Tony Szamboti vs. tfk Debate

[FalseFlag]

So, tfk loses the debate on two grounds. First, he loses because his arguments are incorrect. Second, he loses by default.

I know skeptics aren't going to accept this. I'm just pointing it for obvious reasons.

 

[DGM]

So, tfk wins the debate on two grounds. First, he wins because his arguments are correct. Second, he wins by tfk's default.

I know skeptics aren't going to accept this. I'm just pointing it for obvious reasons.

Just felt this worth quoting

Typical "truther" sloppiness.

 

[FalseFlag]

Just felt this worth quoting

Typical "truther" sloppiness.

Good catch. +1 for you.

 

[Bitca]

Sorry but this is not true. Tony used a video by David Chandler to prove explosive sounds were recorded. The video has been removed from YouTube* but, it shows the sounds you say were not noticed were in fact recorded and heard in witness videos. David Chandler points out a witness on camera turns and looks at WTC7 as the penthouse falls.We all know the human ear is very good and detecting low level sounds. He claims this proves the sounds were there then goes on to dissect the video and they were recorded. His problem is they are at a fairly low frequency. This is the sound of the natural building collapse. If David Chandler wants to show they're not he should have compared the sounds to known controlled demolitions. He makes a claim with no supporting base line.

Typical sloppy "truther" work.


* I looked around but couldn't find another copy.

You mean this one? https://youtu.be/ERhoNYj9_fg

 

[DGM]

You mean this one? https://youtu.be/ERhoNYj9_fg

That's it. Thanks.

 

[Axxman300]

When eye witnesses claim they heard explosions, they are ignored in favour of News recordings that sadly expose an inability to accurately capture sound beyond nearby events.

Problem is that the key witnesses, the NYPD Bomb Squad, who were standing right there, didn't hear explosions, specifically explosives, going off.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

Problem is that the key witnesses, the NYPD Bomb Squad, who were standing right there, didn't hear explosions, specifically explosives, going off.

Yes, but they're not as smart as internet slacktavists. Apparently, one can give a man a laptop and he is instantly an expert on every subject.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I am disappointed in tfk he didn't catch Tony's mistake, on impact point and leveraged forces, and how they result in failures so easy to understand impact induced sheer.

Didn't some ancient Greek explain this years ago, the Maxwell used it to design an equation for pinned beams on bridges?

I think the Greek's name was achetomatoes or something like that.

 

[NoahFence]

Problem is that the key witnesses, the NYPD Bomb Squad, who were standing right there, didn't hear explosions, specifically explosives, going off.

Well what do they know??

 

[ozeco41]

You mean this one? https://youtu.be/ERhoNYj9_fg

That's it. Thanks.

Time to first lie 20 seconds.

Can anyone remember a video by Chandler where he goes longer BEFORE first lie?

His tactics same as Tony Szamboti's.

1) Focus on ONE detail.
2) Rebut it or claim to rebut it (The difference matters not - it is not their sole dishonesty)
3) Ignore the real situation - in this case ZERO prima facie case for CD by explosives AND lots of evidence against CD. (By ANY method.)

Is there any reason why I should watch the rest of the video? - Chandler's voice grates in my ears BEFORE I even listen to the idiotic claims he makes.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Time to first lie 20 seconds.

Can anyone remember a video by Chandler where he goes longer BEFORE first lie?

His tactics same as Tony Szamboti's.

1) Focus on ONE detail.
2) Rebut it or claim to rebut it (The difference matters not - it is not their sole dishonesty)
3) Ignore the real situation - in this case ZERO prima facie case for CD by explosives AND lots of evidence against CD. (By ANY method.)

Is there any reason why I should watch the rest of the video? - Chandler's voice grates in my ears BEFORE I even listen to the idiotic claims he makes.

It makes me question why we now listen to any of the conspiracy theorists and the Conspiracy theories, there are no true truthers anymore.

Tony can't even do the simplest engineering,
A very good PDF that points out why he is wrong, about the connection failure do to impact.


"Shear lag and eccentricity effects of bolted connections in cold-formed steel sections - Research Online - University of Wollongong"

PDF.University of Wollongong › au › ro › cgi

Sorry couldn't get the link to the PDF to work.

 

[Criteria]

"Time to first lie 20 seconds.

Can anyone remember a video by Chandler where he goes longer BEFORE first lie?

His tactics same as Tony Szamboti's.

1) Focus on ONE detail.

2) Rebut it or claim to rebut it (The difference matters not - it is not their sole dishonesty)

3) Ignore the real situation - in this case ZERO prima facie case for CD by explosives AND lots of evidence against CD. (By ANY method.)

Is there any reason why I should watch the rest of the video?

- Chandler's voice grates in my ears BEFORE I even listen to the idiotic claims he makes."

Is there a counter argument to the points made in the Chandler video buried in your rant?

I am reminded of an observation made by a well known writer of non-fiction, W. Bryson, in his book DOWN UNDER;

"Give Australians an issue and they will argue it so passionately and in such detail, from so many angles, with the introduction of so many loosely connected side issues, that it soon becomes impenetrable to the outsider."

 

[Disbelief]

Is there a counter argument to the points made in the Chandler video buried in your rant?

I am reminded of an observation made by a well known writer of non-fiction, W. Bryson, in his book DOWN UNDER;

"Give Australians an issue and they will argue it so passionately and in such detail, from so many angles, with the introduction of so many loosely connected side issues, that it soon becomes impenetrable to the outsider."

Perfect description of "truthers".

 

[skyeagle409]

Is there a counter argument to the points made in the Chandler video buried in your rant?

First of all, that Chandler video is a joke. He managed to convince gullible truthers that the muffled sound of structural failure was the sound of demolition explosions.

In addition, he used comments of those who'd heard explosions and duped truthers that the explosions they heard were the detonation of demolition explosives.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that as they heard those sounds, the building remained standing, which should have been a clue that the sounds they heard had nothing to do with demolition explosives.

Later interviews indicated the sounds they heard were attributed to things that had nothing to do with explosives and I am very sure that David Chandler was aware of the fact because he had access to information that later clarified their comments as anyone else.

Few of the sounds were later attributed to exploding gas lines, collapsing floors and even falling elevators and I am very sure that burning vehicles in the area had gas tanks as well.

 

[beachnut]

Is there a counter argument to the points made in the Chandler video buried in your rant? ...

Chandler has no evidence for CD. Do you? No.

15 years of failure 11 Sept 2016, and for eternity. 9/11 truth's only evidence, and it is strong overwhelming evidence and proof that 9/11 truth CD believers are gullible and possess zero knowledge on the subject. A movement of anti-science mixed with paranoia.


Tony's realcddeal is based on paranoia and fantasy. No evidence. Remember, he thinks we are paid agents of the evil doers.

What is the half-life for 9/11 truth followers? Those with critical thinking skills, which are working, figure out 9/11 truth is delusional paranoia and lies in a few days, or weeks.

is 9/11 truth based on simile? Hearing loud sounds, and using like or as... lol - simile, saying it sounded like, become CD.

19 terrorists did 9/11, when will Tony figure it out.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

Is there a counter argument to the points made in the Chandler video buried in your rant?

I am reminded of an observation made by a well known writer of non-fiction, W. Bryson, in his book DOWN UNDER;

"Give Australians an issue and they will argue it so passionately and in such detail, from so many angles, with the introduction of so many loosely connected side issues, that it soon becomes impenetrable to the outsider."

What a stupid post. Seriously. Oz was critiquing the poor methodology. How could you not understand that?

Chandler's errors have been discussed endlessly here, did you miss all that in your haste to be objectionable?

 

[benthamitemetric]

Tfk knew exactly how Tony was going to debate. If Tfk wasn't serious about having a debate with Tony given that, he should never have agreed to this whole worthless exercise. His incomplete performance just wound up giving more fuel to those searching for confirmation of their conspiracy beliefs.

 

[NoahFence]

Maybe I'll debate Tony. First ground rule, no invoking "that's why we need a new investigation"

His opening statement MUST contain a complete narrative with evidence that explains the entire day's events better than the commonly accepted narrative of 19 Terrorists + 4 Aircraft = 9/11. Otherwise he loses the debate.


How bout it Tony?

Just kidding. You wouldn't make it past the opening statement.

 

[Criteria]

”Is there a counter argument to the points made in the Chandler video buried in your rant?"

First of all, that Chandler video is a joke. He managed to convince gullible truthers that the muffled sound of structural failure was the sound of demolition explosions.

In addition, he used comments [statements] of those who'd heard explosions and duped truthers that the explosions they heard were the detonation of demolition explosives.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that as they heard those sounds, the building remained standing, which should have been a clue that the sounds they heard had nothing to do with demolition explosives.

Later interviews indicated the sounds they heard were attributed to things that had nothing to do with explosives and I am very sure that David Chandler was aware of the fact because he had access to information that later clarified their comments as anyone else.

Few of the sounds were later attributed to exploding gas lines, collapsing floors and even falling elevators and I am very sure that burning vehicles in the area had gas tanks as well.

I tried to strike-out the majority of your pejorative asides and misrepresentations..

By the time of global collapse, it was unlikely there were any open gas lines, or floors prematurely collapsing inside WTC7, or elevators suddenly dropping, or exploding gas tanks.

Given the unpopularity of questioning government assurances, it is easy to understand the willingness of witnesses to have later doubts.

The testimonies of those steadfast ‘whistle-blowing’ witnesses who heard the sound of explosions close to the actual global collapse are of most interest.

NYPD officer, Craig Bartmer is one of those witnesses to the WTC7 collapse. In his testimony, he confidently asserted that he knew the sound of an explosion.

In his analysis of street reporter Ashleigh Banfield’s broadcast, Chandler does an excellent job showing that audible explosions occurred just prior to WTC7’s global collapse.

 

[skyeagle409]

​

By the time of global collapse, it was unlikely there were any open gas lines, or floors prematurely collapsing inside WTC7, or elevators suddenly dropping, or exploding gas tanks.

Given the unpopularity of questioning government assurances, it is easy to understand the willingness of witnesses to have later doubts.

The testimonies of those steadfast ‘whistle-blowing’ witnesses who heard the sound of explosions close to the actual global collapse are of most interest.

David Chandler has been duping truthers on nonexistent explosions and that fact was made crystal clear when he duped truthers into thinking that the sound of structural failure was the sound of explosions. That is one example how he made truthers a laughing stock.

About two years ago, there was a rebroadcast of a NBC news report where firefighters reported exploding gas lines. Nothing there about explosives as the cause. Did you know that New York City experiences over 2000 explosions each year. Here is one example. In fact, explosions are quite common ini New York City.


Terrifying triple manhole explosion rocks Manhattan block

New Yorkers ran for cover as manhole covers rained down on a busy city street on Friday at lunch time when three manholes exploded into a fiery flame just feet from each other.
The explosions all rocked the corner of 45th and 9th Avenue on Manhattan's West Side around noon.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nd-heavy-metal-covers-flying-15-feet-air.html

NYPD officer, Craig Bartmer is one of those witnesses to the WTC7 collapse. In his testimony, he confidently asserted that he knew the sound of an explosion.

Once again, explosions are common in New York City. Secondly, he did not hear explosions as WTC 7 collapsed. In fact, he did not hear explosions as WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed either.

In his analysis of street reporter Ashleigh Banfield’s broadcast, Chandler does an excellent job showing that audible explosions occurred just prior to WTC7’s global collapse.

Those explosions had nothing to do with explosives. You would have noticed that the WTC buldings were still standing, which should have told you that the sounds they heard had nothing to do with explosives.

Just consider yourself another duped victim on David Chandler's list.