I found the missing Jolt.

Georgio said:
+1

The only rules should be that the other poster isn't allowed to ignore any point that is brought up and that posts should be technical and not personal. Anything more than that is just providing potential 'get outs' and making it more likely that the debate will end up being about who has followed the rules and who hasn't.

@Tony Szamboti - my heart sank when I read your list of terms. We're not playing a sports match where there is a winner and a loser - it's about determining what is the truth.
Click to expand...

Georgio, I am under the impression that you are a moderator here on the iSF.

If that is so, it is hard to understand your comment bemoaning straightforward ground rules when you are involved with a forum that has a significant number of rules.

I am sure the debate will work fine and the ground rules will help it do that.
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
Tony, is this true?
Click to expand...

No.

I said the North Tower did not fall as a building onto WTC 7 in response to Mr. NoahFence seeming to say it literally did.

I did not say no debris from the North Tower hit WTC 7.

I was told by the 911 Free Forum that they were ready for the debate and even created a new Debate sub-forum. I would be available to start on June 21st. Does that work for you?
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
Hold on there, Cowboy, not so fast ...

Are the golden tickle Fairies also wearing little black stiletto heels, carrying little black riding crops & of the female persuasion??

If so, I would like to offer my ringing endorsement.

Or, at the very least, set up an appointment for a "recreational scolding" ...
:eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Yes to all, they also feed you dark chocolate smores, so you don't get hungry during the tickling.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Georgio, I am under the impression that you are a moderator here on the iSF.
Click to expand...
I'm not a moderator, no (although I act like one sometimes!)

I hope the debate can go ahead as I can't stand the noise here; I always prefer one on one debates if they are possible; but I worry about the, 'forfeiting the debate' and 50 posts limit stuff especially. To me that just sounds like it's more of a competition with a winner and loser rather than a genuine effort to get at the truth through a debate.
 
JSanderO said:
One can't visually see when the last bit dropped because of dust obscuring the site. One would need to use sound... but then you have to link that to the sound of the start... not so so easy or correlate sight and sound. I don't think using the Lamont Doherty seismic data can be correlated to the beginning of the collapsed for multiple reasons.
Click to expand...

Actually, I wonder if a video with sound could be used for this purpose if the distance to the camera was known. Would it be possible, or within accurate tolerances, to time the collapse from visual initiation to the end of the collapse sound, and compensate for the distance to the camera? I suppose the tolerance on what defines the "last impact of collapsing debris" would be so large as to be meaningless.
 
tfk said:
Tony, is this true?
Click to expand...

I think he downplays the collapse onto WTC 7, kinda got that impression when he tried to build this strawman:

Tony Szamboti said:
AJM8125 said:
You mean besides another building falling on it and being left to burn all day?

Your guess is as good as mine, pal.
Click to expand...

So you think maybe the North Tower pushed WTC 7 to the right? That would be interesting given that WTC 7's center was a little to the left of the North Tower's center and it was a longer building.

You might have to work on that one.
Click to expand...

No idea what nether region that was pulled from.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
No.

I said the North Tower did not fall as a building onto WTC 7 in response to Mr. NoahFence seeming to say it literally did.

I did not say no debris from the North Tower hit WTC 7.

I was told by the 911 Free Forum that they were ready for the debate and even created a new Debate sub-forum. I would be available to start on June 21st. Does that work for you?
Click to expand...


I said it struck WTC7.
The fact that it wasn't literally 110 floors all at once is something you inserted. Debris from the North Tower hit wtc7. That's good enough to say "the north tower struck wtc7".

Like it or not.
 
skyeagle409 said:
Having Richard Gage debate anyone is a loss by default considering that Richard Gage is not considered credible and even has been caught lying on video.

Let's take a look here.
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't hear him say that he was "speculating". When you say you are speculating about something, you are not lying. You are merely speculating.

I admit that his speculation about explosives being planted in the 1980's is extremely far-fetched. This does not help his credibility. I wonder why he would have said this, and when he said it.

I admit that known examples of CD are complicated endeavors. That is a fact. There is no reason to deny it.

What the skeptics fail to admit is that they don't know everything. They assume that all CD must be the same. That is speculation. It is not fact; it is speculation.

Skeptics can make all of the arguments they want against CD, but physics shows that the official story is wrong. If the official story is wrong, what brought down WTC1, 2 and 7? Many signs point to CD. The only way we will ever find out is to get a new investigation.
 
NoahFence said:
I said it struck WTC7.
The fact that it wasn't literally 110 floors all at once is something you inserted. Debris from the North Tower hit wtc7. That's good enough to say "the north tower struck wtc7".

Like it or not.
Click to expand...
No. It's good enough to say debris from WTC 1 struck WTC 7.
 
FalseFlag said:
I would love to see Cole, Gage and TSz debate the skeptics.
Click to expand...

So would I; The comedy value of watching incompetent truthers flee from any reasonable debate while still having their asses handed to them on a platter is absolutely priceless.

You'd never see Gage posting here under his own name though. He learned his lesson long ago and won't be publicly humiliated ever again. He only preaches to the choir for a reason.
 
pgimeno said:
There's one thing I don't like about that forum for the purpose of this debate.

It allows edition of posts even years after they have been written.

This forum only allows edition of posts for up to 2 hours. Then it's written in stone and you can't deny you said something that you said, or change the meaning of your words.
Click to expand...

I was told that the edit time on the Debate forum was changed to 2 hours to match the ISF.
 
Tony

Why do you think this forum isn't neutral and why do you think the forum you are suggesting is neutral when you have already had discussions with them.

IMO it would be neutral if you showed the discussions you have had with them.
 
FalseFlag said:
Skeptics can make all of the arguments they want against CD, but physics shows that the official story is wrong.
Click to expand...

For the newbies and lurkers, it's been very well established that FalseFlag has no business saying anything about physics. He has publicly demonstrated that he is unable to use the basic concepts of velocity and acceleration as rates of change (of position and velocity respectively). In the end, FalseFlag was not even able to guess the values near the peak of an acceleration curve based on NIST's analysis of the collapse of WTC7, even though the peak of this curve showed the infamous "2.25 seconds of freefall" which is so often quoted by truthers.

So, in the end, FalseFlag doesn't even know this basic physics factoid:
"Freefall" is ~32 feet / second2, and the graph line in question was obviously at 30 feet / second2.


Just remember, there's ample reason to ignore anything FalseFlag has to say regarding physics.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom