Proposal- Was 9/11 an inside job?

[scott3x]

I have continued debating the narrower subject of the WTC Collapses in the pseudoscience forum. However, with the closing of one of the 9/11 threads there (the 9/11 HOW thread), and then the closing of my questioning of it and the statement that more may be closed in the future, I've decided to bring the entire issue of whether 9/11 was an inside job here as a debate proposal. So, without further ado...

I wish to debate any civilized person(s) on the topic of the World Trade Center collapses/partial collapses (there were a few that didn't collapse completely) and whether or not some of them were taken down by controlled demolition.

For the purposes of this discussion, I define a civilized person as:
One who will not use the following personal attacks on anyone in the debate that includes the words:
anything with the f word, moron, stupid, idiot or (if a woman), whore and bitch. Debaters may also not use derivations of these terms- that is, no fing whatever, moronic, stupid (argument, etc.), idiotic, bitchy.

Acceptable put downs- obtuse, lame, shoddy.

I will be on the side that some were indeed taken down by controlled demolition. I also wish that it be possible that the following people be allowed to join my side of the debate:
Tony, Headspin, psikeyhackr and leeray.

I suggest the following rules for the debate:

1. Each poster will get one opening post. Then each poster will be able to rebut the opening post; they may take up more then one post to do so; this response will also be their concluding posts. Instead, if both sides (or new people) would like to continue the debate, they would open up a new thread. This would eliminate the confusion that could result from a response that's cut up into multiple posts.

2. Debaters each have a week from the time of the opening post of their opponent to finishing their response. If none of the debaters from a particular side posts in the required time limit, the debate will be declared finished, and the thread closed.

3. Debaters may include links to any supporting information or references in their posts. They may also quote extracted sections of text from other sites.

[James R]

A debate traditionally has an end, but the current proposal essentially calls for never-ending discussion of the topic until one side drops out simply from being outlasted by the other.

Since the proposed debate can only be ended if one side stops posting, rule 3 will never be brought into effect, as far as I can see.

I suggest instead that either a definite end date be put on the debate, or that each side be limited to a certain specified number of posts.

To retain the debate format, I also suggest that there should be some method by which each side alternates posts with the other side, so that one side cannot dominate the discussion by essentially spamming the debate with post after post. This will be particularly necessary if the debate is to be time limited rather than limited by number of posts.

[scott3x]

A debate traditionally has an end, but the current proposal essentially calls for never-ending discussion of the topic until one side drops out simply from being outlasted by the other.

Since the proposed debate can only be ended if one side stops posting, rule 3 will never be brought into effect, as far as I can see.

I suggest instead that either a definite end date be put on the debate, or that each side be limited to a certain specified number of posts.

If a debater or debaters want it to be a set number of posts each, I'll do it that way. For now though, I've modified rule 3 to include the possibility that the debate simply doesn't end.


To retain the debate format, I also suggest that there should be some method by which each side alternates posts with the other side, so that one side cannot dominate the discussion by essentially spamming the debate with post after post. This will be particularly necessary if the debate is to be time limited rather than limited by number of posts.

I suggest that it be done in 'rounds': that is, in round 1, either side starts (if a proposal is agreed upon, either side can open; as a general rule, I prefer responding to a post then giving the opener, but I can give the opener if the opposing side doesn't want to).

Then, the other side responds; this would still be in round 1. Round 2, 3, etc would commence when the initial poster responds. The only limit that I think should be put on the other side's response is that they stick to responding to the points made by the opponent. However, sometimes it takes a lot of words to properly respond to some points. For this reason, I don't think there should be a limit to the -number- of posts that are made in response. Only that they should be properly labelled as in, Round 1, part 1, Round 1, part 2, etc. If you took a look at the debate between me and MacGyver, however, then I think you'll see that there is a limit to how many posts I can write in response to one of his posts.

The one thing the debaters would have to agree on is the number of rounds. As you have seen, I propose an indefinite amount of rounds- essentially, as you said, until one side gets tired of responding. As to who 'wins', I think that anyone looking can be the judge of that; just because this or that person is the last person to respond doesn't mean that people will believe that they won by default.

[James R]

I doubt you'll get anybody to commit to an endless debate with you scott3x. But if somebody is silly enough to take up the challenge, then so be it.

Of course, if there are any takers for this debate, they are quite able to participate in the negotiation of the rules of the debate. That's what this Proposal thread is for, after all.

If there are no takers in, say, the next 2 weeks, I'll assume that the proposal has failed.

[scott3x]

I doubt you'll get anybody to commit to an endless debate with you scott3x. But if somebody is silly enough to take up the challenge, then so be it.

I've rethought my proposal.


If there are no takers in, say, the next 2 weeks, I'll assume that the proposal has failed.

Sounds fair.

[James R]

scott3x:

Please do not keep editing the opening post, as what follows below it ceases to make any sense for later readers. If you wish to alter your proposal, post a new post in the thread.

Your current proposal envisages the Formal Debates forum filling up with many threads on the same topic, which would be a huge mess. Please try to come up with a format that restricts the debate to a single thread.

[scott3x]

scott3x:

Please do not keep editing the opening post, as what follows below it ceases to make any sense for later readers. If you wish to alter your proposal, post a new post in the thread.

Ok.


Your current proposal envisages the Formal Debates forum filling up with many threads on the same topic, which would be a huge mess. Please try to come up with a format that restricts the debate to a single thread.

I see no way of doing that without it being even more messy; that's essentially the format the the WTC Collapses thread in the pseudoscience forum has. Which can work, it certainly has in pseudoscience. How about this- after a thread is finished and a new one begun, the old thread is archived? Or even erased- anyone who would like to keep a copy could always save it before a new debate started. Or it could be a one time event and the real discussion could take place in the "Was 9/11 an inside job?" discussion thread and that could go on and on as the WTC collapses thread has and as the 9/11 Conspiracy thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84951) did before it was closed down.

[MacGyver1968]

I doubt you'll get anybody to commit to an endless debate with you scott3x. But if somebody is silly enough to take up the challenge, then so be it.

Of course, if there are any takers for this debate, they are quite able to participate in the negotiation of the rules of the debate. That's what this Proposal thread is for, after all.

If there are no takers in, say, the next 2 weeks, I'll assume that the proposal has failed.

Yes, I was stupid enough to accept the first challenge...and quickly discovered my opponent was unable to form a formal argument of his own, and rebutted my opening argument by only posting links to websites where people were saying what he believed.

It's like I stood up on the stage and gave my argument, and then when it was Scott's turn, he just handed out flyers to the audience, written by someone else, and said "here, read this, I believe everything this guy says." That's not an argument.

Good luck with that Scott.

[scott3x]

It's like I stood up on the stage and gave my argument, and then when it was Scott's turn, he just handed out flyers to the audience, written by someone else, and said "here, read this, I believe everything this guy says." That's not an argument.

In my first response to you in the WTC Collapses debate (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2149841&postcount=2), I posted all of 2 links, interspersed amoung my arguments. With the first link, which was there more to provide proof then that you needed to actually go to the link, I excerpted the relevant arguments from it; the fact that I didn't make them first doesn't invalidate them. The second link was to my very own site.

[MacGyver1968]

You've edited that post since you originally posted it...and have added to it. Some of those things weren't in your original post.

Look at my reply...I quote your original response. You edited an argument after it was responded to.

[John99]

sped

[swivel]

Look at my reply...I quote your original response. You edited an argument after it was responded to.

That sounds like a... a... CONSPIRACY!

[scott3x]

You've edited that post since you originally posted it...and have added to it. Some of those things weren't in your original post.

Look at my reply...I quote your original response. You edited an argument after it was responded to.

I just looked at your reply. Not sure what you want me to notice about it though.

[scott3x]

Look at my reply...I quote your original response. You edited an argument after it was responded to.

That sounds like a... a... CONSPIRACY!

Laugh :-)

[Syzygys]

Hey, I can accept the debate with 2 conditions:

1. We concentrate more on the WHY and WHO instead of the HOW.

2. No links to long explanations, I want to hear what Scott thinks using his own words explaining it on a 3rd grader's level...

[scott3x]

Hey, I can accept the debate with 2 conditions:

1. We concentrate more on the WHY and WHO instead of the HOW.

2. No links to long explanations, I want to hear what Scott thinks using his own words explaining it on a 3rd grader's level...

I guess the problem is that I don't want to debate on a 3rd grader's level :-p.

[Syzygys]

Since we can stipulate that it is possible to bring down a skyscraper with detonation, there is nothing to debate there from the engineering point of view. We could debate the execution part, that it is close to impossible to disperse so much detonating power without anyone noticing it.

By the 3rd grader remark I meant keeping it simple.

[scott3x]

Since we can stipulate that it is possible to bring down a skyscraper with detonation, there is nothing to debate there from the engineering point of view.

Sounds good.


We could debate the execution part, that it is close to impossible to disperse so much detonating power without anyone noticing it.

I'd argue on the 'next to impossible' part. From what Gordon Ross has said, it looks like they may have put in some if not all of the explosives in the elevator shafts, where they would be well hidden from view. This may also account for the official story's need for all that jet fuel to allegedly have gone down the elevators shafts- the idea being that explosions may well have been coming from them. Gordon Ross has also mentioned the fact that the last columns that remained standing a few moments after the rest of the towers fell were the weakest ones; which seems rather strange, unless one takes into account the fact that they were also the ones that were furthest away from the elevator shafts.


By the 3rd grader remark I meant keeping it simple.

If the issue was a simple one, do you really think it would have dragged on for 7+ years now?

[Syzygys]

For the record, I don't care who Gordon Ross is. You can use their arguments, just don't apply to authority, while doing so...

[scott3x]

For the record, I don't care who Gordon Ross is.

I may not agree with NIST and think that their reports to be fairly flawed, but I don't ignore them- why? Because they definitely had experts involved. Ironically, NIST is one of the top experts regarding thermate, an explosive that many in the truth movement believed was involved in the destruction of the WTC buildings, as Kevin Ryan made clear in his peer reviewd paper The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites (http://wearechangeseattle.org/2008/07/05/the-top-ten-connections-between-nist-and-nano-thermites-by-kevin-ryan/).


You can use their arguments, just don't apply to authority, while doing so...

I certainly believe that arguments are the most important. I think it's fair to say that the government's position has more authority; they are, after all, the government. Because of this, if I were to rely solely on authority figures, I believe I'd lose out. However, I think that it's important to note how many people of authority question or even ridicule the official story (http://patriotsquestion911.com/).

So, what say you? Care to enter a true, bona fide debate? The debate would be rather short anyway- we'd each have one opening and then as many posts as necessary to respond to that opening; the response would also be the conclusion. As soon as the debate is opened, a discussion thread would also be opened. I would like it to have the same rules regarding civility; the difference between the discussion and the debate is that the discussion would be open ended; I believe we could go on in it indefinitely. Also, anyone can join it. The only thing I ask is that people who partake in it respect the rules regarding insults that are unnaceptable.

[Syzygys]

As long as you describe with your own words what you think happened and why, I am OK.

P.S.: I don't care about Kevin Ryan either... :)

[Syzygys]

You can start, since I can't do an opening argument without knowing what you are saying. Concentrate on the WHY and WHO and in the HOW just explain how much exploding material was used and how many people were needed to distribute and place it in the towers in how much time....

P.S.: "Applying to authority" is an expression in logic. It is a logical fallacy when someone incorrectly applies to authority (Joe says it is this and this) when Joe is not an expert on the subject...

[scott3x]

As long as you describe with your own words what you think happened and why, I am OK.

Hey, what's wrong with a little quoting? You can always ask me to back up anything that's quoted (and if I can't, you can always get me on that).


P.S.: I don't care about Kevin Ryan either... :)

I'll have you know that Kevin Ryan is a bona fide expert on the WTC collapse ;)

Listen, just imagine it's me talking, perhaps that'll set your mind at ease :-)

[scott3x]

You can start, since I can't do an opening argument without knowing what you are saying. Concentrate on the WHY and WHO and in the HOW just explain how much exploding material was used and how many people were needed to distribute and place it in the towers in how much time....

To tell you the honest truth, I think you're really making this much too hard. I have never claimed that I have solid evidence for the why or the who. The solid evidence is in the how.


P.S.: "Applying to authority" is an expression in logic. It is a logical fallacy when someone incorrectly applies to authority (Joe says it is this and this) when Joe is not an expert on the subject...

There are many people who can be cited as experts- I can say that Kevin Ryan is an expert, you can say that NIST has experts (I'd even agree). However, the bottom line is, does the evidence support the claims. I don't care if you call God himself to the stand, I want to hear the evidence ;)

[scott3x]

I want to make sure you agree enough with everything I said in my last 2 posts before starting the debate; I don't want the debate to be derailed because we haven't really agreed on terms. By the way, that model in your icon looks pretty nice ;-)

[MacGyver1968]

As long as you describe with your own words what you think happened and why, I am OK.

P.S.: I don't care about Kevin Ryan either... :)

I should have included that in the first debate rules. This was why I got so frustrated with you scott...I really just wanted to hear you thoughts and opinions...not Tony's or anyone else.

Before you start scott...I would look at some of formal debates from James R...and use him as an example for the wording and layout.

[scott3x]

As long as you describe with your own words what you think happened and why, I am OK.

P.S.: I don't care about Kevin Ryan either... :)

I should have included that in the first debate rules. This was why I got so frustrated with you scott...I really just wanted to hear you thoughts and opinions...not Tony's or anyone else.

Before you start scott...I would look at some of formal debates from James R...and use him as an example for the wording and layout.

Yee of little faith- Kevin Ryan and Tony Szamboti have spoken ;-)! In all honesty, why should it always be my words? And when have I said that I have all the answers? Not only that, but if someone else can express an argument better then I can, why on earth should I dilute its substance by putting it in 'my own words'?

As to your point about looking at James R, where do you think I got the proposal format from :D? It used to adhere much more closely to his own, but I've modified it a fair amount since then.

[Syzygys]

To tell you the honest truth, I think you're really making this much too hard. I have never claimed that I have solid evidence for the why or the who. The solid evidence is in the how.

That is the problem. If you don't have a decent explanation why would a group of Americans do this and who they were, it is hard to argue just on technicalities. Also I want a decent explanation how a group of people can bypass security and put a shitload of explosives all over a skyscraper.

What I am not arguing is that once it is there, it can bring the building down. I am affraid all of your argument is about that part, but again, I am not disagreeing on that one.

There are many people who can be cited as experts-

Well, since the rest (why and who) is just theory, there is no need for experts.

[Syzygys]

By the way I know of indirect evidence that some people in the intelligence community knew about (or at least had a decent idea) what was going to happen, maybe not the exact details. Large put buyers in a certain German bank, if you know what I mean...

BUT! Knowing of something upcoming and letting it happen is DIFFERENT than actively planning and executive it.

That's why Pearl Harbour is such a good analogy. The US government knew about the upcoming attack, but they let it happen. But that doesn't mean they did it...

[shaman_]

Not only that, but if someone else can express an argument better then I can, why on earth should I dilute its substance by putting it in 'my own words'?.
This is how many of my discussions with Scott went.

Scott – Clearly the buildings couldn’t have collapsed. Kevin Ryan makes it clear in this article (scott posts text from a Kevin Ryan article)

Me - Yes but that article is flawed because (1) … (2) …. Ect ect

(Scott will then post the original article again as a rebuttal to my comments)

Scott – Kevin Ryan is an expert and knows a lot more about it than you do.

Me – Kevin Ryan is not an expert. He worked with water at Underwriters Laboratories, who tested the steel assemblies. He started making incorrect claims regarding these tests, which were done by a different department. He eventually lost his job because he was compromising the reputation of the company with his false claims and impications of their involvement in a conspiracy. Since he had spare time he went on to write several articles for 911 conspiracy sites.

Scott – But he has learnt a lot about 911 so he is an expert.

Me – He is not an expert on steel, construction, or fires in skyscrapers.

Scott – While he may not have fancy qualifications he has learnt a lot about 911, as this article demonstrates (Scott posts the same article).


In Scott’s eyes the work of Ryan, Jones and Griffin is infallible. If you are going to debate with him be prepared to see a lot of text cut from their articles. Any criticism of their work will be instantly forgotten.

[MacGyver1968]

Scott, I joked with you before that I was the waterboy of the forums, and debating me should be easy.

Syzygys is no chump...and I'm sure won't pull any punches in the debate. I asked you to bring your A game...this time you need AAA.

I spent half a semester on the JR. high debate team...and never actually participated in any of the real debates. I am certainly not a Master Debater (I've been dieing to use that one in this subforum)

In all honesty, why should it always be my words? And when have I said that I have all the answers?

I've accused you before of "quote mining". Where you only post the ideas of others. I really just wanted to see if you could put together an argument of your own (that could be based on other's thoughts) but are your conclusions. You don't have to necessarily say who gave you the idea. Most of information that I presented in my opening argument was based on a show on PBS: "Why the towers fell"...most of the data came from there, but I really don't reference it in my argument, because the conclusions are mine and mine alone...made from my own analysis of the facts and the sources.

I wanted to hear you say things like: "It is my belief, that rapid onset of the collapse could not have been caused by the planes and fuel alone. It is my contention that the substance "nanothermite" was used to initiate the towers collapse. These charges took the form of a ceramic bowl with a hole in the bottom filled with thermite. I believe these charges were placed at the connection point between the core columns and many of the floor trusses in the pre-planned impact area, as these are the some of the weakest points of the structure, are in a horizontal orientation, and are more easily accessible than structure in the rented space of the building. Each of these charges were equipped with a radio detonator. All of the charges on a single floor were tuned to a single frequency and each floor's RF detonators had a different frequency. This would allow the Insider in charge of initiating the collapse the ability to recognize which floor was hit, and detonate only the charges in that area. Unspent charges would be destroyed in the collapse, as their holding containers were made of ceramic and would easily shatter. Unspent thermite would just be cast to the wind and mix with cloud of all the other debris. It is my belief, that when these charges were detonated, they severed the connection between the heavy core columns, and the outer perimeter columns. This allowed the perimeter columns to lose lateral support and buckle. This is what I, Scott, believe caused the towers to collapse."

Notice I didn't quote anyone...on your behalf. :) Pretty good TS theory if you ask me...maybe I should join your side just to be sporting. :)


Edit: I just realized all of my comments in this thread should have been in the "discussion" area for this formal debate. I is sorry. James, you can move them if you need to..don't want to mess things up. :)

[James R]

I ask members to recall that this forum is the Formal Debates forum. The rules on how threads are to be used here are quite strict - purposefully so. I ask you to read the following thread before proceeding:

How the Formal Debates forum works

A few extracts about Proposals:

A "proposal" thread suggests a topic for debate, and also acts as an invitation for particular members to participate in the formal debate, which will take place in a separate thread.

The proposal thread is also the place where members must agree to the rules of the particular debate before starting the actual debate. Once there is agreement as to who the participants are, and what the rules will be, threads in the next two categories may be created.

...

Note that Proposal threads should not discuss the topic - just the parameters of the debate.

I overlooked the first Debate thread on the topic of WTC collapse in the Formal Debates forum, but it wasn't really organised correctly. I will need to review it to see whether it is suitable for this subforum.

In the current thread, I'm already seeing people discussing the actual topic, as well as talking about past conversations and going off on other tangents. A Proposal thread in this forum is NOT for the discussion of the topic. It is to determine definitely, so nobody is in any doubt, who will be debating and what the agreed rules of the debate will be. That's all.

So, please stick to the topic.

You need to decide who is joining this debate, and you need to negotiate the rules.

Multiple threads covering the same debate will not be allowed. The debate must be self-contained in one thread. Participants must be decided before the debate begins. People will not be allowed to join in half way through.

There will, as usual, be a Discussion thread associated with the debate, which will remain open after the debate itself has ended.

Please do NOT open a Debate thread until:

(1) A list of participants is agreed (This list should also appear in the first post of the Debate thread.)
(2) The rules of the debate are agreed.

All of the agreed rules should be posted in this thread in a single post unless the standard rules are being used, along with the names of the debaters. The rules may also be posted in the first post of the debate itself, or a link to the relevant rules post here included in the opening post of the debate.

[scott3x]

I ask members to recall that this forum is the Formal Debates forum. The rules on how threads are to be used here are quite strict - purposefully so. I ask you to read the following thread before proceeding:

How the Formal Debates forum works

A few extracts about Proposals:

A "proposal" thread suggests a topic for debate, and also acts as an invitation for particular members to participate in the formal debate, which will take place in a separate thread.

The proposal thread is also the place where members must agree to the rules of the particular debate before starting the actual debate. Once there is agreement as to who the participants are, and what the rules will be, threads in the next two categories may be created.

...

Note that Proposal threads should not discuss the topic - just the parameters of the debate.

Sometimes it may be difficult to separate the 2 I think. I'm thinking we should just get the whole debate part over- it'll only be 1 opening post (or no opening post if my opponent prefers) and 1 rebuttal (which may be spread over multiple posts but can only be in response to the opening post of the opponent). Then we can get on to the discussion, which is the only reason I even wanted to open a formal debate; the pseudoscience forum can't discuss 9/11 properly as the 9/11 HOW thread has been closed; seeing as how the HOW part of 9/11 is perhaps the one that is most filled with evidence, this is a severe blow to a free discussion on the subject there.


I overlooked the first Debate thread on the topic of WTC collapse in the Formal Debates forum, but it wasn't really organised correctly. I will need to review it to see whether it is suitable for this subforum.

Well, if you close it here, guess it'll all have to be relegated to the pseudoscience forum, where people can insult at will.


In the current thread, I'm already seeing people discussing the actual topic, as well as talking about past conversations and going off on other tangents. A Proposal thread in this forum is NOT for the discussion of the topic. It is to determine definitely, so nobody is in any doubt, who will be debating and what the agreed rules of the debate will be. That's all.

Given the nature of this debate, I sincerely doubt if we'll ever be able to even come to terms as to how the debate should proceed. Personally, I think we should just get it over with; it'll be rather short anyway. Then we can go on to the discussion. The only rules I think all parties might be able to agree with in the discussion forum is to abstain from using certain insults, which is more then happens in the pseudoscience forum.



So, please stick to the topic.

You need to decide who is joining this debate, and you need to negotiate the rules.

Multiple threads covering the same debate will not be allowed. The debate must be self-contained in one thread. Participants must be decided before the debate begins. People will not be allowed to join in half way through.

Yeah, someone tried to do that in the WTC debate but I would have none of it ;-). The only thing I think should be allowed is that the debaters be allowed to quote from anyone they choose.



There will, as usual, be a Discussion thread associated with the debate, which will remain open after the debate itself has ended.

I'm relieved to know that the discussion thread can continue after the debate itself has closed.


Please do NOT open a Debate thread until:

(1) A list of participants is agreed (This list should also appear in the first post of the Debate thread.)
(2) The rules of the debate are agreed.

Perhaps the debaters can agree to disagree on some things. Personally, I think the only things that should be set in stone are:
1- the list of participants
2- what insults can't be used
3- How many rebuttals should be allowed. For now, I've set my sights on only one; this way, I can stretch my rebuttal on more then one post, but the opening post to which I'm responding to must be only one post. If my opponent doesn't want to make an opening post, then his first response can be taken as his opening; because it is a response, he or she will be allowed to stretch it into more then one post. Because it is the only post they will be able to make, they will be able to bring up issues that were not part of my opening post; this will be the only post or set of posts he or she will be allowed to make, however. Also, any new issues brought up shouldn't be more then a post's worth combined (if bits are put into different posts, that could work, but the total shouldn't be more then a post's worth). If they choose to make their opening post a response to my opening post, then they wouldn't be allowed to rebut my response to it, as there will only be one rebuttal of a post allowed. I think it could be carried over into the discussion thread if they wanted to, however.


All of the agreed rules should be posted in this thread in a single post unless the standard rules are being used, along with the names of the debaters. The rules may also be posted in the first post of the debate itself, or a link to the relevant rules post here included in the opening post of the debate.

Sounds good.

[scott3x]

shaman, I have found that you rely too much on diplomas and the like when it suits you, and scoff at them when it doesn't. I think that official expertise is a good start; however, sound evidence beats any credential. And the reason I've posted excerpts from the same articles time and again is because you didn't learn enough from them the previous times.

[shaman_]

And the reason I've posted excerpts from the same articles time and again is because you didn't learn enough from them the previous times.No. Your posts mainly consist of 'Kevin Ryan says this' or 'Steven Jones debunked the official story with this'. When their points are challenged you aren't able to defend them yourself so you just repeatedly post their comments over and over. That isn't debating.

This is why people have been asking you to use your own words.

shaman, I have found that you rely too much on diplomas and the like when it suits you, and scoff at them when it doesn't. I think that official expertise is a good start; however, sound evidence beats any credential. .But your "sound evidence" appears to be little more than "Kevin Ryan said the fires weren't hot enough".

[scott3x]

Ok, James is right- this proposal is fast becoming a debate. So I'll stop here.

Honestly, I wish we could just have a discussion, without some insults. Heck, at this point I'd settle for ignoring people who are insulting, if I could simply have a thread that didn't get closed down every time some moderator felt like it:
9/11 HOW? From who, how, and why? (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=87950)
Regarding the 9/11 HOW thread's closing (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90325)

So here's the new proposal:
1- Someone opens the 9/11 debate thread.
2- Someone responds. Thread over and we move to the discussion thread ;)

I'll be one of the participants, anyone want to take the opposing side?

[scott3x]

One more thing- this 9/11 debate and discussion will talk about all issues -except- the WTC collapses, which clearly is an enormous issue and, I believe, is fine in the discussions where it is currently.

[scott3x]

I humbly ask for an extension on the 2 week deadline for producing a debate, as someone has now expressed interest in doing such a debate, here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2170591&postcount=1877

Unfortunately, he's not sure when he can do it, but perhaps this is because he felt that the debate had to be one that took a lot of time; I believe it can be done with relatively quickly and am hoping that the true discussion would happen in the 9/11 discussion thread that would be opened when the debate is opened.

[BlueMoose]

Scott, I suggest that you debate only WTC 7, that should be walk in the park ;)

[John99]

why would that be a walk in the park?

What motive would there be to take WTC 7 down?

[BlueMoose]

why would that be a walk in the park?

What motive was there to take WTC 7 down?

-You wouldnt believe me, so I wont bother, been there, done that ;)

-You think it was taken down ? I thought NIST was rambling something about weakened structure collapsing by fire (in free fall speed) :D

[John99]

are you working towards your high school diploma as well?:cool:

[BlueMoose]

are you working towards your high school diploma as well?:cool:

-What use is there for such diploma for conspiracy theorist whom uses tinfoil hat and is smoking weed while drinking kool aid in moms basement ? :D

-C´mon, you can do better than that...high school diploma... :roflmao:

[John99]

:confused:

[John99]

well yah, i agree with that.

[scott3x]

Scott, I suggest that you debate only WTC 7, that should be walk in the park ;)

I've been discussing WTC 7 as well as the twin towers mainly in 2 threads that now total more then 4000 posts combined.

The first is 9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!) (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84951)

That thread was closed- it was over 2500 posts and it talked about -all- aspects of 9/11, which I think was simply too broad.

The other is WTC Collapses (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=87960), and talks about the collapse of the twin towers as well as WTC 7; it's approaching 2000 posts.

Despite this massive amount of posts, it seems that no one has been persuaded from either side of the debate so far. However, I do think that some progress has been made.

And, ofcourse, there is also the discussion thread concerning the WTC Collapses thread here:
Discussion: How did WTC buildings collapse?
(http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90070)
The difference between that thread and the one is pseudoscience is that I wanted that thread to be more civil; and it was; however, for whatever reason, perhaps because the WTC collapses thread in the pseudoscience forum is much more established, that thread went dormant while the pseudoscience thread is still going.

[scott3x]

I humbly ask for an extension on the 2 week deadline for producing a debate, as someone has now expressed interest in doing such a debate, here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2170591&postcount=1877

Unfortunately, he's not sure when he can do it, but perhaps this is because he felt that the debate had to be one that took a lot of time; I believe it can be done with relatively quickly and am hoping that the true discussion would happen in the 9/11 discussion thread that would be opened when the debate is opened.

The person in question, Uno Hoo, has asked that the extension last for 2 weeks. Here is what he said in a post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2171537&postcount=1907) in pseudoscience's WTC Collapses thread:
I am certainly interested in doing such a thing. You have really caught me flat footed with the news that the two week deadline is TODAY. For me, it is a one day ( wait, I think it is a no day deadline from my reference frame ) deadline.

Perhaps James the benevolent and merciful administrator would grant another two week extension for me to collect my thoughts? I am not prepared to engage in a serious debate exchange on either side of the issue, but would probably see fit to give one nice kick off post for the initiation. But not on one minute notice. I am not that quick witted. My mind is not like a quick little waterfall. it is more like a glacier with the tenacity of a bulldog, it is slow but it will grind up anything in its path.

If James the merciful will give another two weeks then i will agree to provide a kick off post which will try to cover some of the most important points as i am presently aware of, that work in favor of the establishment position.

[BlueMoose]

Scott,

I´ve been reading those threads time to time, kudos for your efforts.
The reason I suggested to debate WTC 7 only is that otherwise it gets too broad
and complex, too much disinformation floating around. The WTC 7 is the key IMO

Check out this link about it, enjoy
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=68448&highlight=Building

Notice how the supporters of official position do change their take on the subject,
..."it wasnt demolished, it did collapse because of the weakened structure consumed by fire" and then "there was exploding material that caused building to collapse" and then "it was pulled down because of the safety issues" and so on, they are clueless what happened and yet still attacking without thinking twice what they are going to say, many times no logic or reason what so ever :) It was hilarious,
but after that, I havent bother to participate anymore in these debates, too much emotional responses with no logic or reason involved which is a shame since after all we are in science forum where logic and rational thought should flourish, but, well...

[scott3x]

Scott,

I´ve been reading those threads time to time, kudos for your efforts.

Thanks :-)


The reason I suggested to debate WTC 7 only is that otherwise it gets too broad and complex, too much disinformation floating around. The WTC 7 is the key IMO

Perhaps the most important key is the insurance that Larry Silverstein took out for terrorist strikes a few weeks before the event. Pilots for 9/11 truth just remastered their film, 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/store) as well.

Perhaps there's more then one key and, depending on who you are, one or more of these keys may be needed to see the truth. I have found it hard to separate WTC 7 from the twin towers, since there are many elements that are similar- for this reason, I made threads speaking of the WTC collapses in general.


Check out this link about it, enjoy
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=68448&highlight=Building

Notice how the supporters of official position do change their take on the subject,
..."it wasnt demolished, it did collapse because of the weakened structure consumed by fire" and then "there was exploding material that caused building to collapse" and then "it was pulled down because of the safety issues" and so on, they are clueless what happened and yet still attacking without thinking twice what they are going to say, many times no logic or reason what so ever :)

It all sounds logical to them. This is the real issue; I think many times people think that because a certain proposition sounds logical to themselves, it must be logical to everyone else. This frequently simply isn't the case.


It was hilarious,
but after that, I haven't bothered to participate anymore in these debates, too much emotional responses with no logic or reason involved which is a shame since after all we are in science forum where logic and rational thought should flourish, but, well...

I agree on the emotional responses. However, I do think that logic and reason do at times surface. I think that my general style of posting, which tends to focus on the evidence instead of name calling can be a big help.

[camilus]

Was 9/11 an inside job?

yezzir.

Evidence: Everything on Loose Change DVD.

End of story.

[Uno Hoo]

I, Uno Hoo, do hereby solemnly swear to uphold the providence of a "first pitch" post in a debate re 9/11 on just two conditions important to me, in the debate and also in the thread, in addition, of course, to any and all conditions determined by scott3x and JamesR merciful administrator, et al.

1. Behavior of participants in the debate and thread must be civil and as respectful as possible, considering that strong opinions and counter opinions are possible concerning the subject matter.

2. I have no problem with references to links or written literature, but the one who makes a reference must provide an adequate summary in their own words.


I have my opening post written and ready to go. Progress was quicker than I expected, and it won't make Shakespeare jealous, but It will probably serve as a starter. I am unfamiliar with Formal Debate procedure, so someone will have to point me in the right direction. Let's roll!

[scott3x]

I, Uno Hoo, do hereby solemnly swear to uphold the providence of a "first pitch" post in a debate re 9/11 on just two conditions important to me, in the debate and also in the thread, in addition, of course, to any and all conditions determined by scott3x and JamesR merciful administrator, et al.

1. Behavior of participants in the debate and thread must be civil and as respectful as possible, considering that strong opinions and counter opinions are possible concerning the subject matter.

2. I have no problem with references to links or written literature, but the one who makes a reference must provide an adequate summary in their own words.


I have my opening post written and ready to go. Progress was quicker than I expected, and it won't make Shakespeare jealous, but It will probably serve as a starter. I am unfamiliar with Formal Debate procedure, so someone will have to point me in the right direction. Let's roll!

Woot :-). Your conditions sound fair enough- I hope that I can use some very short quotes but if not it can be entirely my own words; this debate is simply to get things started, what I really want is just a place where all aspects other then the WTC collapses can be discussed and that that place not be pseudoscience where people laugh and say that it's a forum for 'woo woos'. In fact, I'd like to term 'woo woo', 'psycho' and 'self loathing' to not even be allowed as a tag for the thread or in the discussion :-). Anyway, to start the debate Uno, just post this thread title:
Debate: Was 9/11 an inside job?

And then put your post in that thread.

[John99]

-What use is there for such diploma for conspiracy theorist whom uses tinfoil hat and is smoking weed while drinking kool aid in moms basement ? :D


Well i guess then you and i both know that there is a lot of truth to that. That is the main problem with smoking weed though. TBH, it would be close to a perfect drug if not for that one issue. There is paranoia and distortion of reality.

There is no answer to my question about motive because an answer does not exist, it just collapsed from the damage and fire but once they start toking the conspiracy takes off like brain damage.:shrug:

[John99]

Weed just magnifies things and makes people too emotional. People tend to over think issues and take things more seriously and become super sensitive. So i will be the bad guy to some but i dont really care because if i tell the truth then what does it matter?

[Ladicius]

My goodness. It wasn't a frickin inside job. IF anyone in the government....EVER tried to commit an act like this. Not one of us would have realized it. In fact all the inside jobs being commited RIGHT NOW wouldn't be notice. It's called mainstream, theres no conspiracy that someone has truly uncovered or there'd be a second civil war. If they were to commit a conspiracy they'd spend so much time on it, untill it was executed perfectly. For you all to be so naive to neglect this fact is disgusting, and you shouldn't waste so much time on this one topic. Look for a real conspiracy.

[scott3x]

My goodness. It wasn't a frickin inside job. IF anyone in the government....EVER tried to commit an act like this. Not one of us would have realized it. In fact all the inside jobs being commited RIGHT NOW wouldn't be notice. It's called mainstream, theres no conspiracy that someone has truly uncovered or there'd be a second civil war. If they were to commit a conspiracy they'd spend so much time on it, untill it was executed perfectly. For you all to be so naive to neglect this fact is disgusting, and you shouldn't waste so much time on this one topic. Look for a real conspiracy.

I'm just happy James hasn't shut down this proposal thread yet. Perhaps he will now, as Uno Hoo has now agreed to enter in a debate with me. He's made it quite clear that this thread isn't to debate whether 9/11 was a conspiracy, but to come to terms for discussing it formally, in a debate thread. Once the debate thread has started -then- a discussion thread can be created. But not before. Uno Hoo has stepped up to the plate, I'm now simply waiting for his post.

[BlueMoose]

Well i guess then you and i both know that there is a lot of truth to that. That is the main problem with smoking weed though. TBH, it would be close to a perfect drug if not for that one issue. There is paranoia and distortion of reality.

There is no answer to my question about motive because an answer does not exist, it just collapsed from the damage and fire but once they start toking the conspiracy takes off like brain damage.

-LOL. Havent been smoking looooooooong time and guess what, I still hold my position, maybe those firefighters whom talked about secondary devices and bombs in the building were smoking weed too :D
-I assumed you can recognize sarcasm, but hey, maybe you were on weed...
-And what goes for debate, its kinda low to try ridicule the messenger instead the message, weed or not. ? .
-The answer for the why part, well, what does it matter to you when you have already made up your mind ? There were more than one motive, that I can tell you.

Weed just magnifies things and makes people too emotional. People tend to over think issues and take things more seriously and become super sensitive. So i will be the bad guy to some but i dont really care because if i tell the truth then what does it matter?

-Are you speaking from experience :D
-Actually I dont see you as bad guy, you just want to poke around here, maybe for fun, I dont know, but most of the times you really dont have any meaningful to offer what I have noticed, just poking around.

:cheers:

[John99]

I am not ridiculing anyone. You brought it up and went in this direction when i asked for what purpose would be to take WTC 7 and keep it a secret? If they wanted to demo it they would hve demoed it. It fell hours later and who would have cared if they did deliberately bring it down for safety purposes. Even the weakest argument cannot be made for a conspiracy related to WTC 7, all you say is basically i dont think it could have collapsed? But you are not qualified to make that determonation. You judge by emotion and not logic.

There is a video of a building in Denmark, same type collapsing in same manner due to fire. But i am sure people obsessed with this know what i am referring to so let them post the link. I am not getting paid to be here or dont have dvd to pawn or have no reason to defend people i never met before and have no relation to. Just common sense.

[BlueMoose]

Whatever man, I have a monster memory in some things, go the original WTC 7 thread I linked earlier and see whom brought up the weed issue, in ridiculing sense I might add :D If I recall it right your remark was "too much weed for you man"... ;) And I recall in same thread from you something about vibrations that made it collapse.
Like I have said earlier, I´m not into debating something that has been already once debated.

[John99]

You brought up both issues here. you dont expect people to respond? no problem.

[BlueMoose]

John. nothing wrong with responding, but remarks about weed and high school diploma are little patronizing dont you think ? Maybe you dont like the way I respond back to that kind BS ?
I just wanted to make proposal to Scott, thats all, this isnt thread for a debate IMO.
In case you dont remember my take on the WTC 7 you can go to thread I linked, or some other WTC thread if you want offer your opinions, there are plenty.
Responding on issues and belittle someone isnt the same thing, I did remember the earlier debate and your responses in there, see thats why I didnt bother to debate "why" it was done, and like I said this thread is not place for that anyway, you just wanted to poke me because I said "it would be walk in the park", that got under your skin...

[James R]

So, we have a topic: Was 9/11 an inside job?
We have two debaters: scott3x (affirmative side) and Uno Hoo (negative).

What are the rules of the debate?

Once these are agreed to, you can open the debate thread. As the proposer of the debate, scott3x would normally post the opening post.

[scott3x]

So, we have a topic: Was 9/11 an inside job?
We have two debaters: scott3x (affirmative side) and Uno Hoo (negative).

What are the rules of the debate?

Once these are agreed to, you can open the debate thread. As the proposer of the debate, scott3x would normally post the opening post.

I'm fine with Uno Hoo putting an opening post. He already has an opener ready and I'd like it better to be able to respond anyway. There will be an opening post and then one or more posts in response to the opening post. Then it's over and we can take it to the discussion thread that will be opened. I believe he mentioned that he only wanted me to use my own words- I can do this, although I would prefer being able to use atleast a few quoted phrases. However, if he insists on no quotes, I can use my own words only.

[MacGyver1968]

As Scott may already know...one of the reasons I participate in the 9/11 threads is to improve my debating ability. I once attempted to debate SAM on something, and she handed me my own ass, wrapped in a pretty pink bow. :)

I think this debate thread will give me the perfect opportunity to improve my debating skills by arguing a position that is completely opposite of my own personal beliefs.

That's right Scott! I want to join your side on this one. I already have a pre-formed argument ready to go, and I would gain "Debating XP" (gamer talk) in the process. If that's cool with you and James.

[scott3x]

As Scott may already know...one of the reasons I participate in the 9/11 threads is to improve my debating ability. I once attempted to debate SAM on something, and she handed me my own ass, wrapped in a pretty pink bow. :)

I think this debate thread will give me the perfect opportunity to improve my debating skills by arguing a position that is completely opposite of my own personal beliefs.

That's right Scott! I want to join your side on this one. I already have a pre-formed argument ready to go, and I would gain "Debating XP" (gamer talk) in the process. If that's cool with you and James.

Lol Mac :-). I'm fine with it, but I'm thinking it may be best to save it for the discussion, where everyone can pitch in- I consider the debate to simply be getting the ball rolling. You know what would -really- be funny would be for me to take the official story side and you to take the insider side, laugh :-p. Maybe in another debate ;-). And I definitely think I'd have to enforce the 1 opening post perhaps more then 1 post in response rule (as in, no more posts after that) as after my initial post I think I'd be spent :-p.

[MacGyver1968]

We can let James decide. My position names names..provides motive, and discusses exact details on how it was accomplished. Come on!! it will be fun!

[scott3x]

We can let James decide. My position names names..provides motive, and discusses exact details on how it was accomplished. Come on!! it will be fun!

Lol :-). I think it'd be fine if you did it in the discussion thread. I'm wondering- maybe we could 'open' the debate thread, you know, just 'create' it and wait for Uno Hoo to put the opener, and you could open the discussion thread supporting the inside job angle, lol :-).

[leopold99]

I'm fine with Uno Hoo putting an opening post. He already has an opener ready and I'd like it better to be able to respond anyway. There will be an opening post and then one or more posts in response to the opening post. Then it's over and we can take it to the discussion thread that will be opened.
what a laugh.
uno makes one post, then you get to make as many as you want.
can you spell one sided?

if i were james i wouldn't allow you, or anybody else, to make a mockery of this subforum like that.

[scott3x]

what a laugh.
uno makes one post, then you get to make as many as you want.
can you spell one sided?

if i were james i wouldn't allow you, or anybody else, to make a mockery of this subforum like that.

Sigh. The debate is just to start things off. I think the real discussion will be in the discussion forum, where everyone can participate. I just wanted to be thorough in my response to his post and that might necessitate more then one post. Although if I don't quote much (and it seems that he'd like little if any quoting), it'd proably be shorter then it otherwise might be. If necessary, it will be one post each. It's really just to start things off.

[MacGyver1968]

Lol :-). I think it'd be fine if you did it in the discussion thread. I'm wondering- maybe we could 'open' the debate thread, you know, just 'create' it and wait for Uno Hoo to put the opener, and you could open the discussion thread supporting the inside job angle, lol :-).

Ok..nevermind. I thought you might want the help. I resign my request to join the formal debate.

[Uno Hoo]

Lol :-). I think it'd be fine if you did it in the discussion thread. I'm wondering- maybe we could 'open' the debate thread, you know, just 'create' it and wait for Uno Hoo to put the opener, and you could open the discussion thread supporting the inside job angle, lol :-).


While I am eagerly willing for the party to get started, I have thought of this as scott3x's party, and I was expecting scott3x to make the normal first post on his favored side, then I would make the first post on the adversary side. I have understood the adversary side to be that I will make a statement essentially upholding the establishment position on 9/11. This will be relatively easy for me to do because my work in figuring out 9/11 has led me to presently be halfway in the middle on believing whether or not it was an outside job or an inside job. I have been thinking of myself as a responder, rather than the initiator, in the very first stages of the debate/thread. And, scott3x has stated that he anticipated my role to be that of a formality to lead to the initiation of the thread. I am not interested in becoming the very first poster in the debate, and I am not interested in the debate being "Uno Hoo's debate".

What I am agreeable to is what scott3x has suggested to me: I will make one post after scott3x has made the initial post , then the Formal Debate will be at an end, and the discussion thread will begin.

I am not agreeable to any other sequence. I am ready, willing and able to make my first post ( the second post in the initial sequence ) at short notice if things start happening soon. I have demands on my time which presently provide a short window of opportunity to do this. The window will probably close soon, unpredictably.

[Uno Hoo]

I'm fine with Uno Hoo putting an opening post. He already has an opener ready and I'd like it better to be able to respond anyway. There will be an opening post and then one or more posts in response to the opening post. Then it's over and we can take it to the discussion thread that will be opened. I believe he mentioned that he only wanted me to use my own words- I can do this, although I would prefer being able to use atleast a few quoted phrases. However, if he insists on no quotes, I can use my own words only.


Uno Hoo wants scott3x to be the initiator of the debate /thread, as previously discussed between UH and s3x.

UH is not a tough guy about nitty picky rules. Someone can give a link or refer to a book, etc. with no big problem. However, UH does not ever like to wade through a raft of link or reference literature to get to an essence which should be provided a priori by a summary in the referrer's own words ( just to make sure that the referrer actually personally understands the literature, for one thing ) . UH would like for any quotes or references to be also stated in the referrer's own words, but UH has no aversion to whatever ample or sparse use of quotes the quoter sees fit in order to try to communicate the idea.

[Uno Hoo]

Uno Hoo wishes to make a mission statement. I have become piqued on the truth of 9/11 and have no preferred reference frame, no solidly decided position presently. Like the mythological Sherlock Holmes, i simply want to look at all the evidence and go precisely where it leads. I presently have no prejudice about where the evidence will lead.

I have the simple intention to examine a fact, and, regardless of whether my first impulse is to think it means outside job, or inside job, compare my thoughts about it with the thoughts of my fellow researchers, and determine the truth of the matter, whether or not the truth is what I first was inclined to believe, or whether the truth turns out to be what a fellow researcher was first inclined to believe.

Let's stop pussy footing around and get scott3x's party started.

[Ladicius]

I'm just happy James hasn't shut down this proposal thread yet. Perhaps he will now, as Uno Hoo has now agreed to enter in a debate with me. He's made it quite clear that this thread isn't to debate whether 9/11 was a conspiracy, but to come to terms for discussing it formally, in a debate thread. Once the debate thread has started -then- a discussion thread can be created. But not before. Uno Hoo has stepped up to the plate, I'm now simply waiting for his post.

I hadn't realized that, I only read the threads name.

[scott3x]

Uno Hoo wants scott3x to be the initiator of the debate /thread, as previously discussed between UH and s3x.

I.. I thought you wanted to start :-p. That's fine, I'll get it started shortly :-p.

[James R]

Debate thread.
Discussion thread.