Tony Szamboti vs. tfk Debate

[Bitca]

Is anyone amused by Tony starting out his latest post with

Although ground rule #7 was worded and insisted on by you,

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.

it is apparent that you felt the need to disregard it concerning the discussion on whether there was evidence of explosive use in the building collapses.

given that Tony started out his topic post with

Now that it has been shown that although many firefighters talked of explosions, and they can be observed in video and in seismographic evidence from LDEO, there was never any real investigations for explosive use conducted, and all those saying there were none can point to is their own personal search through Internet photo sets of unknown completeness for demolition devices, it is time to move to things with some level of official involvement with reports that can actually be critiqued. This obviously brings us to the NIST reports on the building collapses. The first one I would like to discuss is that for WTC 7.

I suppose he thinks that had he started out with

Now that it has been shown that the sky is green, the earth is flat, and we never made it to the moonit is time to move to things with some level of official involvement with reports that can actually be critiqued.

those assertions should have been left unaddressed.

Or has everyone stopped paying attention?

 

[DGM]

Or has everyone stopped paying attention?

I'm waiting for one of them to start a debate...............

I'm not holding my breath............

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Is anyone amused by Tony starting out his latest post with

given that Tony started out his topic post with



I suppose he thinks that had he started out with

those assertions should have been left unaddressed.

Or has everyone stopped paying attention?

Yes, you could say I violated the rule, although I was just trying to end that topic discussion. You could also say tfk had a right to come back on it although I only spent 3/4 of a paragraph and he spent half his post.

I am going to propose a rule clarification to tfk which will still limit the discussion to four posts but with the understanding that it can be brought up again as a topic.

I will send him a PM on the 911 free forum with this post copied on it.

 

[DGM]

Yes, you could say I violated the rule, although I was just trying to end that topic discussion. You could also say tfk had a right to come back on it although I only spent 3/4 of a paragraph and he spent half his post.

I am going to propose a rule clarification to tfk which will still limit the discussion to four posts but with the understanding that it can be brought up again as a topic.

I will send him a PM on the 911 free forum with this post copied on it.

Why not skip all these rules and actually support the hypothesis you support? Better still, actually present a coherent hypothesis.

 

[NoahFence]

Why not skip all these rules and actually support the hypothesis you support? Better still, actually present a coherent hypothesis.

Some folks are too important to worry about having a coherent argument.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Some folks are too important to worry about having a coherent argument.

Conspiracy theories never have a coherent Argument, and never will because they are Fallacies.

 

[jaydeehess]

Why not skip all these rules and actually support the hypothesis you support? Better still, actually present a coherent hypothesis.

Anything as long as it stops including a debate about the rules of the debate.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Anything as long as it stops including a debate about the rules of the debate.

Can we have a debate about the rules on the rule of the rules that rule the debate that might be more interesting than either fallacy being discussed in the debate.

 

[ozeco41]

Can we have a debate about the rules on the rule of the rules that rule the debate that might be more interesting than either fallacy being discussed in the debate.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/rules-t764.html

...There are no rules in this subforum except those you and your opponent(s) make for yourselves.*


* Other notable exception: you may not violate the Host Terms of Service Agreement, that pretty well covers it.

Plus ZERO moderation was part of the deal.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

Why not skip all these rules and actually support the hypothesis you support? Better still, actually present a coherent hypothesis.

Seconded.

 

[Richard the G]

tfk

Thank you for the insights. I think that your debate with Tony is useful and shows ae911truth's top engineer debating with another engineer. it will be a useful record to refer to. Pls keep going !

 

[Richard the G]

tfk

Thank you for the insights. I think that your debate with Tony is useful and shows ae911truth's top engineer debating with another engineer. it will be a useful record to refer to. Pls keep going !

Tony opened up the ConEd claim and the statements by Arup and Colin Bailley. So why don't you ask Tony:
- does he accept that column 79 failed several seconds in advance of the perimeter wall
- how does he explain the load redistribution after column 79 failed.
- does he think that beams without proper top flange protection can fail in a normal fire.

 

[DGM]

Tony is now calling rule #5 into play.............tfk could possibly lose his turn....

I'm on the edge of my seat with this turn of events.......

 

[FalseFlag]

Where are you, tfk? You're missing out on an opportunity to commit more fraud. What's your problem? Do you lack the competence to play with the big boys? The answer is "yes", but will you finally admit it?

 

[skyeagle409]

Where are you, tfk? You're missing out on an opportunity to commit more fraud. What's your problem? Do you lack the competence to play with the big boys? The answer is "yes", but will you finally admit it?

Perhaps, should focus your message to Tony considering there's no evidence of thermite or explosives.

 

[FalseFlag]

Perhaps, should focus your message to Tony considering there's no evidence of thermite or explosives.

Why don't you take tfk's place?

 

[skyeagle409]

Why don't you take tfk's place?

It would be no contest because the first thing I would demand from Tony is for him to post his evidence of CD explosives.

I already know as a fact that no explosives were used to demolish the WTC buildings.

 

[FalseFlag]

It would be no contest because the first thing I would demand from Tony is for him to post his evidence of CD explosives.

I already know as a fact that no explosives were used to demolish the WTC buildings.

I think your definition of "fact" might not be factual.

 

[skyeagle409]

I think your definition of "fact" might not be factual.

It's all very clear. No CD explosive evidence. Accept reality for what it is.

 

[FalseFlag]

It's all very clear. No CD explosive evidence. Accept reality for what it is.

You can believe whatever you want.