Tony Szamboti vs. tfk Debate

[skyeagle409]

W
Wow. Do you think you are the first person to make the obvious linkages?? You were not debating Tony. tfk was. His performance (and Tony's) is what should be under discussion.

You are correct, I did not debate Tony. If so, I would have demanded that he bring undeniable evidence and facts to the table, otherwise, it would just be a waste of time debating someone who has a habit of concocting false evidence and responds with outright lies. If he wants to play
at the table, he has to lay down the money beforehand.

 

[Axxman300]

Oh you wanna change the subject? That is funny.

9-11 IS the subject in the grand scheme of this "backwater" message board.

You and the other Truthers want to change my mind? Here's what I want:

1. How were the buildings successfully prepped and wired for demolition without anybody knowing it?

2. What kind of explosive charges were used?

3. Who planted and wired the charges? (this is a small community of professionals).

4. How were the collapses any different than what a plane-crash induced fire across multiple floors would achieve within the specific design on the Twin Towers, and WTC7?

The other thing I really, really, want to know is: How is the ability to secretly prep and wire a highrise building to implode in any way LESS terrifying than flying hijacked jetliners into it? If the goal of 9-11 was to justify invading Iraq, and the Patriot Act, why keep explosive charges secret instead of using them to scare Americans even more?

Those are my unanswered questions to the 9-11 Truthers.

Tony tried to answer them and revealed he's not as smart as he thinks he is.

...so how about you? Start your own thread and thrill us with your research into this crime of the century.

 

[ozeco41]

You are correct, I did not debate Tony. If so, I would have demanded that he bring undeniable evidence and facts to the table, otherwise, it would just be a waste of time debating someone who has a habit of concocting false evidence and responds with outright lies. If he wants to play
at the table, he has to lay down the money beforehand.

Exactly.

And the main theme identified by most observers - neither side defined what was to be discussed NOR required reasonable protocols to be followed.

tfk is grades better than Tony at explaining mid level physics PLUS he had the advantage of the tilted playing field. tfk is supporting the side that is mostly right. Tony in the unenviable position of supporting the side that is mostly if not totally wrong.

In fact from the perspective of spectator sport it is a pity that it wasn't a debate in the formal structured sense of competitive debating. Where teams draw lots to determine who is "for" and who is "against".

If the proposition was "There was CD of the Twin towers on 9/11" it would be fun watching if tfk drew the "short straw" for the affirmative side......or T Sz was allocated to the negative side.

...but that is only my twisted sense of humour....

 

[ozeco41]

Oh you wanna change the subject? That is funny.

Speaking of changing the subject...............

He wants a "bet both ways".

He changed the subject to quote mined PA's.

I suggested like you that he get back on topic.

THEN I generously offered him another aspect of legitimate topic and he dodges the opportunity. Accusing me of wanting to change. I see he still won't discuss the OP topic.

 

[jaydeehess]

I see he still won't discuss the OP topic.

Correct

 

[Oystein]

Btw, Oystein, are you and others falling for Ziggi's bait and switch? Who is discussing tfk and the debate and who is discussing Greening and ozeco and others?

That would be true if
a) I was debating Greening with Ziggi (I am not - I didn't ask him a question about Greening, for example). I am talking about Greening with ozeco and beachnut instead. And...
b) I had dropped the issue of Ziggi failing to beef up his position on the tfk-Tony debate (that it educated unspecified unknowns about unspecified unknowns) with some substance and evidence (I have not forgotten that, as always always always, Ziggi fails to respond to relevant questions)

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

That would be true if
a) I was debating Greening with Ziggi (I am not - I didn't ask him a question about Greening, for example). I am talking about Greening with ozeco and beachnut instead. And...
b) I had dropped the issue of Ziggi failing to beef up his position on the tfk-Tony debate (that it educated unspecified unknowns about unspecified unknowns) with some substance and evidence (I have not forgotten that, as always always always, Ziggi fails to respond to relevant questions)

All Ziggi wants is exposure for 9/11 bogger, deny it to he treat him as he deserves pretend he and the site are irrelevant because they are.

Treat Ziggi as if he doesn't exist until he responds to relevant questions, because if he doesn't
Reply and take part in the conversation he is totally Irrelevant.

 

[Oystein]

During the last couple of days, I have thought a bit about what is so perfideous about Ziggi's personal attacks, and I found two items:

a) He takes us into "Sippenhaft" - figuratively speaking. He treats debunkers here as one entity, one group with a single mind, when im fact we are all individuals. He pretends that tfk was somehow speaking for "us", when he wasn't. In fact, tfk has had critics among the debunkers here for a while. It is common and frequent that we disagree with each other. What maybe disconcerts Ziggi and other debunkers is the observation that we sometimes resolve these differences by such subversive means as "asking questions and accepting answers" or "presenting evidence".
Ziggi wants to assign blame for individual posters' mistakes on everyone here. The fallacy is obvious - interestingly, even the WP article on Sippenhaft, under "See also", refers to the Association Fallacy
(I admit that debunkers commit the same fallacy towards truthers, and I have certainly done so in the past myself. The difference is of course is that if asomeone - debunker or Truther - pointed out the fallacy to me, they'd find me admtting to it immediately, and making proper amends. You can bet your sweet little arses that Ziggi will not ever admit to having committed a fallacy when a debunker points it out. That's why Ziggi will for the rest of his life accumulate stances on which he is objectively wrong)

2.) Ziggi pretends that we have leaders - which means that some of us are lead by others. This is nonsense - AE911Truth has leaders, many, most, perhaps all Truther venues have hierarchies - JREF/ISF simply does not! Ziggi pretends, for example, that Chris Mohr was a leader. But what did Chris Mohr actually do? He came here looking for experts, facts and arguments, he came here asking questions, and he accepted good answers that came with persuasive arguments. That wasn't leadership - that was humbleness. This concept - having straight, honest questions asked, and having them answered straight and honestly, scares the living **** out of Ziggi, and out of many Truthers: It has the potential of changing a person's mind. That is one of the main reasons many Truthers remain Truthers; they never ever, under no circumstances whatsoever, allow straight and honest answers, and never give any. Never. Ziggi's entire oeuvre here at ISF consists of nothing but evading straight, honest answers.

 

[Oystein]

All Ziggi wants is exposure for 9/11 bogger ...

I sometimes try to post a comment on 911Blogger. Occasionally, a comment passes their censorship.
One type of posts never ever passes censorship: It is when I ask a straight question. Why? Because they know exactly that a straight, honest answer to my questions will debunk some dear truther belief.
Ziggi knows this, too. He knows I ask straight questions, and he knows that straight, honest answers to my questions would debunk his lies. That is why Ziggi pretends to ignore me - or perhaps why does in fact ignore me: He feels the pain that only thinking about the straight and honest answers causes him.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

During the last couple of days, I have thought a bit about what is so perfideous about Ziggi's personal attacks, and I found two items:

a) He takes us into "Sippenhaft" - figuratively speaking. He treats debunkers here as one entity, one group with a single mind, when im fact we are all individuals. He pretends that tfk was somehow speaking for "us", when he wasn't. In fact, tfk has had critics among the debunkers here for a while. It is common and frequent that we disagree with each other. What maybe disconcerts Ziggi and other debunkers is the observation that we sometimes resolve these differences by such subversive means as "asking questions and accepting answers" or "presenting evidence".
Ziggi wants to assign blame for individual posters' mistakes on everyone here. The fallacy is obvious - interestingly, even the WP article on Sippenhaft, under "See also", refers to the Association Fallacy
(I admit that debunkers commit the same fallacy towards truthers, and I have certainly done so in the past myself. The difference is of course is that if asomeone - debunker or Truther - pointed out the fallacy to me, they'd find me admtting to it immediately, and making proper amends. You can bet your sweet little arses that Ziggi will not ever admit to having committed a fallacy when a debunker points it out. That's why Ziggi will for the rest of his life accumulate stances on which he is objectively wrong)

2.) Ziggi pretends that we have leaders - which means that some of us are lead by others. This is nonsense - AE911Truth has leaders, many, most, perhaps all Truther venues have hierarchies - JREF/ISF simply does not! Ziggi pretends, for example, that Chris Mohr was a leader. But what did Chris Mohr actually do? He came here looking for experts, facts and arguments, he came here asking questions, and he accepted good answers that came with persuasive arguments. That wasn't leadership - that was humbleness. This concept - having straight, honest questions asked, and having them answered straight and honestly, scares the living **** out of Ziggi, and out of many Truthers: It has the potential of changing a person's mind. That is one of the main reasons many Truthers remain Truthers; they never ever, under no circumstances whatsoever, allow straight and honest answers, and never give any. Never. Ziggi's entire oeuvre here at ISF consists of nothing but evading straight, honest answers.

That's always has been the difference, between an honest truther, and an intellectually dishonest twoofer.
It is also the difference between a researcher, and a debunker.

Welcome Back Oystein back to JREF 2006-7, when the same understanding was expressed here.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I sometimes try to post a comment on 911Blogger. Occasionally, a comment passes their censorship.
One type of posts never ever passes censorship: It is when I ask a straight question. Why? Because they know exactly that a straight, honest answer to my questions will debunk some dear truther belief.
Ziggi knows this, too. He knows I ask straight questions, and he knows that straight, honest answers to my questions would debunk his lies. That is why Ziggi pretends to ignore me - or perhaps why does in fact ignore me: He feels the pain that only thinking about the straight and honest answers causes him.

I know that all to well, it has been standard Twoofer MO. Since Loose Change forum started doing that.

 

[LSSBB]

During the last couple of days, I have thought a bit about what is so perfideous about Ziggi's personal attacks, and I found two items:

a) He takes us into "Sippenhaft" - figuratively speaking. He treats debunkers here as one entity, one group with a single mind, when im fact we are all individuals. He pretends that tfk was somehow speaking for "us", when he wasn't. In fact, tfk has had critics among the debunkers here for a while. It is common and frequent that we disagree with each other. What maybe disconcerts Ziggi and other debunkers is the observation that we sometimes resolve these differences by such subversive means as "asking questions and accepting answers" or "presenting evidence".
Ziggi wants to assign blame for individual posters' mistakes on everyone here. The fallacy is obvious - interestingly, even the WP article on Sippenhaft, under "See also", refers to the Association Fallacy
(I admit that debunkers commit the same fallacy towards truthers, and I have certainly done so in the past myself. The difference is of course is that if asomeone - debunker or Truther - pointed out the fallacy to me, they'd find me admtting to it immediately, and making proper amends. You can bet your sweet little arses that Ziggi will not ever admit to having committed a fallacy when a debunker points it out. That's why Ziggi will for the rest of his life accumulate stances on which he is objectively wrong)

2.) Ziggi pretends that we have leaders - which means that some of us are lead by others. This is nonsense - AE911Truth has leaders, many, most, perhaps all Truther venues have hierarchies - JREF/ISF simply does not! Ziggi pretends, for example, that Chris Mohr was a leader. But what did Chris Mohr actually do? He came here looking for experts, facts and arguments, he came here asking questions, and he accepted good answers that came with persuasive arguments. That wasn't leadership - that was humbleness. This concept - having straight, honest questions asked, and having them answered straight and honestly, scares the living **** out of Ziggi, and out of many Truthers: It has the potential of changing a person's mind. That is one of the main reasons many Truthers remain Truthers; they never ever, under no circumstances whatsoever, allow straight and honest answers, and never give any. Never. Ziggi's entire oeuvre here at ISF consists of nothing but evading straight, honest answers.

Good analysis Oystein, thanks. I learned a new term.

 

[ozeco41]

During the last couple of days, I have thought a bit about what is so perfideous about Ziggi's personal attacks, and I found two items:

a) He takes us into "Sippenhaft" - figuratively speaking. He treats debunkers here as one entity, one group with a single mind, when im fact we are all individuals....

Your comments understood and generally agreed Oystein. In fact I suggest that his "game" has several similar aspects of assumed global uniformity. The central themes of Ziggi's personal attack on me arose from his quote mining of one example of an extreme position I described. Two factors actually:
1) That some JREF/ISF "debunkers" had personally resorted to lies and personal attacks against me and I was counting them - "keeping a list". Both points true BUT misrepresented as more global truths by Ziggi. There are three on the list. tfk one of them; AND
2) That the situation arose when those persons got out of their depth in arguments of engineering physics. Arguably true - I could support the assessment with argument if needed - BUT I was referring to limited number of examples of "out of depth" at the higher level of physics that some aspects of WTC collapses invoke. Sure we see "out of their depth" situations in most 9/11 discussions. It is the main valid reason for "truthing" AKA almost every truther claim is a re-framing of "I don't understand this".

Ziggi took those extreme examples and kept pouring on the innuendo until the most recent posts where he resorted to explicit lies to support his false generalisations.

... He pretends that tfk was somehow speaking for "us", when he wasn't. In fact, tfk has had critics among the debunkers here for a while. It is common and frequent that we disagree with each other.

The history of disagreement between me and tfk goes back almost as far as my disagreements with Tony Szamboti and Major_Tom. And IMO, published several times in at least two forums, the antipathy of all three of them towards me and my reasoned explanations takes structurally similar paths. Hence the comment which Ziggi quote mined "do not or cannot respond to reasoned arguments even when spoon fed".

So this recent episode caught me in a temptation.

Many members including friends currently active in this thread are aware of my posting SOP's. I rarely respond and most often ignore personal attacks directed at me. I also try to avoid feeding trolls. BUT I enjoy parsing and carving up false arguments and debating trickery AND Ziggi's campaign was a tempting target.

So the question was "Do I rebut his nonsense and risk giving it the attention he is trolling for?" I chose to stay with my SOPs and the "two posts rule".

The Ziggi "PA Campaign" is a house of cards erected on a single initiating event. A single instance of lies, debating trickery and personal attack against me by tfk. Not the first but I walked away from the episode on this forum. And I faced two partially valid criticisms on the other forum. One was the light hearted comment that I was too much of a gentleman for tolerating the PA. The other - somewhat more serious - was that I gave debunkers a free ride which I would not give to truthers. That one is true fact - my SOP on this forum for years. Explained years ago but no need to restate that reasoning now. Basic marketing strategy - don't risk antagonising those who are on the same side.


So those are my personal thoughts related to your introductory paragraphs Oystein.

And - as I said - I'm in general agreement with the remainder of your post. A good summary assessment IMO.


And I can add "Sippenhaft" to my German vocabulary. The last couple of weeks I've learned "Stille" - much to the amusement of my daughters. repeated "Stille" without the "Nacht" around low D, G or A the somewhat monotonous bass line of a seasonally appropriate song.

 

[pgimeno]

Having fun?

How's that new investigation coming? Did this debate move you guys any closer to, well, anything, that you can point to?

It'll be here any time soon.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11621732#post11621732

 

[jaydeehess]

DEBATE!

What is the purpose of a debate on the causes of the destruction in Manhattan on Sept. 11 /01?

Well, I see no mission statement on the AE911T site but the petition says in part
"We believe there is sufficient doubt about the
official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7. "

So one would expect that for their part, and by extension, Tony Szamboti's part, the expectation was to garner support for this new investigation by convincing (aka "educating") viewers of the debate as to exactly how AE911T comes to it's expectation that there must have been explosives within the structures.

Who are the viewers? It's an internet forum, it is a fringe issue, so the viewers are already people who follow this issue most of whom already are on one side of this or the other.

Ziggi speaks of "newcomers". Really? A decade and a half down the road from the event!