Incorrect.
The scaffolding is aluminum. What it supports, I don't know (I'd have to look it up). But I do know that they do not support the tower. The support beams are a central core.

The WTC Towers 1 & 2 were tube in tube constructions where both tubes were steel and partially responsible for the structure support. The outside of the building was clad in aluminium siding to protect the steel underneath. With the impacts on 1 & 2 we see that more of the plane went through than in the Pentagon, but much of the outer damage is just to the aluminium siding and didn't actually pentrate the steel columns.

With the Pentagon the bulding was reinfoced concrete al metre thick, totally different to the WTC. As to the windows, David C. you really need to do some real research (ie not just reading up all the CT sites and swallowing them hook, line and sinker.) The windows in the Pentagon were armoured glass about a foot thick. They were designed to resist a truck bomb like the one at Oaklahoma. That is why they didn't break.

If you really what to be a "freethinker" then the last way to do it is to just gullibly swallow all the minced mash of the CT sites, instead go to the original documents. Read up what the Firefighters and Emergency workers who were there stated. Go and read up on what the Demolition Crews that worked both on the clean up and who arrived to help with the rescue efforts after the collapses have to say. Find out what the Montgomery County Resue team members who were at the Pentagon have to say. As long as you just watch videos and read CT sites you'll never get the undilluted truth, you'll just get misquotes, half-truths, pseudo-science and often as not outright lies. If you really want the truth, look into the source information because it hasn't been edited to reflect one bias or the other.

Try starting here

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Just to show that two can play the drop links game.

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Thanks, PW, for the additional info.

I wonder if David C will actually read it.

I hope he does, just to demostrate that CT sites are not his only source of data.

But please don't stoop to his posting technique! Hate to see a good brain like yours get warnings.

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

But please don't stoop to his posting technique! Hate to see a good brain like yours get warnings.

Hehe, if I was really going to do seagull postings like him I would have dropped more than one link, I was just slow for adding it as an edit to the first part and couldn't be bothered writting lots so tried to be witty. Just as well I'm not paid for my sense of humour.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Yeah, that's true. The previous page is a good example of "seagull" posting. What's there, at least a dozen links?

Here, just one. The other is accompanied by a full length explaination, more extensive that anything I've seen posted by David C.

You know, in the Moon hoax thread on LC, he was the same way.

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Great, so let's hear the arguments! Blindspot, this is repeated behavior, as I know all too well. On the "Depleted Uranium" thread he posted lots of links to videos, ignored responses, ignored requests to describe the videos, and his ready excuse would be "I'm just a layman, but this makes sense to me."

That isn't polite or reasonable, and it isn't taking part in a discussion.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I think that is a valid view.

The way I see it is this:

There are some aspects to the events that probably are not entirely known. The public will undoubtably be curious.

In a similar manner, some people still have questions on aspects of the Titanic disaster.

The main details are known; the ship hit an iceberg and sank.

It's the details that people often have questions about.

I imagine a similar view can be held with the events of 9/11.
We know that they were hijacked by terrorists, and that three out of the four planes hit important buildings.

It is the details that we have questions about.

It is unfortanate that some people wish to make up tales of govt conspiracies to find answers.

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

It's just about appearances and "common sense", no consideration ever given to the science, engineering, or physics involved. Everyone can "look" like an expert on the internet, with a pretty website, assuming readers don't look too closely.
There is a reason that the real world doesn't take their claims seriously. At the slightest challenge, they fall back to their source sites, and their ingrained conspiratorial mindset. They live for the conspiracy, it lives in the movies and television shows they watch, the websites they visit. That there is no reality behind their "experience" doesn't matter. It's all they know and can follow.
Occasionally, there is the CT who gets something right, and they run with it...blindly. They take their theories into areas where they have no expertise and beging building upon false premises due to their lack of knowledge. They don't research the areas they don't know, they just guess, or make statements based on ill founded information from similar thinkers.
Above all, any established information from "mainstream" sources is strictly considered untrue until proven true by their thought process, while information agreeing with their point is almost always accepted without question.
The shift in proof is amazing...suddenly the entire scientific and engineering community is assumed wrong, while their sources, rife with errors and inaccuracies, are quickly accepted and repeated.
I really believe they are incapable of, or too lazy, to study the subjects that are central to their arguments...again, it just "looks" right to them. So they fall back to their sites which do their "thinking" for them. Moon hoax, 9/11...it's all the same.

It is unfortanate that some people wish to make up tales of govt conspiracies to find answers.

What blows my mind is that they go after the wierdest theories out there too. I mean come on, the evidence that a 757 hit the pentagon is overwhelming to anyone willing to use their brain, and there are enough CT's out there that recognise that and even have their own "No Planes" debunking pages. (I'd list a few but they can be found easily enough with google and the last thing I want right now is to have to turn around and debunk the other stuff they spout.) The thing is that the No 757 myth is such blatently rediculous that those 9/11 CTs that promote it are just asking to be shoot down in flames, and instead of letting go and admitting they could have gotten it wrong, they act like a dog with a bone, digging themselves deeper and deeper into a trench untill they can't get out. It's a mindset that continues to amaze me, how people that claim to be so "open-minded" are so unable to look past their own desires and accept that they might have something wrong and move on. If I refused to change anything when I was got it wrong, I'd feel like a fool, but they seem almost proud of it.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

I thought I might post this quote from There Are No Missile Defenses at the Pentagon by James Bennett

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Good post.

The part I've quoted is fascinating. We have the CTers claiming that the Pentagon was built to withstand a bunker buster, and then they get all suspicious when they can't see oodles of damage from plane crash.

Is the logical disconnect obvious to anyone else, or is it just me?

Oh, I almost forgot... I find this link interesting. What do you think?

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Another odd trait that the "truthers" nearly always have is that if it didnt happen on video then it didnt happen. At another message board I visit the "pull it" quote of Silverstein was being discussed and I posted the text of the quote, in the very next reply one of the "truthers" had to link to the clip on youtube that contained the quote. He even quoted my post but still had to link to the video.

__________________
Reality is for those that can't handle video games.

I agree. Instead of just posting random links and running off, ignoring the responses to you, if there are still unanswered questions someone has, by all means put them on the table and have them looked at. I post questions sometimes that astronomers must find ridiculous that I don't know, but the only way I'll know the answer is to ask it.

So, if there are unanswered questions someone has, I encourage them to put them forth. It's the only way it'll ever end up being an answered question

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Well, you know, I'm hardly a structural engineer myself, so I'm relying on the words of others on the subject, too.

However.

If practically the entire structural engineering community says, "This is what almost certainly happened," I trust them. They would know; I do not. I have no reason to trust people without training in the relevant field unless they somehow show that they are truly equipped to answer questions, and I've not seen anyone from the CT side who can. At least, not that can answer reasonable questions in a reasonable manner, including providing evidence.

We are trying to teach critical thinking skills here, I think. Don't just take someone's word for it, in other words, but know whether their word is worth taking. (Hint: the No Plane people are not worth trusting.) Big Friggin' Planes plus Big Friggin' Fire equals Big Friggin' Collapse. What's so unbelievable about that?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

That's just what the government wants you to think!

Where's the video????

__________________
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. ---Cardinal Wolsey (1475-1530)

How is saying that you shouldn't simply link to any possible theory is dismissing that theory?

If I make a post titled "they're all right" with links to Newton's theory of gravity, the basics of electricity, relativity and a few other without making a detailed argument in my own words, it also wouldn't be accepted on this board, even though (almost) nobody would be rejecting the theories I linked to. It was the linking instead of making a proper and detailed argument and debate on it that was frowned upon, not the theories linked to in itself.

