9/11 Conspiracy Theory Question

[Btodd]

He's ably demonstrated that by lying about his profession. It just...I guess its hard to get my head around how someone who is so committed to what they believe they wont even consider other options

I don't understand the mindset, either. To harp on the same comparison I often make, it's exactly the dilemma scientists face with Creationism.

If you stop and debate with them, you've given people the impression that there's a genuine controversy. You bestow a degree of legitimacy on them that they refuse to earn in the same way their opponents did.....with the scientific method. It's like rewarding them for failure.

How many times should we continue to engage someone who repeats 'melted steel' and 'free fall speeds', or 'pull it' and 'bushie loyalist'? At some point, you have to call it willful dishonesty, and decide if it's better to stop giving him the platform to spread (at best) nonsense and (at worst) intentional lies. In Terral's case, the lunacy is so pronounced that I think only the most hardcore of reality-deficient twoofer would survive the onslaught of laughter.

But for the overall scope of twoofers, I still haven't decided on this. The flip side is that they get to spout nonsense unchallenged, like a free pass to spit in the face of reality, and try to take a bunch of other people with them into mental oblivion. I don't like that thought, either.

I don't know if anyone's mind is ever changed.....it seems very rare. I think that the old adage of 'you can't use reason to talk someone out of something, if they didn't use reason to get into it' is pretty accurate. Here's an exception, so maybe it's still worth it. What do you think?

www.extruther.blogspot.com


I love the fact that he links to the JREF Forums now.


Btodd

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

800 degrees building fires do NOT burn hot enough to melt or weaken 2800-degree structural red iron steel!

Looks like it's time for....

If you have a "Flight 77 Crashed Into The Pentagon" case to make using anything 'you' call credible evidence, then start that thread and I will be more than happy to write my rebuttals to that nonsense.

Have we found the second Boeing yet? You know - the one which has to replace flight 77 for any 9/11 conspiracy theory to work. Has anyone worked out where it took off from, who flew it, how it avoided radar or where the flight 77 pax went?

Is there any evidence at all?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Steezie, you're wasting your time. Terral doesn't get banned from forums for being a reasonable person with intellectual integrity. He's a member of AE911Truth, the antithesis of honesty and integrity.

You're talking to someone who repeatedly throws out electrical engineers and landscape architects as 'experts' on structural engineering and controlled demolitions.

It doesn't matter how many times you tell him that the collapse was a combination of structural damage, fire damage and gravity.....he's still going to characterize it as if you said 'fires melted the steel and the building came down'. There is no honesty coming from Terral, ever.

There's no debate here, and it's much like what Richard Dawkins says about debating Creationists......they simply want a public platform, and we give it to them. If it were a real science issue, they would be doing science and taking part in the scientific method. This is about appealing to the public in order to circumvent science.....just like Creationism and Intelligent Design.

If these 'architects and engineers' had relevant scientific arguments to make, they would submit their science to peer-reviewed journals. They won't do it. Ever. This game will be played out ad nauseum, until it resembles the Kennedy assassination crap of today.....just another tired conspiracy theory that people wasted much of their lives on.

You will get no answer about where those explosions that signify a controlled demolition were on 9/11. He's going to simply ignore that, and ask you more questions, throw out some more LOL's, and think he's done something special.

And don't forget.....at the base of his thinking, you can't grasp the truth, because you are being blinded by Satan. There's no rational argument to be had with such a nutball. Leave him with the Creationists, the Holocaust Deniers, and the Moon Landing people.....where he belongs.


Btodd

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/prominent-structural-engineers-say.html

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/newest-ad-hominem-those-who-question.html

Real science following rational investigative principles sounds lovely. It is precisely why there exists the call for a thorough and proper investigation into the 9/11 attacks. And what could hurt from such an investigation of depth other than deeper insights, considering that the truth does not fear investigation.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You are not a skeptic in the slightest.

Skeptics rely on evidence. You have nothing.

Then don't count on calling yourself a skeptic either. The only thing that you are skeptical of is the skeptics themselves. You do not, however, show any skepticism toward the official conspiracy theory - no critical examination of it, no deep analysis of it. One could be forgiven for assuming it to be inerrant, and the "conspiracy theories" to be riddled with errors. That's what makes it so easy to target the "conspiracy theories" rather than defending the official version. It is far easier to attack, ridicule and even disprove alternative hypotheses. However, it is immensely more difficult to defend the integrity, validity and accuracy of the official conspiracy theory. My question is, therefore, when will you turn your skepticism upon the official conspiracy theory and examine it under a microscope?

 

[Terral]

Hi Steezie with James mentioned:

Ok since you've flat ignored half of what I said, I have chopped out large sections of your response. I've removed what I've already answered.

Let’s get this straight right here: Steezie is the CF.com registered member ASKING QUESTIONS in the Opening Post of this thread for which you have received many answers (mine in Post #147). Your duty ‘now’ is to thank everyone for taking the time to provide ‘answers’ to YOUR WTC-7 QUESTIONS, whether you agree or disagree with their thesis statements, claims, evidence or conclusions. If you ever come up with a real “Building Fires/Debris Did It” Explanation for this WTC-7 case, THEN start a new thread and make that evidence-supported presentation available to everyone here ‘and’ perhaps we will have something to debate.

To sit there and argue with CF.com members, over our evidence-supported answers to his WTC-7 queries, places Steezie in the dubious position of being A WORTHLESS TROLL right along with his angry Official Cover Story counterparts.

If James (his post and another) really wants to debate the Pentagon Case, then he can start that Topic and stop trying to hijack this thread to PentagonVille . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Hi Todd with Steezie and James mentioned:

That's AE911Truth in a nutshell.

Btodd

Always the comedian. :0) Let’s see: We have over 400 professional architects and engineers over at AE911Truth.org with endorsements from Arizona Legislator Karen Johnson (story) and tons of scholars from ScholarsForTruth.org (choose from Dr. James H. Fetzer’s Board or the one including Dr. Steven Jones) all making their “Controlled Demolition” cases (my 911Truth.org WTC-7 thread is here) and on the other hand we have our comedian Todd, OP Topic Starter Steezie, James and their Official Cover Story antics. Hmmmm . . . Let’s see . . . Who has more credibility and evidence on their side in this debate? :0)

These guys do not even know what ‘red iron’ means, but they sure can talk a bunch of trash about real 911Truthers putting ‘their’ good names and reputations on the line . . .

We need a new 911 "Criminal Investigation" of this WTC-7 case, because of what you see in this short video:

Why The World Is Demanding A Criminal Investigation:

Yes. I am a member at 911Truth.org too . . . But hey, everyone has the right to believe anyone they wish . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To Terral, yes there are structural architects and structural engineers who, from their expert insights, dispute the official "pancake" theory and either wholly or partially reject the notion that fires and damage of such extent was readily enough to catalyze the complete disintegration of the Twin Towers. However, let us be fair... we can't say that because X is disputed on rational grounds then Y is therefore absolute truth. Because Y also turns out to be disputed. Does that make X true again? It goes in the face of rational inquiry. Further research, intensive and in-depth research, therefore, is required, to determine by what mechanism the Towers not only collapsed, but disintegrated. Again, there can be no harm in investigating more, further and deeper. The fruits of it are of course deeper insights into the mechanism of the phenomena and therefore a greater understanding of how to prevent it from occurring in the future.

 

[Terral]

Hi Purple:

To Terral, yes there are structural architects and structural engineers who, from their expert insights, dispute the official "pancake" theory and either wholly or partially reject the notion that fires and damage of such extent was readily enough to catalyze the complete disintegration of the Twin Towers. However, let us be fair... we can't say that because X is disputed on rational grounds then Y is therefore absolute truth.

Yes we can! There are only two working theories on what took WTC-7 down in 6.6 seconds!

1. Controlled Demolition. (Post #147)

2. Building Fires / Debris (www.purefantasy.com).

If you have another theory, then Good Luck. :0)

Because Y also turns out to be disputed. Does that make X true again?

Please forgive, but your Y and X lingo is meaningless drivel . . .

It goes in the face of rational inquiry. Further research, intensive and in-depth research, therefore, is required, to determine by what mechanism the Towers not only collapsed, but disintegrated.

In other words, you are well aware of the fact that the “Building Fires/Debris Did It” Explanation is built upon nothing but fantasy . . .

Again, there can be no harm in investigating more, further and deeper. The fruits of it are of course deeper insights into the mechanism of the phenomena and therefore a greater understanding of how to prevent it from occurring in the future.

Of course there is no harm in investigating until the cows come home, but we are answering the OP Query Post using the evidence from credible sources on hand TODAY. The 911Commmission Report and the NIST Report do NOT conclude that WTC-7 was brought down by Controlled Demolition OR Building Fires/Debris. Right? Of course. So how do these CF.com members draw that "Building Fires/Debris Did It" conclusion? :0)

Show us ‘your’ links to data proving that Building Fires/Debris Did It and be sure to include that all-important meaningful commentary . . . Good Luck . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[jamesrwright3]

Hi Steezie with James mentioned:



Let’s get this straight right here: Steezie is the CF.com registered member ASKING QUESTIONS in the Opening Post of this thread for which you have received many answers (mine in Post #147). Your duty ‘now’ is to thank everyone for taking the time to provide ‘answers’ to YOUR WTC-7 QUESTIONS, whether you agree or disagree with their thesis statements, claims, evidence or conclusions. If you ever come up with a real “Building Fires/Debris Did It” Explanation for this WTC-7 case, THEN start a new thread and make that evidence-supported presentation available to everyone here ‘and’ perhaps we will have something to debate.

To sit there and argue with CF.com members, over our evidence-supported answers to his WTC-7 queries, places Steezie in the dubious position of being A WORTHLESS TROLL right along with his angry Official Cover Story counterparts.

If James (his post and another) really wants to debate the Pentagon Case, then he can start that Topic and stop trying to hijack this thread to PentagonVille . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

I am not trying to hijack anything. It is clear you are avoiding the questions lol
What a loser troll you are.

 

[Steezie]

Hi Steezie with James mentioned:



Let’s get this straight right here: Steezie is the CF.com registered member ASKING QUESTIONS in the Opening Post of this thread for which you have received many answers (mine in Post #147). Your duty ‘now’ is to thank everyone for taking the time to provide ‘answers’ to YOUR WTC-7 QUESTIONS, whether you agree or disagree with their thesis statements, claims, evidence or conclusions. If you ever come up with a real “Building Fires/Debris Did It” Explanation for this WTC-7 case, THEN start a new thread and make that evidence-supported presentation available to everyone here ‘and’ perhaps we will have something to debate.

To sit there and argue with CF.com members, over our evidence-supported answers to his WTC-7 queries, places Steezie in the dubious position of being A WORTHLESS TROLL right along with his angry Official Cover Story counterparts.

If James (his post and another) really wants to debate the Pentagon Case, then he can start that Topic and stop trying to hijack this thread to PentagonVille . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

This is useless. You are here to yell at people who dont agree with you. You could care less about anything other than what you are convinced happened.

Im not going to waste energy throwing bricks in the Grand Canyon, if you dont want to listen then I am not compelled to talk to you.

 

[Btodd]

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/prominent-structural-engineers-say.html

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/newest-ad-hominem-those-who-question.html

Real science following rational investigative principles sounds lovely. It is precisely why there exists the call for a thorough and proper investigation into the 9/11 attacks. And what could hurt from such an investigation of depth other than deeper insights, considering that the truth does not fear investigation.

A few points about your list of structural engineers, and their brief statements on AE911Truth:

First and foremost, this isn't science. It's an appeal to authority. The NIST report alone had 10,000 pages of hard science to support their claims. They didn't simply appeal to authority and make a brief statement about something outside their expertise. For instance, here's the statement made by the very first structural engineer you listed:

"Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"

He's not discussing structural engineering, he's promoting the idea of controlled demolitions. He even brings up 'thermite' as a red flag, and an indication of controlled demolition. Where did he get that idea, since thermite hasn't been used in demolitions? Did he test thermite on vertical columns, or did he research articles on thermite use in demolitions?

There is no precedent for thermite in demolitions, nor is there even a tested hypothesis on how it could be done. Yet, this guy already thinks it's indicative of controlled demolitions without a single shred of evidence for the idea.

So, where does the science part come in? If he wants to refute NIST's findings, then he can write a research paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed structural engineering journal, where others will be happy to evaluate his research and see if his theories and testing are valid. If he really thinks he knows something about controlled demolitions that controlled demolitions experts do not (like the use of thermite), then let him present his research to them as well.

Is that so hard?

Second, regarding your linked article about how 9/11 Truthers are compared to Creationists, they don't seem to get the comparison, and spend most of their time telling us that there are Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Jews, etc. that are 9/11 Truthers. I'm aware of that, and that wasn't the argument.

The argument wasn't that 9/11 Truthers ARE creationists, but that they use MANY of the same logical fallacies and argumentation to make their case.

I realize that you think this is simply an ad hom or cheap attack, but it's not. I want people to realize their blind spot, and if I can help a Truther see how he's making the same appeals regarding 9/11 Truth that he would REJECT regarding Creationism (or more aptly, Intelligent Design), then perhaps he will understand the irrationality of his position in an objective manner.


Btodd

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Thermite melts through steel right?

When people use it to melt steel, are the beams horizontal?

 

[Btodd]

Then don't count on calling yourself a skeptic either. The only thing that you are skeptical of is the skeptics themselves.

Why did you go back four pages ago to reply to a post written to joebudda, all of a sudden? We've spoken since that time, so it's a little puzzling.

To remind you: Skepticism is a process. I'm not skeptical of a skeptic, I'm skeptical of their arguments and reasoning. If a computer made the same arguments Truthers are making, I would still be skeptical about those arguments. Personage has nothing to do with it.

You do not, however, show any skepticism toward the official conspiracy theory - no critical examination of it, no deep analysis of it.

I certainly don't have a bias toward the Truther conspiracy, if that's what you mean. But I have entertained a vast amount of the claims presented by the Truth Movement, so it's not as if I've buried my head in the sand. I will still put my knowledge of the arguments surrounding 9/11 (for AND against) up against yours or anyone else here, so let's not act as if I've been avoiding the claims of the Truth movement. I would be surprised if you could present any Truther arguments I HAVEN'T entertained (many times over).

One could be forgiven for assuming it to be inerrant, and the "conspiracy theories" to be riddled with errors. That's what makes it so easy to target the "conspiracy theories" rather than defending the official version. It is far easier to attack, ridicule and even disprove alternative hypotheses. However, it is immensely more difficult to defend the integrity, validity and accuracy of the official conspiracy theory. My question is, therefore, when will you turn your skepticism upon the official conspiracy theory and examine it under a microscope?

I bolded this part, because that's what I've been harping about with the Truth movement for a long time, and you've heard this directly put to you many times. It is the Truth Movement that only wants a one-sided debate, in which they don't have to defend their claims, but instead take pot-shots at the OV and hope to win by default. And you're right, that's much easier than defending what you actually believe......so in the interest of what you just wrote, let's come to an understanding here. It is each person's duty to defend their view, instead of simply taking shots at the other side's view......right? Evidence FOR your position is the honorable, but not easy, thing to do.

I want you to acknowledge that you really believe this after typing it, because it means that you can no longer refuse to answer questions about thermate or explosions, and simply refer me to AE911Truth, Steven Jones or whomever. If you really believe what you wrote, then I'm all for you and I having a debate where we defend our positions with positive evidence.

That also means you don't get to simply knock holes in the OV, and end with 'that's why we need a new investigation', as the Truth Movement (and you, particularly) has evolved to do, after getting their original claims demolished. I would like to remind you again that this ties in with the Intelligent Design movement as well, who no longer carry on about bacterial flagellums or 'walking whales', but instead have resorted to a stance conveniently lacking in claims called 'Critical Examination of Evolution'.....an intentional framing of the issue as a one-sided affair.

Let me know how you really feel about people defending their positions, because if you really meant it, we can actually have a relevant debate for once. I look forward to it.


Btodd

 

[Btodd]

Hi Todd with Steezie and James mentioned:



Always the comedian.

Thank you for the compliment, but I must admit that my intentional comedy cannot compare to the unintentional comedy that you crank out with each post. Bravo, sir.

:0) Let’s see: We have over 400 professional architects and engineers over at AE911Truth.org with endorsements from Arizona Legislator Karen Johnson (story) and tons of scholars from ScholarsForTruth.org (choose from Dr. James H. Fetzer’s Board or the one including Dr. Steven Jones) all making their “Controlled Demolition” cases (my 911Truth.org WTC-7 thread is here) and on the other hand we have our comedian Todd, OP Topic Starter Steezie, James and their Official Cover Story antics. Hmmmm . . . Let’s see . . . Who has more credibility and evidence on their side in this debate? :0)

Did you actually mention Jim Fetzer, who believes that NO PLANES CRASHED INTO THE TOWERS? :o Apparently, the best way to destroy your arguments is simply to let you speak, and let you do it yourself! Thank you for lobbing me a softball (although it cannot top the 'Satan is blinding you to 9/11 Truth!', the holy grail of softballs).


Btodd

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To remind you: Skepticism is a process. I'm not skeptical of a skeptic, I'm skeptical of their arguments and reasoning. If a computer made the same arguments Truthers are making, I would still be skeptical about those arguments. Personage has nothing to do with it.

I certainly don't have a bias toward the Truther conspiracy, if that's what you mean. But I have entertained a vast amount of the claims presented by the Truth Movement, so it's not as if I've buried my head in the sand. I will still put my knowledge of the arguments surrounding 9/11 (for AND against) up against yours or anyone else here, so let's not act as if I've been avoiding the claims of the Truth movement. I would be surprised if you could present any Truther arguments I HAVEN'T entertained (many times over).

It is fair enough for you to be skeptical of the arguments and reasoning of controlled demolition proponents. I lament that many within the Truth movement have essentially hinged their entire argument on this single hypothesis... so when the hypothesis is scrutinized, they are left with little else to debate with. The truth about 9/11, regardless of what that truth may be, is far broader than simply the collapse and disintegration of those three towers. That's why I constantly harp on about the need for a new investigation... because regardless of whether there was or was not a controlled demolition, the insights that would be gained into the nature of terrorism, the nature of government, intelligence and military (and their failures and inconsistencies) and the mechanism that caused the disintegration of those massive buildings would provide such great informative insight for improving those systems and preventing further failures.

I bolded this part, because that's what I've been harping about with the Truth movement for a long time, and you've heard this directly put to you many times. It is the Truth Movement that only wants a one-sided debate, in which they don't have to defend their claims, but instead take pot-shots at the OV and hope to win by default. And you're right, that's much easier than defending what you actually believe......so in the interest of what you just wrote, let's come to an understanding here. It is each person's duty to defend their view, instead of simply taking shots at the other side's view......right? Evidence FOR your position is the honorable, but not easy, thing to do.

Those who question the validity and accuracy of the OV are doing more than simply taking pot-shots at it. They are exposing a theory that doesn't necessarily consider all relevant factual substance. In doing so, they highlight that the theory is either incomplete or inaccurate and thus requires revision from further research, which inevitably leads to the investigation-required argument. In my rhetoric, this contention is separate to the controlled demolition hypothesis, and does not depend on it.

I want you to acknowledge that you really believe this after typing it, because it means that you can no longer refuse to answer questions about thermate or explosions, and simply refer me to AE911Truth, Steven Jones or whomever. If you really believe what you wrote, then I'm all for you and I having a debate where we defend our positions with positive evidence.

