The Usurper:You are missing the point.  Maybe Czuch doesn't acknowledge your points because he doesn't agree with any of them.  That's a possibility. 

That's beside the point of my post to you.  Challenging a person's debating tactics seems legitimate to me.  So if someone twists what you say, then it's right that you should set them straight.  When people do twist things, they are often building up straw men arguments and those are easily to point out. 

But to say that the other isn't a serious debater addresses the person and not the argument.  Also your statement as to his use of logic is questionable as well (on the same grounds). 

I only point this out because  when you first came on here, you stood on the fact that you were all about a "gentlemanly" debate.  Others commended you for not throwing insults.  Now you are throwing insults (and have in other posts as well) and I can't help but wonder, where are those critical voices now?  And why the change in you?  Is it a sign of frustration?

For the most part, when I read your posts (on 911) I don't get the impression that you want us to consider your points and come to our own conclusion; but you want to tell us what we should think (apparently because you've done all the thinking for us or something like that).

Artful Dodger: After a quick shower, I see your point better, and it is a good one. It is more appropriate to say, "you are not seriously debating the issues," which stick to the argument, than to say, "you are not a serious debator," which accuses the person. I stand corrected.

The Usurper:
I may faint.  Now I can't use it against you anymore! 

You will see from some of my earlier posts that I was the ad hominem king and it did not go over well for me!  lol

Artful Dodger: Thank you for pointing out the flaw in my reasoning, on the point in question. We all stand in need of a little "adjustment" from others, now and then. :o)

The Usurper: Now on to your 911 ideas.  The only area where I am even slightly interested is in the question of building 7 and how it collapsed.   It indeed does look (to an untrained eye) that it was brought down by explosives (much like we've seen on TV when witnessing an expert demolition.

But just because it appears that way to me, doesn't mean that it must have been that way.  Circumstantial evidence aside, what hard evidence do they have that the building was brought down by explosives?  I think the answer to that is none.  It's just a gathering of circumstantial evidence and speculation that fuels the theory.  If there were truly a "smoking gun" then you'd have something.  But now all you seem to have is a good debate. 

When all is said and done, I arrive at this:  even the experts can't agree on this one.  And if they can't agree, then an art teacher and part time musician from small town USA isn't going to figure it out either. 

Artful Dodger: Correction on the NIST quote. It should read..."has only a low probability of occurrence."