And please be careful with your standard sentences in describing your debate partners, as many of them are not allowed on this board.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

That MUST be it. that MUST be why many overhere were so against governmental decisions such as Hubble, ISS, Shuttle, space science...that MUST be because we're all licking their heels. Especially all those members who have no link whatsoever to the US government, becasue for example they live on the other side of the planet.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Where's the F4 that hit the wall in the test rig?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

How are clearly listed rules arbitrary? And if something would be designed with a specific goal, it wouldn't be arbitrary.

Anyway, if you don't have time to summarize arguments made by others, you should take the time to do so.

And as far as I know, this board has no rules like "people who disagree with X or Y are not welcome", unlike other boards. The "don't just link" rule works for both pro and against government theories, and yes also for theories not including a government.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

So you type in 10 links and we're left with days of work going through any point, backed up or not, raised in them?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

For that they had to cordon off several multilane streets next to the pentagon. I doub't no one would notice that.
Have you hear of someone complaining that his eywitness testimony of seeing a huge crowd of people cordoning off the streets anywhere on thet faboulous communication masterpiece called the INTERNET?
If yes, be so kind and point us to them and please show ther credibility.

You have a strange definition of easy... How long do you think does it take do place
several dead bodies, about tousands of airliner parts with in the range from that of a piece of
paper up to the mass of several tons, chop a couple of lightposts (standing in the middle of a multilane
street so you have to get away all the drivers off the cars that stopped there and afterwards jinx them with an
"forget everything" spell), fake the fassade to look to an expert as if an airliner crashed into that building, ....
and so on. And all that in a way that no expert, even those of the FAA that know how a crash site looks
like, has ever found out that he has been hoaxed.

I told you, that I found the pictures. Others did too. It is a really easy google image search. I will not post any
link to them risking a ban on this board.

This is a disussion board. It is about astronomy and science.
It is not about advertising your CT and it is even less about avoiding a discussion.

And when you are told the mistakes you simply state that yopu do not believe us and post ten new links.

He should trust those who know what they are talking about.
Show me one paper of a qualified engineer in that he shows why the towers fell by controlled demolition. Good luck.

Take another example. Your doctor tells you that the pain you are suffering comes from a tumor in your right leg.
He gives you the advice to let it be removed to save your life. You go home to think about it. In the afternoon
you find the video of someone on youtube who tells you that all doctors are dumb and that tumors do not exist.
What would you do?

The glass was build to withstand such things. It was build to withstand the blast of a truck bomb.
It was about one foot thick and consited of several layers of high-tec material. That is why it did not break.
So no wings where found. So what. Wings are little more than huge kerosene tanks in a supporting structure
(yes I know they are difficult to construct). They are mostly made of aluminium. What would you expect happens to
such a wing full of kerosene when it hits a reinforced concete wall at full speed? Can you imagine it could explode?

You had lots of time to find more links, did you? Why not take the time to answersome questions first?

So welcome to your first science based forum. You do not really ask us to lower our level, don't you? If you
are not able to take part in a discussion, then go back to the Loose Change Board. They hate discussions and
welcome anybody who is content in leaving his brain at the entrance.

To make it clear again, we will not look trough hours of videofiles. If you have something to say, then do so.
We will not make your homework in writing down the claims for you. We are willing to discuss anything you give us,
as long as you give us something to discuss.
Telling us to go somewhere and search for something to discuss does not worke here.

Those links are just links. If you have something to refute our arguments than state so, do not expect us to go
somewhere and search for your arguments. Again: We will not do your homework.

It may save time on your side, but it takes our time to find what you are trying to tell us.
Again: We will not do your homework. If you do not have the time to take poart in a discussion, don't enter it.

Our strategy is to pull unbiased informations into the light of our discussion.
And we ask you to present such to make your case.
Most of those videos state claims without backing them up with unbiased evidence. They don't even back them up at all.

We are asking for proof. You are spouting claims without showing your evidence. They'd laugh you out of the debating hall for that.

