Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[tsig]

Yes Tony, that's it! You have the NWO so scared they assigned a person to follow your every post!

Christ on a stick truthers are a paranoid bunch.

Well since the whole TM is about feeling "special" having your own private shills seems to be a status symbol.

 

[alienentity]

I would bet a years pay that you can't get a scale model to initiate a global collapse with one wall bowed inward and then propagate without a jolt.

I suppose someday soon the requisite computing power will be available to fully model the tower collapses. Somebody with the time and interest will do the work perhaps, and the whole sordid thing will be simulated down to the last detail.

Prediction: It will be conclusively demonstrated thru detailed engineering models that NO explosives were necessary to bring the towers down in the manner observed.

There is no good reason to think so today, and there is no good reason to think there ever will be. There are lots of silly reasons to think so - in Tony's case, silly because there are other, completely plausible and reasonable scenarios (as described by Ryan, for example) which can account for the observed effects without invoking explosives.

Tony, I mean silly in the manner of 'frivolous'. Frivolous because you interpret every slight anomaly as a sign of explosives - this is not a serious approach from an engineer's standpoint. (Like a 'god in the gaps' creationist mindset) You presume explosives without proper grounds, and wrongfully exclude other, more plausible reasons.

There were no signs of high explosives on 9/11, any more than there were signs of faeries, dancing unicorns or other fanciful concoctions of the imagination. You need a reality check.

 

[alienentity]

I should add, Tony, that the majority of the world's citizens are going to leave you alone to your lonely fantasies, and move on. You are never going to 'prove', in engineering terms, what you are trying to prove. It's hopeless.

The engineering community at large is just not buying your ideas. And neither are we. As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to your little clique with David Chandler, who believes in nanothermite column rockets and other fairytales; David Ray Griffin, with his faked phone calls and no Pentagon plane; Richard Gage with his cardboard boxes and 'freefall speed!!!!' exclamations. Great company. Just great.....

 

[bill smith]

Don't take it so personal. I was mostly sighing at Tony. Maybe you haven't followed the discussion, but he's had it explained to him, in person, solely for his benefit by numerous posters here. And he still doesn't get it.

Again, this is why "debating" the Truth Movement is futile. Their only weapon is dogged refusal to accept reality.

I welcome Tony to prove me wrong about that last statement by coming to terms with the tilt prior to collapse. Or the inward bowing several minutes before collapse. Most people, having seen actual photographs of these phenomena, don't need to be told a hundred times, but the Truth Movement is special in this respect.

Nothing personal taken- it's just that there is an orgnisation of almost 1,000 degreed and licenced architects and engineers who do not agree with you and your team here. I for one will align myself with them by virtue of their relatively greater knowledge and experience of structures. And of course by their sheer numbers. They do not agree at all with your analysis. That says it all. The day of listening to an isolated OCT speaker here and an OCT speaker there are over.

As regards the tilt check out this video in full screen. After it fully loads you can pull the slider back and forth and watch the potato-masher effect as the hat truss (with antenna handle attached) goes up and down, mashing as it goes. No tilt either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

 

[911kongen]

Nothing personal taken- it's just that there is an orgnisation of almost 1,000 degreed and licenced architects and engineers who do not agree with you and your team here. I for one will align myself with them by virtue of their relatively greater knowledge and experience of structures. And of course by their sheer numbers. They do not agree at all with your analysis. That says it all. The day of listening to an isolated OCT speaker here and an OCT speaker there are over.

As regards the tilt check out this video in full screen. After it fully loads you can pull the slider back and forth and watch the potato-masher effect as the hat truss (with antenna handle attached) goes up and down, mashing as it goes. No tilt either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

1000 degreed an licenced architects and engineers agrees with you? Thats probably something like 0, 0001 % of all experts! Why do you believe that smale numbers of people? They are most likely CRAZY!

 

[bill smith]

1000 degreed an licenced architects and engineers agrees with you? Thats probably something like 0, 0001 % of all experts! Why do you believe that smale numbers of people? They are most likely CRAZY!

I am only interested in organisations of engineers that have come out and had their members individually sign up in support of the OCT. You cannot speak for blocks of engineers who have never been individually asked. Well you can of course, but not with any credibility. All members of ae911truth.org by contrast have personally signed the petition for a new 9/11 enquiry despite any risks that might have entailed showing great moral courage.

 

[apathoid]

I am only interested in organisations of engineers that have come out and had their members individually sign up in support of the OCT. You cannot speak for blocks of engineers who have never been individually asked. Well you can of course, but not with any credibility. All members of ae911truth.org have personally signed the petition for a new 9/11 enquiry despite any risks that might have entailed showing great moral courage.

In case the idiocy of your argument eludes you, I'll point it out. You won't find a list of scientists who are on the "round earth" petition, nor will you find a list of engineers and astronauts on the "we did in fact go to the moon" petition. Additionally you are also not likely to find a list of marine biologists who've signed the "there is no such thing as Nessie" petition. Clear?

What we do have is dozens of peer reviewed studies in reputable science journals who "support the OCT". Do some research and you will find them.

 

[apathoid]

Nothing personal taken- it's just that there is an orgnisation of almost 1,000 degreed and licenced architects and engineers who do not agree with you and your team here.

Funny how they can't manage to get anything published that may change the status-quo. Ask your buddy Tony what the holdup is...

 

[Scott Sommers]

I am only interested in organisations of engineers that have come out and had their members individually sign up in support of the OCT. You cannot speak for blocks of engineers who have never been individually asked. Well you can of course, but not with any credibility. All members of ae911truth.org have personally signed the petition for a new 9/11 enquiry despite any risks that might have entailed showing great moral courage.

I certainly understand where you're coming from. Who would want to employ someone so easily labelled as nuts? Personally, if I were a building owner, and I found out that one of the engineers or designers had signed that petition, I'd insist they be fired from my project.

At the rate major figures in 911 Truth loose their jobs, this is a real issue. I'm surprised there isn't more discussion among your kind - really. People are fired now directly because they have at some time in their life advocated 911 conspiracy. So I'm surprised when I hardly hear a peep about this.

And while I'm on the topic, you claim there are hundreds of construction professionals on your AE petition list. Where are they when you guys are out on the streets? There are 911 Truth rallies that only 5 or 6 people attend. You should be working on getting out all these people who are so committed to your cause they would risk their livelihood to support it. Certainly such a person would be there to show public support, if he or she really exists.

 

[bill smith]

In case the idiocy of your argument eludes you, I'll point it out. You won't find a list of scientists who are on the "round earth" petition, nor will you find a list of engineers and astronauts on the "we did in fact go to the moon" petition. Additionally you are also not likely to find a list of marine biologists who've signed the "there is no such thing as Nessie" petition. Clear?

What we do have is dozens of peer reviewed studies in reputable science journals who "support the OCT". Do some research and you will find them.

They've all been studied and rejected I'm afraid and still we have this large and growing body of expertise telling us (and proving ) that the Towers were demolished ...all three. You guys just don't have any real numbers. I can almost name the few that there are, Bazant....Blanchard....Robertson...Bush...Cheney?

 

[apathoid]

They've all been studied and rejected I'm afraid and still we have this large and growing body of expertise telling us (and proving ) that the Towers were demolished ...all three. You guys just don't have any real numbers. I can almost name the few that there are, Bazant....Blanchard....Robertson...Bush...Cheney?

Somehow, I knew my point would sail right over your head without you even noticing it...way to come through.

 

[BigAl]

They've all been studied and rejected I'm afraid and still we have this large and growing body of expertise telling us (and proving ) that the Towers were demolished ...all three. You guys just don't have any real numbers. I can almost name the few that there are, Bazant....Blanchard....Robertson...Bush...Cheney?

You missed a few (maybe 50) papers that show your silly claims are wrong.

MORE: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4982224#post4982224

Performance based structural fire engineering for modern building design
Rini, D., Lamont, S. 2008 Proceedings of the 2008 Structures Congress - Structures Congress 2008: Crossing the Borders 314

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I
Irfanoglu, A., Hoffmann, C.M. 2008 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 22 (1),

Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events
Cherepanov, G.P. 2008 Materials Science 44 (4), pp. 489-499

Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

Fire load in a steel building design
Razdolsky, L. 2008 Proceedings of the 4th International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, ISEC-4 - Innovations in Structural Engineering and Construction 2, pp. 1163-1167

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures
Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks
Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

SOURCE: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4969965#post4969965

 

[TruthersLie]

Nothing personal taken- it's just that there is an orgnisation of almost 1,000 degreed and licenced architects and engineers who do not agree with you and your team here. I for one will align myself with them by virtue of their relatively greater knowledge and experience of structures. And of course by their sheer numbers. They do not agree at all with your analysis. That says it all. The day of listening to an isolated OCT speaker here and an OCT speaker there are over.

As regards the tilt check out this video in full screen. After it fully loads you can pull the slider back and forth and watch the potato-masher effect as the hat truss (with antenna handle attached) goes up and down, mashing as it goes. No tilt either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

I LOVE it when Billy girl here lies out of her ASS.

You will align yourself with them for their greater knowledge of structures? Is that your litmus test? Who has the greater knowledge of structures? Great.

The you will have no problem aligning yoursellf with the LEAD engineer for the towers Leslie Robertson. No person has a greater knowledge of that PARTICULAR structure.

How about aligning yourself with the Tall building association? Who say that twoofs are full of crap. They have a LOT more knowledge of structures than ANY of the twoofs.

I mean if I wanted a gym built or refurbished I might call gage. Or if I wanted to build roads or bridges I might just go after one of the AE twoofs.. but damn man..

On that note it is soooo funny watching you RUN away from Heiwa getting owned on the verinage techniques... but I guess that shows you how high rises are different than boats, eh twoof?

904 is not nearly a thousand.. unless you like rounding UP.

And it is 904 degreed OR licensed engineers... not 904 degreed AND licensed engineers.

why do you feel the need to lie about the size? Oh ... like all twoofs, got it.

 

[Mancman]

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.

If you were travelling at 30mph in a car, and tapped the brake every few seconds you'd eventually achieve the same velocity loss as you would if you went straight into a brick wall. Would these events have comparable 'jolts'? Of course not, as the velocity changes are taking place over different lengths of time.

Mackey must have given you an absolute hiding on this show for you to be incessantly spouting this nonsense. You are throwing your toys out of the pram.

 

[jhunter1163]

And it is 904 degreed OR licensed engineers... not 904 degreed AND licensed engineers.

why do you feel the need to lie about the size? Oh ... like all twoofs, got it.

It appears to be impossible to get off the AE911 list once you're on it. I know that several of the listed "members" have tried to have their names removed, to no effect. Kinda like patriotsquestion911.com, who still have a number of dead people "supporting" their call for a new investigation.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Nothing personal taken- it's just that there is an orgnisation of almost 1,000 degreed and licenced architects and engineers who do not agree with you and your team here. I for one will align myself with them by virtue of their relatively greater knowledge and experience of structures. And of course by their sheer numbers. They do not agree at all with your analysis. That says it all. The day of listening to an isolated OCT speaker here and an OCT speaker there are over.

As regards the tilt check out this video in full screen. After it fully loads you can pull the slider back and forth and watch the potato-masher effect as the hat truss (with antenna handle attached) goes up and down, mashing as it goes. No tilt either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

You know the guy who posted this video is a no-planner who believes in energy weapons. From his Youtube bio

I DO believe that some new, yet unknown, weapon technoligy was used. A lot of smoke and blastwaves shows that. The smoke and the explosion patterns really look very odd with a lot of flashy stuff, zigzag-lines and circular patterns and such oddities. Also the (as seen from some angles) square blast waves looks odd, to say the least.

 

[bill smith]

You know the guy who posted this video is a no-planner who believes in energy weapons. From his Youtube bio

His father may have been a drunk who got several parking tickets too. lol

 

[Scott Sommers]

His father may have been a drunk who got several parking tickets too. lol

So what he believes is irrelevant? This certainly is consistant with Jane's position that evidence is unimportant. I am increasingly confused by what sort of facts you would find convincing. It almost leaves no choice but name calling.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

If you were travelling at 30mph in a car, and tapped the brake every few seconds you'd eventually achieve the same velocity loss as you would if you went straight into a brick wall. Would these events have comparable 'jolts'? Of course not, as the velocity changes are taking place over different lengths of time.

Mackey must have given you an absolute hiding on this show for you to be incessantly spouting this nonsense. You are throwing your toys out of the pram.

You apparently don't read everything that is said. I have explained repeatedly that a series of smaller jolts would have the same effect as a large single jolt in causing a velocity drop, due to it's having the same energy dissipation requirements to deform and buckle the columns on either side of the collisions. The energy dissipation should have caused a 76% velocity drop based on just these minimum dissipation requirements. We looked for a velocity drop over a significant period of time. There was none. The upper block continuously accelerates at about 70% of gravity. The 30% of gravity resistance seen by the upper block is equal to about 10% of the strength of the columns below. Something was removing the strength of 90% of the columns. I explained this during the debate also.

Mackey gave nobody a hiding except in his own mind maybe. He is full of bluff and bluster but his actual arguments on collapse intitiation and propagation consist of nothing but grand scale sophistries which are defined below.


soph⋅ist⋅ry
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[bill smith]

So what he believes is irrelevant? This certainly is consistant with Jane's position that evidence is unimportant. I am increasingly confused by what sort of facts you would find convincing. It almost leaves no choice but name calling.

That is the normal style on the jref debunking side so why deviate ? Did you find the potato-masher analogy appropriate ? I did. Did you notice the antenna falling into the building before there was any other movement ? What did this mean for the core columns underneath ? Do you think the falling hat truss may have pulled in the walls ? How could the hat truss fall without explosives ?- it was built into the top number of floors, two of which were mechanical floors. Did you see how the top block became compressed into two-thirds it's priginal size before the lower portion began to collapse ? Does that mean that it was well into disintegration prior to contact ? Loose rubble in other words ? Fascinating stuff. (No tilt either as you may have noticed)