or perhaps even more than that), once appeared on the show -- a fact of which he is already aware. This is application of a double standard at best.

• Furthermore, I haven't heard Tony complaining about the bias affecting his presentation. I think his ideas are totally nuts, but I give him credit for trying to keep the discussion fair, and for not whining about bias afterward.

So much nonsense packed in one little sentence. You almost have to admire it. This is not an accident.

This is what separates bardamu and other clever but delusional Truthers from the mere juveniles, such as Algebra34 or whatever he calls himself these days. While the latter provides no evidence of reasoning facility at all, the former reasons deeply, intricately, and in a manner totally disconnected from reality. Hence the irreversible spiral into no-planer and Apollo-denier territory -- both undeniable and stark delusions for which direct physical counterevidence exists and is easily accessible. This behavior is also consistent with my whitepaper on Irreducible Delusion.

To phrase the question in a more straightforward, honest manner: Why did I appear on Hardfire, and only there? Because they're the only show that asked. Simple.

If I was really in the New World Order, I wouldn't even do that much. I'd just beam the show directly into your brain. Sweet dreams.

 

[TruthersLie]

Hey Bard. You might want to go back to school and pay attention. Your lack of reading comprehension skills have bit you in the ass again.

Notice who said it FIRST?

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?

So I then responded to the basic idea that Tony came up with that "it is hard to think a building with a leaning or bulging wall means the entire structure will collapse."

An engineer said this... in fact a twoof engineer said this. So take up your bs complaint against him.

My reply

Umm tony you do realize that when skyscrapers are built straight up, that when they start leaning and are on fire there is usually one thing that will happen right?

When a building with the footprint the size of a football field is leaning, with massive visible damage, and unfought fires going on inside it...... what do you think may happen?

again, how many more dead fire fighters would make you happy tony? 50? 100? 10?

Then you stick your nose in it, showing your lack of reading comprehension, while lying about the collapse mechanisms of wtc 1,2 and 7

We'd have to know the angle of inclination. Please provide that information, then we can work out whether the building would be expected to fall into its own footprint at near freefall speed.

Unless it happened on 9/11, you'd expect it to remain standing, like all the other tall buildings that have never collapsed primarily due to fire, according to NIST.

And again your reading for comprehension fails you.

You forgot the angle of inclination. Don't forget to post a link to videos or photos so we can measure it and verify that the lean doesn't just exist in your vivid imagination.

So that would be TONY S who needs to provide you with the angle of the wall was leaning wasn't it twoof?

I stated that if the wall is leaning and bulging because the building is damaged and on fire for 8 hours, it is not stable and likely to collpase. Please in all of your firefighting wisdom prove that statement is incorrect.

Again you may want to take that class my wife offers for reading for COMPREHENSION. Pm me and I'll let you know about it. I know being in class with Middle Eastern ESL students will be hard, but you can catch up rather quickly if you work at it.

It's not me who's making extraordinary claims. He seems to believe the building was leaning.

No you are right. It is Tony S who is making the claim about leaning buildings. So take it up with him.

 

[BigAl]

No, we don't need an angle of inclination. FDNY is trained on this sort of thing.

7WTC did not fall into its own footprint. Why you ask? Because the ROOF of FITTERMAN HALL was hit by the collapse of 7.

I have a distinct recollection of a big beam being impaled in the SE corner of 140 West St (aka the Verizon building) which New Yorkers know is just a few yards from the SW corner of WTC7. If there was no beam, there certainly was lots of damage, anyway.

Was that beam (if I recall correctly) and that damage caused by the collapse of the North tower or WTC7 (or both?)

 

[TruthersLie]

Big Al.

140 West St. was damaged by both the north tower and wtc7. It was damaged on 2 sides.

Damage from wtc7

damage from wtc7.

damage from the north tower

All in all there was over $1 Billion in damages to the Verizon building from wtc 7 and the north tower.

You can find a complete and comprehensive list of the damages here
http://images.google.com/imgres?img...ng&gbv=2&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dT8fS8vhG4batAPa3rSmCg

So for a building which collapsed "symmetrically and uniformly into its own footprint" (the claim of da twoof about wtc7 which is most definately a lie) it sure did a lot of damage to 2 adjacent buildings which were both across the street from it on opposite sides, including hitting fitterman hall on the roof.

