ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags debate , tfk , tony szamboti

Reply
Old 8th December 2016, 06:54 PM   #681
Ziggi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Ironic Ziggi uses a BS artist in a weak attack on posters, when he fails to see CD is evidence free.
The man you are calling a BS artist was a fellow "debunker" on this forum for quite some time and is one of the scientists that co-authored one in a series of papers laying out the official gov sanctioned excuse for the demolition of the Twin Towers. And you forget to mention that I also included similar remarks about the forum from another fellow forum "debunker" ozeco41, which I just mentioned again in my last post:

Quote:
The flatulent arrogance of how you Ozeco41 think you are way superior to your fellow "out of their depth alleged debunkers" here is plain to see for everyone that reads that thread. And you and your blowhard buddies also fart out similar comments on other threads that are mostly dedicated to how stupid your comrades are:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/ju...-t576-330.html
You should visit that thread called "just plain idiots" and see that it has begins with a heading with a link referring readers straight to a section dealing with you:
Quote:
Moderator's note: This thread was split from Smart Idiots.

IMPORTANT NOTE: For beachnut-specific idiocy, start here.
On a related thread we find the same general sentiment about this forum from yet another one of your fellow "debunkers" on this forum, JSanderO, saying pretty much the same thing as Ozeco41 and Dr. Greening:
Quote:
JREF is populated by ill mannered NIST bots who can't think for themselves... and can't carry on a discussion with anyone expect other NISTians which consists of back slapping each other.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/ju...-t576-330.html
Ziggi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2016, 07:16 PM   #682
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,018
quote mine post of no support for Tony

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
The man you are calling a BS artist was a fellow "debunker" on this forum for quite some time and is one of the scientists that co-authored one in a series of papers laying out the official gov sanctioned excuse for the demolition of the Twin Towers. And you forget to mention that I also included similar remarks about the forum from another fellow forum "debunker" ozeco41, which I just mentioned again in my last post:
Greening was a BS artist, all the people you quote mine below kind of agree. I was probably ill mannered to Greening when he played the BS card of speculation which leaves you with a busted hand, no support for Tony's failed CD quest.
What does gossip and trash talk about fellow posters have to do with the failure of your CD fantasy, and Tony failing to make CD a reality. There is no debate, the CD claims is based on nothing.

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
You should visit that thread called "just plain idiots" and see that it has begins with a heading with a link referring readers straight to a section dealing with you:
Really, I thought that was their best technical work, it sure beats using the wrong filter for data to make it look like music. Is this your best support for Tony's CD fantasy, exposing gossip and BS from a forum? You can't post facts and evidence for the CD fantasy, but can post evidence for gossip and trash talk about "me"? It is an honor i don't deserve. Ziggi, I am a "just plain idiot", not special, just plan. I flew supersonic trainers and heavy jets, investigated aircraft accidents, and was an engineer in the USAF. I got do do so many things, but as you can see, I am just a humble, "plain idiot". This "just plain idiot" figured out who did 9/11 when 175 hit the WTC (my first suspect was correct, UBL), and I figure out on 9/11 fires caused the collapse, on 9/11, that was correct too. Here you are, the super debunker of debunkers and you can't figure out 9/11 to save you from supporting idiotic claims of CD, and leaving a legacy of woo on the Internet. Yes, I write poorly, but had the time of my life flying as a Just Plain Idiot (IPT) all over the world, even flying missions out of Perth down under at Christmas... Why can't you figure out 911? I guess some people get upset when they can't explain why they used a filter that is wrong, and have to resort to attacking their fellow posters. Why do you support the lies of 9/11 truth? I am all those things everyone said, but I figured out 9/11, on 9/11, and my first suspicions were right (I paid attention to intel, etc). 9/11 truth can't get anything right, and you are stuck here in CT land where your claims are self-debunking, and the debunking the debunkers is trash talk, anti-science, anti intellectual claptrap. And I am "just... cool

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
On a related thread we find the same general sentiment about this forum from yet another one of your fellow "debunkers" on this forum, JSanderO, saying pretty much the same thing as Ozeco41 and Dr. Greening:
Wow, you got some quote mined gems... how does this support the lie of CD, the CD fantasy born in some paranoid conspiracy theory with no evidence, no facts, no reality? CD and all 9/11 truth claims are BS, fantasy, and lies.
Have you found Major Tom's Satan like guys?

As expected, more weak attacks, and zero evidence to help save Tony's CD debate based on woo.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2016, 07:21 PM   #683
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
The man you are calling a BS artist was a fellow "debunker" on this forum for quite some time and is one of the scientists that co-authored one in a series of papers laying out the official gov sanctioned excuse for the demolition of the Twin Towers. And you forget to mention that I also included similar remarks about the forum from another fellow forum "debunker" ozeco41, which I just mentioned again in my last post:



You should visit that thread called "just plain idiots" and see that it has begins with a heading with a link referring readers straight to a section dealing with you:


On a related thread we find the same general sentiment about this forum from yet another one of your fellow "debunkers" on this forum, JSanderO, saying pretty much the same thing as Ozeco41 and Dr. Greening:
So what, doesn't prove your fantasies right now does it?

I know more about this than you do I left the forum when Frank did Ziggi.

Quotes taken out of context mean nothing.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2016, 08:15 PM   #684
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
jaydee, jaydee, jaydee! Tsk tsk tsk ... you are falling for Ziggi's unproven premise: That there are any new comers who followed the debate.
Assuming the unproven existence of newcomers to this issue who are in need of an education, then.....
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
..........

In terms of education what would be more important, an internet debate on essentially, fringe issue web sites, or technical papers that might serve to persuade professionals in relevant areas? If tfk withdrawing from debate supposedly educates new comers on a deficiency in debunkers, then most certainly Basile's foot dragging, essential withdrawing from technical investigation educates such new comers in deficiency in truther circles by at least the same measure.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2016, 08:17 PM   #685
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
The man you are calling a BS artist was a fellow "debunker" on this forum for quite some time and is one of the scientists that co-authored one in a series of papers laying out the official gov sanctioned excuse for the demolition of the Twin Towers.

If you believe the Twin Towers were deliberately demolished, show us the evidence. 15 years and counting and still, no CD, thermite or nano-thermite evidence to be found anywhere. The Truther's deadline for providing such evidence has long passed with no evidence to show after all of these years.

Just to let you know the that it would have been impossible for the government to demolish the WTC buildings with explosives or even with ineffective thermite/nano-thermite, which wouldn't have made any sense anyway. Just ask any demolition expert why it would have been impossible to secretly prepare each of the WTC buildings.

The 1993 WTC 1 bombing should have been a clue on just how ineffective explosives are on structural steel if proper preparations are not performed. Did I ever mention a steel-framed building that remained standing after withstanding shockwaves from a nuclear detonation? Did I also mention how 175 pounds of thermite packed around a steel box beam failed to burn through that steel beam? Ever wondered why thermite is not used by demolition companies to demolish tall steel-framed buildings?

CD explosives, thermite, and nano-thermite claims of conspiracy theorist were nothing more than fabrications, which explains why after 15 years, conspiracy theorist have failed to provide such evidence.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2016, 08:18 PM   #686
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Greening was a BS artist, all the people you quote mine below kind of agree. I was probably ill mannered to Greening when he played the BS card of speculation which leaves you with a busted hand, no support for Tony's failed CD quest.
What does gossip and trash talk about fellow posters have to do with the failure of your CD fantasy, and Tony failing to make CD a reality. There is no debate, the CD claims is based on nothing.
Good for you beachnut.

Ziggi is scraping the bottom of the barrel and quote mining bits that don't support his attempts at character assignation.

He DOESN'T quote the bits off this forum or The911Forum or any other forum where I describe:
1) you as my #1 go to guy on aviation.
2) Sunstealer my #1 for metallurgy;
3) Oystein my #1 for statistical research and high quality argument on a range of topics; AND
4) tfk as a highly competent explainer of undergraduate level general physics DESPITE his dishonesty in responding to my correction of his false claims. (Which ventured with wrong results into post-grad physics hence the "out of depth" assessment.)

OR the fact that Major_Tom has a thread dedicated to character assassination of ME - so you aren't the only one.


Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Yes, I write poorly, but had the time of my life flying as a Just Plain Idiot (IPT) all over the world, even flying missions out of Perth down under at Christmas...
Was that the time when you nearly got stranded because the credit rating of the US Government wasn't good enough to pay for the Aussie fuel???

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Wow, you got some quote mined gems... how does this support the lie of CD, the CD fantasy born in some paranoid conspiracy theory with no evidence, no facts, no reality? CD and all 9/11 truth claims are BS, fantasy, and lies.
Have you found Major Tom's Satan like guys?

As expected, more weak attacks, and zero evidence to help save Tony's CD debate based on woo.
Remember the trial lawyer's aphorism:
"When you have no case -- attack the credibility of the witnesses!"

And the obvious corollary:
"when they attack the witnesses -- they have no case!"

...and - since Ziggi is only trolling in his desperation - I'll wait till he makes a reasoned claim. And I won't be holding my breath.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2016, 08:23 PM   #687
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Btw, Oystein, are you and others falling for Ziggi's bait and switch? Who is discussing tfk and the debate and who is discussing Greening and ozeco and others?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 8th December 2016 at 08:25 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2016, 08:26 PM   #688
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Bazant is "official" ?

My gawd, and here all along I have been disputing Bazant's papers being taken as literal descriptions of what happened.
Does that make me a truther?(shudders)
That was the topic area I wanted to see tfk and T Sz "debate" for at least two reasons:
1) The bits where they agree with each other - and both are wrong; AND
2) The bit where they disagree and T Sz is right.

AND those predictions are also in the "pre-debate discussion" on 911Forum - funny but Ziggi hasn't quote mined them.

Last edited by ozeco41; 8th December 2016 at 08:28 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2016, 08:44 PM   #689
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Btw, Oystein, are you and others falling for Ziggi's bait and switch? Who is discussing tfk and the debate and who is discussing Greening and ozeco and others?
I've tried to deflect it back but to no avail.

Seeing the serious crimes I stand accused of:
A) I don't respond to personal attacks or lies from either side. AND I can count those debunkers who have resorted to personal attack in the face of soundly reasoned argument. (Currently 4 on the list with the latest tfk example in full view on this forum for anyone who wants to look.)

B) THEN the separate crime - not conflated the way Ziggi misrepresents it - I can tell when members do not respond to patient step by step "spoon feeding" of argument and retreat into their own incredulity. (Currently 2 of those - and I'm still persisting patiently with one of them. Should be easy to find. )

And none of them depend on my career in Water and Sewerage matters - EXCEPT it should give be an advantage when it comes to identifying "faeces like" arguments.

Last edited by ozeco41; 8th December 2016 at 08:45 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2016, 10:04 PM   #690
Ziggi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Good for you beachnut.

Ziggi is scraping the bottom of the barrel and quote mining bits that don't support his attempts at character assignation.

He DOESN'T quote the bits off this forum or The911Forum or any other forum where I describe:
1) you as my #1 go to guy on aviation.
2) Sunstealer my #1 for metallurgy;
3) Oystein my #1 for statistical research and high quality argument on a range of topics; AND
4) tfk as a highly competent explainer of undergraduate level general physics DESPITE his dishonesty in responding to my correction of his false claims. (Which ventured with wrong results into post-grad physics hence the "out of depth" assessment.....
If you want to talk about someone not quoting and addressing something you should perhaps complain to yourself about not quoting the post you refer to and addressing neither me directly nor any of my points: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=679

Oh how generous of you, giving 3 lower-level comrades the grade of being usable for information in very limited areas! They must be so proud to get such praise from big daddy Ozeco41 who obviously handles the main subjects and the big picture. Everyone can see that this cancels out your judgments about the "debunkers" here in general being incompetent or liars or both. And oh how big of you giving the obviously inferior TFK the grade of being able to handle lower level physics when he is not lying his ass off. No need to discuss further then why TFK ran away from Tony when things were about to reach the higher level stuff!

Obviously I stand corrected; no-one in their right mind would accuse you of being an arrogant blowhard. No sir!

A few of you still seem oblivious to what a joke you guys have become. I am not sure that these last remnants of you would wake up even if you got a formal open letter from NIST or Randi himself telling you guys to please leave the scene because it has become too difficult for them to watch you guys making fools out of yourselves..Perhaps it is time for friends or family to intervene. Seriously.

- Nah, you guys just bury this with a little flood of comments about #something else, and everyone will forget about this problem in a jiffy and you will be able to continue on as usual as if nothing happened... u guys just change the subject with random accusations against me or truthers in general, make up a list of questions that have not been answered enough times, or start talking about Mark Basile, or something...Works every time and no-one is onto that little trick. Seriously.
Ziggi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2016, 12:56 AM   #691
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Did tfk come to the debate with evidence?
You'd have to say what that evidence would be for.
Let's take a look at what there is evidence for in regard to what tfk has said.

Quote:
tfk wrote:

1.3 KSM & Ramzi Yousef planned the attacks, OBL approved & subsidized them, and 19 clueless suckers carried them out. By flying planes into 3 buildings & being stopped by the passengers from succeeding in hitting a 4th.


1.4 The collapse of all of those buildings were the complete result of what we saw happen: planes, impacts, fires, collapses of WTC 1 & 2, more fires, collapse of WTC7.


1. Photo evidence
Many hundreds of high definition, photos are available for examination TODAY, that definitively prove “no explosives here”


Thermite is impossible:
It is NOT make the timing work. The uncertainty in the time that it takes for thermite to cut thru any column is measured in 10s of seconds, at best. The timing required to “melt” columns, as truthers have claimed, is measured in tenths to hundredths of a second. Thermite is impossible.


2. Audio
100s to 1000s of high power explosions would be required.
The audio recording prove that explosions did not occur


3. Seismic data proves no explosives
There is no possibility of occurring without seismic detection. See Brent Blanchard’s piece. Address Blanchard’s statements, please. Especially Claim #4.


4. OBL statements prove no explosives (as far as he knew).
Same rationale proves that nobody else would have waited for OBL to get his minions into action.


It would be stupid to wire buildings with explosives, and then risk discovery by waiting hours/days/weeks/month/years to fly planes into them. You’d blow them immediately, as soon as you could & claim your victory.
OBL was a murderer, but he was not stupid.
Nobody else that set them would wait for OBL's planes, for the same reason.


OBL was not shy about announcing to the world “we did it”.
I have provided detailed evidence in regard to what tfk has said above. Now, let's take a look at a few words that Tony has said.

Quote:
Tony wrote:

The finding of a high density of iron microspheres in the dust points to the possibility of incendiary use.
That is obviously false in regard to 9/11 and I have provided details on the generation of microspheres as well, which debunks Tony's claim.

Quote:
Tony wrote:

Additional discussion of molten metal and the fact that fire could not have produced it is seen here
I had recognized the molten metal flowing from WTC 2 as aluminum, not steel, so in this case, Tony is off the mark once again. The sources of aluminum were the airframe of United 175, the aluminum facade of WTC 2, and sources from within WTC 2.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 9th December 2016 at 01:01 AM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2016, 02:52 AM   #692
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Let's take a look at what there is evidence for in regard to what tfk has said.
Why should we change topic? Many of us here are aware of the evidence . The topic under discussion is the debate between tfk and T Sz. BUT YOU feel the need to produce evidence to support tfk. Why? Can you not see that if he needs your support YOU are confirming the limitations of his contribution to the debate?

Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
I have provided detailed evidence in regard to what tfk has said above. Now, let's take a look at a few words that Tony has said.
Good for you - there are many of us who can out reason Tony. I'm possibly the only one who can out reason tfk AND am not tied by JREF Claque loyalty to pretend that he is right when he is wrong. Note the "ANDing" of the two premises.

Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
That is obviously false in regard to 9/11 and I have provided details on the generation of microspheres as well, which debunks Tony's claim.
The thread topic is not whether YOU could out argue T Sz...many of us could. Some of us can and have out argued tfk. Neither is difficult. Grade 4 for those who know the "level of argument metrication". And BOTH of them give up and resort to insults very easily. I've been privileged to be insulted by both.

Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
I had recognized the molten metal flowing from WTC 2 as aluminum, not steel, so in this case, Tony is off the mark once again. The sources of aluminum were the airframe of United 175, the aluminum facade of WTC 2, and sources from within WTC 2.
Wow. Do you think you are the first person to make the obvious linkages?? You were not debating Tony. tfk was. His performance (and Tony's) is what should be under discussion.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2016, 02:58 AM   #693
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
If you want to talk about someone... and addressing neither me directly nor any of my points:
Ziggi I have ZERO intention of playing your childish personal attack game. Sure each of your lies or debating ticks is easy to rebut. BUT I will not sink to your level.

If you have a substantive technical point to argue about WTC "Twins" collapses - present your reasoned hypothesis, I will CONSIDER whether to respond or not.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2016, 03:17 AM   #694
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
If you want to talk about someone not quoting and addressing something you should perhaps complain to yourself about not quoting the post you refer to and addressing neither me directly nor any of my points: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=679

Oh how generous of you, giving 3 lower-level comrades the grade of being usable for information in very limited areas! They must be so proud to get such praise from big daddy Ozeco41 who obviously handles the main subjects and the big picture. Everyone can see that this cancels out your judgments about the "debunkers" here in general being incompetent or liars or both. And oh how big of you giving the obviously inferior TFK the grade of being able to handle lower level physics when he is not lying his ass off. No need to discuss further then why TFK ran away from Tony when things were about to reach the higher level stuff!

Obviously I stand corrected; no-one in their right mind would accuse you of being an arrogant blowhard. No sir!

A few of you still seem oblivious to what a joke you guys have become. I am not sure that these last remnants of you would wake up even if you got a formal open letter from NIST or Randi himself telling you guys to please leave the scene because it has become too difficult for them to watch you guys making fools out of yourselves..Perhaps it is time for friends or family to intervene. Seriously.

- Nah, you guys just bury this with a little flood of comments about #something else, and everyone will forget about this problem in a jiffy and you will be able to continue on as usual as if nothing happened... u guys just change the subject with random accusations against me or truthers in general, make up a list of questions that have not been answered enough times, or start talking about Mark Basile, or something...Works every time and no-one is onto that little trick. Seriously.
Funny thing Ziggi is the twoofer movement was nothing but a total sham a fraud to start out with.

You people miss used the RJ Lee report to give an illogicall
Microspheres average concentration of Microspheres in a bank filled with Microspheres, to begin with.

You said aluminum couldn't glow and flow yellow, but you never properly reacted aluminum with plastics that contained nitrogen in the fire retardants.

You people said that sulfidication was proof of thermate because you couldn't reproduce
It because you didn't know it required a chimney effect fire.

You people said the red gray chips were thermite but you couldn't do the science to back that statement up.

.Face it Ziggi you Twoofers definitely can't do science you are totally incompetent, I for one welcome a new investigation and putting you clowns on the witness stand, I have enough information, and knowledge now to expose you in court for the Hucksters you are!

We both know though Ziggi that there will never be a new investigation, because that is in fact the one thing that would ruin your little Scam expose you as frauds and cut off the money flow.

We all know that's the one thing you don't really want.

Last edited by Crazy Chainsaw; 9th December 2016 at 03:22 AM.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2016, 05:55 AM   #695
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
A reiterating of your earlier posts really isn't "spoon feeding". Come on Ziggi, exactly what education did new comers to the issue get?

The entire rason d'etre, it appears, of AE911T, is education about the events of 9/11.

EXACTLY how has the cause been advanced by having tfk withdraw from an internet forum debate?

EXACTLY how has tfk withdrawing from debate increased the technical veracity of the claims(perhaps I need to spoon feed you why this question is relevant to "education"?) of AE911T?
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
There is irony (hypocrisy) that the main cheerleader for one of the very few technical investigations that truthers have undertaken, is brow beatin debunkers about a debunker, tfk, leaving an internet debate. Basile has had years to produce and hasn't. Has he withdrawn from this investigation? By some measures he certainly has, even if not officially declared it.

In terms of education what would be more important, an internet debate on essentially, fringe issue web sites, or technical papers that might serve to persuade professionals in relevant areas? If tfk withdrawing from debate supposedly educates new comers on a deficiency in debunkers, then most certainly Basile's foot dragging, essential withdrawing from technical investigation educates such new comers in deficiency in truther circles by at least the same measure.
Come on Ziggi, back to tfk having withdrawn from the debate.
Address the above.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 9th December 2016 at 05:57 AM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2016, 11:01 AM   #696
Ziggi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozeco41
- So is tfk so incompetent at engineering applied physics OR merely telling lies to support his personal attack?? Who cares - not me.
- I'm gradually accumulating a list of "out of their depth" alleged debunkers at ISF. Their primary mission is to lie and/or personally attack
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Ziggi I have ZERO intention of playing your childish personal attack game. Sure each of your lies or debating ticks is easy to rebut. BUT I will not sink to your level..
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...My personal attack game? The personal insults about your fellow "debunkers" that I have listed here in the past couple of pages or so, are YOUR personal attacks against your comrades here, in threads with names such as "just plain idiots" and "duplicitous blowhard ( tfk ) at it again"..where you say your comrades here are mostly incompetent and/or liars. And then you think you can get all high and mighty in your Ivory Tower and lecture about sinking to a lower level. You are a joke. You are the perfect new poster-boy for these sad remnants of the JREF/ISF 911subforum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ozeco41
If you have a substantive technical point to argue about WTC "Twins" collapses - present your reasoned hypothesis, I will CONSIDER whether to respond or not.
Oh you wanna change the subject? That is funny.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ozeco41
Why should we change topic? Many of us here are aware of the evidence . The topic under discussion is the debate between tfk and T Sz.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=692

Last edited by Ziggi; 9th December 2016 at 11:05 AM.
Ziggi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2016, 11:51 AM   #697
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,444
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...My personal attack game? The personal insults about your fellow "debunkers" that I have listed here in the past couple of pages or so, are YOUR personal attacks against your comrades here, in threads with names such as "just plain idiots" and "duplicitous blowhard ( tfk ) at it again"..where you say your comrades here are mostly incompetent and/or liars. And then you think you can get all high and mighty in your Ivory Tower and lecture about sinking to a lower level. You are a joke. You are the perfect new poster-boy for these sad remnants of the JREF/ISF 911subforum.



Oh you wanna change the subject? That is funny.
Having fun?

How's that new investigation coming? Did this debate move you guys any closer to, well, anything, that you can point to?

Just asking. I expect another meaningless diatribe in reply.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2016, 12:50 PM   #698
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,018
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...My personal attack game? The personal insults about your fellow "debunkers" that I have listed here in the past couple of pages or so, are ...
Standard 9/11 truth logic, quote mining to support fantasy. But using BS quote mines which have no purpose, no link to CD, is failed logic. A tactic indicative of anti-intellectual mentality of debunking the debunkers. An exercise in anti-science, anti-reason; misleading people who are gullible, like the Boston bombers. Why does 9/11 truth publish false information, "fake news", will it inspire another "pizzagate" action, lies and woo inspire action due to people spreading lies; gullible people murder based on lies. How nobel to be an evidence free publisher of lies by 9/11 truth, and making weak personal attacks.

Quote mining what you call personal insults? I see opinions, and some hope others will act more intellectual. I prefer to read the statements and study me, what can I do to be better.

How do I grasp the logic related to the weak attack posts based on quote mining comments out of context, and not fully researched for meaning. We all come from varied backgrounds, and varied experience... how are we all going to agree on how we interact. But using disagreement about how we all behave and the comments on the behavior, will not help some fantasy of CD, and debating fantasy.

The insults? Are they opinions on how people would like others to behave? What does quote mining opinions have to do with helping the idiotic claims of CD.

How do you debate a fantasy of CD? Is it a debate to see why people make up lies, false claims, and nonsense to support the lie of CD? What is your point, why do you show up evidence free with a Gish Gallop of weak attacks by quote mining - the failed logic, is that the same logic used to fall for CD.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2016, 01:17 PM   #699
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
^^^ Wow beachnut. Spot on. Neat analysis and concise rebuttal.

Thank you.


Last edited by ozeco41; 9th December 2016 at 01:36 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2016, 03:16 PM   #700
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Oh you wanna change the subject? That is funny.
Speaking of changing the subject...............

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaydeehess
A reiterating of your earlier posts really isn't "spoon feeding". Come on Ziggi, exactly what education did new comers to the issue get?

The entire rason d'etre, it appears, of AE911T, is education about the events of 9/11.

EXACTLY how has the cause been advanced by having tfk withdraw from an internet forum debate?

EXACTLY how has tfk withdrawing from debate increased the technical veracity of the claims(perhaps I need to spoon feed you why this question is relevant to "education"?) of AE911T?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaydeehess
There is irony (hypocrisy) that the main cheerleader for one of the very few technical investigations that truthers have undertaken, is brow beatin debunkers about a debunker, tfk, leaving an internet debate. Basile has had years to produce and hasn't. Has he withdrawn from this investigation? By some measures he certainly has, even if not officially declared it.

In terms of education what would be more important, an internet debate on essentially, fringe issue web sites, or technical papers that might serve to persuade professionals in relevant areas? If tfk withdrawing from debate supposedly educates new comers on a deficiency in debunkers, then most certainly Basile's foot dragging, essential withdrawing from technical investigation educates such new comers in deficiency in truther circles by at least the same measure.
Come on Ziggi, back to tfk having withdrawn from the debate.
Address the above
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2016, 04:11 PM   #701
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
W
Wow. Do you think you are the first person to make the obvious linkages?? You were not debating Tony. tfk was. His performance (and Tony's) is what should be under discussion.
You are correct, I did not debate Tony. If so, I would have demanded that he bring undeniable evidence and facts to the table, otherwise, it would just be a waste of time debating someone who has a habit of concocting false evidence and responds with outright lies. If he wants to play
at the table, he has to lay down the money beforehand.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 9th December 2016 at 04:20 PM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2016, 04:41 PM   #702
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,168
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Oh you wanna change the subject? That is funny.
9-11 IS the subject in the grand scheme of this "backwater" message board.

You and the other Truthers want to change my mind? Here's what I want:

1. How were the buildings successfully prepped and wired for demolition without anybody knowing it?

2. What kind of explosive charges were used?

3. Who planted and wired the charges? (this is a small community of professionals).

4. How were the collapses any different than what a plane-crash induced fire across multiple floors would achieve within the specific design on the Twin Towers, and WTC7?

The other thing I really, really, want to know is: How is the ability to secretly prep and wire a highrise building to implode in any way LESS terrifying than flying hijacked jetliners into it? If the goal of 9-11 was to justify invading Iraq, and the Patriot Act, why keep explosive charges secret instead of using them to scare Americans even more?

Those are my unanswered questions to the 9-11 Truthers.

Tony tried to answer them and revealed he's not as smart as he thinks he is.

...so how about you? Start your own thread and thrill us with your research into this crime of the century.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2016, 04:49 PM   #703
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
You are correct, I did not debate Tony. If so, I would have demanded that he bring undeniable evidence and facts to the table, otherwise, it would just be a waste of time debating someone who has a habit of concocting false evidence and responds with outright lies. If he wants to play
at the table, he has to lay down the money beforehand.
Exactly.


And the main theme identified by most observers - neither side defined what was to be discussed NOR required reasonable protocols to be followed.

tfk is grades better than Tony at explaining mid level physics PLUS he had the advantage of the tilted playing field. tfk is supporting the side that is mostly right. Tony in the unenviable position of supporting the side that is mostly if not totally wrong.

In fact from the perspective of spectator sport it is a pity that it wasn't a debate in the formal structured sense of competitive debating. Where teams draw lots to determine who is "for" and who is "against".

If the proposition was "There was CD of the Twin towers on 9/11" it would be fun watching if tfk drew the "short straw" for the affirmative side......or T Sz was allocated to the negative side.

...but that is only my twisted sense of humour....
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2016, 04:55 PM   #704
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Oh you wanna change the subject? That is funny.
Speaking of changing the subject...............
He wants a "bet both ways".

He changed the subject to quote mined PA's.

I suggested like you that he get back on topic.

THEN I generously offered him another aspect of legitimate topic and he dodges the opportunity. Accusing me of wanting to change. I see he still won't discuss the OP topic.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2016, 08:26 PM   #705
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
I see he still won't discuss the OP topic.
Correct
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 07:03 AM   #706
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,211
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Btw, Oystein, are you and others falling for Ziggi's bait and switch? Who is discussing tfk and the debate and who is discussing Greening and ozeco and others?
That would be true if
a) I was debating Greening with Ziggi (I am not - I didn't ask him a question about Greening, for example). I am talking about Greening with ozeco and beachnut instead. And...
b) I had dropped the issue of Ziggi failing to beef up his position on the tfk-Tony debate (that it educated unspecified unknowns about unspecified unknowns) with some substance and evidence (I have not forgotten that, as always always always, Ziggi fails to respond to relevant questions)
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 07:18 AM   #707
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
That would be true if
a) I was debating Greening with Ziggi (I am not - I didn't ask him a question about Greening, for example). I am talking about Greening with ozeco and beachnut instead. And...
b) I had dropped the issue of Ziggi failing to beef up his position on the tfk-Tony debate (that it educated unspecified unknowns about unspecified unknowns) with some substance and evidence (I have not forgotten that, as always always always, Ziggi fails to respond to relevant questions)
All Ziggi wants is exposure for 9/11 bogger, deny it to he treat him as he deserves pretend he and the site are irrelevant because they are.

Treat Ziggi as if he doesn't exist until he responds to relevant questions, because if he doesn't
Reply and take part in the conversation he is totally Irrelevant.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 07:24 AM   #708
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,211
During the last couple of days, I have thought a bit about what is so perfideous about Ziggi's personal attacks, and I found two items:

a) He takes us into "Sippenhaft" - figuratively speaking. He treats debunkers here as one entity, one group with a single mind, when im fact we are all individuals. He pretends that tfk was somehow speaking for "us", when he wasn't. In fact, tfk has had critics among the debunkers here for a while. It is common and frequent that we disagree with each other. What maybe disconcerts Ziggi and other debunkers is the observation that we sometimes resolve these differences by such subversive means as "asking questions and accepting answers" or "presenting evidence".
Ziggi wants to assign blame for individual posters' mistakes on everyone here. The fallacy is obvious - interestingly, even the WP article on Sippenhaft, under "See also", refers to the Association Fallacy
(I admit that debunkers commit the same fallacy towards truthers, and I have certainly done so in the past myself. The difference is of course is that if asomeone - debunker or Truther - pointed out the fallacy to me, they'd find me admtting to it immediately, and making proper amends. You can bet your sweet little arses that Ziggi will not ever admit to having committed a fallacy when a debunker points it out. That's why Ziggi will for the rest of his life accumulate stances on which he is objectively wrong)

2.) Ziggi pretends that we have leaders - which means that some of us are lead by others. This is nonsense - AE911Truth has leaders, many, most, perhaps all Truther venues have hierarchies - JREF/ISF simply does not! Ziggi pretends, for example, that Chris Mohr was a leader. But what did Chris Mohr actually do? He came here looking for experts, facts and arguments, he came here asking questions, and he accepted good answers that came with persuasive arguments. That wasn't leadership - that was humbleness. This concept - having straight, honest questions asked, and having them answered straight and honestly, scares the living **** out of Ziggi, and out of many Truthers: It has the potential of changing a person's mind. That is one of the main reasons many Truthers remain Truthers; they never ever, under no circumstances whatsoever, allow straight and honest answers, and never give any. Never. Ziggi's entire oeuvre here at ISF consists of nothing but evading straight, honest answers.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 07:30 AM   #709
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,211
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
All Ziggi wants is exposure for 9/11 bogger ...
I sometimes try to post a comment on 911Blogger. Occasionally, a comment passes their censorship.
One type of posts never ever passes censorship: It is when I ask a straight question. Why? Because they know exactly that a straight, honest answer to my questions will debunk some dear truther belief.
Ziggi knows this, too. He knows I ask straight questions, and he knows that straight, honest answers to my questions would debunk his lies. That is why Ziggi pretends to ignore me - or perhaps why does in fact ignore me: He feels the pain that only thinking about the straight and honest answers causes him.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 07:33 AM   #710
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
During the last couple of days, I have thought a bit about what is so perfideous about Ziggi's personal attacks, and I found two items:

a) He takes us into "Sippenhaft" - figuratively speaking. He treats debunkers here as one entity, one group with a single mind, when im fact we are all individuals. He pretends that tfk was somehow speaking for "us", when he wasn't. In fact, tfk has had critics among the debunkers here for a while. It is common and frequent that we disagree with each other. What maybe disconcerts Ziggi and other debunkers is the observation that we sometimes resolve these differences by such subversive means as "asking questions and accepting answers" or "presenting evidence".
Ziggi wants to assign blame for individual posters' mistakes on everyone here. The fallacy is obvious - interestingly, even the WP article on Sippenhaft, under "See also", refers to the Association Fallacy
(I admit that debunkers commit the same fallacy towards truthers, and I have certainly done so in the past myself. The difference is of course is that if asomeone - debunker or Truther - pointed out the fallacy to me, they'd find me admtting to it immediately, and making proper amends. You can bet your sweet little arses that Ziggi will not ever admit to having committed a fallacy when a debunker points it out. That's why Ziggi will for the rest of his life accumulate stances on which he is objectively wrong)

2.) Ziggi pretends that we have leaders - which means that some of us are lead by others. This is nonsense - AE911Truth has leaders, many, most, perhaps all Truther venues have hierarchies - JREF/ISF simply does not! Ziggi pretends, for example, that Chris Mohr was a leader. But what did Chris Mohr actually do? He came here looking for experts, facts and arguments, he came here asking questions, and he accepted good answers that came with persuasive arguments. That wasn't leadership - that was humbleness. This concept - having straight, honest questions asked, and having them answered straight and honestly, scares the living **** out of Ziggi, and out of many Truthers: It has the potential of changing a person's mind. That is one of the main reasons many Truthers remain Truthers; they never ever, under no circumstances whatsoever, allow straight and honest answers, and never give any. Never. Ziggi's entire oeuvre here at ISF consists of nothing but evading straight, honest answers.
That's always has been the difference, between an honest truther, and an intellectually dishonest twoofer.
It is also the difference between a researcher, and a debunker.

Welcome Back Oystein back to JREF 2006-7, when the same understanding was expressed here.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 08:27 AM   #711
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I sometimes try to post a comment on 911Blogger. Occasionally, a comment passes their censorship.
One type of posts never ever passes censorship: It is when I ask a straight question. Why? Because they know exactly that a straight, honest answer to my questions will debunk some dear truther belief.
Ziggi knows this, too. He knows I ask straight questions, and he knows that straight, honest answers to my questions would debunk his lies. That is why Ziggi pretends to ignore me - or perhaps why does in fact ignore me: He feels the pain that only thinking about the straight and honest answers causes him.
I know that all to well, it has been standard Twoofer MO. Since Loose Change forum started doing that.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 09:15 AM   #712
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,444
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
During the last couple of days, I have thought a bit about what is so perfideous about Ziggi's personal attacks, and I found two items:

a) He takes us into "Sippenhaft" - figuratively speaking. He treats debunkers here as one entity, one group with a single mind, when im fact we are all individuals. He pretends that tfk was somehow speaking for "us", when he wasn't. In fact, tfk has had critics among the debunkers here for a while. It is common and frequent that we disagree with each other. What maybe disconcerts Ziggi and other debunkers is the observation that we sometimes resolve these differences by such subversive means as "asking questions and accepting answers" or "presenting evidence".
Ziggi wants to assign blame for individual posters' mistakes on everyone here. The fallacy is obvious - interestingly, even the WP article on Sippenhaft, under "See also", refers to the Association Fallacy
(I admit that debunkers commit the same fallacy towards truthers, and I have certainly done so in the past myself. The difference is of course is that if asomeone - debunker or Truther - pointed out the fallacy to me, they'd find me admtting to it immediately, and making proper amends. You can bet your sweet little arses that Ziggi will not ever admit to having committed a fallacy when a debunker points it out. That's why Ziggi will for the rest of his life accumulate stances on which he is objectively wrong)

2.) Ziggi pretends that we have leaders - which means that some of us are lead by others. This is nonsense - AE911Truth has leaders, many, most, perhaps all Truther venues have hierarchies - JREF/ISF simply does not! Ziggi pretends, for example, that Chris Mohr was a leader. But what did Chris Mohr actually do? He came here looking for experts, facts and arguments, he came here asking questions, and he accepted good answers that came with persuasive arguments. That wasn't leadership - that was humbleness. This concept - having straight, honest questions asked, and having them answered straight and honestly, scares the living **** out of Ziggi, and out of many Truthers: It has the potential of changing a person's mind. That is one of the main reasons many Truthers remain Truthers; they never ever, under no circumstances whatsoever, allow straight and honest answers, and never give any. Never. Ziggi's entire oeuvre here at ISF consists of nothing but evading straight, honest answers.
Good analysis Oystein, thanks. I learned a new term.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 10:08 AM   #713
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
During the last couple of days, I have thought a bit about what is so perfideous about Ziggi's personal attacks, and I found two items:

a) He takes us into "Sippenhaft" - figuratively speaking. He treats debunkers here as one entity, one group with a single mind, when im fact we are all individuals....
Your comments understood and generally agreed Oystein. In fact I suggest that his "game" has several similar aspects of assumed global uniformity. The central themes of Ziggi's personal attack on me arose from his quote mining of one example of an extreme position I described. Two factors actually:
1) That some JREF/ISF "debunkers" had personally resorted to lies and personal attacks against me and I was counting them - "keeping a list". Both points true BUT misrepresented as more global truths by Ziggi. There are three on the list. tfk one of them; AND
2) That the situation arose when those persons got out of their depth in arguments of engineering physics. Arguably true - I could support the assessment with argument if needed - BUT I was referring to limited number of examples of "out of depth" at the higher level of physics that some aspects of WTC collapses invoke. Sure we see "out of their depth" situations in most 9/11 discussions. It is the main valid reason for "truthing" AKA almost every truther claim is a re-framing of "I don't understand this".

Ziggi took those extreme examples and kept pouring on the innuendo until the most recent posts where he resorted to explicit lies to support his false generalisations.
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
... He pretends that tfk was somehow speaking for "us", when he wasn't. In fact, tfk has had critics among the debunkers here for a while. It is common and frequent that we disagree with each other.
The history of disagreement between me and tfk goes back almost as far as my disagreements with Tony Szamboti and Major_Tom. And IMO, published several times in at least two forums, the antipathy of all three of them towards me and my reasoned explanations takes structurally similar paths. Hence the comment which Ziggi quote mined "do not or cannot respond to reasoned arguments even when spoon fed".

So this recent episode caught me in a temptation.

Many members including friends currently active in this thread are aware of my posting SOP's. I rarely respond and most often ignore personal attacks directed at me. I also try to avoid feeding trolls. BUT I enjoy parsing and carving up false arguments and debating trickery AND Ziggi's campaign was a tempting target.

So the question was "Do I rebut his nonsense and risk giving it the attention he is trolling for?" I chose to stay with my SOPs and the "two posts rule".

The Ziggi "PA Campaign" is a house of cards erected on a single initiating event. A single instance of lies, debating trickery and personal attack against me by tfk. Not the first but I walked away from the episode on this forum. And I faced two partially valid criticisms on the other forum. One was the light hearted comment that I was too much of a gentleman for tolerating the PA. The other - somewhat more serious - was that I gave debunkers a free ride which I would not give to truthers. That one is true fact - my SOP on this forum for years. Explained years ago but no need to restate that reasoning now. Basic marketing strategy - don't risk antagonising those who are on the same side.


So those are my personal thoughts related to your introductory paragraphs Oystein.

And - as I said - I'm in general agreement with the remainder of your post. A good summary assessment IMO.


And I can add "Sippenhaft" to my German vocabulary. The last couple of weeks I've learned "Stille" - much to the amusement of my daughters. repeated "Stille" without the "Nacht" around low D, G or A the somewhat monotonous bass line of a seasonally appropriate song.

Last edited by ozeco41; 10th December 2016 at 10:13 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2016, 11:28 AM   #714
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,330
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Having fun?

How's that new investigation coming? Did this debate move you guys any closer to, well, anything, that you can point to?
It'll be here any time soon.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11621732
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2016, 10:28 AM   #715
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
DEBATE!

What is the purpose of a debate on the causes of the destruction in Manhattan on Sept. 11 /01?

Well, I see no mission statement on the AE911T site but the petition says in part
"We believe there is sufficient doubt about the
official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7. "


So one would expect that for their part, and by extension, Tony Szamboti's part, the expectation was to garner support for this new investigation by convincing (aka "educating") viewers of the debate as to exactly how AE911T comes to it's expectation that there must have been explosives within the structures.

Who are the viewers? It's an internet forum, it is a fringe issue, so the viewers are already people who follow this issue most of whom already are on one side of this or the other.

Ziggi speaks of "newcomers". Really? A decade and a half down the road from the event!
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.