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 11th June 2016, 06:34 PM   #41
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
One White Eye Knows Tony is as you say, he is just trying to be fair to the guidelines of the forum, as he promised Years ago.

An open discussion.

The Forum was basicly a replacement for physorg because trolling got to bad on physorg, and moderation did not take action.
I agree, OWE knows Tony's CD claims are nonsense. The aircraft ruse adds to the paranoia.
Quote:
So, beachnut, check this out: you've upped the traffic to this site ten-fold, singlehandedly. This would be an obscure little corner of nowhere but for you.
However, compared to other sites... oops, as someone said, it is dead...
Quote:
Unfortunately we dont have enough traffic data for this website yet.
We know that little things make big things happen so make sure you come back to get more insights once this website has matured.
On to the debate... the fantasy of CD is alive in the paranoid minds of 9/11 truth followers, in a movement based on lies, fantasy, and BS.

oops, who will mow my lawn...
__________________
"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 11th June 2016, 07:03 PM   #42
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
I agree, OWE knows Tony's CD claims are nonsense. The aircraft ruse adds to the paranoia.
However, compared to other sites... oops, as someone said, it is dead...


On to the debate... the fantasy of CD is alive in the paranoid minds of 9/11 truth followers, in a movement based on lies, fantasy, and BS.

oops, who will mow my lawn...
I just have mine cut for hay, lot simpler and easiest way I found.
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 11th June 2016, 07:09 PM   #43
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
I agree, OWE knows Tony's CD claims are nonsense. The aircraft ruse adds to the paranoia.
However, compared to other sites... oops, as someone said, it is dead...


On to the debate... the fantasy of CD is alive in the paranoid minds of 9/11 truth followers, in a movement based on lies, fantasy, and BS.

oops, who will mow my lawn...
Once the main work was done it kinda died, I was a member years ago, but during the Banzantian era everything kinda got dry and boring.

Wasn't really interested in the details of the connection failures that were the collapses, was always more interested in science of the observed evidence.

So when it was clear Jone's was a joke, an intellectual fraud I lost interest.
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 11th June 2016, 08:06 PM   #44
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,483
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Here's my response:

1. The topic is restricted to the collapse of WTC 7 WTC 1, 2 & 7, the NIST report on it, and any additional information and analyses in the public domain about it.
I would say that WTC 1 is pretty much integral to discussion of WTC 7. Even WTC 2, to a small extent.
Redwood 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 June 2016, 10:14 PM   #45
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Why this debate is scheduled for a forum so dead that the admin expresses great surprise at a new sign-up is quite a mystery to me.

Couldn't it be held here as a moderated one-on-one debate? What's the attraction of that particular place?
All comments in the debate will be mirrored in a "no other posters", locked thread here.

You'll be able to read the entire thing here.

I highly recommend reading the "color commentary" over there, tho.
When I posted there (years ago, for only a short while before being banned), I always found it, uh, "entertaining". In a bizarre, surreal sort of way.

My very first interaction, IIRC, was commenting on a model (or "kinematic something-or-other" that they insisted was not a model ??) of the WTC 1 floor above the collapse & the floor below.

Engineers are acutely (perhaps hyper-) sensitive to "precision of measurements".

In this model, femr had taken measurements off of some drawing, and was reporting the locations of the columns with something like 10 significant digits. This sort of thing is ludicrous for way too many reasons to list.

I recommended that, even for the pristine tower before impact, the best that he could expect from digitizing scans of 30 year old vellums was 3 or 4 significant digits. femr disagreed vehemently, as did everyone over there. femr said that if he could figure out a way to get more digits, he would.

I told him that sticking 10 digits onto these measurements informed anybody who knows about numbers that femr had no clue about precision of measurements.

Everything went right into the crapper from there...
LoL.
tfk 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 June 2016, 10:56 PM   #46
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Here's my response:

1. The topic is restricted to the collapse of WTC 7 WTC 1, 2 & 7, the NIST report on it, and any additional information and analyses in the public domain about it.

2. Each person should make an opening statement explaining what they believe caused the collapse of WTC 7 and briefing saying why they believe that.

2b. Each person should state the (approximately) 3 strongest pieces of evidence for/against CD. "CD vs. No CD" 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 500 approximately 1000 words. [The purpose of this debate is to inform the readers about the engineering arguments. For those who might not appreciate the technical details, extended explanations may be necessary. These explanations may be contained in a PostScript, and not count against the word count.]

7. There shall be no name calling, denigration, or defamatory language used. Only the subject material shall be discussed. If any of the above occurs the participant involved shall be considered to have forfeited the debate. Each person should bring competent engineering arguments to the debate & wear their big-boy pants. Derogatory comments will be addressed only to arguments, not to individuals.

8. 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.

9. 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. Move on.

Then Person B leads off the next sequence.

10. 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.

__

"Are you willing to start on June 21st?"

Yes.
I only have some minor differences, concerning the ground rules, and they are re-written 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 June 2016 at 12:25 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 June 2016, 01:17 AM   #47
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I only have some minor differences, concerning the ground rules, and they are re-written 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.
Accepted.
Gird thy loins.
__

Yeah, yeah, I know.
I probably should have left Tony's loins (& mine) out of this.
Probably put the rest of you off your feed for a week...

Last edited by tfk; 12th June 2016 at 01:18 AM.
tfk 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 June 2016, 01:52 AM   #48
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Accepted.
Gird thy loins.
__

Yeah, yeah, I know.
I probably should have left Tony's loins (& mine) out of this.
Probably put the rest of you off your feed for a week...
Okay, I will see you on June 21st at the 911 free forum.
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 June 2016, 04:31 AM   #49
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
All comments in the debate will be mirrored in a "no other posters", locked thread here.

You'll be able to read the entire thing here.

I highly recommend reading the "color commentary" over there, tho.
When I posted there (years ago, for only a short while before being banned), I always found it, uh, "entertaining". In a bizarre, surreal sort of way.

My very first interaction, IIRC, was commenting on a model (or "kinematic something-or-other" that they insisted was not a model ??) of the WTC 1 floor above the collapse & the floor below.

Engineers are acutely (perhaps hyper-) sensitive to "precision of measurements".

In this model, femr had taken measurements off of some drawing, and was reporting the locations of the columns with something like 10 significant digits. This sort of thing is ludicrous for way too many reasons to list.

I recommended that, even for the pristine tower before impact, the best that he could expect from digitizing scans of 30 year old vellums was 3 or 4 significant digits. femr disagreed vehemently, as did everyone over there. femr said that if he could figure out a way to get more digits, he would.

I told him that sticking 10 digits onto these measurements informed anybody who knows about numbers that femr had no clue about precision of measurements.

Everything went right into the crapper from there...
LoL.
So basicly Femr didn't understand that erection of a building, and movement of components over time cause variance in the measurements of the structures.
You simply didn't translate Engineer speak, in a way they could understand it.
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 June 2016, 05:00 AM   #50
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,261
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
So basicly Femr didn't understand that erection of a building, and movement of components over time cause variance in the measurements of the structures.
You simply didn't translate Engineer speak, in a way they could understand it.
I don't think he means it that way, rather that many decimal places requires the ability to measure that accurately in the first place (or even that it's relevant). If I have a 13" cake to be divided among 7 people I don't announce "OK, that'll be 1.8571428571 inches each"
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 June 2016, 05:59 AM   #51
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I don't think he means it that way, rather that many decimal places requires the ability to measure that accurately in the first place (or even that it's relevant). If I have a 13" cake to be divided among 7 people I don't announce "OK, that'll be 1.8571428571 inches each"
If however you are trying to ascertain the energy values, then the more accurate the measurements the higher the accuracy and more credible the calculations will be.
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 June 2016, 06:44 AM   #52
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,261
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
If however you are trying to ascertain the energy values, then the more accurate the measurements the higher the accuracy and more credible the calculations will be.
Well, in another thread I calculated the energy load placed on a certain fridge if its door was left open so that all its 5 air was replaced by 25 air. The calculator told me the answer was 0.12976 kWh (or something), to 5 decimal places. The proper answer was "about 0.1 kWh" as none of my measurements was very accurate in the first place. Whether I'd measured the volume of the fridge to the cubic micron and the temperatures to 0.001 doesn't alter the fact that an answer to 5 decimal places would have been silly, and that ~0.1 kWh was a reasonable answer.

Basically I'm disagreeing with you But, as ever, 'it depends'.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 June 2016, 01:28 PM   #53
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
If however you are trying to ascertain the energy values, then the more accurate the measurements the higher the accuracy and more credible the calculations will be.
No, this is absolutely wrong.

You MUST understand the limitations of precision of measurements in order to understand your results. Your answers will NOT be more precise if you merely use more digits. You need more meaningful digits.

And when you do calculations based on many numbers, the errors add up. And add up far faster & to far higher errors than you can imagine.

But these errors are REAL.

A classic example is doing a "tolerance stack up" in an assembly. Even tho all the individual parts might be made with high precision, after you add up all the tolerance errors in all the components, you find out that you can't guarantee the location of some component, except within some large error.

So you need to take other measures...

In the days before everything was CNC machined, this was absolutely critical. You could tell the quality of the designer merely by looking at the tolerances on his designs.

Crappy designers (or kids) put 0.001" tolerance on everything.
Good designers put that sort of accuracy on only the parts that required it, and looser tolerances on everything else.

You MUST recognize the total error in any calculation that results from the errors in the several measurements that make up the variables.

When I was getting my engineering degree (in 1974), if you handed in an engineering lab report without an "error analysis", you got an automatic F grade. The professor wouldn't even bother to look at the rest of it. THAT is how important awareness of the errors in experimental analysis was considered.

When you use more digits that are warranted by the measurement technique, you're simply lying to yourself about the accuracy of your answer.

There were several issues with trying to digitize data off of an tiff image of an old vellum drawing. The most important is resolution of the image scan, the fact that the vellum will change size over time, and (most important) the fact that draftsmen are careful about where they put their lines ... but not THAT careful.

Everything after the 3rd digit in his analysis was merely random numbers, which had zero relevance to reality. His 10 digit numbers were LYING to him & to any (innumerate) person who believed his analysis.

THIS was a consistent patter with his lack of understanding of the real meaning of numerical analysis. He had no feel for numbers, and it led him to making ludicrous claims about his accuracy & precision.

If you do not understand the INaccuracy of any measurement or calculation, then you have NO real feel for the number.

Listen to a beloved, renown expert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md8G_cTHa60&t=4m30s

“All important in making measurements … is the uncertainty in your measurement. Any measurement that you make, without knowledge of the uncertainty, is completely MEANINGLESS.!”
__

This is one of the serious steps backwards that happened to engineers when we switched from slide rules** (which is what I had to use when I started) to calculators.

When you use slide rules, your best estimates were limited by the accuracy of your placement of the sliding central bar & the cursor. For those that have never used one, the transparent cursors was a slight magnifying glass to help. But 3 digits of accuracy was all that you got from your calculations. And, frequently, 2, 3 or (at best) 4 digits of accuracy was the best you could get out of your measurement instruments, too.



** Please guys, I've heard several people (writers, TV, Movies, etc) refer to them as "slide rulers".

NO.!! BAD faux-geek.

Last edited by tfk; 12th June 2016 at 01:39 PM.
tfk 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 June 2016, 05:08 PM   #54
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Listen to a beloved, renown expert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md8G_cTHa60&t=4m30s

All important in making measurements is the uncertainty in your measurement. Any measurement that you make, without knowledge of the uncertainty, is completely MEANINGLESS.!
Great professor.
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 June 2016, 05:16 PM   #55
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
No, this is absolutely wrong.

You MUST understand the limitations of precision of measurements in order to understand your results. Your answers will NOT be more precise if you merely use more digits. You need more meaningful digits.

And when you do calculations based on many numbers, the errors add up. And add up far faster & to far higher errors than you can imagine.

But these errors are REAL.

A classic example is doing a "tolerance stack up" in an assembly. Even tho all the individual parts might be made with high precision, after you add up all the tolerance errors in all the components, you find out that you can't guarantee the location of some component, except within some large error.

So you need to take other measures...

In the days before everything was CNC machined, this was absolutely critical. You could tell the quality of the designer merely by looking at the tolerances on his designs.

Crappy designers (or kids) put 0.001" tolerance on everything.
Good designers put that sort of accuracy on only the parts that required it, and looser tolerances on everything else.

You MUST recognize the total error in any calculation that results from the errors in the several measurements that make up the variables.

When I was getting my engineering degree (in 1974), if you handed in an engineering lab report without an "error analysis", you got an automatic F grade. The professor wouldn't even bother to look at the rest of it. THAT is how important awareness of the errors in experimental analysis was considered.

When you use more digits that are warranted by the measurement technique, you're simply lying to yourself about the accuracy of your answer.

There were several issues with trying to digitize data off of an tiff image of an old vellum drawing. The most important is resolution of the image scan, the fact that the vellum will change size over time, and (most important) the fact that draftsmen are careful about where they put their lines ... but not THAT careful.

Everything after the 3rd digit in his analysis was merely random numbers, which had zero relevance to reality. His 10 digit numbers were LYING to him & to any (innumerate) person who believed his analysis.

THIS was a consistent patter with his lack of understanding of the real meaning of numerical analysis. He had no feel for numbers, and it led him to making ludicrous claims about his accuracy & precision.

If you do not understand the INaccuracy of any measurement or calculation, then you have NO real feel for the number.

