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
    Only when you post incorrect information and then try to play it of

    Oh you do care. Otherwise you wouldn't have tried to explain yourself numerous times after it was pointed out to you that you were wrong.

    :roll:

    That seems to be your take every time somebody shows you that you're wrong. Oh well.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah exactly, I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about. See my prior post for further clarification if you're still pretending to be "confused".
     
  3. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    He actually posted in this very thread in response to my post, about 11 hours ago. However, it looks like he thought better of it, and deleted his post. The only reason I even know that he posted is that I get notifications when people post in threads I read, and so I have what he posted in my email, if not here. Basically, he feels that Bob is making the points quite well, but he doesn't believe that those who disagree with Bob really want to learn the truth. I'd like to say that I still hope that they do.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How can anyone genuinely want to learn the truth about 9/11 when they spend nearly every day defending the OCT and the official storytellers and never have any significant questions about it or them?

    That would depend in part on whether they have a specific agenda or not. My guess is that some of those who do have an agenda already know the truth about 9/11 (and it's not the OCT) because of the amount of research they've done. Then again I have a problem believing that there are those who defend the OCT regularly who don't actually have an agenda. That to me makes little sense.
     
  5. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bob is being slaughtered by Gamolon. What an extraordinary claim.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm so devastated for being "slaughtered". Stick to your day job, comedy is not your shtick, trust me on this.

    That of the fraudulent fire induced collapse theory? Yeah, I think UFOs is a much more scientifically sound theory. Tony's expose puts the stamp on the scam brilliantly.
     
  7. Tony Szamboti

    Tony Szamboti New Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bob, people like Gamolon and Blues63 are obviously not defending the present official fairytale because they believe it. You know that deep down and that they are a waste of your time. You really do understand what is going on and I am glad you showed you understood the points made about ARUP and NIST in the presentation.
     
  8. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    WTF was that crap about? Gamolon is exposing your lies in quite an erudite fashion. That much is obvious.

    Misrepresentation of my post noted. Please try to post in an honest fashion and not like a petulant brat.

    My original meaning stands despite your persiflage, and dishonesty.
     
  9. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I haven't been following the discussion in this thread closely, but so long as Bob is following what Tony has been saying, I seriously doubt what you say is true, and what would be extraordinary would be that your claim was actually true. I have seen Tony's expertise in the field of structural engineering first hand in other forums and have never found him to have an equal in debates online.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unfortunately I also get caught up in a lot of trashy meaningless posts. Other than Tony's webinar, the subject of this thread, there's not much worthwhile here. I should just stick to the topic, mea culpa.

    I have also read many of his posts and I haven't read a post from anyone who was able to successfully contradict Tony. It's also difficult to take any anonymous poster seriously. To me credibility is extremely important and it's difficult to find an anonymous contrarian credible. If they're so sure of their position, why don't they publish opposing papers refuting Tony's opinions and take credit for it?
     
  11. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I'd like to point out that I'm not actually criticizing the thread, per se. It's just that there are a fair amount of threads here and I only have so much time. That being said, I have begun to map this thread out, which is generally the first thing I do before engaging in one.

    Very good point.
     
  12. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    As shown previously, Bob is NOT following what Tony is saying because he didn't even understand what ARUP and NIST were actually saying in their reports. That's a HUGE problem.

    Bob thought that both ARUP and NIST say in their report that the thermal expansion (NIST) and sagging (ARUP) of the floor beams directly pushed (NIST) or pulled (ARUP) column 79 and caused it to fail. The could not be more wrong as has been explained. The reports say the beams came off the seats, whether by thermal expansion and twisting (NIST) or sagging (ARUP) and caused them and the floor to impact the floor below causing a cascading failure. The cascading failure of floors removed subsequent beams which provided lateral support to column 79. With that support gone, column 79 buckled/failed under it's load.

    That's funny because he's a mechanical engineer...
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's a joke right? Even if that's true, how is my alleged misunderstanding a "HUGE problem"? The HUGE problem is what NIST is peddling, not what you fantasize I understand or not. Why am I the object of your concern and not the OCT (or more specifically, the thread topic)?
     
  14. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Bob,

    Below are quotes from your opening synopsis of what you understood to be what Tony's presentation was about. I am directly refuting what you stated in your synopsis.
    Agreed.

    Agreed.

    This is incorrect based on two very important items.

    1. Your understand of NIST's column 79 theory was WRONG when you made this claim as was found out in later discussions. You thought that NIST stated that the beam of the floor thermally expanded and pushed on column 79 causing it to fail. That is incorrect. What NIST says is that that beams thermally expanded and caused the main beam connected to column 79 to walk off its seat. That beam and the floor fell onto the lower floor causing it to fail and collapse. This being the cascading floor failure. Those beams connected to column 79 provided column 79 with lateral support. Once those floor beams were gone do to the cascading failure, column 79 buckled and failed. THAT was what NIST said. NOT that the beam thermally expanded and forced the failure of column 79.

    ARUP came to the same cascading floor failure mechanism, but instead says the beams came of the seat due to sagging. This initiated the cascading floor failure and led to the same unsupported column 79 scenario that NIST did.

    2. You think the ARUP report is fradulent so why would you try to use a fradulaent/fake/incorrect report as proof to make a point?

    More of your misunderstanding. As stated above, this is NOT what ARUP says. They say the sagging pulled the beam of it's seat at column 79 and caused the cascading floor failure that left column 79 unsupported laterally, which caused column 79 to buckle/fail. Same thing NIST said.

    That debate is still ongoing at this time.

    No, ARUP contradicts how NIST arrived at their conclusion. The conclusion between NIST and ARUP is the same. The beam came off it's seat at column 79
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing you posted in response explains or even addresses why you believe what I posted earlier is a "HUGE problem" or why you are more concerned with me than the NIST report and Tony's webinar.

    I'll give you that the wording I used may be inappropriate (although I don't particularly think so). NIST's theory doesn't stand up on its own and ARUP's theory contradicts/opposes/however you want to characterize it NIST's thermal expansion theory in that ARUP included structural components that NIST deliberately omitted and came up with a sagging theory. In both cases, the resulting failure was similar. It's still a push vs pull theory no matter how you want to look at it. So is that better for you now?

    Both theories are fraudulent in that neither are provable (which taken by itself is characteristic of many theories in general unless and until they become fact) and both assume (or claim) temperatures and heating duration that are impossible given that known evidence clearly indicates the fire was out at the given site (and not to mention NIST's own claim that the fires lasted no more than about 20 minutes in any given location then moved on) and more importantly, neither theory considers the MOST LIKELY cause of the WTC7 collapse per fire investigation standard.

    In NIST's case, the fraud is much more significant because of the reasons stated in earlier posts AND for the fact that NIST's mandate and objective was to determine the cause of the collapse, not concoct theories. The primary significance of ARUP's theory was to EXPOSE the fact that NIST deliberately omitted critical structural components in concocting its theory. That is clear scientific fraud.

    See above (in part) emphasized for you. It's also kind of like one "prestigious" professional organization claiming it was UFOs that initiated the collapse and another with similar standing claiming it was actually leprechauns who were responsible.

    Infinite stiffness is debatable? Since when?
     
  16. Tony Szamboti

    Tony Szamboti New Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    amolon, what is funny here is you got it wrong. The beams never came off their seats. Per NIST the five east side beams framing into girder A2001 between column 44 and 79 allegedly pushed the girder to the west enough to cause it web to go past the seat and for the load to be placed on the girder flange which failed allowing the girder and northeast floor section to fall onto the next floor down resulting in an 8 floor cascading failure removing lateral support from column 79 on its north side. ARUP shows the girder cannot be pushed to the west because it gets trapped behind the column 79 side plate after about 3 inches of lateral travel. They say the beams sagged and pulled the girder off its seat with the same type of floor failure cascade.

    However, removing lateral support from column 79 on its north side is not enough to cause it to buckle. It had girders framing into it from the south and west and it only needed two in orthogonal directions. Those requirements were met with the south and west girders. NIST says all of their connections broke due to thermal expansion. ARUP's FEA analysis shows the south and west girder connections don't break. Nordenson tries to say they do with a fracture mechanics analysis saying there was a stress raiser during cooling. However, that is not applicable because the stress raiser would be very local and fracture or fatigue cracks are very short and require a lot of cycles. There were not a lot of cycles here.

    I do structural design work every day. What do you think mechanical engineers do? What courses do you think they take?
     
  17. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Yesterday, I went to a get together at a friend's house. We played "The Game of Things", a type of question and answer game which I found pretty cool :). For anyone interested in the game, you can go here:
    http://www.thegameofthings.com/

    The reason I bring it up is because in response to the question "What is harder then it looks?", I put the answer: "Understanding people". Much as I might like to fool myself into thinking I really know, a lot of the time, I have the sneaking suspicion that I don't really understand people as well as I think I do. That being said, I have found ways to get closer to understanding people. In "The Game of Things", I took notes, to help me figure things out. In the case of "The Game of Things", it was pretty basic note taking (my memory isn't the best, without my note taking, I couldn't even remember things that other people seemed to remember easily enough). On threads on here, I tend to map threads out, so that I have a graphical representation of posts that have been responded to and those that haven't. This comes in handy to avoid what is fairly common in threads such as these, someone getting the idea that someone is avoiding responding to something, when the truth is, they simply missed it. I engage in nested replies, in order to remind people I am debating with of the context of our discussion. I try to give my opponents every benefit of the doubt. Note that I say try; I am aware that I may not always succeed.

    I'm not sure that anyone here doesn't genuinely believe what they are stating here. That being said, there is one thing I have noted time and time again; people who believe in the official story are generally leary of investigating things. They may find some large document and insist that the refutations to points made by truthers are in them somewhere, and that the truther should go look for their evidence for them. And when they find something that doesn't make sense (it seems even official story supporters can find it hard to swallow some aspects of it), they generally seem to lose interest in the subject. The good news is that though they may not want to talk about it that much, there still does seem to be some interest. I'm thinking of the 28 redacted pages, for instance, and from that one can extrapolate that they also have doubts on other subjects such as the veracity of the official story's 19 hijackers. Today, I planted a very small garden with some vegetables. I like to think that here, we may also be doing the same thing with official story supporters; the seeds of doubt we plant may seem small and insignificant now, but give it some time. I have definitely heard stories of former official story supporters who defended the official story and who then turned around and became truthers. Not so much the other way around.

    In conclusion, I think the best thing to do is to give the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. Even if one or more of one's opponents in a debate really -do- know the truth, but pretend they don't, by carefully pointing out their mistakes, it would become more and more obvious to everyone else as time goes by. For those who irritate too much, I find the best solution is to simply ignore them. So long as you have atleast one Official Story Supporter who you find tolerable or even friendly (bear in mind that even friends don't always get along, especially on some subjects), the conversation can go on. I still remember a discussion I had with an official story supporter regarding WTC 7. He expressed some doubts about it. I didn't say much at the time, I just took careful note. Later on in the debate, I brought it up again. I didn't do it in the best way; I basically said that I took pity on him, as he clearly seemed incapable of truly questioning this aberration. I'll never forget what he said: He essentially told me, how would I feel if my own mother had been accused of murdering someone. It was in that moment that I felt I finally understand something that I simply couldn't understand before. There are some who literally trust their government to this extent. Given this fact, it's understandable how they would attempt to twist any information they find to fit the narrative that the government had nothing to do with 9/11.
     
  18. Tony Szamboti

    Tony Szamboti New Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In addition, NIST never provided an analysis supporting their assertion that a falling WTC 7 northeast corner floor assembly would break the next one down and propagate down eight floors. Nordenson did in the ARUP analysis and he made a big mistake using a point load for the falling floor assembly and giving it infinite stiffness. His analysis has been shown to be erroneous and a legitimate analysis which uses the actual stiffness of the falling assembly shows that the next floor down would not be broken through. Thus, even if a girder ever fell off its seat at column 79 you only have one floor of lateral support from one side removed from column 79. That column could go at least five floors with no lateral support from any direction without buckling, so one floor from one side is insignificant.

    There is no way to remove enough lateral support from column 79, so it could not have buckled the way NIST tried to claim. It is their story that has crumbled over time, once there was enough information about it to critique. We didn't have a chance to do it until we got the ARUP analyses in December 2015 because NIST never provided an analysis for the thermal expansion breakage of girder connections or the falling floor assembly breaking through the next floor down. It isn't surprising that they didn't, given what they were trying to claim.

    At this point it can most certainly be said that one would have to be a fool to continue to believe the NIST WTC 7 report with all that has now been shown to be impossible and false about it.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey Tony, please keep up the good work. You have been and are essential to exposing the OCT fairy tale. IMO credibility is everything and you have shown time and time again that your integrity is unquestioned because you put your reputation on the line with every paper you write and you have proper standing to back up your claims and opinions.

    Most of them are complete fakes and charlatans, not one of them has the stones to reveal who they are and/or write any technical opposing/contradictory paper. Either way, not one of them ever questions anything significant about the OCT but they sure spend nearly every single day defending it. That makes no sense at all for anyone who is genuine.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know that. What they post is based on extensive research and anyone who has done that much research is well aware that the OCT is a piece of garbage. They all come armed with a litany of similar opposing/contrarian arguments, probably studied from the same source.

    Yes but they do help in pointing out issues that require discussion and lead to the reality of those issues.

    Neither makes any sense, in part because both avoid the most likely explanation. NIST's is just plain technical fakery and an insult to intelligence. Since ARUP isn't an official investigatory body, they are not as important as NIST but they do expose NIST's investigation nevertheless.
     
  21. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I myself do not profess to know what Gamolon and Blues truly believe regarding the official story, for reasons that I try to elaborate on in post #67 in this thread. I haven't really read very many of Gamolon's posts, but Blues, atleast, has stated some things that make me believe that he does, in fact, have some doubts, however small, concerning the official story. Like seeds, doubts don't grow by themselves. In place of water, they need information that suggests that the official story isn't correct. Like a sensitive plant, they may be very finicky about what, precisely, constitutes good information, but I believe it can be found. I also agree with Bob's point that many of these issues we talk about here do require discussion. Put another way, even if Gamolon and Blues' beliefs are not what they have stated they have stated they are, they are certainly not the only people who read the posts here. In summary, I believe that the more we can have civilized discussions on things that official story supporters and those who question if not disbelieve the official story, the closer I think we can all get to the truth.
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree, especially with the underlined.
     
  23. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I know it's not easy. What -is- easy is to dismiss the other side of a debate as not worthy of the respect we give those on our side. And I'm the first to admit that many times, I've simply left debating altogether, deciding that I'd be better off doing other things. But time and again, I've returned. In the past, I talked of planting seeds of doubt in the minds of official story supporters. I think the seeds would have to be trees, as almost 15 years after 9/11, there are still a good deal of official story supporters out there. But I haven't given up hope and I really do thing we're making progress. I think that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are making great strides in unmasking the technical impossibilities of the official story. I also think the final straw will be when enough people start seriously looking at the heaps of insurance that were piled on to the WTC buildings shortly before 9/11. I started thinking this when someone (who seemed to be on the fence concerning 9/11) mentioned that on 9/11, he was in a boat in the harbor, and found many insurance papers for the WTC buildings falling from the sky. It's made me wonder if one or more people dying in 9/11 figured it out shortly before meeting their end and were trying to get others to realize it too. Here's a good article on this: Who Destroyed the WTC? (Connect the dots)
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's unfortunate that a lot of people believe 9/11 is a settled issue. The hope is that some of the lazy ones read some of these posts and start questioning their own beliefs. The good news is that the 28 redacted pages issue is recent MSM news so 9/11 is back to forefront where it belongs and that it will serve to revise the thinking. That is, if the US government is covering up some of those who may have been responsible for financing 9/11, what else are they covering up? And the latest legislation allowing the 9/11 families to proceed with their lawsuit is surely going to open up a can of worms during the discovery phase of the lawsuit. So who knows what that will reveal. It's difficult to imagine how anyone who knows about Silverstein's insurance windfall don't smell a rat. But I guess the average person is an incredibly gullible animal. Regardless of all that, it is an extremely difficult battle to expose the truth about 9/11. There are literally $trillions invested and at stake in keeping the fairy tale alive. And that's not to mention all the criminals involved who should be prosecuted for their role in 9/11 and the ensuing coverup. These scum were/are some of the most powerful figures on the planet. There's also a book out by Kevin Ryan called Another Nineteen that you may or may not be familiar with.

    http://www.another19.com/index.html/
     
  25. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    A long time ago, I analyzed the meaning of the term "lazy". I like the first one at dictionary.com: "averse or disinclined to work, activity, or exertion". More specifically, they are disinclined to work, activity or exertion that they don't want to do but that the person labelling that person lazy thinks they should. Anyone who doesn't want to do something that someone else thinks they should do can be called lazy, and I am guilty of levelling this charge myself, but I have recently been trying to get to the core of -why- some people are so inclined to defending the official story or ridiculing any version that doesn't support it despite minimal research into the events.

    Very true.

    Would be nice, let's hope the bill passes :).

    I think most people have little idea. I have met official story supporters who think he -lost- money.

    Not sure if the number is trillions, but I definitely think it's in the billions :).

    Indeed, I hadn't heard of it. Based on some articles I've read from him regarding the Twin Towers, I imagine it would be very good.
     

Share This Page