Tony Szamboti vs. tfk Debate

[MileHighMadness]

You can believe whatever you want.

Most Truthers do...

Personally, I will never get into a debate with a Truther. it is a complete waste of time and effort. Truthers are not restrained by logic, reason or evidence. They live their lives in simple little loops, like Hosts in Westworld, they always circling back to the beginning.

 

[Criteria]

"Criteria,..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."

Because the majority of members here are anonymous, 'earned respect' is the only currency that matters. Members are free to tell lies. The fastest way to gain status is to lie and not get caught. Take the smoke away from the "smoking gun".

For those that see this forum's debates as nothing more than a game whose ethics are set by the Membership Agreement, honour means nothing and winning means everything.

If tfk was an honourable person, he would not have made such a public agreement and then 'ghost' the whole arrangement soon after it began.

It has been noted that tfk is still attending but has chosen silence.

tfk has lost any star status he may have aspired to.

 

[jaydeehess]

​

Because the majority of members here are anonymous, 'earned respect' is the only currency that matters. Members are free to tell lies. The fastest way to gain status is to lie and not get caught. Take the smoke away from the "smoking gun".

For those that see this forum's debates as nothing more than a game whose ethics are set by the Membership Agreement, honour means nothing and winning means everything.

If tfk was an honourable person, he would not have made such a public agreement and then 'ghost' the whole arrangement soon after it began.

It has been noted that tfk is still attending but has chosen silence.

tfk has lost any star status he may have aspired to.

How ironic that your post contains a rail about winning, along with a verbal victory lap.


Face it Criteria, Ziggi, Tony, your cause has not won,,,,anything! You have had over a decade to try and convince enough professionals of your pov, and failed. You have had over a decade to move out of the shadows and internet forum ranting, and failed. You have had over a decade to produce an engineering report on any of the three structures that were destroyed ( out of the dozen+ that were destroyed on 9/11 by any rational definition of the word), and failed.

2000+ "engineers" to draw from, hundreds of thousands of dollars for funding, and yet the sole fire spread/intensity analysis you can tout was done by a carpenter, and no engineering structural analyses at all. Instead it's been a bashNISTfest on internet forums, where wild contentions are thrown about as if they have any weight at all. (Explosives, super nanothermite, and modified aircraft)

The world largely ignores you, and deservedly so.

So take your victory lap around the almost empty stadium, feel good about yourselves. Lord knows few others even know you exist.

 

[beachnut]

​

Because the majority of members here are anonymous, 'earned respect' is the only currency that matters. Members are free to tell lies. The fastest way to gain status is to lie and not get caught. Take the smoke away from the "smoking gun".

For those that see this forum's debates as nothing more than a game whose ethics are set by the Membership Agreement, honour means nothing and winning means everything.

If tfk was an honourable person, he would not have made such a public agreement and then 'ghost' the whole arrangement soon after it began.

It has been noted that tfk is still attending but has chosen silence.

tfk has lost any star status he may have aspired to.

/WHINE]
Whining about people, all 9/11 truth can do since there is zero evidence for CD.

What is the evidence for CD? Nothing. Lots of failed claims, based on BS.

What next for 9/11 truth? Nothing of value after 15 years of lies and whining. Dr Greening knows there was no CD, Ziggi - why are you evidence free Ziggi? How is the CD fantasy going?

 

[WilliamSeger]

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.

Tony Szamboti is a star in the "truth movement," so if the statement above shows anything it is that none of those individuals are rational.

 

[WilliamSeger]

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...

Where's the thermite, Ziggi?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Where's the thermite, Ziggi?

More importantly where is the mushroomed heat deformed steel produced by thermite cutting?

None was ever found, that is enough to falsify the thermite cutter charge theory.

No explosives, no thermite no case.

According to Harrit & Jones, we can measure a puddle of dog pee, and have accurate analysis
of the trace mineral content of all the water in the universe.

That is the science Ziggi, Criteria, and Tony subscribe to, it is up to them to prove the Data valid, and meaningful.

I am still waiting Ziggi, Criteria, and Tony, and yes Tony you won a kindergarten debate with someone who believed Banzant's model was correct.

tfk couldn't have won, because you started out debating a fallacy,
So it was hopeless for him to continue, a predictable outcome from the start, Question is why are you so afraid to debate the real event ?

 

[ozeco41]

.... and yes Tony you won a kindergarten debate with someone who believed Banzant's model was correct.

tfk couldn't have won, because you started out debating a fallacy,
So it was hopeless for him to continue, a predictable outcome from the start, Question is why are you so afraid to debate the real event ?

I remember in discussions on the 911Forum fore the "debate" musing about what would happen if they ever got serious...

...seeing as they both share the same false opinion about those bits Bazant got wrong.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I am still waiting Ziggi, Criteria, and Tony, and yes Tony you won a kindergarten debate with someone who believed Banzant's model was correct.

tfk couldn't have won, because you started out debating a fallacy,
So it was hopeless for him to continue, a predictable outcome from the start, Question is why are you so afraid to debate the real event ?

What an incredible comment given that the record shows the debate between TFK and I never got past his attempt to show there were no explosives at the WTC and my showing the reasons the NIST WTC 7 report was non-explanatory and false.

TFK couldn't win either of those arguments and bowed out before we even got to discuss the Twin Towers and Dr. Bazant's analysis, yet you are here claiming that is why he lost.

Does the word integrity mean anything to you?

There is a reason I don't post on this forum very often. It is called not wanting to waste time with a bunch of disingenuous piranha like posters.

 

[Oystein]

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

It is depressingly frustrating to see this dumb and false assertion repeated over and over again.

 

[Oystein]

Impartial observers ...

Can you name and cite a few of those "impartial observers"? Perhaps three examples would do nicely to support the positions that you ascribe to them. Perhaps I will read these positions once you can show me anyone who actually holds them.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It is depressingly frustrating to see this dumb and false assertion repeated over and over again.

Oystein, while your arguments show you are highly skeptical that anything untoward happened at the WTC pointing to insider involvement, I do have to say you do try to be objective when evaluating an argument and you are on record giving credit where it was due.

The Nordenson error discussion on Metabunk.org showed that and I did not consider my time discussing it with you wasteful. Your objective skepticism there led to a refined argument and conclusion.

 

[Oystein]

...
TFK couldn't win either of those arguments ...

The discussion was doomed from the beginning when the two of you weren't even clear what you are discussing.

 

[Oystein]

Oystein, while you are highly skeptical that anything untoward happened at the WTC pointing to insider involvement, I do have to say you do try to be objective when evaluating an argument and you are on record giving credit where it was due.

The Nordenson error discussion on Metabunk.org showed that.

Thanks for the recognition.

 

[jaydeehess]

Oystein, while your arguments show you are highly skeptical that anything untoward happened at the WTC pointing to insider involvement, I do have to say you do try to be objective when evaluating an argument and you are on record giving credit where it was due.

The Nordenson error discussion on Metabunk.org showed that and I did not consider my time discussing it with you wasteful. Your objective skepticism there led to a refined argument and conclusion.

If all engineering reports on the collapse of WTC7 are wrong then when can we expect a full and correct engineering report to by created by the organization touting a membership of 2000+ engineers, and with a raison d'etre of investigating the vollapse of WTC structures?

It has been almost 15 years since the event that sparked tbe debate, 10+ years since AE911T started its campaigns. My god man, your organization contains the word "engineers" and yet the amount of engineering performed is miniscule.

 

[beachnut]

Oystein, while your arguments show you are highly skeptical...

How can you debate your CD fantasy based on speculation and a fictional inside job theory. Like debating the magic in a Harry Potter book.

Come see Tony debate his fantasy CD claims? Stuck with fantasy silent exploisves, invisible super nano-thermite which leaves no products or damage, and there is no real world evidence for CD, stuck with BS, out right lies, a Gish Gallop of BS and lies; exactly like this nonsense.

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. - Tony

Really, quite clear you failed to show this. How is a probable collapse sequence false? How is your CD inside job lies coming? Have you identified the bad guys?

oops, it was 19 failed nuts for UBL, and UBL was laughing at 9/11 truth, the dumbed down movement of speculation based on BS.

Where do your lies come from? I guess spreading lies and having scapegoats works; maybe Funnyface von Clownstick with get you a new investigation. Maybe the 9/11 truth engineers can get a cabinet position, chief engineers for woo about 9/11.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

What an incredible comment given that the record shows the debate between TFK and I never got past his attempt to show there were no explosives at the WTC and my showing the reasons the NIST WTC 7 report was non-explanatory and false.

TFK couldn't win either of those arguments and bowed out before we even got to discuss the Twin Towers and Dr. Bazant's analysis, yet you are here claiming that is why he lost.

Does the word integrity mean anything to you?

There is a reason I don't post on this forum very often. It is called not wanting to waste time with a bunch of disingenuous piranha like posters.

And you never proved your side of either argument, the statement about debating fallacy still stands based on your past post history on multiple forums. When you eventually have to face reality you will defeat yourself.
Right now you Tony are of no real interest to me I am working on a project, 3D printed steel,
I am working on a patent application for the process of 3D printing structural and specialty steels. Although I am still in the experimental stage I feel, I should patent the basic process
Before someone else does. Imagine buildings with no bolts no welds, can you even imagine it? My time is now very limited one of the reason I haven't been on here much lately.

 

[Dave Rogers]

My question for our resident truthers is this: What has now changed?

Let's presume, for the sake of argument, that Tony has won the debate due to TFK defaulting. What is the significance of this victory? I can suggest a few subsidiary questions to elucidate.

Firstly, who has changed their mind about the facts of the matter, and now believes as a result of the debate that the building collapses on 9/11 were due to some pre-installed device rather than arising from the airliner crashes? Will this translate into broader public opinion, and if so, how?

Secondly, what does this mean for the future of the truth movement? We on this forum have repeatedly been accused of obstructing a new investigation, though the mechanism by which this obstruction has been achieved appears to be no more than a refusal to agree to the statements of the truthers who post here. Now that this debate has been adjudicated a victory for the truth movement, is the obstacle presented by our disagreement no longer effective? If so, what progress can we expect the truth movement to make now that this obstacle has been removed? If not, what would be required to remove this obstacle?

Thirdly, can we now expect a significant proportion of the structural engineering community to start supporting the truth movement view that the collapses cannot have been solely due to impact and fire damage, as a result of the debate?

If none of these questions have answers that favour renewed progress by the truth movement, what exactly has been achieved here, and what was the point of the debate in the first place?

Dave

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

My question for our resident truthers is this: What has now changed?

Let's presume, for the sake of argument, that Tony has won the debate due to TFK defaulting. What is the significance of this victory? I can suggest a few subsidiary questions to elucidate.

Firstly, who has changed their mind about the facts of the matter, and now believes as a result of the debate that the building collapses on 9/11 were due to some pre-installed device rather than arising from the airliner crashes? Will this translate into broader public opinion, and if so, how?

Secondly, what does this mean for the future of the truth movement? We on this forum have repeatedly been accused of obstructing a new investigation, though the mechanism by which this obstruction has been achieved appears to be no more than a refusal to agree to the statements of the truthers who post here. Now that this debate has been adjudicated a victory for the truth movement, is the obstacle presented by our disagreement no longer effective? If so, what progress can we expect the truth movement to make now that this obstacle has been removed? If not, what would be required to remove this obstacle?

Thirdly, can we now expect a significant proportion of the structural engineering community to start supporting the truth movement view that the collapses cannot have been solely due to impact and fire damage, as a result of the debate?

If none of these questions have answers that favour renewed progress by the truth movement, what exactly has been achieved here, and what was the point of the debate in the first place?

Dave

There is no future for the dead movement best bury it before it stinks, oh sorry too Late.

 

[NoahFence]

What an incredible comment given that the record shows the debate between TFK and I never got past his attempt to show there were no explosives at the WTC and my showing the reasons the NIST WTC 7 report was non-explanatory and false.

TFK couldn't win either of those arguments and bowed out before we even got to discuss the Twin Towers and Dr. Bazant's analysis, yet you are here claiming that is why he lost.

Does the word integrity mean anything to you?

There is a reason I don't post on this forum very often. It is called not wanting to waste time with a bunch of disingenuous piranha like posters.

That there were no explosives at the WTC is as obvious as "water is wet".

So is the fact that truthers show an amazing lack of critical thinking skills, tact, intelligence and pretty much any other positive attribute you can put on a person.

In short, they're in the BACK of the short bus. How's the view?