• 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

nicepants said:
I know this was discussed pages ago but I think it bears bringing up again. I would love to see Tony's response to this:

The problem I have with your statements above is that you seem to think that a moving body cannot transfer kinetic energy to another body without a decrease in velocity. This is true if the body is moving at a constant velocity but not necessarily true if the moving body is accelerating.
Click to expand...
I respect Tony's equanimity, but not his refusal to see a tilt or to admit the physics.

As NutCracker noted, the fact that an accelerating object can transfer kinetic energy without losing velocity is high school physics.

The large public university I attended offered Newtonian mechanics in the first course of four different introductory sequences, colloquially known as:
  • physics for poets
  • physics for engineers
  • physics for scientists
  • honors physics (restricted to math and physics majors)
As this thread has reminded us, the better students who take physics for poets may learn more physics than the weaker students who take physics for engineers.

Will
 
bill smith said:
They eere designed to extinguish office fires. And what did NIST call the fires in WTC7 ? 'Office Fires ' if you remember. And when they were tiny like in the videos as I mentioned they could easily have been put out using a virtually unlimited number of extinguishers and tons of manpower.
[/B]
Click to expand...

Why would you send firemen into a building that was predicted to collapse?

 
Edx said:
No they arent designed to extinguish large office fires, they are designed to extinguish small office fires just after they get started.

By the time they got together enough fire extinguishers to put out Building 7's initial fires they would have now have massive fires that the extinguishers would not have been able to deal with.
Click to expand...

This is the second debunker that I have had to stop from grossly exaggerating the fires as described. So here is the hyperlink again in which I anticipated this typical debunker behaviour. Temper your judgement dear Reader with this proof.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5393344&postcount=1622 hyperlink
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
Yup. Even my son, who is graduating in Management, understands this better than the "engineer for troof"
Click to expand...

I am still grasping for breath and struggling to regain the capability to speak.

The sore forehead and headache are lesser issues.
 
bill smith said:
This is the second debunker that I have had to stop from grossly exaggerating the fires as described. So here is the hyperlink again in which I anticipated this typical debunker behaviour. Temper your judgement dear Reader with this proof.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5393344&postcount=1622 hyperlink
Click to expand...

Which part of that post of yours is what you are talking about?

This bit?

"They could have easily put out those little itty-bitty initial fires that you can show us ? Because that is absolutely all ou can show us". - Bill Smith

My point is that those "itty bitty fires" were as you say initially that size. They would not have had time to run around gathering all those fire extinguishers before it increased from a small fire to a large fire where those small office extinguishers would have been ineffective.

But you do realise that the fires we can see clearly in pictures and videos are on the other side of the building, right? That means the fire had spread accross the entire floor, thats an entire BLOCK's worth of raging fires.

How many extinguishers would you say would have been necessary to put out fires that size out?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
bill smiths amazing plan to save the world trade center.

"Just think too AL...the FD could have impounded every fire extinguisher within a square mile. Say tens of thousands of extinguishers in all. They could have easily put out those little itty-bitty initial fires that you can show us ? Because that is absolutely all ou can show us. (Readers note that the debunkers may now attempt to show later and slightly larger fires. The readers and I are looking for the initial pictures of fires in WTC7 that could easily be put out with the use of thousands of fire extinguishers (if they had been needed)

Or perhaps there was a lot of chaos and shock and people not thinking straight etc ? lol "


Do you seriously believe you could get close enough to actually use a fire extinguisher bill?
Whats their range, 10 feet?

They should have just blown up the big water tanks on the top floor that every hi-rise has hey bill, it worked perfectly in 'the towering inferno' when steve mcqueen blew up the water tank with a controlled demolition.
 
Here ya go, an itty bitty initial fire:

060929greatwhitehmedhme.jpg


Now.....how long did it stay itty bitty?
 
bill smith:
(if they had been needed)
All bill needed was a few of his truther pals and a case of beer and they could've have put out the fires with their itty bitty little peckers, hey bill.
 
Macgyver1968 said:
What floors did the fires start on in the WTC7?
Click to expand...

NIST is very vague on this, saying only that fires started shortly after the collapse of the N. Tower on multiple floors.

Now, if you check that against the photographic record, the fires are first recorded at 12:10PM in two windows in the SW corner of Floor 22.
 
TruthersLie said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've decided to award you 3 out of 10 for this effort, since you do seem to have a vague idea of the what the word means and you've demonstrated that you know exactly where it fits into a sentence. However, I'm not sure you fully appreciate the connotations that go with the usage of the word.

Use of the word "purported", suggests that the speaker is sceptical of a claim. In our first example, Tony was indicating that he's sceptical of the idea that any walls of WTC 7 were bulging or leaning.

If you don't believe me, ask you wife or any first year ESL student. I'm confident they'll confirm what I'm telling you.
 
Mangoose said:
Here ya go, an itty bitty initial fire:

[qimg]http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/6997/060929greatwhitehmedhme.jpg[/qimg]

Now.....how long did it stay itty bitty?
Click to expand...

This fire that you are describing as an inital fire is in fact pretty well at it's zenith. This fire and all other visible fires had gone out virtually completely prior to collapse.

Furthermore this was virtually the full extent of any fires seen in WTC7.

Readers will understand from this transparent attempt to mislead that we Truthers have a difficult job trying to establish the Truth against such people.
 
How close do you think you would get to this fire in WTC 5 bill?


Might need a keg for that one bill.:rolleyes:
 
bill smith said:
This fire that you are describing as an inital fire is in fact pretty well at it's zenith. This fire and all other visible fires had gone out virtually completely prior to collapse.

Furthermore this was virtually the full extent of any fires seen in WTC7.

Readers will understand from this transparent attempt to mislead that we Truthers have a difficult job trying to establish the Truth against such people.
Click to expand...

Come on Bill answer the question.

How many extinguishers would you say would have been necessary to put out fires the size of a city block on several floors?
 
W.D.Clinger said:
I respect Tony's equanimity, but not his refusal to see a tilt or to admit the physics.

As NutCracker noted, the fact that an accelerating object can transfer kinetic energy without losing velocity is high school physics.

The large public university I attended offered Newtonian mechanics in the first course of four different introductory sequences, colloquially known as:
  • physics for poets
  • physics for engineers
  • physics for scientists
  • honors physics (restricted to math and physics majors)
As this thread has reminded us, the better students who take physics for poets may learn more physics than the weaker students who take physics for engineers.

Will
Click to expand...

Not only does there not need to be a reduction in velocity during a collision, but velocity can actually increase if the applied forces are unequal in magnitude and direction.
Tony has no idea that Force (and thus acceleration) is a vector...
 
RedIbis said:
NIST is very vague on this, saying only that fires started shortly after the collapse of the N. Tower on multiple floors.

Now, if you check that against the photographic record, the fires are first recorded at 12:10PM in two windows in the SW corner of Floor 22.
Click to expand...

Thanks Red!
 
Edx said:
Come on Bill answer the question.

How many extinguishers would you say would have been necessary to put out fires the size of a city block on several floors?
Click to expand...

Nobody is interested in how many fire extinguishers it would take to put out a fire the size of a city block. This is a very typical debunker strawman We are talking about WTC7 where there was almost no fire relatively speaking.

Look at the clip of many collapse views of WTC7 and feel free to take a time stamp where you see all this fire you are lying about. Or any fire really. I ask the reader to consider he phrase you used ' fires the size of a city block '
Misleading eh ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZsA3xb2kOA&feature=player_embedded Many views WTC7

Also note that when the building collapses the South Side reveals no tongues or great gouts of fire and sparks as you might expect with all that smoke. At no point is the smoke shot through with fire at all- ever.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom