The Usurper:  I'm not a big fan of Rush.   But do like Hannity but don't watch him much.  O'Reilly is my hero.      My favorite is Glenn Beck.  He used to work for CNN. 

BTW, ad hominem is a useful rhetorical style and many people use it.  I try not to direct it at the people I'm debating but at those they support  (much like you did below although more subtlety).  When I said "dumber than rocks" I was referring to the democrats in Washington (specifically) and the democratic party more generally -- the leadership. 

I don't think that is any different (an not nearly as bad) as you (and those that hold to your nutty views) when you accuse President Bush of treason.  That is what you are saying.  You've already come to your conclusion and you've no problem with throwing that accusation around.   So you'll excuse me if I don't feel too bad for saying your theologian and any other conspiracy theorists you admire are nut heads, whack jobs, fruit cakes, imbeciles.  I could go on.  

I do disagree with this, "irrational, yet effective (for unthinking people) tactic of Ridicule."  for a couple of reasons.  For one, I think ridicule can be effective when one is dealing with lemmings.  But a better point is how hypocritical the statement itself is.  While discrediting those that would ridicule others, you ridicule them for being unthinking and irrational.  So you have fallen into your own hole. 

Artful Dodger: This is a much-better composed (i.e., rational rather ad hominem) argument on your part, than some of your previous posts.

I can't agree that arguing someone is "unthinking" or "irrational" is quite the same as calling them "nutty" or "whacko". After all, "unthinking" and "irrational" not only have established meanings in the dictionary but far less pejorative connotations.

Nevertheless, I appreciate you making a good argument of it. :o)

The Usurper:

I have still honorably stood my ground & debated my point.


Not really... You have based your argument in documentations that debunk the official conspiracy. Then we have given you documents that debunk those debunkings.(I know, its not really a word)

But we have not debated any specifics fact for fact. From what i gather, if we do that, your argument will come down to something like, "well the government refuses to release those pictures" or something like that, right? Or, "its not likely that all 3 buildings would fall straight down like they did", right again?

It doesnt make any sense for us to get into a point by point debate, when in the end it comes down to evidence that nobody has?

Your best bet to win a conspiracy debate is to have someone, a live, real person, who was part of this vast conspiracy, an actual eye witness, and like Dan said, in a conspiracy of this magnitude, it would not be hard to find one. But lacking that, the best you have is a he said she said scenario, and that is giving your side a real lot at this point.

Czuch: You seem to be assuming that all evidence is either equal or nonexistent. Therefore, all argument is really speculation that comes down to "he said, she said," and thus fruitless.

My argument is that evidence does exist, that some evidence is better than others, that human beings are naturally endowed with an ability to sift through evidence and make sense of the world.

The towers, for example, came down at virtually freefall speed, according to video evidence. That is evidence. This point then falls to architects, physicists, engineers, and the like to produce tests, make calculations, and come to conclusions about how that might or might not be possible.

However, even folks like you me have common sense. And common sense is one of our greatest assets, not to be undermined. How could these towers fall as if there were no resistance at all, as fast as a rock falls through space, when we both know that the massive steel columns and concrete of which the towers were constructed must apply some resistance?

Without considering anything else, just this one piece of video evidence, we can surmise that demolition rather than gravity is the better answer. For one thing, that is what controlled demolition does. And that is what unaided gravity does not, and never has before or since.

From there, we look at possible aids to gravity. We do some experiments & test the results. But really, common sense wins here, with those who choose to utilize it.