• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

make sure you get a haircut
you wouldnt want to end up as a lego photoshop on some truther forum :D lol
 
Last edited:
Are Chandler and Tony gonna pull a Sarah Palin thing? You know, when asked a question, give a no response reponse and say "That's an interesting question but this is my chance to talk to the American people. Did you know Larry Silverstein said 'pull it' and the towers fell at free fall speed and there was molten metal at GZ?"
 
dropzone said:
Don't get overconfident.
Click to expand...

After nearly 5,000 posts here against everyone from Ace Baker to Zlaya, and hardly a mark on me, what reason would I have to feel overconfident?

Justin39640 said:
make sure you get a haircut
you wouldnt want to end up as a lego photoshop on some truther forum :D lol
Click to expand...

Got one. Your avatar really creeps me out, incidentally.

UNLoVedRebel said:
Are Chandler and Tony gonna pull a Sarah Palin thing? You know, when asked a question, give a no response reponse and say "That's an interesting question but this is my chance to talk to the American people. Did you know Larry Silverstein said 'pull it' and the towers fell at free fall speed and there was molten metal at GZ?"
Click to expand...

I can't imagine they'd try that, given they want to remain visible and continue pushing their own views. It would hardly serve them to behave in such a manner. I trust they'll conduct themselves more honestly, but we shall see.
 
Do a Joaquin Phoenix. Or wear a "8-Bit Tie."

This should be interesting. I would expect them to go with something completely out of left field and pepper you with meaningless and unrelated canards the second you start pulling the blocks out of their Jenga tower.

Ohh...better yet, bring a goofy hat. Like a foam ten-gallon one. When one of them starts ranting and raving, don't even try to cut him off. Just don the goofy hat and kick back until he gets done. Then take it off when it's you're turn to talk.

Eventually you'll get asked "What's up with the hat?"

"Oh, this? I only wear this hat to signify that my opponent has completely run out of substantive arguments, and is only going to spew unrelated non-sequitirs in an attempt to hijack the debate. So rather than shouting him down, I put the hat on so people at home know what's going on. Plus, the hat is awesome."
 
R.M ...

I can't quite work out from your o/p whether you will or will not be specifically debating their pet theories, or whether it will be freestyle.
 
Having enjoyed your previous Hardfire shows and there informative and educational content I look forward to the forth coming show.

However, I do have a concern. In that by debating them that you give them a platform to promote their AGENDA, which to most of us has nothing to do with the truth or the lessons that can be learnt from these events. Someone of your stature debating them gives them recognition and validity that they crave.

I think Dawkins position of not debating Theists is probably the best stance.

What’s your take on it?

Woof!
 
TexasJack said:
The host is Ron Wieck, who used to post here, is not a truther, far from it. In fact he got banned here because he could not control his vicious attacks on the poor truthers. However, when he moderates, he is very professional towards them. Here is an example:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5692853335910175330
Click to expand...
I found that session to be quite frustrating to watch. Fetzer did most of the talking with Mark barely able to get his points in. I'm not going to go back to check, but I don't think Mark got to finish any of his points without being interrupted.

Ryan, I'd suggest that Ron take firmer control of the give and take and especially squash fillibustering.
 
I would prefer to see two members against two. I fear they will try to drown you out or double team you Ryan.

Now I know you can more than handle yourself, however a TV show is far different then a forum, so just be cognizant of what I have said.

Also, be prepared for the usual, you know, burden of proof shift, topic switching, debating fallacies.

Hopefully Ron will keep them in line, and keep it fair...good luck.

TAM:)
 
This should be interesting....I enjoyed your two previous hardfire debates...free of any math or engineering errors as I remember......

Most online debates I have watched/listened to have the truthers on the losing end in a big way.

This will likely be another debate showing the complete lack of evidence for the truthers. I look forward to watching the slaughter.....
 
Tony Szamboti, Kevin Barrett and other 9/11 nutbars

Kevin Barrett, close associate of leaders of 9/11 truth, including Tony Szamboti, calls for the execution of 'anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream media'

He also alleged that no Israelis were killed in the WTC collapses (untrue), playing up the 'Jews did it' part of 9/11 'truth' doctrine.
From ScrewLooseChange http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/kevin-barrett-calls-for-mass-execution.html

Kevin Barrett
I think that anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past should be up on the scaffold for the crimes of high treason and crimes against humanity.
from We the People Radio Network

Barrett also accuses Senator John McCain of 'treason and complicity in mass murder'. McCain's crime? - writing the preface to Popular Mechanics book debunking 9/11 Myths.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/3491861.html?page=3
'Having John McCain as the man writing the preface [to the Popular Mechanics book] means he should not be allowed to have any public event without being repeatedly called on his treason and complicity in mass murder, and crimes against humanity.'

and on the Jewish conspiracy

'April 17, 2008:

One of the "very good" things about 9/11, from an Israeli perspective, was the miracle of the Twin Towers. Somehow all the Israelis just didn't happen to be there that day. The vile rumor that "no Jews died in the Towers" was probably spread by Mossad as a pre-emptive strike against people noticing that no ISRAELIS died in the Towers. This is what Ahmadinejad should be harping on!

It is an amazing fact that citizens of more than 100 nations died in the Twin Towers, but not a single Israeli was killed, despite the well-known heavy presence of Israelis in the World Trade Center. China lost 20 people, Columbia lost 18, the Dominican Republic lost 25, India lost 34, Ecuador and Italy both lost 13, the Phillipines lost 16, Japan and Jamaica both lost 21, Trinidad and Tobago lost 15, the UK lost 68, and indeed the majority of nations on earth lost people in the World Trade Center... and Israel lost exactly ZERO, zilch, nada... While the USA lost 2,464 people. '

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/kevin-barrett-but-not-single-israeli.html




Tony Szamboti had a long conversation with Kevin Barrett on Barrett's show, October 30, 2007. Mr. Szamboti discussed his belief in pyroclastic flows from WTC 1, 2 and 7, as well as evidence of explosives every 3 floors. I haven't listened to the entire interview yet, but thought it was interesting that Mr. Szamboti is so closely associated with a person like Barrett.
It should be noted that a similar relationship exists between Barrett and Dr. Steven Jones. An even more intimate part of this matrix of 9/11 truthers involves Jim Fetzer, who is a close colleague of Barrett, and is also batpoop crazy.(no planer etc..)

http://www.bomb-mp3.com/download.ph...n+Barrett+-+Tony+Szamboti+&+Rolf+Lindgren
 
I should point out that one of my criticisms toward Tony Szamboti is not just that he's looking at the physics of the WTC collapses - there's nothing wrong with this in itself.

It's his role in supporting the paranoid delusions of 9/11 truth, and the impact of these delusions:

1) Prominent leaders of the 9/11 'truth' movement are still implicating Israel, Mossad, and Jewish leaders in the planning and actual execution of the 9/11 terror attacks. This greatly increases the danger of 9/11 truth cultists attacking Jewish targets, as we have seen with James Von Brunn and the Holocaust museum.

2) Tony's participation in forums such as Barrett's lends support and credence to Barrett's attacks on prominent American (war hero, no less) John McCain and Barrett's obvious bloodlust for the mass media.
This is dangerous stuff, when broadcast to vulnerable and gullible listeners.

3)Tony's complete denial that the 9/11 hijackers were independent of the US government, instead trying to argue that the plane impacts were part of a smokescreen in the US government-led mass murder plot.
 
Ryan.

I would prefer not to have a massive seizure while trying to watch you school those fools. Please, solid colors. :)
 
Expect Tony Szambozi to make a big deal about the "missing jolt" and the collapse initiating ABOVE the impact point of the planes (especially the 98th floor of the WTC1). He claims the bowing effect was not due to sagging floor trusses but something to do with the core columns.

What else.. He likes to talk about how the steel wasn't inspected. He once mentioned that thermite would have been used to weaken the joints and not used laterally on steel columns. He is a big fan of the red/grey paint chips.
 
Here's some recent statements by Tony
'Deceleration of the impacting object beyond the rate of gravity and a velocity loss would prove a dynamic load took place. Otherwise the load can only be considered static.'

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4875026#post4875026

'If the collapse had been a natural event, the amount of energy loss which would have been incurred by the upper block, to just deform and buckle the columns on just the first floors on either side of the first collision, would have been about 87% of it's kinetic energy just prior to impact. That translates to a 75% velocity loss, so it wouldn't have been some undiscernable velocity loss we were looking for. If an impact capable of delivering the required energy had occurred, at a minimum, the upper block would have slowed from about 23 feet/second to about 5.5 feet/second and the video resolution and frame rate of 30 frames per second was more than up to that task.'

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4875068#post4875068

'In the case of an impact dynamic load or shock load it causes amplification of the static load due to rapid deceleration of the impacting object. The reality is that to defeat the reserve strength of the columns by the statically insufficient load of the upper block there needed to be a large dynamic load.

The general argument here is that the impacts occurred gradually and no large jolt was noticed. The problem with this is that the energy of deformation does not change and even separate impacts would still cause an aggregate energy drain from the upper block with a resultant velocity loss, which isn't observed.'

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4873064#post4873064

'We don't know exactly what happened to the columns and connections in the fire affected areas as the city of New York did not save the steel for investigators.'

Regarding explosives:

'As for lower noise level explosives being possible, the brisance and gas pressure of nanothermites used as explosives are tailorable by the sizing of the particles and the amount of organics used to generate gas pressure. Finally, it is the gas pressure velocity and it's range which causes the sound levels and the distance it travels.

A report from The 221st National Meeting of the American Chemical Society held during April 2001 in San Diego made the below comment:

At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives. Nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management. The feature of “impulse management” may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level'
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4870414#post4870414

'I believe that some type of explosive charge was used every third floor to break the welds of the outer core columns, after the collapse was underway for a few floors. As they were inside the tower, any blast from the charges would not be visible, and the debris falling outside would mask any escaping ejections and the collapse itself would mask the noise. I don't think much would have to be done to the perimeter columns except to separate the orthogonal walls at the corners every 10 to 20 floors. This could have been done by attacking the spandrel splices at the corners, allowing the perimeter walls to petal outward.'

'I do think artificial heat weakening was used to initiate the collapses. This heat weakening could have been used to weaken the joints of the structure. It would not have to mean cutting the columns with thermite. I am inclined to believe that the temperatures from this heat weakening were much higher than what fire could produce and that is why little to no steel evidence was saved from the fire affected areas for analysis.

In essence, I think the demolition was achieved by attacking joints with heat generating mechanisms and explosive charges rather than cutting columns.'

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4871961#post4871961
 
alienentity said:
It's his role in supporting the paranoid delusions of 9/11 truth, and the impact of these delusions:
Click to expand...

I'm going to try to keep this scientific and above board, rather than bludgeon Tony over his associations or the statements of others. However, I note with some amusement that David Chandler apparently is planning to present some kind of preamble where he impugns Ron's impartiality -- an interesting trick, since Ron never claimed to be impartial in the first place... If they go negative, I'm sure they'll come off the worse for it.

Also, interestingly, nobody seems to care about David Chandler so far, everyone seems more interested in Tony.

TruthersLie said:
I would prefer not to have a massive seizure while trying to watch you school those fools. Please, solid colors. :)
Click to expand...

You do realize, the more you all whine, the more fun I can have antagonizing you, right? :vk:

GlennB said:
I can't quite work out from your o/p whether you will or will not be specifically debating their pet theories, or whether it will be freestyle.
Click to expand...

My feeling is it will gravitate to their own pet... observations (I doubt either one has anything approaching an actual "theory"). This is somewhat frustrating to me. I'd rather tackle a problem instead of going after personal beliefs, much as I'd prefer not to personalize the discussion. However, since there are no sane Truth Movement hypotheses to be found (Judy Wood's magic hurricane beam concentrator and Jim Hoffman's thousand tons of thermite ceiling tiles do not qualify as "sane"), the discussion will inevitably devolve onto one or two lone ideas and their proponents.

There just isn't any consensus in the Truth Movement. Nothing approaching the scientific solidarity regarding September 11th, anyway. So one either tackles isolated beliefs, or else one goes home having never sighted the opposition. Not my fault they're so disorganized.

Bad_Doggie said:
However, I do have a concern. In that by debating them that you give them a platform to promote their AGENDA, which to most of us has nothing to do with the truth or the lessons that can be learnt from these events. Someone of your stature debating them gives them recognition and validity that they crave.
Click to expand...

This is a valid concern as far as it goes, but I don't think I lend all that much "legitimacy" to them. Unless you move in the circles of scenario paintball, September 11th kookery, artificial intelligence, or prognostics, you're not likely to have heard of me. I in no way represent the government or any political body, nor am I much of a celebrity.

I also am not concerned simply because, as observed elsewhere, there are no "fence sitters" left anywhere. The worst that possibly comes out of this is I get quote-mined on obscure and irrelevant message boards (much like the jackals are currently heckling Dr. Greening about "Newton's 3rd Law doesn't apply," when in fact he believes no such nonsense, of course). It just isn't going to make that much difference.

On the other hand, I may be able to reach a few of those in the Truth Movement. Or provide some education for others who are merely interested in science.

Or it may be a complete waste of time. I'd lay odds on this one, but one never knows. In any case, apart from my time, I really don't have much skin in the game. It's an opportunity, one without much downside from my perspective.
 
ummm...Since Ron and his producer control the show, why would Chandler even attempt such a thing. Though I think Ron too honest to remove it, they (Chandler et al) must know if they go overboard with the pre-debate grandstanding, that it could simply be edited out.

What a turd.

TAM:)

Edit: as for Chandler. Well why should anybody care about him. His claim to fame is a debunked "WTC7 is in Freefall" argument, and that is it.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you'll debunk him right into a recursive loop where he says nothing but "Free Fall!" "Pyroclastic!" "Thermate!" "Bork!" "Progressive Collapse Arrest!" over and over again.

Wait a minute...
 
And now a word from "Capt. Obvious"...
Try to make sure that they apportion speaking time "by side" (in which case you'd get 50%) and not "by person" (in which case you'd get 33%).

tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom