TAM 2011 WTC 7 debate

cmatrix said:
...
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.

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

Calling NIST's theory crackpot faith-based pseudo-science is low-brow crackpot ridicule of NIST, and your debate request should be ignored as per your request.

The big picture theory of NIST is fire, gravity collapse. It is called reality, you can debate the details of thermal expansion and fire loading, but it does not change reality. When did you join the JREF? Being skeptical of NIST is great, calling a reality based study "crackpot faith-based pseudo-science" fails without proof. Proof comes in the form of a paper published in a respected journal; when is your paper scheduled to be published. I bet you are short on evidence; what do you say?
 
DGM said:
Because it really is not that important.
Click to expand...
I'm of the opinion that accuracy of such details is very important, especially for a statement that has been bandied about as much as that particular one has, and even repeated by folk who have already seen information (at least) supersceding it. However, the suggestion to *write a paper* about that particular point is, as I am sure you will agree, completely ridiculous. NIST aren't bothered at all that their work in such areas is sloppy. 32.196 ft/s^2 ? Sloppy (at best).
 
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...

He should want to debate me because based on the tenor of these forums his organization hosts, he presumably believes in a crackpot completely unscientific theory, the NIST WTC 7 theory. If he doesn't believe in this crackpot theory he should have made a statement to that effect by now. I have presented him with unrefutable evidence that the theory he presumably believes in is completely unscientific. If he has some evidence to the contrary that no other scientist on Earth has ever presented let him present it in a debate or anywhere else.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
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:
Click to expand...
The recent interchange of posts does not bode well for his survival when faced by debaters who are able to reason.

And failing before the start line since he cannot even specify the topic he wants. Or understand what he has said in trying to specify it.
 
Last edited:
femr2 said:
I'm of the opinion that accuracy of such details is very important, especially for a statement that has been bandied about as much as that particular one has, and even repeated by folk who have already seen information (at least) supersceding it. However, the suggestion to *write a paper* about that particular point is, as I am sure you will agree, completely ridiculous. NIST aren't bothered at all that their work in such areas is sloppy. 32.196 ft/s^2 ? Sloppy (at best).
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I should have completed my sentence with "for NIST's explanation of the events".


For NIST the "free fall" is an insignificant part of the event.
 
cmatrix said:
He should want to debate me because based on the tenor of these forums his organization hosts, he presumably believes in a crackpot completely unscientific theory, the NIST WTC 7 theory. If he doesn't believe in this crackpot theory he should have made a statement to that effect by now. I have presented him with unrefutable evidence that the theory he presumably believes in is completely unscientific. If he has some evidence to the contrary that no other scientist on Earth has ever presented let him present it in a debate or anywhere else.
Click to expand...

Really? You have refused to post it.
 
Has the JREF accepted the challenge? Maybe they could cancel Dawson or Tyson and have this debate instead. What are they afraid of?
 
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
cmatrix, one part of the language problem that is going on here is that your stated topic:
Topic: The most scientific alternative to the completely unscientific NIST WTC 7 collapse theory is the explosive controlled demolition of WTC 7 using atypical techniques.
leave little to no room for the possible outcome to be that the NIST emerges as the most correct alternative. One might say that it could emerge victorious as the best alternative to itself, but to do so kind of tortures the English language. In addition, while I applaud your leaving out the word 'crackpot', you need to leave room for the possible outcome of the debate to be that the NIST scenario is in fact scientific, and not some kind of an "unscientific scenario that won the debate." Your language in the topic description is therefore unnecessarily provocative. You could address these issues by simply rephrasing your suggested topic as something like:
"The NIST report on the collapse of WTC7 is scientifically flawed, and the collapse can be more accurately described as an explosive controlled demolition."

It says pretty much the same thing as yours, but it's not so front-end loaded with predetermined outcome and derogatory reference to one of the positions. Not that I'm a spokesman for JREF or anything; I just hate to see you guys talking past each other like this. Such wording changes should be small things; decorum. Lure in your opponent with charm and save the haymaker punches for after the opening bell.
 
tsig said:
Really? You have refused to post it.
Click to expand...

Why should I? Based on the unimaginably moronic posts here that I no longer see, most here would not have the capacity to understand it despite it dealing with elementary middle-school level scientific principles. As a bona-fide genius, Randi certainly understands it. It may take him a while to come to terms with it but he understands it.

Anyway, the evidence has been referred to by me and others here already. The real question is why can't you get it?
 
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...

You mean like this:

But the sounds and flashes could be muted by Romex blasting mats,[7] for example. Non-typical technologies could also have been used. Recent experiments by the engineer Jonathan Cole have shown that relatively small amounts of thermate, thermite mixed with sulfur, can cut through vertical support beams like a shaped charge and yet produce much less noise.[8] These experiments also show that thermate can also easily weaken beams and cut bolts. Note that in typical controlled demolitions the building’s structure is weakened as much as possible to minimize the amount of high explosive needed. Explosive nano-thermite has also been found in the WTC dust.[9]
Click to expand...
:dl: :dl: :dl:
 
dafydd said:
It would be hilarious though. I'd pay to watch it.
Click to expand...


Maybe for his opening salvo, cmatrix will do an impression of an old man, complete with an air cane and shouts of "Get off my lawn!"

Edited by Gaspode: 
Removed breach of Rule 12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...

He'd wipe the floor with you.
 
cmatrix said:
Why should I? Based on the unimaginably moronic posts here that I no longer see, most here would not have the capacity to understand it despite it dealing with elementary middle-school level scientific principles. As a bona-fide genius, Randi certainly understands it. It may take him a while to come to terms with it but he understands it.

Anyway, the evidence has been referred to by me and others here already. The real question is why can't you get it?
Click to expand...

You have an ego the size of a planet,for no good reason.
 
cmatrix said:
... Anyway, the evidence has been referred to by me and others here already. The real question is why can't you get it?
Click to expand...
Found your evidence, sort of.
Since you don't list your evidence, I will list it.

1. (empty set)
End of list.
Did you know you have no evidence?

Your position becomes clear when the evidence is seen, or not.
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
It would be the mental equivalent of Muhammad Ali in his prime against one of the kids from Goonies.
Click to expand...
Can cmatrix do the truffle shuffle? Actually that would be a better tactic in his debate; reduce the audience to rofl.
 
femr2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The idea that you could write a paper is ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom