geggy,
A while back, when you promised us a debate, I said this:
A good start would be a synopsis of how it all fits together. A timeline would be nice. When did the government decide to orchestrate the attack, as you assert they did? If the 19 hijackers weren't really involved, what role did they play in the conspiracy? How was WTC 7 demolished, if it was sturdy enough to survive major damage and fire? What difference does it make whether it was demolished or fell on its own?
You won't convince anyone by mere VOLUME of information, whether real or imaginary. Remember, we need an unbroken chain of reasoning, from beginning to end, that explains all of your claims. We will even allow you to include unnecessary entities (in violation of Occam's razor) just as long as there is evidence that they actually exist, or are at least plausible. If you can't do that, then there's no reason to take the claims seriously.
Since that time, you have offered this:
Unless the planes hit the center of the towers, the buildings would have toppled instead of falling straight down, unless they were demolished.
The buildings fell at nearly the rate of free-fall, which can only happen in a demolition.
The concrete was pulverized.
Explosive charges shot out of the buildings
There was molten metal found in the rubble
People are afraid of questioning Bush because they would be labeled unpatriotic, that is why no one has stepped forward with the truth
Many people have called 911 a PSYOP. A PsYOP would confuse people and make them unable to explain or challenge it.
"A squib is not an electric match, even though the terms are used interchangeably by the uninitiated. It is a small explosive device which has a wide range of uses generating mechanical forces as well as pyrotechnic uses. A squib can range in size from a small cap only millimeters in diameter to ones which can be 15 millimetres in diameter. The squib being an explosive device, releases a lot of energy, and can be used for shattering, triggering, propelling and cutting a wide range of pyrotechnic and non-pyrotechnic materials."
A woman stood in an impact hole, and yet her hair didn't melt.
Where was Bush on the morning of 9/11?
WTC's power was shut down for thirty hours on the weekend prior to 9/11.
Thirty hours is enough time to wire the three WTC buildings with explosives.
Bomb-sniffing dogs may have been removed from the building before this time.
Here's the problem. Even if we accept that everything on this list is true (and it most certainly is not), it still doesn't paint a coherent picture. Especially since some of these arguments aren't even arguments, but rhetorical questions. Others are claims made by persons unknown. Still others could be called arguments, but supporting what? What is the overall premise? What is the conclusion? Why are you wasting our time?
Others have urged you to go back and read the entire thread. I don't think you're ready for this yet. A course in basic logic would be an necessary first step, and would do you wonders. Then, after you have critically examined the evidence, we can begin having an honest debate.
