• 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

bill smith said:
Nobody is interested in how many fire extinguishers it woud 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.
Click to expand...

Bill,

How many fire extinguishers would it take to put out all 3 building fires? How many hand lines would it have took to put them out?

WTC7 had fire in it, you're not an FDNY firefighter Bill! You weren't there to witness it first hand!

Don't tell any firefighters, especially me, that there wasn't fire in WTC7. I see thick smoke coming from a building I know what the hell it is. You apparently ignore it because it doesn't compute in your feeble mind.
 
bill smith said:
Nobody is interested in how many fire extinguishers it woud 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 rader 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.
Click to expand...

Could that be because WTC7 didnt have open space flloors where the aircraft wreckage and office contents were pushed into piles and burning in chimney like conditions due to the 6 floor spread of holes?

lets not forget the collapse of the interior of WTC 7 first hey bill.
 
billsmith said:
This fire that you are describing as an initial 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.
Click to expand...


Yeah, right. More like 15 seconds after initiation. And subsequently grew to a monster blaze that consumed the whole building and killed 100 people within five minutes.
 
Mangoose said:
Yeah, right. More like 15 seconds after initiation. And subsequently grew to a monster blaze that consumed the whole building and killed 100 people within five minutes.
Click to expand...

Bill and his ilk don't give a damn about those 100 people.
 
cyclonic said:
Could that be because WTC7 didnt have open space flloors where the aircraft wreckage and office contents were pushed into piles and burning in chimney like conditions due to the 6 floor spread of holes?
Click to expand...

That's an interesting thought. If the wind blowing into the plane hole of the north tower made the fires more intense, why would that building take much longer to collapse than the south tower, which had no hole facing the direction the wind was blowing from?
 
bardamu said:
That's an interesting thought. If the wind blowing into the plane hole of the north tower made the fires more intense, why would that building take much longer to collapse than the south tower, which had no hole facing the direction the wind was blowing from?
Click to expand...

The south tower collapsed first because it had to support more floors than the north tower did.
 
bill smith said:
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.
Click to expand...

Once again Bill even in the fires we can see on photos and video (not including the videos of smoke coming out of every floor) these fires on those floors are the size of an entire block.

So how many extinguishers do you think should have been enough to put them out?
 
Last edited:
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
Bill,

How many fire extinguishers would it take to put out all 3 building fires? How many hand lines would it have took to put them out?

WTC7 had fire in it, you're not an FDNY firefighter Bill! You weren't there to witness it first hand!

Don't tell any firefighters, especially me, that there wasn't fire in WTC7. I see thick smoke coming from a building I know what the hell it is. You apparently ignore it because it doesn't compute in your feeble mind.
Click to expand...


C'mon Chewy, you're falling behind.

Didn't you know that billy has all the proof that he needs (i.e., his fertile imagination) that there were no fires in WTC7 or the towers.

And his fertile little imagination tells him that "they put SMOKE MACHINES in all of those buildings"...!

Do try to keep up with the World According to Billy.

Tom
 
bill smith said:
I hope you readers are reading the exchange about how the fires in WTC7 could have been put out. You should pay attention to the extreme weakness of the answers most of the debunkers are putting up and use that to inform your judgement about whether 9/11 was an inside job and whether these debunkers know that. And why they would pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

Argument from personal ignorance noted.
 
bill smith said:
They were 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.

Between pumping water truck-to-truck or using pumps from the river and the fire extinguishers you guys may consider yourselves officially busted
Click to expand...

Tons of manpower? Do you not understand that we were more concerned with trying to save LIVES. A building comes second.

Every single time. Without question, without hesitation.
 
tfk said:
C'mon Chewy, you're falling behind.

Didn't you know that billy has all the proof that he needs (i.e., his fertile imagination) that there were no fires in WTC7 or the towers.

And his fertile little imagination tells him that "they put SMOKE MACHINES in all of those buildings"...!

Do try to keep up with the World According to Billy.

Tom
Click to expand...

Tom,

I try not to keep up with Billies world. His world is too complicated even for himself.
 
Bill, here are some pics of 7WTC after the collapse,

This one taken about 30 minutes after the collapse of the second tower.

WTC_misc-43.jpg




WTC_misc-83.jpg


Wanna tell me why the flames are shooting out the windows??

So, in 30 minutes, there are already flames shooting out of windows. How many fire extinguishers do you think could have put that out? 20-30? Ok, now, organize 10 men to gather 30 of them from somewhere thata will LET us enter their building, (we can't just break doors down) and take into consideration that there is nobody left in lower Manhattan.
 
NutCracker said:
Huh? Am I understanding Mr. Szamboti right? Is he claiming that dv / dt needs to be < 0 ??? But..but..but.. there is velocity loss. Heck the hole bloody lot is in a 1g gravity field. The bloody lot is offset by g*t. Even Chandler (?) concedes the top block accelerates at 0.64 (?) g's. dv / dt + g = 0.64 g. Ergo dv / dt = - 0.36 g's. <----- Here is Szamboti's velocity loss. So here we have the absent, cough, cough, dynamic load.

Tell me I misunderstand him in some way, because the consequence of me understanding him correctly is that when I drop a lead ball in a bowl of butter the ball does not exert a force on the butter.
Click to expand...

No, you don't understand. A static load at rest is being decelerated at 1g.

To break a structure with a mass it is designed to handle several times over statically one needs load amplification. Load amplification can only occur if the deceleration of the impacting mass is greater than gravity.

Since F=ma the a needs to be greater than g to increase the force beyond the static weight.

No deceleration greater than gravity means no load amplification. The upper section of WTC 1 never decelerated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom