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.
Reply
Old 12th December 2016, 01:03 AM   #1
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
does anyone here want to support the NIST reports in a one-on-one debate with me

I have some time right now and am wondering if anyone here who supports the conclusions of the NIST reports, for the three high-rise collapses in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001, would want to debate me one-on-one as I contend that these NIST reports have been shown to be non-explanatory and incorrect.

The debate would take place on the 911 free forum, like the one I did with tfk, and the rules would be the same as those for that debate shown below.

1. The debate is restricted to the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7 in NYC on September 11, 2001, the NIST reports on these events, and any additional objectively verifiable information and analyses in the public domain about them.

2. Each person shall make an opening statement (of no more than 500 words) explaining what they believe caused the collapse of WTC 7 and briefly stating what they believe are the (approximately) 3 strongest pieces of verifiable evidence for/against Controlled Demolition, as "Controlled Demolition vs. No Controlled Demolition" is the heart of the debate.

3. tfk will go first after both participants make an opening statement on June 21, 2016.

4. Each person shall make no more than one post per day and cannot make another until it is responded to.

5. If a post is not responded to within a week the person not responding is considered to have forfeited his turn & the other person will proceed with his next statement.

6. Individual posts are limited to 1,000 words. If it is deemed necessary to exceed that limit, justification shall be provided by the person wanting to exceed it and agreement to by the other participant received prior to doing so. This should be done by private messaging, so as not to interrupt the flow of the debate, and should be the exception rather than the rule.

7. Each post will discuss one principle topic. Each topic consists of 4 posts. Person A will state a topic post, Person B replies, Person A counters, then Person B counters, and that topic is closed. Person B then leads off the next sequence.

8. Every point that either person brings up must be addressed in some manner by the other. Both parties will do their best to stay focused on the original topic point.

9. There shall be no name calling, denigration, or defamatory language used. Each person shall bring only technical arguments to the debate. If any derogatory comments are used they shall be addressed to arguments only, not to individuals.

10. The debate will end after a maximum of 50 total posts, or earlier if the participants mutually agree to an earlier termination, or whenever either participant decides to stop responding.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 12th December 2016 at 01:18 AM.
Tony Szamboti 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 12th December 2016, 01:36 AM   #2
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
There is nothing to debate IMO. It is futile. The few "truther" left can be left to their belief, they will be like those who STILL believe we did not land on the moon, or like holocaust denier. It does not matter how many evidence provided to them, they will deny it.

At this point the controlled demolition dank meme is just a belief so deep anchored it will only end when the person die of natural death.
Aepervius 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 12th December 2016, 01:41 AM   #3
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
There is nothing to debate IMO. It is futile. The few "truther" left can be left to their belief, they will be like those who STILL believe we did not land on the moon, or like holocaust denier. It does not matter how many evidence provided to them, they will deny it.

At this point the controlled demolition dank meme is just a belief so deep anchored it will only end when the person die of natural death.
You can't be taken seriously here, as you provide zero basis for your claim/opinion that there is nothing to debate.

Debates are what we use to move past opinions into what withstands scrutiny as reality based fact.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 12th December 2016 at 01:44 AM.
Tony Szamboti 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 12th December 2016, 01:55 AM   #4
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You can't be taken seriously here, as you provide zero basis for your claim/opinion that there is nothing to debate.

Debates are what we use to move past opinions into what withstands scrutiny as reality based fact.
Look, I am guessing you are a believer. Keep your belief. The world has moved on. History book have been written. People barely born at that time are now adult. It has been 15 years. If there was really something to that CT, it would have been known by now. But all that it is people dis-beliving the explanation of the plane hitting and killing the building.

Debate all you want. The world does not care. ETA: I have seen enough Cont dem in my summer of 20 and 21 to know what it entails. Did you ? That is a rhetoric question. No need to answer.

/thread

Last edited by Aepervius; 12th December 2016 at 01:56 AM.
Aepervius 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 12th December 2016, 02:02 AM   #5
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You can't be taken seriously here, as you provide zero basis for your claim/opinion that there is nothing to debate.

Debates are what we use to move past opinions into what withstands scrutiny as reality based fact.
As factual as that video you said you saw?
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino 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 12th December 2016, 02:35 AM   #6
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,814
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I have some time right now and am wondering if anyone here who supports the conclusions of the NIST reports, for the three high-rise collapses in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001, would want to debate me one-on-one as I contend that these NIST reports have been shown to be non-explanatory and incorrect.
Why not take it up with NIST, since it's their conclusions you have issues with? All you can possibly get here is the opinions of a third party without access to the background data and results NIST worked from or obtained, which will be no more than an alternative interpretation to yours which can be debated endlessly with no possibility of resolution since both you and your interlocutor will be working with the same incomplete set of data.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 12th December 2016, 02:36 AM   #7
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,762
What's to debate? the same debunked nonsense?
After sixteen years it gets wearisome.
Fact isn't up for debate, NIST reports, despite what some may think aren't theological texts.
Captain_Swoop 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 12th December 2016, 03:02 AM   #8
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
What's to debate? the same debunked nonsense?
After sixteen years it gets wearisome.
Fact isn't up for debate, NIST reports, despite what some may think aren't theological texts.
<insert smiley of thumb up>
Aepervius 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 12th December 2016, 03:43 AM   #9
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,729
I fully understand your need for attention Tony, however I have no desire to give attention to an over simplified protagonists.
The towers were coming apart inside before the top block fell, and your last FEA used multiple springs to dissipate to much energy from the girder, ignoring totally the leverage effects a second hinge would produce.
You treated the girder as if its heating and stiffness were uniform real steel in fire doesn't act that way.
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 12th December 2016, 04:03 AM   #10
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,814
Oh, and one other thing: As has been repeatedly stated by numerous posters here on many occasions, and answering what I have no doubt is your unstated agenda here, Tony, there is a crucial difference between finding faults with the NIST model - which is intended to determine the most probable collapse sequence with a view to proposing modifications to building codes that will alleviate the damage in future occurrences - and establishing any doubt that the collapse was due entirely to the damage sustained by the building due to debris impact from other collapses and fires within the building. The latter would require either that any possible debris and fire related collapse sequence, rather than the specific sequence outlined by NIST, be shown to be at the very least highly implausible, or that specific and credible evidence be produced of some other cause of collapse; this does not include quote mining, vague, ambiguous or unverified eyewitness accounts, or speculation. In short, even if someone were foolish enough to take up this challenge and fail at it, it would not produce the result you want it to.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 12th December 2016, 05:16 AM   #11
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,781
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
2. Each person shall make an opening statement (of no more than 500 words) explaining what they believe caused the collapse of WTC 7 and briefly stating what they believe are the (approximately) 3 strongest pieces of verifiable evidence for/against Controlled Demolition, as "Controlled Demolition vs. No Controlled Demolition" is the heart of the debate.
Beyond "It looks like CD", "mumble, mumble freefall mumble" and "ITS OWN FOOTPRINT!!!!!", has this ever actually been done?
After 15 years, AFAIK, we have
  • No trace of explosives in the debris.
  • No sound of explosives.
  • No witnesses who saw the buildings being prepped for demolition.
  • No whistleblowers who were involved, and who have now come forward.
  • No coherent explanation of how both thermite and explosives were used.
  • No explanation of how the thermite, explosives and all the associated fuses etc. survived 7 hours of being in an uncontrolled fire.
Tony, did I miss something? What evidence do you have for CD? I'm serious: I'd really like to know.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak 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 12th December 2016, 05:57 AM   #12
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
 
Macgyver1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 5,164
Is it 2006 again? Someone is feeling nostalgic.
__________________
"Fixin' crap that ain't broke."
Macgyver1968 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 12th December 2016, 06:28 AM   #13
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,729
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Beyond "It looks like CD", "mumble, mumble freefall mumble" and "ITS OWN FOOTPRINT!!!!!", has this ever actually been done?
After 15 years, AFAIK, we have
  • No trace of explosives in the debris.
  • No sound of explosives.
  • No witnesses who saw the buildings being prepped for demolition.
  • No whistleblowers who were involved, and who have now come forward.
  • No coherent explanation of how both thermite and explosives were used.
  • No explanation of how the thermite, explosives and all the associated fuses etc. survived 7 hours of being in an uncontrolled fire.
Tony, did I miss something? What evidence do you have for CD? I'm serious: I'd really like to know.
You forgot, no mushroomed steel, from thermite-thermate cutting.
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 12th December 2016, 06:30 AM   #14
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,306
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You can't be taken seriously here, as you provide zero basis for your claim/opinion that there is nothing to debate.
Oh, I disagree. The thing's been debated to death, and no amount of evidence or reasoning will change the true believers' beliefs. If you want to believe in a conspiracy, you will.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 12th December 2016, 06:40 AM   #15
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,729
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Oh, I disagree. The thing's been debated to death, and no amount of evidence or reasoning will change the true believers' beliefs. If you want to believe in a conspiracy, you will.
I would debate if I could use experimential evidence to show fraudulent behavior of AE/9/11 truth, and by said evidence that Tony has no moral quams about himself supporting a fraudulent organization.
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 12th December 2016, 06:52 AM   #16
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,910
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post



[i]1. The debate is restricted to the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7 in NYC on September 11, 2001, the NIST reports on these events, and any additional objectively verifiable information and analyses in the public domain about them.
In other words you lack the courage to discuss 9/11 as a whole.

Before any more useless debates can happen, you have to be prepared to tie all four plane crashes together in a manner that better explains them than reality.

Absent that, your pathetic little movement is just a joke.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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 12th December 2016, 07:08 AM   #17
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,729
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
In other words you lack the courage to discuss 9/11 as a whole.

Before any more useless debates can happen, you have to be prepared to tie all four plane crashes together in a manner that better explains them than reality.

Absent that, your pathetic little movement is just a joke.
Now, Now Tony's movement isn't a Joke, at this point it is pure unadulterated fraud.

It was always a fraud and always will be a fraud, with hoaxed experiments, that prove that PT Barnum's statement that, "A sucker is born everyday." was one hundred percent accurate
Except the internet has made it a sucker born per second.
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 12th December 2016, 07:19 AM   #18
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,808
Given that not only NIST but the CTBUH, the AIA, the ASCE, Purdue University, Nordenson and Associates, and other recognized professional organizations ALL unequivocally agree that impact and fire induced damage caused the collapses of the three WTC structures, then I feel it is with these organizations with which you should debate.

OTOH, I am quite sure that all or most of them would feel it beneath them to engage in a debate on a web forum on such a fringe issue. What would you debate? AE911T's full study and report on the collapses? No, of course not. AE911T has NEVER engaged in such a report despite supposedly having a cadre of 2000+ professionals in the field whose expertise might be put to such use.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 12th December 2016 at 07:21 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 12th December 2016, 07:25 AM   #19
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,808
So, Tony, as for the value of debating on the internet:
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?

EXACTLY how would debating a different internet poster further the cause of AE911T, or increase the veracity of the claims that AE911T make?
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 12th December 2016, 07:29 AM   #20
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,729
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Given that not only NIST but the CTBUH, the AIA, the ASCE, Purdue University, Nordenson and Associates, and other recognized professional organizations ALL unequivocally agree that impact and fire induced damage caused the collapses of the three WTC structures, then I feel it is with these organizations with which you should debate.

OTOH, I am quite sure that all or most of them would feel it beneath them to engage in a debate on a web forum on such a fringe issue. What would you debate? AE911T's full study and report on the collapses? No, of course not. AE911T has NEVER engaged in such a report despite supposedly having a cadre of 2000+ professionals in the field whose expertise might be put to such use.
It goes back further than that to Tony's mentor, Steven E. Jones

Does anyone think such worthless experiments as this Molten Aluminum Experiment: Molten Aluminum Experiment: http://youtu.be/SQdkyaO56OY could ever duplicate a large molt of Aluminum reacting with nitrogen fire retardants in plastics?

You see I can point to the actual fraudulent behavior of all the experimenters, and show how and why they are frauds all the way back to Jones.
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 12th December 2016, 07:31 AM   #21
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 630
Tony...no one cares.
__________________
I dont look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell. Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness 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 12th December 2016, 07:41 AM   #22
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,518
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Debates are what we use to move past opinions into what withstands scrutiny as reality based fact.

Odd, I never realized that the scientific method relied on debates.

Edit: I guess I will have to go review some Evolution vs. Creationism debates to determine how the various species came to be!
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon

Last edited by Hokulele; 12th December 2016 at 07:43 AM.
Hokulele 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 12th December 2016, 07:49 AM   #23
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,808
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
It goes back further than that to Tony's mentor, Steven E. Jones

Does anyone think such worthless experiments as this Molten Aluminum Experiment: Molten Aluminum Experiment: http://youtu.be/SQdkyaO56OY could ever duplicate a large molt of Aluminum reacting with nitrogen fire retardants in plastics?

You see I can point to the actual fraudulent behavior of all the experimenters, and show how and why they are frauds all the way back to Jones.
As I see it this is nothing more than a distraction, a bit of minutia. It is AE911T's continuing odd choice to pick on such minutia in the attempt to do nothing more than "prove NIST wrong". It does nothing whatsoever to further AE911T's own claims, although they seem to believe it does.

Would this be one of the major items that TSz would introduce in a debate?
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 12th December 2016, 07:52 AM   #24
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,808
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Odd, I never realized that the scientific method relied on debates.

Edit: I guess I will have to go review some Evolution vs. Creationism debates to determine how the various species came to be!
Perhaps Tony can provide examples of when such debates have been used in the past on other scientific and engineering issues to determine facts from opinions.

The evolution versus creationism debates are religious and politically driven. They certainly NEVER influenced what science considered as true.

How does science determine "what withstands scrutiny as reality based fact"? Generally it is peer review of hypotheses and experiment. At least in hard sciences like physics, chemistry and applied sciences such as structural engineering.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 12th December 2016 at 07:55 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 12th December 2016, 08:25 AM   #25
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
 
Macgyver1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 5,164
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I have some time right now...
So instead of wasting your time with a pointless debate that you already know what the outcome will be (both sides claiming victory) and accomplishing exactly two things...Jack and Squat. Why not spend that free time doing something productive? There's probably an elderly person in your neighborhood who could use some leaves raked. Grab a trash bag and pick up litter in your area. Volunteer at the local homeless shelter. Hell, start a new hobby...build a bird house...learn to play the piano or take up painting.

There are million better and more productive uses of your time than debating some faceless person on the internet about an event that happened 15 years ago...especially when you know the end result...agreeing to disagree.
__________________
"Fixin' crap that ain't broke."
Macgyver1968 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 12th December 2016, 08:27 AM   #26
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,729
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
As I see it this is nothing more than a distraction, a bit of minutia. It is AE911T's continuing odd choice to pick on such minutia in the attempt to do nothing more than "prove NIST wrong". It does nothing whatsoever to further AE911T's own claims, although they seem to believe it does.

Would this be one of the major items that TSz would introduce in a debate?
No I would introduce it and for the first time show the video I shot of molten Aluminum,
Steel dust and And nitrated plastics reacted in the appropriate environment.
I had hoped these clowns got a hearing in court as part of a new investigation, so I could show the video there.
I posted photos of a similar experiment here years ago, AlN does not float off with the oxide, it oxidizes when exposed to air with steel dust not Iron oxide.
When finely divided steel oxidized in the presence of AlN, it triggers a thermite like reaction in the molt.
The material continues to react, even after pouring into a pan, which is why my photo of poured aluminum into a cold pan, sitting on wood was possible.
Plastics use Nitrate fire retardants and a large molt is great at creating an oxygen shielded environment for reactions to take place under it.
That is the problem in most of these experiments using small amounts of materials, and not recreating the appropriate environment for the reactions to occur.

They were always hoaxes and Tony fell for it and it ruined his professional representation.
I feel in a way sorry for him, but no one's real fault but his!
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 12th December 2016, 08:43 AM   #27
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,245
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The debate would take place on the 911 free forum, like the one I did with tfk, and the rules would be the same as those for that debate shown below.
I would never have agreed to these rules.
__________________
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 12th December 2016, 08:57 AM   #28
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,306
Who the hell is tfk?
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 12th December 2016, 09:02 AM   #29
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,910
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I would never have agreed to these rules.
They're designed to have Tony "win". Its totally dishonest and transparent, and really the last gasping breaths of the terminally clueless.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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 12th December 2016, 09:12 AM   #30
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,781
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
You forgot, no mushroomed steel, from thermite-thermate cutting.
You're quite right. Lets add that to the list.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Beyond "It looks like CD", "mumble, mumble freefall mumble" and "ITS OWN FOOTPRINT!!!!!", has this ever actually been done?
After 15 years, AFAIK, we have
  • No trace of explosives in the debris.
  • No sound of explosives.
  • No witnesses who saw the buildings being prepped for demolition.
  • No whistleblowers who were involved, and who have now come forward.
  • No coherent explanation of how both thermite and explosives were used.
  • No explanation of how the thermite, explosives and all the associated fuses etc. survived 7 hours of being in an uncontrolled fire.
  • No mushrooming of steel, from thermite/ thermate cutting.
Tony, did I miss something? What evidence do you have for CD? I'm serious: I'd really like to know.
Tony: the obvious lack of evidence for CD is growing. Do you have any positive evidence for demolition?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak 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 12th December 2016, 09:31 AM   #31
Castro
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 666
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Who the hell is tfk?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=TFK
Quote:
TFK: A slang for masturbation.
Castro 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 12th December 2016, 09:35 AM   #32
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,306
Huh? That makes Tony's post make even less sense. He made a thread, now in AAH, about when tfk was coming back to post here and he got responses.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 12th December 2016, 09:44 AM   #33
Castro
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 666
My bad
Castro 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 12th December 2016, 10:06 AM   #34
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,955
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I have some time right now...
Write a scholarly paper on your central thesis, get it successfully peer-reviewed by structural and forensic engineers, then get it published in one of the premier journals of structural and/or forensic engineering. That use of your free time should get you started on your goal of setting the record straight far more effectively than challenging anonymous laymen to debates in a backwater internet forum.
JayUtah 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 12th December 2016, 10:10 AM   #35
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,955
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
They're designed to have Tony "win". Its totally dishonest and transparent, and really the last gasping breaths of the terminally clueless.
Indeed such ground rules inevitably favor the fringe claimant. The claimant can spew all manner of unsubstantiated rubbish, reverse the burden of proof, and rest assured that all the corrections that would have to ensue won't fit the ground rules.
JayUtah 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 12th December 2016, 10:15 AM   #36
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,808
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Who the hell is tfk?
a poster here on ISF, an engineer who agreed to debate TSz on another forum but who withdrew
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 12th December 2016, 10:21 AM   #37
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,808
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Write a scholarly paper on your central thesis, get it successfully peer-reviewed by structural and forensic engineers, then get it published in one of the premier journals of structural and/or forensic engineering. That use of your free time should get you started on your goal of setting the record straight far more effectively than challenging anonymous laymen to debates in a backwater internet forum.
Much more eloquently said than how I put it in post 24.

15 years after the fact and not a single peer reviewed structural engineering paper, nor any swaying of the ASCE or any professional engineering organization to their opinion of the destruction of the three WTC structures which collapsed fully (out of a dozen destroyed structures).

Last edited by jaydeehess; 12th December 2016 at 10:22 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 12th December 2016, 10:49 AM   #38
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,104
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I have some time right now and am wondering if anyone here who supports the conclusions of the NIST reports, for the three high-rise collapses in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001, would want to debate me one-on-one as I contend that these NIST reports have been shown to be non-explanatory and incorrect.

The debate would take place on the 911 free forum, like the one I did with tfk, and the rules would be the same as those for that debate shown below.

1. The debate is restricted to the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7 in NYC on September 11, 2001, the NIST reports on these events, and any additional objectively verifiable information and analyses in the public domain about them.

<snip details made irrelevant by item 1's fundamental misunderstanding of what debate is and what it's for>

Those are not terms for a debate. They are terms for an argument.

Debate is for weighing plans of action, such as new or altered project plans, organizational policies, or public policies (i.e. new laws or amendments to or repeals of existing laws). It is not necessary that the debaters or anyone else have the intention to take the actions being debated, but it is necessary that they be plausible plans to be volitionally acted upon in the future. (So, e.g. "the universal gravitational constant shall be reduced by 10% on Sundays" or "Japanese military forces should not have bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941" don't qualify.) This is why parliamentary procedures used by legislative bodies in the U.S. at all levels of government encompasses debate about bills that are eligible for a future vote, rather than about bills that were passed or rejected last week.

I would be willing to debate you on any such premise that you wish to propose, based wholly or partly on the events of 9/11. I could suggest some examples, but I prefer that you demonstrate that you understand the point in the previous paragraph by coming up on your own with a suitable premise to debate about. I also have significant time restrictions on when such a debate can begin and at what pace it proceeds, which we can discuss once a premise is agreed upon.
__________________
A zmbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 12th December 2016 at 10:51 AM.
Myriad 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 12th December 2016, 12:44 PM   #39
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,808
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
[i]1. The debate is restricted to the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7 in NYC on September 11, 2001, the NIST reports on these events, and any additional objectively verifiable information and analyses in the public domain about them.
Why this?
Here's some of what would be excluded:
- No comparison of the designs of WTC3,4,5&6 to the designs of 1,2&7
- No mention of the total destruction wrought by the collapses of WTC1 & 2, ie. not only the destruction of all other WTC structures but several other buildings nearby and heavy damage to yet more.

Why does AE911T always want to completely ignore the total destruction in the WTC complex? After the fires in WTC 5 & 6, in which the entire structure was absolutely and completely gutted, any objects in that structure would have been utterly destroyed. What was left of WTC 4 most likely also had similar fires, though there just aren't photos or videos of it in the immediate aftermath of WTC 1's collapse.
Most certainly, contents of these structures would be more completely destroyed than the contents of WTC 7. Yet we are supposed to believe that not the fires in WTC 7, but its collapse was likely engineered to destroy something in the building. Why are the fires in these other structures not supposedly suspicious?

Oh look.... look who were the tenants of WTC6, which was completely gutted by massive fires in the aftermath of the collapses of WTC 1 & 2, especially those I have in red:

United States Customs Service
United States Department of Commerce
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
United States Department of Agriculture Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (AAPHIS)
United States Department of Labor
The Peace Corps (New York Regional Office)
Export-Import Bank of the United States
Eastco Building Services (building management)

Last edited by jaydeehess; 12th December 2016 at 01:54 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 12th December 2016, 03:51 PM   #40
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Those are not terms for a debate. They are terms for an argument.

Debate is for weighing plans of action, such as new or altered project plans, organizational policies, or public policies (i.e. new laws or amendments to or repeals of existing laws). It is not necessary that the debaters or anyone else have the intention to take the actions being debated, but it is necessary that they be plausible plans to be volitionally acted upon in the future. (So, e.g. "the universal gravitational constant shall be reduced by 10% on Sundays" or "Japanese military forces should not have bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941" don't qualify.) This is why parliamentary procedures used by legislative bodies in the U.S. at all levels of government encompasses debate about bills that are eligible for a future vote, rather than about bills that were passed or rejected last week.

I would be willing to debate you on any such premise that you wish to propose, based wholly or partly on the events of 9/11. I could suggest some examples, but I prefer that you demonstrate that you understand the point in the previous paragraph by coming up on your own with a suitable premise to debate about. I also have significant time restrictions on when such a debate can begin and at what pace it proceeds, which we can discuss once a premise is agreed upon.
I don't know if you are right on the semantics, but you can call it whatever you like. It would be a discussion between two individuals with opposing points of view on the NIST WTC reports (those involving WTC 1, 2, and 7) and what the public domain evidence points to as the reason for the collapses of these buildings.

If you don't like the ground rules tfk and I used why don't you eliminate what you don't like, add what you want, and post it here. I will then review it and accept it as is or make a counter proposal.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 12th December 2016 at 03:56 PM.
Tony Szamboti 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 06:07 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.