Proposed format for moderated debate on the forum

[Oliver]

Yes. The status quo is that impact damage and fires do not cause steel framed skyscapers to completely collapse into shredded steel and dust, considering this has never happened in over 100 years of engineered steel. Proponents of the official 9/11 theory are proposing a change from the status quo, such that it would now be possible for steel framed skyscrapers to do exactly that.

Okay, i bought your story, TruthSeeker1234.

And now? What shall we do with this information, that
the Gov blowed the buildings.

Do we have any other evidence? Some hard evidence
to sue them?

Don´t run away again - give me an answer.

 

[Ducky]

Yes. The status quo is that impact damage and fires do not cause steel framed skyscapers to completely collapse into shredded steel and dust, considering this has never happened in over 100 years of engineered steel. Proponents of the official 9/11 theory are proposing a change from the status quo, such that it would now be possible for steel framed skyscrapers to do exactly that.

I think you may be in bizarro land. Here in the real world the status quo means those who believe the official story outnumber the people like you who don't.

That means you should go first.

 

[DavidJames]

Yes. The status quo is that impact damage and fires do not cause steel framed skyscapers to completely collapse into shredded steel and dust, considering this has never happened in over 100 years of engineered steel. Proponents of the official 9/11 theory are proposing a change from the status quo, such that it would now be possible for steel framed skyscrapers to do exactly that.

You are challenging the conclusion reached through science and research by hundreds, if not thousands, of knowledgeable experts in the related fields. A conclusion reached by professionals who have put their professional careers, again, in the related fields ,on the line. Conclusions that are available for peer review by other experts throughout the world. A conclusion that has not been challenged by any professional organization associated within the related disciplines.

Your side has disjointed claims supported by a ragtag group of people who are not experts in any of the related fields. Your "research" includes comments by unnamed sources, includes unsubstantiated claims and is authored by people who are not experts in the fields in which they pontificate.

The status quo has been produced by NIST and FEMA. Comparing the depth and thoroughness of their reports with what you've presented in like comparing the oceans with a thimble of water.

You are challenging science with voodoo.

The ball is in your court, witch doctor.

 

[Oliver]

Yes. The status quo is that impact damage and fires do not cause steel framed skyscapers to completely collapse into shredded steel and dust, considering this has never happened in over 100 years of engineered steel. Proponents of the official 9/11 theory are proposing a change from the status quo, such that it would now be possible for steel framed skyscrapers to do exactly that.

Okay, i bought your story, TruthSeeker1234.

And now? What shall we do with this information that
the Gov blowed the buildings.

Do we have any other evidence? Some hard evidence
to sue them?

Don´t run away again - give me an answer.

 

[Oliver]

You need to much time to answer, TS...

coward? chicken?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The status quo is that impact damage and fires do not cause steel framed skyscapers to completely collapse into shredded steel and dust, considering this has never happened in over 100 years of engineered steel. Proponents of the official 9/11 theory are proposing a change from the status quo, such that it would now be possible for steel framed skyscrapers to do exactly that.

Does it hurt to be so wrong? Is it painful?

 

[Oliver]

offline again... runaway.

 

[FramerDave]

Yes. The status quo is that impact damage and fires do not cause steel framed skyscapers to completely collapse into shredded steel and dust, considering this has never happened in over 100 years of engineered steel. Proponents of the official 9/11 theory are proposing a change from the status quo, such that it would now be possible for steel framed skyscrapers to do exactly that.

Ok, let's not get ahead of ourselves and start the debate. Agree to the format, agree to debate. Then you can make your cogent, well-reasoned arguments.

Flip a virtual coin for all I care. If one side wins, then:

Resolved: WTC1,2 and 7 were brought down by a combination of impact damage and fire.

If the other sides wins, then:

Resolved: WTC1,2 and 7 were brought down by [fill in the blank]


So, are you going to agree to debate, or are you going to continue to derail the discussion and endlessly pick over minor points?

My question to you, Truthseeker, are you going to debate? A simple yes or no, please.

 

[dirtywick]

Seems reasonable. I really like the 7 day window, as it encourages thought out responses that have been edited/revised before posting. It would be good to encourage the debate participants to refrain from posting in other threads on the same topic of the debate thread.

I also think a long time limit is good for linking. None if that "it's well documented" stating a premise that many people are not aware of or disagree with. If it's well documented, shouldn't be hard to find a link or two, maybe even from a credible site!

 

[Oliver]

Ok, let's not get ahead of ourselves and start the debate. Agree to the format, agree to debate. Then you can make your cogent, well-reasoned arguments.

Flip a virtual coin for all I care. If one side wins, then:

Resolved: WTC1,2 and 7 were brought down by a combination of impact damage and fire.

If the other sides wins, then:

Resolved: WTC1,2 and 7 were brought down by [fill in the blank]


So, are you going to agree to debate, or are you going to continue to derail the discussion and endlessly pick over minor points?

My question to you, Truthseeker, are you going to debate? A simple yes or no, please.

Truthseeker1234 is spreading missinformation - i don´t believe anymore that he believes in the CD-Crap. He´s just trying to fool us, and laughing his ass off after reading our attemps to explain our statements. A member of LTW???

 

[T.A.M.]

Sounds fair. Have you managed to find a moderator for the debate thread yet. Might a be a good idea to find one soon, as it sounds like the debate will begin soon.

TAM

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Those suggesting that the official story of 9/11 is the status quo are committing a logical fallacy. It is called assuming the conclusion. Only by assuming the official story (the very subject of debate) can one conclude that fires-impact lead to global collapse. Otherwise, there are zero examples of this occuring in all history. How can something which has never occured be the status quo?

Alternatively, you are committing argumentum ad populum, because a majortiy of people think so, it is to be assumed true. That doesn't fly either.

The complete collapse of steel buildings has occured many times outside of 9/11, always due to controlled demolition, and never from fire and/or impact. Therefore, controlled demolition is the status quo, and not the other way around.

Please, Arkan, or Mackey, I am GLUED to my seat waiting for an explanation of how the fire-impact theory could be considered status quo (without resorting to logical fallacies).

 

[Oliver]

Yes. The status quo is that impact damage and fires do not cause steel framed skyscapers to completely collapse into shredded steel and dust, considering this has never happened in over 100 years of engineered steel. Proponents of the official 9/11 theory are proposing a change from the status quo, such that it would now be possible for steel framed skyscrapers to do exactly that.

Okay, i bought your story, TruthSeeker1234.

And now? What shall we do with this information that
the Gov blowed the buildings.

Do we have any other evidence? Some hard evidence
to sue them?

Don´t run away again - give me an answer.

 

[T.A.M.]

TS:

stop derailing this thread, which is about setting up the debate. Save it for there, if you decide you will participate.

TAM

 

[Ducky]

Those suggesting that the official story of 9/11 is the status quo are committing a logical fallacy. It is called assuming the conclusion. Only by assuming the official story (the very subject of debate) can one conclude that fires-impact lead to global collapse. Otherwise, there are zero examples of this occuring in all history. How can something which has never occured be the status quo?

Alternatively, you are committing argumentum ad populum, because a majortiy of people think so, it is to be assumed true. That doesn't fly either.

The complete collapse of steel buildings has occured many times outside of 9/11, always due to controlled demolition, and never from fire and/or impact. Therefore, controlled demolition is the status quo, and not the other way around.

Please, Arkan, or Mackey, I am GLUED to my seat waiting for an explanation of how the fire-impact theory could be considered status quo (without resorting to logical fallacies).

You have derailed long enough. Why are you stalling? What do you care if you go first or not if you have all the truth in your arguments?

Stop stalling coward. Set up the debate and do it.

ETA: Please look up the Fallacist's Fallay on the skepticwiki. You committed it there as you clearly do not have any grasp of the fallacies you cite.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Arkan wondered about bias

Nothing is being excluded. It can be linked. Everyone can go see it. You can reference it. But it is not in the body of the post. It applies equally to both sides. How is this biased?

Excluding (or diminishing the effectiveness of) evidence is going to work against whichever side has the better evidence. For example, suppose you has a murder case where there was a photograph of the defendant pulling the trigger. The judge rules that no photographs are to be admitted, on either side. Is this unbiased? Of course not. That sort of ruling would work against the side with the better evidence.

In this case, you are not excluding pictures, but you are diminishing the effectiveness of them. Same logic. It works in favor of the side with weaker evidence.

 

[Oliver]

Blah blah MURDER blah blah blah blah WTC7 blah blah blah blah blahblahblah THERMITE blah blah blahblahblah blah blah DUST!!! blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah TRUTH blah blah blah

Houston to admin ... houston to admin ... we have a problem here ...

 

[Ducky]

Arkan wondered about bias

Excluding (or diminishing the effectiveness of) evidence is going to work against whichever side has the better evidence. For example, suppose you has a murder case where there was a photograph of the defendant pulling the trigger. The judge rules that no photographs are to be admitted, on either side. Is this unbiased? Of course not. That sort of ruling would work against the side with the better evidence.

In this case, you are not excluding pictures, but you are diminishing the effectiveness of them. Same logic. It works in favor of the side with weaker evidence.

So it works against you then?

Still stalling coward. Pony up and make your case. Start the damned debate thread already. DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT AGREE TO THE PROPOSED PROTOCOL OR ARE YOU GOING TO SIMPLY NITPICK YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS AND PULL A COWARD STYLE EXIT LIKE ROXDOG?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I certainly agree to participate if the topic is "Resolved: WTC1,2 and7 were brought down by impact damage and fires".

I also would agree to participate if there were two seperate debates, one with the above proposition, and one of the proposition "Resolved: WTC1,2 and 7 were brought down by incindiaries and explosives".

I am waiting for Arkan to answer my questions about "status quo", and about "public domain"