• 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

Georgio said:
@NoahFence - Are you actually serious about wanting to debate him? Maybe Tony Szamboti is like me and finds it hard to tell when you're 'joking' or not as the majority of your posts tend to be the same three or four unimaginative insults and/or that picture of a nutty face.

State your position unambiguously - are you serious about having a debate with him? I can't tell.
Click to expand...

Yes I'm serious.

And no, I'm not expecting him to step up, given the requirements of the opening statement. (An entire alternative narrative that includes all 4 crash sites and requires connecting them)

...he's also woefully unprepared to debate someone who won't play his game.
 
Last edited:
Georgio said:
@Tony Szamboti - What do you say?
Click to expand...

It's not a technical debate. He won't be able to use fraudulent or outright impossible facts, because I don't care about the specific ambient temperature at a specific location in one building that doesn't mean anything.

I want grand scheme stuff. Stuff that up to now, not one intellectual coward has been able to produce. If the best and brightest can't do it none of them can.
 
Georgio said:
Sounds fair to me - a more general debate focused on linking all the events of the day into a coherent narrative.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

My opening remarks would be pretty standard fare, given their relationship to reality.

Tony's would have to convince me otherwise.
 
NoahFence said:
Exactly.

My opening remarks would be pretty standard fare, given their relationship to reality.

Tony's would have to convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...
I'm wondering, what would be your opening statement?

You seem to be leaving Tony with plenty of room to shift to the normal mode of "show some detail wrong proves me right" where you would have to counter his strawman.

Personally, I don't think anything constructive could ever come out of a debate with Tony.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I'm wondering, what would be your opening statement?

You seem to be leaving Tony with plenty of room to shift to the normal mode of "show some detail wrong proves me right" where you would have to counter his strawman.

Personally, I don't think anything constructive could ever come out of a debate with Tony.
Click to expand...

Simply a recap of what actually happened, followed by a "prove otherwise". If I thought at any moment that Tony or any of his ilk had the honesty to do this, I'd put some more thought into specifics.
 
NoahFence said:
Simply a recap of what actually happened, followed by a "prove otherwise". If I thought at any moment that Tony or any of his ilk had the honesty to do this, I'd put some more thought into specifics.
Click to expand...
If I had the time at the moment I would play a devils advocate and show you how this approach would likely backfire. There is no specificity in order to debate. This would quickly end up with you trying to defend points where your only defense would be quoting the "official story.

Naturally, I would take a LIHOP position where it is far easier to make a case.:D
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Why did TFK run away from the debate?
Click to expand...
I don't blame him. He changed his mind and had better things to do.
All the many worldwide top specialist forensic, fire engineers that have studied the towers collapses agree that fire brought them down, not silent explosives.
TS thinks all these engineers are liars, frauds, criminals.
You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
If I had the time at the moment I would play a devils advocate and show you how this approach would likely backfire. There is no specificity in order to debate. This would quickly end up with you trying to defend points where your only defense would be quoting the "official story.

Naturally, I would take a LIHOP position where it is far easier to make a case.:D
Click to expand...

Any approach would backfire, because Tony and his kind don't live in reality. They live in a fantasy world where magic happens and tens of thousands of witnesses (Millions if you include TV) were duped by technology that doesn't exist.

I already know all that. I just think it would be funny to see him or someone on his side attempt to tie everything together without the use of fraudulent facts and figures, whose sole purpose is to deceive.
 
NoahFence said:
I just think it would be funny to see him or someone on his side attempt to tie everything together without the use of fraudulent facts and figures, whose sole purpose is to deceive.
Click to expand...

The problem is you would end up being the one that would be stuck on the hopeless end of the reverse burden of proof.

Surely you don't think he would change his tactics?
 
DGM said:
The problem is you would end up being the one that would be stuck on the hopeless end of the reverse burden of proof.

Surely you don't think he would change his tactics?
Click to expand...

NF is not the one that would be stuck or hopeless.

And don't call him Shirley.
 
DGM said:
The problem is you would end up being the one that would be stuck on the hopeless end of the reverse burden of proof.

Surely you don't think he would change his tactics?
Click to expand...

No, but he'd look like a fool losing a debate to someone as non-technical as I am.
 
NoahFence said:
No, but he'd look like a fool losing a debate to someone as non-technical as I am.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he doesn't need your help in that dept. Having said that, it would certainly be an interesting debate, as I've often admired your style: you avoid the truther BS and get to the point.
 
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