Proposal: No Planes Hit The World Trade Center on 911

[steampunk]

I will argue that no passenger jet airliners hit the World Trade Center buildings on 911. I will use physics and engineering concepts to substantiate my claims. I will provide videos links of scientific explanation that support this claim. I will use video footage of the supposed airliners that hit the Trade Center Towers used by the media. I will use live media by reputable news sources, and media sent to reputable news sources provided by anonymous individuals. I will provide argument that is inductively stronger than the existing claims that passenger jet airliners hit the World Trade Center Towers.

I will not begin this argument until Auschwitz Debate is finished, because of the apparent emotional response on here on that issue.

I'm open to the standard set of rules, but I demand the arguments be structured with discipline or I will not waste my time arguing. If you don't have the energy or the discipline it takes to be formal with me, don't bother even trying to challenge me. I propose that written arguments themselves must follow these rules:

1. Each person must make an argument that declares the writer's position on the argument at hand.

2. Each argument must have a set of clearly defined premises that illustrate the argument's line of reasoning.

3. Each premise must be supported with evidence that validates the argument's premise.

4. Each argument must end in a conclusion that can be deductively drawn from the premises or end in an inductively strong conclusion that can be drawn from the premises.

 

[James R]

I will not begin this argument until Auschwitz Debate is finished, because of the apparent emotional response on here on that issue.

Then this thread is temporarily closed until the Auschwitz matter is settled.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Experimental aircraft, and not flight 11 and 175 hit the WTC

I accept SP's challenge to a debate that experimental aircraft, not flight 11 or 175 hit the world trade centers on 9/11.

I will advocate the position that 19 terrorists highjacked 4 planes and crashed them into 3 buildings and a field in Pennsylvania.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Whenever you ready homeboy...start the debate thread...you can go first...I'm ready.

 

[Syzygys]

I accept SP's challenge to a debate

Why oh why encourage the troll?

 

[GeoffP]

What if there were only 18 terrorists and a confused tourist? Haven't thought of that one, have you, smarty-pants?

 

[James R]

Moderator note: Thread reopened.

---
steampunk has been complaining that there will be too much time between posts in the Auschwitz debate, so this second debate will give him something else to fill in his spare time.

Of course, the start of this debate can be negotiated, for example to start after the other debate is over (if that's what steampunk wants).

---

Members are reminded that this thread will be strictly moderated. This thread is a Proposal thread for organising a debate. Discussion of the debate issues themselves will not be tolerated in this thread, and all such discussions will be removed from this thread.

 

[James R]

Whenever you ready homeboy...start the debate thread...you can go first...I'm ready.

The debate can't be started until you have at least settled on the format. That may be as simple as agreeing to the Standard Rules as set out in the sticky thread in this forum.

 

[MacGyver1968]

The standard rules are fine for me. I'll just have to wait a week until SP gets back.

Question: So if we start this debate, and SP gets himself banned again, do the time penalties apply or do we just stop the clock?

 

[MacGyver1968]

So...SP you willing to debate me after James hands you your ass?

 

[scifes]

i'm rooting for you steampunk, i hate traditionalists even though i'm one, which isn't very traditional. so show them that the standard scientific community is as selective in its accepted facts as any other faction. or make a fool out of yourself and learn (we'll learn too), nothing wrong with that. although i much prefer the former.

 

[James R]

scifes:

Are you saying that you'll accept lies over the truth, as long as it sticks it to the traditionalists that you hate?

Hmm...

 

[GeoffP]

Please.

He only hates certain kinds of traditionalism.

Can't we all have a little understanding? By which I mean one way understanding.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Imagine this situation SP...this is how I see it.

A man wearing a Dallas Cowboy's Jersey walks into a Philadelphia Eagle's bar, and in a loud voice claims he can beat any man in fight...and asks for challengers.

A man stands up in the back...and replies "I'm your huckleberry". The two men agree to meet out back in 15 minutes. No weapons..no friends.

and then the challenger crawls out the bathroom window and runs away. That's you.

This is formal debates...I went and put on my funeral suit just for the occasion...and then you ran away. Sad.

 

[MacGyver1968]

i'm rooting for you steampunk, i hate traditionalists even though i'm one, which isn't very traditional. so show them that the standard scientific community is as selective in its accepted facts as any other faction. or make a fool out of yourself and learn (we'll learn too), nothing wrong with that. although i much prefer the former.

It's not "traditionalism" it's "What you can prove through scientific vigor"...or "accepted science"...and while it's not perfect, and is being constantly revised, Scientific nut jobs are a dime a dozen. You've been here long enough to see all of the lithium-taking Einstein wannabes come and go.

I like to look at things with skepticism. If you make an extraordinary claim...you better have extraordinary evidence to back it up. It's one thing to have an open mind...it's another to have it open so much your brain falls out.

 

[scifes]

scifes:

Are you saying that you'll accept lies over the truth, as long as it sticks it to the traditionalists that you hate?

Hmm...

He only hates certain kinds of traditionalism.

and what kinds are those?


unless your and james's replies were but demeaning notes you bothered to share out loud, in which case excuse my naivety in trying to make sense out of them.

It's not "traditionalism" it's "What you can prove through scientific vigor"...or "accepted science"...and while it's not perfect, and is being constantly revised, Scientific nut jobs are a dime a dozen. You've been here long enough to see all of the lithium-taking Einstein wannabes come and go.

scieforums does more good than harm in being "hostile" towards newbies wih the wrong attitude, it does so by sticking to science, by following science. and even though science says to follow nothing but provable demonstrable evidence, we are NOT doing science here, we are NOT following evidence, we are following science... in an unscientific way, i might add.

i've always felt that if science was going in a wrong turn somewhere, then we're following in a line behind it careful not to stray right and left, it's just that, science has this authority that bothers me so much, which everybody here bows to, science gets its authority from being the direct interpretation of existence, and uses that authority to challenge every other authority that puts a medium or proxy between its results or teachings and reality.
some people, sciforums an example, don't apply science to reality directly, but instead follow the authority of "other people's" science and it becomes their proxy to interpreting reality.
the way we're doing science, we'll never be the ones to discover a wrong turn of science, we'll never be the ones to correct it, to improve it, we're simply here consuming it..

I like to look at things with skepticism.

yeah well i did that to the point that it just doesn't become practical and downright wrong, which is when i started becoming skeptical of skepticism, and that was a step forward from skepticism perhaps more important than the step to being skeptical.

If you make an extraordinary claim...you better have extraordinary evidence to back it up. It's one thing to have an open mind...it's another to have it open so much your brain falls out.

extraordinary is relative.
science doesn't know "extraordinary", open minded doesn't know extraordinary, and if open minded knows extraordinary, then it knows it can't brand one side of it by will, by earth's population's standards, god not existing is an outrageous and extraordinary claim as can be, yet all athiests and the scientific community has to offer is calmly returning the ball and saying that god existing is the extraordinary claim and that they want extraordinary proof for it, so whose label of extraordinary is correct?

 

[James R]

Moderator note: The poster who suggested this Debate seems to have left sciforums. So, this Proposal is dead.

Thread closed.