Proposal- Was 9/11 an inside job?

[scott3x]

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.

 

[James R]

A debate traditionally has an end, but the current proposal essentially calls for never-ending discussion of the topic until one side drops out simply from being outlasted by the other.

Since the proposed debate can only be ended if one side stops posting, rule 3 will never be brought into effect, as far as I can see.

I suggest instead that either a definite end date be put on the debate, or that each side be limited to a certain specified number of posts.

To retain the debate format, I also suggest that there should be some method by which each side alternates posts with the other side, so that one side cannot dominate the discussion by essentially spamming the debate with post after post. This will be particularly necessary if the debate is to be time limited rather than limited by number of posts.

 

[scott3x]

A debate traditionally has an end, but the current proposal essentially calls for never-ending discussion of the topic until one side drops out simply from being outlasted by the other.

Since the proposed debate can only be ended if one side stops posting, rule 3 will never be brought into effect, as far as I can see.

I suggest instead that either a definite end date be put on the debate, or that each side be limited to a certain specified number of posts.

If a debater or debaters want it to be a set number of posts each, I'll do it that way. For now though, I've modified rule 3 to include the possibility that the debate simply doesn't end.

To retain the debate format, I also suggest that there should be some method by which each side alternates posts with the other side, so that one side cannot dominate the discussion by essentially spamming the debate with post after post. This will be particularly necessary if the debate is to be time limited rather than limited by number of posts.

I suggest that it be done in 'rounds': that is, in round 1, either side starts (if a proposal is agreed upon, either side can open; as a general rule, I prefer responding to a post then giving the opener, but I can give the opener if the opposing side doesn't want to).

Then, the other side responds; this would still be in round 1. Round 2, 3, etc would commence when the initial poster responds. The only limit that I think should be put on the other side's response is that they stick to responding to the points made by the opponent. However, sometimes it takes a lot of words to properly respond to some points. For this reason, I don't think there should be a limit to the -number- of posts that are made in response. Only that they should be properly labelled as in, Round 1, part 1, Round 1, part 2, etc. If you took a look at the debate between me and MacGyver, however, then I think you'll see that there is a limit to how many posts I can write in response to one of his posts.

The one thing the debaters would have to agree on is the number of rounds. As you have seen, I propose an indefinite amount of rounds- essentially, as you said, until one side gets tired of responding. As to who 'wins', I think that anyone looking can be the judge of that; just because this or that person is the last person to respond doesn't mean that people will believe that they won by default.

 

[James R]

I doubt you'll get anybody to commit to an endless debate with you scott3x. But if somebody is silly enough to take up the challenge, then so be it.

Of course, if there are any takers for this debate, they are quite able to participate in the negotiation of the rules of the debate. That's what this Proposal thread is for, after all.

If there are no takers in, say, the next 2 weeks, I'll assume that the proposal has failed.

 

[scott3x]

I doubt you'll get anybody to commit to an endless debate with you scott3x. But if somebody is silly enough to take up the challenge, then so be it.

I've rethought my proposal.

If there are no takers in, say, the next 2 weeks, I'll assume that the proposal has failed.

Sounds fair.

 

[James R]

scott3x:

Please do not keep editing the opening post, as what follows below it ceases to make any sense for later readers. If you wish to alter your proposal, post a new post in the thread.

Your current proposal envisages the Formal Debates forum filling up with many threads on the same topic, which would be a huge mess. Please try to come up with a format that restricts the debate to a single thread.

 

[scott3x]

scott3x:

Please do not keep editing the opening post, as what follows below it ceases to make any sense for later readers. If you wish to alter your proposal, post a new post in the thread.

Ok.

Your current proposal envisages the Formal Debates forum filling up with many threads on the same topic, which would be a huge mess. Please try to come up with a format that restricts the debate to a single thread.

I see no way of doing that without it being even more messy; that's essentially the format the the WTC Collapses thread in the pseudoscience forum has. Which can work, it certainly has in pseudoscience. How about this- after a thread is finished and a new one begun, the old thread is archived? Or even erased- anyone who would like to keep a copy could always save it before a new debate started. Or it could be a one time event and the real discussion could take place in the "Was 9/11 an inside job?" discussion thread and that could go on and on as the WTC collapses thread has and as the 9/11 Conspiracy thread did before it was closed down.

 

[MacGyver1968]

I doubt you'll get anybody to commit to an endless debate with you scott3x. But if somebody is silly enough to take up the challenge, then so be it.

Of course, if there are any takers for this debate, they are quite able to participate in the negotiation of the rules of the debate. That's what this Proposal thread is for, after all.

If there are no takers in, say, the next 2 weeks, I'll assume that the proposal has failed.

Yes, I was stupid enough to accept the first challenge...and quickly discovered my opponent was unable to form a formal argument of his own, and rebutted my opening argument by only posting links to websites where people were saying what he believed.

It's like I stood up on the stage and gave my argument, and then when it was Scott's turn, he just handed out flyers to the audience, written by someone else, and said "here, read this, I believe everything this guy says." That's not an argument.

Good luck with that Scott.

 

[scott3x]

It's like I stood up on the stage and gave my argument, and then when it was Scott's turn, he just handed out flyers to the audience, written by someone else, and said "here, read this, I believe everything this guy says." That's not an argument.

In my first response to you in the WTC Collapses debate, I posted all of 2 links, interspersed amoung my arguments. With the first link, which was there more to provide proof then that you needed to actually go to the link, I excerpted the relevant arguments from it; the fact that I didn't make them first doesn't invalidate them. The second link was to my very own site.

 

[MacGyver1968]

You've edited that post since you originally posted it...and have added to it. Some of those things weren't in your original post.

Look at my reply...I quote your original response. You edited an argument after it was responded to.

 

[John99]

sped

 

[swivel]

Look at my reply...I quote your original response. You edited an argument after it was responded to.

That sounds like a... a... CONSPIRACY!

 

[scott3x]

You've edited that post since you originally posted it...and have added to it. Some of those things weren't in your original post.

Look at my reply...I quote your original response. You edited an argument after it was responded to.

I just looked at your reply. Not sure what you want me to notice about it though.

 

[scott3x]

Look at my reply...I quote your original response. You edited an argument after it was responded to.

That sounds like a... a... CONSPIRACY!

Laugh

 

[Syzygys]

Hey, I can accept the debate with 2 conditions:

1. We concentrate more on the WHY and WHO instead of the HOW.

2. No links to long explanations, I want to hear what Scott thinks using his own words explaining it on a 3rd grader's level...

 

[scott3x]

Hey, I can accept the debate with 2 conditions:

1. We concentrate more on the WHY and WHO instead of the HOW.

2. No links to long explanations, I want to hear what Scott thinks using his own words explaining it on a 3rd grader's level...

I guess the problem is that I don't want to debate on a 3rd grader's level .

 

[Syzygys]

Since we can stipulate that it is possible to bring down a skyscraper with detonation, there is nothing to debate there from the engineering point of view. We could debate the execution part, that it is close to impossible to disperse so much detonating power without anyone noticing it.

By the 3rd grader remark I meant keeping it simple.

 

[scott3x]

Since we can stipulate that it is possible to bring down a skyscraper with detonation, there is nothing to debate there from the engineering point of view.

Sounds good.

We could debate the execution part, that it is close to impossible to disperse so much detonating power without anyone noticing it.

I'd argue on the 'next to impossible' part. From what Gordon Ross has said, it looks like they may have put in some if not all of the explosives in the elevator shafts, where they would be well hidden from view. This may also account for the official story's need for all that jet fuel to allegedly have gone down the elevators shafts- the idea being that explosions may well have been coming from them. Gordon Ross has also mentioned the fact that the last columns that remained standing a few moments after the rest of the towers fell were the weakest ones; which seems rather strange, unless one takes into account the fact that they were also the ones that were furthest away from the elevator shafts.

By the 3rd grader remark I meant keeping it simple.

If the issue was a simple one, do you really think it would have dragged on for 7+ years now?

 

[Syzygys]

For the record, I don't care who Gordon Ross is. You can use their arguments, just don't apply to authority, while doing so...

 

[scott3x]

For the record, I don't care who Gordon Ross is.

I may not agree with NIST and think that their reports to be fairly flawed, but I don't ignore them- why? Because they definitely had experts involved. Ironically, NIST is one of the top experts regarding thermate, an explosive that many in the truth movement believed was involved in the destruction of the WTC buildings, as Kevin Ryan made clear in his peer reviewd paper The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites.

You can use their arguments, just don't apply to authority, while doing so...

I certainly believe that arguments are the most important. I think it's fair to say that the government's position has more authority; they are, after all, the government. Because of this, if I were to rely solely on authority figures, I believe I'd lose out. However, I think that it's important to note how many people of authority question or even ridicule the official story.

So, what say you? Care to enter a true, bona fide debate? The debate would be rather short anyway- we'd each have one opening and then as many posts as necessary to respond to that opening; the response would also be the conclusion. As soon as the debate is opened, a discussion thread would also be opened. I would like it to have the same rules regarding civility; the difference between the discussion and the debate is that the discussion would be open ended; I believe we could go on in it indefinitely. Also, anyone can join it. The only thing I ask is that people who partake in it respect the rules regarding insults that are unnaceptable.