Tony Szamboti vs. tfk Debate

[skyeagle409]

198 ear-splitting explosions, minimum, in the course of a second or so, to bring down WTC7 in the way Szamboti and Criteria describe.

Didn't happen. Fact.

Has this been mentioned before?

I have presented Truthers with WTC videos and challenged them to point out the sound of demolition explosions as those buildings collapsed. One explanation I'd received was that windows were muffling the sound of the explosions.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

198 ear-splitting explosions, minimum, in the course of a second or so, to bring down WTC7 in the way Szamboti and Criteria describe.

Didn't happen. Fact.

Has this been mentioned before?

Yes I know, but the structure could be rigged to compromise the girders with out explosives, but that doesn't fit into Szamboti and Criteria's theories.

 

[rwguinn]

198 ear-splitting explosions, minimum, in the course of a second or so, to bring down WTC7 in the way Szamboti and Criteria describe.

Didn't happen. Fact.

Has this been mentioned before?

I think i've seen it here, just in passing. Nothing specific, mind you, just a few "then where the hells are the earth-shattering Kabooms" is all...

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I think i've seen it here, just in passing. Nothing specific, mind you, just a few "then where the hells are the earth-shattering Kabooms" is all...

You have to admit though that the debate was exciting between Tony, and tfk, it was as exciting as watching Buffalo chips dry in 120 degree heat on the great plains.
Even from a cow buffalo, you still spell it BS.

 

[cantonear1968]

​

Science is at the foundation of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, (NIST).

Financed by tax payers, the NIST spent over 7 years analyzing the WTC7 engineering data.

The NIST, using unequivocal language, declared that; “The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail [column 79]. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.”

Supposedly, they reached this major finding by combining science and structural data correctly.

But the NIST analysis depends on a “key” structural component failure that they believe precipitated WTC7’s global collapse.

The NIST not only claim that column 79 failed, but that it had to be the first column to fail.

The NIST describe in significant detail how they envisioned thermal expansion ultimately dislodging column 79.

Since both sides of the argument must accept that column 79 ultimately failed, the critical issue is what could have lead to such a catastrophic event.

CD is the simplest and most scientifically provable explanation.

It is also the most politically unpalatable.

ARUP analysis apparently lends support to the NIST’s thermal expansion hypothesis, but ARUP also used unrealistic temperatures localized for incredibly long periods, and as Tony has pointed out, ARUP “does not support the NIST postulation that column 79 buckled low in the building.”

When you also factor in other important NIST omissions, like girder stiffeners, the NIST failure to achieve their mandated goal becomes all the more glaring.

If I could point out one thing while everyone is drooling over this ridiculous claim: the standard claim from tuthers/Gage/Tony isn't that column 79 alone was taken out by explosives. Their contention is that 8 full floors....some 500+ columns....were cut by explosives.

Don't get fooled when they start dealing from the bottom of the deck.

Edit: Sorry. Should have read the thread and realized that GlennB and others saw Criteria's misdirection.

 

[skyeagle409]

Don't get fooled when they start dealing from the bottom of the deck.
QUOTE]


Considering the detonation of demolition explosives is deafening, it's obvious they are not playing with a full deck.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

The reports are wrong and so are you.

I don't need to provide an alternative prior to a new investigation being initiated. That is what it is for, to provide the answers the demonstrably incorrect first attempt did not.

It is quite amazing that you would think an alternative needs to be put forward by citizens who found fault in an initial investigation and showed it was incorrect.

You are basically saying we should accept garbage unless we solve the crime. This is astounding to hear.

Wait a minute. Let me get this straight: you're labelling the NIST's report garbage without any credible evidence, while promoting the insane and illogical scenario of Controlled Demolition?

As a supposed academic, how do you resolve this obvious problem?

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

CD is the simplest and most scientifically provable explanation.

Yet no-one has ever proved CD, nor has anyone provided physical evidence of CD.

If it is scientifically provable, why hasn't anyone done it? It's only been fifteen years.

All that which has been presented 'as evidence' has been disproven with more rational explanations.

CD is NOT a rational explanation. It is absurd and I find it risible that anyone could swallow such a ridiculous fairy tale-especially academics that are supposed to understand the process of reasoning.

 

[ozeco41]

Yet no-one has ever proved CD,...

Actually it is even worse. There has never been a viable prima facie hypothesis for CD. Not even a "case to answer" in non-legal language.

And that is a long way short of "proof".

CD is NOT a rational explanation. It is absurd and I find it risible that anyone could swallow such a ridiculous fairy tale-especially academics that are supposed to understand the process of reasoning.

No one who has been active in 9/11 WTC forum discussion can - in 2016 - make an honest claim for CD.

It was plausible back "in the day" - say 2006-7-8 for Internet Forum discussion.

Not so now for T Szamboti or "Criteria" BOTH of whom have been made well aware of:
1) Reality - both the technical reality of "No CD" and the reality of the status of "no valid hypothesis"; AND
2) The false foundations of the reasoning of their 'claims'.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

Actually it is even worse. There has never been a viable prima facie hypothesis for CD. Not even a "case to answer" in non-legal language.

And that is a long way short of "proof".


No one who has been active in 9/11 WTC forum discussion can - in 2016 - make an honest claim for CD.

It was plausible back "in the day" - say 2006-7-8 for Internet Forum discussion.

Not so now for T Szamboti or "Criteria" BOTH of whom have been made well aware of:
1) Reality - both the technical reality of "No CD" and the reality of the status of "no valid hypothesis"; AND
2) The false foundations of the reasoning of their 'claims'.

Well stated as always.

 

[ozeco41]

Well stated as always.

Thank you.

 

[JSanderO]

Of course Tony's claim that the official story has errors and so they need to be corrected by a new report is not without merit. The problem arises in the unsupported claim of the truth movement people that the destruction was a CD or similar, a false flag. These hypothesis have not been supported by evidence. While it is conceivable that their theories might be possible... without any evidence at all they become preposterous claims. We have a case of confirmation bias... cherry picking observations, ignoring observations, incorrect reading of observations, failing to understand physics, engineering, materials science... or the misapplication of same. On top of it all we witness a cynical use of PR and marketing techniques to influence and sway people who are naive, uninformed and have not done their homework or don't have the technical background to identify false claims and junk science from the real thing.

The matter gets complicated by the irrational official political response including lying to the public during the run up to the Iraqi war.... and attacking Afghanistan as if they were responsible.

 

[Criteria]

198 ear-splitting explosions, minimum, in the course of a second or so, to bring down WTC7 in the way Szamboti and Criteria describe.

Didn't happen. Fact.

Has this been mentioned before?

Countless times Glenn.

There are frequent lectures here made by those requesting proof of explosives.

When such proof is provided, eye witness evidence is rejected for bias and sound recordings are rejected for not documenting your “ear-splitting” expected sound signature.

“Ear-splitting” hearing expectations not based on direct knowledge, but Hollywood spectaculars and commercial building demolition videos.

Hollywood ‘creates’ audio and records original sounds under pristine recording conditions.

Urban high-rise demolition companies are required to prioritize minimizing the risk of shrapnel. In doing so they remove virtually everything not well secured to the building. Unlike a fully furnished and sealed high-rise, with the windows removed, the projected sound from a high-rise demolition is greatly intensified by the hard surfaces that remain to reflect the explosion sounds from the core.

It is readily accepted that any explosion strong enough to fracture structural steel will be loud enough to be easily heard.

Is it reasonable to expect the fracturing of huge structural steel columns to also go unheard?

The NIST hypothesis claims this unheard catastrophe occurred to column 79.

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.

When eye witnesses claim they heard explosions, they are ignored in favour of News recordings that sadly expose an inability to accurately capture sound beyond nearby events.

 

[beachnut]

...
When eye witnesses claim they heard explosions, they are ignored in favour of News recordings that sadly expose an inability to accurately capture sound beyond nearby events.

The highly anti-intellectual silent explosives scam.

Simile, used for evidence of the fantasy inside job.

 

[skyeagle409]

Countless times Glenn.

There are frequent lectures here made by those requesting proof of explosives.

When such proof is provided, eye witness evidence is rejected for bias and sound recordings are rejected for not documenting your “ear-splitting” expected sound signature.

Then, you should have no problem pointing out time lines in the following videos where you think, demolition explosions are heard.


WTC 7 Collapse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A


WTC 1 Collapse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh4r-gHdyPU


WTC 2 Collapse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0

When eye witnesses claim they heard explosions, they are ignored in favour of News recordings that sadly expose an inability to accurately capture sound beyond nearby events.

That's because they heard what sounded like explosions, but nothing to do with explosives.

Case in point.


The Elevator Man's Tale

We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.


Craig Carlsen
Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower

...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.


Jay Swithers

An ambulance pulled up which was very clean, So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.


Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem

...Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.

http://www.911myths.com/html/quote_abuse.html


Just a few examples of many as to why the Truth movement is a joke. I might further add that New York City experiences over 2000 explosions each year, which have nothing to do with explosives.


Manhole Explosions Set Cars On Fire In SoHo
December 29, 2012 4:22 PM

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Several cars were ablaze on Prince Street in SoHo Saturday afternoon, after a series of explosions in manholes below.


Predicting the Next Deadly Manhole Explosion

Every so often in New York City, a disk of cast iron weighing up to 300 pounds will burst out of the street and fly as high as several stories before clattering back to the blacktop. Flames, smoke or both may issue from the breach, as if somebody had pulled hell’s own pop-top

Manhole explosions aren’t just spectacular; they’re dangerous. As one firefighter observed after a manhole exploded near Times Square in May: “It’s not Disneyland, people. Get the hell out of the way.”

http://www.wired.com/2010/07/manhole-explosions/



.

 

[DGM]

......................

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.

When eye witnesses claim they heard explosions, they are ignored in favour of News recordings that sadly expose an inability to accurately capture sound beyond nearby events.

Sorry but this is not true. Tony used a video by David Chandler to prove explosive sounds were recorded. The video has been removed from YouTube* but, it shows the sounds you say were not noticed were in fact recorded and heard in witness videos. David Chandler points out a witness on camera turns and looks at WTC7 as the penthouse falls.We all know the human ear is very good and detecting low level sounds. He claims this proves the sounds were there then goes on to dissect the video and they were recorded. His problem is they are at a fairly low frequency. This is the sound of the natural building collapse. If David Chandler wants to show they're not he should have compared the sounds to known controlled demolitions. He makes a claim with no supporting base line.

Typical sloppy "truther" work.


* I looked around but couldn't find another copy.

 

[skyeagle409]

Countless times Glenn.
When eye witnesses claim they heard explosions, they are ignored in favour of News recordings that sadly expose an inability to accurately capture sound beyond nearby events.

That won't work in your case because of the number of valid WTC collapse videos available, not one valid video depicted the sound of demolition explosions.

In addition, seismograph data does not depict the use of demolition explosives and secondly, it was impossible for anyone to properly prepare each of the WTC buildings for demolition in secret.

Just to let you know that no one in their right mind would have used explosives to demolish the WTC buildings in secret because explosives leave behind lots of evidence. Just thought that you would like to have known that.

 

[abaddon]

Countless times Glenn.

There are frequent lectures here made by those requesting proof of explosives.

When such proof is provided, eye witness evidence is rejected for bias and sound recordings are rejected for not documenting your “ear-splitting” expected sound signature.

“Ear-splitting” hearing expectations not based on direct knowledge, but Hollywood spectaculars and commercial building demolition videos.

And there is a reason for that. In any significant fire there WILL BE explosions. It is inevitable. Stuff explodes in fires. Why do you think firemen/women are so cautious with something as trivial as a car on fire? It's because stuff on fire detonates randomly.

Your problem is that you really, really, want to correlate any explosion on 911 with CD and you are unable to do so. This is, of course, false. Lots of things go "Kaboom" in a fire. I can only conclude that you have never been a witness to a serious fire, ever. Even in a domestic home, random goods and chattels cook off and go boom.

Having seen how CD works, and the "boom" I can only conclude that you have not.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Countless times Glenn.

There are frequent lectures here made by those requesting proof of explosives.

When such proof is provided, eye witness evidence is rejected for bias and sound recordings are rejected for not documenting your “ear-splitting” expected sound signature.

“Ear-splitting” hearing expectations not based on direct knowledge, but Hollywood spectaculars and commercial building demolition videos.

Hollywood ‘creates’ audio and records original sounds under pristine recording conditions.

Urban high-rise demolition companies are required to prioritize minimizing the risk of shrapnel. In doing so they remove virtually everything not well secured to the building. Unlike a fully furnished and sealed high-rise, with the windows removed, the projected sound from a high-rise demolition is greatly intensified by the hard surfaces that remain to reflect the explosion sounds from the core.

It is readily accepted that any explosion strong enough to fracture structural steel will be loud enough to be easily heard.

Is it reasonable to expect the fracturing of huge structural steel columns to also go unheard?

The NIST hypothesis claims this unheard catastrophe occurred to column 79.

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.

When eye witnesses claim they heard explosions, they are ignored in favour of News recordings that sadly expose an inability to accurately capture sound beyond nearby events.

The thing is Criteria there were no hypersonic explosion, none, nada, Zippo.

The only events were low velocity events that would be expected from thermal rupture of sealed containers, Explosive gases and soot, and/or Air compression inducing oxidation in soot.

Although both Thermal Rupture and Soot explosions can occur when cutting steel with thermite cutters, they are most probable from just simple building fires.

Natural chemical reactions from a chimney effect created by the damage from the planes impact, and a strong updraft though the hole are more likely to have caused them do to the nature of the hydrocarbon rich fires and the tremendous heat as evidenced by the high amount of pyrosis that generated all the black soot.

Black Soot that can actually cause gunpowder like explosions on it's own.

Extraordinary claims demand Extraordinary evidence and you have never provided any.

 

[GlennB]

Countless times Glenn.

My username is GlennB, as I've pointed out before. Please use that name.

It is readily accepted that any explosion strong enough to fracture structural steel will be loud enough to be easily heard.

Is it reasonable to expect the fracturing of huge structural steel columns to also go unheard?

The NIST hypothesis claims this unheard catastrophe occurred to column 79.

Look up the word brisance. There's a world of difference between an explosion that is characterised by its brevity and a natural collapse event.