Saturday, December 21, 2013

Tony Szamboti on Frank Greening & 9/11 controlled demolition debate

Broadcast Mon., Dec. 23rd 10-11:00 a.m. Central (1500 GMT) on NoLiesRadio.org, archived here. Note: TruthJihad.com subscribers can listen to shows on-demand before they are broadcast - and also get free downloads! If you are a subscriber, just log in to the members area of TruthJihad.com and go to the "Private Blog" to get early access to the shows.  

Guest: Mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, who has published several articles refuting the official version of the WTC "collapses" in scholarly journals. In this interview, Tony follows up on my interview with Frank Greening, discusses his recent article in the International Journal of Protective Structures "Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis,"and shreds the work of Zdenek Bazant, the leading apologist for the official myth that the three WTC skyscrapers "just fell down" due to relatively modest office fires. (Bazant published his version of why the Towers collapsed on September 13th, 2001 - almost as obvious a case of "jumping the gun" as BBC reporter Jane Standley's premature reading of the "WTC-7 has collapsed" script.) We also discuss Larry Silverstein's second confession - not the famous "pull it" remark, but a much more detailed and explicit confession to the demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 that Silverstein made in 2004 on a History Channel show. (Archives experts: Please track this down!!!)

12 comments:

  1. Thanks again Kevin, good show; posted on Facebook for my 1352 'friends'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kevin:

    I listened with rapt attention to your interview with Mr.Szamboti this morning and have to say that this is perhaps the most cogent conversation I've heard in quite some time. Specifically, the last 10 minutes were absolutely mind blowing.

    It is refreshing and encouraging to hear such reasoned and accurate conversations about the "day that changed everything". As I suppose you do I find myself exasperated and frustrated when I read comments everywhere - a Maureen Dowd op ed or an NPR report as just two examples among thousands - that continue to reinforce the veracity of the official account of 9/11. I feel quite alone when I attempt to explain the absurdity of the official story. Knowing that guys like you and Mr. Szamboti are still speaking truth to power is a relief.

    I have a somewhat unique set of work experience that allows me to be able to understand many of Mr. Szamboti's more technical explanations. Among the many questions asked by supporters of the official story is how could explosives been positioned without detection. My answer is that in the construction world there is no more powerful trade than elevator builders. If you have ever worked in a high rise building, which I have often done and an experience I would estimate fewer that .1% of the population has had, you would have no doubt whatsoever at the ease with which such an activity could be carried out. During the construction, or in the case of the twin towers, an elevator retrofit, no one - and I mean NO ONE - is allowed into the elevator shafts without permission. It would be ridiculously easy to prepare a building, even ones as imposing as WTC1,2 and 7, for demolition. That more people don't get this rather simple idea indicates that the dumbing down of American society is a fait accompli.

    As it happens I have an extensive background in renewable energy, my last involvement with utility scale wind parks. Mr. Szamboti's summary of electrical consumption and the potential of wind power to meet that demand is the most succinct explanation I've ever heard. A subtle point made by Mr. Szamboti is that supplying electricity by renewable means does does not mitigate the problem with liquid transportation fuels. And herein lies the reason why the Cheney/Bush junta (credit to Gore Vidal for the term and its order) arranged for the National Energy Policy Development Group to convene immediately after the junta was appointed by the Supreme Court. As Mike Ruppert pointed out in Crossing the Rubicon Peak Oil is the single most pressing issue confronting modernity and for the US to remain the world's hegemon it would be necessary to gain control of what remains of the world's conventional oil resource - read southwest Asia. Thus 9/11.

    I couldn't help but notice Mr. Szamboti's terse dismissal of of your reference to some book about - I forget the exact term you used - "exotic" energy sources and anti-gravity devices. With respect you would do well to dismiss such notions as well. Save for the tiny bit of electricity we get from uranium ALL energy is a form of solar energy whether it's ancient sunlight stored in fossil fuels or the wind that powers wind turbines. This is both a simple and profound concept. It's simplicity is self evident; it's profundity derives from the irreplaceable role energy plays in the organization of modern society.

    I am glad that you decided to leave AFR and are now doing commercial free broadcasts at No Lies Radio. Yours is perhaps the most informative program being aired currently. Count me as one of your most avid listeners and supporters.

    Thanks for what you are doing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It seems Tony thinks that 9/11 was all about big oil, and anyone who thinks different has their head in the sand. I guess the sabre-rattling over Iran is all about oil as well? Since clearly the ones pushing for war with Iran are the big oil companies (sarcasm).

    In response to the previous comment, nuclear energy is not 'tiny'. It makes up 39% of France's total energy consumption ( the largest sector) and 75% of electricity generation (in France) is nuclear.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, I do think 911 was all about big oil. It is understood that modern society would crumble without access to significant energy resources. However, there were other things that could have been done, such as, the large scale deployment of windmills, river turbines, wave buoys, and solar trough electrical power generation. Electrical transportation could have been redeployed in the form of street cars and automobiles. Much of this technology was already there.

    As the second commenter mentioned, nearly all energy comes from the sun and it can be farmed renewably rather than going around looking for old fermented pools of oil. This also includes algae based oil, since we can't get completely off of liquid fuels.

    ReplyDelete
  5. One also has to ask why there was no public debate on the energy resource issue and why Dick Cheney was allowed to hold secret meetings to determine national energy policy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Instead of waiting until the bitter end, and forcing us to show the reports on 911 are fraudulent, all of those involved in the deceptive planning of 911, and the wars it was fraudulently used to justify, need to come clean and explain if they thought they were doing the right thing for society as a whole. I would hope that they were actually thinking massive energy shortages would have killed a lot more people in the chaos it would have created, however mistaken it was, rather than to maintain the ability to give people like Lee Raymond 400 million dollar retirement bonuses.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Tony,

    I don't disagree that 911 was a false flag. I stopped believing the official story less than two weeks after the event. I began reading and investigating early reports by Zwicker (2001-2002, Vision TV), Meysan, Ruppert , etc...

    What I disagree with is that it is all about big oil.
    Read Petras or Walt and Mearsheimer.

    Or just look at what is happening with Iran today. It is essentially the same script with the same actors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was only one reason to go into Iraq, and Iran sure isn't a place without oil. There is also a good bit of reason for Afghanistan to be about oil with the oil and gas just above it in the former Soviet republics east of the Caspian Sea.

      Michael Ruppert certainly said 911 was about oil.

      I find people taking your stance somewhat confused and it concerns me that you would go that way without much to go on.

      Delete
    2. However, what it was about is a secondary issue. The primary issue is that it was an orchestrated event by criminals who are still at large and the events of Sept. 11, 2001 have never been fully investigated and certainly need to be.

      Delete
  8. The main issue with 911 is that it is an unsolved monstrous crime. The WTC buildings were clearly demolished, and that aspect could not have been accomplished by hijackers.

    To me, the aftermath, and some of the things that went on beforehand, show garnering public support for the use of the U.S. military to gain clandestine control of oil resources seems to have been a significant motivation. However, what it was all about is actually secondary and it is better not to get in an argument about that. A real investigation would determine just what it was about.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Tony,

    Yes, Ruppert said it was about peak oil. I never said I agreed with him, just that I have read his work and so I am not unfamiliar with the oil arguments.

    You say "I find people taking your stance somewhat confused and it concerns me that you would go that way without much to go on."

    Have you read any of Petras' or Walt and Mearsheimer's work? Do they write these books and make claims of Israeli/Zionist orchestration of wars "without much to go on". I've read the oil arguments, have you read the arguments of those who disagree with you?

    We may just end up agreeing to disagree about motivation regarding 9/11, but we can surely agree about the destruction of the WTC towers.

    Thanks for your good work in regards to the towers and hope to hear more about any journals that you will publish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do understand there were very likely additional motivations and alliances in the commission of the crime, and in the area the authors you mention speak of.

      I should say I consider control of and acquiring oil resources the primary motive and those of the primary sponsors of what occurred.

      Delete