Tony Szamboti vs. tfk Debate

[FalseFlag]

To relieve any anticipation, I'll be posting about 7 pm tonight.

I've never been so excited to have someone lie to me.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I've never been so excited to have someone lie to me.

How do you know what time Zone he is in?

 

[TJM]

tfk's opening statement

 

[FalseFlag]

tfk's opening statement

What?

No, really...what!?

I thought tfk agreed to focus on the collapses of the three buildings. It does not matter who flew the planes into the buildings. Tfk's tactic appears to make the debate cover so many topics that it will become impossible to follow.

Once again, tfk is employing the lame skeptic trick of adding complexity where none should exist. Does tfk honestly think people can't see through this?

Really...the lurkers are neither impressed nor amused by tfk's opening statement. I sure as hell know I'm not.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

What?

No, really...what!?

I thought tfk agreed to focus on the collapses of the three buildings. It does not matter who flew the planes into the buildings. Tfk's tactic appears to make the debate cover so many topics that it will become impossible to follow.

Once again, tfk is employing the lame skeptic trick of adding complexity where none should exist. Does tfk honestly think people can't see through this?

Really...the lurkers are neither impressed nor amused by tfk's opening statement. I sure as hell know I'm not.

The collapses of the buildings and anything in the public venue about the collapses, quit complaining those are Tony's Rules as he suggested them.

 

[TJM]

What?

No, really...what!?

I thought tfk agreed to focus on the collapses of the three buildings.

No, he didn't want WTC 1 & 2 excluded from discussion.

It does not matter who flew the planes into the buildings. Tfk's tactic appears to make the debate cover so many topics that it will become impossible to follow.

To quote somebody you might know -

"Wait for it....."

Once again, tfk is employing the lame skeptic trick of adding complexity where none should exist. Does tfk honestly think people can't see through this?

Really...the lurkers are neither impressed nor amused by tfk's opening statement. I sure as hell know I'm not.

Predictable you'd be squawking foul right out of the box but guess what? Your opinion, as well as mine, is irrelevant to their debate.

I eagerly await Tony Sz's response.

 

[FalseFlag]

Your opinion, as well as mine, is irrelevant to their debate.

I agree. I'm still going to share my opinion.

 

[tfk]

All,

Sorry that I was delayed. I had some issues trying to find the tabulature (indenting) format tags.

Tony,

My apologies, I should have re-read our agreement before starting to compose my outline.

I remembered we said that the opening would be "what we believe & why we believe it". However, I was looking at the big picture, not just the collapse of WTC7 or the towers.

I thought that would be helpful to anyone else coming & reading this, who doesn't know our background.

I'd like you to post some quick outline, as I did, about the big picture. But I agree that that is beyond the bounds of what we agreed to.

Let me know if you're willing to do that, and then we'll get right into WTC7.

My opening statement was "big picture". I was intending to give both Tony & anyone else a head's up of what I plan on addressing.

And, one of the key issues, IMO, in addition to the collapse mechanisms of the three buildings, is how the collapse of the three buildings fits into, & meshes with, some sort of coherent, understandable narrative of the entire story.

Just a thought - you can agree or disagree as you wish. You posted a bit about your background. I'll do the same, at some point. But it might well help others decide on our credibility if we both elaborate a bit on the details.

In more detail than "I worked on ..." & "I have experience with ...".

Whenever I'd review some engineer or technician's resume for hiring them, generic statements like that would set off alarms.

I'm suggesting simply, "My function in this project was ...", with some elaboration.
I'm suggesting that this be in addition to on-topic posts.

Again, this is a late, post-agreement thought.
You can agree or disagree.

You offered "tfk will go first".
Apparently, your "post message" finger got a little twitchy.

That's no problem.

We can do the above (give info on our background, if you agree), or we can move on to our first "beyond opening statement" posts.

I notice that your opening statement, like mine, did NOT contain "the (approximately) 3 strongest pieces of verifiable evidence for/against Controlled Demolition".

You can go first or you can choose to let me.

If you go first, state your 3 strongest pieces of evidence for CD.
Then I'll reply to yours.
You counter.
Then I'll counter.

Then I'll state my 3 strongest pieces of evidence against CD.
You reply.
I'll counter.
You counter.

And then we're off & running.

If you'd rather not go first, we'll just switch roles in that process.

Let me know which order you prefer.

PS.
Time zone: San Diego, CA, for the next several days.
Then Dominican Republic & warm, balmy breezes & beautiful beaches. For a month or so.

 

[skyeagle409]

I've never been so excited to have someone lie to me.

In that case, let me help you out by posting links that I am very sure will FILL you with excitement.


Richard Gage Thermite Debunked Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDiAlMIJ8A4


Richard Gage caught lying about finding thermite part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4HmDwAoeOY


Richard Gage caught lying about thermite Part 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ago6d6jWtpk

 

[TJM]

I agree. I'm still going to share my opinion.

Irrelevance never stopped a truther before, so...

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

What?

No, really...what!?

I thought tfk agreed to focus on the collapses of the three buildings. It does not matter who flew the planes into the buildings. Tfk's tactic appears to make the debate cover so many topics that it will become impossible to follow.

Once again, tfk is employing the lame skeptic trick of adding complexity where none should exist. Does tfk honestly think people can't see through this?

Really...the lurkers are neither impressed nor amused by tfk's opening statement. I sure as hell know I'm not.

I doubt anything that didn't support the insanity of 9/11 truth would impress you. Confirmation bias has a way of doing that to people.

As a lurker, I thought his opening post was more relevant and cogent than Tony's.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

All,

Sorry that I was delayed. I had some issues trying to find the tabulature (indenting) format tags.

Tony,

My apologies, I should have re-read our agreement before starting to compose my outline.

I remembered we said that the opening would be "what we believe & why we believe it". However, I was looking at the big picture, not just the collapse of WTC7 or the towers.

I thought that would be helpful to anyone else coming & reading this, who doesn't know our background.

I'd like you to post some quick outline, as I did, about the big picture. But I agree that that is beyond the bounds of what we agreed to.

Let me know if you're willing to do that, and then we'll get right into WTC7.

My opening statement was "big picture". I was intending to give both Tony & anyone else a head's up of what I plan on addressing.

And, one of the key issues, IMO, in addition to the collapse mechanisms of the three buildings, is how the collapse of the three buildings fits into, & meshes with, some sort of coherent, understandable narrative of the entire story.

Just a thought - you can agree or disagree as you wish. You posted a bit about your background. I'll do the same, at some point. But it might well help others decide on our credibility if we both elaborate a bit on the details.

In more detail than "I worked on ..." & "I have experience with ...".

Whenever I'd review some engineer or technician's resume for hiring them, generic statements like that would set off alarms.

I'm suggesting simply, "My function in this project was ...", with some elaboration.
I'm suggesting that this be in addition to on-topic posts.

Again, this is a late, post-agreement thought.
You can agree or disagree.

You offered "tfk will go first".
Apparently, your "post message" finger got a little twitchy.

That's no problem.

We can do the above (give info on our background, if you agree), or we can move on to our first "beyond opening statement" posts.

I notice that your opening statement, like mine, did NOT contain "the (approximately) 3 strongest pieces of verifiable evidence for/against Controlled Demolition".

You can go first or you can choose to let me.

If you go first, state your 3 strongest pieces of evidence for CD.
Then I'll reply to yours.
You counter.
Then I'll counter.

Then I'll state my 3 strongest pieces of evidence against CD.
You reply.
I'll counter.
You counter.

And then we're off & running.

If you'd rather not go first, we'll just switch roles in that process.

Let me know which order you prefer.

PS.
Time zone: San Diego, CA, for the next several days.
Then Dominican Republic & warm, balmy breezes & beautiful beaches. For a month or so.

Below are the ground rules we agreed to. If you notice, rule #3 says tfk will go first after the opening statements, so it was not a violation of anything for me to post my opening statement when I did as it wasn't something to be replied to. Your opening statement was over 1,000 words and it was supposed to be no more than 500 per rule #2.


1. The debate is restricted to the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7 in NYC on September 11, 2001, the NIST reports on these events, and any additional objectively verifiable information and analyses in the public domain about them.

2. Each person shall make an opening statement (of no more than 500 words) explaining what they believe caused the collapse of WTC 7 and briefly stating what they believe are the (approximately) 3 strongest pieces of verifiable evidence for/against Controlled Demolition, as "Controlled Demolition vs. No Controlled Demolition" is the heart of the debate.

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 his turn & the other person will proceed with his next statement.

6. Individual posts are limited to 1,000 words. If it is deemed necessary to exceed that limit, justification shall be provided by the person wanting to exceed it and agreement to by the other participant received prior to doing so. This should be done by private messaging, so as not to interrupt the flow of the debate, and should be the exception rather than the rule.

7. Each post will discuss one principle topic. Each topic consists of 4 posts. Person A will state a topic post, Person B replies, Person A counters, then Person B counters, and that topic is closed. Person B then leads off the next sequence.

8. Every point that either person brings up must be addressed in some manner by the other. Both parties will do their best to stay focused on the original topic point.

9. There shall be no name calling, denigration, or defamatory language used. Each person shall bring only technical arguments to the debate. If any derogatory comments are used they shall be addressed to arguments only, not to individuals.

10. The debate will end after a maximum of 50 total posts, or earlier if the participants mutually agree to an earlier termination, or whenever either participant decides to stop responding.

I will not continue posting here except for this post about violation of the ground rules, and you should not expect me to have seen what is written here. Any violation of the ground rules can be expressed in the debate. You should not be posting here expecting me to read and reply, thus expanding the debate. That is excessive and distracting. I will be posting this on the debate and you can start the discussion about the debate topic, as agreed, after that.

My opening statement did contain mention of three big pieces of evidence for controlled demolition with the free fall in WTC 7, lack of deceleration in WTC 1, and molten metal in the rubble of the collapsed buildings.

I do not wish to expand the debate beyond what is stated in rule #1.

 

[ozeco41]

Below are the ground rules we agreed to. If you notice, rule #3 says tfk will go first after the opening statements, so it was not a violation of anything for me to post my opening statement when I did as it wasn't something to be replied to. Your opening statement was over 1,000 words and it was supposed to be no more than 500 per rule #2.

Correct

My opening statement did contain mention of three big pieces of evidence for controlled demolition with the free fall in WTC 7, lack of deceleration in WTC 1, and molten metal in the rubble of the collapsed buildings.

I do not wish to expand the debate beyond what is stated in rule #1.

Tony - you and I have major differences BUT I support your stance - "a deal is a deal".

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Correct



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

Tony - you and I have major differences BUT I support your stance - "a deal is a deal".

That is true the five hundred rule word limit on the opening statement was violated.

 

[NoahFence]

This whole exercise is comical in its futility. TFK - why do you give this thing the time of day?

I had initially accepted the notion put forth by a civil engineering professor in September 2001 that the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 were due to dynamic impact loads, after the top sections of the buildings fell onto the lower sections at the aircraft impact points. The dynamic loads would be much greater than the static load and would overcome the reserve strength of the structure below.

It's this simple.

Tony acknowledges that the aircraft struck the towers.
How does Tony square that with explosives? Surely he's not so blind as to say the collapse started elsewhere. So they started at the aircraft impact area. How did the magical explosives survive that?

Anyone with an IQ higher than toenail fungus would know that the answer is they can't. Explosives debunked.

But please, keep talking as if this is a serious scientific, rational debate. It's hilarious.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

This whole exercise is comical in its futility. TFK - why do you give this thing the time of day?



It's this simple.

Tony acknowledges that the aircraft struck the towers.
How does Tony square that with explosives? Surely he's not so blind as to say the collapse started elsewhere. So they started at the aircraft impact area. How did the magical explosives survive that?

Anyone with an IQ higher than toenail fungus would know that the answer is they can't. Explosives debunked.

But please, keep talking as if this is a serious scientific, rational debate. It's hilarious.

He stated he believed Steven Jones's second or was it third paper.

 

[NoahFence]

He stated he believed Steven Jones's second or was it third paper.

I didn't take the time to read Steven Jones's 1st or 2nd papers. Didn't know he had a 3rd. Doesn't really matter though, does it? There's nothing in them that would account for explosives surviving the impact.

Nor do they tie in the entire day's events.

Thus, debate stupid.

 

[Criteria]

I didn't take the time to read Steven Jones's 1st or 2nd papers.

Didn't know he had a 3rd.

Doesn't really matter though, does it?

There's nothing in them that would account for explosives surviving the impact.

Nor do they tie in the entire day's events.

Thus, debate stupid.

Thank you for so economically presenting your argument for incredulity-based thinking Noah.

 

[NoahFence]

Thank you for so economically presenting your argument for incredulity-based thinking Noah.

I note no attempt to correct the issues I've presented. Feel free to start another thread to explain how explosives could have survived the impact.


You won't.

 

[beachnut]

... three big pieces of evidence for controlled demolition with the free fall in WTC 7, lack of deceleration in WTC 1, and molten metal in the rubble of the collapsed buildings. ...

Strike 1
Free fall can happen in a gravity collapse started by structural failure, gee whiz, what is CD? The realcddeal has no clue CD is done by gravity with explosives starting the structural failure. Primary source of energy to destroy building during CD, gravity - E=mgh . 9/11Truth does woo, not science.

Strike 2
Lack of deceleration? Strike 2 out of the box. The collapse was following the momentum velocity and rate of a gravity collapse; lack of physics has the realcddeal making up BS about 9/11.

Strike 3
The molten metal was metal that usually melts in office fires. No damage to steel by thermite, or explosives.

Debate ends with the opening post of BS.

No evidence for CD, a fantasy based on BS. Tony has the plot Americans killed Americans for some idiotic reason. Who did it Tony?

With no clue fire can start the collapse, the realcddeal persists to present the fantasy of CD based on BS. CD fools a fringe few idiots with overwhelming ignorance, or the too lazy to think for themselves youtube video believers.

The Internet enables us NWO operatives, aka shills for reality, to see what 30 years ago would be a rare occurrence. Overwhelming ignorance and paranoid conspiracy theories believed by thousands, and less than 0.1 percent of all engineers. 30 years ago, unless you paid attention to some nut at the corner spewing crazy BS like CD CTs, it would be rare to be exposes to the ignorance and BS of that 9/11 truth is.