• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

TAM 2011 WTC 7 debate

cmatrix said:
I have officially sent a request to JREF to debate WTC 7 at TAM 2011.

I would like to debate any one (or all) of the distinguished people listed below at TAM regarding NIST's crackpot faith-based pseudo-science 9/11 theory on WTC 7.

Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Carol Tavris, Elizabeth Loftus, Penn & Teller, Jennifer Ouellette, Adam Savage, Eugenie Scott, Jennifer Michael Hecht, PZ Meyers, Pamela Gay, Michael Shermer, Rebecca Watson, Sara E. Mayhew.

I refuse to set foot on US soil due to the TSA radiation and fondling but will debate anytime by phone or web video.

As usual low-brow crackpot ridicule of this post will be ignored.
Click to expand...

what is your hypothesis?
 
Are any of your list actually members of this board?

If not, isn't this a bit like challenging someone to a fight while hiding in your closet?
 
DC said:
what is your hypothesis?
Click to expand...

There are two:

1) The NIST WTC 7 theory is crackpot faith-based pseudo-science.

I can prove that in one but preferably two sentences.

2) WTC 7 was brought down by an unusual form of controlled demolition.

The JREF and TAM people including my idol the great James Randi have full details.
 
cmatrix said:
There are two:

1) The NIST WTC 7 theory is crackpot faith-based pseudo-science.

I can prove that in one but preferably two sentences.

2) WTC 7 was brought down by an unusual form of controlled demolition.

The JREF and TAM people including my idol the great James Randi have full details.
Click to expand...

Never before or since used, or tested. And they almost doubled the world record in the process.

I suppose the 4 airplane crashes were simple coincidence?
 
cmatrix said:
There are two:

1) The NIST WTC 7 theory is crackpot faith-based pseudo-science.

I can prove that in one but preferably two sentences.

2) WTC 7 was brought down by an unusual form of controlled demolition.

The JREF and TAM people including my idol the great James Randi have full details.
Click to expand...

Did you know that one can't make something be true by just saying it? Seriously. Just last night I said, "twinstead is a billionaire". You know what? I'm still not. I know. It shocked me too.
 
DGM said:
Why don't you explain this one in full to us first? Maybe in a new thread.
Click to expand...


No real need to start a new thread.

Cmatrix, let's just assume that one or more of the people on your list have agreed to debate. The stage is set....they are standing behind one podium, and a video monitor featuring you via skype is on the other.

You are allowed to go first. Why don't you go ahead and give us your opening statement.
 
cmatrix said:
Why shouldn't he? We'll merely be discussing basic scientific concepts taught in middle school, not the mechanics of a building collapse.
Click to expand...

Urrrr ... you are moving goal posts already! Because in the OP, you said this:

cmatrix said:
I have officially sent a request to JREF to debate WTC 7 at TAM 2011.

I would like to debate any one (or all) of the distinguished people listed below at TAM regarding NIST's crackpot faith-based pseudo-science 9/11 theory on WTC 7.

Richard Dawkins, ...
Click to expand...

Quite a different topic all of a sudden.

Or do you actually believe that the investigation into the WTC7 collapse could have done by 9th-graders (or whatever is the grade that follows middle school)?!? No university-level engineering required to model skyscrapers?!?
 
carlitos said:
Deep thought: Can anyone think of a reason why we don't have middle-school kids building steel frame high rise buildings?

ETA - How exactly could cmatrix frame this debate?

Dear Mr. Shermer,

I'd like to debate the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building with you, but not really debate the mechanics of a building collapse. Rather we will focus on elementary middle school science. The format will be via skype, because I'm too paranoid to come to the USA. Sound good to you?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I LOL'd :D
 
Oystein said:
Urrrr ... you are moving goal posts already! Because in the OP, you said this:



Quite a different topic all of a sudden.

Or do you actually believe that the investigation into the WTC7 collapse could have done by 9th-graders (or whatever is the grade that follows middle school)?!? No university-level engineering required to model skyscrapers?!?
Click to expand...

The NIST WTC 7 investigation couldn't be done by 8th-graders but the debunking of that crackpot investigation certainly can be. If JREF ever had the backbone to do the debate they'd find out quickly. That's why they'll never agree to it.
 
cmatrix said:
There are two:

1) The NIST WTC 7 theory is crackpot faith-based pseudo-science.

I can prove that in one but preferably two sentences.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to read those two sentences :)

cmatrix said:
2) WTC 7 was brought down by an unusual form of controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

What is that form?

cmatrix said:
The JREF and TAM people including my idol the great James Randi have full details.
Click to expand...

Do those full details include the fact that you are posting on the JREF forum under the nickname "cmatrix", and do those full details include your full real name and street address?
 
GlennB said:
Because they don't give damn about you or your opinions?

Just a suggestion .....
Click to expand...

They don't give a damn about exposing crackpot pseudo-science and advancing critical reasoning, sound skepticism and good science? That's quite a damning statement to make about these fine people and JREF too! You should be ashamed of yourself.
 
cmatrix said:
The NIST WTC 7 investigation couldn't be done by 8th-graders but the debunking of that crackpot investigation certainly can be. If JREF ever had the backbone to do the debate they'd find out quickly. That's why they'll never agree to it.
Click to expand...



And yet, whenever you've been challenged to actually show that, you've refused.
 
cmatrix said:
They don't give a damn about exposing crackpot pseudo-science and advancing critical reasoning, sound skepticism and good science? That's quite a damning statement to make about these fine people and JREF too! You should be ashamed of yourself.
Click to expand...

That's just lame. You're just (in your own mind) trying to score some cheap points by 'challenging' these guys. It's like me saying Ed Witten won't 'debate' M-theory with me because he's scared I'll somehow prove him wrong. Please.:rolleyes:
 
cmatrix said:
I would like to debate any one (or all) of the distinguished people listed below at TAM regarding NIST's crackpot faith-based pseudo-science 9/11 theory on WTC 7.

Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Carol Tavris, Elizabeth Loftus, Penn & Teller, Jennifer Ouellette, Adam Savage, Eugenie Scott, Jennifer Michael Hecht, PZ Meyers, Pamela Gay, Michael Shermer, Rebecca Watson, Sara E. Mayhew.
Click to expand...

So, you're carefully avoiding the possibility of talking to an engineer? Nice touch.

cmatrix said:
As usual low-brow crackpot ridicule of this post will be ignored.
Click to expand...

Wrong. As usual, any response that you don't like will prompt a torrent of abuse. I'm almost prepared to put money on it.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom