Tony Szamboti vs. tfk Debate

[skyeagle409]

You can believe whatever you want.

Let's put it this way, you cannot change history from the comfort of your keyboard.

 

[FalseFlag]

Let's put it this way, you cannot change history from the comfort of your keyboard.

You can't change history - period.

I think you mean that you can't effect change from the comfort of your keyboard. For the most part, you are correct.

 

[skyeagle409]

You can't change history - period.

I think you mean that you can't effect change from the comfort of your keyboard. For the most part, you are correct.

Better yet, you cannot create 9/11 CD evidence from the comfort of your keyboard.

 

[FalseFlag]

Better yet, you cannot create 9/11 CD evidence from the comfort of your keyboard.

True, but your posts are incontrovertible proof that you can deny it.

 

[skyeagle409]

True, but your posts are incontrovertible proof that you can deny it.

Ever wondered why experts have stated there is no evidence of explosives? Think about it.

Ever wondered why you have refused to take on my challenge to post explosives evidence? Think about it.

 

[FalseFlag]

Ever wondered why experts have stated there is no evidence of explosives?

Which credible experts are you referring to?

 

[MileHighMadness]

Which credible experts are you referring to?

The rest of the real world, not the liars, idiots and insane members of the truth movement.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The rest of the real world, not the liars, idiots and insane members of the truth movement.

I think FF was looking for you to give actual names. Your comment here is non-descript and meaningless without names and essentially nothing more than an emotional rant with no basis. This is something I have just had some experience with in a debate with a highly touted official story apologist member of this forum.

By the way, just to mention it, I am here for the moment as the vaunted tfk has been unable to counter arguments which show the NIST WTC 7 report has fatal flaws and seems to have bowed out. We'll see if he comes back.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I think FF was looking for you to give actual names. Your comment here is non-descript and meaningless without names and essentially nothing more than an emotional rant with no basis. This is something I have just had some experience with in a debate with a highly touted official story apologist member of this forum.

FBI, NYPD, ATF, were the experts Tony and all looked at the World Trade Center.
Are those names not good enough?

By the way, just to mention it, I am here for the moment as the vaunted tfk has been unable to counter arguments which show the NIST WTC 7 report has fatal flaws and seems to have bowed out. We'll see if he comes back.

He may not have stopped Laughing at your last post, try doing a real life experiment on girder walk off, and you will find your conclusions are wrong about the sheer studs, because in a real fire the weaken too.

 

[NoahFence]

I think FF was looking for you to give actual names. Your comment here is non-descript and meaningless without names and essentially nothing more than an emotional rant with no basis. This is something I have just had some experience with in a debate with a highly touted official story apologist member of this forum.

By the way, just to mention it, I am here for the moment as the vaunted tfk has been unable to counter arguments which show the NIST WTC 7 report has fatal flaws and seems to have bowed out. We'll see if he comes back.

And your "movement" is non-descript and meaningless without a narrative that includes the ENTIRE DAY. You don't have one. We all know why.

 

[heymatto70]

The only "fatal flaw" with regards to WTC 7 was the debris from WTC 1 that hit it hard.

I don't get why 7 is so important when it wasn't the only one that collapsed that day due to debris. The rest of the WTC complex was destroyed because of the towers collapsing, but 7 is special because?

 

[MileHighMadness]

I think FF was looking for you to give actual names. Your comment here is non-descript and meaningless without names and essentially nothing more than an emotional rant with no basis. This is something I have just had some experience with in a debate with a highly touted official story apologist member of this forum.

By the way, just to mention it, I am here for the moment as the vaunted tfk has been unable to counter arguments which show the NIST WTC 7 report has fatal flaws and seems to have bowed out. We'll see if he comes back.

Tony...you need to focus on finding some real evidence, and fixing the major errors and emissions in your computer program.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The only "fatal flaw" with regards to WTC 7 was the debris from WTC 1 that hit it hard.

I don't get why 7 is so important when it wasn't the only one that collapsed that day due to debris. The rest of the WTC complex was destroyed because of the towers collapsing, but 7 is special because?

7 is only important to idiots that lost the CD Debate on World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2, and wrote a mystical magical missing Jolt BS. Paper, based on a theoretical paper by Banzant , in which there were three false premises. That could never have occurred in the real world.

Eular Buckling on one story, Column alinement, and drop to impact.

All three of those are fantasyland concepts that Tony based his missing Jolt on and Tony is as much a magician using distraction of WT7, like a modern wizard of OZ when you pull the curtian back, only a man with political motives, not an engineer professnal behind the curtian.
Tony has even stated publicly that he believes Johnathan Cole's experiments are valid for the event of 9/11/2001, and that is definitely BS. To the ten billionth degree.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony...you need to focus on finding some real evidence, and fixing the major errors and emissions in your computer program.

There is nothing wrong with my computer program.

You tell us you are a good engineer, so why don't you run a modal analysis of the beam and girder assembly in the northeast corner of floor 13 and calculate its stiffness?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

7 is only important to idiots that lost the CD Debate on World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2, and wrote a mystical magical missing Jolt BS. Paper, based on a theoretical paper by Banzant , in which there were three false premises. That could never have occurred in the real world.

Eular Buckling on one story, Column alinement, and drop to impact.

All three of those are fantasyland concepts that Tony based his missing Jolt on and Tony is as much a magician using distraction of WT7, like a modern wizard of OZ when you pull the curtian back, only a man with political motives, not an engineer professnal behind the curtian.
Tony has even stated publicly that he believes Johnathan Cole's experiments are valid for the event of 9/11/2001, and that is definitely BS. To the ten billionth degree.

You tend to misspell a lot of words. Is English your second language?

 

[beachnut]

You tend to misspell a lot of words. Is English your second language?

Unable to provide or find evidence for the delusional fantasy CD claim? This the old attack others since you have no evidence for the CD fantasy.

 

[skyeagle409]

Which credible experts are you referring to?

Structural engineers and demolition experts, architects, and seismograph experts whose machines were in operation that day that failed to detect CD explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

 

[skyeagle409]

I think FF was looking for you to give actual names. QUOTE]

Let's begin here.


Brent Blanchard
Protec Documentation Services, Inc.

No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=brent_blanchard_1


Van Romero
Vice President, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html


Arthur Lerner-Lam
Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y.

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/


And, there is no seismic data that depicts the use of CD explosives in regard to WTC 7.

 

[Bitca]

Let's not forget their beloved Astaneh-Asl, who said

I certainly don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff. Those are lightweight buildings. There was no need for explosives to bring them down.

and

In both of them [the WTC and the Oakland overpass], basically, the fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed. In both of them, I feel that we, as engineers, if we had looked at them and learned the lessons, we could really apply these lessons to build safe structures.

 

[FalseFlag]

I don't get why 7 is so important when it wasn't the only one that collapsed that day due to debris. The rest of the WTC complex was destroyed because of the towers collapsing, but 7 is special because?

What report says WTC 7 collapsed due to debris? I must have missed something. Please share the data you are using to arrive at your conclusion.