Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[T.A.M.]

Hey Tony,

Care to address any of my questions/comments I posted in the past 2-3 pages?

Shhhh...he is busy writing up his "I will make Mackey look like a fool" paper....remember?

TAM;)

[rwguinn]

Shhhh...he is busy writing up his "I will make Mackey look like a fool" paper....remember?

TAM;)
These guys remind me of the first days of hand-held calculators (anybody remember the HP-35?) when the guys who could afford them were taking the readings off of pressure gages (good to 10% any day), and calculating force by multiplying 10.3 psi *5.1 inch radius2 x 3.14159265 and reporting the answer as 841.64209667 lb...

counting pixels and "time stamps", and calculating the 3rd time derivative of displacement, and claiming that they are accurate...

[R.Mackey]

Shhhh...he is busy writing up his "I will make Mackey look like a fool" paper....remember?

Actually, he's over at Gregory's Forum (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/new-jones-paper-by-szamboti-and-graeme-macqueen-t119-255.html), trying to retroactively make true his earlier claim that "most" other people think his jolt is real and/or significant.

What brave people these Truthers are, to do such daring things! If it ever came to a shooting war with tyranny, I sure wouldn't want them on the line beside me, I'll tell you that.

[bill smith]

Actually, he's over at Gregory's Forum (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/new-jones-paper-by-szamboti-and-graeme-macqueen-t119-255.html), trying to retroactively make true his earlier claim that "most" other people think his jolt is real and/or significant.

What brave people these Truthers are, to do such daring things! If it ever came to a shooting war with tyranny, I sure wouldn't want them on the line beside me, I'll tell you that.

You certainly don't have to worry about that . It would be a sad Truther that would stand in the tyranny trenches beside you. I tend to think that the Truthers would be in the opposite trenches.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

You certainly don't have to worry about that . It would be a sad Truther.......

http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/uu288/hentairadio/NDVD_199.jpg
http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/uu288/hentairadio/NDVD_188.jpg

Why do these COWARDS look sad?

[ElMondoHummus]

Actually, he's over at Gregory's Forum (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/new-jones-paper-by-szamboti-and-graeme-macqueen-t119-255.html), trying to retroactively make true his earlier claim that "most" other people think his jolt is real and/or significant.

What brave people these Truthers are, to do such daring things! If it ever came to a shooting war with tyranny, I sure wouldn't want them on the line beside me, I'll tell you that.

Pfff... as if those jokers would ever even show up on the line...

[WildCat]

One other thing Szamboti hasn't considered is that after the towers collapsed rescuing the trapped and injured had a higher priority than saving a building already beyond salvage anyway.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

One other thing Szamboti hasn't considered is that after the towers collapsed rescuing the trapped and injured had a higher priority than saving a building already beyond salvage anyway.


What does Mr. Szamboti care for human life? Empathy doesn't appear to be an ability he possesses...

[TruthersLie]

One other thing Szamboti hasn't considered is that after the towers collapsed rescuing the trapped and injured had a higher priority than saving a building already beyond salvage anyway.

In other words it is the typical truther tactic of monday morning quarterbacking.

I mean we have repeatedly heard how twoofs woudn't just sit in the jet when it was hijacked. They would have heroically fought back if it had been them.

They say the same thing about the pilots

and about NIST not investigating enough to meet their ever changing requirements

and about how there wasn't a "full independent investigation."

So now it is monday morning quarterbacking the FDNY. Of course.

Glad to know that is a horrendously chaotic situation truthers would be so clear headed. Tony S should be in charge of the FDNY just for a day with big fires and catastrophes... I'd love to see how "well" he would do. Typical bluster with a lack of knowledge or understanding of the situation on the ground.

[Edx]

Why do these COWARDS look sad?

Alex Jones isnt looking sad here, someones squeezing his balls.

[Edx]

Is he talking about the ones in the Naudet video?? If he is, I will find their names. I don't remember who they are off the top of my head.

Maybe someone else knows?

Yes thats it, you know the one its the one truthers always use. You think there would be an interview?

[Edx]

Tri that is not fair.

You guys wear those helmets...
and I'm sure a lot of you needed to Pee.
f5RhA8IhNjw

inside jobby job!!!!1!!!

See how easy it was to put that fire out? How come you couldnt do it on 911, firefighters! What are you hiding!!! /truthermode

[triforcharity]

Yes thats it, you know the one its the one truthers always use. You think there would be an interview?

IIRC, those were guys from another company. I will find out, and get back to you. It may take a few days, as I am working overtime this week.

[Tony Szamboti]

One other thing Szamboti hasn't considered is that after the towers collapsed rescuing the trapped and injured had a higher priority than saving a building already beyond salvage anyway.

What you are failing to realize is that creating a collapse zone around WTC 7 caused the search and rescue efforts, for anyone still alive in the twin tower wreckage, to be suspended for quite a few hours.

I think this would have been against chief Daniel Nigro's instinct and he would have only done it if he was told WTC 7 was coming down in order to not have additional casualties. I seriously doubt that he decided all by himself that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

[Tony Szamboti]

What does Mr. Szamboti care for human life? Empathy doesn't appear to be an ability he possesses...

Why would you even make a ridiculous comment like this?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Why would you even make a ridiculous comment like this?

Tony,

Since you made claims reguarding CDs, jolts & the fires not able to collapse 3 buildings.

Mechanical Engineers usually incorporate computer-aided engineering (CAE) programs into their existing design and analysis processes, including 2D and 3D solid modeling computer-aided design (CAD).

Questions:

Where is your CAE or CAD proving that the tilt in WTC2 had a jolt?

Where is your CAE or CAD proving that fire wasn't the result of collapse in all 3 Towers?

Where is your CAE or CAD that explosives were planted in the key supports to bring it down?

You have alot of words to say, but fail to show it scientifically!

[Tony Szamboti]

In other words it is the typical truther tactic of monday morning quarterbacking.

I mean we have repeatedly heard how twoofs woudn't just sit in the jet when it was hijacked. They would have heroically fought back if it had been them.

They say the same thing about the pilots

and about NIST not investigating enough to meet their ever changing requirements

and about how there wasn't a "full independent investigation."

So now it is monday morning quarterbacking the FDNY. Of course.

Glad to know that is a horrendously chaotic situation truthers would be so clear headed. Tony S should be in charge of the FDNY just for a day with big fires and catastrophes... I'd love to see how "well" he would do. Typical bluster with a lack of knowledge or understanding of the situation on the ground.

I realize how brutal it had to be for NYC firefighters on Sept. 11, 2001, with the devastating loss of life. However, there are legitimate questions concerning the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and they aren't simply Monday morning quarterbacking types of questions.

I am sure Chief Daniel Nigro did not decide on his own that WTC 7 was going to collapse and whoever told him it was going to collapse needs to explain how they knew that.

[WildCat]

What you are failing to realize is that creating a collapse zone around WTC 7 caused the search and rescue efforts for anyone still alive in the twin tower wreckage to be suspended for quite a few hours.

I think this would have been against chief Daniel Nigro's instinct and he would have only done it if he was told WTC 7 was coming down in order to not have additional causualties. I seriously doubt that he decided all by himself that WTC 7 was going to collapse.
Once more, you think you know more about the fires and damage to WTC, and its appearance, than the experienced firefighters who were there.

You are delusional.

[triforcharity]

I realize how brutal it had to be for NYC firefighters on Sept. 11, 2001, with the devastating loss of life. However, there are legitimate questions concerning the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and they aren't simply Monday morning quarterbacking types of questions.

I am sure Chief Daniel Nigro did not decide on his own that WTC 7 was going to collapse and whoever told him it was going to collapse needs to explain how they knew that.

Tony,

I did it. How did I know? Well, you see, when someone goes through basic fire school, we learn that heat (henceforth known as fire) plus steel -Liquid
H2o (henceforth known as water) = Building not safe.
Add 7 hours of burn time=Building will fall down.

[triforcharity]

What you are failing to realize is that creating a collapse zone around WTC 7 caused the search and rescue efforts, for anyone still alive in the twin tower wreckage, to be suspended for quite a few hours.
I think this would have been against chief Daniel Nigro's instinct and he would have only done it if he was told WTC 7 was coming down in order to not have additional casualties. I seriously doubt that he decided all by himself that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

Wrong.

Go back and try again. I was still working on the opposite side of the WTC, across West street, south of Veasey St.

Try again.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I am sure Chief Daniel Nigro did not decide on his own that WTC 7 was going to collapse and whoever told him it was going to collapse needs to explain how they knew that.

Tony,

How hard is it for you to pick up the phone & call Nigro?

How hard is it for you to e-mail Nigro?

Are you that lazy not to do anything for yourself? Actually you are lazy, your size tells me that you don't do much!

[Edx]

I am sure Chief Daniel Nigro did not decide on his own that WTC 7 was going to collapse and whoever told him it was going to collapse needs to explain how they knew that.

Unless he, like many of the firefighters, knew that WTC7 was going to collapse.

It was bulging, leaning, creaking and things were crackling and falling. It had large uncontrollable fires and had a massive gash in the side.

The firefighters thought the building was going to collapse, no one "told them" it was, they could "see" that it was based on their years of experience of dealing with fire and unstable buildings.

Deal with it Tony.

[Edx]

IIRC, those were guys from another company. I will find out, and get back to you. It may take a few days, as I am working overtime this week.

Theres no rush, it would just be nice to try and contact them in some way and maybe get them to state on camera or find their original documented interviews or something saying that show they dont agree with the truth movement's claims so truthers can at least say they are lying rather than what they currently say, which is claim they are on their side.

[Tony Szamboti]

Wrong.

Go back and try again. I was still working on the opposite side of the WTC, across West street, south of Veasey St.

Try again.

How many blocks was the collapse zone radius from WTC 7? Didn't it include the tower wreckage areas?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

How many blocks was the collapse zone radius from WTC 7? Didn't it include the tower wreckage areas?

Tony,

The collapse zone was just around the block where WTC7 collapsed. You can't move a 47 building without someone seeing it.

Little info for ya Tony, notice how ******* close WTC2 is to 7?:

[R.Mackey]

Once more, you think you know more about the fires and damage to WTC, and its appearance, than the experienced firefighters who were there.

You are delusional.

Quoted for emphasis.

Go work on your "paper" that will put me to shame, Tony. Not like there's anything else going on in the Truth Movement.

[BigAl]

I realize how brutal it had to be for NYC firefighters on Sept. 11, 2001, with the devastating loss of life. However, there are legitimate questions concerning the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and they aren't simply Monday morning quarterbacking types of questions.

Watching a building lean isn't rocket science.

I am sure Chief Daniel Nigro did not decide on his own that WTC 7 was going to collapse and whoever told him it was going to collapse needs to explain how they knew that.


Status reports from Chief Hayden and engineers with at at least one transit advising Hayden?

Stephen Gregory says that multiple FDNY "collapse units" were on on the scene. FDNY deals with unstable buildings on a regular basis and maybe Tri can describe in detail what these people do. I expect the brought the transit and know how to use it.

Reports from the unit commanders for the 100+ firemen named in this index?

Mark Roberts indexed all the statements of the firemen. Maybe you've never seen this before. All the names are in the spreadsheet, below and the full transcripts are at the URL, below. The transcripts give lits of context and additional information. They make good reading. Many of the 36 people that said "pull" were tallking about collapse. I think you can start there.


41 firemen mention severity of fire in WTC7
29 firemen mention damage to WTC7
104 firemen mention pullback from WTC7
36 firemen mention "Pull" to mean withdraw from the building


Summary spreadsheet names & statements: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7_Eyewitnesses.xls
Full text transcripts for those names: http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3

[Tony Szamboti]

Status reports from Chief Hayden and engineers with at at least one transit advising Hayden?

Stephen Gregory says that multiple FDNY "collapse units" were on on the scene. FDNY deals with unstable buildings on a regular basis and maybe Tri can describe in detail what these people do. I expect the brought the transit and know how to use it.

Reports from the unit commanders for the 100+ firemen named in this index?

Mark Roberts indexed all the statements of the firemen. Maybe you've never seen this before. All the names are in the spreadsheet, below and the full transcripts are at the URL, below. The transcripts give lits of context and additional information. They make good reading. Many of the 36 people that said "pull" were tallking about collapse. I think you can start there.


41 firemen mention severity of fire in WTC7
29 firemen mention damage to WTC7
104 firemen mention pullback from WTC7
36 firemen mention "Pull" to mean withdraw from the building


Summary spreadsheet names & statements: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7_Eyewitnesses.xls
Full text transcripts for those names: http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3

Why did you edit my post and quote it as though it was what I said, without mentioning that you edited it? Did you goof up when typing in your reply?

[BigAl]

Why did you edit my post and quote it as though it was what I said, without mentioning that you edited it? Did you goof up when typing in your reply?

Sorry. I wondered where those words went to.

Care to comment on what I said?

[Tony Szamboti]

Sorry. I wondered where those words went to.

Care to comment on what I said?

It is hard to understand why anyone would think that a leaning or bulging wall, on a building with a footprint the size of a football field and an inner core, means that the entire structure will collapse.

Do you know of any photos of this purported lean or bulge?

[WildCat]

I find it amusing that anyone thinks that if some wall on a building, with a footprint the size of a footblall field, is bulging or leaning that the entire structure will collapse.

Do you know of any photos of this purported lean or bulge?
Where are your photos of the bombs? Thermite? Nano-stupid-thermite? Molten steel?

[BigAl]

I find it amusing that anyone thinks that if some wall on a building, with a footprint the size of a footblall field, is bulging or leaning that the entire structure will collapse.

Would you bet your life on it? Would you bet the lives of your crew on it?

Do you know of any photos of this purported lean or bulge?

No. I trust the statement of a Fire Chief with a transit and the advice of people with relevant expertise about fire in post-1938 steel structures.

Inches or feet of displacement in a 47 story building isn't going to show up on a jpg on the Web.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

It is hard to understand why anyone would think that a leaning or bulging wall, on a building with a footprint the size of a football field and an inner core, means that the entire structure will collapse.

Do you know of any photos of this purported lean or bulge?

Are you a FDNY firefighter Tony?

Were you there with the FDNY when they looked at the bulge?

You're supposed to be this mechanical engineer that's supposed to know how buildings collapse due to fires through forensic & scientific studies.

[Justin39640]

It is hard to understand why anyone would think that a leaning or bulging wall, on a building with a footprint the size of a football field and an inner core, means that the entire structure will collapse.

Do you know of any photos of this purported lean or bulge?

You would go into a 47 story structure that was leaning and had a large bulge in the base that was obviously not in the original design?

And you call yourself an engineer....

Oh and btw collapse zones are firefighting 101.

[triforcharity]

It is hard to understand why anyone would think that a leaning or bulging wall, on a building with a footprint the size of a football field and an inner core, means that the entire structure will collapse.

Do you know of any photos of this purported lean or bulge?

Tony,

Please tell me that you have been drinking. Please, for the sake of the Flying Spagetti Monster.

Do you know of any building that could survive having a multi-floor bulge in one side?? How about one that is on fire?? And been hit by another skyscraper?? Not to mention the lack of water being put on the fire.

[triforcharity]

Status reports from Chief Hayden and engineers with at at least one transit advising Hayden?

Stephen Gregory says that multiple FDNY "collapse units" were on on the scene. FDNY deals with unstable buildings on a regular basis and maybe Tri can describe in detail what these people do. I expect the brought the transit and know how to use it.

Reports from the unit commanders for the 100+ firemen named in this index?

Mark Roberts indexed all the statements of the firemen. Maybe you've never seen this before. All the names are in the spreadsheet, below and the full transcripts are at the URL, below. The transcripts give lits of context and additional information. They make good reading. Many of the 36 people that said "pull" were tallking about collapse. I think you can start there.


41 firemen mention severity of fire in WTC7
29 firemen mention damage to WTC7
104 firemen mention pullback from WTC7
36 firemen mention "Pull" to mean withdraw from the building


Summary spreadsheet names & statements: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7_Eyewitnesses.xls
Full text transcripts for those names: http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3

Yes, BigAl, I can tell you what they do.

If we (FDNY) suspect that a building may be in danger, we caall the collapse unit in.

Once the collapse unit arrives, they set the collapse zone up around the building. Some of the guys who command that unit are engineers, some are experts in survey equipment. (Transits and the like)

Now, for the most part, they sit over there, and do calculations, look at the building, look at the blueprints of said building, then make an educated guess on if it will fall, or when it will fall.

Now, once they have done that, they decide what to do about the building. Sometimes we bring in heavy equipment, sometimes we would use cribbing and shore the building till someone more qualified can decide what to do. These guys are usually engineers or architects from local firms, or from the department itself.

The other job of the collapse unit is post-collapse. Deciding what to move, how to move it, where to place air bags, rams, spreaders, and the like. They also dictate where we need to shore up something, and how to do it.

Hope that helps.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It is hard to understand [...]


What are your thoughts on quantum physics? Difficult to understand and, therefore, untrue, or... perhaps... something best left to those who do understand?

[TruthersLie]

What you are failing to realize is that creating a collapse zone around WTC 7 caused the search and rescue efforts, for anyone still alive in the twin tower wreckage, to be suspended for quite a few hours.


What you fail to realize is that they saw the damage to wtc7 and knew it was going to collapse, so they HAD to pull back because they didn't want MORE DEAD FIREFIGHTERS.

Dur


I think this would have been against chief Daniel Nigro's instinct and he would have only done it if he was told WTC 7 was coming down in order to not have additional casualties. I seriously doubt that he decided all by himself that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

Then prove it. The damage was easily visible, they sent in people to inspect the building and they decided it wasn't safe.

How many more firefighters should have died on 9/11 for you to be happy tony? Huh? A hundred more buried under a building that was empty?

What exactly are you trying to say tony. Come on spit it out. Man up.

[TruthersLie]

I realize how brutal it had to be for NYC firefighters on Sept. 11, 2001, with the devastating loss of life. However, there are legitimate questions concerning the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and they aren't simply Monday morning quarterbacking types of questions.

I am sure Chief Daniel Nigro did not decide on his own that WTC 7 was going to collapse and whoever told him it was going to collapse needs to explain how they knew that.

Obviously you don't. Handwave noted.

Obviously you think you could do a better job in a completely FUBAR situation. How many more dead firefighters would have made you happy tony?

should they have run up to a seriously damange building to hook hoses up to it to try to fight fires when the building could come down with very little notice (like wtc1 and 2 did on top of the marshalling firefighters)?

Huh tony?

It is nice to know that you are "rambo" and can do a much better job. So again tony.

How many more dead firefighters would have made you happy tony?

[TruthersLie]

It is hard to understand why anyone would think that a leaning or bulging wall, on a building with a footprint the size of a football field and an inner core, means that the entire structure will collapse.

Do you know of any photos of this purported lean or bulge?

Umm tony you do realize that when skyscrapers are built straight up, that when they start leaning and are on fire there is usually one thing that will happen right?

When a building with the footprint the size of a football field is leaning, with massive visible damage, and unfought fires going on inside it...... what do you think may happen?

again, how many more dead fire fighters would make you happy tony? 50? 100? 10?

[bill smith]

Tony,

Please tell me that you have been drinking. Please, for the sake of the Flying Spagetti Monster.

Do you know of any building that could survive having a multi-floor bulge in one side?? How about one that is on fire?? And been hit by another skyscraper?? Not to mention the lack of water being put on the fire.

Maybe it's best if you tell the readers all you know of the bulge Tri. Just so that we can cross reference anything we might know with what you actually saw and remove any possible suspicion that you are mistaken.

[funk de fino]

It is hard to understand why anyone would think that a leaning or bulging wall, on a building with a footprint the size of a football field and an inner core, means that the entire structure will collapse.

Do you know of any photos of this purported lean or bulge?

Mike Catalano the building engineer (with years of experience) said it was a huge fire and the building was going to collapse regardless. He was there, he saw the fire inside. He had intimate knowledge of the building.

Are you saying he is wrong and on what grounds/experience do you say this?

[Tony Szamboti]

Mike Catalano the building engineer (with years of experience) said it was a huge fire and the building was going to collapse regardless. He was there, he saw the fire inside. He had intimate knowledge of the building.

Are you saying he is wrong and on what grounds/experience do you say this?

I think many of us would simply like some details other than "the building had a bulge and we knew it was going to collapse".

Do you even know what wall this supposed bulge was on?

[twinstead]

I think many of us would simply like some details other than "the building had a bulge and we knew it was going to collapse".

Do you even know what wall this supposed bulge was on?

I think that those "many of us" (in other words the tiny group of conspiracy theorists who think 911 was an inside job) couldn't care less about those details. If Catalano personally came to your house, had a couple beers, and explained to you exactly what he saw and what his observations were, are you telling us you'd say, "oh. I get now. You know, this whole collapse thing may have just been possible with the airliner impact and fires alone. Thank you, sir"?

I think not.

[Tony Szamboti]

I think that those "many of us" (in other words the tiny group of conspiracy theorists who think 911 was an inside job) couldn't care less about those details. If Catalano personally came to your house, had a couple beers, and explained to you exactly what he saw and what his observations were, are you telling us you'd say, "oh. I get now. You know, this whole collapse thing may have just been possible with the airliner impact and fires alone. Thank you, sir"?

I think not.

You are right I wouldn't. I want details. Sorry about that but that is how engineers think and work.

The engineered items you enjoy in your modern life weren't designed by handwaves, which you apparently have no problem accepting. The engineers needed to know and show the details to prove they could work.

[funk de fino]

I think many of us would simply like some details other than "the building had a bulge and we knew it was going to collapse".

Do you even know what wall this supposed bulge was on?

So you do think you know more than the engineer who was in the building and had to escape from the huge fires? What gives you the right to think you know better than someone who was there at the time?

If I was to speculate (allowable as it seems that is all you do) I would say it was on the face that was opposing the WTC towers. We have quite a lot of pictures of the other walls but little from this one. It was also the most damaged face.

Have you tried to contact anyone? Nigro, Protec, Mike Catalano?

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

There are plenty of names and companies listed in that paper Tony. Feel free to pick apart that paper if you have the cahonies.

[funk de fino]

You are right I wouldn't. I want details. Sorry about that but that is how engineers think and work.

The engineered items you enjoy in your modern life weren't designed by handwaves, which you apparently have no problem accepting. The engineers needed to know and show the details to prove they could work.

What you are displaying is not how engineers work. Its a travesty. Incompetency, handwaving and lies is not normally engineers MO.

Found your made up Silverstein footage yet?

[NutCracker]

You are right I wouldn't. I want details. Sorry about that but that is how engineers think and work.

The engineered items you enjoy in your modern life weren't designed by handwaves, which you apparently have no problem accepting. The engineers needed to know and show the details to prove they could work.

Ah, I see, That's why you do not need to show evidence in favour of your position. That's how engineers work. Right.


I get it.

[BigAl]

I think many of us would simply like some details other than "the building had a bulge and we knew it was going to collapse".

Do you even know what wall this supposed bulge was on?


FDNY Chief Haydem explains how they knew that WTC7 was beginning to
collapse as early ast 2:00PM.

Here ya' go. (You've been shown this before.)


FDNY Chief Hayden sighting it with a surveyor's transit: .. we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

[bill smith]

FDNY Chief Haydem explains how they knew that WTC7 was beginning to
collapse as early ast 2:00PM.

Here ya' go. (You've been shown this before.)

Ah....I well remember the debunker who once told me that they could see the transit moving and that it was clear from as early as 2;00 PM that it could never stop the building from ccollapsing .

It's nice to see a willingnness for full disclosure here. A reader wuld only have to skim through the recent debunker posts to see that . lol

[Grizzly Bear]

You are right I wouldn't. I want details. Sorry about that but that is how engineers think and work.

The engineered items you enjoy in your modern life weren't designed by handwaves, which you apparently have no problem accepting. The engineers needed to know and show the details to prove they could work.

As far as I'm aware we design things based on anticipated circumstances and as code dictates. There is absolutely no measure to anticipate every conceivable circumstance. Some of the worst case situations fall outside of the scope of the design. If you want to nit pick about precedents or details, then the NFPA adds that there is no record of a fatality in a fully sprinklered building outside the point of fire origin (http://www.buildings.com/Magazine/ArticleDetails/tabid/3413/ArticleID/8928/Default.aspx). Then again, there aren't too many cases where this protection had been totally disrupted. Likewise, having the upper section of a building lose all of its support systems is generally outside the scope of designs as well. :\

[twinstead]

You are right I wouldn't. I want details. Sorry about that but that is how engineers think and work.

The engineered items you enjoy in your modern life weren't designed by handwaves, which you apparently have no problem accepting. The engineers needed to know and show the details to prove they could work.

So then what am I to think when an engineer IS shown all the details that could possible be known, yet he STILL refuses to accept it? When does a layman start wondering about the competency of an engineer when other, even more qualified engineers become exasperated trying to explain something to him? How many real engineers need to tell another engineer he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about before a layman gets frustrated as well?

IMHO like many truthers, you have some ideological issues with 911 that are totally unrelated to the science involved. I'm a little disappointed that you constantly play the "I'm an engineer; I need details" card when your posts suggest that you are simply desperately trying to argue an untenable position that other engineers know is untenable.

[DGM]

Ah....I well remember the debunker who once told me that they could see the transit moving and that it was clear from as early as 2;00 PM that it could never stop the building from ccollapsing .

It's nice to see a willingnness for full disclosure here. A reader wuld only have to skim through the recent debunker posts to see that . lol
Transit moving? "It" couldn't stop it? What the hell are you talking about?

[dafydd]

Transit moving? "It" couldn't stop it? What the hell are you talking about?

Ignore it,Bill is a troll who will spout any old nonsense just to provoke a reaction.

[TruthersLie]

Bump for Tony since he seems to want to ignore these question. Come on tony, man up

Obviously you don't. Handwave noted.

Obviously you think you could do a better job in a completely FUBAR situation. How many more dead firefighters would have made you happy tony?

should they have run up to a seriously damange building to hook hoses up to it to try to fight fires when the building could come down with very little notice (like wtc1 and 2 did on top of the marshalling firefighters)?

Huh tony?

It is nice to know that you are "rambo" and can do a much better job. So again tony.

How many more dead firefighters would have made you happy tony?

[WildCat]

I think many of us would simply like some details other than "the building had a bulge and we knew it was going to collapse".

Do you even know what wall this supposed bulge was on?
You and your ilk have been given the details. Then you accuse the eyewitnesses of being in on it, because there's no youtube video to watch. :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

You are right I wouldn't. I want details. Sorry about that but that is how engineers think and work.

The engineered items you enjoy in your modern life weren't designed by handwaves, which you apparently have no problem accepting. The engineers needed to know and show the details to prove they could work.
Engineers have worked out the details. The only ones who don't accept it are the <1% who drank the David Ray Griffin kool-aid.

And frankly, most of those have obvious mental health issues. Like the AE911truth guru who thinks nuclear weapons brought down the towers.

[bill smith]

So where is the Super-Truther bardamu ? Was he knifed in some dark alley of the jref? Anybody know ?

[WildCat]

You are right I wouldn't. I want details. Sorry about that but that is how engineers think and work.

The engineered items you enjoy in your modern life weren't designed by handwaves, which you apparently have no problem accepting. The engineers needed to know and show the details to prove they could work.
Tell me Tony, in what world do engineers publish papers exclusively in tin-foil hat conspiracy web sites?

You don't have a single paper published in an actual peer-reviwed engineering journal, and we all know why. It's because your paper and theory is a joke amongst the engineering community, except for the <.1% at Richard Gage's little club of nutters.

But it is interesting watching you flail about so, particularly with the revelation that non-existent pools of molten steel is what sent you to the cesspool of Trutherville.

[Edx]

Its funny Tony asks about the specifics of where the buldge was on Building 7 showing he has not read even the summaries of the firefighter interviews.

I am not shocked at his incompetence.

[cyclonic]

So where is the Super-Truther bardamu ? Was he knifed in some dark alley of the jref? Anybody know ?

Come on bill, fess up,we know you did it,after all you are an expert on inside jobs!

[GlennB]

You and your ilk have been given the details. Then you accuse the eyewitnesses of being in on it, because there's no youtube video to watch. :rolleyes:

Tony clearly requires the printouts from the transit recorder, or photos taken by the FDNY. Or something. It's a great debating technique - demand evidence that you know doesn't exist. It almost appears rational and you can keep it going forever. It's always somebody else's fault for not having the foresight to anticipate nutcase demands several years later. Then when you do provide evidence (the AA77 FDR, say) it's faked.

The other day Szamboti said
You have no proof that Nigro was not influenced in his decision.
<insert totally justifiable ad hominem here>

[GlennB]

So where is the Super-Truther bardamu ? Was he knifed in some dark alley of the jref? Anybody know ?

He tried my acrobats experiment.
It worked.
He's in hospital with a ruptured 'nad and re-evaluating his view of the WTC collapses.

[bardamu]

Tell me Tony, in what world do engineers publish papers exclusively in tin-foil hat conspiracy web sites?

In what world do rocket scientists only take part in debates that are moderated by a host who is so biased he has to make a disclaimer at the start of the show?

[bardamu]

Quoted for emphasis.

Go work on your "paper" that will put me to shame, Tony. Not like there's anything else going on in the Truth Movement.

Apart from a sell-out tour of New Zealand.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Apart from a sell-out tour of New Zealand.

Gage is touring with Truther money!

[TruthersLie]

Apart from a sell-out tour of New Zealand.

"sell out tour?"

Really?

From what we can see of his tour spots, there are usually about 60 folks in attendance... and that is being generous.

but NZ is a small place and I'm sure the coffee houses only hold about 60.

Way to go GAGE!

try again.

[twinstead]

Apart from a sell-out tour of New Zealand.

Yea, I'm sure he's got the New Zealand scientific, engineering, and architectural communities marching in the streets demanding a new investigation.

[bardamu]

Umm tony you do realize that when skyscrapers are built straight up, that when they start leaning and are on fire there is usually one thing that will happen right?

We'd have to know the angle of inclination. Please provide that information, then we can work out whether the building would be expected to fall into its own footprint at near freefall speed.



When a building with the footprint the size of a football field is leaning, with massive visible damage, and unfought fires going on inside it...... what do you think may happen?

Unless it happened on 9/11, you'd expect it to remain standing, like all the other tall buildings that have never collapsed primarily due to fire, according to NIST.

[Toke]

Yea, I'm sure he's got the New Zealand scientific, engineering, and architectural communities marching in the streets demanding a new investigation.

I am sure the truthers could get a new investigation.
They just have to gather a few hundred thousand demonstrators in New York or Washington. :rolleyes:
It is called political reality.

[bardamu]

I am sure the truthers could get a new investigation.
They just have to gather a few hundred thousand demonstrators in New York or Washington. :rolleyes:
It is called political reality.

I'm sure the socialists could have stopped the Iraq war if they'd really wanted to.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I'm sure the socialists could have stopped the Iraq war if they'd really wanted to.

We're sure that the Truthers would've stopped lying & telling fairy stories about 9/11 if they really wanted too.

[TruthersLie]

We'd have to know the angle of inclination. Please provide that information, then we can work out whether the building would be expected to fall into its own footprint at near freefall speed.


Your fail boat has arrived.

falling into own footprint? Not one of the towers or wtc7 collapsed into their own footprint. You might want to look that up. Feel free.

At near freefall speed? Not one of the towers or wtc7 fell at "near freefall speed." You might want to look up that claims.

South tower took 15 seconds to collapse. That is 66% longer than freefall. that isn't "near freefall."

North tower took over 20 seconds to collapse. that is 200% of freefall speed. that isn't "near freefall."

World trade center 7 took about 18 seconds to collapse. That is OVER 200% of freefall.

try again.


Unless it happened on 9/11, you'd expect it to remain standing, like all the other tall buildings that have never collapsed primarily due to fire, according to NIST.

Swing and a miss. Please compare buildings of similar design which have sustained fire across multiple floors for hours that were UNFOUGHT fires.

simple. It should be easy.

Have you even figured out momentum yet?

[DGM]

I'm sure the socialists could have stopped the Iraq war if they'd really wanted to.
I'm still wondering what's stopping you ("truthers") from doing an independent investigation?

[dafydd]

I'm still wondering what's stopping you ("truthers") from doing an independent investigation?

Lack of brainpower?

[alienentity]

I'm still wondering what's stopping you ("truthers") from doing an independent investigation?

Totally. You can't have the government involved anyway, since they were in on the conspiracy. Truthers should pool their money together (try prying it out of Richard Gage's fist..LOL) and pay for it themselves.

Maybe Charlie Sheen can pitch in. He must have some dough.

[TruthersLie]

no.

a lack of balls

or maybe a lack of a ride from mom.

or a lack of any science to support their arguments from ignorance and incredulity.

nah... i think it is the first one.

[DGM]

Totally. You can't have the government involved anyway, since they were in on the conspiracy. Truthers should pool their money together (try prying it out of Richard Gage's fist..LOL) and pay for it themselves.

Maybe Charlie Sheen can pitch in. He must have some dough.
Ah, but having the government involved is their "out". If they don't like the verdict it all starts over again. Can you think of a better way to milk a dead cow forever?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

This is gonna be Tony after he retires (poor Charlie Brown):

oslfoDgBYzI

[carlitos]

Don't forget, NYCCAN asked the government for "permission" to have an independent investigation. That's some serious illogic there. "Can we please have your permission to investigate how YOU MURDERED THOUSANDS AND COVERED IT UP!!1!!1!"

[Toke]

I'm still wondering what's stopping you ("truthers") from doing an independent investigation?

The movement can assemble tens of demonstrator and do lots of google-vestigation.

Not that impressive when compared to other movements.

[Jono]

So where is the Super-Truther bardamu ? Was he knifed in some dark alley of the jref? Anybody know ?

I ate him. I got hungry. :o

[alienentity]

then we can work out whether the building would be expected to fall into its own footprint at near freefall speed.


Double canard alert!

[twinstead]

I just don't GET it. The building neither fell into their own footprints NOR fell at near freefall speed. Why would any serious investigator use those non facts to support an argument?

[alienentity]

I just don't GET it. The building neither fell into their own footprints NOR fell at near freefall speed. Why would any serious investigator use those non facts to support an argument?


Ahem...

[T.A.M.]

I would warn everyone that Tony is a member of the forum, and hence the same rules (in terms of name calling, being civil, mocking, etc...) apply.

Just a friendly reminder.

TAM:)

[bardamu]

Your fail boat has arrived.

falling into own footprint? Not one of the towers or wtc7 collapsed into their own footprint. You might want to look that up. Feel free.

At near freefall speed? Not one of the towers or wtc7 fell at "near freefall speed." You might want to look up that claims.

South tower took 15 seconds to collapse. That is 66% longer than freefall. that isn't "near freefall."

North tower took over 20 seconds to collapse. that is 200% of freefall speed. that isn't "near freefall."

World trade center 7 took about 18 seconds to collapse. That is OVER 200% of freefall.

try again.



Swing and a miss. Please compare buildings of similar design which have sustained fire across multiple floors for hours that were UNFOUGHT fires.

simple. It should be easy.

Have you even figured out momentum yet?

You forgot the angle of inclination. Don't forget to post a link to videos or photos so we can measure it and verify that the lean doesn't just exist in your vivid imagination.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

You forgot the angle of inclination. Don't forget to post a link to videos or photos so we can measure it and verify that the lean doesn't just exist in your vivid imagination.

Why should he post videos or photos? Shouldn't you be doing that?

[bardamu]

Why should he post videos or photos? Shouldn't you be doing that?

It's not me who's making extraordinary claims. He seems to believe the building was leaning.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

It's not me who's making extraordinary claims. He seems to believe the building was leaning.

Actually you're making the claims, not anyone else. There's alot of people who said that they felt the buildings lean after the planes impacts. About 6 feet!

As far as the tilt in WTC2, I saw that on TV when I watched the whole thing unfold.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm still wondering what's stopping you ("truthers") from doing an independent investigation?


For the same reason they do absolutely nothing with all this "proof" they claim to already have: they simply want to perpetuate the illusion of doubt, suspicion, and mystery.

This is a grand adventure for them; a fantastic struggle between Good™ and Evil™. They don't want it to stop, even if they come out on top.

Many probably believe that this struggle is exactly what they were meant for. What would they do with themselves if it all came to an end?

[twinstead]

It's not me who's making extraordinary claims. He seems to believe the building was leaning.

Oh. I'm sorry. I thought you were going to address the question as to why you are using two lies, that the buildings fell at near-freefall speed and fell into their own footprints, to support your arguments.

Carry on

[Grizzly Bear]

Don't forget, NYCCAN asked the government for "permission" to have an independent investigation. That's some serious illogic there. "Can we please have your permission to investigate how YOU MURDERED THOUSANDS AND COVERED IT UP!!1!!1!"

What's funny is we have all of these shows on how to catch sex predators or catching infidelity, & with local news stations investigate many different stories without actually needing to make it an official police thing. Hell political corruption is often exposed the same way. Yet exactly what you say, they seem content with having the government hold their hands through the investigation they want even though according to the same people the government is the culprit.

[triforcharity]

Maybe it's best if you tell the readers all you know of the bulge Tri. Just so that we can cross reference anything we might know with what you actually saw and remove any possible suspicion that you are mistaken.

BS,

I have posted my observations before.

[bill smith]

Your fail boat has arrived.

falling into own footprint? Not one of the towers or wtc7 collapsed into their own footprint. You might want to look that up. Feel free.

At near freefall speed? Not one of the towers or wtc7 fell at "near freefall speed." You might want to look up that claims.

South tower took 15 seconds to collapse. That is 66% longer than freefall. that isn't "near freefall."

North tower took over 20 seconds to collapse. that is 200% of freefall speed. that isn't "near freefall."

World trade center 7 took about 18 seconds to collapse. That is OVER 200% of freefall.

try again.



Swing and a miss. Please compare buildings of similar design which have sustained fire across multiple floors for hours that were UNFOUGHT fires.

simple. It should be easy.

Have you even figured out momentum yet?

Are you sure that NIST are wrong about the fall speed of the buildings ? By a factor of over 50% ? Surely they would have corrected the record if that was so ?

[bill smith]

BS,

I have posted my observations before.

Yes, I remember something about that.

[triforcharity]

We'd have to know the angle of inclination. Please provide that information, then we can work out whether the building would be expected to fall into its own footprint at near freefall speed.


No, we don't need an angle of inclination. FDNY is trained on this sort of thing.

7WTC did not fall into its own footprint. Why you ask? Because the ROOF of FITTERMAN HALL was hit by the collapse of 7.

Why do you insist on this footprint ************?? Do you not understand what the word footprint means?



Unless it happened on 9/11, you'd expect it to remain standing, like all the other tall buildings that have never collapsed primarily due to fire, according to NIST.

Wrong. I would have expected it to still be standing if it had a concrete frame and core. BTW, it was the first time that a SKYSCRAPER had fallen PRIMARILY from fire. Do you know why that is?

[RedIbis]

Here's a seemingly simple question that I've had a heck of a time finding a specific answer for. What is NIST's collapse time for WTC 7 and where is that info located?

I'm not interested in anyone's interpretation of video. I'm looking for NIST's recorded time. This is a sincere question.

[T.A.M.]

Here's a seemingly simple question that I've had a heck of a time finding a specific answer for. What is NIST's collapse time for WTC 7 and where is that info located?

I'm not interested in anyone's interpretation of video. I'm looking for NIST's recorded time. This is a sincere question.

I believe that info does exist, I remember seeing it, but sorry, can't remember where exactly.

TAM:)

[alienentity]

Here's a seemingly simple question that I've had a heck of a time finding a specific answer for. What is NIST's collapse time for WTC 7 and where is that info located?

I'm not interested in anyone's interpretation of video. I'm looking for NIST's recorded time. This is a sincere question.

It's in the 2008 WTC7 report. P 599, table 12.2

-6.0 seconds Start of cascading failure of floors surrounding column 79 (observed, building began to oscillate)
0 s. Start of descent of E PH

etc etc
6.9 s Initial downward motion of the N. Face roofline at the E section of bldg
9.3 sec Descent of W PH below roofline

Global collapse

Also see B.5 SEISMIC SIGNALS FROM THE WTC 7 COLLAPSE p 667
B.7 SUMMARY OF SEISMIC DATA p672

NCSTAR 1-9

[WildCat]

It's in the 2008 WTC7 report. P 599, table 12.2

-6.0 seconds Start of cascading failure of floors surrounding column 79 (observed, building began to oscillate)
0 s. Start of descent of E PH

etc etc
6.9 s Initial downward motion of the N. Face roofline at the E section of bldg
9.3 sec Descent of W PH below roofline

Global collapse
Damn, poor ol' RedIbis still doesn't have a single fact with which to start his 9/11 Fact Movement!

[alienentity]

We'd have to know the angle of inclination.

Get out your calipers.
Source of images: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOIebjT2jaM



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_304704b1f094bca5ee.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18399)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_304704b1f09556a38f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18400)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_304704b1f095e22db3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18401)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_304704b1f096706af0.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18402)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_304704b1f0970ed4cf.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18403)

[TruthersLie]

You forgot the angle of inclination. Don't forget to post a link to videos or photos so we can measure it and verify that the lean doesn't just exist in your vivid imagination.

no, No, NO! BAD TWOOF.

You are the one who uses made up discussion points with no facts. At least get your FACTS straight.

Or do you admit that neither the towers nor wtc7 collapsed into their own footprint?

Or do you admit the facts that neither the towers nor wtc7 collapsed at "near freefall?"

Try again twoof. This time, use facts or even basic science.

[R.Mackey]

In what world do rocket scientists only take part in debates that are moderated by a host who is so biased he has to make a disclaimer at the start of the show?

As you all know, I have this particular joker on Ignore (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5370970#post5370970), as he believes all kinds of fantastic things -- no planes hit the World Trade Center, the FDNY is part of the Vast Conspiracy, and that the Moon Landings were faked, at minimum -- making any rational discussion with him unlikely, to put it mildly. However, I was alerted by another reader to this particular post as a singular example of Truther dishonesty.

The most correct answer that can be provided is, of course, the Planet Earth. Which leaves one to wonder upon which celestial body this question was penned.

The question is, however, a classic example of the Fallacy of Many Questions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions). It is loaded from the outset, as follows:

Whether or not I am a rocket scientist has little to do with the answer, so why was it included in the question? There are plenty of other aerospace engineers and space scientists here at the JREF, and indeed one (apparently only one) former NASA employee on the side of the Truthers, as well.
Who said the only debate I take part in is the show Hardfire? Science doesn't typically work that way, and neither do I. There is no requirement for a face-to-face discussion, which is a good thing, otherwise Einstein would never have been able to improve upon Newton, as Newton had been dead for a considerable length of time and would have proved indefatiguable in debate. Instead, I've written a great deal, notably my 300-page summary paper analyzing Dr. Griffin and popular mystifications of the NIST report, and Truthers are encouraged to respond to it intelligently. Years roll on, and they still haven't.
The host of Hardfire was not, as the question presupposes, forced to explain his bias because of its severity. Rather, he explained his bias because he is honest. Try getting that on a Truther radio show. Everyone has a bias, and he declared his at the outset without prompting, yet he is criticized for this. The Truthers have it backwards, as always.
The question also implies that the show Hardfire, thanks to this bias, is an unsuitable ground for discussion. However, this flies in the face of the established fact that Ace Baker, bardamu's own idol (or perhaps even more than that), once appeared on the show -- a fact of which he is already aware (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5352241#post5352241). This is application of a double standard at best.
Furthermore, I haven't heard Tony complaining about the bias affecting his presentation. I think his ideas are totally nuts, but I give him credit for trying to keep the discussion fair, and for not whining about bias afterward.

So much nonsense packed in one little sentence. You almost have to admire it. This is not an accident.

This is what separates bardamu and other clever but delusional Truthers from the mere juveniles, such as Algebra34 or whatever he calls himself these days. While the latter provides no evidence of reasoning facility at all, the former reasons deeply, intricately, and in a manner totally disconnected from reality. Hence the irreversible spiral into no-planer and Apollo-denier territory -- both undeniable and stark delusions for which direct physical counterevidence exists and is easily accessible. This behavior is also consistent with my whitepaper on Irreducible Delusion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118389).

To phrase the question in a more straightforward, honest manner: Why did I appear on Hardfire, and only there? Because they're the only show that asked. Simple.

If I was really in the New World Order, I wouldn't even do that much. I'd just beam the show directly into your brain. Sweet dreams. :tinfoil

[TruthersLie]

Hey Bard. You might want to go back to school and pay attention. Your lack of reading comprehension skills have bit you in the ass again.

Notice who said it FIRST?
It is hard to understand why anyone would think that a leaning or bulging wall, on a building with a footprint the size of a football field and an inner core, means that the entire structure will collapse.

Do you know of any photos of this purported lean or bulge?

So I then responded to the basic idea that Tony came up with that "it is hard to think a building with a leaning or bulging wall means the entire structure will collapse."

An engineer said this... in fact a twoof engineer said this. So take up your bs complaint against him.

My reply
Umm tony you do realize that when skyscrapers are built straight up, that when they start leaning and are on fire there is usually one thing that will happen right?

When a building with the footprint the size of a football field is leaning, with massive visible damage, and unfought fires going on inside it...... what do you think may happen?

again, how many more dead fire fighters would make you happy tony? 50? 100? 10?

Then you stick your nose in it, showing your lack of reading comprehension, while lying about the collapse mechanisms of wtc 1,2 and 7

We'd have to know the angle of inclination. Please provide that information, then we can work out whether the building would be expected to fall into its own footprint at near freefall speed.

Unless it happened on 9/11, you'd expect it to remain standing, like all the other tall buildings that have never collapsed primarily due to fire, according to NIST.

And again your reading for comprehension fails you.
You forgot the angle of inclination. Don't forget to post a link to videos or photos so we can measure it and verify that the lean doesn't just exist in your vivid imagination.

So that would be TONY S who needs to provide you with the angle of the wall was leaning wasn't it twoof?

I stated that if the wall is leaning and bulging because the building is damaged and on fire for 8 hours, it is not stable and likely to collpase. Please in all of your firefighting wisdom prove that statement is incorrect.

Again you may want to take that class my wife offers for reading for COMPREHENSION. Pm me and I'll let you know about it. I know being in class with Middle Eastern ESL students will be hard, but you can catch up rather quickly if you work at it.

It's not me who's making extraordinary claims. He seems to believe the building was leaning.

No you are right. It is Tony S who is making the claim about leaning buildings. So take it up with him.

[BigAl]

No, we don't need an angle of inclination. FDNY is trained on this sort of thing.

7WTC did not fall into its own footprint. Why you ask? Because the ROOF of FITTERMAN HALL was hit by the collapse of 7.


I have a distinct recollection of a big beam being impaled in the SE corner of 140 West St (aka the Verizon building) which New Yorkers know is just a few yards from the SW corner of WTC7. If there was no beam, there certainly was lots of damage, anyway.

Was that beam (if I recall correctly) and that damage caused by the collapse of the North tower or WTC7 (or both?)

[TruthersLie]

Big Al.

140 West St. was damaged by both the north tower and wtc7. It was damaged on 2 sides.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Verizon_building_damage2.jpg Damage from wtc7

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-7-8.jpg damage from wtc7.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-7-9.jpg

damage from the north tower
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-7-11.jpg
http://www.designaids.com/wtc/wtc151.jpg
All in all there was over $1 Billion in damages to the Verizon building from wtc 7 and the north tower.

You can find a complete and comprehensive list of the damages here
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-7-8.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch7.htm&usg=__aI55-Xx5qKsMppJO_lW_k9S1Tpc=&h=378&w=500&sz=44&hl=en&start=14&sig2=OGdJblnFlPQka3tkMoROgA&tbnid=zFzwH8GeBKv4dM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dverizon%2Bbuilding%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3De n%26sa%3DX&ei=dT8fS8vhG4batAPa3rSmCg

So for a building which collapsed "symmetrically and uniformly into its own footprint" (the claim of da twoof about wtc7 which is most definately a lie) it sure did a lot of damage to 2 adjacent buildings which were both across the street from it on opposite sides, including hitting fitterman hall on the roof.

[BigAl]

Big Al.

140 West St. was damaged by both the north tower and wtc7. It was damaged on 2 sides.


Thanks.

[bardamu]

Actually you're making the claims, not anyone else. There's alot of people who said that they felt the buildings lean after the planes impacts. About 6 feet!

Get out your calipers.
Source of images: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOIebjT2jaM

We were discussing Building 7 and why the FD allowed it to smoulder all afternoon.


Oh. I'm sorry. I thought you were going to address the question as to why you are using two lies, that the buildings fell at near-freefall speed and fell into their own footprints, to support your arguments.

Carry on

Building 7 fell into its own footprint and at near freefall speed, unless you want to doctor the data by including a few stray pieces of debris and 13 seconds of unobservable buckling.


No, we don't need an angle of inclination. FDNY is trained on this sort of thing?

Regardless of FDNY training, if there's no angle of inclination in the videos, the building wasn't leaning.


Hey Bard. You might want to go back to school and pay attention. Your lack of reading comprehension skills have bit you in the ass again.

Notice who said it FIRST?

So I then responded to the basic idea that Tony came up with that "it is hard to think a building with a leaning or bulging wall means the entire structure will collapse."

An engineer said this... in fact a twoof engineer said this. So take up your bs complaint against him.

My reply

Then you stick your nose in it, showing your lack of reading comprehension, while lying about the collapse mechanisms of wtc 1,2 and 7

And again your reading for comprehension fails you.

So that would be TONY S who needs to provide you with the angle of the wall was leaning wasn't it twoof?

I stated that if the wall is leaning and bulging because the building is damaged and on fire for 8 hours, it is not stable and likely to collpase. Please in all of your firefighting wisdom prove that statement is incorrect.

Again you may want to take that class my wife offers for reading for COMPREHENSION. Pm me and I'll let you know about it. I know being in class with Middle Eastern ESL students will be hard, but you can catch up rather quickly if you work at it.

No you are right. It is Tony S who is making the claim about leaning buildings. So take it up with him.

Get your wife, or some ESL student, to tell you what "purported" means.

[TruthersLie]

We were discussing Building 7 and why the FD allowed it to smoulder all afternoon.


They should have peed on it. That would have done it.

Building 7 fell into its own footprint and at near freefall speed, unless you want to doctor the data by including a few stray pieces of debris and 13 seconds of unobservable buckling.


You might want to look up the words
FOOTPRINT
NEAR
FREEFALL
and Speed.

Oh heck. Let me google that for you. (http://tinyurl.com/yg62dyr) Now just read the top four or five to see that if ANY PART of wtc 7 fell outside the ground floor, it is then OUTSIDE OF ITS FOOTPRINT. doh.

How do I doctor the data by including a few stray pieces of debris? Do you have any images or video which show it is just a "few stray pieces of debris?" Of course not.

But we do have observable damage to 2 buildings adjacent to this building. Each was across a 30 foot street. One building (the verizon building) suffered $1.5 Billion in damages. And the other one (Fitterman hall) was struck ON THE ROOF causing a progressive collapse that is easily visible. That isn't a "few stray pieces" any more than WTC7 was only hit with a "few stray pieces" from the north tower. That isn't "doctoring" any data. It is fact. Try again.


Regardless of FDNY training, if there's no angle of inclination in the videos, the building wasn't leaning.


Regardless, Tony S (you know twoof extrordinare) brought up the leaning building... you can build buildings which are leaning. If it is part of the design, no hu hu. but if that same building in on fire for 8 hours with no firefighting, it is a good bet it will collapse.

Get your wife, or some ESL student, to tell you what "purported" means.

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.

(doh)
ROFLMAO. Oh poor twoof. What is momentum again? huh ace? How does momentum work?

dictionary.com is your friend. Go and look up what architectural footprint is. (wtc7 did not fall into its own footprint), look up what NEAR is... 18 secodns which is over 200% is nowhere NEAR freefall. try again)

poor widdle twoof.

[BigAl]

We were discussing Building 7 and why the FD allowed it to smoulder all afternoon.

Without water, FDNY didn't have a choice. There was no water at WTC on 9/11 after the towers fell.

Here's your "smoldering", a couple minutes into this excellent 8 minutes of WTC video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpAHh-yT25Q

Building 7 fell into its own footprint and at near freefall speed, 16 seconds unless you want to doctor the data by including a few stray pieces of debris and 13 seconds of unobservable buckling.

Regardless of FDNY training, if there's no angle of inclination in the videos, the building wasn't leaning.


So you need a 9/11 coloring book to present facts in a way you can understand??

bardamu has been shown all of this. He is a simple troll.

[twinstead]

Wow. Great debate mojo, bard. Deny any evidence that contradicts you by simply saying it didn't happen, or was faked. You can't lose!

[bill smith]

Without water, FDNY didn't have a choice. There was no water at WTC on 9/11 after the towers fell.

Here's your "smoldering", a couple minutes into this excellent 8 minutes of WTC video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpAHh-yT25Q

Building 7 fell into its own footprint and at near freefall speed, 16 seconds unless you want to doctor the data by including a few stray pieces of debris and 13 seconds of unobservable buckling.



So you need a 9/11 coloring book to present facts in a way you can understand??

bardamu has been shown all of this. He is a simple troll.

Why didn't they just pump the water from the river a few hundred feet way to fight the fires in WTC7 ? They could have pumped truck-to-truck right up to the fire or placed staging pumps in with choppers. There is no doubt that this could have been done in no time, yet they had almost eight hours in which they made no attempt to do so.

Was it chaos-shock-nobody thinking straight-etc ?

[BigAl]

Why didn't they just pump the water from the river a few hundred feet way to fight the fires in WTC7 ? They could have pumped truck-to-truck right up to the fire or placed staging pumps in with choppers. There is no doubt that this could have been done in no time, yet they had almost eight hours in which they made no aattempt to do so.

Was it chaos-shock-nobody thinking straight-etc ?

Troll. Reported.

[RedIbis]

It's in the 2008 WTC7 report. P 599, table 12.2

-6.0 seconds Start of cascading failure of floors surrounding column 79 (observed, building began to oscillate)
0 s. Start of descent of E PH

etc etc
6.9 s Initial downward motion of the N. Face roofline at the E section of bldg
9.3 sec Descent of W PH below roofline

Global collapse

Also see B.5 SEISMIC SIGNALS FROM THE WTC 7 COLLAPSE p 667
B.7 SUMMARY OF SEISMIC DATA p672

NCSTAR 1-9

Quotes and links please. And does this suggest the total of those figures is the collapse time?

[bill smith]

Troll. Reported.

The fish reporting the fisherperson ? Whatever next ?

[tsig]

You would go into a 47 story structure that was leaning and had a large bulge in the base that was obviously not in the original design?

And you call yourself an engineer....

Oh and btw collapse zones are firefighting 101.

If you want to live for 102.

[triforcharity]

We were discussing Building 7 and why the FD allowed it to smoulder all afternoon.


You know why we let it burn. You're being obtuse again.


Building 7 fell into its own footprint and at near freefall speed, unless you want to doctor the data by including a few stray pieces of debris and 13 seconds of unobservable buckling.


Again, please explain, The Verizon Building, and also Fitterman Hall.



Regardless of FDNY training, if there's no angle of inclination in the videos, the building wasn't leaning.


Not true. Just because you say it wasn't leaning, doesn't mean it wasn't. Did you see it with your own two eyes? No, you didn't? Ok.
Also, did you forget about the multi-story bulge in the building?


Get your wife, or some ESL student, to tell you what "purported" means.

You should do the same for the word "Footprint".

[triforcharity]

Why didn't they just pump the water from the river a few hundred feet way to fight the fires in WTC7 ? They could have pumped truck-to-truck right up to the fire or placed staging pumps in with choppers. There is no doubt that this could have been done in no time, yet they had almost eight hours in which they made no aattempt to do so.

Was it chaos-shock-nobody thinking straight-etc ?

It has already been explained to Tony why this wasn't feesable, or possible.
It has been explained many times, by not only myself, but others.

Priorities and firefighter safety.

[twinstead]

Monday morning firefighters ROCK!

[tsig]

For the same reason they do absolutely nothing with all this "proof" they claim to already have: they simply want to perpetuate the illusion of doubt, suspicion, and mystery.

This is a grand adventure for them; a fantastic struggle between Good™ and Evil™. They don't want it to stop, even if they come out on top.

Many probably believe that this struggle is exactly what they were meant for. What would they do with themselves if it all came to an end?

So the only thing worse than losing the game is winning?

[bill smith]

Troll. Reported.

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

[bill smith]

It has already been explained to Tony why this wasn't feesable, or possible.
It has been explained many times, by not only myself, but others.

Priorities and firefighter safety.

Sure. lol

[triforcharity]

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 arre looking for the initial pictures of fires 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

Again with this assinine BS about taking all the city fire extinguishers.

What would have happened if someone needed it, and there wasn't an extinguisher to be found? Yeah, that is why we didn't take them. Plus, we knew that the fire was much too big for that, and we were busy trying to find our fallen brothers and other survivors.

Yes, we can show you much bigger fires. Yes, we sure can. But, you see, that much bigger fire staarted from a smaller fire, and grew. When there is no water, we can't fight fire very well.

There were lots of shock, and lots of chaos. But, for you to assume that we did something wrong is just ******* stupid. I think that under the circumstances, we did a pretty damn good job.

We don't just go into panic mode when a disaster happens. We use our LOGIC, and CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS, and use our best judgement. That is why we are firefighters, and not Twoofies.

PS, don't bring that much stupid in one statement, it makes you look like a fool.

[triforcharity]

It has been explained Bill. Try looking for it.

[BigAl]

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

Factually wrong and stupid.

[bill smith]

It has been explained Bill. Try looking for it.

I have read and dismissed all your explanations. Readers are welcome to sample your most recent offerings.

I have just given you two different foolproof ways to have relatively easily defeated the fires in WTC7. Anybody who read those recent posts of mine cannot fail to see the simple logic of them. But do please carry on proving me wrong. It is immensely helpful.

[cyclonic]

Just after the east penthouse collapses, sunlight can be seen through the top windows suggesting the collapse of the interior is underway.

rawrAdoccDk

In this video firefighters, including chief Nigro, discuss the state of WTC 7 and richard gage's pathetic story about WTC 7s "negative pressure".


kMr3ZSL6l-4


Proof of heat expansion in WTC5.

eWpOfUMz6SE

[triforcharity]

And I have explianed to you WHY we didn't do that. I explained to you WHY it wasn't possible. However, you have specualted. And that speculation has come straight out of your ass.

On what basis did you dismiss logical thinking??

[tsig]

Why didn't they just pump the water from the river a few hundred feet way to fight the fires in WTC7 ? They could have pumped truck-to-truck right up to the fire or placed staging pumps in with choppers. There is no doubt that this could have been done in no time, yet they had almost eight hours in which they made no attempt to do so.

Was it chaos-shock-nobody thinking straight-etc ?

Asked and answered.

[bill smith]

Asked and answered.

I love these types of answers. Concerned Citizens reading along can just feel and see the guilt running down the walls and dripping off the jref ceiling. lol.

[DGM]

I love these types of answers. Concerned Citizens reading along can just feel and see the guilt running down the walls and dripping off the jref ceiling. lol.
And if you keep believing that you'll be just fine.:rolleyes:

[triforcharity]

I would more call that ****, and you're the culprit. You are slinging it all over the place, and trying to see what you can get to stick.

Its ************ and you know it Billy.

[twinstead]

I love these types of answers. Concerned Citizens reading along can just feel and see the guilt running down the walls and dripping off the jref ceiling. lol.

Dude. It's almost as if we don't know the clever truther tactic of every time a claim is made you simply say, "well, show me then". After you are shown, the next time it is brought up say, "well, show me then". After you are shown, then next time it is brought up say, "well, show me then".

Rinse, lather, repeat. That way you don't ever have to comment on any evidence that may contradict you. You simply claim you've never seen it no matter how many times it is shown to you. A war of attrition that usually ends with the rational people exasperated and telling you to eff off, and a truther claiming "VICTORY".

Diabolically clever.

[DGM]

Diabolically clever.

But painfully transparent to the casual observer.

[twinstead]

But painfully transparent to the casual observer.

Indeed

[Edx]

s and 13 seconds of unobservable buckling.

Except you can see the buckling.

Regardless of FDNY training, if there's no angle of inclination in the videos, the building wasn't leaning.

Ah yes, the FDNY are in on it!

[Grizzly Bear]

I would more call that ****, and you're the culprit. You are slinging it all over the place, and trying to see what you can get to stick.

Its ************ and you know it Billy.
That's narcissism for you... and why I put him on ignore long ago. I'm not going to have a conversation with someone who posts claptrap theories just for the sake of posting them. His indifference to everything really makes you question whether or not he actually believes his own posts.

TS, Red,.... er bardamu, and others make some crazy claims, but at least they post because they actually believe in the evidence they claim to have. That's what makes any conversation about opposing arguments possible with him or for that matter anybody else.

I can't stand talking to people who don't even believe their own arguments :\

[bill smith]

That's narcissism for you... and why I put him on ignore long ago. I'm not going to have a conversation with someone who posts claptrap theories just for the sake of posting them. His indifference to everything really makes you question whether or not he actually believes his own posts.

TS, Red,.... er bardamu, and others make some crazy claims, but at least they post because they actually believe in the evidence they claim to have. That's what makes any conversation about opposing arguments possible with him or for that matter anybody else.

I can't stand talking to people who don't even believe their own arguments :\

That's a shame Grizzly. I used to quite enjoy demolishing your posts until you raised your shields with the ignore button. Never mind. We can resume when you feel up to it.

[TjW]

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

Just out of curiosity, how long do you calculate it would take, say, 200 people to collect ten thousand fire extinguishers? Don't forget the time to organize and brief them.

[BigAl]

Just out of curiosity, how long do you calculate it would take, say, 200 people to collect ten thousand fire extinguishers? Don't forget the time to organize and brief them.

Right. Smash down 10 doors without permission for every extingusiher found then send firemen into a building that is about to collapse. Leave the offices unlocked for looters.

[Edx]

And seriously, a few commercial fire extinguishers competing with a professional fire hose with gallons of water? What the hell planet are these people on?

[nicepants]

There is no evidence of a dynamic load. You need velocity loss to show there was one and there is no velocity loss observed, the upper block of WTC 1 continuously accelerates.

Why do you think you need to show velocity loss?Because that indicates kinetic energy was transferred

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.

My roommate hit a cone on a the road once. He hit it as he was accelerating. He definitely transferred kinetic energy to the cone, but the car's velocity did not decrease as a result.

[WildCat]

And seriously, a few commercial fire extinguishers competing with a professional fire hose with gallons of water? What the hell planet are these people on?
It is astonishing, isn't it?

[WildCat]

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.

My roommate hit a cone on a the road once. He hit it as he was accelerating. He definitely transferred kinetic energy to the cone, but the car's velocity did not decrease as a result.
Maybe Tony can measure the jolt in this video:
qUNZO1Xti1E

[bill smith]

Just out of curiosity, how long do you calculate it would take, say, 200 people to collect ten thousand fire extinguishers? Don't forget the time to organize and brief them.

Well you would call ahead all the managers of the skyscrapers around and have them assemble all or most of their fire extingishers at the front entrance where they would be picked up by truck. Extinguishing could begin almost immediately with more extinguishers coming in all the time. No problemo. Zero problemo in fact. That's what they could and should have done while they were hooking up to pump water truck-to-truck the few hundred feet from the river to WTC7.

It is perfectly obvious that either or both of these solutions would have easily dealt with the fires in WTC7. Especially with the tiny initial fires that we have video of. There is no reason to believe that the initial fires on the South Side were any larger than the ones elsewhere in WTC7 and they would have been extinguished just as quickly and easily..

[NutCracker]

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.

My roommate hit a cone on a the road once. He hit it as he was accelerating. He definitely transferred kinetic energy to the cone, but the car's velocity did not decrease as a result.


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.

[R.Mackey]

Nope, you understand perfectly.

[NutCracker]

Nope, you understand perfectly.

That's.. that's.. high-school physics! Holy cow!

Banging my head against my desk and laptop.

Oh, and a force is definitely being exerted on them.

[bill smith]

And seriously, a few commercial fire extinguishers competing with a professional fire hose with gallons of water? What the hell planet are these people on?

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.

[A W Smith]

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.


I will give you this opportunity to confirm you are a complete jackass. Explain how hand held fire extinguishers can put out a fully involved 47 story office building fire when you cannot even get close enough? Any attempt to get within rage will cause you to be incinerated yourself.

[bill smith]

I will give you this opportunity to confirm you are a complete jackass. Explain how hand held fire extinguishers can put out a fully involved 47 story office building fire when you cannot even get close enough? Any attempt to get within rage will cause you to be incinerated yourself.

Readers please refer to the section in the attached hyperlink where I said that debunkers might try to describe fires other han the ones I mentioned. Please note that AW Smith (no relation ) is the one who has started this particular ball rolling. It can surely be a factor to consider in judging him.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5393344&postcount=1622 hyperlink

[dafydd]

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.

That's a laugh,a truther talking about weak answers!

[bill smith]

That's a laugh,a truther talking about weak answers!

Don't be so timid daffyd. Be stronger.

PS. I ought to be more careful how I spell your name. Otherwise people might begin to think of a certain cartoon character with black feathers, a yellow beak and a speech impediment when they see your posts. Best to mention no names.

So dafydd, I hope that my prior misspelling of your name does not have the unfortunate side effect I anticipate. Sorry about that.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

That's a laugh,a truther talking about weak answers!

Too bad Bill doesn't talk about weak evidence or lack of it.

[rwguinn]

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.

Nope, you understand perfectly.

That's.. that's.. high-school physics! Holy cow!

Banging my head against my desk and laptop.

Oh, and a force is definitely being exerted on them.
Yup. Even my son, who is graduating in Management, understands this better than the "engineer for troof"

[BigAl]

Well you would call ahead all the managers of the skyscrapers around and have them assemble all or most of their fire extingishers at the front entrance where they would be picked up by truck.



Lower Manhattan buildings were evacuated. There was nobody to call. There was nobody to unlock doors.

[Edx]

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.

yes I hope so too.

Assuming its rational to think the firefighters had time to run around and commandeer commercial fire extinguishers from offices, you actually think they could use them to put out massive fires.

Get this through your head Bill, commercial fire extinguishers are meant for small fires they arent meant for anything larger. The amount of water that comes out of a professional fire hose is gallons and gallons more than the small amount they put in your average office extinguisher. The amount of effort it would take to find the amount of extinguishers necessary would have taken them many weeks.

[bill smith]

yes I hope so too.

Assuming its rational to think the firefighters had time to run around and commandeer commercial fire extinguishers from offices, you actually think they could use them to put out massive fires.

Get this through your head Bill, commercial fire extinguishers are meant for small fires they arent meant for anything larger. The amount of water that comes out of a professional fire hose is gallons and gallons more than the small amount they put in your average office extinguisher. The amount of effort it would take to find the amount of extinguishers necessary would have taken them many weeks.

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

[Edx]

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.

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

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.

[W.D.Clinger]

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.
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

[BigAl]

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]

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

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/174224b1ff5c23e370.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18410)

[bill smith]

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.

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://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5393344&postcount=1622 hyperlink

[NutCracker]

Yup. Even my son, who is graduating in Management, understands this better than the "engineer for troof"

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

The sore forehead and headache are lesser issues.

[Edx]

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://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5393344&postcount=1622 hyperlink

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?

[BigAl]

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://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5393344&postcount=1622 hyperlink

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

[cyclonic]

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.

[Macgyver1968]

What floors did the fires start on in the WTC7?

[Mangoose]

Here ya go, an itty bitty initial fire:

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/6997/060929greatwhitehmedhme.jpg

Now.....how long did it stay itty bitty?

[cyclonic]

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.

[RedIbis]

What floors did the fires start on in the WTC7?

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.

[bardamu]

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.


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.

[bill smith]

Here ya go, an itty bitty initial fire:

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/6997/060929greatwhitehmedhme.jpg

Now.....how long did it stay itty bitty?

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.

[cyclonic]

How close do you think you would get to this fire in WTC 5 bill?
NjykKWWEs3w

Might need a keg for that one bill.:rolleyes:

[Edx]

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.

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?

[GlennB]

I've decided to award you 3 out of 10 for this effort, ...

And I'm awarding you 0/10 for your claim about WTC7 and the 'footprint' issue. Do over. Ta.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

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

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/174224b1ff5c23e370.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18410)

Illogical!

[rwguinn]

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

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...

[Macgyver1968]

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.

Thanks Red!

[bill smith]

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?

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.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

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.

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.

[cyclonic]

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.

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.

[Mangoose]

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.


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.

[dafydd]

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.

Bill and his ilk don't give a damn about those 100 people.

[bardamu]

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?

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?

[cyclonic]

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?

The south tower collapsed first because it had to support more floors than the north tower did.

[Edx]

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.

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?

[Furcifer]

Tony has no idea that Force (and thus acceleration) is a vector...

Exactly. It seems to have slipped his mind. And when you remind him he seems oblivious.

[twinstead]

So how many extinguishers do you think should have been enough to put them out?

I'm thinking triple digits

[tfk]

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.


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

[Edx]

LOL @ smoke machines.

[triforcharity]

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.

Argument from personal ignorance noted.

[triforcharity]

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

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.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

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

Tom,

I try not to keep up with Billies world. His world is too complicated even for himself.

[rwguinn]

Argument from personal ignorance noted.
Erm..
Ignorance is a curable condition. These guys are in a death spiral...

[A W Smith]

LOL @ smoke machines.


yup. BS said that, the dope, wait till the casual forum reader sees this!

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4522273&postcount=318

:dl:

[triforcharity]

Bill, here are some pics of 7WTC after the collapse,

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

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/WTC_misc-43.jpg



http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/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.

[triforcharity]

I'm thinking triple digits

Im thinking quadruple, and many many many firing at the same time.

A fire like that would take an hour of time, with 8-10 hand lines, flowing 1,000 GPM for each and every one of them.

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

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.

[Furcifer]

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


Me neither.

[Grizzly Bear]

From a one floor drop the upper section of both towers would have impacted with a force of 8 times their static weight. But the floors would have failed well before that 8G threshold was fully transmitted. In other words, the net acceleration in the direction of gravity is still positive. For christ's sake there was a net loss of 0.30g in the average acceleration of the collapse propagation. The "no dynamic load" idea is -- has been -- always will be dead on arrival... :\

[Tony Szamboti]

From a one floor drop the upper section of both towers would have impacted with a force of 8 times their static weight. But the floors would have failed well before that 8G threshold was fully transmitted. In other words, the net acceleration in the direction of gravity is still positive. For christ's sake there was a net loss of 0.30g in the average acceleration of the collapse propagation. The "no dynamic load" idea is -- has been -- always will be dead on arrival... :\

How did the central core collapse with your theory?

[Grizzly Bear]

How did the central core collapse with your theory?
To what are you referring; collapse initiation or after the collapse was already underway? Other? If you're going to ask me this stuff it'd help if you made your questions clearer.
I'm not seeing the relevance to your dynamic load denial...

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Tony,

Got any physical evidence of explosives? Thermite/Nano-thermite?

[Tony Szamboti]

To what are you referring; collapse initiation or after the collapse was already underway? Other? If you're going to ask me this stuff it'd help if you made your questions clearer.
I'm not seeing the relevance to your dynamic load denial...

I am referring to how the collapse propagated after the first story collapsed.

How do you rectify that just the floors outside of the core themselves would have provided at least the 0.3g resistance observed and explain how the central core collapsed without a dynamic load or column removal by artificial means?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I am referring to how the collapse propagated after the first story collapsed.

How do you rectify that just the floors outside of the core themselves would have provided at least the 0.3g resistance observed and explain how the central core collapsed without a dynamic load or column removal by artificial means?

You've got zero cred on the CD theory Tony. You're not a CD expert!

[W.D.Clinger]

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.
For no reason at all, you are assuming the dynamic load is distributed as well as the static load. Counterexample: Stretch aluminum foil tightly over a mixing bowl. It should support a steak knife. That's the static load. Now lift the knife a short distance and drop it, point first, onto the foil. That's the dynamic load. It has the same mass as the static load, but the aluminum foil is likely to fail.

Repeat the experiment and make a video. Look for the missing jolt.

Alternatively, you can complain that my counterexample concentrates the dynamic load upon a small area of the structure. By making that complaint, you will have to admit that the manner in which the force is applied to the structure is relevant. You might even realize that your argument requires you to argue that the dynamic load is as evenly distributed as the static load.

But I doubt it.

[Furcifer]

I am referring to how the collapse propagated after the first story collapsed.

How do you rectify that just the floors outside of the core themselves would have provided at least the 0.3g resistance observed and explain how the central core collapsed without a dynamic load or column removal by artificial means?

The 4" floor slabs would have resisted the acceleration of the entire upper section by 0.3g? Wow.

I'm surprised they even bothered with a core. Them's some strong floors.

[R.Mackey]

They would have resisted by 0.3 g, but only for a few milliseconds. And most of that resistance is momentum transfer, not actual structural strength. The strength is a roundoff error, as Dr. Bazant proved in his many papers on the subject.

Round and round and round Tony goes...

[Tony Szamboti]

They would have resisted by 0.3 g, but only for a few milliseconds. And most of that resistance is momentum transfer, not actual structural strength. The strength is a roundoff error, as Dr. Bazant proved in his many papers on the subject.

Round and round and round Tony goes...

Please explain how the central core collapsed at the same time the floors outside of the core are providing the observed resistance of 0.3g.

[R.Mackey]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[Tony Szamboti]

The 4" floor slabs would have resisted the acceleration of the entire upper section by 0.3g? Wow.

I'm surprised they even bothered with a core. Them's some strong floors.

Yes, there were more substantial than most people realize. Each floor could withstand the static weight of an additional twelve floors.

[R.Mackey]

Yes, there were more substantial than most people realize. Each floor could withstand the static weight of an additional twelve floors.

This is false.

The connections could handle that much weight. However, that assumes the weight all goes into the connections.

The floors themselves could handle maybe four times their own weight, if settled down gently upon them. If we bring things like broken columns piercing them, impact, and the fact that the next few floors were already sagged and fire-damaged, they have effectively no excess capacity at all.

Please try to get something right, Tony.

[Tony Szamboti]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

You didn't answer this question during the debate, so maybe you didn't understand then either.

I'll try again. If the observed resistance is provided by just the floors outside of the central core then how do you account for the resistance of the core?

[Tony Szamboti]

This is false.

The connections could handle that much weight. However, that assumes the weight all goes into the connections.

The floors themselves could handle maybe four times their own weight, if settled down gently upon them. If we bring things like broken columns piercing them, impact, and the fact that the next few floors were already sagged and fire-damaged, they have effectively no excess capacity at all.

Please try to get something right, Tony.

Provide figures to back up your hyperbole here before telling someone else to get something right.

[R.Mackey]

You didn't answer this question during the debate, so maybe you didn't understand then either.

I'll try again. If the observed resistance is provided by just the floors outside of the central core then how do you account for the resistance of the core?

I don't recall you asking such a malformed question during the debate.

Nobody said the observed resistance is provided by "just the floors outside of the central core." Nor is there any reason to suspect this. Hence, a leading question. Try again.

[TruthersLie]

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.

Blah blah blah...

After getting completely owned repeatedly in every post... this is what you have?

what is momentum gain twoof?

What happened to that steel plate when it hit the concrete wall... did it just STOP? No it when through it.

Ace, it has to be hard for you with your basic high school education (GED I think), but at least try to do some basic research.

[R.Mackey]

Provide figures to back up your hyperbole here before telling someone else to get something right.

NIST NCSTAR1-6B. Read it. It describes the floor and their true maximum load, since that's what they were testing.

The 29 million pound figure is the sum of the truss seats' failure strength, not the floors. We've already discussed this in this very thread.

What you label hyperbole is, in fact, a result of your own ignorance.

[TruthersLie]

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.

And how about the other LIES you keep telling?

did wtc7 fall into its own "footprint?" Did you read the information I gave you?

Did it fall at "near freefall?"

Do you retract those lies?

[Tony Szamboti]

NIST NCSTAR1-6B. Read it. It describes the floor and their true maximum load, since that's what they were testing.

The 29 million pound figure is the sum of the truss seats' failure strength, not the floors. We've already discussed this in this very thread.

What you label hyperbole is, in fact, a result of your own ignorance.

This isn't how the NIST described it in their FAQ from Dec. 2007.

You are dancing around like the NIST does and obviously don't have a complete scenario for the collapse yourself that you demand of others.

Just like the old saying goes "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with ************". Have you ever heard that Ryan?

[R.Mackey]

You really should try absorbing the reports, not just the FAQ. That's what got Griffin and Hoffman into such laughable mistakes.

Try here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5192305#post5192305). We already had this discussion. It was only a couple of months ago, and you participated in that thread. Unless you're trying to convince me you have a memory problem, you have no excuse. You're throwing around bad figures to back up your stupid ideas. It won't work.


ETA: I see Tony is editing his posts again. Guess I'll have to start quoting in full...

[funk de fino]

Please explain how the central core collapsed at the same time the floors outside of the core are providing the observed resistance of 0.3g.


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Unbelievable.

[funk de fino]

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.

Witness evidence says otherwise.

[bardamu]

As you all know, I have this particular joker on Ignore (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5370970#post5370970), as he believes all kinds of fantastic things -- no planes hit the World Trade Center, the FDNY is part of the Vast Conspiracy, and that the Moon Landings were faked, at minimum -- making any rational discussion with him unlikely, to put it mildly. However, I was alerted by another reader to this particular post as a singular example of Truther dishonesty.

The most correct answer that can be provided is, of course, the Planet Earth. Which leaves one to wonder upon which celestial body this question was penned.

The question is, however, a classic example of the Fallacy of Many Questions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions). It is loaded from the outset, as follows:

Whether or not I am a rocket scientist has little to do with the answer, so why was it included in the question? There are plenty of other aerospace engineers and space scientists here at the JREF, and indeed one (apparently only one) former NASA employee on the side of the Truthers, as well.
Who said the only debate I take part in is the show Hardfire? Science doesn't typically work that way, and neither do I. There is no requirement for a face-to-face discussion, which is a good thing, otherwise Einstein would never have been able to improve upon Newton, as Newton had been dead for a considerable length of time and would have proved indefatiguable in debate. Instead, I've written a great deal, notably my 300-page summary paper analyzing Dr. Griffin and popular mystifications of the NIST report, and Truthers are encouraged to respond to it intelligently. Years roll on, and they still haven't.
The host of Hardfire was not, as the question presupposes, forced to explain his bias because of its severity. Rather, he explained his bias because he is honest. Try getting that on a Truther radio show. Everyone has a bias, and he declared his at the outset without prompting, yet he is criticized for this. The Truthers have it backwards, as always.
The question also implies that the show Hardfire, thanks to this bias, is an unsuitable ground for discussion. However, this flies in the face of the established fact that Ace Baker, bardamu's own idol (or perhaps even more than that), once appeared on the show -- a fact of which he is already aware (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5352241#post5352241). This is application of a double standard at best.
Furthermore, I haven't heard Tony complaining about the bias affecting his presentation. I think his ideas are totally nuts, but I give him credit for trying to keep the discussion fair, and for not whining about bias afterward.

So much nonsense packed in one little sentence. You almost have to admire it. This is not an accident.

This is what separates bardamu and other clever but delusional Truthers from the mere juveniles, such as Algebra34 or whatever he calls himself these days. While the latter provides no evidence of reasoning facility at all, the former reasons deeply, intricately, and in a manner totally disconnected from reality. Hence the irreversible spiral into no-planer and Apollo-denier territory -- both undeniable and stark delusions for which direct physical counterevidence exists and is easily accessible. This behavior is also consistent with my whitepaper on Irreducible Delusion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118389).

To phrase the question in a more straightforward, honest manner: Why did I appear on Hardfire, and only there? Because they're the only show that asked. Simple.

If I was really in the New World Order, I wouldn't even do that much. I'd just beam the show directly into your brain. Sweet dreams. :tinfoil

It's not the show itself that's at fault - it's that poor excuse for a human being that hosts it. John Clifton was a fair and balanced host during the debate between the professional architect and the tour guide. He didn't kick off the show accusing the truth movement of peddling dishonesty and he didn't call anybody insane. I feel sure that John Clifton would have pointed out that the Irreducible Delusion is more applicable to the debunkers than to the truthers, since the vast majority of the latter have actually changed their position since 9/11 on the strength of the evidence.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

....the vast majority of the latter have actually changed their position since 9/11 on the strength of the evidence.

And what physical evidence is there for them to change to the latter?

8 yrs of nothing from Truthers you mean??

[TruthersLie]

It's not the show itself that's at fault - it's that poor excuse for a human being that hosts it. John Clifton was a fair and balanced host during the debate between the professional architect and the tour guide. He didn't kick off the show accusing the truth movement of peddling dishonesty and he didn't call anybody insane. I feel sure that John Clifton would have pointed out that the Irreducible Delusion is more applicable to the debunkers than to the truthers, since the vast majority of the latter have actually changed their position since 9/11 on the strength of the evidence.

blah blah blah...
have you figured out momentum yet?
Have you bothered to look up and find out what a buildings footprint is?

Breach of Rule 12 concent removed.

[AZCat]

You really should try absorbing the reports, not just the FAQ. That's what got Griffin and Hoffman into such laughable mistakes.

Try here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5192305#post5192305). We already had this discussion. It was only a couple of months ago, and you participated in that thread. Unless you're trying to convince me you have a memory problem, you have no excuse. You're throwing around bad figures to back up your stupid ideas. It won't work.


ETA: I see Tony is editing his posts again. Guess I'll have to start quoting in full...

Not only is he having "memory problems", but he's trying to spin this little tangent into a win for him over at Gregory's forum.

Tony Szamboti@The911Forum
Actually the floors outside of the core could withstand the weight of twelve additional floors on them. They weren't insignificant and it would not be easy to naturally get a runaway collapse of these floors going.

Having said that I agree that the central core is the bigger mystery as to how it could have collapsed without being tampered with. In fact, it is the reason I believe the buildings were demolished intentionally. Debunkers like Ryan Mackey are trying to say the entire upper block landed on the floors to attempt to explain the low resistance and lack of any deceleration, but he wouldn't answer me and changed the subject when I asked how he explains the central core collapse during the first several stories of the collapse.


So he's turned his inability to properly phrase a question into you avoiding answering. What did someone just say about baffling with B.S.?

[Grizzly Bear]

Not surprising... he's incredibly stubborn when it comes to his baseline assumptions and he's going to stick with them no matter how many times he gets reminded that those assumptions fail on arrival. He denies the fires were hot enough to weaken the structure, he takes Bazant's limiting case literally, he treats everything as if the strutural integrity is the same post-impact as it was as-built, he bizarrely denies the dynamic loading. Don't get me wrong the guy might be easy enough to talk with over a cup of coffee, but holy crap... discussing this stuff rationally with him is damn near impossible because of where his base line claims fall. :\

[bardamu]

And what physical evidence is there for them to change to the latter?

8 yrs of nothing from Truthers you mean??

You're missing the point. The Irreducible Delusion does not lead to a complete shift in position. It's an explanation why some people refuse to abandon their original theory.

Now it just so happens that the debunkers have held on to their original theory of 9/11 for 8 years, while most truthers have evolved over the same period and come to a completely different conclusion.

That doesn't necessarily mean that all debunkers are suffering from the Irreducible Delusion, but it does mean that most truthers are not.

[DGM]

You're missing the point. The Irreducible Delusion does not lead to a complete shift in position. It's an explanation why some people refuse to abandon their original theory.

Now it just so happens that the debunkers have held on to their original theory of 9/11 for 8 years, while most truthers have evolved over the same period and come to a completely different conclusion.

That doesn't necessarily mean that all debunkers are suffering from the Irreducible Delusion, but it does mean that most truthers are not.
Is this still true if all physical (hell, all) evidence points to the debunker's being correct?:rolleyes:

[Edx]

while most truthers have evolved over the same period and come to a completely different conclusion..

LOL like what "completely different conclusion"???

[Edx]

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

No Bill, you said they should have been able to put out the fires with fire extinguishers.

The "small" fires you keep pointing out show fires that are the size of a city block. Its very simple... the debris hits the south side, starts fires, the fire pushes all the way through the building. Thats why you can see fire coming out those floors on the North Side.

For the sake of argument, lets accept that those are the only fires in the building. The ones where you can see flames, okay? So you can stop trying to prove that.

Now, you said they should have been able to extinguish them with commercial office fire extinguishers. So it is very relevant to ask how many you believe they would have needed to gather in order to put that kind of fire out?

[triforcharity]

And yet, posted pictures of the fires shortly after the collapse of the tower, and yet, no response from Bill......

Geeeee............Wonder why...........:rolleyes:

[bill smith]

No Bill, you said they should have been able to put out the fires with fire extinguishers.

The "small" fires you keep pointing out show fires that are the size of a city block. Its very simple... the debris hits the south side, starts fires, the fire pushes all the way through the building. Thats why you can see fire coming out those floors on the North Side.

For the sake of argument, lets accept that those are the only fires in the building. The ones where you can see flames, okay? So you can stop trying to prove that.

Now, you said they should have been able to extinguish them with commercial office fire extinguishers. So it is very relevant to ask how many you believe they would have needed to gather in order to put that kind of fire out?

I sometimes think that they are allowing the Truth about 9/11 to surface. I'm sure they could do more to stop stuff like Jessie Ventura and so on. I hope they are not going to leave their poor old debunkers hanging out to dry like sacrificial lambs.

[triforcharity]

Aactually Bill, that is one thing that America is known for. Aand that is, Freedom of Speach. It doesn't matter that we all know that Ventura is full of bovine feces, but, being an American, he is entitled to his opinion.

Ps, would you care to address EDX's question? You even quoted it.

Care to address it?

[WildCat]

To break a structure with a mass it is designed to handle
Just how much weight per square foot do you think the floor system of the WTC was designed to handle?

I don't know about the Port Authority code, but in Chicago it's 150 lbs per square foot.

[Edx]

No Bill, you said they should have been able to put out the fires with fire extinguishers.

The "small" fires you keep pointing out show fires that are the size of a city block. Its very simple... the debris hits the south side, starts fires, the fire pushes all the way through the building. Thats why you can see fire coming out those floors on the North Side.

For the sake of argument, lets accept that those are the only fires in the building. The ones where you can see flames, okay? So you can stop trying to prove that.

Now, you said they should have been able to extinguish them with commercial office fire extinguishers. So it is very relevant to ask how many you believe they would have needed to gather in order to put that kind of fire out?

I sometimes think that they are allowing the Truth about 9/11 to surface. I'm sure they could do more to stop stuff like Jessie Ventura and so on. I hope they are not going to leave their poor old debunkers hanging out to dry like sacrificial lambs.

Bill what does this have to do with my question?

[WildCat]

Not surprising... he's incredibly stubborn when it comes to his baseline assumptions and he's going to stick with them no matter how many times he gets reminded that those assumptions fail on arrival.
An "indestructible delusion"? :p

[bill smith]

No Bill, you said they should have been able to put out the fires with fire extinguishers.

The "small" fires you keep pointing out show fires that are the size of a city block. Its very simple... the debris hits the south side, starts fires, the fire pushes all the way through the building. Thats why you can see fire coming out those floors on the North Side.

For the sake of argument, lets accept that those are the only fires in the building. The ones where you can see flames, okay? So you can stop trying to prove that.

Now, you said they should have been able to extinguish them with commercial office fire extinguishers. So it is very relevant to ask how many you believe they would have needed to gather in order to put that kind of fire out?
It is tiresome to deal with somebody of such limited capacity. I have explained all this to you before several times.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5393344&postcount=1622

Furthermore there were no fires the size of a city block . Zero. See attached ideo of zero fires in about 20 different perspectives of WTC7. You and the Readers will note that far from a city block-sized fire as you maintain, there are no visible fires at all.Lying will not help. And remember- this was at the time of the actual collapse when you would expect to see the most fire.

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

[Edx]

It is tiresome to deal with somebody of such limited capacity. I have explained all this to you before several times.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5393344&postcount=1622

Furthermore there were no fires the size of a city block . Zero. See attached ideo of zero fires in about 20 different perspectives of WTC7. You and the Readers will note that far from a city block-sized fire as you maintain, there are no visible fires at all.Lying will not help. And remember- this was at the time of the actual collapse when you would expect to see the most fire.

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

The WTC7 building covered an entire block.

The fires were started on the south side and progressed all the way over to the north side.

Therefore the fires were the size of a city block.

How many fire extinguishers would you have collected to put out Building 7's fires?

[R.Mackey]

Not only is he having "memory problems", but he's trying to spin this little tangent into a win for him over at Gregory's forum.

[...]

So he's turned his inability to properly phrase a question into you avoiding answering. What did someone just say about baffling with B.S.?

Yes, I saw that. Can't say I'm surprised. What he's doing now is creating a pretext to disengage while preserving his illusion of having "won," when in reality he merely said something unintelligible.

If this is the last we hear from him, so much the better, I think. 40+ pages in this thread now, an hour and a half of debate, and he doesn't seem to have learned a single thing. More argumentation will not help him.

[bill smith]

The WTC7 building covered an entire block.

The fires were started on the south side and progressed all the way over to the north side.

Therefore the fires were the size of a city block.

How many fire extinguishers would you have collected to put out Building 7's fires?

I'm not going to go around with you in this debunker two-step again.

I invite the Readers to note your logic. I would guess a few dozen fire extinguishers would have been enough to put out the dozen or so small fires that were observed soon after the collapse of the North Tower. Thousands could have been available at the drop of a hat with hundreds of men to man them.

[beachnut]

Tony can't get his real-cd-deal off the ground. The failed peanut gallery thinks fires can be put out by magic; oops the no fire fire.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc7fire3.jpg

[BigAl]

I'm not going to go around with you in this debunker two-step again.

I invite the Readers to note your logic. I would guess a few dozen fire extinguishers would have been enough to put out the dozen or so small fires that were observed soon after the collapse of the North Tower. Thousands could have been available at the drop of a hat with hundreds of men to man them.

Here's your "small fire".

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos

Pick the one labeled "unknown source Another view"

[Edx]

I'm not going to go around with you in this debunker two-step again.

I invite the Readers to note your logic. I would guess a few dozen fire extinguishers would have been enough to put out the dozen or so small fires that were observed soon after the collapse of the North Tower. Thousands could have been available at the drop of a hat with hundreds of men to man them.

There we have it, Bill thinks a dozen would have been enough to put out fires the size of a city block.

Well done, Bill.

[bill smith]

Here's your "small fire".

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos

Pick the one labeled "unknown source Another view"

This fire is at it's zenith. I specifically said that I was talking about he dozen or so tiny fires that were apparently started by the collapse of the Nprth Tower. At that time fire extinguishers which were available by the hundreds were more than sufficient to extinguish the small fires.

I made a point to let the readers see how debunkers twist and lie. Note how Al shows the well developed fires in place of the initial pinpricks.(As I anticipated) See hyperlink

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5393344&postcount=1622 hyperlink

[Mangoose]

I specifically said that I was talking about he dozen or so tiny fires that were apparently started by the collapse of the Nprth Tower. At that time fire extinguishers which were available by the hundreds were more than sufficient to extinguish the small fires.


No you did not. You referred to videos showing the initial itty-bitty fires. Our very point is that the fires were not itty-bitty in any video showing them. When the fires initiated following the collapse of WTC1, they were not visible outside the building which was itself shrouded by dust expelled by WTC1.

The example I posted is of a fire that started inside a building which would not have been visible on the outside of the building until it was way too late to put it out with "fire extinguishers". It probably was too late even after 15 seconds after initiation.

[Edx]

This fire is at it's zenith. I specifically said that I was talking about he dozen or so tiny fires that were apparently started by the collapse of the Nprth Tower. At that time fire extinguishers which were available by the hundreds were more than sufficient to extinguish the small fires.

I made a point to let the readers see how debunkers twist and lie. Note how Al shows the well developed fires in place of the initial pinpricks.(As I anticipated) See hyperlink

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5393344&postcount=1622 hyperlink

The fire in the videos you are talking about are not small they span AN ENTIRE BLOCK.

[BigAl]

This fire is at it's zenith. I specifically said that I was talking about he dozen or so tiny fires that were apparently started by the collapse of the Nprth Tower. At that time fire extinguishers which were available by the hundreds were more than sufficient to extinguish the small fires.

I made a point to let the readers see how debunkers twist and lie. Note how Al shows the well developed fires in place of the initial pinpricks.(As I anticipated)

Bill seems to think there is an extinguisher behind every door of every office in Manhattan. That is not the case. I figure you have to break into 10 offices for each one found.

So it takes an hour to round up a significant (to you) number of extinguishers. This includes the time it takes to break into buildings and seach for them, take them back and then carry them up all the flights of stairs.

If the fire ever was controllable, it is no more after burning for an hour.

[twinstead]

Bill aren't you just the most blatant Monday morning quarterback EVER?