• 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

Critical Thinker
cmatrix
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
416
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.
 
Last edited:
Hmm...Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, Tyson is an astrophysicist, Tavris is a social psychologist, Loftus is a psychologist, Penn and Teller are magicians, Savage is a special effects guy, Scott is an anthropologist, Hecht is a poet, Meyers is a biologist....just to name a few. What do any of them have to do WTC7? What made you pick that list?
 
Last edited:
Macgyver1968 said:
Hmm...Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, Tyson is an astrophysicist, Tavris is a social psychologist, Loftus is a psychologist, Penn and Teller are magicians, Savage is a special effects guy, Scott is an anthropologist, Hecht is a poet, Meyers is a biologist....just to name a few. What do any of them have to do WTC7?
Click to expand...

They are skeptics and scientists (or at least think they are). They will understand basic scientific concepts taught in middle school. That's all they need to understand my position.
 
Let's see.....This:




Vs. This:








Yeah, I don't think this will happen.
 
cmatrix said:
They are skeptics and scientists (or at least think they are). They will understand basic scientific concepts taught in middle school. That's all they need to understand my position.
Click to expand...
I have to admit you're right. Your middle school understanding explains everything you say.
 
Macgyver1968 said:
But why would they want to debate you about WTC7?...when that has nothing to do with their backgrounds?
Click to expand...

Elementary science and skepticism has nothing to do with their backgrounds? Why wouldn't they want to debate me? Unless of course they know that the NIST WTC 7 theory is crackpot faith-based pseudo-science.

Michael Shermer, Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine, seems to be a good candidate for debate:

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2007/09/911-conspiracies-fact-or-fiction-part-3/

Fine I'll just debate him.
 
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.
...
Click to expand...

Disregarding the fact that there exists no "NIST's crackpot faith-based pseudo-science 9/11 theory", and thus you did not spell out a proper topic for debate, I am wondering:

cmatrix said:
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...

Who in this list should be qualified to debate the specifics of the WTC7 collapse and/or any NIST report with you? At a quick glance, I can't see that any one of them has in the past published significantly on the issue of 9/11, let alone WTC7. With two possible exceptions: IIRC, Penn&Teller did a "Bullsh!t" episode on 9/11 CT's, but without going into any engineering details (why should they? Penn is a degreed circus artist, and Teller was a language teacher before becoming a full-time illusionist), and Neil deGrasse Tyson is an eye witness of the WTC attacks (he wrote about it the day after here - yeah, with "explosions" and all).

Pretty silly stunt.

Let me guess: If they turn down the request, you'll jump around singing "nyah nyah nyah I knew the Randi people are afraid of DA TWOOF" ;)
 
cmatrix said:
I refuse to set foot on US soil due to the TSA radiation and fondling but will debate anytime by phone or web video.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about BC, but at Pearson, you can get irradiated and fondled right in Mississauga, Ontario!

If I were you, I'd spend some time figuring out how to delete all of those "Jay Reftard" videos off the internets. Along with this crazy physics stuff, that can't be good for future employers to see.
 
cmatrix said:
...
Michael Shermer, Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine, seems to be a good candidate for debate:
...
Click to expand...

Why? He explains the mechanics and mindset of CTs, not the mechanics of a building collapse.
 
Why verbal debate? I've said it before in the past: What a truther says in 30 seconds or less ('The Towers fell at Free Fall, a group of researchers found evidence of thermite residue in the dust in Manhattan,witnesses in Manhattan - including firefighters - heard explosions in the towers before collapse, witnesses in DC do not agree with the "official" flightpath of AA77') can take up to and over 30 minutes to explain ('Towers fell considerably slower than that, [insert all of Sunstealers arguments re: Harrit/Jones/et.al. here, and next all the flaws of the paper, next the calorimeter mistakes, next the thermodynamic impossibility of the energy densities in combination with the DSC data showing only one energy spike... etc.], Gravy's list of "what they heard" plus an explanation of 'similies', the standard explanation of the ludicrousness of the CIT proposals in conjunction with all the positive FDR, CVR, radar data, cell/airphone calls, DNA evidence, and so on and so forth...').

Verbal debate is inherently a poor medium for this. A 10 second lie would require up to a 5 minute explanation of the reasons it's a lie. This is why proper academic "debate" doesn't occur face to face, but more properly in legitimate publications.

Besides, as has been noted in the past: Why do truthers want to take on us?? If they truly believe in their story, isn't it the general public, the law enforcement agencies, and the elected representatives the ones they should be trying to convince? Ok, well, maybe they should try more intelligent and tactful ways of engaging people, yes? Instead of pissing away their credibility on dumb stunts.
 
Oystein said:
Why? He explains the mechanics and mindset of CTs, not the mechanics of a building collapse.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't he? We'll merely be discussing basic scientific concepts taught in middle school, not the mechanics of a building collapse.
 
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...
 
Last edited:
Did you mention in your request to JREF what proposition (or resolution, if you prefer that term) relating to WTC 7 you wish to debate? What future decision or course of action regarding WTC 7 do you wish to debate in favor of? The building no longer exists, so future decisions or courses of action about it appear to be few and limited.

I suggest you choose a building that actually exists, because then there might be a greater choice of interesting propositions to debate about, such as proposing that the building should be modified, remodeled, sold, seized by eminent domain, taxed, declared a historic landmark, used in a different way, torn down, or something like that.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom