The Center Stage

[Rizen]

Mmk
Though I don't see what problem you have with me calling it a spiel. I don't really mean anything negative by the use of the word. <_< But for the sake of not being insensitive can we agree to call it a conversation?

I disappeared without word because school started and I became busy. >_>

Well okay. I was on the defensive because you didn't answer for a while then started a different conversation and called ours a spiel when I asked about it. It's a misunderstand but you can see where I was coming from.

 

[Ballistics]

I would like temporary or permanent entrance into the Debate Hall because I would like to discuss the Architects and Engineers for the 9/11 truth. Their website is AE911truth.org and they have overwhelming evidence that disproves a gravity driven collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7. If I cannot be allowed access to the main Debate Hall I will just post in the proving Grounds, however I would like this topic to be addressed by the main debate forum. I promise to be civil, provide sources and quotes, and to not write off anyone's opinion.

-Derek

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I would like temporary or permanent entrance into the Debate Hall because I would like to discuss the Architects and Engineers for the 9/11 truth. Their website is AE911truth.org and they have overwhelming evidence that disproves a gravity driven collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7. If I cannot be allowed access to the main Debate Hall I will just post in the proving Grounds, however I would like this topic to be addressed by the main debate forum. I promise to be civil, provide sources and quotes, and to not write off anyone's opinion.

-Derek

Do that in the PG.

 

[Evil Eye]

No one just gets into the Debate Hall because they'd really really like to and promise to follow the rules.

The point of the Proving Grounds is to show that you can debate competently. So, go on and post it in the PGs, I guess.

 

[Sieguest]

Well okay. I was on the defensive because you didn't answer for a while then started a different conversation and called ours a spiel when I asked about it. It's a misunderstand but you can see where I was coming from.

Yeah, I saw where you were coming from, I do see how using "spiel" could be taken with a negative spin to some. It's just fun word for me to use. :3. In retrospect I could have at least messaged you or something saying that I had gotten busy. x.x

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

You've no way to prove the blanket statement you just made. You can't assume intent.

Quantity demanded of a product is not proportional to people having more money. That's just ignoring all the other factors you have to account for when determining demand for a product.

Demand is The desire, ability, and willingness to purchase a product. Just because someone has the money to buy something, doesn't mean they will.

Why are we so greedy? Well, possessions can bring us pleasure. And pleasure can become addictive. If we mistakenly associate pleasure with happiness, it's not surprising that we pursue it without end

You honestly can't deny that people don't want stuff like, a brand new car, a bigger house, etc.

Possessions can bring us pleasure, and how do you acquire most possessions? Money.

http://www.personal-development.com/chuck/greed.htm

Nothing too much explaining anything more in the link, just showing where I got my quote.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

I would like temporary or permanent entrance into the Debate Hall because I would like to discuss the Architects and Engineers for the 9/11 truth. Their website is AE911truth.org and they have overwhelming evidence that disproves a gravity driven collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7. If I cannot be allowed access to the main Debate Hall I will just post in the proving Grounds, however I would like this topic to be addressed by the main debate forum. I promise to be civil, provide sources and quotes, and to not write off anyone's opinion.

-Derek

Before you go any further, watch these links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXvUt2NE7ro&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMvz3taoMnU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QilSHm0Luj4&feature=related

I'm all for healthy discourse, but the 9/11 truth movement doesn't exactly have a whole lot to be debated. Hence it's closing of threads many a time on this site.

 

[Sieguest]

You honestly can't deny that people don't want stuff like, a brand new car, a bigger house, etc.

Possessions can bring us pleasure, and how do you acquire most possessions? Money.

http://www.personal-development.com/chuck/greed.htm

Nothing too much explaining anything more in the link, just showing where I got my quote.

Once more, I'll say that demand isn't just people wanting a product, they have to have the ability and willingness to buy the product as well. While it is true that the income level of consumers does affect demand for goods, this does not mean that producers can always raise the price on consumers. See the determinants of demand here.

People want possessions because possessions bring them utility. With that said, I can prove your example false by saying that buying a house or car will bring no utility to me since I live with my mother and I do not have my license yet. My mother doesn't want a bigger house because we're living paycheck to paycheck. Just making a general assumption on human nature amounts to nothing in economic thinking.

You're also ignoring some economic principles. As I said earlier, Producers are not just going to raise prices because consumers have more income. There is more to demand than that. The amount of thinking that has to go into setting prices and other such business doesn't allow for them to get "green in their eyes".

 

[Ballistics]

Before you go any further, watch these links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXvUt2NE7ro&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMvz3taoMnU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QilSHm0Luj4&feature=related

I'm all for healthy discourse, but the 9/11 truth movement doesn't exactly have a whole lot to be debated. Hence it's closing of threads many a time on this site.

Ok I watched all those links, now please take a look at some evidence and stop speculating

 

[Aesir]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

Ironically maybe you should take a look at the evidence and stop speculating. LIke I said previously I'm going to take the opinion of scientists who specialized in structural engineering, than the opinion of scientists who's focus isn't even remotely close.

It's like listening to a biologists when it comes to global warming.

 

[Ballistics]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

Ironically maybe you should take a look at the evidence and stop speculating. LIke I said previously I'm going to take the opinion of scientists who specialized in structural engineering, than the opinion of scientists who's focus isn't even remotely close.

It's like listening to a biologists when it comes to global warming.

Maybe you should take me seriously and not show me garbage and actually watch the video I linked? Its kind of irritating to be repeatedly ignored.

 

[Evil Eye]

You're the only person ignoring anything.

Evidence that runs contrary to what you believe is not speculation. It's evidence. Your meager say-so does not reduce it to speculative evidence -- which is, by the way, the very foundation you've built to house your beliefs. Your opinions are not the criteria for evidence. Hard evidence and fact are inherently objective.

Sitting pretty on a biased pedestal and repeatedly ignoring logically sound rebuttals is not debating. It's trolling.

Start debating.

 

[Evil Eye]

And stop posting your signature.

 

[Ballistics]

That which he has presented to me is not evidence, this is evidence, using the scientific method, citing sources, performing experiments, and testing hypotheses. I'd rather not get into a debate here unless its actually ok to talk about. Most mods want me to create my own thread.

However I will not debate someone who just will not look at the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE. Please stop taking me for a fool.

 

[Evil Eye]

You're posting the same video over and over again, and when anyone forms a counterpoint, you plug your ears as tight as you can and go "LAH LAH LAH LAH LAH LAH". You're the only person ignoring anything. You are a fool.

And you're not ready for a center stage debate, either. So make your own thread -- and make an actual argument. This is not debating.

 

[Ballistics]

No one started a debate, all they did was post links, and I posted my link. I watched and read everything they have produced, however the same courtesy will not be returned to me. If someone brings up points I will gladly return the courtesy.

 

[Crimson King]

Your video is two-hours of a discredited organization/engineer. I've watched about 5 minutes before I got bored. Why not present his findings in the form of published material since we read faster than the video?

You should also check your tone. Condescension for people for not seeing your way will get you nowhere. Also, make a thread with your debate. This is meant for people ready to cross over.

 

[Aesir]

Maybe you should take me seriously and not show me garbage and actually watch the video I linked? Its kind of irritating to be repeatedly ignored.

I have no reason to take you seriously as you're posting findings and claims that have been refuted. Posting a video over and over again isn't debating especially since I've countered that already with evidence from scientists who are in the field of structural engineering. The scientists in that video are outside their realm of expertise so their views hold less weight than scientists who specialize in the topic at hand.

Present your evidence in written form and maybe we'll have a debate, until you do it's pointless to continue this.

 

[Ballistics]

All I did was post a link in response to links given me. Get off my case.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Then you plugged your ears and went "LALALALALA" to everything we said.

 

[Evil Eye]

Alright, no more posts about Ballistic, and no more posts about 9/11 in this thread. Anything after this will get spam infractions.

Ballistic can go ahead and make a thread for that debate if he wants to, but this has gone on long enough. It's counter-intuitive to the purpose of Center Stage.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

Once more, I'll say that demand isn't just people wanting a product, they have to have the ability and willingness to buy the product as well. While it is true that the income level of consumers does affect demand for goods, this does not mean that producers can always raise the price on consumers. See the determinants of demand here.

People want possessions because possessions bring them utility. With that said, I can prove your example false by saying that buying a house or car will bring no utility to me since I live with my mother and I do not have my license yet. My mother doesn't want a bigger house because we're living paycheck to paycheck. Just making a general assumption on human nature amounts to nothing in economic thinking.

You're also ignoring some economic principles. As I said earlier, Producers are not just going to raise prices because consumers have more income. There is more to demand than that. The amount of thinking that has to go into setting prices and other such business doesn't allow for them to get "green in their eyes".

Fair enough, I can't really give too much of a counter arguement here, Well played.

 

[Rizen]

Infarct me if you must but this is really unfair.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

Ironically maybe you should take a look at the evidence and stop speculating. LIke I said previously I'm going to take the opinion of scientists who specialized in structural engineering, than the opinion of scientists who's focus isn't even remotely close.

It's like listening to a biologists when it comes to global warming.

^This addresses conspiracy theories that aren't part of AE911truth.org.

You're the only person ignoring anything.

Evidence that runs contrary to what you believe is not speculation. It's evidence. Your meager say-so does not reduce it to speculative evidence -- which is, by the way, the very foundation you've built to house your beliefs. Your opinions are not the criteria for evidence. Hard evidence and fact are inherently objective.

Sitting pretty on a biased pedestal and repeatedly ignoring logically sound rebuttals is not debating. It's trolling.

Start debating.

That's rude and has no facts or grounding; it's simply a posted opinion.

You're posting the same video over and over again, and when anyone forms a counterpoint, you plug your ears as tight as you can and go "LAH LAH LAH LAH LAH LAH". You're the only person ignoring anything. You are a fool.

And you're not ready for a center stage debate, either. So make your own thread -- and make an actual argument. This is not debating.

Again, a directly rude post with no facts. That isn't debating.

Your video is two-hours of a discredited organization/engineer. I've watched about 5 minutes before I got bored. Why not present his findings in the form of published material since we read faster than the video?

You should also check your tone. Condescension for people for not seeing your way will get you nowhere. Also, make a thread with your debate. This is meant for people ready to cross over.

5 minutes isn't putting much effort into seeing his side. The bad tone is a two way street here too.

I have no reason to take you seriously as you're posting findings and claims that have been refuted. Posting a video over and over again isn't debating especially since I've countered that already with evidence from scientists who are in the field of structural engineering. The scientists in that video are outside their realm of expertise so their views hold less weight than scientists who specialize in the topic at hand.

Present your evidence in written form and maybe we'll have a debate, until you do it's pointless to continue this.

Non-connected conspiracies were refuted. That's not the topic.

Then you plugged your ears and went "LALALALALA" to everything we said.

The presentation could be better, given. But this^ is uncalled for.

Alright, no more posts about Ballistic, and no more posts about 9/11 in this thread. Anything after this will get spam infractions.

Ballistic can go ahead and make a thread for that debate if he wants to, but this has gone on long enough. It's counter-intuitive to the purpose of Center Stage.

Since as I'm already getting infractions, this simplified argument should be posted. Remember the tragedy was caught on camera by several different sources.
Site link:
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Here's a link to the published slide show:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/10min/slideshow.php
and several key points. Please try to disprove them.

Slide 22 (s22) and s23 show a controlled demolition compared to WTC7. It's identical. How could debris from the North building cause this kind of collapse in WTC7, another building, 7 hours later?
A building with infrastructure will never symmetrically collapse into it's own footprint from any kind of side impact of fire at nearly free-fall speed s27. There would have to be no resisting mass or stuff inside the building s125. Fire, impact, and all other possible elements of a plane crash- even loaded with explosives, could not achieve this.

Steel won't melt at the temperatures the WTC buildings reached s49. Also see s39, s44, s50,
Thermite s61, s64, s67-s76.

Before you go any further, watch these links.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXvUt2NE7ro&feature=related

First, thank you for responding with evidence. At 1:32 the speaker says "as far as I'm aware, thermite has never been used in a controlled demolition, ever", this is not true. The military has used thermite for demolitions. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/833495-overview
This supports the temperature hypotheses as well.
The speaker continues after repeating that he is unaware of thermite being used in controlled demolitions that an author of the paper, Gregg Roberts, gave his address as AE911... and investigates the organization. He should be researching the history of thermite instead.

There were also visual and sound evidence of explosions s104. These also go against the fire or plane crash bringing the towers down s107. Note the symmetry s111. The explosions shoot concrete dust and debris at least 600ft in radius s114, s115, s135. Another example supporting controlled demolition. Fires don't produce squibs either s119. Note the even demolition waves of the collapses s128.

Summarizing: s139-s141.
(The videos weren't working for me; I hope they fix that soon.)

Or simply name anything, ever, that has fallen strait down due to fire or a side impact.

 

[Dre89]

You should also check your tone. Condescension for people for not seeing your way will get you nowhere.

Totally right! Because I am definitely denying you basic human rights and judging your entirely lifestyle publicly while condemning you to hell. Awesome argument, bro!

Speaks for itself.

 

[Ballistics]

Thanks for sticking up for me Arizen, I thought I was the only one to notice how rude people can be. I'll need some help in this thread too if you don't mind =D : http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=287318

 

[Dre89]

Evil Eye is usually pretty cool, but alot of the people can get rude to the PGers.

 

[Aesir]

^This addresses conspiracy theories that aren't part of AE911truth.org.

and I'm fairly certain he was talking about controlled demolition. This is why you people are so infuriating, I'm not going to sit here for hours on end reading a whole website. If you want to debate it then construct your argument in written form, you're just begging for condescending responses with out that. (this is one of the reasons why I like dre, he actually researches topics and provides links. I may think his research practices are bit odd and the links to evidence a bit out there, but none the less he constructs an argument that can't be brushed aside.) So with that in mind, I'll just keep posting links until someone gives me a fully researched post, I think that's fair. Minimal work for minimal work.

Slide 22 (s22) and s23 show a controlled demolition compared to WTC7. It's identical. How could debris from the North building cause this kind of collapse in WTC7, another building, 7 hours later?
A building with infrastructure will never symmetrically collapse into it's own footprint from any kind of side impact of fire at nearly free-fall speed s27. There would have to be no resisting mass or stuff inside the building s125. Fire, impact, and all other possible elements of a plane crash- even loaded with explosives, could not achieve this.

Steel won't melt at the temperatures the WTC buildings reached s49. Also see s39, s44, s50,
Thermite s61, s64, s67-s76.

This is why I posted the popular mechanics article as it countered this claims.

here's everything you'll ever want to know about steel and it's properties when exposed to fire. (Includes the authors rebuttal to Jones.) and the thermate argument
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Here's also building seven info, along with the free fall speeds.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

 

[Dre89]

Finally someone that can disagree with an argument, but still retain some respect for it (this is in reference to what you said about me).

 

[Ballistics]

and I'm fairly certain he was talking about controlled demolition. This is why you people are so infuriating, I'm not going to sit here for hours on end reading a whole website. If you want to debate it then construct your argument in written form, you're just begging for condescending responses with out that. (this is one of the reasons why I like dre, he actually researches topics and provides links. I may think his research practices are bit odd and the links to evidence a bit out there, but none the less he constructs an argument that can't be brushed aside.) So with that in mind, I'll just keep posting links until someone gives me a fully researched post, I think that's fair. Minimal work for minimal work.



This is why I posted the popular mechanics article as it countered this claims.

here's everything you'll ever want to know about steel and it's properties when exposed to fire. (Includes the authors rebuttal to Jones.) and the thermate argument
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Here's also building seven info, along with the free fall speeds.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Aesir, if you would get off your high horse of believing that you hold the whole truth and that nothing anyone is going to say is going to prove you wrong, and actually watch this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4617650616903609314#

which clearly presents evidence that you cannot refute with links debunking conspiracy theories, you would realize what the scientific method really means.

All I'm asking you to do is watch the first 30 minutes, and you will be intrigued by the use of the scientific method and the evidence presented.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Just read through all the events here. Now, I've watched 30 minutes of ballistics' video as he asked. So now nobody can say that I haven't seen the "OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE". But, in the future, don't post 2 hour videos, Ballistics. You've obviously seen the video, so why don't you summarize the main points and bring them up? Don't make us do all the work on a topic that you brought up. Also, keep in mind that this is an online forum, and people are usually not going to want to commit hours of work to one thread.

^This addresses conspiracy theories that aren't part of AE911truth.org.

Actually, many of the things in the link Aesir posted talk about the points the video brought up in the first 30 minutes. Text is posted at the bottom of this post.

That's rude and has no facts or grounding; it's simply a posted opinion.

Perhaps, but you have to realize the context. This is an online forum. People here aren't paragons of virtue. Condensation will be responded to with more condensation. Unfortunately, that's just the way it works. And Ballistics was definitely being condescending. To quote: "Maybe you should take me seriously and not show me garbage".

Again, a directly rude post with no facts. That isn't debating.

Same deal as above. And EE did actually have a point here. Ballistics shouldn't be posting in the center stage, and he is, in fact, posting the same link over and over while brushing off Aesir's link by calling it "garbage".

5 minutes isn't putting much effort into seeing his side. The bad tone is a two way street here too.

Once again, it's absurd to expect people in an online forum to watch a 2 hour video. And, to be fair, the first 7 minutes or so are incredibly dull as the speaker is merely introducing the group and their ideas.

Non-connected conspiracies were refuted. That's not the topic.

Most of the points in the video were refuted. Text quoted at the bottom of the post.

The presentation could be better, given. But this^ is uncalled for.

Fair enough.


EDIT: I removed the stuff regarding Aesir's link because EE stated he does not want any more posts on the matter in the center stage. The former bottom of this post can now be found in the thread for this topic.

 

[GoldShadow]

Aesir, if you would get off your high horse of believing that you hold the whole truth and that nothing anyone is going to say is going to prove you wrong, and actually watch this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4617650616903609314#

which clearly presents evidence that you cannot refute with links debunking conspiracy theories, you would realize what the scientific method really means.

All I'm asking you to do is watch the first 30 minutes, and you will be intrigued by the use of the scientific method and the evidence presented.

Ballistics, if you have evidence, post it. You cannot just continue linking to that video and saying "watch this". It's fine to supplement your argument with a video, perhaps referencing portions of it, or explaining them further (eg, "at 17:35, the video talks about XYZ phenomenon, which is when ABC happens, thus proving DEF"). You can't just paste a link and say "watch 30 minutes of this".

Moreover, where do you get this idea that [the viewer] will "be intrigued by the use of the scientific method and the evidence presented"? I skimmed a few parts of the video, and I was certainly not impressed. In fact, all the video caused me to do was question the methods and authority of the so-called "experts". Just because somebody is an architect, doesn't make them correct or authoritative. In fact, don't the vast majority of engineers disagree with these statements? In fact, aren't the credentials of all these other engineers far more impressive than those of Richard Gage? I could find nothing by doing a Google search on Richard Gage except his theories on 9/11. In fact, if you do a little research on the man, you'll find he doesn't really have the sort of credentials, training, or experience that would allow him to make such strong statements.

Finally, you've noted that some people have responded via links and that you've only done the same. Not quite. I've seen numerous people explain to you that you were incorrect, and perhaps explain their reasoning, or point out a well-known phenomenon that would contradict your video's arguments. Then, they linked you to text-based sites explaining the phenomena, which are not only much easier to read and cross-reference than videos, but served to explain a part of their argument. The links in and of themselves were not the argument.

If you want to debate, you're allowed to use links and videos to support your argument (in fact, I'd encourage it, as long as you're using credible sources). Emphasis on credible sources, or sources that you've cross-referenced (or that others can cross-reference) to verify that they're accurate. You cannot, however, use a single repeatedly posted link as literally your entire argument. That's not really a debate, then. That's just you linking people to something. In effect, you're having the video debate for you. The problem with that is, counter-explanations to that video have been provided ad nausem on ten thousand web sites on the internet. The point here is for SWF members and debaters to synthesize the information and type up coherent arguments.

Note that I'm not trying to put you down with this, I'm just calling it as I see it:

Your coming to the Proving Grounds seems like it's more about trying to convince people that your 9/11 theory is correct, and trying to get people to watch (and believe) that video, and less about actually debating or being a debater.

Personally, I don't have a problem with that, and I'm not going to treat it like it's a crime or something. But it's also not going to get you into the Debate Hall; at least, not until you show you can truly debate.

 

[fragbait]

EDIT: Ignore this. Reread rules.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

This conversation doesn't belong here at all. The alternative thread was established so we wouldn't deter the Center Stage from serving any other purpose than being the Center Stage for PG Debaters. It is appalling to observe how many people have blatantly ignored the fact that this conversation is not supposed to continue in this thread and have continued on, regardless, in order to bring in a few more quips and vice versa. Discussion of the rules in conjunction with breaking civility and tact is nothing more than a farce and reeks of hypocritical action. On the other side of the token, such obnoxious obstinacy is equally unmerited in this section of the board, much less this thread. It is possible that I am just in a foul mood, but honestly, stop it and appropriate the conversation to the right section. It's seriously pissing me off. If you have a problem with me or this post, then take up it to messages or infractions.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

This conversation doesn't belong here at all. The alternative thread was established so we wouldn't deter the Center Stage from serving any other purpose than being the Center Stage for PG Debaters. It is appalling to observe how many people have blatantly ignored the fact that this conversation is not supposed to continue in this thread and have continued on, regardless, in order to bring in a few more quips and vice versa. Discussion of the rules in conjunction with breaking civility and tact is nothing more than a farce and reeks of hypocritical action. On the other side of the token, such obnoxious obstinacy is equally unmerited in this section of the board, much less this thread. It is possible that I am just in a foul mood, but honestly, stop it and appropriate the conversation to the right section. It's seriously pissing me off. If you have a problem with me or this post, then take up it to messages or infractions.

This x10.

I'm having a debate with Guest, that has been delayed because of this.

 

[Sieguest]

In between the hectic ending of the my first grading period I found some time to think.

Fair enough, I can't really give too much of a counter arguement here, Well played.

Okay. Do you object to any other part of my original argument? The whole discussion we've had up until now has stemmed from your objection to Part A of my argument.

Here's the rest of my original argument for reference:

So Acrostic is going to be extremely busy, so I'll fill in until he/she returns.

I've never really considered a stance on this before so this should be an experience for me. But I guess I'm forced to take the stance that Tax Cuts will be better for the economy.

I'll start off with the simple principle that if everyone gets tax cuts this:
A. Leaves consumers with more money, therefore more purchasing power.
B. Leaves businesses with more money, allowing for them to operate closer to PPF.

Something I want to make clear
PPF- Production Possibilities Frontier: In simple terms, a firm is using all the resources available to it.

With consumers having more money with which to spend, this is potentially more money flowing into the product market and with businesses having more money this is potentially more money into the resource market. This is a big part in what gets an economy flowing.

Also, even if politicians ended up with more money out of the tax cuts, don't they as consumers themselves still buy products from business. With this in mind, where ever this goes it still ends up moving into circulation, it's just a matter of it either starting in the product or resource market.

The downside we have from tax cuts is lowered government revenue, which could lead to reduction of weakening of some of the safety nets the government provides for the economy.

On another note, looks like stuff is going down in the Center Stage. x.x

EDITS:

I'm having a debate with Guest, that has been delayed because of this.

Well, it's not so much as what has happened here than I've fallen into another busy spell. The grading period for my school ends Friday and I'm making sure nothing ridiculous happens.

If it was really a problem, wouldn't a mod have stepped in here by now? xD

The thing about it is, mods have all ready stepped in and gave their take on this whole discussion before if I remember correctly.

 

[Dre89]

Yeah Guest is one of the better debaters here in terms of maturity.

I still need to have a Cathoic vs. Protestant debate with him, especially because I'm highly critical of non-denominationalism.

 

[Sieguest]

On another note, that blue text is pleasant to look at and Guest seems like a pretty cool guy.

I know right? Right next to green on my favorite colors list, and thanks.

Yeah Guest is one of the better debaters here in terms of maturity.

I still need to have a Cathoic vs. Protestant debate with him, especially because I'm highly critical of non-denominationalism.

Thanks.

This is true, even though I'll have dig in more to the intricacies of religion before we do that, I only have a base understanding of religion at the moment.

 

[Sieguest]

Is this how you debate in your "IRL" debate club? By ignoring evidence and posting insults?

Responding to an Ad Hominem with another Ad Hominem doesn't get a debate anywhere.

If someone performs a logical fallacy then call them out on it. Do not retaliate with another.

 

[Sucumbio]

Agreed, acrostic. Posts have been moved to the appropriate thread. Any further points after this one that relates to the 9/11 Truther movement will be infracted.

 

[Ballistics]

Once again, it's absurd to expect people in an online forum to watch a 2 hour video. And, to be fair, the first 7 minutes or so are incredibly dull as the speaker is merely introducing the group and their ideas.

Found some summaries!

10 minute summary: http://www2.ae911truth.org/team/gra...Web_Videos/911_Blueprint_for_Truth_10_min.wmv

30 minute summary: http://www2.ae911truth.org/team/gra...Web_Videos/911_Blueprint_for_Truth_30_min.wmv

Or if you would rather look through the presentation slides, here they are: http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/ppt_selection.php

Just figured you might want to see these Krazy, not trying to start a debate.