TAM 2011 WTC 7 debate

DaveThomasNMSR said:
For the record, I never said I was "unable to refute (cmatrix's) arguments."

Rather, I said that

In other words, there's no need to debate someone who commits logical fallacies and admits it.

Not at all the same thing as "unable to refute (someone's) arguments."

K?
Click to expand...

Well since I have not committed the fallacy you falsely claim I have committed as explained countless times now including here, you should have no problem engaging in a focused debate with me. Unless there's another reason of course.

I have no problem debating you despite the fact that you have committed a straw man fallacy by falsely claiming I committed a straw man fallacy. Why so fussy?
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
Nothing like a bit of good old fashioned "poison the well" to set the scene cmatrix. Followed by "deny the opposition a place in the starting line-up"

So this is the scope of debate you propose:

Define the "most scientific alternative" to what you describe as the "completely unscientific NIST WTC 7 collapse theory"

Your pre-determined emotive qualifiers ("completely unscientific") do not change the subject of that phrase which is the "NIST WTC 7 collapse theory"

So you want to debate the best alternative which automatically denies the NIST explanation being considered?

Why not simply deny any explanation that you disagree with?

[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/scratch.gif[/qimg]

[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/nono.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

In my first post I will explain how the NIST theory is completely unscientific and propose a more scientific alternative. What's the problem?
 
cmatrix said:
In my first post I will explain how the NIST theory is completely unscientific and propose a more scientific alternative. What's the problem?
Click to expand...
Why did you lie and say that R Mackey and Dave Thomas could not refute your argument? Don't think the world does not see your shallow attempt at deception.
 
cmatrix said:
In my first post I will explain how the NIST theory is completely unscientific and propose a more scientific alternative. What's the problem?
Click to expand...
Apart from the fact that you cannot support that nonsense claim....

The real issue is that your proposed rules of engagement - the scope of topic - excludes the NIST explanation from consideration.
 
LashL said:
Well, first, Mr. Mackey and Mr. Thomas have not said what you claim, but that's beside the point (although it does reflect rather poorly on you to preface your post with a fib).

Second, you need to do all of the leg work yourself and once you have agreement from the other Forum members who will be party to the proposed moderated thread debate, send a PM with a formal request and an outline of the scope and ground rules, etc. to a member of the Moderating Team, and then a moderated thread will be considered by the Moderating Team.

Third, no, nobody here is going to contact anyone on your behalf. The people you've mentioned in your OP aren't even members of the Forum so far as I know [ETA: aside from James Randi, of course, but I am 100% certain that he will not be even remotely interested in discussing this with you]. You seem to be conflating the JREF Forum with the JREF itself, but they are two different things.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't Randi want to debate me? Is he no longer interested in real science and real skepticism or does he agree with me that the NIST WTC 7 theory is crackpot pseudo-science?
 
DGM said:
Because you're a lying nobody. Truth hurts sometime.

:(
Click to expand...

..and there is nothing in any of his published work which shows even an elementary level of ability to debate or reason.

Cannot even specify the topic of debate. :)

He wants to debate the best alternate to NIST. :jaw-dropp

That quite well could be explosive demolition - take NIST out what else is there? :boggled:
 
cmatrix said:
Why doesn't Randi want to debate me? Is he no longer interested in real science and real skepticism or does he agree with me that the NIST WTC 7 theory is crackpot pseudo-science?
Click to expand...

It would be the mental equivalent of Muhammad Ali in his prime against one of the kids from Goonies.

Why he would even acknowledge your existence is beyond me.
 
NoahFence said:
It would be the mental equivalent of Muhammad Ali in his prime against one of the kids from Goonies.

Why he would even acknowledge your existence is beyond me.
Click to expand...
Why do I keep seeing the image of his tantrum video and hearing him saying "I'm right, I'm smart, why don't all these morons listen to me"?


:o
 
ozeco41 said:
..and there is nothing in any of his published work which shows even an elementary level of ability to debate or reason.

Cannot even specify the topic of debate. :)

He wants to debate the best alternate to NIST. :jaw-dropp

That quite well could be explosive demolition - take NIST out what else is there? :boggled:
Click to expand...

NIST is not out of the debate. The NIST theory is central to the debate for Pete's sake. Stop misrepresenting the debate.
 
ozeco41 said:
Oyez! Oyez!

Cheaper by the dozen. Get your false dilemmas here. Plenty more where these came from.
Click to expand...

No false dilemma. I presented two possibilities, not the only possibilities. Like Thomas you've committed a straw man by falsely claiming I committed a fallacy.
 
cmatrix said:
NIST is not out of the debate. The NIST theory is central to the debate for Pete's sake. Stop misrepresenting the debate.
Click to expand...
Did you know that there's a forest behind all those trees? Maybe you should start having someone explain to you the post you reply to.

:rolleyes:
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
You will be submitting a request for correction to NIST and/or a paper to various technical journals then?
Click to expand...
As I said, their stated *freefall* period is inaccurate, as is the data used to determine it. Sloppy work, poorly done.

Write a paper about that point ? Don't be ridiculous.
 
cmatrix said:
I have officially sent a request to JREF to debate WTC 7 at TAM 2011.

I would like to debate any one (or all) of the distinguished people listed below at TAM regarding NIST's crackpot faith-based pseudo-science 9/11 theory on WTC 7.

Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Carol Tavris, Elizabeth Loftus, Penn & Teller, Jennifer Ouellette, Adam Savage, Eugenie Scott, Jennifer Michael Hecht, PZ Meyers, Pamela Gay, Michael Shermer, Rebecca Watson, Sara E. Mayhew.

I refuse to set foot on US soil due to the TSA radiation and fondling but will debate anytime by phone or web video.

As usual low-brow crackpot ridicule of this post will be ignored.
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom