Tony Szamboti vs. tfk Debate

[Ziggi]

Ironic Ziggi uses a BS artist in a weak attack on posters, when he fails to see CD is evidence free.

The man you are calling a BS artist was a fellow "debunker" on this forum for quite some time and is one of the scientists that co-authored one in a series of papers laying out the official gov sanctioned excuse for the demolition of the Twin Towers. And you forget to mention that I also included similar remarks about the forum from another fellow forum "debunker" ozeco41, which I just mentioned again in my last post:

The flatulent arrogance of how you Ozeco41 think you are way superior to your fellow "out of their depth alleged debunkers" here is plain to see for everyone that reads that thread. And you and your blowhard buddies also fart out similar comments on other threads that are mostly dedicated to how stupid your comrades are:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/ju...-t576-330.html

You should visit that thread called "just plain idiots" and see that it has begins with a heading with a link referring readers straight to a section dealing with you:

Moderator's note: This thread was split from Smart Idiots.

IMPORTANT NOTE: For beachnut-specific idiocy, start here.

On a related thread we find the same general sentiment about this forum from yet another one of your fellow "debunkers" on this forum, JSanderO, saying pretty much the same thing as Ozeco41 and Dr. Greening:

JREF is populated by ill mannered NIST bots who can't think for themselves... and can't carry on a discussion with anyone expect other NISTians which consists of back slapping each other.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/just-plain-idiots-split-from-smart-idiots-t576-330.html

 

[beachnut]

quote mine post of no support for Tony

The man you are calling a BS artist was a fellow "debunker" on this forum for quite some time and is one of the scientists that co-authored one in a series of papers laying out the official gov sanctioned excuse for the demolition of the Twin Towers. And you forget to mention that I also included similar remarks about the forum from another fellow forum "debunker" ozeco41, which I just mentioned again in my last post:

Greening was a BS artist, all the people you quote mine below kind of agree. I was probably ill mannered to Greening when he played the BS card of speculation which leaves you with a busted hand, no support for Tony's failed CD quest.
What does gossip and trash talk about fellow posters have to do with the failure of your CD fantasy, and Tony failing to make CD a reality. There is no debate, the CD claims is based on nothing.

You should visit that thread called "just plain idiots" and see that it has begins with a heading with a link referring readers straight to a section dealing with you:

Really, I thought that was their best technical work, it sure beats using the wrong filter for data to make it look like music. Is this your best support for Tony's CD fantasy, exposing gossip and BS from a forum? You can't post facts and evidence for the CD fantasy, but can post evidence for gossip and trash talk about "me"? It is an honor i don't deserve. Ziggi, I am a "just plain idiot", not special, just plan. I flew supersonic trainers and heavy jets, investigated aircraft accidents, and was an engineer in the USAF. I got do do so many things, but as you can see, I am just a humble, "plain idiot". This "just plain idiot" figured out who did 9/11 when 175 hit the WTC (my first suspect was correct, UBL), and I figure out on 9/11 fires caused the collapse, on 9/11, that was correct too. Here you are, the super debunker of debunkers and you can't figure out 9/11 to save you from supporting idiotic claims of CD, and leaving a legacy of woo on the Internet. Yes, I write poorly, but had the time of my life flying as a Just Plain Idiot (IPT) all over the world, even flying missions out of Perth down under at Christmas... Why can't you figure out 911? I guess some people get upset when they can't explain why they used a filter that is wrong, and have to resort to attacking their fellow posters. Why do you support the lies of 9/11 truth? I am all those things everyone said, but I figured out 9/11, on 9/11, and my first suspicions were right (I paid attention to intel, etc). 9/11 truth can't get anything right, and you are stuck here in CT land where your claims are self-debunking, and the debunking the debunkers is trash talk, anti-science, anti intellectual claptrap. And I am "just... cool

On a related thread we find the same general sentiment about this forum from yet another one of your fellow "debunkers" on this forum, JSanderO, saying pretty much the same thing as Ozeco41 and Dr. Greening:

Wow, you got some quote mined gems... how does this support the lie of CD, the CD fantasy born in some paranoid conspiracy theory with no evidence, no facts, no reality? CD and all 9/11 truth claims are BS, fantasy, and lies.
Have you found Major Tom's Satan like guys?

As expected, more weak attacks, and zero evidence to help save Tony's CD debate based on woo.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The man you are calling a BS artist was a fellow "debunker" on this forum for quite some time and is one of the scientists that co-authored one in a series of papers laying out the official gov sanctioned excuse for the demolition of the Twin Towers. And you forget to mention that I also included similar remarks about the forum from another fellow forum "debunker" ozeco41, which I just mentioned again in my last post:



You should visit that thread called "just plain idiots" and see that it has begins with a heading with a link referring readers straight to a section dealing with you:


On a related thread we find the same general sentiment about this forum from yet another one of your fellow "debunkers" on this forum, JSanderO, saying pretty much the same thing as Ozeco41 and Dr. Greening:

So what, doesn't prove your fantasies right now does it?

I know more about this than you do I left the forum when Frank did Ziggi.

Quotes taken out of context mean nothing.

 

[jaydeehess]

jaydee, jaydee, jaydee! Tsk tsk tsk ... you are falling for Ziggi's unproven premise: That there are any new comers who followed the debate.

Assuming the unproven existence of newcomers to this issue who are in need of an education, then.....

..........

In terms of education what would be more important, an internet debate on essentially, fringe issue web sites, or technical papers that might serve to persuade professionals in relevant areas? If tfk withdrawing from debate supposedly educates new comers on a deficiency in debunkers, then most certainly Basile's foot dragging, essential withdrawing from technical investigation educates such new comers in deficiency in truther circles by at least the same measure.

 

[skyeagle409]

The man you are calling a BS artist was a fellow "debunker" on this forum for quite some time and is one of the scientists that co-authored one in a series of papers laying out the official gov sanctioned excuse for the demolition of the Twin Towers.

If you believe the Twin Towers were deliberately demolished, show us the evidence. 15 years and counting and still, no CD, thermite or nano-thermite evidence to be found anywhere. The Truther's deadline for providing such evidence has long passed with no evidence to show after all of these years.

Just to let you know the that it would have been impossible for the government to demolish the WTC buildings with explosives or even with ineffective thermite/nano-thermite, which wouldn't have made any sense anyway. Just ask any demolition expert why it would have been impossible to secretly prepare each of the WTC buildings.

The 1993 WTC 1 bombing should have been a clue on just how ineffective explosives are on structural steel if proper preparations are not performed. Did I ever mention a steel-framed building that remained standing after withstanding shockwaves from a nuclear detonation? Did I also mention how 175 pounds of thermite packed around a steel box beam failed to burn through that steel beam? Ever wondered why thermite is not used by demolition companies to demolish tall steel-framed buildings?

CD explosives, thermite, and nano-thermite claims of conspiracy theorist were nothing more than fabrications, which explains why after 15 years, conspiracy theorist have failed to provide such evidence.

 

[ozeco41]

Greening was a BS artist, all the people you quote mine below kind of agree. I was probably ill mannered to Greening when he played the BS card of speculation which leaves you with a busted hand, no support for Tony's failed CD quest.
What does gossip and trash talk about fellow posters have to do with the failure of your CD fantasy, and Tony failing to make CD a reality. There is no debate, the CD claims is based on nothing.

Good for you beachnut.

Ziggi is scraping the bottom of the barrel and quote mining bits that don't support his attempts at character assignation.

He DOESN'T quote the bits off this forum or The911Forum or any other forum where I describe:
1) you as my #1 go to guy on aviation.
2) Sunstealer my #1 for metallurgy;
3) Oystein my #1 for statistical research and high quality argument on a range of topics; AND
4) tfk as a highly competent explainer of undergraduate level general physics DESPITE his dishonesty in responding to my correction of his false claims. (Which ventured with wrong results into post-grad physics hence the "out of depth" assessment.)

OR the fact that Major_Tom has a thread dedicated to character assassination of ME - so you aren't the only one.

Yes, I write poorly, but had the time of my life flying as a Just Plain Idiot (IPT) all over the world, even flying missions out of Perth down under at Christmas...

Was that the time when you nearly got stranded because the credit rating of the US Government wasn't good enough to pay for the Aussie fuel???

Wow, you got some quote mined gems... how does this support the lie of CD, the CD fantasy born in some paranoid conspiracy theory with no evidence, no facts, no reality? CD and all 9/11 truth claims are BS, fantasy, and lies.
Have you found Major Tom's Satan like guys?

As expected, more weak attacks, and zero evidence to help save Tony's CD debate based on woo.

Remember the trial lawyer's aphorism:
"When you have no case -- attack the credibility of the witnesses!"

And the obvious corollary:
"when they attack the witnesses -- they have no case!"

...and - since Ziggi is only trolling in his desperation - I'll wait till he makes a reasoned claim. And I won't be holding my breath.

 

[jaydeehess]

Btw, Oystein, are you and others falling for Ziggi's bait and switch? Who is discussing tfk and the debate and who is discussing Greening and ozeco and others?

 

[ozeco41]

Bazant is "official" ?

My gawd, and here all along I have been disputing Bazant's papers being taken as literal descriptions of what happened.
Does that make me a truther?(shudders)

That was the topic area I wanted to see tfk and T Sz "debate" for at least two reasons:
1) The bits where they agree with each other - and both are wrong; AND
2) The bit where they disagree and T Sz is right.

AND those predictions are also in the "pre-debate discussion" on 911Forum - funny but Ziggi hasn't quote mined them.

 

[ozeco41]

Btw, Oystein, are you and others falling for Ziggi's bait and switch? Who is discussing tfk and the debate and who is discussing Greening and ozeco and others?

I've tried to deflect it back but to no avail.

Seeing the serious crimes I stand accused of:
A) I don't respond to personal attacks or lies from either side. AND I can count those debunkers who have resorted to personal attack in the face of soundly reasoned argument. (Currently 4 on the list with the latest tfk example in full view on this forum for anyone who wants to look.)

B) THEN the separate crime - not conflated the way Ziggi misrepresents it - I can tell when members do not respond to patient step by step "spoon feeding" of argument and retreat into their own incredulity. (Currently 2 of those - and I'm still persisting patiently with one of them. Should be easy to find. )

And none of them depend on my career in Water and Sewerage matters - EXCEPT it should give be an advantage when it comes to identifying "faeces like" arguments.

 

[Ziggi]

Good for you beachnut.

Ziggi is scraping the bottom of the barrel and quote mining bits that don't support his attempts at character assignation.

He DOESN'T quote the bits off this forum or The911Forum or any other forum where I describe:
1) you as my #1 go to guy on aviation.
2) Sunstealer my #1 for metallurgy;
3) Oystein my #1 for statistical research and high quality argument on a range of topics; AND
4) tfk as a highly competent explainer of undergraduate level general physics DESPITE his dishonesty in responding to my correction of his false claims. (Which ventured with wrong results into post-grad physics hence the "out of depth" assessment.....

If you want to talk about someone not quoting and addressing something you should perhaps complain to yourself about not quoting the post you refer to and addressing neither me directly nor any of my points: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11621575&postcount=679

Oh how generous of you, giving 3 lower-level comrades the grade of being usable for information in very limited areas! They must be so proud to get such praise from big daddy Ozeco41 who obviously handles the main subjects and the big picture. Everyone can see that this cancels out your judgments about the "debunkers" here in general being incompetent or liars or both. And oh how big of you giving the obviously inferior TFK the grade of being able to handle lower level physics when he is not lying his ass off. No need to discuss further then why TFK ran away from Tony when things were about to reach the higher level stuff!

Obviously I stand corrected; no-one in their right mind would accuse you of being an arrogant blowhard. No sir!

A few of you still seem oblivious to what a joke you guys have become. I am not sure that these last remnants of you would wake up even if you got a formal open letter from NIST or Randi himself telling you guys to please leave the scene because it has become too difficult for them to watch you guys making fools out of yourselves..Perhaps it is time for friends or family to intervene. Seriously.

- Nah, you guys just bury this with a little flood of comments about #something else, and everyone will forget about this problem in a jiffy and you will be able to continue on as usual as if nothing happened... u guys just change the subject with random accusations against me or truthers in general, make up a list of questions that have not been answered enough times, or start talking about Mark Basile, or something...Works every time and no-one is onto that little trick. Seriously.

 

[skyeagle409]

Did tfk come to the debate with evidence?
You'd have to say what that evidence would be for.

Let's take a look at what there is evidence for in regard to what tfk has said.

tfk wrote:

1.3 KSM & Ramzi Yousef planned the attacks, OBL approved & subsidized them, and 19 clueless suckers carried them out. By flying planes into 3 buildings & being stopped by the passengers from succeeding in hitting a 4th.


1.4 The collapse of all of those buildings were the complete result of what we saw happen: planes, impacts, fires, collapses of WTC 1 & 2, more fires, collapse of WTC7.


1. Photo evidence
Many hundreds of high definition, photos are available for examination TODAY, that definitively prove “no explosives here”


Thermite is impossible:
It is NOT make the timing work. The uncertainty in the time that it takes for thermite to cut thru any column is measured in 10s of seconds, at best. The timing required to “melt” columns, as truthers have claimed, is measured in tenths to hundredths of a second. Thermite is impossible.


2. Audio
100s to 1000s of high power explosions would be required.
The audio recording prove that explosions did not occur


3. Seismic data proves no explosives
There is no possibility of occurring without seismic detection. See Brent Blanchard’s piece. Address Blanchard’s statements, please. Especially Claim #4.


4. OBL statements prove no explosives (as far as he knew).
Same rationale proves that nobody else would have waited for OBL to get his minions into action.


It would be stupid to wire buildings with explosives, and then risk discovery by waiting hours/days/weeks/month/years to fly planes into them. You’d blow them immediately, as soon as you could & claim your victory.
OBL was a murderer, but he was not stupid.
Nobody else that set them would wait for OBL's planes, for the same reason.


OBL was not shy about announcing to the world “we did it”.

I have provided detailed evidence in regard to what tfk has said above. Now, let's take a look at a few words that Tony has said.

Tony wrote:

The finding of a high density of iron microspheres in the dust points to the possibility of incendiary use.

That is obviously false in regard to 9/11 and I have provided details on the generation of microspheres as well, which debunks Tony's claim.

Tony wrote:

Additional discussion of molten metal and the fact that fire could not have produced it is seen here

I had recognized the molten metal flowing from WTC 2 as aluminum, not steel, so in this case, Tony is off the mark once again. The sources of aluminum were the airframe of United 175, the aluminum facade of WTC 2, and sources from within WTC 2.

 

[ozeco41]

Let's take a look at what there is evidence for in regard to what tfk has said.

Why should we change topic? Many of us here are aware of the evidence . The topic under discussion is the debate between tfk and T Sz. BUT YOU feel the need to produce evidence to support tfk. Why? Can you not see that if he needs your support YOU are confirming the limitations of his contribution to the debate?

I have provided detailed evidence in regard to what tfk has said above. Now, let's take a look at a few words that Tony has said.

Good for you - there are many of us who can out reason Tony. I'm possibly the only one who can out reason tfk AND am not tied by JREF Claque loyalty to pretend that he is right when he is wrong. Note the "ANDing" of the two premises.

That is obviously false in regard to 9/11 and I have provided details on the generation of microspheres as well, which debunks Tony's claim.

The thread topic is not whether YOU could out argue T Sz...many of us could. Some of us can and have out argued tfk. Neither is difficult. Grade 4 for those who know the "level of argument metrication". And BOTH of them give up and resort to insults very easily. I've been privileged to be insulted by both.

I had recognized the molten metal flowing from WTC 2 as aluminum, not steel, so in this case, Tony is off the mark once again. The sources of aluminum were the airframe of United 175, the aluminum facade of WTC 2, and sources from within WTC 2.

Wow. Do you think you are the first person to make the obvious linkages?? You were not debating Tony. tfk was. His performance (and Tony's) is what should be under discussion.

 

[ozeco41]

If you want to talk about someone... and addressing neither me directly nor any of my points:

Ziggi I have ZERO intention of playing your childish personal attack game. Sure each of your lies or debating ticks is easy to rebut. BUT I will not sink to your level.

If you have a substantive technical point to argue about WTC "Twins" collapses - present your reasoned hypothesis, I will CONSIDER whether to respond or not.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

If you want to talk about someone not quoting and addressing something you should perhaps complain to yourself about not quoting the post you refer to and addressing neither me directly nor any of my points: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11621575&postcount=679

Oh how generous of you, giving 3 lower-level comrades the grade of being usable for information in very limited areas! They must be so proud to get such praise from big daddy Ozeco41 who obviously handles the main subjects and the big picture. Everyone can see that this cancels out your judgments about the "debunkers" here in general being incompetent or liars or both. And oh how big of you giving the obviously inferior TFK the grade of being able to handle lower level physics when he is not lying his ass off. No need to discuss further then why TFK ran away from Tony when things were about to reach the higher level stuff!

Obviously I stand corrected; no-one in their right mind would accuse you of being an arrogant blowhard. No sir!

A few of you still seem oblivious to what a joke you guys have become. I am not sure that these last remnants of you would wake up even if you got a formal open letter from NIST or Randi himself telling you guys to please leave the scene because it has become too difficult for them to watch you guys making fools out of yourselves..Perhaps it is time for friends or family to intervene. Seriously.

- Nah, you guys just bury this with a little flood of comments about #something else, and everyone will forget about this problem in a jiffy and you will be able to continue on as usual as if nothing happened... u guys just change the subject with random accusations against me or truthers in general, make up a list of questions that have not been answered enough times, or start talking about Mark Basile, or something...Works every time and no-one is onto that little trick. Seriously.

Funny thing Ziggi is the twoofer movement was nothing but a total sham a fraud to start out with.

You people miss used the RJ Lee report to give an illogicall
Microspheres average concentration of Microspheres in a bank filled with Microspheres, to begin with.

You said aluminum couldn't glow and flow yellow, but you never properly reacted aluminum with plastics that contained nitrogen in the fire retardants.

You people said that sulfidication was proof of thermate because you couldn't reproduce
It because you didn't know it required a chimney effect fire.

You people said the red gray chips were thermite but you couldn't do the science to back that statement up.

.Face it Ziggi you Twoofers definitely can't do science you are totally incompetent, I for one welcome a new investigation and putting you clowns on the witness stand, I have enough information, and knowledge now to expose you in court for the Hucksters you are!

We both know though Ziggi that there will never be a new investigation, because that is in fact the one thing that would ruin your little Scam expose you as frauds and cut off the money flow.

We all know that's the one thing you don't really want.

 

[jaydeehess]

A reiterating of your earlier posts really isn't "spoon feeding". Come on Ziggi, exactly what education did new comers to the issue get?

The entire rason d'etre, it appears, of AE911T, is education about the events of 9/11.

EXACTLY how has the cause been advanced by having tfk withdraw from an internet forum debate?

EXACTLY how has tfk withdrawing from debate increased the technical veracity of the claims(perhaps I need to spoon feed you why this question is relevant to "education"?) of AE911T?

There is irony (hypocrisy) that the main cheerleader for one of the very few technical investigations that truthers have undertaken, is brow beatin debunkers about a debunker, tfk, leaving an internet debate. Basile has had years to produce and hasn't. Has he withdrawn from this investigation? By some measures he certainly has, even if not officially declared it.

In terms of education what would be more important, an internet debate on essentially, fringe issue web sites, or technical papers that might serve to persuade professionals in relevant areas? If tfk withdrawing from debate supposedly educates new comers on a deficiency in debunkers, then most certainly Basile's foot dragging, essential withdrawing from technical investigation educates such new comers in deficiency in truther circles by at least the same measure.

Come on Ziggi, back to tfk having withdrawn from the debate.
Address the above.

 

[Ziggi]

Originally Posted by ozeco41
- So is tfk so incompetent at engineering applied physics OR merely telling lies to support his personal attack?? Who cares - not me.
- I'm gradually accumulating a list of "out of their depth" alleged debunkers at ISF. Their primary mission is to lie and/or personally attack

Ziggi I have ZERO intention of playing your childish personal attack game. Sure each of your lies or debating ticks is easy to rebut. BUT I will not sink to your level..

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...My personal attack game? The personal insults about your fellow "debunkers" that I have listed here in the past couple of pages or so, are YOUR personal attacks against your comrades here, in threads with names such as "just plain idiots" and "duplicitous blowhard ( tfk ) at it again"..where you say your comrades here are mostly incompetent and/or liars. And then you think you can get all high and mighty in your Ivory Tower and lecture about sinking to a lower level. You are a joke. You are the perfect new poster-boy for these sad remnants of the JREF/ISF 911subforum.

Originally Posted by ozeco41
If you have a substantive technical point to argue about WTC "Twins" collapses - present your reasoned hypothesis, I will CONSIDER whether to respond or not.

Oh you wanna change the subject? That is funny.

Originally Posted by ozeco41
Why should we change topic? Many of us here are aware of the evidence . The topic under discussion is the debate between tfk and T Sz.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11621884&postcount=692

 

[LSSBB]

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...My personal attack game? The personal insults about your fellow "debunkers" that I have listed here in the past couple of pages or so, are YOUR personal attacks against your comrades here, in threads with names such as "just plain idiots" and "duplicitous blowhard ( tfk ) at it again"..where you say your comrades here are mostly incompetent and/or liars. And then you think you can get all high and mighty in your Ivory Tower and lecture about sinking to a lower level. You are a joke. You are the perfect new poster-boy for these sad remnants of the JREF/ISF 911subforum.



Oh you wanna change the subject? That is funny.

Having fun?

How's that new investigation coming? Did this debate move you guys any closer to, well, anything, that you can point to?

Just asking. I expect another meaningless diatribe in reply.

 

[beachnut]

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...My personal attack game? The personal insults about your fellow "debunkers" that I have listed here in the past couple of pages or so, are ...

Standard 9/11 truth logic, quote mining to support fantasy. But using BS quote mines which have no purpose, no link to CD, is failed logic. A tactic indicative of anti-intellectual mentality of debunking the debunkers. An exercise in anti-science, anti-reason; misleading people who are gullible, like the Boston bombers. Why does 9/11 truth publish false information, "fake news", will it inspire another "pizzagate" action, lies and woo inspire action due to people spreading lies; gullible people murder based on lies. How nobel to be an evidence free publisher of lies by 9/11 truth, and making weak personal attacks.

Quote mining what you call personal insults? I see opinions, and some hope others will act more intellectual. I prefer to read the statements and study me, what can I do to be better.

How do I grasp the logic related to the weak attack posts based on quote mining comments out of context, and not fully researched for meaning. We all come from varied backgrounds, and varied experience... how are we all going to agree on how we interact. But using disagreement about how we all behave and the comments on the behavior, will not help some fantasy of CD, and debating fantasy.

The insults? Are they opinions on how people would like others to behave? What does quote mining opinions have to do with helping the idiotic claims of CD.

How do you debate a fantasy of CD? Is it a debate to see why people make up lies, false claims, and nonsense to support the lie of CD? What is your point, why do you show up evidence free with a Gish Gallop of weak attacks by quote mining - the failed logic, is that the same logic used to fall for CD.

 

[ozeco41]

^^^ Wow beachnut. Spot on. Neat analysis and concise rebuttal.

Thank you.

 

[jaydeehess]

Oh you wanna change the subject? That is funny.

Speaking of changing the subject...............

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
A reiterating of your earlier posts really isn't "spoon feeding". Come on Ziggi, exactly what education did new comers to the issue get?

The entire rason d'etre, it appears, of AE911T, is education about the events of 9/11.

EXACTLY how has the cause been advanced by having tfk withdraw from an internet forum debate?

EXACTLY how has tfk withdrawing from debate increased the technical veracity of the claims(perhaps I need to spoon feed you why this question is relevant to "education"?) of AE911T?

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
There is irony (hypocrisy) that the main cheerleader for one of the very few technical investigations that truthers have undertaken, is brow beatin debunkers about a debunker, tfk, leaving an internet debate. Basile has had years to produce and hasn't. Has he withdrawn from this investigation? By some measures he certainly has, even if not officially declared it.

In terms of education what would be more important, an internet debate on essentially, fringe issue web sites, or technical papers that might serve to persuade professionals in relevant areas? If tfk withdrawing from debate supposedly educates new comers on a deficiency in debunkers, then most certainly Basile's foot dragging, essential withdrawing from technical investigation educates such new comers in deficiency in truther circles by at least the same measure.

Come on Ziggi, back to tfk having withdrawn from the debate.
Address the above