• 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

Has he actually asserted any position, anywhere? I just see the whole 'answering a question with a question thing' going back for like 2 years.
Red doesn't like answering questions, which considering his ignorance in the technical aspects of the subject matter, isn't surprising. So he mostly refrains from making any claims.

He has, on rare occasion, offered up an idea but each time his "facts" are badly beaten down so he's a bit shy anymore.
 
For some reason, some posters and the mods seem not to like it when I agressively question you on some of your claims.

This is strange on a skeptic's forum since it is a very unique thing to have a principal witness of the very event members have spent hundreds of thousands of posts in tens of thousands of threads on.

Otherwise, I would ask you a whole slew of questions to determine if what you claim is true or it's just another fabricated tale.

So bascially you're gonna ask all of us "yes or no" questions. Then based on our findings you're going to deny everything we say.

Isn't that right Red?
 
Red,

Me and a friend walked by 7WTC later in the afternoon 3-4 ish, looked at it, and said to each other that 7 would be next.

Do you realize that many firefighters that were there that day never even saw 7? Some, like myself, were working on the E side of West street, and never saw it.

Personally I find that very hard to believe. You had never seen a steel framed hi-rise building fall down from fire before and you had never even heard of a steel framed hi-rise building falling down from fire in your lives- either of you. Why not ?....because it had never ever happened before in the entire recorded history of the planet Earth.

So I will put that one where I put your 15 years in the FDNY.
 
Wow, now Tri is getting called out as a fake FDNY 15 year veteran. All because you were there on the day. That was your sin.
 
Personally I find that very hard to believe. You had never seen a steel framed hi-rise building fall down from fire before and you had never even heard of a steel framed hi-rise building falling down from fire in your lives- either of you. Why not ?....because it had never ever happened before in the entire recorded history of the planet Earth.

I can't believe this argument is still used by the twoofies. Hilarious.

Poor bill...he needs to strap on those heels and prance around here just to get some attention. Different day...same ol' bill.
 
Personally I find that very hard to believe. You had never seen a steel framed hi-rise building fall down from fire before and you had never even heard of a steel framed hi-rise building falling down from fire in your lives- either of you. Why not ?....because it had never ever happened before in the entire recorded history of the planet Earth.

So I will put that one where I put your 15 years in the FDNY.

American Civil War - 1st time armored ships & submarines used in combat.
(The Monitor vs Merrimac & C.S.S. Hunley)

Lincoln Assassination - 1st time a President of the U.S. was killed by an assassin.

The Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk - 1st time people flew an airplane.
(Also they made the 1st motorized bike)

Hitler uses the ME-262 near the end of WWII - 1st time jets were used in combat.

Space Shuttle Challenger - 1st time a shuttle exploded after takeoff.

9/11 - 1st time that buildings higher than 1,000 feet came down by fire.



You don't use logic or research Red. That's pretty damn sad!
 
Personally I find that very hard to believe. You had never seen a steel framed hi-rise building fall down from fire before and you had never even heard of a steel framed hi-rise building falling down from fire in your lives- either of you. Why not ?....because it had never ever happened before in the entire recorded history of the planet Earth.

So I will put that one where I put your 15 years in the FDNY.

Never ever happened before?
You never ever get ANYTHING right bill.

KADER TOY FACTORY FIRE 1993.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/kade-m16.shtml

" constructed from un-insulated steel girders that buckled and gave way in less than 15 minutes"
 
Never ever happened before?
You never ever get ANYTHING right bill.

KADER TOY FACTORY FIRE 1993.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/kade-m16.shtml

" constructed from un-insulated steel girders that buckled and gave way in less than 15 minutes"

Their pet peeve is no prior global collapse and whenever they have to they'll add that it deals with tall buildings. They leave out important details that certain individuals call convoluted nonsense. Whether it's the troll or your friendlier no-claimer, no-planer, or otherwise I think that statement summarizes more about the CT's mindset on the science of engineering than the poster of it realizes.
 
Last edited:
Has he actually asserted any position, anywhere? I just see the whole 'answering a question with a question thing' going back for like 2 years.


He believes MIHOP in general and that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon specifically.
 
Let me make this perfectly clear: Your hypothesis that the members of the FDNY who witnessed the collapse of WTC7 were "told" it was caused by fire and damage, when in reality it was a controlled demolition, is completely unsubtantiated and demeaning to the intelligence of professional firefighters.
.

Your posts tend to be longwinded and tedious so I'll just highlight this one point.

Firefighter testimonies do not describe what they were told after the collapse. Most of the testimonies report what they heard before the collapse, specifically, that the collapse was imminent.

This is different from believing it was imminent. I've made this point many times. Now, I just like to stop you in your tracks when you misrepresent what I've said. You know, you can always use the quote function.
 
Firefighter testimonies do not describe what they were told after the collapse. Most of the testimonies report what they heard before the collapse, specifically, that the collapse was imminent.

This is different from believing it was imminent.
Unless they said the building was going to come down before it came down
 
For some reason, some posters and the mods seem not to like it when I agressively question you on some of your claims.

This is strange on a skeptic's forum since it is a very unique thing to have a principal witness of the very event members have spent hundreds of thousands of posts in tens of thousands of threads on.

Otherwise, I would ask you a whole slew of questions to determine if what you claim is true or it's just another fabricated tale.

Feel free to PM me, I don't care, I promise not to report you.
 
Personally I find that very hard to believe. You had never seen a steel framed hi-rise building fall down from fire before and you had never even heard of a steel framed hi-rise building falling down from fire in your lives- either of you. Why not ?....because it had never ever happened before in the entire recorded history of the planet Earth.

So I will put that one where I put your 15 years in the FDNY.

No, we hadn't seen a high rise steel building collapse, you're right. Because we fight fire. We usually do not just let it burn for 3-4 times its fire rating. Which is the biggest reason you don't see any other highrise buildings that are steel framed fall. We fight fire. That is what we do. And we do it quite well.

Where did I say 15 years? Start another topic.
 
Firefighter testimonies do not describe what they were told after the collapse. Most of the testimonies report what they heard before the collapse, specifically, that the collapse was imminent.

This is different from believing it was imminent. I've made this point many times. Now, I just like to stop you in your tracks when you misrepresent what I've said. You know, you can always use the quote function.

Whether any individual firefighter determined on their own or were informed by others of the imminent collapse of WTC7 is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether these fire and building safety professionals deemed the imminent collapse of WTC7 to be a plausible scenario. Almost a decade later, not a single one of them has suggested otherwise.

And dishonest quote-miners like yourself can offer no explanation for this that doesn't involve FDNY complicity and/or gross incompetence.
 
Your posts tend to be longwinded and tedious so I'll just highlight this one point.

Firefighter testimonies do not describe what they were told after the collapse. Most of the testimonies report what they heard before the collapse, specifically, that the collapse was imminent.

This is different from believing it was imminent. I've made this point many times. Now, I just like to stop you in your tracks when you misrepresent what I've said. You know, you can always use the quote function.


Firemen are not random eyewitnesses. They have training. I know for a fact that the Lieutenant's test has requires specific knowledge of the characteristics of steel beams in building fires. How many of the quotes you have are by firemen of Lieutenant rank or higher?

I'm going to leap to the assumption that firemen of lesser rank get the basics about steel in fires and building collapse for their own safety.

Steel structures collapse when exposed to fire in excess of the fireproofing specifications. You don't seem to have accepted that fact.

In my experience, having been on the client end of architect's designs and construction work in Manhattan building projects, that is an hour or two.
 
Firemen are not random eyewitnesses. They have training. I know for a fact that the Lieutenant's test has requires specific knowledge of the characteristics of steel beams in building fires. How many of the quotes you have are by firemen of Lieutenant rank or higher?

I'm going to leap to the assumption that firemen of lesser rank get the basics about steel in fires and building collapse for their own safety.

Steel structures collapse when exposed to fire in excess of the fireproofing specifications. You don't seem to have accepted that fact.

In my experience, having been on the client end of architect's designs and construction work in Manhattan building projects, that is an hour or two.

This is ABSOLUTELY correct. Heck, even in Florida, I had to know stuff like that. Now, why would I need to know about steel properties and fire potential in Florida? Lots of warehouses. Everywhere.

I can point you to quite a few buildings that collapsed that were steel framed. Including a toilet paper factory.

One to two hours is typical, and pretty much the minumum for steel framed structures.
I refuse to go into a storage unit that is on fire. Why you ask? Most storage units are steel framed for the roof. The walls may be concrete, but I don't exactly want a roof collapsing on me while I am trying to save someones crap. I will spray water on it all day long from outside. No problem. Im safe there.
 
I can point you to quite a few buildings that collapsed that were steel framed. Including a toilet paper factory.

The roofing in the average single-floor industrial building is a steel truss assembly that seems to be indistinguishable from the steel truss each floor in WTC was made of.

My bookmarks collection has this bit of information

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/

(see table D-1 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/#ad )

NIOSH Publication No. 2005-132:
Preventing Injuries and Deaths of Fire Fighters Due to Truss System Failures


All-steel trusses present their own hazards when exposed to fire. The mass and surface area of steel truss components are factors that determine time to failure. A heavy, thick section of steel has greater resistance to fire than a lightweight section of the same length because of the increased mass. A large, solid steel truss can absorb heat and take longer to reach its failure temperature, whereas a lightweight steel truss such as an open-web bar joist will be heated to its failure temperature much faster.

Once the failure temperature is reached, heavy steel trusses and lightweight metal trusses will react to the fire and fail in a similar
manner. A steel member fails at the internal temperature of the steel and not at the ambient air temperature. This temperature is often referred to as the critical temperature of the steel member.

Findings reported by the National Engineered Lightweight construction Fire Research Project indicate that unprotected lightweight steel C-joists fail within 4 to 6 minutes of exposure to fire [Grundahl 1992]. Testing conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Standards (now known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST) showed that unprotected steel open-web bar joists reached 1,200: F in 6 to 8 minutes [Brannigan 1999]. Table D-1 illustrates that steel retains only 25% of its original strength at 1,200: F and retains only half its original strength at approximately 900 :F. Building design calculations are based on original strength at normal temperatures. At elevated temperatures, steel may retain no excess strength.

...steel loses strength when exposed to temperatures commonly found in structural fires. Steel has a high thermal conductivity, which means it can transfer heat away from a localized source and act as a heat sink. As long as the flame impingement is localized, the steel can transfer heat to other regions of the member-and thus the time to reach the critical temperature is delayed. If an intense fire is evenly distributed along the steel member, the critical temperature may be reached very quickly. Steel also has a high coefficient of expansion that results in the expansion of steel members as they are heated. As an example, a 50-foot-long steel beam heated uniformly over its length from 720 to 9720 F will expand in length by 3.9 inches. The same beam uniformly heated to 8000 F would expand by 3.2 inches; if heated to 1,2000 F, the beam would expand by 4.9 inches [Grundahl 1991; Cotes 1997].
 
Last edited:
Ryan, I would say you are the one who denies reality.

Your example in your paper on the amount of potential energy used in collapsing the building is ridiculous on it's face to anyone with a strong technical background. You show an example where the collapse acceleration would be 1.7 m/s/s and then go through the math to show that the difference between it and the rate of gravity (9.8 m/s/s) is the resistance of 8.1m/s/s and that it is equal to 81% of the building's potential energy, which would have been used in the destruction.

This little manipulation sounds impressive at first unless one is keen enough to realize that the building structure was designed to hold several times 100% of the potential energy.

The reality is that using the resistance to the continuous acceleration which occurred is not valid to use as a measure of the energy required, as it is not correlated to a calculated amount of energy which would be required to collapse the building. For instance, if demolition devices were used to remove resistance then the actual resistance to free fall acceleration experienced does not account for that.

There is only one way a lesser amount of energy could do the job and that is with concentrated periodic impacts/dynamic loads which require deceleration, which unfortunately for your story is not observed. Your own theory requires huge decelerations from jolts but you don't have any evidence of them, so you then spin a story that the columns weren't involved and the entire upper block fell on the floor slabs, or that there were lots of little jolts, without explaining that the aggregate of these little jolts would have to cause the same velocity loss as one large one due to the same energy dissipation.

These are just some of several misleading type of arguments that you make, and it is hard for me to imagine that you don't know better if you are actually a mechanical engineer.

I am wondering when the majority of honest posters here, who may not suspect the misleading nature of these arguments and/or just don't know better, are going to start figuring it out.

I would say that Tony is right and Mackey is wrong.

Come on just admit it Mackey there should have been a jolt.
 
Unless they said the building was going to come down before it came down

Thats probably what they told them to hide the fact that there going
to drop the buildings and down they go.

Just to cover the fact that they where going to drop the buildings.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom