• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Tony Szamboti vs. tfk Debate

​


I tried to strike-out the majority of your pejorative asides and misrepresentations..

By the time of global collapse, it was unlikely there were any open gas lines, or floors prematurely collapsing inside WTC7, or elevators suddenly dropping, or exploding gas tanks.

Given the unpopularity of questioning government assurances, it is easy to understand the willingness of witnesses to have later doubts.

The testimonies of those steadfast ‘whistle-blowing’ witnesses who heard the sound of explosions close to the actual global collapse are of most interest.

NYPD officer, Craig Bartmer is one of those witnesses to the WTC7 collapse. In his testimony, he confidently asserted that he knew the sound of an explosion.

In his analysis of street reporter Ashleigh Banfield’s broadcast, Chandler does an excellent job showing that audible explosions occurred just prior to WTC7’s global collapse.
And people all over Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas reporting hearing what "sounded like a freight train " just before their house "exploded" is not evidence that BNSF ran through their yard and tossed a 500 pounder through the picture window.
 
​


I tried to strike-out the majority of your pejorative asides and misrepresentations..

And you failed miserably. Witnesses noticed the low level sound of a collapse. Video proves this and Chandler enhanced the sound track to prove this.
By the time of global collapse, it was unlikely there were any open gas lines, or floors prematurely collapsing inside WTC7, or elevators suddenly dropping, or exploding gas tanks.

At this time you would expect sounds from the building. Chandler proves they were recorded.

Given the unpopularity of questioning government assurances, it is easy to understand the willingness of witnesses to have later doubts.

You don't live in the USA do you. "unpopularity of questioning government assurances". That's rich. :rolleyes:

In his analysis of street reporter Ashleigh Banfield’s broadcast, Chandler does an excellent job showing that audible explosions occurred just prior to WTC7’s global collapse.

They were after the penthouse collapse which is the start of the collapse.

Tell you what. Do the same analysis on any recorded CD and show the same sound signature. Chandler could record a fart and claim it's the sound of an A-bomb and you would believe him. Why did he not do a provable base-line comparison to a known CD (I know the answer)?
 
And you failed miserably. Witnesses noticed the low level sound of a collapse. Video proves this and Chandler enhanced the sound track to prove this.


At this time you would expect sounds from the building. Chandler proves they were recorded.



You don't live in the USA do you. "unpopularity of questioning government assurances". That's rich. :rolleyes:



They were after the penthouse collapse which is the start of the collapse.

Tell you what. Do the same analysis on any recorded CD and show the same sound signature. Chandler could record a fart and claim it's the sound of an A-bomb and you would believe him. Why did he not do a provable base-line comparison to a known CD (I know the answer)?

Nothing in those videos, was hypersonic so no explosives indicated.

I could give him a list of sources of explosions but what is the point he doesn't live in reality.:D
 
We saw the East Penthouse drop through the roof but there is little significant recorded sound of what must have been a very loud event (heavy a/c units and auxiliary hardware crashing through the roof.)

Supposedly for several seconds before the global collapse of WTC7, its internal major columns were failing in a rapid wave of structural steel collapse.

No one eye witnessed, or recorded, this huge sound extravaganza called for by the NIST WTC7 hypothesis.

This absence of recorded pre-collapse sound remains accepted, but hypocrisy ensues when it is argued without proof, that WTC7’s internal collapse would be inaudible compared to core column explosions.

Now go look at videos of known CD collapses. Compare the sound of the actual explosions to the sound of the collapsing building
Notice anything?

Gads you are daft!
 
Nothing in those videos, was hypersonic so no explosives indicated.

I could give him a list of sources of explosions but what is the point he doesn't live in reality.:D
There are vids of CDs where only the explosions are heard but the low freq, and lower amplitude, sounds of the following structural collapse are not recorded.
Words fail to convey the level of cognitive dissonance displayed by Criteria latest grab at a straw.
 
There are vids of CDs where only the explosions are heard but the low freq, and lower amplitude, sounds of the following structural collapse are not recorded.
Words fail to convey the level of cognitive dissonance displayed by Criteria latest grab at a straw.

He hasn't grasp at straws for years, he is now grubbing the dirt in seacrh of the wheet seeds in the barren desolate, desert of CTer dispair from being left with no argument, facts or reason after 14 years of nonsense.:)
 
Once again, explosions are common in New York City. Secondly, he did not hear explosions as WTC 7 collapsed. In fact, he did not hear explosions as WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed either.

I live in New York City. Booms are quite common. I hear them often. A truck driving fast over a pot hole sounds like an explosion. Depending on the size of both the sound varies, but none the less very loud.

What truthers don't get is not everything that goes boom are bombs and other explosive devices.
 
I live in New York City. Booms are quite common. I hear them often. A truck driving fast over a pot hole sounds like an explosion. Depending on the size of both the sound varies, but none the less very loud.

What truthers don't get is not everything that goes boom are bombs and other explosive devices.

What truthers don't get is explosives don't go boom, unless you are miles away.
 
Maybe I'll debate Tony. First ground rule, no invoking "that's why we need a new investigation"

His opening statement MUST contain a complete narrative with evidence that explains the entire day's events better than the commonly accepted narrative of 19 Terrorists + 4 Aircraft = 9/11. Otherwise he loses the debate.


How bout it Tony?

Just kidding. You wouldn't make it past the opening statement.

No takers?
 
Tony will only debate on his own terms.

Like running in a race with the competition strapped to a tree.

You'd think after 15 years one of them, especially the "Brains" of the operation would have at least totally fabricated something that connects the entire day.

But nope. Lets just worry about column 79 in a building that made no difference in the grand scheme of things, and somehow that's supposed to convince us something something Shanksville.


???
:crazy:
 
@NoahFence - Are you actually serious about wanting to debate him? Maybe Tony Szamboti is like me and finds it hard to tell when you're 'joking' or not as the majority of your posts tend to be the same three or four unimaginative insults and/or that picture of a nutty face.

State your position unambiguously - are you serious about having a debate with him? I can't tell.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom