Proposal to debate NPT

[Mark Gobell]

I've started this new thread to solicit ideas about how best to debate the NPT issue.

To begin with I think that we need to establish agreed topic(s) for debate.

One suggestion is for the author of September Clues to debate that series of films.

Another topic suggestion I have received is to debate something very specific.

I would welcome any ideas about topics, how the debate(s) could be conducted and by whom etc.

Could we keep this thread on topic please.

Cheers

[marky 54]

i suggest a two person only debate, someone willing debating someone willing on a certain topic.

i just think it would be easier to follow and would be more likely to stay on topic, as usually someone can make a comment and then 2-5 people all qoute different parts of that comment and make differnet points about different specific things, then the other poster answers those differnet specific things etc etc. which is why its easy to go off topic or go on to another side topic within the thread, i don't think that would happen with two people doing the posting and only answering eachothers points made.

other posters could send points they feel have been missed either by pm or a seperate thread and then it would be upto the debaters if they want to incorperate that point or leave it out because it's irrelivant.

it sounds a bit complicated but with just two doing the posting(who are willing of course) everyones on topic points can be made in an easy to follow debate on the issue/topic.

[Mark Gobell]

I should have included earlier suggestions about how the debate should be conducted, from the original thread.

[Ace Baker]

I told Mark I'd be willing to participate in a debate, depending on the actual debate topic.

I would suggest this:

"UA flight 175, a Boeing 767 impacted the South Tower on 9/11".

I'd certainly debate the negative position on that.

I'd also suggest that only people willing to use their real names, and real credentials, be considered. I for one am fed up with anonymous internet personalities making unaccountable assertions.

Good luck finding a video FX person to defend the official story. Eric Salter is the only one I know of who has openly supported the plane theory. Perhaps he'll do it, but I suspect he is quite afraid of debating me.

[chek]

[paul wright]

I'd suggest the debate would be a good one, Mark
But would invite the vitriol presented, what? 5 posts in?
I don't think this is a topic to be reasonably discussed within this forum yet without excluding other debaters.
The latter tactic would generate threads in opposition

[Stefan]

Here's my proposal, and its only a proposal for one debate - there can be others -

Mark posts up the evidence for NPT in several threads, each covering a clearly defined area of NPT, indicating the post belongs to this proect by the label FAO Stef or Debate: before the chosen title to indicate the evidence.

He waits.

I compose responses to the posts answering all his points.

I wait.

He proposes counter points to those points, answering his points.

We continue in this fashion until one of us feels the thread is complete and stops.

Each of us can plan our responses with others via email and PM (I will certainly be conferring with at least Chek if not several others) but only the two of us contribute in posts to that thread. Anyone wants a point included from the NPT side, contact Mark, from the refuting side contact me.

No ad hominem, no evasion. No rush to respond (week deadline for a response?) and no word limit.

If a point remains unanswered, the person who made it does not respond until it is answered, instead quoting the part of the original post he feels has not been attended to.

Others can set up their own dynamics with others, this is what I'd like to do.

[Ace Baker]

[Ace Baker]

Earlier today, I sent Mr. Salter a renewed request for his Hi Resolution Chopper 5.

[Mark Gobell]

Very constructive suggestions Marky, Ace, Paul and Stefan.

I'm happy to play whatever role you think might help.

Or none at all.

Progress.

[paul wright]

Just out of interest, the views of the very dry serious and sensible researcher Elias Davidsson, recently promoted on a UK tour

[rodin]

[Ningen]

Hello. Thank you for having an open forum.

The Sandia video shows what should have happened. And please consider that a Boeing 747 is much longer, with much longer wings in relation to length, and the Sandia plane was driven straight into the wall on a rail car.

The tennis racket analogy is flawed -- the area of the strings is much less than half the area of the spaces between the strings.

The plane hit steel columns backed by steel and concrete floors. This forms a wall. Even if, as you say, material goes in through windows, what about the part that does not?

Here's a good explanation of why an aluminum plane would not go through steel columns -- the load would not be transmitted to the columns because the sofer aluminum would be destroyed.

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&foru m=218&topic_id=5899&mesg_id=6011

His conclusion after discussing material properties of aluminum and steel:

"If we take all these factors into consideration,the verdict will be that in a collision between these two materials, the aluminum alloy will be crushed like an accordion even if the steel is severed.I consider the severance of the steel by shear an extremely unlikely event for the following reasons.Upon impact, as the aluminum alloy will be deformed at a greater rate than the steel, which will make the aluminum alloy prone to what is called plastic deformation which is irreversible.That deformation will generate heat in the aluminum alloy.Given that the plastic deformation is what is used up in consuming the kinetic energy of the plane, it is quite likely that localized melting of the aluminum alloy will occur.Once that starts no further load transfer to the steel is possible.So, in effect, there is a self limiting mechanism for the deformation of the steel. Because of the disproportionate relative deformations of the steel and the aluminum alloy, one can expect the wings and the engine mounts to sustain enough deformation to detach the engines from their anchors.It is possible that such detached pieces from the aircraft can retain enough residual velocity to emerge out the other end provided the detachment occurred early enough in the collision when the aircraft stll had enough forward momentum."

[chek]

[Mark Gobell]

Funny how these threads end up . . .

The only question is:

Who is actually playing tag?

[fish5133]

A laymans view
All the "technical" evidence of No Planes at WTCs , TV fakery etc just seems to confuse me and doesnt convince me (perhaps its meant to do that).

I would hazard a guess that most 9/11 truthers would agree that no Boeing hit Pentagon

I would hazard a guess that opinions are more equally divided about Shanksville plane

I would hazard a guess that NPT for WTCs is in a minority. Even though more might be convinced it was a plane but not a commercial boeing

IMO No plane theory at Pentagon is true because the CCTV footage would clearly reveal if TV fakery of an actual Boeing hitting it was tried on

One way to discredit the truth of no plane at Pentagon is to come up with a "NPT" for the WTCs. Mix lies with truth and you corrupt the lot .

Prof Judy Wood doesnt seem that convinced either as links to NPT are tucked away on her site which is not surprising when you read Morgan Reynolds take on it. He wants to use eye witness testimonies that say they didnt see a boeing BUT did see some other type of plane to support a No Plane Theory.. bit crazy ??

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=plane_trick_wtc2

Just another quickie. If TV fakery was used we must be talking about clever people so why would they have planes flying in their fakery at speeds that they supposedly couldnt achieve at the altitude. If you were going to fake it surely you would get the plane speed correct? Just playing devils advocate here!

[Ace Baker]

Chek,

You're ignoring what I have termed "the force paradox". In order to claim that 3.7 million J of KE hit the wall of the tower, you must consider the mass of the aircraft as one solid object. So far so good.

But that means that the same force is applied to the airplane, in the opposite direction. Since you are considering the mass as one object, the force will spread through that object, and show up somewhere as bending, twisting breaking, of the aircraft. The aircraft was not designed to withstand anywhere near that kind of KE. Such is not observed.

On the other hand, you might reason that the airplane is more like a constellation of separate objects, because it is so weakly connected. This could indeed explain why individual parts of the plane could atomize, without slowing down the rest of the plane. However, in that case, you would not consider the total mass of the airplane, you would only consider the small mass each individual impacting part.

You see? You're trying to have it both ways.

[chek]

[Ace Baker]

Did Chek address my argument?

[chek]

[Mark Gobell]

Chaps.

Ace Baker has agreed to a debate on the terms stated.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how to proceed?

Or if to proceed?

[Stefan]

Mark, the best place to start is for Ace to separate out the evidence body for NPT and then make a separate thread of each - clearly outlining his evidence with as much citation as possible.

He can designate a Debate thread by using the prefix Debate: before his chosen title.

Keep the titles objective and clinical if possible.

Two people per thread - so the first oponent to respond to each carries that debate - if others want to support ace or his opponent - do so by PM or email.

Civility is key on a debate thread. No ad hominem. All questions answered and all evidence attended to.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to post this at the top of each post so new comers don't mistakenly plough in on a "Debate" thread?

[John White]

[Mark Gobell]

Why do you ask a question that you know the answer to John?

[Mark Gobell]

Sorry Stefan I hadn't realised you'd responded.

I'm not taking part in the debate so whatever you chaps agree . . .

[Stefan]

Ace is his real name? His parents must have hated him...

[Ningen]

"Ace is his real name? His parents must have hated him..."

Please stick to substance, Stefan.

[chek]

Actually Stefan's point is substantive.

We are invited to believe that Alexander 'ace' ( or as I find more fitting, 'arse') Baker is a real person with a real name.

Yet strangely, the only other person I've ever heard wittering about 'accountability' with respect to 911 is Indubitably/Roadrunner/Philadelphia and now 'Baker' - who guess what? - has been accused of being that well-known rodent, Philadelphia.

'Baker' may claim the 'real' name highground, but it's never been conceded.

[Ningen]

Chek said:

" (hint: investigate the point(s) of impact and weakest links further)"

Could you please explain? Thank you.

[chek]