You wrote: “…but I do not think this is the forum to debate whatever there is to debate about 911.”

Hmmm, in a thread where Dembski is warning us about a potential government conspiracy against us, you don’t think debate about 9/11 is relevant? Interesting. And in a blog where global warming is often talked about because Dembski and others doubt the official line, and since they doubt the official line against ID, they see relevance, yet you do not think discussing alternate theories about 9/11 are as relevant, even though they also include the question of design detection? Interesting.

“And I dont mean anyhting personal against you…”

Even though you have claimed that I hate America?

“- my points have just been aimed against your posts and in particular why I find them troubling in light of what I have concluded to be a significant lack of the evidence necessary to support such an adamant acceptace of the 911 conspiracy theory by it’s many advocates.”

You have concluded that there is a significant lack of evidence, even though you refuse to watch their DVD. Interesting.

“If you are really for 911 TRUTH- then I wish you the best accuracy in your research on the subject- whatever the truth turns out to be.”

Thank you, Frost. But I think there has already been ample research to support ae911truth.org’s position. It’s just that no one is willing to look at their evidence, just as most people aren’t willing to look at the evidence for ID.

Of course, whether or not discussing the physical evidence for controlled demolitions of the WTC towers belongs in this thread or in this blog is up to the moderator. But I think I’ve explained why I think it belongs in both.

“That’s called an ad hominem attack, Frost.”

in regards to my quote-

“…I think you have no reason to be sold on it except for some personal disdain for the country or Bush or Cheney or Republicans etc.”

No Bob that is NOT an ad homienem attack. I did not call you a name and use that as an argument against your position. I gave an very well thought out argument and evidence for it. My point is that “I think” or “suspect” you have no other reason to keep perusing this 911 conspiracy except for the fact that you want to beat the star man of anti-americanism- because I see no other reason. You are just trying to slander me personally because your position is too weak and unrelated to ID for most people here- or anywhere- to accept it.

And you are using a modernist interpretation of the term “ad homninem” which is supposedly defined as “an argument to a person”- when all arguments between two people are “to a person”. People always argue with one another. What your tyrying to say is that I have no right to speculate about your TRUE motivations. Well too bad I did.

This is not the place for 911 conspiracies.

The classical definition of ad hominem means to argue against someone’s “position” (not point out their likely motivations) by labeling them in to a certain group. My point is not that you are nuts, or a liar, or a democrat, or an anti-american- bu that you have no strong evidence to be so “ADAMANT” about your view. SO I infer that you have an obvious personal bias. This is the same reasoning one uses to infer a newspaper has a certain bias. It is not adhominem and it is aside from the real argument I made which is one of substance and I gave you a video clip to support my point– but the truth is that you have no strong evidence so you have to resort to attacking the procedure of my post as opposed to the substance. And you fail to understand that my opinions of your motivations are not meant to be arguments against your position but you and your side’s conviction when there is no evidence- and reasoning is purely speculative.

This is not the place to debate 911. I would appreciate the moderator blocking your future posts if you continue to bring up this fringe issue which is unrelated to ID.

You wrote: “Ok Bob the last point I will make is that “consensus” based conclusions is exactly what ID “opposes.” That is, just because you have a lot of scientists or architects agreeing on a particular theory like Darwinism or controlled demolitions of buildings- does not at all make it true. It would not matter if you had one billion architects- ID is only interested in drawing the correct inferences.”

“Unfortunately I am not a physicist or an architect and so I have no reason to believe the testimonies of these in the video you site.”

This DVD is not just a bunch of “testimonies.” It is a presentation of the physical evidence for controlled demolitions.

“I know that there are plenty of architects that disagree with their conclusions as well.”

I doubt that the architects who disagree have seen the evidence. But likewise, there are plenty of biologists who disagree with ID.

“And quite frankly there really is no sound evidence at all except for physical speculation that a controlled demolition occurred.”

You wouldn’t say that if you watched the whole DVD.

“…I think you have no reason to be sold on it except for some personal disdain for the country or Bush or Cheney or Republicans etc.”

That’s called an ad hominem attack, Frost. People who disagree with ID use it against us all the time, e.g., “You only believe in ID because you’re a religious fanatic.”

“I watched “some of” your video. First of all the demolitions they show of other building start at the bottom of the buildings- but the twin towers began at the top-”

See, Frost, if you had just watched the whole DVD, you would have seen examples of controlled demolitions that start at the middle and at the top of buildings.

“I think your side does a lot of work to believe in this because you all want to- but not out of the goodness of your hearts but out of your hatred for America etc.”

Another ad hominem attack. Are you sure you believe in ID? You would make a really good opponent of ID. You argue just the way they do. And no, I don’t hate America. I want America to be a righteous nation. That’s why I’m willing to criticize it, just the way the prophets criticized ancient Israel. It is the false prophets who only see the good things about the country they live in.

“The conspiracy theory has done more bad than good so far.”

It has taught me to distrust my own Democratic party as much as I distrust the Republican party. I think that’s a good thing.

“But all of this has little to do with ID. Yes their can be design detection applied to the fall of the towers – but we can also apply ID to all kinds of other things. This site is about things like biology, genetics and cosmology- that is, Origins- because that is where ID sees itself as making it’s most important contributions- in a public domain overrun with Darwinism.”

This thread is about the potential dangers of a government conspiring against its citizens. If 9/11 was about our government conspiring against us, then it strengthens Dembski’s case.

This blog — Uncommon Descent — is willing to explore all sorts of topics unrelated to ID, such as global warming. I suggest that they explore 9/11, since it is about design detection, and since it goes against the official story, just as ID goes against the official story of Darwinism.

I watched “some of” your video. First of all the demolitions they show of other building start at the bottom of the buildings- but the twin towers began at the top- as can be seen here at 2 minutes and 15 seconds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w

SO there is an obvious problem right there that can be seen using their own evidence.

I think your side does a lot of work to believe in this because you all want to- but not out of the goodness of your hearts but out of your hatred for America etc. That is how I read it. I have studied this and all of the original claims like the pentagon plane and the Pennsylvanian plane have turned out to be false despite all the while making a lot of people believe these claims- which slandered people and made people look like fools.. The conspiracy theory has done more bad than good so far.

But all of this has little to do with ID. Yes their can be design detection applied to the fall of the towers – but we can also apply ID to all kinds of other things. This site is about things like biology, genetics and cosmology- that is, Origins- because that is where ID sees itself as making it’s most important contributions- in a public domain overrun with Darwinism.

The DVD that I recommended that you watch was put together by architects and engineers at ae911truth.org. It presents the physical evidence for the controlled demolitions of the WTC towers. It doesn’t talk about the Pentagon or the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. All it does it present the physical evidence for the controlled demolitions of the WTC towers. It doesn’t even try to blame it on Bush and Cheney. So far, over 950 architects and engineers have been convinced by the evidence.

It does belong at an ID website, because we ID proponents claim that we are able to detect design, even though we don’t know who the designer might be. If so, then we should be able to view the DVD and determine whether the evidence is good enough to support the theory of controlled demolitions.

If controlled demolitions of the WTC towers took place, then it is very likely that somebody “inside” planned it and that a coverup has occurred. Since Obama has continued the coverup, we Democrats must admit that whatever is going on is bigger than just those “evil” Republicans. Which is what I now admit. So I see the current plan to invade the privacy of our computers as just another step in some diabolical plan or other.

You 911 for truth people were the ones who made all kinds of insane alligations about there not being a plane that flew into the pentagon when there were hundreads of wittnesses. And almost no one, save maybe a few crack pots, said they saw a missile hit it. And your side for truth claimed that there was no plane that crashed in Pennsylvania- yet there have been interviews with the guy form the morgue who delt with the dead bodies.

I mean some of the outlandish allegations are crazy. But you guys deny the evidence against your theory and put forth even more insane explanations like voice copying technologies and so forth- which would not have necessary- and of course the calls came when the plane was at a low enough height for cell phones and the plane phones to work- despite the contrary claims.

So it is your side that is disinterested in the truth- or at least in my personal view you guys are fueled by and more interested in progressing an anti- Bush and republican agenda than actually perusing interesting questions and sincere inquiries.

I have no doubt that people like yourselves have convinced yourselves into believing this- but just like Roswell and the supposed UFO crash- that does not mean it actually happened.

If the question is “could their have been a bigger list of players in the 911 attacks? Like could there have been inside government help- from some people- of or in control of the security of the towers? Or could their have been bombs inside the towers? These are somewhat reasonable questions- but most of the people claiming to be for 911 truth are actually for slandering Bush and republicans- saying absurd things like Cheney was behind everything- because they hated them long before they ever had the personal revelation that 911 was an inside job.

The point is that your side jumps to the conclusion before they have any case beyond a reasonable doubt. And that shows the real motives. And of course most of these people are totally uninterested in the TWA 800 crash which had for more compelling evidence of a missile and cover up then the 911 theory does. In TWA you have over 200 people who on the night of and day after said the saw a missile hit the plane. And you have plenty of evidence of cover up. But there is little or no interest from your side on that one because it was Clinton and his administration that was in when it happened.

Personally I am always interested in these things. I think the no plane into the pentagon part is nuts- and I think the no plan crash in Pennsylvania is nuts- because when plane hits soft wet soil at over 500 mph there is not going to be much left.

However I will admit that there is a very strange uniformity to how the towers fell- and there are some circumstantial points that warrant some more investigation or some theoretical “speculation”- but most of the people on the 911 or for truth side are not for truth but against Bush/republicans and nor the government in general.

Once again, this is NOT the site to have this debate. This is an intelligent design web site- the only reason this story is of interest is because ID is a minority view in the public sector that has a right to be concerned about majority.

If people want to see a debate with the authors of the 911 conspiracy theory movie and a debunker you can see it here and make up your own minds. 911 for truth is not a good place to go first because it’s goal is to forward the conspiracy theory without equal time and respect paid to the opposing side.

http://video.google.com/videos.....38;tab=wv#

If our government conducted a false flag operation in order to provide an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and to increase government monitoring and control of us, then it has everything to do with this thread.

“Could the 911 towers been blown up by bombs after the plan crash? Maybe. But there really is not that much good evidence to support this.”

There is enough good evidence to convince over 950 architects and engineers. They have a DVD that presents their evidence, that you can watch for free on the internet. Watch it and tell me what you think.

“My point was that the DEMs refuse to get up in arms about all kinds of issues they claimed to be adamant about wen Bush was in. The Wars are still going and they are not marching- and now these kinds of concerns about privacy and government power don’t seem to bother them as much. It shows that they really just want to be in charge.”

Point well taken.