Proposal- How did WTC buildings collapse?

[scott3x]

* * * * MODERATOR'S NOTE * * * *

Leopold: I received your report on this thread. I don't quite understand your complaint. The purpose of this board is to host debates, regardless of how the O.P. is worded. That seems to be what the members are doing.

God I feel dumb. Apparently I could have started the official debate myself . Ok, well I'll start one up in the near future; it'll essentially be a response to MacGyver's opener

 

[leopold]

* * * * MODERATOR'S NOTE * * * *

Leopold: I received your report on this thread. I don't quite understand your complaint. The purpose of this board is to host debates, regardless of how the O.P. is worded. That seems to be what the members are doing.

this is a proposal thread.
i see a lot of evidence being presented which i feel should be deleted.
the evidence should be reserved for the actual debate thread.

 

[scott3x]

this is a proposal thread.
i see a lot of evidence being presented which i feel should be deleted.
the evidence should be reserved for the actual debate thread.

I had no idea that we could independently create debate threads. In any case, I don't think that the evidence presented here should be deleted; rather, I will simply start the debate thread by responding to MacGyver's arguments and probably adding a few of my own arguments for the controlled demolition theory.

 

[leopold]

Because many witnesses to the event offer compelling testimony, such as firemen and first responders.

witness testimony IS NOT hearsay.
example of hearsay:
i witness a car wreck then go home and describe it to you.
anything you would say about the wreck is hearsay.

 

[scott3x]

Because many witnesses to the event offer compelling testimony, such as firemen and first responders.

witness testimony IS NOT hearsay.
example of hearsay:
i witness a car wreck then go home and describe it to you.
anything you would say about the wreck is hearsay.

If I quote what you said, I would think it should count as witness testimony. Paraphrasing clearly isn't so good but I still consider it admissable if direct quotes aren't available or if it's merely to bring up a point in the discussion; if the point comes into scrutiny, the relevant quotes can be sought.

 

[leopold]

I had no idea that we could independently create debate threads.

you create the proposal thread to lay down the rules and guidelines for the corresponding debate thread.
when all parties agree to the proposal then the debate thread is created to present the arguement.

In any case, I don't think that the evidence presented here should be deleted; rather, I will simply start the debate thread by responding to MacGyver's arguments and probably adding a few of my own arguments for the controlled demolition theory.

i disagree. the evidence SHOULD be deleted to conform with the spirit in which this forum was created in the first place.

 

[leopold]

If I quote what you said, I would think it should count as witness testimony.

it's hearsay.

Paraphrasing clearly isn't so good but I still consider it admissable if direct quotes aren't available or if it's merely to bring up a point in the discussion; if the point comes into scrutiny, the relevant quotes can be sought.

you wouldn't last long in the US as a lawyer.

 

[scott3x]

I had no idea that we could independently create debate threads.

you create the proposal thread to lay down the rules and guidelines for the corresponding debate thread.
when all parties agree to the proposal then the debate thread is created to present the arguement.

Ok. I didn't know that though. Apparently neither did MacGyver or he would have put his opening post in the debate thread. Perhaps he can do that and delete it from this thread and then you'll be happy .

In any case, I don't think that the evidence presented here should be deleted; rather, I will simply start the debate thread by responding to MacGyver's arguments and probably adding a few of my own arguments for the controlled demolition theory.

i disagree. the evidence SHOULD be deleted to conform with the spirit in which this forum was created in the first place.

Well, I'm fine if he starts the debate thread with it and then deletes it from this thread. I agree that it belongs in the debate thread, not here, but I think that he, like me, didn't know we could actually start the debate thread ourselves.

 

[scott3x]

If I quote what you said, I would think it should count as witness testimony.

it's hearsay.

Even if you can link to the person writing/saying it? Recorded evidence, such as voice recordings and emails, are certainly allowed in court proceedings.

Paraphrasing clearly isn't so good but I still consider it admissable if direct quotes aren't available or if it's merely to bring up a point in the discussion; if the point comes into scrutiny, the relevant quotes can be sought.

you wouldn't last long in the US as a lawyer.

I wouldn't even try, because I am not, in fact, a lawyer. However, the aforementioned points stand.

 

[(Q)]

I myself believe that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

That, despite the fact that a multitude of video cameras from a variety of angles showed no such explosions that would result from a controlled demolition? And, the fact that everyone could plainly see the collapse began where the fires were burning at the points of impact by the airliners?

 

[MacGyver1968]

Ok...I'll repost in the debate thread. I didn't know the procedure either...as this is also my first formal debate in this thread.

 

[leopold]

Even if you can link to the person writing/saying it?
Recorded evidence, such as voice recordings and emails, are certainly allowed in court proceedings.

if i were to judge this mess then i would accept testimony ONLY from the people that was actually there.

but this is your thread, you stipulate what is acceptable.
apparently you are willing to accept almost anything.

 

[scott3x]

I myself believe that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

That, despite the fact that a multitude of video cameras from a variety of angles showed no such explosions that would result from a controlled demolition? And, the fact that everyone could plainly see the collapse began where the fires were burning at the points of impact by the airliners?

Q, I have responded to your points over in the newly created discussion counterpart to this thread.

 

[scott3x]

Ok...I'll repost in the debate thread. I didn't know the procedure either...as this is also my first formal debate in this thread.

Yeah, they caught us newbies out . Will respond to your first post in the debate thread soon...

 

[Syzygys]

Ok...I'll repost in the debate thread. I didn't know the procedure either...

Proposal thread: OP invites anyone or certain posters for a debate. They lay down the rules. Discussion should be limited to this and not to include the actual debate arguments.

Debate thread: Only the invited posters participate according to the rules. Some of these rules are already posted although I think they are a bit too rigid and anal.

Discussion thread: Anybody else can chime in and express their views on who won or extra info related to the topic.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Proposal thread: OP invites anyone or certain posters for a debate. They lay down the rules. Discussion should be limited to this and not to include the actual debate arguments.

Debate thread: Only the invited posters participate according to the rules. Some of these rules are already posted although I think they are a bit too rigid and anal.

Discussion thread: Anybody else can chime in and express their views on who won or extra info related to the topic.

Thanks for the clarification. Guess we should have read the Faq's first.

 

[scott3x]

Proposal thread: OP invites anyone or certain posters for a debate. They lay down the rules. Discussion should be limited to this and not to include the actual debate arguments.

Debate thread: Only the invited posters participate according to the rules. Some of these rules are already posted although I think they are a bit too rigid and anal.

Discussion thread: Anybody else can chime in and express their views on who won or extra info related to the topic.

I have responded to your points over in the discussion counterpart to this thread.