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 21st June 2016, 06:46 PM   #81
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
To relieve any anticipation, I'll be posting about 7 pm tonight.
I've never been so excited to have someone lie to me.
FalseFlag 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, 06:59 PM   #82
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I've never been so excited to have someone lie to me.
How do you know what time Zone he is in?
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, 07:44 PM   #83
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,122
tfk's opening statement
__________________
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, 07:57 PM   #84
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
What?

No, really...what!?

I thought tfk agreed to focus on the collapses of the three buildings. It does not matter who flew the planes into the buildings. Tfk's tactic appears to make the debate cover so many topics that it will become impossible to follow.

Once again, tfk is employing the lame skeptic trick of adding complexity where none should exist. Does tfk honestly think people can't see through this?

Really...the lurkers are neither impressed nor amused by tfk's opening statement. I sure as hell know I'm not.

Last edited by FalseFlag; 21st June 2016 at 08:00 PM.
FalseFlag 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, 08:05 PM   #85
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
What?

No, really...what!?

I thought tfk agreed to focus on the collapses of the three buildings. It does not matter who flew the planes into the buildings. Tfk's tactic appears to make the debate cover so many topics that it will become impossible to follow.

Once again, tfk is employing the lame skeptic trick of adding complexity where none should exist. Does tfk honestly think people can't see through this?

Really...the lurkers are neither impressed nor amused by tfk's opening statement. I sure as hell know I'm not.
The collapses of the buildings and anything in the public venue about the collapses, quit complaining those are Tony's Rules as he suggested them.
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, 08:09 PM   #86
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,122
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
What?

No, really...what!?

I thought tfk agreed to focus on the collapses of the three buildings.
No, he didn't want WTC 1 & 2 excluded from discussion.

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
It does not matter who flew the planes into the buildings. Tfk's tactic appears to make the debate cover so many topics that it will become impossible to follow.
To quote somebody you might know -

"Wait for it....."

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Once again, tfk is employing the lame skeptic trick of adding complexity where none should exist. Does tfk honestly think people can't see through this?

Really...the lurkers are neither impressed nor amused by tfk's opening statement. I sure as hell know I'm not.
Predictable you'd be squawking foul right out of the box but guess what? Your opinion, as well as mine, is irrelevant to their debate.

I eagerly await Tony Sz's response.

__________________

Last edited by AJM8125; 21st June 2016 at 08:10 PM.
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, 08:38 PM   #87
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
Your opinion, as well as mine, is irrelevant to their debate.
I agree. I'm still going to share my opinion.
FalseFlag 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, 09:09 PM   #88
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
All,

Sorry that I was delayed. I had some issues trying to find the tabulature (indenting) format tags.

Tony,

My apologies, I should have re-read our agreement before starting to compose my outline.

I remembered we said that the opening would be "what we believe & why we believe it". However, I was looking at the big picture, not just the collapse of WTC7 or the towers.

I thought that would be helpful to anyone else coming & reading this, who doesn't know our background.

I'd like you to post some quick outline, as I did, about the big picture. But I agree that that is beyond the bounds of what we agreed to.

Let me know if you're willing to do that, and then we'll get right into WTC7.

My opening statement was "big picture". I was intending to give both Tony & anyone else a head's up of what I plan on addressing.

And, one of the key issues, IMO, in addition to the collapse mechanisms of the three buildings, is how the collapse of the three buildings fits into, & meshes with, some sort of coherent, understandable narrative of the entire story.

Just a thought - you can agree or disagree as you wish. You posted a bit about your background. I'll do the same, at some point. But it might well help others decide on our credibility if we both elaborate a bit on the details.

In more detail than "I worked on ..." & "I have experience with ...".

Whenever I'd review some engineer or technician's resume for hiring them, generic statements like that would set off alarms.

I'm suggesting simply, "My function in this project was ...", with some elaboration.
I'm suggesting that this be in addition to on-topic posts.

Again, this is a late, post-agreement thought.
You can agree or disagree.

You offered "tfk will go first".
Apparently, your "post message" finger got a little twitchy.

That's no problem.

We can do the above (give info on our background, if you agree), or we can move on to our first "beyond opening statement" posts.

I notice that your opening statement, like mine, did NOT contain "the (approximately) 3 strongest pieces of verifiable evidence for/against Controlled Demolition".

You can go first or you can choose to let me.

If you go first, state your 3 strongest pieces of evidence for CD.
Then I'll reply to yours.
You counter.
Then I'll counter.

Then I'll state my 3 strongest pieces of evidence against CD.
You reply.
I'll counter.
You counter.

And then we're off & running.

If you'd rather not go first, we'll just switch roles in that process.

Let me know which order you prefer.

PS.
Time zone: San Diego, CA, for the next several days.
Then Dominican Republic & warm, balmy breezes & beautiful beaches. For a month or so.

Last edited by tfk; 21st June 2016 at 09:13 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 21st June 2016, 09:33 PM   #89
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I've never been so excited to have someone lie to me.
In that case, let me help you out by posting links that I am very sure will FILL you with excitement.


Richard Gage Thermite Debunked Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDiAlMIJ8A4


Richard Gage caught lying about finding thermite part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4HmDwAoeOY


Richard Gage caught lying about thermite Part 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ago6d6jWtpk

Last edited by skyeagle409; 21st June 2016 at 09:38 PM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2016, 10:30 PM   #90
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,122
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I agree. I'm still going to share my opinion.
Irrelevance never stopped a truther before, so...
__________________

Last edited by AJM8125; 21st June 2016 at 10:31 PM.
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, 11:13 PM   #91
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 688
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
What?

No, really...what!?

I thought tfk agreed to focus on the collapses of the three buildings. It does not matter who flew the planes into the buildings. Tfk's tactic appears to make the debate cover so many topics that it will become impossible to follow.

Once again, tfk is employing the lame skeptic trick of adding complexity where none should exist. Does tfk honestly think people can't see through this?

Really...the lurkers are neither impressed nor amused by tfk's opening statement. I sure as hell know I'm not.
I doubt anything that didn't support the insanity of 9/11 truth would impress you. Confirmation bias has a way of doing that to people.

As a lurker, I thought his opening post was more relevant and cogent than Tony's.
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 22nd June 2016, 01:10 AM   #92
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
All,

Sorry that I was delayed. I had some issues trying to find the tabulature (indenting) format tags.

Tony,

My apologies, I should have re-read our agreement before starting to compose my outline.

I remembered we said that the opening would be "what we believe & why we believe it". However, I was looking at the big picture, not just the collapse of WTC7 or the towers.

I thought that would be helpful to anyone else coming & reading this, who doesn't know our background.

I'd like you to post some quick outline, as I did, about the big picture. But I agree that that is beyond the bounds of what we agreed to.

Let me know if you're willing to do that, and then we'll get right into WTC7.

My opening statement was "big picture". I was intending to give both Tony & anyone else a head's up of what I plan on addressing.

And, one of the key issues, IMO, in addition to the collapse mechanisms of the three buildings, is how the collapse of the three buildings fits into, & meshes with, some sort of coherent, understandable narrative of the entire story.

Just a thought - you can agree or disagree as you wish. You posted a bit about your background. I'll do the same, at some point. But it might well help others decide on our credibility if we both elaborate a bit on the details.

In more detail than "I worked on ..." & "I have experience with ...".

Whenever I'd review some engineer or technician's resume for hiring them, generic statements like that would set off alarms.

I'm suggesting simply, "My function in this project was ...", with some elaboration.
I'm suggesting that this be in addition to on-topic posts.

Again, this is a late, post-agreement thought.
You can agree or disagree.

You offered "tfk will go first".
Apparently, your "post message" finger got a little twitchy.

That's no problem.

We can do the above (give info on our background, if you agree), or we can move on to our first "beyond opening statement" posts.

I notice that your opening statement, like mine, did NOT contain "the (approximately) 3 strongest pieces of verifiable evidence for/against Controlled Demolition".

You can go first or you can choose to let me.

If you go first, state your 3 strongest pieces of evidence for CD.
Then I'll reply to yours.
You counter.
Then I'll counter.

Then I'll state my 3 strongest pieces of evidence against CD.
You reply.
I'll counter.
You counter.

And then we're off & running.

If you'd rather not go first, we'll just switch roles in that process.

Let me know which order you prefer.

PS.
Time zone: San Diego, CA, for the next several days.
Then Dominican Republic & warm, balmy breezes & beautiful beaches. For a month or so.
Below are the ground rules we agreed to. If you notice, rule #3 says tfk will go first after the opening statements, so it was not a violation of anything for me to post my opening statement when I did as it wasn't something to be replied to. Your opening statement was over 1,000 words and it was supposed to be no more than 500 per rule #2.


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.


I will not continue posting here except for this post about violation of the ground rules, and you should not expect me to have seen what is written here. Any violation of the ground rules can be expressed in the debate. You should not be posting here expecting me to read and reply, thus expanding the debate. That is excessive and distracting. I will be posting this on the debate and you can start the discussion about the debate topic, as agreed, after that.

My opening statement did contain mention of three big pieces of evidence for controlled demolition with the free fall in WTC 7, lack of deceleration in WTC 1, and molten metal in the rubble of the collapsed buildings.

I do not wish to expand the debate beyond what is stated in rule #1.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 22nd June 2016 at 01:34 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 22nd June 2016, 01:45 AM   #93
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,407
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Below are the ground rules we agreed to. If you notice, rule #3 says tfk will go first after the opening statements, so it was not a violation of anything for me to post my opening statement when I did as it wasn't something to be replied to. Your opening statement was over 1,000 words and it was supposed to be no more than 500 per rule #2.
Correct

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
My opening statement did contain mention of three big pieces of evidence for controlled demolition with the free fall in WTC 7, lack of deceleration in WTC 1, and molten metal in the rubble of the collapsed buildings.

I do not wish to expand the debate beyond what is stated in rule #1.


Tony - you and I have major differences BUT I support your stance - "a deal is a deal".
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2016, 03:01 AM   #94
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Correct



http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif

Tony - you and I have major differences BUT I support your stance - "a deal is a deal".
That is true the five hundred rule word limit on the opening statement was violated.
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 22nd June 2016, 05:15 AM   #95
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
This whole exercise is comical in its futility. TFK - why do you give this thing the time of day?

Quote:
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.
It's this simple.

Tony acknowledges that the aircraft struck the towers.
How does Tony square that with explosives? Surely he's not so blind as to say the collapse started elsewhere. So they started at the aircraft impact area. How did the magical explosives survive that?

Anyone with an IQ higher than toenail fungus would know that the answer is they can't. Explosives debunked.

But please, keep talking as if this is a serious scientific, rational debate. It's hilarious.

Last edited by NoahFence; 22nd June 2016 at 05:23 AM.
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 22nd June 2016, 05:55 AM   #96
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
This whole exercise is comical in its futility. TFK - why do you give this thing the time of day?



It's this simple.

Tony acknowledges that the aircraft struck the towers.
How does Tony square that with explosives? Surely he's not so blind as to say the collapse started elsewhere. So they started at the aircraft impact area. How did the magical explosives survive that?

Anyone with an IQ higher than toenail fungus would know that the answer is they can't. Explosives debunked.

But please, keep talking as if this is a serious scientific, rational debate. It's hilarious.
He stated he believed Steven Jones's second or was it third paper.
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 22nd June 2016, 05:57 AM   #97
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
He stated he believed Steven Jones's second or was it third paper.
I didn't take the time to read Steven Jones's 1st or 2nd papers. Didn't know he had a 3rd. Doesn't really matter though, does it? There's nothing in them that would account for explosives surviving the impact.

Nor do they tie in the entire day's events.

Thus, debate stupid.
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 22nd June 2016, 07:48 AM   #98
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 455
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I didn't take the time to read Steven Jones's 1st or 2nd papers.

Didn't know he had a 3rd.

Doesn't really matter though, does it?

There's nothing in them that would account for explosives surviving the impact.

Nor do they tie in the entire day's events.

Thus, debate stupid.
Thank you for so economically presenting your argument for incredulity-based thinking Noah.
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 22nd June 2016, 08:12 AM   #99
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Thank you for so economically presenting your argument for incredulity-based thinking Noah.
I note no attempt to correct the issues I've presented. Feel free to start another thread to explain how explosives could have survived the impact.


You won't.
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 22nd June 2016, 08:18 AM   #100
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
... three big pieces of evidence for controlled demolition with the free fall in WTC 7, lack of deceleration in WTC 1, and molten metal in the rubble of the collapsed buildings. ...
Strike 1
Free fall can happen in a gravity collapse started by structural failure, gee whiz, what is CD? The realcddeal has no clue CD is done by gravity with explosives starting the structural failure. Primary source of energy to destroy building during CD, gravity - E=mgh . 9/11Truth does woo, not science.

Strike 2
Lack of deceleration? Strike 2 out of the box. The collapse was following the momentum velocity and rate of a gravity collapse; lack of physics has the realcddeal making up BS about 9/11.

Strike 3
The molten metal was metal that usually melts in office fires. No damage to steel by thermite, or explosives.

Debate ends with the opening post of BS.

No evidence for CD, a fantasy based on BS. Tony has the plot Americans killed Americans for some idiotic reason. Who did it Tony?

With no clue fire can start the collapse, the realcddeal persists to present the fantasy of CD based on BS. CD fools a fringe few idiots with overwhelming ignorance, or the too lazy to think for themselves youtube video believers.

The Internet enables us NWO operatives, aka shills for reality, to see what 30 years ago would be a rare occurrence. Overwhelming ignorance and paranoid conspiracy theories believed by thousands, and less than 0.1 percent of all engineers. 30 years ago, unless you paid attention to some nut at the corner spewing crazy BS like CD CTs, it would be rare to be exposes to the ignorance and BS of that 9/11 truth is.
__________________
"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 22nd June 2016, 08:31 AM   #101
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Yeah, I'm new to Internet debates.
And should have read the Rulez more carefully.

And, waking up after being in a coffee shop until 3 am, at which time I read Tony's "objection" to my post, and ... oops responded to it ..., realized this morning that my second post over there probably violates Da Rulez, too.

Rocky start for the Home Team.
Ah, well.
LoL.

Last edited by tfk; 22nd June 2016 at 08:56 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 22nd June 2016, 08:46 AM   #102
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Yeah, I'm new to Internet debates.
And should have read the Rulez more carefully.

And, waking up after being in a coffee shop until 3 am, at which time I read Tony's "objection" to my post, realized this morning that my second post over there probably violates Da Rulez, too...

Rocky start for the Home Team.
Ah, well.
LoL.
No matter. Follow the rules, don't follow the rules, the end result will be the same. Tony declares victory while being woefully outmatched. This is the only way he can 'win' - by pissing and moaning about minutiae, and doing it on a forum that'll ban you as soon as it's clear he's out of his league.

Hell, I could win an honest debate on 9/11 against those people.
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 22nd June 2016, 10:44 AM   #103
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Yeah, I'm new to Internet debates.
And should have read the Rulez more carefully.

And, waking up after being in a coffee shop until 3 am, at which time I read Tony's "objection" to my post, and ... oops responded to it ..., realized this morning that my second post over there probably violates Da Rulez, too.

Rocky start for the Home Team.
Ah, well.
LoL.
who cares how long a post is, read faster tony

CD is a fantasy... rules, we don't need no stinkin tony rulz

Tony, aka the realcddeal, has three pieces of evidence against CD, and he does not know it.
__________________
"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; 22nd June 2016 at 10:45 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 22nd June 2016, 12:47 PM   #104
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Correct

http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif

Tony - you and I have major differences BUT I support your stance - "a deal is a deal".
Another sign that you are not, and never have been, an engineer. You're a lawyer.

Lawyers care about things like word counts, agreements, (by god, they care about "agreements"), etc.

Engineers care about only one thing: correct answers.

Correct answers are NOT served by "word counts", "limited topics of discussion", "formalized rules of debate", etc.

Correct answers are served by clear, open, honest discussion ... of whatever topic is pertinent, and to what ever degree is needed to clarify a point.

So, here's a couple for you to stockpile ...

You might need them, if I get to 1004 words in a posting...
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 22nd June 2016, 01:05 PM   #105
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
I sent this note to OWE at the911forum, this morning.

Originally Posted by tfk
By Da Rulez of our debate, my second post is probably "out of bounds".

By way of explanation (not excuse), I'd been working for about 16 hours, it was 2 AM, and I'd just read Tony's reply to me, informing me that my post was over length. In all honesty, I'd thought we'd agreed to 1000 words/post on ALL posts. I'd missed the 500 word exception on the first post.

So, I wrote Tony a "mea culpa" apology note over at ISF.

He objected to my writing to him over there.
Why, I have no idea.

But, he doesn't want to have to bother to look over ther, so, I duplicated my response to him over here. So that he could find it easily.

This morning, I realized that this post likely violates Da Rulez, too.

Feel free to remove it.
I can't at this point.
From this point on, I will try to stay within the agreed upon Rulez.
And likely fail a bit, every once in awhile.

I've always advocated that the only thoughtful, intelligent response to "Stupid Rules" is to break them. If the masses of people obey Stupid Rules, it only encourages Stupid Politicians & Stupid Bureaucrats to enact more of them.

There is a fair chance that, from now on, all of my posts will be padded to 1001 to 1005 words.
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 22nd June 2016, 01:06 PM   #106
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: 27,145
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Lawyers care about things like word counts, agreements, (by god, they care about "agreements"), etc.

Engineers care about only one thing: correct answers.

Correct answers are NOT served by "word counts", "limited topics of discussion", "formalized rules of debate", etc.

Correct answers are served by clear, open, honest discussion ... of whatever topic is pertinent, and to what ever degree is needed to clarify a point.
I couldn't agree more. But that begs the question, why are you bothering to have this debate in the first place?

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 22nd June 2016, 01:12 PM   #107
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
It looks like we might lose the Mirror Thread, too.
It's hanging in the balance.
Mods decision shortly.

More Rulez...

Ah well...
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 22nd June 2016, 02:03 PM   #108
Bitca
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
<<snip>>
Strike 2
Lack of deceleration? Strike 2 out of the box. The collapse was following the momentum velocity and rate of a gravity collapse; lack of physics has the realcddeal making up BS about 9/11.
<<snip>>
While true, that's broad. Has Tony ever acknowledged that the resolution and frame rate of the video would make it impossible to see any decrease in velocity? That renders any claim of deceleration or lack thereof unscientific by definition. I'm guessing not, because he'd have to withdraw his paper(s) on the so-called missing jolt.
Bitca 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 22nd June 2016, 02:13 PM   #109
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,606
Originally Posted by Bitca View Post
While true, that's broad. Has Tony ever acknowledged that the resolution and frame rate of the video would make it impossible to see any decrease in velocity? That renders any claim of deceleration or lack thereof unscientific by definition. I'm guessing not, because he'd have to withdraw his paper(s) on the so-called missing jolt.
The point is moot because the mechanism he uses (Bazant) never happened. There was no block on block collision causing the columns to fail.
__________________
"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 22nd June 2016, 03:08 PM   #110
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I couldn't agree more. But that begs the question, why are you bothering to have this debate in the first place?

Dave
For exactly the same reasons that I've written about this for about 10 years now:

It bothers me greatly that the competent engineers have left this discussion, abandoning younger generations to the woo & stupidity of people like Tony & Gage. I think that my profession has an obligation to the next generations, that they are neglecting. (That was exactly my purpose in intending to go to the AIA show. But that little fiasco generated a really positive idea. Still germinating, but I think that it'll be worthwhile.)

To try to help non-engineers better understand the engineering arguments. And clarify for them the absurd flaws in Tony's arguments.

Because these Truther clowns have taken the field that I love (mechanical engineering) and with clueless ignorance, have attempted to twist it, and abuse it, and turn it out on the street as a "money making" object. I feel about the same about them as I would about a pimp who'd turned some woman that I cared about into a crack whore. (A little strong, but just by the tiniest amount.)

I don't care very much about the clueless idiots with zero engineering knowledge, like 99% of the Truthers. I DO care about the tiny percent that do have some pertinent training ... and have still gone down the Rabbit Hole.

And I care greatly that these idiots are using technobabble to mislead the technically unsophisticated. And it is my belief that they are doing so for only two reasons:
  1. politics. They hated the GWB administration or US's involvement in foreign politics.
  2. the ego boost that they get from the adoring, clueless youngsters that think that they are "wonderful".

To me, these clowns are exactly like doctors who start advocating (aka, selling books about) "healing crystals & auras", or physicists who write books that "quantum physics proves psychic abilities" idiocy. They are betraying their own education, and all their real teachers.

I invited Chandler to come here & debate. He refused. I invited that obstinate, clueless kid from Texas (Derek something or other) who was their champion for a short while.

Tony is a mechanical engineer. He SHOULD be able to figure out the simple things that baffle him so regularly. He constantly confuses trivial concepts, such as the difference between "reduced acceleration" with "deceleration".

When we were discussing some tech point, a couple of years ago, he repeatedly asserted that the stationary foundation of the WTC towers had been "accelerating at 32.2 ft/sec2 for the 30 years between construction & destruction of the towers." These are both high school concepts that he gets wrong.

His missing jolt nonsense is only slightly more complicated: freshman college physics.

And all of the above is easily explained. To anyone who wants to listen, of course.

So, I hope to put a clear explanation of where his "Theories" fall apart in one location. It'll be more concise & clearer, without all the other noise.

Finally, it'll be very refreshing to require him to address my arguments for a change, and not just run away from them.

Last edited by tfk; 22nd June 2016 at 03:12 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 22nd June 2016, 04:27 PM   #111
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
...
It bothers me greatly that the competent engineers have left this discussion, abandoning younger generations to the woo & stupidity of people like Tony & Gage. ...
CD is a fantasy, no need to discuss fantasy with idiots like Gage.

We are seeing the Internet, where woo is visible. 30 years ago this BS would be nearly invisible. The Internet has idiots thinking their delusions are valid due to idiots like Gage running a scam at best, or complete insanity at worse.

CD is the most insane claim made about 9/11. How do you discuss idiotic claims with insane people in person? You are nice to them, and let their delusions remain unchallenged so they don't go McVeigh or Boston Bomber on rational people.
__________________
"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; 22nd June 2016 at 04:31 PM.
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 22nd June 2016, 05:29 PM   #112
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I didn't take the time to read Steven Jones's 1st or 2nd papers. Didn't know he had a 3rd. Doesn't really matter though, does it? There's nothing in them that would account for explosives surviving the impact.

Nor do they tie in the entire day's events.

Thus, debate stupid.
They were all just re edits of his first when he was caught lying he took out the obvious lies.
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 22nd June 2016, 05:31 PM   #113
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Thank you for so economically presenting your argument for incredulity-based thinking Noah.
He didn't miss much I caught the first paper and actually called and talked to the Looney Tooney while he was still at BYU. Took years to wash that conversation out of my head.
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 22nd June 2016, 06:01 PM   #114
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
My opening statement did contain mention of three big pieces of evidence for controlled demolition...

Just to let you know there is no visual, audio, seismic or hardware evidence for controlled demolition, and experts have concurred.


Quote:
...with the free fall in WTC 7,

Apparently, it took 17 seconds for WTC 7 to collapse, and that is not free fall speed.


Quote:
...lack of deceleration in WTC 1,...

Let's take a look at the following video.


WTC Collapse Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4


You will have noticed there was no sound of demolition explosions as those buildings collapsed.


Quote:
...and molten metal in the rubble of the collapsed buildings.

The molten metal was aluminum from uncontrolled fires, and I might add that explosives and thermite do no leave behind molten metal for days, weeks, much less, months.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2016, 06:01 PM   #115
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
In that case, let me help you out by posting links that I am very sure will FILL you with excitement.


Richard Gage Thermite Debunked Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDiAlMIJ8A4


Richard Gage caught lying about finding thermite part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4HmDwAoeOY


Richard Gage caught lying about thermite Part 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ago6d6jWtpk
What you consider credible amazes me.

Do you plan your day based on your horoscope? Do you consider fortune cookies to be credible?
FalseFlag 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 22nd June 2016, 06:09 PM   #116
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
What you consider credible amazes me.

Do you plan your day based on your horoscope? Do you consider fortune cookies to be credible?

No!

Now, if I want to substitute fiction and fantasy with reality, I would just simply join the 9/11 Truth Movement. You said that you get excited when someone lies to you, so I posted videos of Richard Gage lying and thought his lies on video would be enough to get you really excited.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 22nd June 2016 at 06:12 PM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2016, 06:14 PM   #117
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
No!

Now, if I want to substitute fiction and fantasy with reality, I would just simply join the 9/11 Truth Movement. You said that you get excited when someone lies to you, so I posted videos of Richard Gage lying and thought his lies on video would be enough to get you really excited.
Post the exact time where you claim he lies.
FalseFlag 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 22nd June 2016, 06:18 PM   #118
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Post the exact time where you claim he lies.

Just watch the videos and you tell us.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2016, 06:47 PM   #119
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Just watch the videos and you tell us.
No.

I'm not wasting my time.
FalseFlag 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 22nd June 2016, 06:53 PM   #120
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
No.

I'm not wasting my time.
No you are wasting our time, you have no evidence, no credible experiments, and know knowledge of physics.

Why are you here?
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:39 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.