• 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:
I purchased the book and read it. It is a very good book and several of the case studies are quite interesting. However, they do not get into detail about the WTC. They just use the NIST line of fire induced collapse. They wouldn't have known when they printed the book that there was no deceleration of the upper section of the building or that the resistance was only 0.3g at any point and what the ramifications of these things were.
Click to expand...
deceleration of the upper section of the building
Click to expand...

Do you mean deceleration as negative change in speed (ignoring changes in direction), I mean do you mean the collapse slowed down?

I thought what happened was that the collapse didnt accelerate at the same rate it would have if it just dropped in thin air. That it did accelerate and that the speed of collapse never decreased. The speed of collapse was always increasing was it not, just not at the same rate of increase as free fall?
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
I used to think Szamboti was just a little misguided and overzealous. After he ran his mouth about FDNY, I put him in the same category as all the other frauds. One things for sure, I'll never send my kid to Villanova.
Click to expand...

If you actually read what I have said here I do not place blame for anything on the FDNY.

I have said that I believe they were conned into thinking that WTC 7 was going to collapse and made what they thought was the only decision to make in not risking more lives fighting it's fires.

Nowhere on this page or any others will you see me saying the FDNY was involved in anything nefarious.

What I have said is that the excuse profferred by the NIST concerning the water mains being destroyed by the towers does not show there was no way to fight the fires in WTC 7. There were fireboats in the river and lines could be run from them or distant hydrants with pumpers and used on the siamese fittings on the outside of the building to charge the sprinkler system.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
There were fireboats in the river and lines
could be run from them or distant hydrants with pumpers and used on the siamese fittings on the outside of the building to charge the sprinkler system.
Click to expand...

I don't think you've responded to the couple people with firefighting experience that commented on the futility of such an attempt. One was Tri who was on-site that day.

My comment is that FDNY (or what was left of it) was fully deployed saving buildings that could be saved (for example, 90 West and 140 West, a very important building) and doing search and rescue on the pile. This sounds to me like 9/11 was a zero-sum day for FDNY.

You assume that the siamese risers and sprinklers survived and had the capacity to fight the fires as they were shortly after 10:20, the time WTC1 hit WTC7.

Maybe FDNY knew something you don't know.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
If you actually read what I have said here I do not place blame for anything on the FDNY.

I have said that I believe they were conned into thinking that WTC 7 was going to collapse and made what they thought was the only decision to make in not risking more lives fighting it's fires.

Nowhere on this page or any others will you see me saying the FDNY was involved in anything nefarious.

What I have said is that the excuse profferred by the NIST concerning the water mains being destroyed by the towers does not show there was no way to fight the fires in WTC 7. There were fireboats in the river and lines could be run from them or distant hydrants with pumpers and used on the siamese fittings on the outside of the building to charge the sprinkler system.
Click to expand...

And I and others have explained why that was not possible. And yet, you ignore it.

Im a little lazy right now to look for it, I would be more than happy to explain it again to you. Only if you promise to learn, or at least try. I don't mind helping you understand. I do it for a living.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
What I have said is that the excuse profferred by the NIST concerning the water mains being destroyed by the towers does not show there was no way to fight the fires in WTC 7. There were fireboats in the river and lines could be run from them or distant hydrants with pumpers and used on the siamese fittings on the outside of the building to charge the sprinkler system.
Click to expand...

The insinuation is that the NYFD was negligent in how they handled the fire.It must be nice to sit back at your computer 8 years later and imply this.

Why not consider for a moment that the building was evacuated, there were a million known and unknown variables to fighting the fire, all evidence suggested it was doomed anyways, it was total chaos, and they did in fact "pull" all of the firefighters out and let it burn to the ground?

Instead of doing what you are, and trying to make it seem like the NYFD is a bunch of paid off putzes that stood around and lit cigars off the flames while people around them screamed "For the love of God why won't you do something?"

I really don't know what your intention is, but from where I'm sitting this is what I'm seeing. Just so you know.
 
3bodyproblem said:
The insinuation is that the NYFD was negligent in how they handled the fire.It must be nice to sit back at your computer 8 years later and imply this.

Why not consider for a moment that the building was evacuated, there were a million known and unknown variables to fighting the fire, all evidence suggested it was doomed anyways, it was total chaos, and they did in fact "pull" all of the firefighters out and let it burn to the ground?

Instead of doing what you are, and trying to make it seem like the NYFD is a bunch of paid off putzes that stood around and lit cigars off the flames while people around them screamed "For the love of God why won't you do something?"

I really don't know what your intention is, but from where I'm sitting this is what I'm seeing. Just so you know.
Click to expand...
I think this all comes from an underlying need for WTC 7 to be important enough to be saved as opposed to what it really was, just another building. Without this the urgency for the FDNY to save it and ignore everything else they were dealing with would not be there.
 
DGM said:
I think this all comes from an underlying need for WTC 7 to be important enough to be saved as opposed to what it really was, just another building. Without this the urgency for the FDNY to save it and ignore everything else they were dealing with would not be there.
Click to expand...

You think the largest Secret Service field office was just another bldg?
 
RedIbis said:
You think the largest Secret Service field office was just another bldg?
Click to expand...

Do you think it was predicted that the largest Secret Service field office was going to collapse and nothing could be done to prevent it?

Do you think that 140 West St was just another building?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
If you actually read what I have said here I do not place blame for anything on the FDNY.

I have said that I believe they were conned into thinking that WTC 7 was going to collapse and made what they thought was the only decision to make in not risking more lives fighting it's fires.
Click to expand...
And here is a place where you can write the evidence that supports your belief that Rudy Giuliani et al "conned" the FDNY into thinking or doing anything. Just hit "quote" and type the evidence in this little box here. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I have said that I believe they were conned into thinking that WTC 7 was going to collapse and made what they thought was the only decision to make in not risking more lives fighting it's fires.
Click to expand...

Why was it a "con" if the people making the prediction were right?
 
(rimshot) - good one.

If anyone in NYC ever referred to this building (WTC7), it was called the Salomon brothers building "which is by the world trade center" or something.
 
carlitos said:
(rimshot) - good one.

If anyone in NYC ever referred to this building (WTC7), it was called the Salomon brothers building "which is by the world trade center" or something.
Click to expand...

I knew the WTC towers and the plaza very well but prior to 9/11 I couldn't have identified WTC7/Salomon Brothers without a map.
 
carlitos said:
(rimshot) - good one.

If anyone in NYC ever referred to this building (WTC7), it was called the Salomon brothers building "which is by the world trade center" or something.
Click to expand...

Prior to 911 I only thought of it as that. Only after 911 did I ever refer to it as WTC7.
 
DGM said:
I think this all comes from an underlying need for WTC 7 to be important enough to be saved as opposed to what it really was, just another building. Without this the urgency for the FDNY to save it and ignore everything else they were dealing with would not be there.
Click to expand...

One of the first videos I ever saw on this silly conspiracy was shot by a couple of guys off their balcony. The audio is fuzzy, but the two guys pan to WTC7 and say something to the effect of "Oh man, that things been burning and smoking for hours, it's going down".

Obviously shot by a couple of psychics. I need to track them down and get them to enter in the MDC. How could they possibly know? How?
 
QFT

This may be worth repeating
R.Mackey said:
Also, for those engaging bill smith about the "question" of why I didn't acknowledge something as fact that only happened in his imagination, this discussion belongs in a rubber room, not my thread. Any further postings or responses on that subject are off-topic and will be reported. This is your only warning. Don't feed obvious trolls.
Click to expand...
 
Discussion on cross bracing split to here and molten steel to here.

One derail at a time please. I'm getting too old for this. Thanks.
Posted By: Gaspode
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom