Thank you for your cordial posts.
You're welcome
Uno Hoo said:
Your mention of a debate scenario as you envision it is interesting. I could certainly take the role of a naive party who has a genuine curiosity but a poverty of knowledge.
That's fine. Since the debate must have 2 sides, and I want to take the inside job side, that would leave you with the official story side. You'd just have to mention the elements of the official story that you currently think have merit. If you agree to post one simple post of this nature within a week of me opening the debate thread that I will create, then by all means simply say "I accept" in this thread:
Proposal- Was 9/11 an inside job?
One thing; the debate will focus primarily on things -not- related to the WTC collapses, as there are currently 2 threads discussing the WTC collapses- this one and (what I believe to be a more civil one) over in the Formal Debates forum:
Discussion: How did the WTC buildings collapse?
Anyway, in terms of the 9/11 debate, I could start it off, mentioning the points that support an inside job. We only have to do 1 post each- as a matter of fact, I specified that that would be the length of the debate part of it- after that, an discussion thread can be opened in the formal debates forum and I'd invite anyone who cares to join in a civil manner to do so.
Uno Hoo said:
That seems to be my life story. At this moment I cannot say yes or no.
That's fine- I don't think that in a debate one has to be sure about an issue, just to take a particular side initially.
Uno Hoo said:
I have tasks that are well defined and of great importance which I am somewhat behind schedule in executing. These tasks must be have primary demand upon my time and energy. I am certainly going to look for a way to add such a debate activity, but it will be day to day for a while before I can agree to discipline enough time to it be able to do it in a worthy manner.
I think a post of this size would have been more then enough for your side of the debate. I'm hoping that the real discussion can go on in the discussion thread which can be opened once the debate begins.
Uno Hoo said:
You have a yes, but the timetable is yet to be determined and may honestly be a day or a year.
I'm not sure if it can wait a year in the debate forum- as a matter of fact, James said to give the proposal 2 weeks to produce a debate and today is 2 weeks- I'm going mention that you're interested and ask for an extension and hope I get it
.
Uno Hoo said:
So, thank you very much for asking, continue thinking about it, and who knows but what I might be surprised by a quicker turn of events than i presently pessimistically imagine.
In my new interest and search of information on the internet, including John99 favorite woo woo and porn sites, it seems that the more information I process, the more murky the conclusion is. This may be telling in itself, because you would normally expect that more information would lead to a more well defined conclusion. It would be easy, but rash, to jump to a belief that it becomes more murky because there is deliberate disinformation.
I think there is some truth in the idea that there is disinformation. I think there is also truth that disinformation is most effective when people don't have:
Uno Hoo said:
a substantial background in building design, structural design, aircraft design and such like, in addition to a substantial education in basic physics
And even when one does, the answer may still not be apparent.
Uno Hoo said:
I have discovered a surprising amount of loose ends in the information re the four famous 9/11 events. There are just too many things that should have been clearly productive of a decisive conclusion, but have instead lead me to a murky indecisiveness.
I can easily understand how someone could believe that the information is unclear because it has been manipulated. But at this time i feel that I am far from being convinced one way or the other.
That's fine. Here's to hoping we open that debate thread today or atleast soon ;-).