TAM 2011 WTC 7 debate

Cmatrix, could you please post the actual request you sent about having this debate?
 
Dave Rogers said:
So, you're carefully avoiding the possibility of talking to an engineer? Nice touch.

Dave
Click to expand...

Well Dave how about this. I will also open the debate to the smartest structural engineer or physicist on the planet if JREF prefers. Or just one from an Ivy League school.
 
cmatrix said:
The NIST WTC 7 investigation couldn't be done by 8th-graders but the debunking of that crackpot investigation certainly can be. If JREF ever had the backbone to do the debate they'd find out quickly. That's why they'll never agree to it.
Click to expand...

if JREF only had a place where they could debate all the 9/11 CT's in full detail.
 
cmatrix said:
Well Dave how about this. I will also open the debate to the smartest structural engineer or physicist on the planet if JREF prefers. Or just one from an Ivy League school.
Click to expand...
Who would that be? Whoever it is, why not just write them an e-mail with your conclusions and see if you get a response? Why does your debate necessitate the drama of a debate at TAM?
 
cmatrix said:
The NIST WTC 7 investigation couldn't be done by 8th-graders but the debunking of that crackpot investigation certainly can be. If JREF ever had the backbone to do the debate they'd find out quickly. That's why they'll never agree to it.
Click to expand...

8th-grade physics can't model structural assemblies and apply 8th-grade physics formulas to them. Your belief is pure lunacy.

(In 3rd grade we ran an experiment that showed that air contains about 20% of oxygene. Only after I finished high school did it occur to me that what we did in 3rd grade was good enough to convince 3rd graders and was helpful to get the lesson across, but that the experiment was actually bogus and did not prove the oxygene content at all. It's the same with your 8th grade physics, except that when you figure out that your application of 8th-grade physics to a gradute-school-level engineering problem is not only bogus but yields the WRONG result).
 
Oystein said:
Urrrr ... you are moving goal posts already! Because in the OP, you said this:
Click to expand...


It's an obvious setup for a trap; get the person into a "basic" debate, then start hurling trutherisms at them. I'm just surprised he admitted to it publicly...

Dave Rogers said:
So, you're carefully avoiding the possibility of talking to an engineer? Nice touch.
Click to expand...


It's natural. He's simply attempting to keep the debate on a level that he thinks he can argue on, against people he thinks he can score points against.

Dumb All Over said:
Who would that be? Whoever it is, why not just write them an e-mail with your conclusions and see if you get a response? Why does your debate necessitate the drama of a debate at TAM?
Click to expand...


Well, he tried a $10,000 challenge previously. He must have abandoned that angle after people here kept hounding him to 1) prove that he actually had the $10,000 and 2) explain how the winner would be impartially determined. It became obvious pretty quickly that he was just grandstanding.

This, too, is just more of his grandstanding. "I'll fight anyone! Anyone! Come on! Who wants to fight me?! You?? No?? How about you?? No?? That's what I thought! You're all too afraid! I'm the toughest guy around!"

It's pathetic and childish. (That might explain his desire to keep the debate on a middle-school level, though...)
 
Last edited:
Horatius said:
How dare you call this man "pathetic and childish"!


Click to expand...


Well... how can we possibly withstand such an amazingly articulated argument? That's it, folks. I don't know about the rest of you, but once I get done crying into my pillow, I'm going to hang myself out of grief. Obviously I'm a hindrance to the advancement of humanity.

Thank you, cmatrix, for showing me what a fool I've been. Before I go, I only ask that you continue your righteous crusade and guide humanity to greatness.

:rolleyes:

Jesus F. Christ...
 
cmatrix said:
I have officially sent a request to JREF to debate WTC 7 at TAM 2011.

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

An 81 year old man with cancer is able to travel to The Amazing Meeting, but you won't?

Their answer is going to be "no".
 
Last edited:
cmatrix said:
(snip)I refuse to set foot on US soil due to the TSA radiation and fondling but (snip)
Click to expand...

All the TSA agents who fondle are 23 y/o tall thin hot blondes. More for us!!!!

PS. I don't think they fondle or irradiate you if you drive across the border. Just sayin.
 
refuse to set foot on US soil due to the TSA radiation and fondling but will debate anytime by phone or web video.
Click to expand...

Probably on the No Fly list......
 
How about FDNY Deputy chief (ret) Vincent Dunn - author of "THE COLLAPSE OF
BURNING BUILDINGS"
 
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...

You mean low brow ridicule like you calling your opposition "NIST's crackpot faith-based pseudo science 9/11 theory"?

Or do you mean low brow ridicule like refusing to set foot on US soil due to TSA "radiation and fondling"??

Under your very own rules, your post should just be ignored for containing your usual "low-brow ridicule".

If you can't take "low-brow ridicule" you shouldn't be dishing it first and then trying to make a rule that it is unacceptable. That's what little kids do.
 
Last edited:
Oh! That's great!

Scientists are people who know everything about everything. If you are a scientist, you are an expert on physics chemistry, biology, math, engineering, medicine, psychology, history, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

In other words, if you are a scientist, you are God.

And, of course, you can explain everything you want by using elementary middle school science.
 
ergo said:
But back to the thread topic: Can JREF come up with a single engineer who is willing to use his or her real name and defend, as cmatrix puts it, NIST's faith-based pseudoscience crap-shoot quackery on WTC7?
Click to expand...

Actually that isn't the thread topic. The topic is cmatrix's desire to debate a laundry list of skeptics at TAM 2011 who'd probably have little or no inclination to hear his strawman argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom