Tony Szamboti vs. tfk Debate

[Andy_Ross]

I think it was a mistake to 'debate' doubly so on an open forum like this.

Pigs and wrestling comes to mind.

 

[Oystein]

Unlike the majority of official story supporters here who oppose his work, Tony Szamboti is not known for making personal attacks.

As a matter of fact, Tony regularly resorts to personal attacks the moment he relizes he has lost a debate - it's SOP for him.

You see tfk as having the edge because he is on your side and incivility shown by any member towards 9/11 truth supporters has always been a source of entertainment for you.

You must have switched off the option "Show emoticons", or why else would you have missed the grinning smiley at the end of the post you quoted.
Please recall that it was I who, in response to Gamolon's question "what happened with the debate?", made the unqualified statement "tfk ran away." I surely did not support tfk. I surely do not think he won the debate, or was even on a track to win this debate.
My post "tfk has the edge" was sarcasm - an alien concept to many Truthers.

You probably don't recall, but I have a history of debating on Tony Szamboti's side. A prime example was when I latched onto his observation that Nordenson's model of girder impacting girder in WTC7, made on behalf of ARUP, contains a major error in neglecting the finite stiffness of the floor assembly, which renders Nordenson's conclusion (that floor collapse would propagate) at least invalid, if not false. Here is the link to Metabunk, although I know that the technical contents fly very high above your head:
Does the exclusion of stiffness from Nordenson's falling girder calculations demonstrate anything?
Read it anyway! In that thread, Tony raises a technical objection to the Nordenson report, and ozeco43, JSanderO and Mick West initially disagree. My first post is #26, where I summarize both the relevant part of the Nordenson report and Tony's objection to it, both to my best (though, at the time, admittedly limited) understaning. And I finish that post with "And I agree with Tony!"

So you see, Criteria, I do not, as you seem to think, automatically give Debunkers the edge of Truthers.
In reality, I give Truthers (even Tony Sz.) the edge of Debunker - if and when the Truthers say something that is correct. This, alas, happens very rarely.

As I recall, you like to see them "squirm".

I don't like that at all. It's just what I get in fact almost every time a truther doesn't run away immediately from straight questions and reasoned debate. I only "like" it insofar as squirming is the closest some Truthers ever come to admitting to something they must know is true - remember that truths are the very last thing a Truther can be made to utter most of the time. Other truthers resort to personal attacks - another form of indirect recognition.

 

[ozeco41]

Tony raises a technical objection to the Nordenson report, and ozeco43, JSanderO and Mick West initially disagree.

Promotion? Inflation? My birth certificate is wrong?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

As a matter of fact, Tony regularly resorts to personal attacks the moment he relizes he has lost a debate - it's SOP for him.


You must have switched off the option "Show emoticons", or why else would you have missed the grinning smiley at the end of the post you quoted.
Please recall that it was I who, in response to Gamolon's question "what happened with the debate?", made the unqualified statement "tfk ran away." I surely did not support tfk. I surely do not think he won the debate, or was even on a track to win this debate.
My post "tfk has the edge" was sarcasm - an alien concept to many Truthers.

You probably don't recall, but I have a history of debating on Tony Szamboti's side. A prime example was when I latched onto his observation that Nordenson's model of girder impacting girder in WTC7, made on behalf of ARUP, contains a major error in neglecting the finite stiffness of the floor assembly, which renders Nordenson's conclusion (that floor collapse would propagate) at least invalid, if not false. Here is the link to Metabunk, although I know that the technical contents fly very high above your head:
Does the exclusion of stiffness from Nordenson's falling girder calculations demonstrate anything?
Read it anyway! In that thread, Tony raises a technical objection to the Nordenson report, and ozeco43, JSanderO and Mick West initially disagree. My first post is #26, where I summarize both the relevant part of the Nordenson report and Tony's objection to it, both to my best (though, at the time, admittedly limited) understaning. And I finish that post with "And I agree with Tony!"

So you see, Criteria, I do not, as you seem to think, automatically give Debunkers the edge of Truthers.
In reality, I give Truthers (even Tony Sz.) the edge of Debunker - if and when the Truthers say something that is correct. This, alas, happens very rarely.


I don't like that at all. It's just what I get in fact almost every time a truther doesn't run away immediately from straight questions and reasoned debate. I only "like" it insofar as squirming is the closest some Truthers ever come to admitting to something they must know is true - remember that truths are the very last thing a Truther can be made to utter most of the time. Other truthers resort to personal attacks - another form of indirect recognition.

Yes I was thinking of posting in that thread, I used a simple set of online engineering calculators http://www.engineersedge.com/beam_calc_menu.shtml to verify that Tony oversimplified the problem again.
Would explain further but haven't the time for long boring conversations right now.

 

[Mark F]

Unlike the majority of official story supporters here who oppose his work, Tony Szamboti is not known for making personal attacks.

Hmmmmm,.... must have been that other Tony Szamboti then who repeatedly accused me of being a paid government shill - among other things.

I am by no means the only one. I suggest you get a better grasp of the subject matter before making such ridiculous claims. It does your credibility no good. Making personal attacks is pretty much the one thing you can absolutely count on Tony S to do.

 

[Dave Rogers]

As a matter of fact, Tony regularly resorts to personal attacks the moment he relizes he has lost a debate - it's SOP for him.

And something he's well known for. The normal progression is:

(1) Make an assertion.
(2) If someone asks for evidence, state that only an idiot would fail to see why his assertion is true.
(3) If pressed for evidence, accuse the person asking of being a paid liar.
(4) GOTO (1).

He is, in fact, extremely well-known for making personal attacks.

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Unlike the majority of official story supporters here who oppose his work, Tony Szamboti is not known for making personal attacks.

You see tfk as having the edge because he is on your side and incivility shown by any member towards 9/11 truth supporters has always been a source of entertainment for you.

As I recall, you like to see them "squirm".

Criteria,

I would say it is now quite clear that the so-called official explanations for how the NYC high-rise buildings came down on Sept. 11, 2001 have been shown to be false.

Thus the few remaining supporters of those explanations here now seem to be desperate to be right about something....anything. This would explain their meaningless drift into whether or not I have ever called anyone a shill or silly etc..

TFK was a star on this forum, so if my one-on-one debate with him showed anything it is that none of these individuals can stand their ground in that type of situation. They clearly need a group and they attack anyone who dares to question the story they promote like piranhas. However, even as a group they cannot refute the demolition causes of the collapses, so all they do is try to disingenuously smear those who disagree with the false story they promote.

Although I do try to remain civil I have on occasion used those terms on some who would really have a hard time showing they were civil and honest in the discourse.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Criteria,

I would say it is now quite clear that the official NIST explanations for how the NYC high-rise buildings came down on Sept. 11, 2001 have been shown to be false.

Thus the few remaining supporters of that story here are now showing themselves to simply be desperate to be right about something/anything. This explains their meaningless drift into whether or not I have ever called anyone a shill or silly etc..

Although I do try to remain civil I have on occasion used those terms on some who would really have a hard time showing they were civil and honest in the discourse.

I don't care if you called someone a shill, I care if your work is correct, which it isn't, that is all I care about.

I can see the over simplified conditions you promote.

 

[DGM]

Thus the few remaining supporters of that story here are now showing themselves to simply be desperate to be right about something/anything. .....................

Yeah, I've sensed the desperation as I carry on life surrounded by all the support for "truther" beliefs.

 

[HSienzant]

Criteria,

I would say it is now quite clear that the so-called official explanations for how the NYC high-rise buildings came down on Sept. 11, 2001 have been shown to be false.

Thus the few remaining supporters of those explanations here now seem to be desperate to be right about something....anything. This would explain their meaningless drift into whether or not I have ever called anyone a shill or silly etc..

TFK was a star on this forum, so if my one-on-one debate with him showed anything it is that none of these individuals can stand their ground in that type of situation. They clearly need a group and they attack anyone who dares to question the story they promote like piranhas. However, even as a group they cannot refute the demolition causes of the collapses, so all they do is try to disingenuously smear those who disagree with the false story they promote.

Although I do try to remain civil I have on occasion used those terms on some who would really have a hard time showing they were civil and honest in the discourse.

I invite you to discuss the JFK assassination with me in the JFK assassination thread.

This one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10823512&postcount=1

I understand you believe in a U.S. Government conspiracy there as well. Correct me if that is wrong.

Thanks,
Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Tony,

It appears Dave Rogers already responded to this.

The normal progression [for Tony Szamboti] is:
(1) Make an assertion.

Criteria,
I would say it is now quite clear that the so-called official explanations for how the NYC high-rise buildings came down on Sept. 11, 2001 have been shown to be false.

(2) If someone asks for evidence, state that only an idiot would fail to see why his assertion is true.

Thus the few remaining supporters of those explanations here now seem to be desperate to be right about something....anything. This would explain their meaningless drift into whether or not I have ever called anyone a shill or silly etc..

(3) If pressed for evidence, accuse the person asking of being a paid liar.
(4) GOTO (1).

TFK was a star on this forum, so if my one-on-one debate with him showed anything it is that none of these individuals can stand their ground in that type of situation. They clearly need a group and they attack anyone who dares to question the story they promote like piranhas. However, even as a group they cannot refute the demolition causes of the collapses, so all they do is try to disingenuously smear those who disagree with the false story they promote.
Although I do try to remain civil I have on occasion used those terms on some who would really have a hard time showing they were civil and honest in the discourse.

It seems to match up with your latest post pretty well, and Dave posted his view of the methodology before you posted.

Hank

 

[The Big Dog]

Criteria,

I would say it is now quite clear that the so-called official explanations for how the NYC high-rise buildings came down on Sept. 11, 2001 have been shown to be false.

Thus the few remaining supporters of those explanations here now seem to be desperate to be right about something....anything. This would explain their meaningless drift into whether or not I have ever called anyone a shill or silly etc..

TFK was a star on this forum, so if my one-on-one debate with him showed anything it is that none of these individuals can stand their ground in that type of situation. They clearly need a group and they attack anyone who dares to question the story they promote like piranhas. However, even as a group they cannot refute the demolition causes of the collapses, so all they do is try to disingenuously smear those who disagree with the false story they promote.

Although I do try to remain civil I have on occasion used those terms on some who would really have a hard time showing they were civil and honest in the discourse.

Lolz. Are there even any truthers left?

 

[MileHighMadness]

Criteria,

I would say it is now quite clear that the so-called official explanations for how the NYC high-rise buildings came down on Sept. 11, 2001 have been shown to be false.

Thus the few remaining supporters of those explanations here now seem to be desperate to be right about something....anything. This would explain their meaningless drift into whether or not I have ever called anyone a shill or silly etc..

TFK was a star on this forum, so if my one-on-one debate with him showed anything it is that none of these individuals can stand their ground in that type of situation. They clearly need a group and they attack anyone who dares to question the story they promote like piranhas. However, even as a group they cannot refute the demolition causes of the collapses, so all they do is try to disingenuously smear those who disagree with the false story they promote.

Although I do try to remain civil I have on occasion used those terms on some who would really have a hard time showing they were civil and honest in the discourse.

Right [dws]...99.9% of all Licensed Structural Engineers disagree.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Lolz. Are there even any truthers left?

No not really, exstinct Species now only Twoofer fraudsters remain.

 

[Criteria]

”Criteria,……Although I do try to remain civil I have on occasion used those terms on some who would really have a hard time showing they were civil and honest in the discourse.”

Two sets of rules Tony.

We are supposed to “turn the other cheek.”

 

[jaydeehess]

Criteria,

I would say it is now quite clear that the so-called official explanations for how the NYC high-rise buildings came down on Sept. 11, 2001 have been shown to be false.

Really? So you now have backing from the ASCE, CTBUH, AIA, etc. You have managed to convince a simple majority of structural and fire engineering professionals, you know, the people who do this for a living?

Thus the few remaining supporters of those explanations here now seem to be desperate to be right about something....anything. This would explain their meaningless drift into whether or not I have ever called anyone a shill or silly etc..

Few? Are you referring to this forum, surely not? Are you referring to the professional structural and fire engineering community, suely not? Are you referring to the vast general population? I doubt even that wouldn't pan out in your favour.

TFK was a star on this forum, so if my one-on-one debate with him showed anything it is that none of these individuals can stand their ground in that type of situation. They clearly need a group and they attack anyone who dares to question the story they promote like piranhas. However, even as a group they cannot refute the demolition causes of the collapses, so all they do is try to disingenuously smear those who disagree with the false story they promote.

Odd how this sentiment would apply to debunker's treatment on so many conspiracy forums.

,,, why again, is the tfk/tsz debate still being debated here?

 

[jaydeehess]

Remind me how many engineering studies, total, conclude that WTC7 collapsed as a result of a combination of design, impact damage from WTC1, and unfought office fires?

Remind me how many engineering studies conclude a different cause?

 

[LSSBB]

Two sets of rules Tony.

We are supposed to “turn the other cheek.”

You are also ssupposed to analyze your own positions and critically and dispassionately compare them to the critique of those positions, so you can learn and grow.

How's your search for silent, invisible demolition explosives coming along?

How about your analysis of initial condition assumptions prior to collapse in WTC7, especially column displacements at each floor? Could they stack up to an inch?

Or your analysis of the variability of exterior collapse accelerations in building façades?

Or is this all about 'winning', worries about sunk costs, and never having to admit error? The human ego is both stiff and brittle, no?

 

[Ziggi]

Criteria,

I would say it is now quite clear that the so-called official explanations for how the NYC high-rise buildings came down on Sept. 11, 2001 have been shown to be false.

Thus the few remaining supporters of those explanations here now seem to be desperate to be right about something....anything. This would explain their meaningless drift into whether or not I have ever called anyone a shill or silly etc..
TFK was a star on this forum, so if my one-on-one debate with him showed anything it is that none of these individuals can stand their ground in that type of situation. They clearly need a group and they attack anyone who dares to question the story they promote like piranhas. However, even as a group they cannot refute the demolition causes of the collapses, so all they do is try to disingenuously smear those who disagree with the false story they promote.

Although I do try to remain civil I have on occasion used those terms on some who would really have a hard time showing they were civil and honest in the discourse.

Impartial observers see that none of these so-called "debunkers" can actually stand their ground since their big-shot engineer star "debunker" failed in such a spectacular manner. And they see that TFK failed because he had made the mistake all these years of thinking that his fellow forum "debunkers" actually provided honest and reliable research. TFK ran away from your debate when he realized himself that he had made that fatal mistake.

But dear Tony, rest assured that the faith of TFK's inferior fellow "debunkers" on this forum will remain as strong as ever, and that they think they could do much better than TFK. In fact, the more incapable they are the more flatulent their statements of faith will be. Kruger-Dunning my friend. And to top it off, many of the same people who also happen to be known for their ad-hom attacks are now left shifting the blame with one final ad-hom and whining about you being the one that calls them names.

These people did not learn when Dr. Greening left the forum in disgust and compared them to Creationinsts, and they did not learn when the JREF got rid of them a few years later either. If anything, this subforum has become even more pathetic than ever.

Certain people will never learn. I hope you will not waste much more time on this forum from now on. Let them waste their own time. For example: Now let the ranting begin...

 

[The Big Dog]

Impartial observers see that none of these so-called "debunkers" can actually stand their ground since their big-shot engineer star "debunker" failed in such a spectacular manner. And they see that TFK failed because he had made the mistake all these years of thinking that his fellow forum "debunkers" actually provided honest and reliable research. TFK ran away from your debate when he realized himself that he had made that fatal mistake.

But dear Tony, rest assured that the faith of TFK's inferior fellow "debunkers" on this forum will remain as strong as ever, and that they think they could do much better than TFK. In fact, the more incapable they are the more flatulent their statements of faith will be. Kruger-Dunning my friend. And to top it off, many of the same people who also happen to be known for their ad-hom attacks are now left shifting the blame with one final ad-hom and whining about you being the one that calls them names.

These people did not learn when Dr. Greening left the forum in disgust and compared them to Creationinsts, and they did not learn when the JREF got rid of them a few years later either. If anything, this subforum has become even more pathetic than ever.

Certain people will never learn. I hope you will not waste much more time on this forum from now on. Let them waste their own time. For example: Now let the ranting begin...

looks at tfk's final post....

bursts out laughing at your claims.