I am sure you have proof for that accusition?! Otherwise it would be nothin that an ad hom attack.
Yes, people can lie. Have you ever had the idea that those who prouce these videos are people too...

Wings... I talked abou it above...

No! Steven Jones is not an engineer! He has a Ph.D in pysics.
I am an engineer. Do you think that gives me credibility for that topic per se? Maybe you do. Maybe that might change when I tell you that
my field is information communication. Ha title says nothing. Especially one that you don't have. Mr. Jones is no engineer and especially
not one for the construction of buildings.

You know what? Adolf Hitler sounded reasonable to my Granddad too...
Not that I want to make any link between Steven Jones and Adolf Hitler.
Just as a note that anything can sound reasonable to you if you have no idea of the topic.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

David C thank you for your post. If you are short on time and only have time to read, I have found several threads that may answer your questions. Some of these threads are quite long but all contain excellent information and links to various sites not affiliated with CT sites. Please take the time to peruse them. Many more threads may be found if you use the search feature.

Judicial Watch releases 9/11 video from CITGO store near Pentagon
Pentagon releases AA77 video
US District Court - Eastern District for Virginia - releases Moussaui trial exhibits
The End of the "No 757" Theories
9/11 Pentagon CTs
Scholars for 9/11 Truth Launches
Problems With the ASCE Report On The Pentagon Cast Further Doubt on 757 Story

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

David, now that you seem to have the time to answer questions.
I have a first one.

You assume that flight 77 did not hit the pentagon.
If so, where is flight 77 gone and where are the passengers?

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

David,
Have you read the 9/11 Commission report? Have you even skimmed through it?
...or is everything you "know" coming from these websites? I was just looking through the davesweb site, and I don't want to fill pages with the errors in it. Lets just say it's full of inaccuracies, bad information and false assumptions. He's just wrong.
Look at the time line of that morning for starters, things aren't as suspicious as some claim.

I found a nice picture, taken just moments after the impact by a passing motorist. Not a single person with good view of the site saw that something else impacted the pentagon than a 757.

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/pen...fire-width.jpg

Now David, where are all theose people planting the fake stuff?
Where is the security moving the people so they do not see the manipulation of the impact site?
Where are the lamp post choppers? As far as I can see the lamp post are already gone.
Notice how wide the fire burns. A missile would not cause a fire spread that wide.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

I must prepare for a week long vaction, so I shall be brief.

No credible engineer said that demolition was used.
The demolition idea only comes from CTers, and those with no experience in the relavent field.
Enigneers with experience in the relavent fields never said that demoliton was used.


As said before, welcome to your first science forum.
Here, we're not really interested in links and videos.
We want to know what you think, not what you can show us or repeat.
The links and videos merely would serve as references, NOT as your arguement.
You are to discuss your ideas, not post links ad nauseum.


As mentioned earlier, Steven Jones is not an engineer. He is a physics professer.


No, they say they heard something like explosions. What they DID hear was the steel beams snapping.


I'm not talking about dismissing the theories.
I dismiss the method you are using to promote these theories.
It's one thing to talk about them in a discussion. It's another thing to post links and then say "What do you think?", especially after the info in them has been discussed by other users, and you continue to do so.
Nope, not a good method at all.

Going out on a limb, I'd say they burst upon impact (given their nature), and then the metal burned up in the very hot fuel fire, leaving nothing but a residue.
How's that?

Considering that a 757 traveling at high speed and loaded with fuel hit it, it's not too surprising that the force of impact broke the windows.
Don't you think that a plane smashing into the building is going break windows made to resist an explosion from a truck bomb (which, as said earlier, is what they were designed to withstand)?


It'd be interesting to see where this leads in the time that I'm gone.
For your sake David C, I do hope you improve your methods.
In the time it takes to find those links, you could just as well provide actual discussions, even if they are short ones.
It's not the information that's getting you in hot water. It's the method you are presenting it. If you write out your beliefs, then you wouldn't have recieved warnings.
Think about that, okay?

EDIT to add: I just had an idea. You could consult the BA (Bad Astronomer) himself as to debates. He does it himself on a radio station; he debates those with alternative science theories. I'm sure he could say that those he debates do not cite various websites, but rather speak from their own mouth.
That's what we want you to do, David C; speak with your own voice, not citing links.



And to everyone else, here, take care of things.
I shall return!

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Yes, yes they can but the scale of this conspiracy you advocate would require thousands of these corrupt liars. Hundreds just for the pentagon debris planting party.

Let's hunt the boeing then.

http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/pentagon_crash11.jpg
Plenty of fire and impact damage here. Not consistant with a cruise missle or even a small bizjet. See that hole in front of the truck?
http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/pentagon_crash09.jpg
A cruise missle did all that?
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/8.jpg
That's one big hole. You really don't think a 757 going a couple hunderd miles an hour could just pile right up into that big of an area?
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/pentcrash.jpg
This is from a CT site but I like it, though I think the scale is a bit off. What with the wings being made of aluminum and full of fuel and the walls of the pentagon being made of concrete and somewhat thick, this is what I'd expect to see. Some impact damage but mostly fire damage, propagated in the direction of travel. Plus you can see the holes, probably made by the engines - at least the left one. No cruise missle here. Further more, aluminum burns so your not going to find big chunks of fuselage anywhere in the building and that's where most of the plane was.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...08/norad200608

Have a read through these transcripts, David? It appears the audio has been removed from the site (bandwidth, maybe). The transcripts and associated comments pretty well cover the NORAD response that morning.
I don't see anything untoward in the response that morning, they did what they could with what they had...under an increasingly incredible situation.
Mistakes were made, confusion and bad information is evident. Their frustration, especially in the audio, is very evident.

One important thing...as a battle commander, one knows what their aircraft can do...dashing about at 1500mph isn't one of them if you plan to stay in the game for any time at all. Maximum speed for the air defense configuration is also notably lower than the published, unclassified maximum speed of the F-15 and F-16. It takes time, much fuel, and altitude to get to a maximum GROUNDspeed. It does you no good to go full burner somewhere just to fall out of the sky due to fuel exhaustion when you get there.

The CT sites don't seem to understand this important item. That, and the specific order of battle that morning. They had 2 fighters at Otis, and 2 at Langley on five minute alert to cover the Northeast US. That's all they had under their command when the events started. Getting additional assets takes time and coordination, as well as the need to upload the jets. It doesn't just "happen".

Read the transcripts, and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to help. It all makes sense when you know the details.

May I add that at airshows a brute force fighter demonstration lasts for 5 minutes because due to the excessive use of the afterburner, the internal tanks are simply empty after these 5 minutes.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Serenitude Pt. 1

David C - I just want to talk a bit about "debates", as you seem to think that spamming links is a good debate style, and that actually stating and defending points would get you "laughed out of a debate hall".

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Let's make up an two imaginary debate teams for a subject unrelated to the topic of this thread, but beloved of CTers. Let's make the topic "rods". I'll try to be brief and general, as you don't have much time, as you say.

Team A opens. They are against "rods" being paranormal or cryptozoological. They are of the opinion that "rods" are perfectly explainable phenomena of bugs being filmed. Team A opens with a brief background of the subject, for those unfamiliar with the phenomena. They then begin, in an organized fashion, to break down the subtle mechanisms responsible for each aspect of the phenomena. They cite factual evidence clearly understandable. They use their own words to describe each point of the photography process, and at each point they describe the conditions that can produce "rods". They present their arguments concisely, in their own words. When they rely on outside data, illustrations, etc... they summarize what is about to be seen, why it is relevant, show only what is needed to prove thier points, and move on. They demonstrate how the scientific method has been used to analyze every point of contention, and have statements backing up each point, not from 13 year-olds with iMacs who post random nonsense to youtube, but from peer-reviewed sources from certified, trusted, and verifyable sources. They sit down, at the end, and await rebuttal from Team B.

Team B gets up, and says the following "Everything Team A has said is bullcrap. Everyone knows scientists can't be trusted, so what they say about "rods" doesn't matter in the slightest. In fact, it is my contention that untrained laymen who post long, nonsense filled videos to Google are much more reliable sources of information. My rebuttal to Team A is that you read these here 3 books, watch 34 hours of mostly irrelevant video, read these silly threads at these 19 internet forum links, see if I'm right or wrong about "rods" based on that. And if you think I'm wrong, well, remember Team A can't be right anyway because they are paid by the Government to lie. They don't want you to know the truth. I know what I'm saying sounds ridiculous, and I haven't really presented any evidence, and I know I'm ignoring the easily provable facts that Team A postulated, but watch my 34 hours of videos and then tell me if I lose the debate or if I win. And if you say I lose, you don't make any sense, and are just trying to prevent the truth about "rods" from getting out. I rest my case."

In a matter of seconds, Team B is totally stunned to learn they lost the debate. They storm out, muttering about "Well, when my buddies and I talk about it, we don't have to actually make sense or follow the rules of the physical universe or present any actual evidence outside of linking to videos made by random nobodies who say the government is wrong without providing factual evidence..."

Of course, the debate hall is laughing, alright. They're laughing at Team B as it exits the Debate Hall in embarrasment.

David C, we are Team A. Join Team A.

Since you do like to compare yourself to a classical debater, there is a wonderful website that lists the most common mistakes made in debates. It is here:

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallac...20ad%20hominem

Shall we take a look?

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is one error you make with great regularity. When backed into a corner with facts, you attack the credibility of scientists and the scientific method, without cause. In the same paragraph, you will defend the evidence of untrained, non-expert videos posted in Conspiracy Theory sites, youtube, etc... This is one of the worst debate killers. As you are fond of saying, in a real debate hall, you would be laughed out for using it.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). You use this logical fallacy even more often than ad-hom. You state absurd claims such as "The gubmint had agents plant all of that stuff milliseconds after the missile blast." Because that isn't immediately refutable with facts, witness statements, videos, etc..., however ridiculous, you take such to be truth.

Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). You pounce on examples in which two experts will seemingly contradict each other, as evidence of your case, when in fact it is nothing more than how the scientific method works. Even here, we correct each other all the time in investigating these sort of woo-woo claims. It does not imply that the claimee is correct, however. It means good science is being followed in finding the correct answer.

Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity). "911 was such a horrible event, we must have the truth!" And then ignoring the facts with emotional ploys. You also use this one with great frequency.

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition) While I would hesitate to say you actually make "arguements", per se, here is another rule of logic you break with nearly every post: You ignore factual, expert evidence, and keep seagull posting to minor variations of the same-old tired, debunked nonsense, never acknowledging the debunking of the points made in the videos.

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). 911 conspiracy theorists often use this argement, so I point it out, but to my knowledge you have not used it here. That is good, and that reflects well on you.

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). You break this rule of debate on nearly every post, where you link to videos of people with either unkown or zero knowledge of the field they are commenting on. Simply sitting in front of a web cam, making baseless accusations, and posting it to youtube does not an expert or a good point make ;-)

Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). One of the biggies. Your whole arguement is circular.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). When you do try to make points, you rarely (ever?)prove causation.

Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). "The gubmint lies, you're trying to sweep the truth under the rug, etc..."

Non Sequitur ("It does not follow"). "This picture looks funny to my completely untrained eye, therefore 911 is a hoax."

Petitio principii (begging the question). This is the fallacy of assuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that you are trying prove. Self-evident.

Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. Much of your "statements" (or at least the contents of most of your videos) are Red Herrings.

Ack! Life keeps interrupting, and I've lost my train of thought Well, anyway, the above is something to think about, since the rules of debate seem to be important to you.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher