Proposal- Was 9/11 an inside job?
- Thread starter scott3x
- Start date
- Status
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...
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...
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).
Syzygys said: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
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.
Syzygys said:
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
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.
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
? It used to adhere much more closely to his own, but I've modified it a fair amount since then.
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.
Well, since the rest (why and who) is just theory, there is no need for experts.
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...
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...
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
Last edited:
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:
[thread=74142]How the Formal Debates forum works[/thread]
A few extracts about Proposals:
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.
[thread=74142]How the Formal Debates forum works[/thread]
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.
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.
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.
James R said:
Well, if you close it here, guess it'll all have to be relegated to the pseudoscience forum, where people can insult at will.
James R said:
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.
James R said:
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.
James R said:
I'm relieved to know that the discussion thread can continue after the debate itself has closed.
James R said:
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.
James R said:
Sounds good.
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.
Last edited:
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.
But your "sound evidence" appears to be little more than "Kevin Ryan said the fires weren't hot enough".
Last edited:
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?
Regarding the 9/11 HOW thread's closing
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?
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?
Regarding the 9/11 HOW thread's closing
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?
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.
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.
B
BlueMoose
Guest
Scott, I suggest that you debate only WTC 7, that should be walk in the park
- Status