Was the destruction of the twin towers scientifically possible on 9/11

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

This *is* a conspiracy theory thread, after all. Please, let's discuss the topic and not the people discussing the topic.It might be interesting if someone were to propose a topic to explore the kind of mind or the kind of thinking it takes to believe the world is significantly affected by secret conspiracies.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I forgot the "Please, no replies" note this time. I've been hoping it would become unnecessary after a while. Anyway, there is no longer any debating with moderators at EvC Forum.My invitation of a topic proposal on another topic was definitely not an invitation to begin discussing that topic here. Please stop discussing it.You have been off-topic in a large percentage of your posts since your return. There are apparently many things you'd like to discuss for which we currently have no active threads. The remedy is simple: propose new threads. If you continue to post off-topic in threads, the remedy is also simple: I'll suspend you. Whatever the length was last time, I'll make it longer this time.Please, no replies.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

From Message 124: From Message 127: So it's okay for you to suggest to someone else they don't know what they're talking about, but not for anyone to suggest the same to you.Please do not attempt to settle moderator issues yourself. If you have complaints about people or posts then please post a note to Windsor castle.Please keep your discussion focused on the topic.We'll see you in a couple days.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Agreed. I wish someone would propose one.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I had already suspended Randman when you posted your message. It seems to me that Randman believes the most effective way for him to debate is to make things personal. Accusing people of close-mindedness as he is doing now, or of bias and dishonesty which were his accusations of choice in past incarnations, allows him to move the focus from the topic to the people discussing the topic. Randman only introduces evidence into a discussion as a prelude to accusing people of close-mindedness, dishonesty, etc. Despite much moderator feedback, Randman apparently still thinks a discussion consisting primarily of accusations is useful.But Randman can also be a strong advocate for his positions, and many people enjoy discussing with him, which they can't do if he's suspended all the time. So I just wanted to say that though your post was off-topic, the attempt to help Randman understand the inherent fallacy of his approach is appreciated.Randman, if you're listening, all I want at EvC Forum is evidence, argument, rebuttal, over and over and over again. Yes, people can be biased, close-minded and dishonest, but last time I checked you were a people, too, and so you are as vulnerable to these human foibles as anyone else, which means they factor out of the equation. At this website you're expected to assume the best about your opponents while proving them wrong with facts and arguments. Those who keep drawing from the well of accusations will not last here long.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director