My refusal to answer questions regarding thermate and controlled demolition hypotheses stems from two things... 1.) I admittedly lack the expertise to discuss such hypotheses in any great depth, which is why I leave such dialogue to be had between those who do hold a greater grasp and understanding of that particular claim and the mechanisms involved. I do, however, sometimes offer a superficial understanding on the controlled demolition hypothesis. 2.) But then again, I'm not an expert claiming it. And if you wish to dispute that hypothesis, you better take it up with Steven Jones or Richard Gage, as they are one of the major expert proponents of the theory. And yes, I recognize it as a theory... I'm not going to go straight-out and claim that the Twin Towers collapsed in a controlled demolition as pure truth. More positive evidence of such a notion is still required to affirm such a hypothesis as a valid theory. I regret that many within the Truth movement have asserted the controlled demolition hypothesis as pure truth, essentially doing exactly the same thing as those that assert the 'pancake' collapse theory as pure truth. But please recognize, therefore, that my contention does not depend on the controlled demolition argument, so why should I discuss it in such great depth as to defend it when it is not even necessary to my argument?

That also means you don't get to simply knock holes in the OV, and end with 'that's why we need a new investigation', as the Truth Movement (and you, particularly) has evolved to do, after getting their original claims demolished. I would like to remind you again that this ties in with the Intelligent Design movement as well, who no longer carry on about bacterial flagellums or 'walking whales', but instead have resorted to a stance conveniently lacking in claims called 'Critical Examination of Evolution'.....an intentional framing of the issue as a one-sided affair.

Let me know how you really feel about people defending their positions, because if you really meant it, we can actually have a relevant debate for once. I look forward to it.

You are skeptical of the reasoning and arguments of the controlled demolition hypothesis. I'm skeptical of the reasoning and arguments of the official conspiracy theory, which is why I present evidence indicating its inconsistencies. Only once in these discussions, to my recollection, have I contemplated upon the alternative controlled demolition hypothesis, with the presentation of evidence. And I wish you didn't tie me to that and then say 'Defend this' when I have clearly highlighted that the controlled demolition argument is not necessarily required to prove my contention of calling for a new investigation. If my argument hinged on the controlled demolition hypothesis, then I would be obliged to defend it, but it does not, and so why should I defend it - a hypothesis which I have my own doubts about?

 

[Terral]

Hi Todd and Purple with Steezie and James mentioned:

To remind you: Skepticism is a process. I'm not skeptical of a skeptic, I'm skeptical of their arguments and reasoning. If a computer made the same arguments Truthers are making, I would still be skeptical about those arguments. Personage has nothing to do with it.

The truth is that Todd is throwing a ton of dust into the air in order to hide the fact that he has NO “Building Fires/Debris Did It” case and no ‘evidence’ to support that ridiculous explanation. If Todd were a true ‘skeptic’ (he is here to defend Loyal Bushie LIES), then he would be skeptical of the Official “Building Fires/Debris Cover Story” with more fervor than those of us seeing “Controlled Demolition” (my 911Truth.org paper) as the ONLY reasonable answer to what really took WTC-7 down in a matter of seconds. Again, there are only ‘two’ working theories (Post #147) for what took WTC-7 down, after being hit by NO PLANE and very little in the way of building fires! Period! Did Steezie provide us with a detailed “Building Fires/Debris Did It” thesis paper with claims, evidence and his conclusions in the OP of this thread? No!!! The guy is ASKING QUESTIONS in hope that someone here can come along to provide reasonable answers! James and Todd represent Steezie’s ‘advocates’ in this WTC-7 discussion pretending that a “Building Fires/Debris Did It” explanation appears in the Opening Post, when NONE of these guys has presented a case to support the Official Bushie Administration Cover Story at all. However, when a 911Truth.org ‘and’ an AE911Truth.org member/supporter comes out here to show them ‘the Light’, these guys go into their arrogant ‘debunker/skeptic’ mode to simply throw rocks at anything that moves. :0)

I certainly don't have a bias toward the Truther conspiracy, if that's what you mean. But I have entertained a vast amount of the claims presented by the Truth Movement, so it's not as if I've buried my head in the sand.

None of Todd’s babbling means ANYTHING. Period! The guy either has a “Building Fires/Debris Did It” explanation for this WTC-7 case, OR he does not! Where is the beef? :0)

I will still put my knowledge of the arguments surrounding 9/11 (for AND against) up against yours or anyone else here, so let's not act as if I've been avoiding the claims of the Truth movement. I would be surprised if you could present any Truther arguments I HAVEN'T entertained (many times over).

LOL! In other words, he will stand with Senor Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Larry Silverstein, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld and defend the Official Bush Administration/DoD Cover Story no matter what anyone presents in any of these 911Truth debates! I thought this guy was supposed to be a skeptic! :0) No sir! Since Todd is resorting to the use of empty boasting about NOTHING, then I will offer up a challenge that proves beyond all doubt that we are looking at a Loyal Bushie Inside-Job Propaganda artist unable to defend ANY aspect of the Official Bush Administration Cover Story. This is Todd’s big chance to start a thread on ANY 911Truth Topic (including Flight 93/Shanksville, Flight 77/Pentagon, WTC-7) to give real 911Truthers every opportunity to come behind and write our rebuttals to his NONSENSE.

The man just said above, “I will still put my knowledge of the arguments surrounding 9/11 (for AND against) up against yours or anyone else here . . .”. Well, I am numbered among “anyone else here” and know for an absolute FACT that Todd is in NO WAY prepared to debate me on ANY of these topics. In the end, this guy will run away and hide his face IN SHAME and nothing anyone here can do or say will change that eventual outcome. Todd has until the end of the day today to make his 911 presentation, or revise his statements above to reflect his cowardice. In the absence of his 911 Topic ever even being posted (chicken), then I will post my work on each of these Topics beginning with the Flight 93 case. Then we will see if Todd can come behind with rebuttals to A SINGLE WORD. :0)

We shall see . . . lol . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[jamesrwright3]

We are still waiting for your Pentagon explanation..I smell a chicken..cluck cluck

 

[Terral]

Hi James with Todd, Steezie and NewMan mentioned:

We are still waiting for your Pentagon explanation..I smell a chicken..cluck cluck

I am the very first CF.com debater (1Cor. 1:20) to see the importance of having ‘some’ controversy interwoven into these discussions to inspire the deliberation process and keep our readers entertained somewhat at the very same time. Otherwise, the substance of our arguments become mundane and appears pointless to even the motivated reader of these posts. My first duty to these ChristianForums.com readers is to write on ‘Bible’ Topics and upon subjects like the “First Resurrection” (here), just posted before coming over to the recently discovered Politics Forum. Anyone interested can see that I have started NO Political Topics on this CF.com Board since 2004, because quite frankly this does not appear the right place to have discussions about Homosexuality and the 9/11 Inside-Job atrocities perpetuated by rouge elements inside our out-of-control Bushie Administration and his warmongering machine. However, Todd’s boasting above and your flaming remarks have been sufficient to help show me the Light and I am more than happy to engage ALL OF YOU on any 911Truth Topic as time permits, so long as our gracious admins and moderators are of the opinion that these readers can be edified to benefit from our deliberations.

I have thousands of hours invested in my own 911Truth Investigation, with over 1000 hours invested in the Pentagon Case alone; even though I currently spend practically all of my time writing on Bible Topics. Todd has until the end of today (at midnight) to post ‘his’ Thesis Paper on Flight 93, Flight 77 or the WTC-7 Controlled Demolition, but this side of the debate has already seen all of the empty boasting before and knows full well that HE HAS NO CASE for anything. :0) Therefore, I will rise up early in the morning and put together a new Flight 93 Opening Post for presentation right here in this CF.com Political Forum to see if Todd, James, Steezie, NewMan or anyone else can offer any kind of rebuttal TO A SINGLE WORD.

We shall let that thread run its course, then I will submit an updated version of my Flight 77 paper. Hopefully everyone will stick very near ‘the topic’ and resist the juvenile urges to attack their debating opponents. We shall see . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Btodd]

Hi James with Todd, Steezie and NewMan mentioned:



