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:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's what I said, it's not FACT, as already explained in detail. You do understand the difference between fact and theory, don't you? As repeatedly stated ARUP cannot and could not formulate anything but a theory (see post #94). If you have an issue with the points posted, explain what in particular and why, the above quote is meaningless.

    See previous post, there's nothing "twisted" about it.

    I also note you repeatedly avoid answering this question:

    Why is that? Are you afraid to answer it or what?
     
  2. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

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

    How in the hell can ARUP's theory, which you say Tony proved to be incorrect, be used as proof of another theory being wrong?!

    WAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    IF ARUP's theory is unprovable and has been proven to be incorrect as you say Tony has done, how on God's green earth can you use it to prove something else is wrong?! It's been proven wrong AND contains errors!

    :roflol:

    Let see...

    NIST: "2 + 7 = 100"
    ARUP: "2 + 7 = 101"

    You: ARUP proves NIST is wrong! 2 + 7 does not equal 100 as ARUP shows!
    Tony: ARUP proves NIST is wrong! 2+ 7 does not equal 100 as ARUP shows!

    :roll:
     
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And I'll ask you again.

    How can you use something that is "not fact" and "has been proven incorrect" (by Tony as you claim) be used to prove something else impossible?
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All already answered, multiple times. I have no interest in repeating what's blatantly obvious and it's not my job to try to convince you of anything you obviously just want to jerk around with. Answer my question and stop avoiding it. I'm sure you won't because you have no reasonable answer you want to post.
     
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Right. Below is how your and Tony's logic works...

    NIST: "2 + 7 = 100"
    ARUP: "2 + 7 = 101"

    You: ARUP proves NIST is wrong! 2 + 7 does not equal 100 as ARUP shows!
    Tony: ARUP proves NIST is wrong! 2+ 7 does not equal 100 as ARUP shows!

    - - - Updated - - -

    No, you didn't at all.

    You can't use a theory that has "been proven incorrect" and "contains fatal errors" to try and prove another theory wrong. Your logic stinks on ice as has been shown. Sorry Bob.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And the answer to my question? That's right keep avoiding it coward.
     
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

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

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

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

    I brought my concern to you first Bob and you keep avoiding it. I want you to explain how YOU can use a theory that YOU YOURSELF says is not factual AND has been proven to contain fatal errors AND is not trusted by Tony (an engineer)?

    Address your logic Bob.

    Again, blow is how your and Tony's logic works...

    NIST: "2 + 7 = 100"
    ARUP: "2 + 7 = 101"

    You: ARUP proves NIST is wrong! 2 + 7 does not equal 100 as ARUP shows!
    Tony: ARUP proves NIST is wrong! 2+ 7 does not equal 100 as ARUP shows!

    It's a joke.
     
  9. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,687
    Likes Received:
    13,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How did you know he had deep knowledge of structural engineering? Are you a structural engineer?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Have you ever looked into the psychology of conspiracy theorists or paternicity?
     
  10. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've seen him discuss the structure of the buildings, both in forums, and in video interviews. I've never found anyone who was even close to his level of knowledge on the subject. By the way, why have you still not responded to my last post in the Redacted Pages thread?
     
  11. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,687
    Likes Received:
    13,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Go back and look.. I am pretty sure I responded to it..
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's irrelevant to the question I posed Gamolon, who doesn't have the stones to answer it. Aside from that, there are prestigious and highly paid careers where being a conspiracy theorist is a critical requirement to those careers (i.e. most of the legal industry - law enforcement, attorneys, etc.). There are several state and federal statutes regarding conspiracies. Is there a psychology to that? Probably, just like anything else.
     
  13. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You don't have links to anything showing what you measured? Interesting.

    I saw a couple of people respond and say they thought he was correct. Did you just miss it? What's more disturbing is the fact you think this statement is wrong. It's one of the statements that you asked everyone if they agreed with it.

    Are you disagreeing the 62mm is 32% bigger than 47mm or that 47mm is 24% smaller than 67mm? Depending on which number you're asking about, there is either a 32% or 24% difference. What's so hard to understand. I agree with it.
     
  14. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This coming from the guy who uses a nonfactual, fatal error laden theory as proof to claim that another theory is impossible. Then when called out on it, refuses to address why he thinks that logic works in the real world. You're also the same guy who jumped on the girder/beam bandwagon to try and make it look like I didn't know what I was talking about. Then when I posted all those definitions saying that a GIRDER is in fact a type of BEAM, you didn't have the balls to own up to it. Funny, but awhile ago when I used the term "beam" when discussing the "beam" between columns 44 and 79, Tony had no issue figuring out what I was talking about. Only when he got cornered on that fact that ARUP shows the girder coming off its seat AND that he used the same error laden, nonfactual ARUP report to claim NIST was wrong, did he decide to bring up the beam/girder terminology to try and discredit what I was saying just like you tried to do.

    Again, it's pathetic on both your parts.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Why are you using a fatal error laden, nonfactual theory to prove another theory impossible Bob? How does that work? Keep running though...
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm your concern? I can't help you if you pretend not to understand a simple concept. I have not read any paper that either claims not to understand Tony's points with respect to ARUP vs NIST (and explains why in detail) or contradicts Tony's points. Feel free to publish one if you believe he makes no sense. Let me know when you have that. I'm not an expert and have never claimed to be one but for me, his points make all the sense in the world and I can and have explained why several times despite your claim that I "keep avoiding it".

    That doesn't answer or even address my question.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
  17. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'll make this REAL simple for you.

    You said this:
    See that bolded red text in your quote above Bob? How does that statement of yours have any credibility when you said that the very report that proves NIST's theory impossible is nonfactual and has fatal errors? Your're saying that ARUP's nonfactual and error laden report proves something wrong? How is that possible in the real world. Do you constantly use error laden and nonfactual information when trying to porove a point?

    Your and Tony's logic:
    NIST: "2 + 7 = 100"
    ARUP: "2 + 7 = 101"

    You: ARUP proves NIST is wrong! 2 + 7 does not equal 100 as ARUP shows!
    Tony: ARUP proves NIST is wrong! 2+ 7 does not equal 100 as ARUP shows!

    Do I have that right Bob?

    :roflol:
     
  18. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    My question:
    Your answer:
    That's lie Bob as shown by your quote below. Pay attention to the red, bolded text Bob where you say ARUP shows NIST's theory to be impossible:
    Was it not you who is quoted as saying that ARUP's work shows that NIST's theory is impossible? Did you misspeak when you said ARUP's work shows NIST's theory to be impossible? Do I have the wrong Bob quoted?

    What is the basis for making that bolded, red statement Bob when you admitted that ARUP work was an nonfactual theory? How are you confident that ARUP's work shows NIST's theory to be impossible when it contains errors and is nonfactual like you admit?

    This is astounding!
     
  19. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The fact that you say you aren't using ARUP's work to make a claim that NIST's theory is impossible is just hilarious. You're so busy tap dancing around mines you've laid that you actually forget what you post.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Spamming doesn't make anything you post right, it's just spamming.
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes and I stand by it no matter how much inane spamming and other feigned expressions you continue to post.

    No it's just another nail in NIST's coffin, it's minor in comparison to what is relevant:

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

    What's also irrelevant in the scheme of things is your refusal to answer or even address a simple question I posed you but your failure to do that does expose your mentality which is already obvious anyway.
     
  22. Tony Szamboti

    Tony Szamboti New Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gamolon's logic is quite short when he says the ARUP WTC 7 analysis cannot be used to show the NIST WTC 7 report was incorrect simply because it had a different error.

    There is no logic that would say an analysis like ARUP's cannot simultaneously be incorrect that the falling floor cannot break through the next one down, while also showing that the NIST walk-off to the west was impossible due to girder A2001 getting trapped behind column 79's western side plate.

    It is indeed possible for the ARUP analysis to be incorrect in one area and correct in another.

    It is somewhat clear that Gamolon is playing a game and behaving like a twerp. Unfortunately, this type of behavior is not uncommon for those attempting to defend the unsupportable story told in the NIST WTC 7 report.
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely, the same is true with NIST's "analysis" (to use the term loosely). NIST's theory is a ridiculous sham but they published that WTC7 collapsed at free fall acceleration for 2.25s and that is correct.

    His only objective is to ridicule/denigrate/insult and otherwise attack anyone who disagrees with or exposes the OCT for what it is, that is obvious. As an example, he avoids answering a key question I posed him several times because he's not here to discuss 9/11 in any genuine manner.
     
  24. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
  25. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

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

    Let's get this logic thing straight because you seem to forget what you post.

    You said this in the ISF forum when I asked you about the ARUP report showing the girder (See! I said girder instead of beam so as not to confuse you) coming off its seat due to the effects from office fires.
    So why do you doubt ARUP's report about the girder coming off the seat? You never elaborated. Errors in the report? Where? What caused this doubt Tony?

    So if you doubt ARUP's conclusion that the girder came off its seat, how can you say the following?
    Get my logic yet Tony? I'll explain one more time. You DOUBT ARUP's conclusion that the girder came off its seat, but then use the same report that you DOUBT to prove proof that NIST was wrong about their conclusion of the girder being pushed off its seat. How is that possible Tony? Care to explain? How can you use a conclusion that you doubt to prove something invalid?

    Your logic at play:

    NIST: 2 + 2 =100
    ARUP 2 + 2 = 101

    Tony: I doubt ARUP's conclusion, but it proves NIST's conclusion wrong.

    :roll:
     

Share This Page