Tony Szamboti Discusses his WTC7 Discovery

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, May 15, 2016.

  1. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Oh boy...

    The above is TOTALLY incorrect.

    NIST never claims that the beam thermally expanded and pushed upon column 79 causing it to fail. ARUP never claims the beam sagged and pulled on column 79 causing it to fail.

    What NIST says happened is that the beam beneath the concrete floor thermally expanded and walked off the seat at column 79. The floor and beam then impacted the floor below which caused THAT floor to fail and fall. That cascading failure of floors REMOVED lateral support of column 79 that the floors/beams provided. With that lateral floor support gone, column 79 buckled/failed.

    http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm, bullet point 5.

    ARUP shows that the beam below the floor was PULLED off it's seat, thus starting the same cascading floor failure which removed lateral support of column 79. This is why ARUP calls the beam being pulled off its seat a "collapse initiating event" in their report.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And that's why I referred you to Szamboti. It amounts to the same thing, ARUP contradicted NIST and whether ARUP contradicted NIST or not, it's all irrelevant to the important point. It doesn't absolve NIST's fraud, which stands on its own. It also doesn't change the fact that neither theory makes sense or is provable. In fact, the fire that allegedly cause the expansion or sagging was already out at the alleged site in question by the time WTC7 collapsed. And even by NIST's own claim, the fires lasted for about 20 minutes in any particular area, then moved on, rendering the idea that the amount of heat and time necessary for such expansion or sagging absolute nonsense. And the whole argument is just one tiny problem with the "investigation" and resulting theory.
     
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Why would I talk to Szamboti when it was YOU who posted the claim/incorrect explanation above? It's YOUR misunderstanding of that facts, not Tony's. Furthermore, you tried use that misunderstanding to make a point in a debate and got called out for it. Now you want to pass the buck to Tony? Just admit you got it wrong and move on.

    So if you consider ARUP's findings as not making any sense or not provable, how can you use it to contradict NIST?

    So based on the fact that you think the amount of heat and time necessary for expansion/sagging is nonsense, you MUST think ARUP's report is as fraudulent as NIST's right? If so, how can you use it to show it contradicts NIST's findings?

    :confusion:
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As my dear departed grandma used to say, "oy vey".

    I simply referred you to an expert on the subject. I personally don't care if you follow up or not.

    Worthless, ignored (mostly). I don't debate, I discuss (or at least I try), there is a difference. You don't like it? Don't respond, it's of no consequence to me.

    Because it does, push and pull are not one and the same. How much simpler can that be?

    I do but ARUP is not a government agency that was tasked with providing the American people and the world with an investigation into the collapse of the 3 towers on 9/11 and a resulting report that is a key component of the OCT. Most people have no clue about ARUP and its report. And NIST's phony resulting report/conclusion was used indirectly as pretext for endless war, genocide and other human rights atrocities, ARUP's report was used strictly for a lawsuit to my knowledge. And as already stated, no one needs ARUP's report or conclusions to know NIST's report is an absolute fraud, it stands on its own pile of manure.

    See above (push/pull - please leave any sexual inference out of it lol).
     
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So how is it that you are using the results of a report that you believe is fraudulent as part of your reasoning that the NIST report is fraudulent? That's ridiculous.

    - - - Updated - - -

    So basically you are using what you believe to be a lie to prove something else is a lie.

    Unbelievable...
     
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    But YOU totally misunderstood HOW the push or pull was being applied in the explanation. The "push or pull" was NOT being applied to column 79 itself and was not what caused column 79 to fail. That's what you thought and it was WRONG.
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not and you know it, quit making **** up, go back and reread for comprehension. I'll re-quote for you if it helps:

     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not that it's relevant to anything but I wasn't wrong, you're harping on the insignificant in order to try to sweep the significant under the rug. Next.
     
  9. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, I knew you would evade the request with some lame excuse.
     
  10. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's good to see you back, Gamolon.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was a lame request in the first place.
     
  12. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, it wasn't, it would have been very interesting, and I find the search for the truth fascinating. If you're not interested in that, I can understand. I'll try to contact Tony through Metabunk. I think Oz will be on board for they are old adversaries, and he is more than Tony's match. Encouraging Tony might be difficult, though, however, I'll give it a go.
     
  13. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I agree it would be difficult, I'm not sure he does online discussions anymore. You could let him know I'm here. He knows me by my actual name, Scott Guzman, we're actually facebook friends, but he never answered the one message I sent him in 2013, I'm not sure if he's ever actually posted to his wall either, laugh :). We used to debate official story supporters together a while ago, in sciforums, along with psikeyhackr (who is here) and someone else whose name I no longer remember.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Knock yourself out son. You're right, I have no interest in Oz's opinions, they're usually sprinkled with "truther this" and "truther that", nothing worth my attention.
     
  15. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0

    He's still on Metabunk, but I don't know how receptive he'll be. If I can pull it off it would certainly be the debate of the year here.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Son? He is quite a knowledgeable and experienced engineer, and I have nothing but respect for his opinion. Sunstealer and Gamolon are also very good at this subject.

    I don't get your problem with the term truther, that is weird. You post memes, event notices and other current events from 9/11 truth constantly and then you whinge about the self appointed term.

    John Gold doesn't seem to have a problem with it:

    [​IMG]

    But I suppose it serves as a cool evasive device.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know you don't get it, it's not the term itself, it's the manner it's used by OCT defenders. The opposite of truther is liar, something OCT defenders proudly defend. I believe Jon Gold was the one who first coined the term. He never realized how corrupted it would become.

    So you do get it after all, you just don't know you get it.
     
  17. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, complaints are an evasive device. It's all about avoiding serious discussion of the issue.
     
  18. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I don't think it's so bad. I'm not keen on those who bastardize the word truther and call us 'twoofers' or things of that nature though. That's where we're basically getting into ad hominem attacks.
     
  19. Tony Szamboti

    Tony Szamboti New Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi Scott and Bob, I do still bounce around and do a search now and then to see who might be looking at something I have recently done like the AE911 webinar I did on May 8th. I am glad to see you both understood it and I think you are making the points quite well.

    The arguments being made by those who are disagreeing with you here are disingenuous and obviously intended for damage control and to keep the waters muddied.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Being called a "truther" is not a smear, it's actually quite honorable, who wants to be labeled the opposite, a liar? OCT defenders use the term in degrading ways and as if all those who seek the truth about 9/11 think the exact same way. They try to conflate them all with some of the most outrageous theories about 9/11 (UFOs, space beams, Bush did 9/11 by himself, etc.), which in some cases were propagated by infiltrators in order to discredit all those who pose legitimate alternate theories. You can see by the responses to any individual post that they often redirect the mentality to "truther this" and "truther that" ("truther's don't think", "truthers are liars", "truthers don't use Logic", etc.) as opposed to just addressing the person as an individual and the post as that individual's opinion. They often don't realize that they're also attacking 9/11 families by their tactics. Most of them don't buy the OCT and want real answers and some are quite vocal about it.

    It was requested that I agree to a debate between Tony Szamboti and an anonymous poster in another forum who does that all the time. Of course I would not be interested because I find that person's posting style nauseating, the same as I described above about the typical OCT defender.
     
  21. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ah ok, understood. To be fair, I've found that both sides find it hard to talk to the opposing side. I've frequently liked to try to walk a middle ground, which has made it somewhat difficult for me to remain in forums, despite the fact that I'm not much into ad hominem attacks. I've been banned from both official story supporting sites (debatepolitics.com for example) -as well as- truther sites :p. The only truther site that I still belong to is let's roll ( http://letsrollforums.com/ ).
     
  22. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No, you're ABSOLUTELY wrong.

    You thought the scenario being described the beam either thermally expanding and pushing on column 79 to make it fail OR the beams sagging and pulling on column 79 to make it fail.

    The reality is that your UNDERSTANDING of what was explained was not even CLOSE to what they actually talked about. The mention of the push/pull was regarding how the beams came off their respective seats causing a cascading failure of the floors below which left column 79 laterally unsupported. With column 79 being laterally unsupported, the column buckled under the load.

    How can you discuss anything when you have parts of the topic wrong?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Thanks.

    :wink:
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Making stuff up?!

    I'll even quote you!

    You distinctly said that ARUP's report/FEA rendered NIST's column 79 theory impossible! Then you go on to say that you think ARUP's report is fraudulent!

    Then we find out that you thought NIST was saying that the thermal expansion of the floor beam caused column 79 to fail. That's why you made the claim that ARUP showed NIST column 79 theory to be impossible. Because you thought ARUP's report/FEA showed that the beam sagged instead and pulled on column 79 causing it to fail. Neither of those thoughts are correct.

    Both reports show the beams coming off the seat and causing the cascading floor failures which led to column 79 being unsupported laterally, which then buckled/failed.
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To you I'll always be wrong, ask me if I care. To me you're not "wrong", it's a whole other story.

    See above. You're absolutely right, there is no point in discussing anything about 9/11 with you. That was long established in another forum.
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have rarely come across a poster who believes the OCT for the most part but has at least some significant questions about it. Those rare people are genuine, at least to me. Most OCT defenders never ask any questions about it, they defend just about every single minutia and as well, those who promote it. I find people like that are not genuine, it makes no sense, especially given the evidence, the science, the logic, just plain common sense and the track record of the US government, an entity that can be best described as a pathological liar.
     

Share This Page