Listen to a beloved, renown expert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md8G_cTHa60&t=4m30s

All important in making measurements is the uncertainty in your measurement. Any measurement that you make, without knowledge of the uncertainty, is completely MEANINGLESS.!
__

This is one of the serious steps backwards that happened to engineers when we switched from slide rules** (which is what I had to use when I started) to calculators.

When you use slide rules, your best estimates were limited by the accuracy of your placement of the sliding central bar & the cursor. For those that have never used one, the transparent cursors was a slight magnifying glass to help. But 3 digits of accuracy was all that you got from your calculations. And, frequently, 2, 3 or (at best) 4 digits of accuracy was the best you could get out of your measurement instruments, too.



** Please guys, I've heard several people (writers, TV, Movies, etc) refer to them as "slide rulers".

NO.!! BAD faux-geek.
Oh I remember Slide Rules but it has been a very long time since I use one and can see your point.
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 June 2016, 05:33 PM   #56
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Once the main work was done it kinda died, I was a member years ago, but during the Banzantian era everything kinda got dry and boring.
Today it seems the main topic of that forum is this forum.
__________________
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 June 2016, 05:51 PM   #57
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
tfk trial login to 911 free forum debate thread

tfk, the 911 free forum asked that you try to log on to the debate thread here

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/de...nd-7-t768.html

to ensure you can log on and there are no glitches. Please let me know here once you have done so.
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 June 2016, 10:12 PM   #58
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
tfk, the 911 free forum asked that you try to log on to the debate thread here

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/de...nd-7-t768.html

to ensure you can log on and there are no glitches. Please let me know here once you have done so.

I tried to enter with my tfk username & old password, and got the message that "You have been permanently banned".

Either they'll have to unban that account, or I'll have to register with a new one.
tfk 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 June 2016, 11:20 PM   #59
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
When I was getting my engineering degree (in 1974), if you handed in an engineering lab report without an "error analysis", you got an automatic F grade. The professor wouldn't even bother to look at the rest of it. THAT is how important awareness of the errors in experimental analysis was considered.
.
The very same applied to physics lab in 1976. In fact the pages of error calculations usually made up the bulk of each lab report.
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 13th June 2016, 01:31 AM   #60
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
I tried to enter with my tfk username & old password, and got the message that "You have been permanently banned".

Either they'll have to unban that account, or I'll have to register with a new one.
I got the below message from OWE about it

Tony,

tfk has tried to log in but failed. Seeing that, I checked around and discovered a third thing which I hadn't done to reactivate him, and hopefully that was the problem. I found an email for him and sent a mail telling him this but I wanted to mention this in case he doesn't get it, He can try again,

Glad we checked this out instead of leaving it to chance.

Thanks
OWE


Please try again, and if it doesn't work, then a new account will have to be opened.
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 13th June 2016, 06:18 AM   #61
pablonovi
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 24
ENCOURAGING BIG SUPPORT FOR THE DEBATE; MY FIRST POST HERE

Hi All,
This is my first post here at ISF; thanx for having me.

ENCOURAGING PARTICIPATION IN THE "tfk-Tony Sz" DEBATE
I'm just adding my voice in favor of the idea of this tfk-Tony Sz debate about to start over at "the911Forum"; and encouraging everybody else's attention & especially "participation". I've been a member over there since 2011 (but with only some 60 posts). My sparcity of posts is due to both being very busy elsewhere and because I am not a primary researcher nor do I have much technical expertise - so I've mostly read-along to learn. I think of myself as a political organizer, analyst, writer and "synthesizer" of the work of others. So the majority of my few posts have been to try to aid the flow of the discussion.

THE member there that I respect the most is OWE, the mod. I don't always agree with his politics, but, having attempted to lead others myself for many years, I think he has excellent mod skills; particularly in regards to handling procedural matters (keeping a discussion on track & reasonably-civil) and having the relevant technical expertise. He also tends to ask excellent questions - which help focus the discussion and/or clarify the points.

MY POLITICAL HISTORY & "CREDS" (credentials):
My "creds": I've been a heavy-duty peace-justice activist & organizer for 50+ years , starting with Student Rights & the Anti-War (In Vietnam/Indochina) Movement (in which I spent 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, 10 full years =20,000+ total hours of volunteer work); and continuing on thru today.

THE THREE THINGS THAT GOT MY POLITICAL ACTIVISM STARTED
What got me "started" was three things:

JFK: MARK LANE'S BOOK, "RUSH TO JUDGMENT"
1) I ran into Mark Lane's "Rush To Judgment" relatively soon after it came out. From then on I've been a skeptic.

