• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Tony Szamboti vs. tfk Debate

I have temporarily put everyone who posted on this thread, besides tfk, on my ignore list, so I can communicate with him without interruption.
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
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.
Click to expand...

To a large degree, engineering is merely "quantified common sense".

But I take your point.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nobody's asking you to and I understand completely. I also said something about not expecting a rational explanation. Good thing you don't disappoint. Rude. :rolleyes:

Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's OK Tony, it's your world and I'm just trying to see things from your perspective because from mine, it appears you want the gloves off with someone way above your rank and when he accepts, you announce you'll be fighting from inside your tank.

Whatever though. With or without your terms, tfk makes short work of you.
 
Last edited:
Well we got off to an interesting start.

Tony, as I told you before, I hope Richard Gage bought your dinner in Philadelphia, because it is the only thing you will get out of the 911 truth movement.

I will give you credit, you are a true believer. Unlike Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin, who are both lying con artists. Who are in the truth movement just to make money.
 
Here's my response:

1. The topic is restricted to the collapse of WTC 7 WTC 1, 2 & 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 of WTC 7 and briefing saying why they believe that.

2b. Each person should state the (approximately) 3 strongest pieces of evidence for/against CD. "CD vs. No CD" 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 500 approximately 1000 words. [The purpose of this debate is to inform the readers about the engineering arguments. For those who might not appreciate the technical details, extended explanations may be necessary. These explanations may be contained in a PostScript, and not count against the word count.]

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. Each person should bring competent engineering arguments to the debate & wear their big-boy pants. Derogatory comments will be addressed only to arguments, not to individuals.

8. 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.

9. 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. Move on.

Then Person B leads off the next sequence.

10. 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.

__

"Are you willing to start on June 21st?"
Yes.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...

You intentionally miss the point of that post to which you are responding.

The set-up of the debate was not the topic of that post.

The fact that you consistently fail to reply to point after point after point after point WAS the topic.

And the fact that you failed to respond in any manner to my clearly stated adjustments to your original "rules for debate" was merely an ironic, additional example of that misbehavior.

Have the common courtesy to reply to all the points that I make. Not just the ones that are convenient to your purposes.
As I have replied to all of your points.
 
tfk said:
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. Each person should bring competent engineering arguments to the debate & wear their big-boy pants. Derogatory comments will be addressed only to arguments, not to individuals.
Click to expand...

You really should have left that one in. Tony can only go a few posts at best without calling someone an idiot or accusing someone of complicity in mass murder. It would be the easiest debate win you ever saw.

Dave
 
Why this debate is scheduled for a forum so dead that the admin expresses great surprise at a new sign-up is quite a mystery to me.

Couldn't it be held here as a moderated one-on-one debate? What's the attraction of that particular place?
 
GlennB said:
What's the attraction of that particular place?
Click to expand...

OWE doesn't like tfk and has a perverse affinity to those truthers.

So Tony feels like he can bend the rules and get away with it. And when tfk quits the debate because of it, Tony can then declare victory.
 
Last edited:
Seymour Butz said:
So Tony feels like he can bend the rules and get away with it. And when tfk quits the debate because of it, Tony can then declare victory.
Click to expand...
Sadly, this is my feeling also. Hopefully we're both just being unfair and will be proved wrong.
 
DGM said:
Too tell you the truth, I'm not sure I can argue against that. You can't say he doesn't have a very rigid nature to his posts. This could easily be taken as abusive to someone that holds an alternative view.

I'll look at the thread over there when I get a chance.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say tfk is rigid at all. "Sturdy" and forthright, sure, but a million miles from "toxic". Also he laces his posts with facts.

That OneWhiteEye might object to all that is no surprise. Nobody gets banned here for coming across, however subjectively, as "toxic". I admit to having been banned several times from Truther forums despite having broken none of their forum rules but just on the whim of a mod, which seems to be the case with OWE and tfk.
 
GlennB said:
I wouldn't say tfk is rigid at all. "Sturdy" and forthright, sure, but a million miles from "toxic". Also he laces his posts with facts.

That OneWhiteEye might object to all that is no surprise. Nobody gets banned here for coming across, however subjectively, as "toxic". I admit to having been banned several times from Truther forums despite having broken none of their forum rules but just on the whim of a mod, which seems to be the case with OWE and tfk.
Click to expand...
This depends. He can and has been personally insulting to members due to their differing views. Members here have been banned due to continued personal attacks. I'm not saying they have not applied the ban hammer with little provocation, JFK banned my in 4 post and I never did anything against the rules.

Time will tell and I'm sure everyone will be watching carefully. Maybe I'll change my mind if I looked at the posts that got him banned but, I doubt I'll make the effort.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...


Why would keeping the debate moving be a concern if you're only allowed one post per day?
 
GlennB said:
Why this debate is scheduled for a forum so dead that the admin expresses great surprise at a new sign-up is quite a mystery to me.

Couldn't it be held here as a moderated one-on-one debate? What's the attraction of that particular place?
Click to expand...

The admin turned off sign up for a time. I think the admin like being in control, and is an example of, "better to reign in hell (911ff), than serve in heaven (isf)". To sign up years ago, you had to pass the BS test of some unknown set of criteria.

With the top traffic a thread titled, "just plain idiots", and the ability to post weak attacks on those at ISF in some paranoid group think celebration. Plus they fail to debunk lies and let them stand unopposed.

The CD claim is idiotic, not sure how to debate fantasy. However, I did convince my daughter "Santa" existed and kept her from spreading the "lie" he did not. But the delusion of CD is not supported with more than delusional paranoid nonsense.

"The aircraft were a ruse", by Tony, is more than enough evidence to dismiss Tony's lies of CD as failed fantasy. Not sure why OWE is unable to see Tony is full of BS, and why OWE can't say it. Wait, maybe OWE did say it... there is a thread plotting on Tony at the forum of pop-up malicious software.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
The admin turned off sign up for a time. I think the admin like being in control, and is an example of, "better to reign in hell (911ff), than serve in heaven (isf)". To sign up years ago, you had to pass the BS test of some unknown set of criteria.

With the top traffic a thread titled, "just plain idiots", and the ability to post weak attacks on those at ISF in some paranoid group think celebration. Plus they fail to debunk lies and let them stand unopposed.

The CD claim is idiotic, not sure how to debate fantasy. However, I did convince my daughter "Santa" existed and kept her from spreading the "lie" he did not. But the delusion of CD is not supported with more than delusional paranoid nonsense.

"The aircraft were a ruse", by Tony, is more than enough evidence to dismiss Tony's lies of CD as failed fantasy. Not sure why OWE is unable to see Tony is full of BS, and why OWE can't say it. Wait, may OWE did say it... there is a thread plotting on Tony at the forum of pop-up malicious software.
Click to expand...

One White Eye Knows Tony is as you say, he is just trying to be fair to the guidelines of the forum, as he promised Years ago.

An open discussion.

The Forum was basicly a replacement for physorg because trolling got to bad on physorg, and moderation did not take action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom