Proposal- Was 9/11 an inside job?

[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 :-).

[leopold]

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.