After spending September 11, 2008 at Ground Zero and engaging various members of the public on subject of 9/11, I thought to share a few common points of informal debate that frequently ensued on the street.
It is interesting to note that logical hazards can occur on either side of deliberation and that a refined understanding of an issue is traditionally considered to be the prime objective.
Those more educated in polemics, please feel free to correct and inform the thread. Please also note that I’ve marked arguments as [counter and (mutual per 9/11 skepticism.
Finally, although I believe our discussions are of civic and intellectual value, it would seem that that the most effective method of understanding the events of 9/11 is through a trial subject to due process in court.
Cheers,
MG

DEBATE

Definition: formal method of suppositional argument, including rules and appeals to reach agreement on an issue