"SEXILY CLAD WOMEN ARE 'GUILTY' FOR BEING RAPED"
2) Soon after that, it was the teacher/administrator-priests at my high school seminary (training to be a priest in the Carmelite Order (with the brown-colored clothes/gowns) of the Catholic Church). They all claimed, "If a girl/woman dresses sexy, then she deserves it if she gets raped!" I didn't know very much at all about the opposite sex back then; but I could not accept that the victim was guilty of the crime. This solidified/expanded my skepticism.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S REFORMS & THE VIETNAM WAR
3) Around that time, Pope John Paul (the "first" of that name, iirc) initiated many reforms in Catholic Church procedures, including switching from Latin to English AND involving the congregation in the celebration of the Mass. We students now led the middle-of-the-Mass prayers; and this always started: "For the Pope In Rome, we pray to the Lord" Then everybody else would immediately respond, "Lord, hear our prayer!" Then we'd pray for the local Archbishop & lesser church officials, for our parents, etc. and it always ended with this: "For OUR men fighting and dying in Vietnam, we pray to the Lord" ... When it was my turn, I said, "For ALL the people fighting and dying in Vietnam ..." I was almost expelled on the spot for that. "We don't pray for the other side; we don't pray for those godless communists!"

(btw, as a school-child, I grew up with the daily drills of hiding under our school desks to "protect" ourselves from the Soviet nuclear weapons that we were told to expect to rain down on us at any moment.)

I thought, "What? God takes sides in human wars?" This contradiction caused my skepticism to become "universal" - questioning most if not all of the things I had been raised to believe and/or were commonly-held in (US) society.

MY EARLY POLITICAL ACTIVISM: STUDENTS' RIGHTS & ANTI-WAR
Upon entering college, I became both a "peace-love hippie" and a students' rights activist.
I also started going to anti-war demonstrations (back then in San Diego, where my family had moved, we'd average the same 8-9 people month after month; while in L.A. they had 10s of thousands & in San Fran. 100s of thousands). It was thru trying to do the right thing, vis--vis the War, that I learned a whole series of important lessons about society, the rules of the game, and about myself (especially about my strengths and weaknesses).

DESPITE PERSONALLY RESISTING IT, I ROSE IN THE LEADERSHIP RANKS
The more & longer I participated in peace-justice activism, the more I "rose" in leadership positions because of both the quantity of time I dedicated and because of the quality of my work - it turned out I was good at organizing things & especially people. This steady rise happened despite my resisting it due to being very concerned that it might go to my head. In my experience and opinion, there's NOTHING better for learning important lessons than trying to mobilize & lead others.

EVENTUALLY I BECAME A TOP SAN DIEGO ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT LEADER
Within a few years, I was one of the top anti-war leaders in San Diego; and was regularly traveling around California and across the US to participate in & speak at: Demonstrations, Marches, Conferences, etc. I authored more and more political articles (about the War & politics in general) which had an ever-increasing influence on popular consciousness & activity.

Despite our incredibly late & small start, eventually we became so strong that we "forced" the Republican National Presidential-Nominating Convention out of San Diego AT THE LAST MINUTE. (Right afterwards I thought, "We were too effective; it would have been better if they had stayed here because, relative to the people of Miami Beach, we're WAY better prepared to expose the war-mongers." I should note that we opposed the Democratic Party's war-mongers just as much.

OTHER POLITICAL MOVEMENTS I PARTICIPATED IN AND LED
I also participated in labor/union organizing and, due to that, got fired from more than one job; and, because I was effective enough, one time I was very seriously injured by my employer in an attempt on my life. (In the process, amongst a high percentage of Mexican and Mexican-American workers, I became fluent in Spanish; and have taught ESL ever since.)

I also got seriously involved in movements for: Women's Rights; Chicano Rights, (Cesar Chavez &) the Farmworkers Union & Cross-Border Issues; Black Rights & Against Apartheid In South Africa / Azania; Gay Rights; Support For The Struggle In Central America; the Rainbow Coalition, and others.

9/11
I became a 9/11 Truther ON 9/11 itself; due to the endless repetition of a public tragic scene - something that almost never was allowed. It shouted out to me: "Propaganda" and reminded me of the major propaganda campaigns waged decades earlier vis--vis: "Red Scare"; JFK/Lee Harvey Oswald; Vietnam & the Anti-War Movement ... perhaps averaging once a decade. I'm still a 911 Truther.

So, given the mix here of Truthers / Debunkers, my high-esteem for OWE (at "the911Forum") and his mod skills (despite some BIG differences we have on important questions) will probably cause strong reactions both positive & negative.

Debunkers here may tend to discredit my opinions due to me being a Truther; but this may be tempered by my "support" of OWE. Truthers here may tend to agree with my opinions; and thus think "we should give OWE & "the911Forum" a chance. This is my basic point in this post: Let's give the "tfk-Tony Sz Debate" over at "the911Forum" its best chance to succeed!

btw, I have previously read ALL of the posts at that Forum by tfk & by Tony Sz.

OVERALL, I BELIEVE IN & FIGHT HARD FOR U-N-I-T-Y, FIRST, LAST & ALWAYS
In a nutshell, what I stand for is UNITY (based on some minimum of good-moral principles). In everything I do, I try my best to help people unite for a better world.

THIS IS MY FIRST POST HERE. (I hope Ive stayed within ISFs guidelines AND not offended anybody.)

Thanx for having me,
Pablo

P.S. I realize that most of this post is a self-introduction; but I feel I owe it to the reader to explain where Im coming from so as to better understand my position on the debate.

If it is allowed here, should I just go ahead and copy this post to the self-introduction thread? (You won't have to worry about me trying to build a big post-count.)
pablonovi 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 13th June 2016, 07:36 AM   #62
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 455
Greetings from the minority

A warm welcome to you pablonovi.

I hope your skin is as thick as your impressive resume.
Criteria 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 13th June 2016, 08:16 AM   #63
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,843
Originally Posted by pablonovi View Post
Hi All,
This is my first post here at ISF; thanx for having me.

.......

Thanx for having me,
Pablo

P.S. I realize that most of this post is a self-introduction; but I feel I owe it to the reader to explain where Im coming from so as to better understand my position on the debate.

If it is allowed here, should I just go ahead and copy this post to the self-introduction thread? (You won't have to worry about me trying to build a big post-count.)

Really.... who cares? Why are you writing your bio and political leanings in this thread?

It's excellent that you are trying to inform yourself about things which are outside your technical abilities.

The "engineering" of the 9/11 events is not all that sophisticated and can be understood with basic level of understanding of physics, engineering principles, material science, good observational skills and most important, good critical thinking skills and understanding of logic.
JSanderO 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 13th June 2016, 09:22 AM   #64
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by pablonovi View Post
Hi All,
This is my first post here at ISF; thanx for having me.


9/11
I became a 9/11 Truther ON 9/11 itself; due to the endless repetition of a public tragic scene - something that almost never was allowed. It shouted out to me: "Propaganda" and reminded me of the major propaganda campaigns waged decades earlier vis--vis: "Red Scare"; JFK/Lee Harvey Oswald; Vietnam & the Anti-War Movement ... perhaps averaging once a decade. I'm still a 911 Truther.

So, given the mix here of Truthers / Debunkers, my high-esteem for OWE (at "the911Forum") and his mod skills (despite some BIG differences we have on important questions) will probably cause strong reactions both positive & negative.

Debunkers here may tend to discredit my opinions due to me being a Truther; but this may be tempered by my "support" of OWE. Truthers here may tend to agree with my opinions; and thus think "we should give OWE & "the911Forum" a chance. This is my basic point in this post: Let's give the "tfk-Tony Sz Debate" over at "the911Forum" its best chance to succeed!

Nothing of the sort will happen, that I can guarantee.

The opinions of truthers here are discredited primarily due to them all being physically impossible to have happened given the circumstances of the day. CD, no planes, that sort of thing.

If you want to go on some discussions on LIHOP, that's plausible. But Controlled Demolition at any of the sites has no business being legitimized by "debate".
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 13th June 2016, 10:21 AM   #65
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by pablonovi View Post
9/11

Debunkers here may tend to discredit my opinions due to me being a Truther; but this may be tempered by my "support" of OWE. Truthers here may tend to agree with my opinions; and thus think "we should give OWE & "the911Forum" a chance. This is my basic point in this post: Let's give the "tfk-Tony Sz Debate" over at "the911Forum" its best chance to succeed! ...
Opinions? Who cares if you are a truther? If 911 truthers believe in the fantasy of CD after 14 years, they are not truthers, they are more like cult members. Believing in fantasy and CTs does not make your opinions good or bad, or discredited. Using opinions to forum some BS CT about 9/11 is not going to prove a position. As we move on to the silent explosives or super thermite with no products left at the crime scene debate, Tony will use opinions, make up numbers, and fail to converge on reality. Tony is the readcddeal, nothing has changed. With Tony's revelation the aircraft used on 9/11 were a ruse, his CD fantasy had gained a new level of paranoia and fantasy. Don't forget, you are now in a forum Tony says we are paid to point out his CD claims are failed fantasy based on zero evidence.

