You are here

Tony Szamboti on new WTC-7 legal action with Atty. William Pepper

Friday 4/4 – Listen live – 5 to 7 pm Central on Revolution Radio:  To be rebroadcast Saturday April 5th 11 to 12:45 pm Eastern on  and then archived at the usual spot.

Guests: Mechanical Engineer Tony Szamboti discusses attorney William Pepper’s letter to Inspector General Todd Zinser asking the I.G. to correct the record about World Trade Center Building 7. Excerpt:

“It was only some years after the issuance of the NIST Report that drawings were released, in response to a FOIA request, revealing that critical structural features in Building 7 were inexplicably missing from consideration in the Report. These critical features included stiffeners, that provided critical girder support, as well as lateral support beams which supported a beam which allegedly buckled. Only through the omission of any discussion about the stiffeners and the lateral support beams is NIST’s probable collapse sequence possible. With the inclusion of these critical features, NIST’s probable collapse sequence must be ruled out unambiguously. It is the unanimous opinion of the structural engineers who have carefully studied this matter that an independent engineering enquiry would swiftly reach the same conclusion.”

8 Thoughts to “Tony Szamboti on new WTC-7 legal action with Atty. William Pepper”

  1. Anonymous

    Hey Kevin-

    First off I think Tony Szamboti is the best guest you have on your show and I think any type of outreach you do for 9/11 truth would be even better if includes him ie conferences, speeches, media appearances, ect. His arguments are well explained even if technical in places. Thanks for having him on despite the fact that people like us can't converse with him on the same scientific level. The devolution into WWIi stuff was great, I learned a lot. It would be cool if you're ingested in that kind of stuff to have an expert on to talk about Operation Paperclip.

    You guys also brought up the Syrian false flag chem attacks and you mentioned the Seymour Hersh expose that he wrote a few months ago. Hersh just published another explosive report in the London Review of Books going deeper into the Syrian attacks and talking about the arms movements from the gulf and Libya to Syrian rebel factions. He implicates Turkey in both the chem attacks and weapons supply routes in a major way (report linked to below). I don't know if you could get him on the show but you could talk Benghazi and Syria, two topics you don't cover very often but which are really interesting and have serious contemporary implications for our understanding of false flags. Hersh gets called a conspiracy theorist in the eminent Commentary Magazine…I'm sure they're your favorite people also. You could approach him in jest by asking if he wanted to come share his conspiracy theory on your show. Just an idea.

    Also I'm sure you've seen this but just in case:


  2. Anonymous

    I just finished listening to the show. I had a few points to add on the destruction of the Twin Towers:

    1. Multiple methods were used to destroy the Twin Towers including mini/micro nukes and conventional demo charges such as C-4 or HMX and possibly thermite/thermite.
    2. Nukes were used to destroy the foundations of the Towers underground and to destroy the 47 core columns above ground. The above ground nukes were very low yield with a limited blast radius and the charges were shaped to direct the blast upward.
    3. Conventional demo charges were used on the outer parts of the Towers. The objective was to nuke the buildings without making it look like they nuked the buildings. They didn’t want a huge fireball protruding outside of the buildings. That would have been a dead giveaway.
    4. I believe the thesis that Kevin is trying to advance is that conventional charges and/or nanothermite severed the support columns and then the resulting free fall of the buildings pulverized the concrete. That scenario does not fit with the gross observable evidence. As our friend Judy Wood points out the Towers were pulverized in mid-air. Steel beams that were ejected out of the Towers are observed turning to dust before they hit the ground. If large heavy slabs of concrete were to have hit the ground the seismic signal would have been much higher than the recorded 2.1 and 2.3 for the South and North Towers. Judy estimates that the seismic signal should have been around 3.8 if the Towers just fell down. 1/3 of the buildings were completely vaporized. As Ed Ward points out there should have been around 3 billion pounds of debris but they only collected 2 billion.
    5. The destruction of the Twin Towers was an extremely high energy event. Two 500,000 ton buildings were demolished in less than 30 seconds. 1,300+ cars were toasted in the vicinity of the WTC. A gravitational collapse of the Towers can’t explain the toasted cars. Neutron bombardment DOES explain the toasted cars quite nicely. High energy fast neutrons explain the “dustification” of the Towers and the toasted cars. The destruction of the WTC buildings was a nuclear event.
    6. A gravitational collapse of the Towers cannot explain the persistent high temperatures at Ground Zero for 6 months after 9/11. Nanothermite burns quickly and has no explanatory power for temperatures at Ground Zero that were between 600-2,000 °F as late as March of 2002. An underground thermonuclear detonation produces a lot of heat and can heat up the ground for a long time after. It can take a year to cool down in some cases.
    7. The USGS dust samples shows 2 and perhaps even 3 types of nuclear fission took place (standard, ternary and perhaps even quaternary).
    8. The DOE water samples prove nuclear fusion took place at Ground Zero.
    9. There can be no denying that the primary cause of the destruction of the WTC buildings was thermonuclear bombs. Tel Aviv nuked New York.
    10. There were 120+ dump trucks hauling dirt in and out of Ground Zero within HOURS of the buildings coming down. SOP when cleaning up a nuclear disaster like 9/11. No need for this if the buildings just fell down.


  3. Anonymous

    Regardless of how nano-thermite was used the real question anyone serious would be asking is “What was it doing in the buildings?” as it had no place there since it is intended as a destructive material or as a propellant. Jim’s asking if it is being oversold is a question that is not necessary (and is actually unhelpful) to ask at this point in the investigation.

    I am glad you took Jim to task a little and don’t accept the machinations of someone like Don Fox without scrutiny.

    While the perpetrators might have had access to high technology materials and methods, it can be shown that it couldn’t possibly be a beam weapon capable of knocking down a building from space, or mini-nukes that travel up a building without blowing out windows on the exterior on its way up or leaving any additional radiation above background. If there were some sort of secret weapon involved, it would still have to be based on scientific principles,

  4. Anonymous

    I don’t believe a nuclear explosion can be directed like a shaped charge. I think it is omni-directional no matter what.

  5. Anonymous

    Here is a site which gives the mini-nuke theory made by Dmitri Khalezov and is what Don Fox is spouting. It provides some figures for what they think happened

    I think it is absurd and completely impossible.

    This is one where you really would have to ask “how would they place the charge?” as it would have to be in bedrock about 50 meters (164 feet) below the foundation of the tower. The towers sat on bedrock. I also don’t see how the blast is contained and kept directionalized once it reaches the surface, and just goes up to the aircraft damage zone and stops.

  6. If it were directionalized and took out the core columns it might not just go to the crash level and stop. Instead it might gradually diminish on its way up, hitting the lower core more intensively. I wouldn't dismiss this kind of stuff a priori.

    But they need to show some good evidence for fission, fusion, missing mass, etc. and get some nuclear physicists interested. Not sure most US nuclear physicists can go there…maybe Iranians?

  7. Anonymous

    The problem with the theory of the lower core being taken out with a nuclear device is that the inner core columns were still standing in both towers for about 50 stories for about five seconds in the south tower and fifteen seconds in the north tower. This lends itself more to the outer core columns being removed from the initiation site down notion.

    Another problem with setting a nuclear device below the building in bedrock is to ensure the blast would be well within the tower walls by the time it got to the foundation. I don’t think this is easy to do, since it involves knowing the rock strength and blast yield very precisely and having some room to spare so it does not blow out the bottom of the building above ground.

    Additionally, if the bottom is blown and the core gone, the exterior would buckle and the tower would have come down bottom first. That is simple mechanics. The exterior walls were not self supporting and could not go more than about five floors without lateral support.

    I also don’t think these people spouting about missing mass to support their mini-nuke theory have good numbers.

Leave a Comment