Stampede Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Wooah there people. I hope this discussion will not escalate into posters merely pressing the caps lock and holding down random letters of the keyboard. Keep it civil, perhaps once everyone has had a good night's rest this can continue in a more eloquent fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 THEN WHY HASN'T HE BEEN? Because in case you haven't noticed, he isn't saying "I'm an engineer, now listen to me on intelligence matters." YOU are the one refering to him as an engineer as support for his intelligence-related arguments, as a dishonest way of implying that he actually disputes the aspects of the official story related to engineering. THE OVEN WAS NOT THE ARGUEMENT HERE IN THIS THREAD SO YOU HAVE NO CONCESSION BRO...not from me...but i do have to crash and i wll continue tomorrow...and the day after...and the day after.... Then why did you bring it up? You brought up the issue of long-lasting hot spots in the rubble pile as one of a series of completely flawed engineering-related arguments claiming that the official story of the crash and resulting fires and collapse did not explain the observed evidence. I will make you an offer I think is pretty reasonable: Concede every single argument you have posted related to the actual events of the collapse, and I will allow you to focus the debate on only the intelligence-related aspects. And by "concede", I mean in plain english, posting the following statement: "I, Alanador, concede that the official story of the hijackings, crash, fires/fire damage, and collapse is completely accurate. I concede defeat on any claims otherwise that I have posted, including (but not limited to, in case Peregrine finds another one): * The need for demolition charges to explain the observed collapse, and the possibility that they were used. * Any argument that the planes were faked, remote-controlled, carried missile pods, or in general were not un-modified civillian airliners hijacked by terrorists. * Any argument that the hot spots observed in the rubble for months after the collapse contradict the official story. * Any argument that the fires resulting from the crash did not burn hot enough, or cause enough damage to collapse the buildings. * Any argument that the damage in the basement was produced by anything other than side effects of the crash (there were no bombs in the basement). * Any argument that building 7 did not suffer enough damage to collapse without intentional demolition, or that there is even the slightest evidence to suggest that intentional demolition was used." Post this statement (and follow it... I do not expect to see those claims again, if you accept the offer) and I will accept the concession and limit the debate to the other issues. Or, I can continue to re-post this demand until I either get a concession, or you post your proof and alternate theory to explain those so-called flaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alanador Posted April 21, 2006 Author Share Posted April 21, 2006 Understood Stampede. We'll pick up tomorrow Peregrine, sorry if i got upset. At the end of the day we both love this country and are concerned. I respect your views and will address your above post tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 So, "tomorrow" has come and gone, and not a word from Alanador. So I think there can only be one conclusion: CONCESSION ACCEPTED. *paints another kill mark* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.