Another CD fantasy believer. Believing in delusional fantasy of CD, or some inside job because you watched too much TV coverage of 9/11 by CNN/FOX/ET AL...

It is interesting to see a "debate" on the CD fantasy. But your opinions are not valid for defending 9/11 truth's CD fantasy, you need evidence. Opinions are good for what color should Joe's shoes be, is white cool?

Sad to see a noble cause, anti-war, mixed with 9/11 truth delusional fantasy. 9/11 truth silly BS and evidence denial ruins the anti-war movement.

Have you taken your evidence for your 9/11 truth claims to the FBI yet to expose the big fantasy inside job you believe in?

It is hard to discredit an opinion unless the opinions is thought to be evidence for some far out fantasy about 9/11. Too bad Tony only has opinions and has no evidence to support the silent explosives used for the CD fantasy on 9/11. Has Tony fleshed out the "aircraft are a ruse" BS? Do you believe the aircraft were a ruse to cover up the silent explosives CD fantasy?

Who did 9/11 in your CT world of being a truther?

The 9/11 Forum, Where Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues reign...
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/du...-t726-135.html
Perfect place to debate the fantasy of CD and aircraft ruse of 9/11. Ironically CD and aircraft ruse have no evidence.

14 years of 9/11 truth lies, and people claim to be truthers; irony? 9/11 truth always smack of some 1984 like/NAZI like fake name, spewing lies claiming truth. Good luck, but leave the opinions about 9/11 in the fantasy-land of 9/11 truth, bring evidence... oops, 9/11 truth has no evidence. Guess you will not be taking your claims to the FBI.

Why is 9/11 truth spreading lies and void of evidence? 14 years is more than enough time to see 9/11 truth is a fraud.
__________________
"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

Last edited by beachnut; 13th June 2016 at 11:06 AM.
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 13th June 2016, 02:15 PM   #66
pablonovi
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
A warm welcome to you pablonovi.

I hope your skin is as thick as your impressive resume.
Thanx Criteria, a warm welcome is always appreciated.

About the thick skin: I KNOW I had one for 50 years; whether I still do is to be determined; I've gotten old and a lot of old people are easier to rattle.
pablonovi 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 13th June 2016, 02:23 PM   #67
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
... Controlled Demolition at any of the sites has no business being legitimized by "debate".
There could be a debate; why people are gullible to fall for the evidence free CD by 9/11 truth. After 14 years it takes overwhelming ignorance to jump on the CD fantasy train of woo. Is it overwhelming ignorance, paranoia or massive gullibility.
__________________
"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 13th June 2016, 02:25 PM   #68
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,120
All of the above.
__________________
AJM8125 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 13th June 2016, 02:34 PM   #69
pablonovi
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Really.... who cares? Why are you writing your bio and political leanings in this thread?

It's excellent that you are trying to inform yourself about things which are outside your technical abilities.

The "engineering" of the 9/11 events is not all that sophisticated and can be understood with basic level of understanding of physics, engineering principles, material science, good observational skills and most important, good critical thinking skills and understanding of logic.
1) Who cares? Sure seems like YOU do; why else mention it? Why did I give my "bio" in this thread? Because virtually none of you know anything about me & I'm coming in here, in my first post, and proposing something. I assumed that at least most of you would want to have some background on me - it MIGHT influence your decision.

2) About my skills and lack of others:
I started off by saying I do NOT have technical skills, nor much ability to analyze fotos/videos - I used to have great eyesight but its been years .

I'm sure I have good enough critical thinking skills and understanding of logic. As a pre-freshmen in college, after a week in a logic class; I was made the Teacher's only assistant and in charge of tutoring the Seniors. In the SATs, where 800 was THE top score: I got 760 in English and 800 in Math (and I did it in a third the allotted time - just to see how fast I could do it). I've been studying politics, economics and culture non-stop ever since then.

Basically you attempt to ridicule me (you've done that repeatedly over at "the911Forum"; so no surprise.)

In any event, I've recently, after 2,500 intense hours of study & analysis, devised an ESL (English for Spanish Language speakers) system that might just be better than any other on the planet. A student started off by receiving 4% on their high school English grad exam. (She got 90% in ALL her other classes). 2 months or about 50 hours of classes with me and she got 60% (exactly the minimum passing grade) AND she pronounced English better than her teachers. (Not bad considering she skipped the 3rd month of classes so she must have forgotten a good deal of what she had just learned with me.)

I'd say that might be an indication of both: sharp analytical tools and of quality skill with logic too. Ridicule this too, all you want.

I do not have the habit of bragging on myself - but you raised these points so I'm just responding precisely with the facts.

Again, I only spelled out my "bio" out of respect for this Forum and its members; so you-all would, right from the get-go have some idea of who you were dealing with. My apologies to any and all who find that offensive.
pablonovi 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 13th June 2016, 04:12 PM   #70
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 688
Originally Posted by pablonovi View Post
With the exception of SanderO (see below) the rest of if/when you spoke of the US Gov at all, you were NOT super-critical (and you had every chance and reason to do so - if that were REALLY your political stance). Instead, in virtually EVERY INSTANCE, you took EXACTLY THE SAME STANCE as the US Gov was taking. Hmmmm Perhaps I might have a CONCRETE point,vis-a-vis point "B:" above? "
"B: a lot of the posters here are 100% sure that the USG is always a force for only good and never does false flags, etc."
Are you assuming that those questioning the truther canards are politically motivated?

What about the truth itself? This technique of trying to paint everyone who disagrees with 9/11 truth, as some form of government muppet is erroneous and fatuous, and it got old years ago.

I have rarely seen a truther 'have a point' as their stories are ridiculous (from Judy Woods through to Gage), and the only time I might find common ground is over the CIA's reluctance to share info with the FBI.
HotRodDeluxe 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 18th June 2016, 05:27 PM   #71
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Tony, you can tell OWE that I AM able to sign on to the post.
Thanks for his efforts.
tfk 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 19th June 2016, 01:55 AM   #72
Richard the G
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 247
So Pablanovi,

You say you became a Truther on 9/11. At the time did you think the Government blew up the buildings, or did you think they flew the planes or did you think they did both. What flavor of truther are you know and how did you get here.
Richard the G 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 19th June 2016, 04:14 AM   #73
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,843
Originally Posted by Richard the G View Post
So Pablanovi,

You say you became a Truther on 9/11. At the time did you think the Government blew up the buildings, or did you think they flew the planes or did you think they did both. What flavor of truther are you know and how did you get here.
Anyone who became a "truther" on 9/11 did so driven by their politics of distrust of the government and the media.

Of course in the confusion there would be errors and mistaken reports by reporters who are not technical experts looking for anyone with an opinion to report.

Over time because of the politics and anger there was a rush to respond and rescue or recover and not the sort of careful forensic analysis which would have, could have laid to rest any of the strange politically driven theories and dispelled the reporting mistakes.

So we have this insane debate driven by politics and not rational engineering.
JSanderO 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 21st June 2016, 10:45 AM   #74
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,606
Tony has given his opening statement. I have to say my jaw dropped a bit when I read this excerpt:

Originally Posted by Tony
I had initially accepted the notion put forth by a civil engineering professor in September 2001 that the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 were due to dynamic impact loads, after the top sections of the buildings fell onto the lower sections at the aircraft impact points. The dynamic loads would be much greater than the static load and would overcome the reserve strength of the structure below.

<snip>

Also in 2008, measurements of the descent of the North Tower (WTC 1) showed it never decelerated and thus could not have produced the powerful jolt that the civil engineering professor had conjectured in his 2001 paper.
Here I was thinking everyone pretty much had a handle on the collapse dynamics. It's hard to believe Tony still think Bazant had the mechanism right in 2001 (or even said he did).
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 21st June 2016, 12:34 PM   #75
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
To relieve any anticipation, I'll be posting about 7 pm tonight.
tfk 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 21st June 2016, 12:45 PM   #76
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,120
__________________
AJM8125 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 21st June 2016, 02:19 PM   #77
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Tony has given his opening statement. I have to say my jaw dropped a bit when I read this excerpt:



Here I was thinking everyone pretty much had a handle on the collapse dynamics. It's hard to believe Tony still think Bazant had the mechanism right in 2001 (or even said he did).
Explains a lot, Tony is a second generation truther, after the first two revision of Jone's paper.
If he had read the first paper, he might have laughed it off.
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 21st June 2016, 02:53 PM   #78
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
To relieve any anticipation, I'll be posting about 7 pm tonight.
That's great will love to read the reply, Tony doesn't realize the History of Jones, You would probably love to know more of what is known before the debate but that would not be fair play.
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 21st June 2016, 03:05 PM   #79
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,606
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
That's great will love to read the reply, Tony doesn't realize the History of Jones, You would probably love to know more of what is known before the debate but that would not be fair play.
I don't think it will be a reply (and it shouldn't be). TFK will be making his own opening statement.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 21st June 2016, 03:33 PM   #80
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I don't think it will be a reply (and it shouldn't be). TFK will be making his own opening statement.
Understood, I ment opening statement forgot the debate (14 years late,) is just beginning, jumped the gun a little.
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
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 07:49 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.