Proposal to debate NPT

[Ace Baker]

Sounds like plane theorists are more interested in debating my name.

My name is Alexander Collin Baker. My first two initials are "A.C." When I was a baby, my dad called me "A.C." which could also be spelled "Acey". That got shortened to "Ace". The great mystery is now resolved, and this monumentally important debate topic can be put to rest. It's a nickname!

Now on to trivial matters, like planes at the world trade center, and the role of the news media personalities in spreading propaganda.

Is there anyone willing to defend the plane theory? Especially absent from the plane debate, are believers in the official story.

[Mark Gobell]

Anyone can contribute to this debate.

Its not about NPT.

It's about how NPT and non-NPT can be debated.

So, anyone can speak their mind quite freely without fear of ridicule or guilt by association with any side.

Marky, Ace, Paul and Stefan have made some very helpful suggestions so far, so can we achieve consensus?

I'm thinking that some input from the forums technical folk might be helpful if only to discard what can't be done vis, access rights to post etc.

If that's a non-starter then can someone please say so.

Tony, John, JHR ?

I'm thinking that accountability could be an issue but might have to be negotiated.

I could be wrong, as ever.

Any thoughts anyone?

[Tamborine man]

I personally would love to see 'Chek' take up the challenge.

I,m almost certain that the extraordinary pomposity, self-admiration,
self-satisfaction and arrogance that Chek with monotoneus venomous
regularity love to display himself with, just is a cover, a cunning
pretence!

Wouldn't it be awesome to discover that deep down, there exist in this man
an intelligent, civil and kind soul just waiting for the right opportunity to
show itself!!

Cheers

[Stefan]

[Mark Gobell]

That might be a way forward, then again it might not be the most effective way of handling the debate.

Let's see what Alex has to say.

Stefan, are you suggesting that the debate be had on a thread where anyone can post?

[Stefan]

Mark,
I'm suggesting Alexander labels the debate threads "Debate: [INSERT TOPIC HERE]", and puts the following notice at the top in bold:

This is a civilised debate thread - and is limited to two people per debate. If you have an opinion to add in support of either side of the debate, please PM or email (if you know the email) of the relevant party.

[Mark Gobell]

OK understood. Thanks Stefan.

Would we need a mod on standby for digressions do you think?

I'm guessing that someone might feel inclined to erm interject.

I could email Tony or whoever else is still modding here to delete any extraneous posts from anyone other than say you and Alex if that's what is agreed?

[ian neal]

Although not currently involved in day to day moderation (thank god for small mercies) I'm happy to police any such threads

[Mark Gobell]

Thanks Ian.

Just so that Alex is clear, could I ask a question:

Is anyone prepared to debate with their real name?

[Ace Baker]

Eric Salter has officially declined, informing me that he has gone back into retirement from "this issue".

The issue of real names is a pretty important one. If an anonymous poster spews lies and garbage, they can always just disappear, and reincarnate as someone new, with a brand new clean slate.

I'm quite curious to see if there is ANYONE willing to put their actual name out defending the plane theory.

[marky 54]

[Ace Baker]

This is why a simple name is not enough. There need to be identifying credentials of some sort.

Yes, of course a debate proceeds on evidence. Perhaps one party will win, and the other will be made to look like a lying charlatan. But then what? If they are anonymous, what is the downside for the anonymous charlatan?

Using real names gives the thing some real life stakes. All of the people in my movie are using their real names. The people who have filed lawsuits against the NIST contractors have done so in their real name. ETC.

It is simply beneath my dignity to debate someone who does not have the courage of conviction to use their real name. Unless and until someone comes forward, then I will continue to state that nobody is willing to defend the airplane myth. This is closely related to the way the History Channel, BBC, et al run their hit pieces on the "truth movement". There's never anything about no-planes, or exotic weapons.

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

i'll do you a deal, how about i change my name to ace faker? whilst concelling my first name? which may or may not be my real name you will never know nor can i confirm it without posting personnal details.

[TmcMistress]

My two cents.

I don't believe that the NPT discussion, at least in regards to the WTC towers, warrants further discussion. Chek and gruts have done a masterful job of tearing apart September Clues already, which is, if not the source for all NPT silliness, at least a decent summation of it, and I see no reason why this ridiculous notion deserves this much attention.

I understand the need to hammer out various theories, and that certain ones deserve their time. But WTC NPT has no basis in objective reality. Are we supposed to devote time to every theory that comes up just on the basis that someone said it?

I mean, really, c'mon... enough is enough. If killtown comes on here in a few weeks claiming that the towers were really destroyed by a giant holographic banana gun, are we going to be like "Well, every theory deserves its fair shake..."

[chek]

I believe you have a fair point there.

My own estimation is that the majority of NPT'ers are impervious to arguments, when they prefer to rely on their own impressions and interpretations of reality that have been mediated through poor quality video evidence and played upon by the modern equivalent of snake-oil salesmen. The phrase 'the blind leading the more blind' springs to mind.

There are occasional half-hearted attempts by the NPT ... er ... intelligentsia to discredit eyewitnesses and even lamer attempts to suggest the technical impossibility of planes travelling that fast and entering the Towers, but my take is that most rely on their (mistaken) personal judgements, and argument and reason is not going to reach them.

[John White]

[Mark Gobell]

Est que ce le dénouement de la prélude ne c'est pas?

John, are you stepping forward ?

[paul wright]

Four years ago I was a wild-eyed NPTer. I gave up after a couple of years and before I joined here, having seen the divisiveness caused.
I'm quite willing to entertain either side and will act as a moderator if necessary
I'm pretty sure the software here would allow for a selective exclusivity for the presentations, with perhaps an open line for comment, but I'm not sure.
Andrew Johnson set up a non-successful event for a Wood v Jones debate on the old software

[Mark Gobell]

Cheers Paul.

We now have two volunteers for moderate diplomacy, management, harm reduction, and hopefully counselling after the event. . .

So far, we have one protagonist.

We have terms that have yet to be agreed.

One of which seems to be about accountability.

I'm stuck in an unfamiliar dark place!

We are stuck. Again.

Help.

The quintessential word.

[chek]

[Mark Gobell]

Chek.

First of all. Peace.

Sincerely.

How are we to move this forward?

I'd appreciate your thoughts.

[paul wright]

Despite their confidence that their evidence is the most convincing in the debate, the "planes theorists" are a bit reluctant to engage because they would assert they are wasting valuable time on a discredited theory based on the analysis of shoddy videos.
I would say that there are too many NPTers too valuable to ignore, and that a debate which might come down to a 'agree to disagree on this subject, but let's agree on other stuff' conclusion might be useful
All the accusations of shill and limited hangout and all the rest on just the basis of video footage and photos does get a bit tiresome
It's far from the true basis on which to judge

[chek]

[chek]

[Mark Gobell]

[Mark Gobell]

[chek]

[Mark Gobell]

[chek]