Tony Szamboti vs. tfk Debate

tfk · Jun 11, 2016

OK, Tony & I appear to be close to addressing the issues that will allow us to have a debate.

There are several issues have yet to be decided. I'm waiting for Tony to respond to the issues that I've brought up.

I thought that it'd be a good idea to copy over into this thread the origin & development of this challenge, rather than having it buried within another thread.

I will identify the posts that originated in the "I found the missing jolt" thread, where this challenge started, and ask the mods to copy them over here.

As far as I am concerned, anyone can post whatever they want over here.

I understand as well as anyone that things can quickly get snarky.
Let's try to give this comment thread a little respite from that for as long as we can.

I am going to try to stick principally (not exclusively) to the engineering / science aspects of the issues.

I would really, Really, REALLY like this debate to be illustrative of a competent engineer (that'd be me) addressing the technical issues of the Truth Movement. I'd like it to be educational for those that are new to the debate.

I'd like it to be in the same spirit as Ryan Mackey's presentations in days of yore. That is, trying as hard as possible to address the issues & staying away from personal insults.

Let it begin...

Tony Szamboti · Jun 11, 2016

tfk said:
OK, Tony & I appear to be close to addressing the issues that will allow us to have a debate.

There are several issues have yet to be decided. I'm waiting for Tony to respond to the issues that I've brought up.

I thought that it'd be a good idea to copy over into this thread the origin & development of this challenge, rather than having it buried within another thread.

I will identify the posts that originated in the "I found the missing jolt" thread, where this challenge started, and ask the mods to copy them over here.

As far as I am concerned, anyone can post whatever they want over here.

I understand as well as anyone that things can quickly get snarky.
Let's try to give this comment thread a little respite from that for as long as we can.

I am going to try to stick principally (not exclusively) to the engineering / science aspects of the issues.

I would really, Really, REALLY like this debate to be illustrative of a competent engineer (that'd be me) addressing the technical issues of the Truth Movement. I'd like it to be educational for those that are new to the debate.

I'd like it to be in the same spirit as Ryan Mackey's presentations in days of yore. That is, trying as hard as possible to address the issues & staying away from personal insults.

Let it begin...

I am glad you started this thread as in your response to my PM here you said you just wanted to communicate on the forum, and it is less difficult to see what you are saying on a dedicated thread.

Your ban has been lifted on the 911 free forum and the debate thread is here http://the911forum.freeforums.org/tony-szamboti-tfk-debates-f71.html

Of course, this particular debate is about the collapse of WTC 7. I had said I would be available to start on June 21st. On that date you should provide an opening statement giving your position on how you believe the building collapsed and some background on why you believe that and I will also.

The next day (June 22nd) you can then go first and post a comment for that day and I will respond.

I am glad to hear you say you will try to maintain a professional demeanor similar to that of Ryan Mackey and simply stay on the technical subject.

I would ask others here to please refrain from comments on this thread to keep it clean.

I will not be responding to any technical points here and will only use it to communicate (with tfk) in a publically visible way until June 21st when all communication will be on the debate thread on the 911 free forum.

Tony Szamboti · Jun 11, 2016

Rules for the debate

1. The topic is restricted to the collapse of WTC 7, the NIST report on it, and any additional information and analyses in the public domain about it.
2. Each person should make an opening statement explaining what they believe caused the collapse and briefing saying why they believe that.
3. tfk will go first after both participants make an opening statement on June 21, 2016.
4. Each person shall make no more than one post per day and cannot make another until it is responded to.
5. If a post is not responded to within a week the person not responding is considered to have forfeited.
6. Individual posts are limited to 500 words.
7. There shall be no name calling, denigration, or defamatory language used. Only the subject material shall be discussed. If any of the above occurs the participant involved shall be considered to have forfeited the debate.
8. The debate will end after a maximum of 50 total posts, or earlier if the participants mutually agree to an earlier termination.

Tony Szamboti · Jun 11, 2016

Tony Szamboti/tfk debate thread link

The debate thread on the 911 free forum is here

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/tony-szamboti-tfk-debates-f71.html

NoahFence · Jun 11, 2016

IMO the only way to get an honest debate out of this is not just science and engineering. Common sense virtually destroys any and all controlled demolition scenario. It's that simple.

None of the aspects surrounding controlled demolition were even physically possible, given the circumstances of the day. Everything else is simply beating a dead horse.

But you kids have your fun.

pgimeno · Jun 11, 2016

I've noted that Tony's restated set of rules ignores tfk's objections.

Crazy Chainsaw · Jun 11, 2016

pgimeno said:
I've noted that Tony's restated set of rules ignores tfk's objections.

Basicly Tony has set up a can of worms, as anything in the public domains, can be virtually anything including linking the attacks to politics.

It should have been a clear cut debate, CD, or no CD.

Spanx · Jun 11, 2016

I'm not really getting this.

What is wrong with two people having a thread on this forum and asking other people not to post?

What's with the rules and regulations?

While I'm at it, what's the best way to organise a piss up in a brewery.

DGM · Jun 11, 2016

Tony Szamboti said:
The debate thread on the 911 free forum is here

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/tony-szamboti-tfk-debates-f71.html

I just joined. I thought the email message I got from OneWhiteEye was telling:

I'm a little out of practice checking this email address or the inactive user list. You're activated and good to go. You're the first new member in years.

The very least you'll drive some traffic to the site.

Georgio · Jun 11, 2016

Spanx said:
I'm not really getting this.

What is wrong with two people having a thread on this forum and asking other people not to post?

What's with the rules and regulations?

+1

I will be very surprised if what results from all these rules isn't something like 10% debate about technical issues and 90% debate about who has and hasn't followed the rules of the debate, does this or that post qualify as a 'forfeit' post and so on.

Oh well, hopefully I'm just being too pessimistic.

beachnut · Jun 11, 2016

Tony Szamboti said:
The debate thread on the 911 free forum is here

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/tony-szamboti-tfk-debates-f71.html

Why is the flashplayer at the forum malicious? What is going on at freeforums?

Why debate at a failed forum which best work is "just plain idiots"?

When will freeforums stop the malisious attacks, the fake flashplayer URL?

Who runs freeforums, Russians, or what

TJM · Jun 11, 2016

Tony Szamboti said:
1. The topic is restricted to the collapse of WTC 7, the NIST report on it, and any additional information and analyses in the public domain about it.
2. Each person should make an opening statement explaining what they believe caused the collapse and briefing saying why they believe that.
3. tfk will go first after both participants make an opening statement on June 21, 2016.
4. Each person shall make no more than one post per day and cannot make another until it is responded to. Curious. Why stifle the flow of the debate in real time?
5. If a post is not responded to within a week the person not responding is considered to have forfeited.
6. Individual posts are limited to 500 words. Stifling again. Why? A lot of the time a technical explanation will require going way beyond 500 words and point by point rebuttals will require even more. Then on top of that you impose a cap of 50 posts for the entire debate?
7. There shall be no name calling, denigration, or defamatory language used. Only the subject material shall be discussed. If any of the above occurs the participant involved shall be considered to have forfeited the debate.
8. The debate will end after a maximum of 50 total posts, or earlier if the participants mutually agree to an earlier termination.

It should end when one of you says "uncle" or otherwise walks away. There should be no constraints on posting, time or amount of words. Seems to me like you're stacking the deck, unless you have a rational explanation for these rigid and counterproductive terms, not that I expect one.

Tony Szamboti · Jun 11, 2016

The reason for the 500 word per post limit here is to allow a reasonably rapid response, to actually keep the debate moving. Having to continuously respond to something the length of a technical paper (3,000 words) would inhibit the debate.

If more space is needed, for a particular point, it can be requested and I see no reason for not allowing it if there is legitimate justification.

TJM · Jun 11, 2016

If you want to "actually keep the debate moving", why stop it at one post per day?

Tony Szamboti · Jun 11, 2016

AJM8125 said:
If you want to "actually keep the debate moving", why stop it at one post per day?

I work outside the house and am gone for 12.5 hours a day during the week. I don't know what tfk's situation is but I don't think it is reasonable to ask someone in my situation to post to the debate more than once a day.

This really should be understood and one could say you are being rude with questioning it.

The debate/discussion is also technical in nature and that is why up to a week is allowed for a response.

I am not going to keep answering inanities.

Tony Szamboti · Jun 11, 2016

Spanx said:
I'm not really getting this.

What is wrong with two people having a thread on this forum and asking other people not to post?

What's with the rules and regulations?

While I'm at it, what's the best way to organise a piss up in a brewery.

In my first post here I asked others not to post on this thread, so I could communicate cleanly with tfk while still allowing others to see any pre-debate discussion, as he did not want to use PMs, and we see the results.

tfk · Jun 11, 2016

Tony,

I certainly hope that the execution of this debate is not going to go as badly as the set-up.

Please read this post.
Don’t skim over it.
Don’t ignore it.

Please RESPOND.
__

You challenged me to a debate. Let’s go thru a little bit of history to examine why that happened.

This is a list of my posts to you, in this thread alone, prior to your challenge. And your responses:

Note: In every one of these posts, I made specific engineering points that addressed some engineering point that you had made in a previous post. (Granted, mixed in with our usual snark.)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307442
Your response: Silence.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11304969&postcount=134
Your response: Silence.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11314191#post11314191
Your response:

Tony Szamboti said:
tfk, I consider you one of the most bombastic, and unreasonable persons I have ever come across. A real curmudgeon. Nobody even cares what you say in the nonsensical tomes you write here.

tfk said:
I'd suggest we get right to the heart of the matter: CD or no CD.

So something on the order of, "state your 3 or 4 strongest pieces of evidence for, or against, CD" as a start.

I'd suggest that both of us be required to address each major point that the other brings up.

I'd suggest that each post be 2 part:
Part 1. addressing the points that the other person made in the previous post,

Part 2: making any new points that we wish to bring up.

I'd suggest that, after a few posts addressing the first post (3 or 4 strongest evidence for/against CD), that we keep each post to a single new point.

Your response to my suggestions: Silence.
__

In this post, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11323335&postcount=982 , you brought up 6 point.

In this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11323731&postcount=997 , I addressed every one of your points.

And requested a couple of changes / clarifications:

tfk said:
“… restricted to the technical / engineering aspects of the collapse …”
No interest in the politics or philosophy.

Include any technical / engineering aspect of collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7.

“… and any other objectively verifiable info in the public domain …”

Your response: Silence.

And in the process, I reminded you of the points that I’d made in my previous post, which you had ignored.

tfk said:
I made a suggestion about:
1. first post: 3 strongest pieces of evidence for or against CD.
2. then 3 back & forths, one each addressing each topic.
3. previous “other person’s topic” must be addressed. No ignoring points.
4. After addressing old topic, then 1 new topic per post. Alternate bringing up new topics.
5. we should try to finish with one topic before moving on to next. (say, 2 posts each on any one topic.)
6. While we should try to be complete with each topic, short embellishment on earlier comments is allowed.

Each person must address, to some degree or other, all issues brought up by the other.
Neither one can merely ignore issues.

Your response: Silence.
__

In this post, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11323431&postcount=985 , you listed 8 points.

In this post, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11323762&postcount=999 , I answered every single one of your points.

I agreed with 6 of your points, but brought up two changes.

tfk said:
1. I’d prefer to include WTC 1&2. For the reasons listed in my previous post.

6. 500 word limit: WAY too restrictive. Use as many words as needed to get your point across.

Your response to my objections: Silence.
__

And now, after addressing none of my issues regarding the debate, you post:

Tony Szamboti said:
Of course, this particular debate is about the collapse of WTC 7. I had said I would be available to start on June 21st. On that date you should provide an opening statement giving your position on how you believe the building collapsed and some background on why you believe that and I will also.

No, Tony, we are not ready to go over there, until YOU address MY issues in the same manner that I have addressed YOUR issues.

When negotiating with someone, a person can choose to be honest & forthright.
Or one can attempt to be sleazy & manipulative.

Addressing the other person’s concerns directly & openly is honest & forthright.
Ignoring them is … well, you get the idea.

How are you going to interact with me, Tony?
__

Tony, one issue that I will bring up in the debate is this one: The only ways that you, & Cole, & Brookman, & Gage maintain the idiotic illusions that you spread are:

by refusing to bring your theories to independent experts for review.
by constantly ignoring all comments from qualified engineers & experts.

If we are to have this debate, you MUST address every point that I bring up.
even if it is just to say, "I have no answer for this."

I will do the same. I will address every point that you bring up.

But the tactic of ignoring issues is NOT going to be acceptable to me.

tfk · Jun 11, 2016

Tony Szamboti said:
In my first post here I asked others not to post on this thread, so I could communicate cleanly with tfk while still allowing others to see it, and we see the results.

Read my OP.
I invited anyone/everyone to post here.

There will be a separate thread, with no other posters, which will mirror the debate thread.

Tony Szamboti · Jun 11, 2016

tfk said:
Tony,

No, Tony, we are not ready to go over there, until YOU address MY issues in the same manner that I have addressed YOUR issues.

When negotiating with someone, a person can choose to be honest & forthright.
Or one can attempt to be sleazy & manipulative.

Addressing the other person’s concerns directly & openly is honest & forthright.
Ignoring them is … well, you get the idea.

How are you going to interact with me, Tony?
__

Tony, one issue that I will bring up in the debate is this one: The only ways that you, & Cole, & Brookman, & Gage maintain the idiotic illusions that you spread are:

by refusing to bring your theories to independent experts for review.

by constantly ignoring all comments from qualified engineers & experts.

If we are to have this debate, you MUST address every point that I bring up.
even if it is just to say, "I have no answer for this."

I will do the same. I will address every point that you bring up.

But the tactic of ignoring issues is NOT going to be acceptable to me.

I am not going to waste time responding to posts elsewhere on this forum. You did not want to discuss the rules and set up via PM and I am not going to hunt for each of your posts on a thread with many posters. Thus this thread has to serve as our pre-debate discussion.

As far as I am concerned there are only a few simple questions remaining and they are to you.

Do you accept the terms for the debate on the 911 free forum as shown in post #3 on this thread? If not, what do you want to change and why?

Are you willing to start on June 21st?

Spanx · Jun 11, 2016

Tony Szamboti said:
In my first post here I asked others not to post on this thread, so I could communicate cleanly with tfk while still allowing others to see any pre-debate discussion, as he did not want to use PMs, and we see the results.

Unfortunately you don't have control over this thread.

You are both online now, why not just start a thread now and go for it?

I'm sure no one else will post and Mods can delete if necessary.

Tony Szamboti vs. tfk Debate

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator

Philosopher

Master Poster

Skeptic not Atheist

Muse

Penultimate Amazing

Potsing Whiled Runk

Illuminator

Potsing Whiled Runk

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Master Poster