Structural Aspects of Building 7 Collapse: Why the NIST Report is Non-explanatory by Tony Szamboti

page: 1
21

log in

join

posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
This video is the third in a three-part presentation "The Case for a New Building 7 Investigation"



Tony Szamboti is a mechanical engineer that went to the Geraldo at Large show with Bob McIllvaine.



investigatebuilding7.org
Tony Szamboti is a degreed mechanical engineer with over 20 years of experience performing structural design in both the communications and aerospace industries. He has stated that he first became alerted to the severe problems and unexplained anomalies in the present official explanations for the collapses of the three high-rise buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 in early 2006, after reading Brigham Young University Physics Professor Steven Jones’ Nov. 2005 paper entitled “Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?” Since that time he has been researching the issue himself and in the past three years has written or co-authored several scientific papers on the destruction of the three WTC buildings.





I am not a Fox News or Geraldo fan, but it makes me think if Geraldo changed his mind and appeared like he was taking what Szamboti had to say seriously, why shouldn't I take him seriously too?

I would like to understand why he's wrong. Can anyone point out what exactly is he wrong about?

edit on 25-6-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-6-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 

Flagged and subbed for later.

Am looking forward to hearing unbiased information regarding the controlled demolition, I mean collapse, of the WTCs.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   
The truth will slowly rise to the surface. The shock is gone, only questions remain. We will find out one day who really caused those building to "collapse".



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 

This man is giving a very good argument on why it was so difficult for this building to just fall down. The number of columns on the exterior ring was immense, but their was additionally another ring of columns encircling the inner ring of the building. This would make it structurally inconceivable for this building to just do this (I don't know, would you call it a sympathy collapse?) with the world trade centers.

The problem you have here in convincing people of this, is that they have to do a complete paragium shift of the trust they have in the government. There is a conditioning that runs deep, and people would rather just mentally shut down the noise (understanding) that this disruption would bring.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Every time I look at WTC 7, I'm amazed that some people think that it's a crazy idea that somebody blew that building up.

Sometimes I think that maybe I think it was an inside job because I read too much conspiracy theories, but then I think about the government theory, and the lies and coverups and crimes our leaders do for a living.

I cannot convince myself that WTC 7 collapsed as they tell us. I realize that if by now every American is not demanding truth and accountability they never will. We lost so much because of 9/11. We are failing to provide bright future to our children. We as Americans are all guilty for allowing this to go on for so long, voting for war mongering liars to represent us.

What happened to all the eyewitnesses of explosions going off all over the place? Where are you people? Don't you see what is happening to humanity? 9/11 destroyed more than three skyscrapers, it destroyed freedom for the next generation..

Or maybe I'm just a crazy conspiracy theorist and in reality everything is just fine and like it's supposed to be.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatsecret
Every time I look at WTC 7, I'm amazed that some people think that it's a crazy idea that somebody blew that building up.


You're right, people do think it's a crazy idea. Mainly. because it's utterly impossible to rig an occupied building with secret controlled demolitions without any of the occupants noticing anything. It's even more impossible on top of that to do it in a way that conceals all signs of sabotage in the wreckage. Not to mention, how ridiculously convoluted it is for anyone to waste their time planting secret controlled demolitions to begin with.

The only explanation the conspiracy pundits can offer to explain the blatant holes in their conspiracy theories is more conspiracy theories so you have to admit there is in fact good reason not to take these accusations seriously.


What happened to all the eyewitnesses of explosions going off all over the place? Where are you people? Don't you see what is happening to humanity? 9/11 destroyed more than three skyscrapers, it destroyed freedom for the next generation..


Where did you get the idea those people ever signed onto these "secret controlled demolitions" stories to begin with?



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Until the Anthrax (just a sprinkle of it was sent to the MSM and the Senate's DNC leadership in those letters as a clearly stated follow-on attack connected to the 9/11 Attacks) is found, and the folks threatening our government with its release are caught, no one will ever investigate the 9/11 Attacks or Building 7's impossible collapse. The Anthrax letters were designed to shut down all investigations by the government and the media. The Anthrax threat still exists and if anyone in authority crosses the line, the American public will be mass bio-attacked in retaliation.

GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their small team of insiders were the marketing team and political handlers for the 9/11 Attacks project, but the folks who paid for it and hired the pros it took to pull the whole thing off were defense/intelligence industry leaders. They needed a new Cold War to replace the one that ended when the USSR collapsed. Defense spending went flat for a whole decade, and they needed a new global-generational war that could never be won or lost. One that just kept the West spending money on new and improved weapons and security systems for as long as possible.

It wasn't a government inside job. It was a corporate hit job that was facilitated by a team of political operatives who got inside the WH by way of a sketchy election process, and with the help of years worth of Pentagon procurement irregularities recorded by defense industry salesmen, held over the heads of the top brass to the tune of 2.4 trillion dollars in unaccounted for Pentagon budget (Rumsfeld threatened those top Pentagon commanders on Sept 10th - in a press conference the day before the attacks - that he was going to "look into" that missing money) to make sure that no military defense activity screwed with the attacks for at least 90 minutes.

This scam is now completely transparent but the guys who control this thing aren't worried. They have pounds of weaponized Anthrax and teams that are all set to poison every other citizen of our entire nation (planes, trains, malls, sports stadiums, mail, e.t.c.) if anyone at the DOJ, Congress, or corporate media so much as nods their head in agreement to anything that smacks of 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.

What galls me the most is that they still bother to send pay-per-post marketing scabs into these threads to defend the official conspiracy theory - even after all these years. As if it matters anymore. Anyone that knows anything about this case knows that the bastards got away clean on this, and that there's no one that's ever going to go after any of them. The feds know who's responsible. There's no mystery there. That said, they know that they can't do anything about it.

I just hope that there's an afterlife, so that we can get our hands on all of these people (the bosses and every marketing weasel who's ever defended those bosses and their absurd attack narrative, from GWB right on down to the forum rats who still chase down rinse-repeat threads like this one) when we're finally free to do so. They'll win here, but they won't be able to hide there - if there is a there. Hell, there's already 3,000 of us there and setting the chambers up for their arrival. It's going to be quite a party.




posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





You're right, people do think it's a crazy idea. Mainly. because it's utterly impossible to rig an occupied building with secret controlled demolitions without any of the occupants noticing anything.


You're wrong, occupants don't normally watch what elevator mechanics are doing while upgrading the elevators. Especially people working in the financial district. These people are always in such a hurry that they wouldn't even notice the mechanics even being there.

Somebody hires a elevator repair company to upgrade the system. These people are given access to the core columns. That gives them opportunity to prepare everything for explosives. Wait until the security levels started "returning back to normal" and then install the explosives. One and only bomb sniffing dog was located in the basement of Tower 2 on 9/11. But his duty was to check vehicles and unattended bags, and not the core columns. Also there's a report of the dogs being removed on Thursday. The debunker in the below video says that the dog was there on the day of the attack, but says nothing about whether the dog was there during the weekend. So why do you think it's impossible?





It's even more impossible on top of that to do it in a way that conceals all signs of sabotage in the wreckage.


Nothing was concealed. If they would somehow make it look like a normal collapse, then it would be concealed. I don't think even you would deny that wtc7 looked just like a controlled demolition.



Not to mention, how ridiculously convoluted it is for anyone to waste their time planting secret controlled demolitions to begin with.


Just as ridiculous it is for demolition companies waste their time planting controlled demolition. Or did they stop using explosives for demolitions since it is now known that buildings collapse just like a controlled demolition due to fire and some local damage on one side?



The only explanation the conspiracy pundits can offer to explain the blatant holes in their conspiracy theories is more conspiracy theories so you have to admit there is in fact good reason not to take these accusations seriously.


Total nonsense, I don't even know what you're talking about. What holes? and what more conspiracy theories?



Where did you get the idea those people ever signed onto these "secret controlled demolitions" stories to begin with?


That's the whole point. Time to come out and say what they think they heard and felt.


By the way, do you have an answer to this question?



Can anyone point out what exactly is he wrong about?

edit on 25-6-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by whatsecret
 

Flagged and subbed for later.

Am looking forward to hearing unbiased information regarding the controlled demolition, I mean collapse, of the WTCs.


For me, the first two towers did collapse from the top down, starting with those levels above the airplane hits. You can see that the tower with the antennae, did tilt to one side a bit, before levelling off and then the whole assembly starts crashing into the floors below. Once started, it would be impossible to stop; force = mass x velocity

But building 7? From all the movies, you can see that every outside part of the building started falling at the same rate, with the center starting a bit earlier (from the smoke that shoots outwards at the top).

In just about every warehouse fire, it's the stone walls and steel superstructure that remain standing, while everything else is burnt to ashes. Given the contents of that building (financial sector investigations), and the interconnections between those tenants and the private sector, it looks like something done deliberate.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


This is nothing new. There have been architects and engineers claiming those buildings couldn't have collapsed the way they did long before Geraldo changed his mind. Even the members here on ATS have had discussions about the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It's funny how Geraldo ignored the same information that was available to everyone else a long time ago.

This is a perfect example of why people don't have much faith in the news media. The media no longer investigates both sides of an issue anymore. They're choosing sides based upon government and corporate pressure.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 





This is nothing new. There have been architects and engineers claiming those buildings couldn't have collapsed the way they did long before Geraldo changed his mind.


I'm aware that this is nothing new. I just want people who disagree with what Tony Szamboti is saying to explain why they disagree, and point out exactly where he is mistaken.

And there's nothing wrong with changing your mind when you realize that you were wrong about something. I wish Geraldo would try to do something about it though. Unfortunately for these people career is more important than truth. Now would be a good time to start pushing for reopening the investigation again. Geraldo is in position to make a difference but I don't think he has the balls for it.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
How about they also explain why NIST won't release their computer models because it is "a threat to public safety". How can computer models of the collapse of any building be a threat to public safety?



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


One good reason not to listen to him

Tony Szamboti is a mechanical engineer.

Correct me if I am wrong but it's STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS that look at BUILDING construction/loadings.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by whatsecret
 


One good reason not to listen to him

Tony Szamboti is a mechanical engineer.

Correct me if I am wrong but it's STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS that look at BUILDING construction/loadings.


What is he wrong about?



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


Everyone knows that at least WTC7 was demolished.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatsecret

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by whatsecret
 


One good reason not to listen to him

Tony Szamboti is a mechanical engineer.

Correct me if I am wrong but it's STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS that look at BUILDING construction/loadings.


What is he wrong about?


Well would you ask a dentist about heart surgery ? or would you ask a heart surgeon.

Would you you ask a structural engineer to design some mechanical system? or would you ask a mechanical engineer.

Do you think he knows the finer points of STRUCTURAL BUILDING DESIGN


Has common sense went right out the window on here it seems so!!!



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by whatsecret

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by whatsecret
 


One good reason not to listen to him

Tony Szamboti is a mechanical engineer.

Correct me if I am wrong but it's STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS that look at BUILDING construction/loadings.


What is he wrong about?




Well would you ask a dentist about heart surgery ? or would you ask a heart surgeon.

Would you you ask a structural engineer to design some mechanical system? or would you ask a mechanical engineer.

Do you think he knows the finer points of STRUCTURAL BUILDING DESIGN


Has common sense went right out the window on here it seems so!!!



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Just looked at bits of it. At one point he claims that movement of the exterior before the whole interior has collapsed proves the NIST report is bogus.

What? He expects that the exterior remains completely unaffected when the interior collapses? On which page of the NIST report is this stated?

Seems to me this is just another person who has no idea what he is talking about. He has no expertise in the relevant areas and his oppinion is as good as mine.





new topics
top topics
 
21

log in

join