 

[BigAl]

Big Al.

140 West St. was damaged by both the north tower and wtc7. It was damaged on 2 sides.

Thanks.

 

[bardamu]

Actually you're making the claims, not anyone else. There's alot of people who said that they felt the buildings lean after the planes impacts. About 6 feet!

Get out your calipers.
Source of images: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOIebjT2jaM

We were discussing Building 7 and why the FD allowed it to smoulder all afternoon.

Oh. I'm sorry. I thought you were going to address the question as to why you are using two lies, that the buildings fell at near-freefall speed and fell into their own footprints, to support your arguments.

Carry on

Building 7 fell into its own footprint and at near freefall speed, unless you want to doctor the data by including a few stray pieces of debris and 13 seconds of unobservable buckling.

No, we don't need an angle of inclination. FDNY is trained on this sort of thing?

Regardless of FDNY training, if there's no angle of inclination in the videos, the building wasn't leaning.

Hey Bard. You might want to go back to school and pay attention. Your lack of reading comprehension skills have bit you in the ass again.

Notice who said it FIRST?

So I then responded to the basic idea that Tony came up with that "it is hard to think a building with a leaning or bulging wall means the entire structure will collapse."

An engineer said this... in fact a twoof engineer said this. So take up your bs complaint against him.

My reply

Then you stick your nose in it, showing your lack of reading comprehension, while lying about the collapse mechanisms of wtc 1,2 and 7

And again your reading for comprehension fails you.

So that would be TONY S who needs to provide you with the angle of the wall was leaning wasn't it twoof?

I stated that if the wall is leaning and bulging because the building is damaged and on fire for 8 hours, it is not stable and likely to collpase. Please in all of your firefighting wisdom prove that statement is incorrect.

Again you may want to take that class my wife offers for reading for COMPREHENSION. Pm me and I'll let you know about it. I know being in class with Middle Eastern ESL students will be hard, but you can catch up rather quickly if you work at it.

No you are right. It is Tony S who is making the claim about leaning buildings. So take it up with him.

Get your wife, or some ESL student, to tell you what "purported" means.

 

[TruthersLie]

We were discussing Building 7 and why the FD allowed it to smoulder all afternoon.

They should have peed on it. That would have done it.

Building 7 fell into its own footprint and at near freefall speed, unless you want to doctor the data by including a few stray pieces of debris and 13 seconds of unobservable buckling.

You might want to look up the words
FOOTPRINT
NEAR
FREEFALL
and Speed.

Oh heck. Let me google that for you. Now just read the top four or five to see that if ANY PART of wtc 7 fell outside the ground floor, it is then OUTSIDE OF ITS FOOTPRINT. doh.

How do I doctor the data by including a few stray pieces of debris? Do you have any images or video which show it is just a "few stray pieces of debris?" Of course not.

But we do have observable damage to 2 buildings adjacent to this building. Each was across a 30 foot street. One building (the verizon building) suffered $1.5 Billion in damages. And the other one (Fitterman hall) was struck ON THE ROOF causing a progressive collapse that is easily visible. That isn't a "few stray pieces" any more than WTC7 was only hit with a "few stray pieces" from the north tower. That isn't "doctoring" any data. It is fact. Try again.

Regardless of FDNY training, if there's no angle of inclination in the videos, the building wasn't leaning.

Regardless, Tony S (you know twoof extrordinare) brought up the leaning building... you can build buildings which are leaning. If it is part of the design, no hu hu. but if that same building in on fire for 8 hours with no firefighting, it is a good bet it will collapse.

Get your wife, or some ESL student, to tell you what "purported" means.

Oh I have a wonderful vocabulary twoof, I'll even use it in a sentence. I love your purported proof. Your purported information is grossly inaccurate.

(doh)
ROFLMAO. Oh poor twoof. What is momentum again? huh ace? How does momentum work?

dictionary.com is your friend. Go and look up what architectural footprint is. (wtc7 did not fall into its own footprint), look up what NEAR is... 18 secodns which is over 200% is nowhere NEAR freefall. try again)

poor widdle twoof.

 

[BigAl]

We were discussing Building 7 and why the FD allowed it to smoulder all afternoon.

Without water, FDNY didn't have a choice. There was no water at WTC on 9/11 after the towers fell.

Here's your "smoldering", a couple minutes into this excellent 8 minutes of WTC video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpAHh-yT25Q​

Building 7 fell into its own footprint and at near freefall speed, 16 seconds unless you want to doctor the data by including a few stray pieces of debris and 13 seconds of unobservable buckling.

Regardless of FDNY training, if there's no angle of inclination in the videos, the building wasn't leaning.

So you need a 9/11 coloring book to present facts in a way you can understand??

bardamu has been shown all of this. He is a simple troll.

 

[twinstead]

Wow. Great debate mojo, bard. Deny any evidence that contradicts you by simply saying it didn't happen, or was faked. You can't lose!

 

[bill smith]

Without water, FDNY didn't have a choice. There was no water at WTC on 9/11 after the towers fell.

Here's your "smoldering", a couple minutes into this excellent 8 minutes of WTC video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpAHh-yT25Q​

Building 7 fell into its own footprint and at near freefall speed, 16 seconds unless you want to doctor the data by including a few stray pieces of debris and 13 seconds of unobservable buckling.



So you need a 9/11 coloring book to present facts in a way you can understand??

bardamu has been shown all of this. He is a simple troll.

Why didn't they just pump the water from the river a few hundred feet way to fight the fires in WTC7 ? They could have pumped truck-to-truck right up to the fire or placed staging pumps in with choppers. There is no doubt that this could have been done in no time, yet they had almost eight hours in which they made no attempt to do so.

Was it chaos-shock-nobody thinking straight-etc ?

 

[BigAl]

Why didn't they just pump the water from the river a few hundred feet way to fight the fires in WTC7 ? They could have pumped truck-to-truck right up to the fire or placed staging pumps in with choppers. There is no doubt that this could have been done in no time, yet they had almost eight hours in which they made no aattempt to do so.

Was it chaos-shock-nobody thinking straight-etc ?

Troll. Reported.

 

[RedIbis]

It's in the 2008 WTC7 report. P 599, table 12.2

-6.0 seconds Start of cascading failure of floors surrounding column 79 (observed, building began to oscillate)
0 s. Start of descent of E PH

etc etc
6.9 s Initial downward motion of the N. Face roofline at the E section of bldg
9.3 sec Descent of W PH below roofline

Global collapse

Also see B.5 SEISMIC SIGNALS FROM THE WTC 7 COLLAPSE p 667
B.7 SUMMARY OF SEISMIC DATA p672

NCSTAR 1-9

Quotes and links please. And does this suggest the total of those figures is the collapse time?

 

[bill smith]

Troll. Reported.

The fish reporting the fisherperson ? Whatever next ?

 

[tsig]

You would go into a 47 story structure that was leaning and had a large bulge in the base that was obviously not in the original design?

And you call yourself an engineer....

Oh and btw collapse zones are firefighting 101.

If you want to live for 102.

 

[triforcharity]

We were discussing Building 7 and why the FD allowed it to smoulder all afternoon.

You know why we let it burn. You're being obtuse again.

Building 7 fell into its own footprint and at near freefall speed, unless you want to doctor the data by including a few stray pieces of debris and 13 seconds of unobservable buckling.

Again, please explain, The Verizon Building, and also Fitterman Hall.

Regardless of FDNY training, if there's no angle of inclination in the videos, the building wasn't leaning.

Not true. Just because you say it wasn't leaning, doesn't mean it wasn't. Did you see it with your own two eyes? No, you didn't? Ok.
Also, did you forget about the multi-story bulge in the building?

Get your wife, or some ESL student, to tell you what "purported" means.

You should do the same for the word "Footprint".

 

[triforcharity]

Why didn't they just pump the water from the river a few hundred feet way to fight the fires in WTC7 ? They could have pumped truck-to-truck right up to the fire or placed staging pumps in with choppers. There is no doubt that this could have been done in no time, yet they had almost eight hours in which they made no aattempt to do so.

Was it chaos-shock-nobody thinking straight-etc ?

It has already been explained to Tony why this wasn't feesable, or possible.
It has been explained many times, by not only myself, but others.

Priorities and firefighter safety.

 

[twinstead]

Monday morning firefighters ROCK!