Tony Szamboti Discusses his WTC7 Discovery

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

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,388
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The phony war on terror has already cost an estimated $1.6 trillion+ and the bills keep mounting. A large portion of that went into the pockets of war profiteers. There doesn't seem to be any voice in Washington that wants to stop the carnage, in fact many want to escalate based on the constant barrage of fear propaganda as well as the endless cycle of massacres that generate new terrorists daily.

    https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,388
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The following is a transcript of an interview with Tony Szamboti called "On NIST's Sins of Omission":

    It is lengthy so just one highlight:

    TS: Well, in 2004, I used to watch the History Channel on Sunday mornings. They had a show on called “History Center” that I liked. There was a show on before that called "History’s Business," from 8:30 to 9:00 AM. They would have past and present captains of industry like Jack Welsh of General Electric, the CEO of Southwest Airlines — people like that. So Larry Silverstein was on this show, “History’s Business.” Larry was the owner of World Trade Centre 7. He had taken over the Twin Tower complex in 2001 from the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey. He leased them for 99 years at a cost of $115 million a year.

    So he was on, and this had to be in early 2004, because they showed the new Freedom Tower. It’s built now. They call it One World Trade Centre. They had a design competition, and the design that won was a 1,776-foot-tall building with the [unintelligible] antenna at the top. They showed that design, they talked about 9/11, and at the end, the host says to Larry very matter-of-factly, “What happened to 7?” I had been perplexed about it. Larry very matter-of-factly said, “Building 7 was a controlled demolition” — using those words. I wasn’t suspicious. It was like a head-slap moment for me. I said, "Oh, that makes sense." . . . He even talked about [the building being] “so damaged” [that] “for safety reasons” they took it down.

    JC: Larry Silverstein himself, you say, used the words “controlled demolition”?

    TS: I would swear in a courtroom that’s what he said, yes.

    JC: Is this the quote where he says that “. . . the decision was made to pull it”?

    TS: No, that was on Frontline in September 2002. This had to be 2004 when I saw this, because they showed that new building design. That had to be after December 2003.


    The interview includes details about NIST's fabrication of data as well as details.

    http://themindrenewed.com/transcripts/884-int-067t
     
  3. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting. I did some digging; apparently, the episode in question is called Larry Silverstein, and the episode was in fact in 2002. I know that Tony didn't believe it was, because the Freedom Tower was apparently up, but what he saw was a computer generated video of the Freedom Tower, it hadn't actually been built yet. A few people have apparently recorded it:
    **Larry Silverstein goes on record saying that Building 7 of the World Trade Center was indeed a planned controlled demolition. Which begs the question, how did the precise planning of a controlled demolition happen? For a controlled demolition to take place, it takes weeks and weeks of planning. I remember setting up my VCR to record this episode. I have since transferred the VCR recording to a DVD. I have only found 2 other copies of the interview. Written by History Channel Fan**

    Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3788882/

    Here is Tony Szamboti speaking the transcribed words that you mention:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0jBg3AxDew

    Here is a clip of what I'm almost sure is the video that Tony (and Architects for Engineers for 9/11 truth) would like to see:
    http://www.history.com/topics/9-11-attacks/videos/larry-silverstein

    AE911 has apparently put up a $200 reward for anyone who can get them a copy of the video:
    http://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...ory-s-Business-Episode-with-Larry-Silverstein

    Apparently, someone emailed the person who allegedly did the show, but they responded that they hadn't...
    http://investmentwatchblog.com/i-co...on-on-live-tv-here-is-his-response-via-email/

    Here's another interesting twist I hadn't heard of before:
    Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11 | Prison Planet.com

    An interesting excerpt from the article:
    **A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.
    Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”
    “Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”
    In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building’s collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.
    “A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy,” writes Shapiro.
    However, obviously aware of how it would impact his insurance claim, Larry Silverstein has consistently denied that there was ever a plan to intentionally demolish Building 7.
    **

    I've now found the Fox News hit piece:
    Shame On Jesse Ventura!
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,388
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The biggest problem is no one has the actual recorded words from Silverstein himself. While I have no reason to doubt Tony, without the actual recording, there is no court room level evidence that he actually said it. I read somewhere that some people tried to get it from the History Channel but after a bit of back and forth they eventually claimed they would need to see a subpoena to produce it. Imagine that? Then again the History Channel once produced some BS called "History Channel :: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories" so you know their agenda is to support the OCT.
     
  5. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
  6. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "History Channel Fan" says he did and that he found 2 others who did as well. Unfortunately, I don't know of any way of contacting him directly; his message is in the IMBD link I posted earlier. Someone already posted a comment in the link mentioning the $200 reward from AE911.

    Interesting. If you find out where you'd read that bit of info, please let me know :).

    I've actually thought some stuff on History Channel to be pretty good. That being said, if they really are requiring a subpoena before handing over this video, it seems pretty fishy...
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,388
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I actually found where I read that about the subpoena and it was Tony who said that in response to another post:

    No, Bob, it was after December 2003 as the reason for it was to discuss and show the new Freedom Tower design (One World Trade Center now) which had been unveiled in December 2003, after a several month design competition.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3757111/ns/news/t/newtrade-center-tower-design-unveiled/

    The two things I remember distinctly was the new building design as it was the first time I saw it, and Larry Silverstein's reply in response to a question by the host of "What happened to seven?", as prior to that I was perplexed as to why building 7 had completely collapsed.

    Larry Silverstein apparently had been on an earlier episode of the same show (History's Business) in September 2002. Bill Veale did get ahold of a tape of that episode and nothing was said there about the new Freedom Tower design or what I am saying was said about building 7, so that is not the episode I am talking about.

    Two years later, after reading Steven Jones' paper and seeing that they were saying officially that WTC 7 came down due to fires, I did call the History Channel and try to get ahold of a copy of the show. I was told that series wasn't available to the public. A number of people have tried to inquire about it after I mentioned it and they have gotten nowhere. One person had gotten ahold of a producer of the show and then was sent an e-mail by an attorney saying to cease and desist about it unless they had a subpoena. Interestingly, when you look at the list for the History's Business episodes over the years a lot of them are missing.


    http://911blogger.com/news/2014-12-02/tony-szamboti-nists-911-sins-omission
     
  8. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting. I did some more research and have confirmed that the 2002 episode isn't what we're looking for, which makes me wonder if "History Channel Fan" was a disinformation agent, or maybe just got the timing of the episode confused.

    There's a blogger regarding efforts to find this missing video, which apparently aired on June 27, 2004:
    http://911blogger.com/news/2015-01-...biguous-admission-controlled-demolition-wtc-7

    Another thing, the nbc link that Tony quoted above is dead, I imagine this is what replaced it:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/freedom-tower/
     
  9. Tony Szamboti

    Tony Szamboti New Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Scott, thanks for the new link. It is essentially the same information I had linked to earlier from NBC, so I think the 10 slides shown were the PR slides given to the networks.

    The video you link to isn't the History's Business one where Larry Silverstein said Building 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons because it was so damaged.
     
  10. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The major issue here is will enough people learn about this, and be truly concerned about it so much as to be willing to take action,
    whatever that action involves, be it a protest march on the capital, or some kind of legal action against Congress for being an accessory to fraud.

    whatever ...

    Are WE MAD AS HELL? ( and if not, why not? )
     
  11. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think a lot of people still believe the official story. It's up to us to change that.
     
  12. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Just thought I'd stop by and address this.

    First you say I'm wrong and that the beam never came off its seat. Then you say that ARUP shows the beam coming off its seat. What gives Tony? Why the contradiction? I've stated many times that ARUP and NIST came to the same conclusions, that the beam came off its seat due to the results of fire. Where NIST and ARUP disagree is HOW the beam came off its seat.

    Here's what ARUP concludes. A creenshot from thier analysis:
    [​IMG]

    ARUP concludes in cases 1 and 3 that the beam was pulled off its seat.
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,388
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You did say the beam came off its seat:

    But NIST and ARUP never said the beams came off the seats and YOU quoted ARUP:

    Perhaps you should know the difference between beams and girders.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,388
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One who doesn't understand the point of the thread "The NIST 9/11 Scam Exposed in All Its Glory" would not likely know beams from girders. It is noted that you failed to answer my question, repeated to you several times:

     
  15. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And Tony gets slaughtered here:

    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=310297

    LOLOL He never gets it straight before he takes it to ISF. One day he might learn, but I doubt it. While he is hung up on the insanity of CD, he will always be considered a nutter.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,388
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    JREF is a discussion forum infested by rabid OCT defenders. Tony holds his own quite well in the discussion but I would recommend he stay out of that site. These posters do everything they can to twist everything he posts. Their objective and only purpose is to always attack those who criticize/question the OCT, never question the OCT itself but defend it all, including the most minute aspects of it.

    By rabid anonymous OCT defenders of course, who are irrelevant and use name calling, labeling and insults as their primary tool of discussion. He is well respected by thousands of credentialed experts and many others who consider his work exemplary. With or without Tony, the OCT is still a massive scam that falls apart under minimal scrutiny.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html

    And as usual, you can't and have never discussed the contents of what anyone posts who contradict/criticize the OCT in reasoned/civil technical terms without including attacks and insults whenever you disagree.
     
  17. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Couple of definitions for you.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/girder
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/girder
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/girder
    http://www.engineering-dictionary.org/GIRDER
    Get it yet Bob?

    I suppose you and Tony had a hard time figuring out what I was referring to even when I posted the actual conclusion right? You really thought I was referring to the floor beams connected to the girder and not the girder itself? I suppose you think I thought the girder was made of wood also as described by some of the definitions listed above.

    Pathetic that you and Tony try and resort to semantics when you clearly knew what I was talking about AND that a girder is in fact a type of beam. Just shows that when backed into a corner, just how desperate you truthers become.

    So Bob, how about the fact that ARUP concludes that the GIRDER came off its seat due to the result of office fires? Care to comment on that or are you going to run from it like Tony and gerrycan always do? How about the fact that Tony uses ARUP to prove the NIST is wrong THEN comes back and says he doesn't trust ARUP's calculations and that their calculations contain fatal errors? How funny is that?! He uses a report that he "doesn't trust" and that contains "fatal errors" to "prove" something wrong?!

    Unbelievable!!!
     
  18. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Were you or Tony confused when I said "beams"? Did you think I was talking about the floor beams in WTC7? Interesting you two couldn't figure out what I was referring to even when I posted ARUP's conclusion AND specified the beam between columns 44 and 79.

    Again.

    Pathetic.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,388
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I got your shenanigans long ago.

    How about it? I answered that question long ago as well, several times. ARUP's THEORY is just that, not fact. ARUP was not tasked with investigating the collapse of WTC7 and did not and could not investigate it in any reasonable detail because:

    1. A large portion of NIST's data was and is still publicly unavailable. Without that data, which ARUP had no access to, no legitimate investigation is possible.
    2. ARUP did not interview any eyewitnesses to my knowledge nor review any available eyewitness interviews. Eyewitness claims (right or wrong) are crucial to any investigation.
    3. ARUP did not and could not perform any forensic chemical analysis of the evidence, which of course ARUP had no access to.
    4. ARUP did not investigate any other possible cause for the collapse of WTC7 to my knowledge, including the most likely cause. They merely stuck with a variation of NIST's theory.

    ARUP's work is insignificant with respect to NIST, other than to show that they expose the fact that NIST omitted several structural components in their "investigation" and they show that NIST's theory is impossible when these components are included (which is central to Tony Szamboti's point). That is the ONLY significance to ARUP's theory. NIST's work is official and accepted by the US government as fact, despite its many fatal flaws and the fact that NIST characterizes what they did as a "probable collapse initiation theory", not the result of an investigation as was their first objective:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html
     
  20. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

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

    How can Tony or use a "THEORY" (your words) to prove something wrong when he admits that he doesn't have faith in ARUP's calculations AND that he found fatal errors in them?

    What's even funnier is that ARUP added all those "missing" components and the beam, err... GIRDER (sorry, didn't want you or anyone else to get confused) STILL comes off it's seat due to the results of an office fire. Something Tony claimed was impossible.
     
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Oh really?! Not fact you say?!

    When using your twisted logic shown above, explain to all of us here how exactly one "non-factual" theory proves another "non-factual" theory impossible?!

    :roflol:

    This ought to be good...

    :wink:
     
  22. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Just so I have this clear.

    You say ARUP's theory is not fact, Tony says he doesn't trust ARUP's report AND that he found FATAL errors within it, yet you BOTH turn around and say that ARUP's report PROVES the NIST's explanation as being impossible...

    Unbelievable...
     
  23. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,839
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
  24. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

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

    Do you have an links to the pictures you used for your measurements? Pictures that show what parts of the photo you actually measured? Many of the links you refer to in the old thread are not working.
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,388
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't speak for Tony so I'll just speak for myself. It's obvious you're deliberately being obtuse. I'll repeat what you quoted one last time:

    In other words, it doesn't matter whether ARUP's theory is right or wrong (it is in fact unprovable), what matters is that ARUP formulated their theory using elements NIST excluded, which negates NIST's theory (which respect to how column 78 failed). Tony ADDITIONALLY shows that ARUP's theory is equally incorrect.

    Yes, Tony shows how and why ARUP's theory is impossible on its own merit.
     

Share This Page