Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
правда
-
Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
-
You may need to edit your signatures. When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.
Merged 9/11 Physics Debate: Any Takers?/Dr Griscom Wins
- Thread starter chrismohr
- Start date
правда
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Think what the world would be like if 911 truth ruled the world...
I would be in the 911 truth fema camps - the torture would be required to read aloud 911 truth claims... Those targeted for special treament...
You are given the choice, death or debate Griscom.
You pick death, knowing the Gish Gallop of debating Griscom is cruel torture.
They decree, death by debating Griscom.
fate... (yep, stole the joke, death by booga, booga)
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Here is the public challenge that was just issued yesterday:
There is one week to go until the scheduled debate on Kevin Barrett's show
on March 15, 2014 at noon Eastern Standard Time.
www.911Debate.org
Please send the top 3 candidates you have with a PhD in Physics
and Hirsch Index > 50 so we can send the invitations in time.
From what you say, there are many PhDs in Physics on the side of the
official government story - in fact every one in the world who is not
affiliated with 9/11 Truth. So that would be thousands.
Feel free to call on our friends at JREF to submit qualified nominees.
So please just pick 3 for now so we can find out who is available.
PhDs in Physics are busy. There is much to be done,
such as making sure the PhD is set up with Skype,
and agreeing on a specific time for the calls.
The proposed debate question is:
Resolved:
1) The laws of physics were broken by the official story and we need a new investigation
or
2) The laws were not broken, and everything was explainable. The 9/11 Commission Report is fine as is.
The debate will be 2 hours with three 10 minute breaks every half hour for a total time of 1.5 hours.
Kevin is very experienced in holding such events, and conferencing people together.
The debate will be recorded so that everyone can benefit from the knowledge
and interesting discussion that will surely be heard.
It should be an interesting debate. May both sides learn a lot from each other.
There is one week to go until the scheduled debate on Kevin Barrett's show
on March 15, 2014 at noon Eastern Standard Time.
www.911Debate.org
Please send the top 3 candidates you have with a PhD in Physics
and Hirsch Index > 50 so we can send the invitations in time.
From what you say, there are many PhDs in Physics on the side of the
official government story - in fact every one in the world who is not
affiliated with 9/11 Truth. So that would be thousands.
Feel free to call on our friends at JREF to submit qualified nominees.
So please just pick 3 for now so we can find out who is available.
PhDs in Physics are busy. There is much to be done,
such as making sure the PhD is set up with Skype,
and agreeing on a specific time for the calls.
The proposed debate question is:
Resolved:
1) The laws of physics were broken by the official story and we need a new investigation
or
2) The laws were not broken, and everything was explainable. The 9/11 Commission Report is fine as is.
The debate will be 2 hours with three 10 minute breaks every half hour for a total time of 1.5 hours.
Kevin is very experienced in holding such events, and conferencing people together.
The debate will be recorded so that everyone can benefit from the knowledge
and interesting discussion that will surely be heard.
It should be an interesting debate. May both sides learn a lot from each other.
A Hirsch index of 50 means the researcher has 50 publications that have been cited at least 50 times in others' work. Tough requirement to meet. The creator of the index estimates:
(Quote is from here: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/rating-researchers)
The chance that a physicist of such stature would waste time debating crazy engineering claims and random tiny details of the NIST reports is low.
(Quote is from here: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/rating-researchers)
Hi Chris,
Do you know where this debate is being promoted ?
Is Jref really the right place to find the participants they require ?
ozeco41
Philosopher
Why give any credence to such an obvious truther styled false dichotomy? Very few JREFers would fall for the trap.
How could it be of any interest given that the true position is specifically excluded?
Anyone occupying either of those two false positions is unlikely to be amenable to leaning from the other.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Spanx, my suspicion is that we are being set up so we fail to find anyone who will debate, and then they will use that as evidence that our "common narrative" position is not so common. I hope they prove me wrong. JREF would be the best place to find SOMEONE to debate Dr. Griscom, since a physicist of high stature who has not looked into 9/11 details would not be prepared to answer Griscom's claims on the fly. I'm guessing we're the target of most of the promotion. I think it may well be possible to find someone here, say, Dave Thomas, with debating exprerience, who is fully qualified to respond to the rather basic physics claims being made by Dr. Griscom.
There are lots of problems with this. Kevin Barrett is not doing a radio show for physicists. It's for laypeople. A full-on debate between two physicists for two hours would make for DREADFUL radio (I know, I've been a radio host since 1978 and published a national radio magazine). So, let's say I debated Griscom. He could overwhelm me with physics claims I would be unable to respond to. So I would lose. Dave Thomas could probably hold his own very well, but they are setting up the rules so that he is unqualified. Dave could do a great job. But they win because they have a way of keeping him out. To my knowledge, no one who might qualify has made it their avocation to carefully study 9/11 Truth claims. So we lose. Might as well say it in advance and be the first person to concede defeat before they claim victory.
There are lots of problems with this. Kevin Barrett is not doing a radio show for physicists. It's for laypeople. A full-on debate between two physicists for two hours would make for DREADFUL radio (I know, I've been a radio host since 1978 and published a national radio magazine). So, let's say I debated Griscom. He could overwhelm me with physics claims I would be unable to respond to. So I would lose. Dave Thomas could probably hold his own very well, but they are setting up the rules so that he is unqualified. Dave could do a great job. But they win because they have a way of keeping him out. To my knowledge, no one who might qualify has made it their avocation to carefully study 9/11 Truth claims. So we lose. Might as well say it in advance and be the first person to concede defeat before they claim victory.
9/11 Physics Debate: Any Takers?
These guys are hilarious. They can't even construct a cogent debate topic. The 9/11 Commission Report didn't have anything to do with physics.
This made me laugh:
Kevin Barrett is a tool.
These guys are hilarious. They can't even construct a cogent debate topic. The 9/11 Commission Report didn't have anything to do with physics.
This made me laugh:
Kevin Barrett is a tool.
Last edited:
Well, if nobody joins their debate ? Perhaps they could fill their time by answering a few questions.
http://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/story.php?title=level-superiority-complex
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
They figure everyone is too stupid to notice. It has to do with the company they keep.
Now, if the contest was over the jewelry and the judges were truly independent and agreed jewelry referees instead... things might be different.
Or without the metaphor: to present the debate to a group of independent and agreed scientists to judge it on the technical merits.
Or without the metaphor: to present the debate to a group of independent and agreed scientists to judge it on the technical merits.
Incidentally, and sorry for the topic drift, that's also the reason why I think Dr. Millette should NOT publish his findings. Currently it has the audience it deserves, and things are good as they are. Publishing the paper would be one more excuse to add more fuel to the fire by publishing rebuttal papers, maybe in more serious publications, and get more and more undeserved attention.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
What do they win? They still have the same arguments that no one has paid attention to for years. The best they can hope for is to convince some people that wanted to believe anyway.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
That's a whole sank of nuttery right there.
Sorry to be so blunt, but verbal debates over matters of fact are fatuous.
At best, facts win the day. At worst, well-presented delusions can appear to win the day.
I wouldn't touch such a thing with a bargepole.
Where was this issued? Is this an email? Kevin is very experienced in spreading lies and idiotic claptrap.
LOL, how can you break the laws of physics on a macro event like 911? An idiotic statement which no physicist except 911 truth nuts will touch; it make no sense.
What a delusional statement, and you should respond to the idiot who made up 1) and tell them it is fantasy at face value. They make up the "laws of physics were broken" and that fails out of the box.
Griscom is not a physicist for the debate, he is full blown nuts on 911.
If Griscom had some evidence or rational claims, they would be on 60 Minutes long ago. He and Barrett are BS artists, spreading their idiotic claims with fake debates.
"laws of physics were broken" is the red flag of woo, and Barrett is woo.
Where did you find this information? Was it emailed to you?
Love that super person Kevin Barrett who is so intellectual...
An immature conspiracy theorist too chicken to sign up at JREF because he knows he is the personification of BS on 911 issues.
What does Kevin Barrett say, "if you don't debate me, Kevin Barrett the truth Jihad man of woo, you are a coward; nah nah nah"
Last edited:
George 152
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2002
- Messages
- 5,012
Well you have to admit theres plenty of time (30 minutes in every half hour) at their 'meetings' to accomplish something of merit
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
- Joined
- May 26, 2012
- Messages
- 692
What a con. With an audience of truthers deciding the outcome, no sane physicist would be gullible enough to enter into this obvious setup. However, with no-one stupid enough to accept this moronic challenge, the truther fruit bats will still claim victory and use it for propaganda purposes.
It's all rather pathetic, but sadly typical of their tactics.
It's all rather pathetic, but sadly typical of their tactics.
Last edited:
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
- Joined
- May 26, 2012
- Messages
- 692
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
"To Gravy from Kevin," WOW. What a letter Beachnut. Pretty chilling. And yes, the debate challenges were emailed to me. I don't even know if anyone else got it. On posts 1 and 45, I just "passed the word" without comment. Other posts (like this one) I share my rather low opinion of what looks like a setup. Which is why I admit utter defeat from the get-go.
With one litytle caveat: why, when I first explored the collapse of the WTC buildings, was I unable to find a single physicist who aghreed with even a single element of the 9/11 Truth assertions? Of the 14 physicists who were willing to talk with me personally, 14 said there was plenty of energy to bring the buildings down via natural collapse once initiation began. Then I went onto physics chat rooms. Several physicists answered my questions. EVERY SINGLE ONE of them was in general alignment with the common narrative of natural collapse. So after talking personally to over 20 ransom physicists, why couldn't I find a single physicist who doubted the main elements of the common narrative?
Oh, and when I talked to structural engineers, architects, other kinds of engineers, all kinds of experts NOT in JREF, just local professors etc. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, without fail, agreed with the major outlines of the common narrative of natural collapse.
Why is there such vast consensus among real experts about what caused the WTC buildings to collapse? And if you think that this is some stunning coincidence, then why is the list of people whose papers support some element of the natural collapse theory so vast? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8380815&postcount=5543
These are the questions this ignorant English major marrying minister would like to ask Dr. Griscom. Oh, and one last one: since so many respected evolutionary scientists refuse to debate creationists, does that make creationists right? Or do they not want to waste their time?
With one litytle caveat: why, when I first explored the collapse of the WTC buildings, was I unable to find a single physicist who aghreed with even a single element of the 9/11 Truth assertions? Of the 14 physicists who were willing to talk with me personally, 14 said there was plenty of energy to bring the buildings down via natural collapse once initiation began. Then I went onto physics chat rooms. Several physicists answered my questions. EVERY SINGLE ONE of them was in general alignment with the common narrative of natural collapse. So after talking personally to over 20 ransom physicists, why couldn't I find a single physicist who doubted the main elements of the common narrative?
Oh, and when I talked to structural engineers, architects, other kinds of engineers, all kinds of experts NOT in JREF, just local professors etc. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, without fail, agreed with the major outlines of the common narrative of natural collapse.
Why is there such vast consensus among real experts about what caused the WTC buildings to collapse? And if you think that this is some stunning coincidence, then why is the list of people whose papers support some element of the natural collapse theory so vast? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8380815&postcount=5543
These are the questions this ignorant English major marrying minister would like to ask Dr. Griscom. Oh, and one last one: since so many respected evolutionary scientists refuse to debate creationists, does that make creationists right? Or do they not want to waste their time?
I think they don't want to waste their time and dignify the truthers by appearing with a legitimate professional.
One aspect of 9/11 and the way truthers are is that there enormous amounts of details and flat out assertions which are not true. Their observations are largely wrong in significant way. And they pop from one so called anomaly to another as if their mis observations represent some manner of proof that the event had a CD cause.
Let them make a complete detailed consistent affirmative case regardless and irrespective what NIST said or didn't say and link it to all observations.
They can't.
ozeco41
Philosopher
In no way is avoiding a con-trick scam a "defeat".
Recognise that most academics accepted the B&Z 2001/2 energy explanation as sufficient. and that is the position your 14 were coming from. Later research - possibly led by members of this forum plus The911Forum - has explained the actual collapse mechanisms in significant detail. BUT there is still a big distinction between "real collapse explainers" and those relying on Bazantian abstractions. BOTH are correct - B&Z is sufficient for most professionals - the details of the real event are irrelevant to them and the main interest here is in the professionally unimportant activity of discussion with truthers and trolls.;
There is no doubt. There is no "two sides". The analogy to "creationism" is accurate. There is no interest in serious discussion of truther nonsense outside these narrow foci of forums and similar "meeting places". The "real world" isn't so stupid as to care. Put simply we could well be the fools for continuing to entertain the remnant trolls of 911 Truth - given that most "Genuine Truthers" learned the real truths a long time ago and the remaining few are almost certainly beyond rational help.
you know the answer Chris! There is not and never has been the slightest doubt about the "major outlines".
Your conditional "if" clause is wrong. So the question is without foundation.
Ask yourself "Why do I want to ask him?" IF it is in hope of him doing a Saul on the way to Damascus - don't waste your time.. 911 truth is continually adding to the small number of aged professionals who for whatever deep need of ego stroking OR attention seeking OR self worth OR....etc -- are prepared to sacrifice all their professional integrity - Jones, Harrit, Griscom.
Your ironic statement of the logical error understood. Dawkins enunciation of his stand probably fits most genuine professionals - whether in "creationism" or "9/11 Truth" - "They" are after publicity and the pseudo credibility of appearing on the same platform and thereby falsely appearing to have equal credibility with the genuine professional person of esteemed status. There simply is no "second side" of creationism worthy of debate alongside evolutionary biology NOR of "Truther style Truth" alongside the real situation with 9/11 matters in those four/five main areas of technical claims.
Since they are untruthful - whether liars OR obsessed believers - why give them the publicity or credibility for their false ideas?
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
You're right Ozeco41, of course. As I've said before, I don't think a marrying minister debating 9/11 Truth people gives them a very big platform to stand on. The value of this is that my YouTube videos have been watched by over 100,000 people, and when I debarted publicly against Gage, twice as many people in the audience shifted towards my position and away from Gage's as the other way around. You may know the old adaged that the best person to teach a five year old how to tie his shoes is a six-year-old! But... I'm wrapping this up soon. Past time to move on, and after this last YouTube video and some responses to the inevitable reactions, I think my work here is mostly finished.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Thanks Chris! You pretty much demolished Gage's arguments. Well done. I think most of their talking points.. so called anomalies have all been explained. No... they were not fires from a few file cabinets but major fires over hundreds of thousands of square feet with no fire suppression. The effect of fire on steel is an established fact. The frame was stressed, members shifted, warped and connections failed and the integrity and capacity of the structures were lost.. and gravity took over and collapsed them. The stupid argument of the small block being unable to destroy the much stronger one shows the complete lack of understanding of the structure and basic physics. One the truther side embraces such obviously flawed thinking and junk science it's a waste of time to debate... science versus astrology.
Sadly there are persistent loud mouths that carry on for ego and cash... and without someone to point this out the naive public can be swayed as the are by things like scientology and other irrational belief systems. No scientists bother to debate scientology nor religions. They have serious work to do.
And like with scientology or creationism it is sad to see how intelligent people can be so stupid.
Removing everything that is unsalvageable as part of a valid debate proposition, we get
Resolved: ...a new investigation...
Adding in some necessary and clear context, we get
Resolved: [There should be] a new investigation [of 9/11].
However, this still isn't a valid proposition, because it's a passive wish (a la "There should be world peace") rather than a course of action. That might be fixable by:
Resolved: [Someone] should act to bring about a new investigation of 9/11.
Now all they need to do is fill in the [Someone]. The U.S. Congress? The United Nations? The NYC bureau of licensing and inspections? Some private group?
Once that's done, I could debate either side of it (which, I am given to understand, is generally true among competitive debaters for a debate premise that is both valid and at least somewhat interesting), and none of my arguments either way would depend on knowledge of physics.
Respectfully,
Myriad
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,758
lol that's exactly what I thought when I read that. Hilarious.
That's a 9/11 scholar?
Sounds more like the raving and drooling of a lunatic.
Well...they're NOT mutually exclusive.
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,515
Barrett's had half of the world up on his imaginary scaffold at one time or another. Let's remember too that participating in this debate means accepting a moderator who's also a Holocaust denier.
Last edited:
Maybe this statement could be taken slightly more seriously if they themselves were able to find just ONE more candidate on the 9/11 Truth side who fits those requirements, which were obviously taylored after Griscom's CV for this silly little game they are trying to play. I dare to bet that there is none.
Frishman
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2013
- Messages
- 54
9/11 Physics Debate: Any Takers?
How is it coming on picking a contender? There are 24 hours to go until high noon on the Ides of March. It must be difficult to choose from the "hundreds of top scientists", surpassing Dr. Griscom's credentials, who support the official government story of 9/11, ready to defend the NEOCT. What's the matter, are they unpatriotic?
The 9/11 Physics Debate is about physics, not what happened to the passengers. I do not find any reference of his hypothesis (not a conclusion) on any web site or journal with his name on it that is within the past few years (2011-2014). Scientists change their hypothesis with the results of scientific research. Besides, the topic is the "9/11 Physics Debate" on March 15 at 12:00 noon EST.
How is it coming on picking a contender? There are 24 hours to go until high noon on the Ides of March. It must be difficult to choose from the "hundreds of top scientists", surpassing Dr. Griscom's credentials, who support the official government story of 9/11, ready to defend the NEOCT. What's the matter, are they unpatriotic?
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
How's it coming finding a physics topic to debate?
No one is going to waste time on this.
phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
You can't debate physics in that format. You can't do the math and show your work, let alone give people time to double check any of it, in a verbal debate.
And the audience is guaranteed to be loaded with truthers, so having them decide the "winner" seems just slightly biased.
And the audience is guaranteed to be loaded with truthers, so having them decide the "winner" seems just slightly biased.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
It is coming great. How are you coming with supporting your conclusion that Griscom changed his "hypothesis" that the passengers are still alive.
Or, ya know, as pointed out before, finding a "physics" topic to discuss?
I do have a concern that the type of listeners that listen to Kevin the Holocaust denier Barrett are going to be very disappointed to learn that no one wanted to debate Griscom on a lunatic's radio show.
Frishman
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2013
- Messages
- 54
9/11 Physics Debate: Any Takers?
Physics is a wide open topic. Surely Dr. Griscom and your physicist can work it out. Everyone will learn something more, which is the goal of debate.
How did you determine that that is "guaranteed"? Responsible weathermen and stock brokers, relying on sophisticated models, are careful about making guarantees. As for the number in the audience for the Debate, won't you guys support your physicist? I seem to be outnumbered here, but truth gives me the advantage. The audience could be loaded with Falsers.
You are against making hypotheses? Thomas Edison made over 1000 hypotheses, trying every element and combinations from A to Z, from "Alumnium will glow" to "Zinc will glow" until he found that "Tungsten will glow."
Who are your Top Takers for the 9/11 Debate?
Physics is a wide open topic. Surely Dr. Griscom and your physicist can work it out. Everyone will learn something more, which is the goal of debate.
How did you determine that that is "guaranteed"? Responsible weathermen and stock brokers, relying on sophisticated models, are careful about making guarantees. As for the number in the audience for the Debate, won't you guys support your physicist? I seem to be outnumbered here, but truth gives me the advantage. The audience could be loaded with Falsers.
You are the one making the allegation, so it is your responsibility to prove it. A hypothesis an explanation to be tested, to see if it holds true or not.
You are against making hypotheses? Thomas Edison made over 1000 hypotheses, trying every element and combinations from A to Z, from "Alumnium will glow" to "Zinc will glow" until he found that "Tungsten will glow."
Who are your Top Takers for the 9/11 Debate?
Last edited: