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.