I am the very first CF.com debater (1Cor. 1:20) to see the importance of having ‘some’ controversy interwoven into these discussions to inspire the deliberation process and keep our readers entertained somewhat at the very same time. Otherwise, the substance of our arguments become mundane and appears pointless to even the motivated reader of these posts. My first duty to these ChristianForums.com readers is to write on ‘Bible’ Topics and upon subjects like the “First Resurrection” (here), just posted before coming over to the recently discovered Politics Forum. Anyone interested can see that I have started NO Political Topics on this CF.com Board since 2004, because quite frankly this does not appear the right place to have discussions about Homosexuality and the 9/11 Inside-Job atrocities perpetuated by rouge elements inside our out-of-control Bushie Administration and his warmongering machine. However, Todd’s boasting above and your flaming remarks have been sufficient to help show me the Light and I am more than happy to engage ALL OF YOU on any 911Truth Topic as time permits, so long as our gracious admins and moderators are of the opinion that these readers can be edified to benefit from our deliberations.

I have thousands of hours invested in my own 911Truth Investigation, with over 1000 hours invested in the Pentagon Case alone; even though I currently spend practically all of my time writing on Bible Topics. Todd has until the end of today (at midnight) to post ‘his’ Thesis Paper on Flight 93, Flight 77 or the WTC-7 Controlled Demolition, but this side of the debate has already seen all of the empty boasting before and knows full well that HE HAS NO CASE for anything. :0) Therefore, I will rise up early in the morning and put together a new Flight 93 Opening Post for presentation right here in this CF.com Political Forum to see if Todd, James, Steezie, NewMan or anyone else can offer any kind of rebuttal TO A SINGLE WORD.

We shall let that thread run its course, then I will submit an updated version of my Flight 77 paper. Hopefully everyone will stick very near ‘the topic’ and resist the juvenile urges to attack their debating opponents. We shall see . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

Terral, I'm getting ready to drive from Arkansas back home to Oklahoma. I won't get in until late tonight, and will not likely have time to present what you're asking for. If you wish to have a debate about any of these 9/11 topics, I'm all for it, but we will have to agree to the parameters of the debate. If we can come to an agreement about what each side's responsibilities in supporting their position (instead of simply knocking holes in the other side, and expecting an un-evidenced, default win) are, what constitutes evidence, what constitutes 'expertise', and what constitutes science (and the scientific method), then perhaps we can both move on from the cheap personal attacks to a fruitful debate.

If you believe in controlled demolitions, or that a missile hit the Pentagon, for instance.....you WILL be expected to support those claims with positive (and physical) evidence. I will not engage in a debate similar to what Intelligent Design proponents expect, in which one side knocks the other side's actual evidence, and assumes that they're the only other answer by default, with little or no evidence required.

So, if you think controlled demolitions happened, you will need to show what real controlled demolitions entail, and one by one, show that there is solid, tangible, positive evidence to support it on 9/11. This will definitely mean accounting for the explosions that a controlled demolition requires, along with explanations of where all the wiring was, how it was undetected in the days prior to the attacks, etc.

If you think a missile hit the Pentagon, you will need to present more than a critique of the Flight 77 hypothesis. When I present evidence of the numerous parts of a 757, you will be expected to produce parts of a missile. When I ask you for an explanation of where Flight 77 went, including all of the passengers that never came home, you will be expected to have an answer that can be tested, or at least logically evaluated.

This is all I have time for right now; gotta run.

Bjspurple, I'll try to get back to you very soon as well.


Btodd

 

[Terral]

Hi Todd:

Terral, I'm getting ready to drive from Arkansas back home to Oklahoma . . .

Save your petty excuses. This side does not expect Todd to post ANYTHING to support the Official Bushie Administration/DoD Cover Story that makes one lick of sense today, tomorrow, a week from now or EVER. Do not come out here bragging about debating anyone, when you do not even have the time to post your Flight 93 paper that should ALREADY be posted somewhere here on God’s green earth.

Here is just one Pentagon Forum (Loose Change) where anyone can read a sampling of previous debates (link) with two Fight 93 threads here (link) and three WTC-7 threads here (link). Use the 'arrowed options' (the last 30 days) and select "the beginning" then "Go." Then a long list of threads will appear with my name (Terral) appearing under the "Topic Starter" with everyone else.

One thing that I can assure everyone here is that Todd and his little helpers will be severely ‘outgunned’ in these debates. :0)

In Christ Jesus,

Terral