Well here is your chance to beat on Ct'ers .. here in Lovely Charleston SC
Damm straight I will be there to document the fun..
The National 9/11 Debate seeks people willing to defend government account of 9/11 in a public debate forum
As of August 1, 2006, the 9/11 Commissioners, NIST scientists, and other key personnel responsible for the government’s non-sustainable account of what happened in the United States on September 11, 2001 all refuse to participate in the National 9/11 Debate that was originally scheduled for September 16, 2006 in Charleston, SC. Consequently, the National 9/11 Debate date has been moved forward to March 10, 2007.
While the 9/11 Commissioners and NIST scientists remain invited to participate in the National 9/11 Debate, the Muckraker Report has expanded the potential government debate team members to any qualified persons that are willing to publicly defend the government’s account of 9/11 against the civilian debate team already assembled.
“The elapsed collapse time of WTC 1, 2, and 7 debunks the government’s pancake theory of collapse. Coupled with the fact that chemical traces of substances normally associated with controlled demolition have been found on debris from ground zero, and the fact that the government never developed a working “controlled demolition hypothesis” when investigating how WTC 1, 2, and 7 collapsed even though the collapse of each clearly looked like controlled demolitions, is sufficient cause to hold a public National 9/11 Debate. Basically, all one needs is a stopwatch to understand that the government has yet to provide a sustainable theory as to how the twin towers and building seven collapsed,” explains Ed Haas, National 9/11 Debate Coordinator. “A $2 stopwatch provides hard evidence that the government has failed to adequately explain what happened in NYC on 9/11. Why those desperate to believe the government’s account of 9/11 continue to ignore this basic fact must be answered.”
If you’re an outspoken critic of people that disagree with the “official government theory” of 9/11, here’s a golden opportunity for you to attempt to silence the critics. If you think you have the right stuff, contact Ed Haas today.
It sounds like the standard Creationist tactic of challenging people to debate publically, where they can use rhetoric to sway people instead of using logic and peer-reviewed science. Unfortunately for them, the populace doesn't have a religion which predisposes them toward 9/11 conspiracy theories.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
Surlethe wrote:It sounds like the standard Creationist tactic of challenging people to debate publically, where they can use rhetoric to sway people instead of using logic and peer-reviewed science. Unfortunately for them, the populace doesn't have a religion which predisposes them toward 9/11 conspiracy theories.
This will be Comedy gold though..
Sudden power is apt to be insolent, sudden liberty saucy; that behaves best which has grown gradually.
“The elapsed collapse time of WTC 1, 2, and 7 debunks the government’s pancake theory of collapse. Coupled with the fact that chemical traces of substances normally associated with controlled demolition have been found on debris from ground zero, and the fact that the government never developed a working “controlled demolition hypothesis” when investigating how WTC 1, 2, and 7 collapsed even though the collapse of each clearly looked like controlled demolitions, is sufficient cause to hold a public National 9/11 Debate.
Basically, all one needs is a stopwatch to understand that the government has yet to provide a sustainable theory as to how the twin towers and building seven collapsed,” explains Ed Haas, National 9/11 Debate Coordinator. “A $2 stopwatch provides hard evidence that the government has failed to adequately explain what happened in NYC on 9/11.
I've heard this many times before...here's the so called 'proof'
The towers collapsed completely in intervals of time similar to that taken for a block of wood dropped from a tower's roof to reach the ground. A block of wood has about the same average density as the main components of the towers near their tops.
In a vacuum a block of wood (or lead) would take 9.2 seconds to fall from the tower's roof. In the air a block of wood, say ten inches on a side, might take 50 percent longer than in a vacuum. Fifteen seconds, a good estimate for the total time of collapse of the North Tower, is about the time it would take our block to fall from the roof. The rubble from the tower probably had similar average density to our block of wood, since the floor slabs consisted of corrugated sheet metal and lightweight concrete, and the perimeter steel columns were hollow with walls only 1/4th inch thick at the towers' tops. Air resistance alone could account for the slowing of the falls to the point where each tower took about 15 seconds to completely come down.
The official story requires that more than air resistance was slowing the descents. The falling rubble would be having to crush every story below the crash zone -- ripping apart the steel grids of the outer walls and obliterating the steel lattice of the core structure. The resistance of the intact building itself would be thousands of times greater than air resistance.
If air resistance is able to increase total collapse times by even 20 percent, then shouldn't the addition of the resistance of the buildings themselves increase the time several thousand percent, to at least tens of minutes?
Of course the idea of a collapse lasting minutes is absurd. So is the idea of a steel frame building crushing itself.
Sounds like the whole argument is built around a Strawman Fallacy to me....since when does a block of wood have about the same density as steel or concrete?
Frank Hipper wrote:How the hell do these morons equate a free-falling object to a building collapsing from the top down with mechanical resistance providing resistance?
Hi, Frank welcome to the world of Debunkers.
Sudden power is apt to be insolent, sudden liberty saucy; that behaves best which has grown gradually.
Frank Hipper wrote:How the hell do these morons equate a free-falling object to a building collapsing from the top down with mechanical resistance providing resistance?
Simple:
Step one, throw all logic and reason out the door
Step two, drink in excess, until you are nearly brain ded
Step three, find some off the wall, unproving idea and run with it.
The scary part, the controlled demo guys are kind of the more stable 9/11 CTers out there. There are some real interesting ones out there that belive in things such as: No planes hit the WTC towers, if was UFOs, the planes were unmmaned drones packed with explosives, the planes fired missiles just before impact, etc..
Frank Hipper wrote:How the hell do these morons equate a free-falling object to a building collapsing from the top down with mechanical resistance providing resistance?
Hi, Frank welcome to the world of Debunkers.
...and I'm a graduate of the Academy of Redundancy Academy, too.
Frank Hipper wrote:How the hell do these morons equate a free-falling object to a building collapsing from the top down with mechanical resistance providing resistance?
Simple:
Step one, throw all logic and reason out the door
Step two, drink in excess, until you are nearly brain ded
Step three, find some off the wall, unproving idea and run with it.
The scary part, the controlled demo guys are kind of the more stable 9/11 CTers out there. There are some real interesting ones out there that belive in things such as: No planes hit the WTC towers, if was UFOs, the planes were unmmaned drones packed with explosives, the planes fired missiles just before impact, etc..
Dammit Azazal!! you forgot the HOLOGRAMS... sheech..
Sudden power is apt to be insolent, sudden liberty saucy; that behaves best which has grown gradually.
Frank Hipper wrote:How the hell do these morons equate a free-falling object to a building collapsing from the top down with mechanical resistance providing resistance?
Simple:
Step one, throw all logic and reason out the door
Step two, drink in excess, until you are nearly brain ded
Step three, find some off the wall, unproving idea and run with it.
The scary part, the controlled demo guys are kind of the more stable 9/11 CTers out there. There are some real interesting ones out there that belive in things such as: No planes hit the WTC towers, if was UFOs, the planes were unmmaned drones packed with explosives, the planes fired missiles just before impact, etc..
Dammit Azazal!! you forgot the HOLOGRAMS... sheech..
Don't you see man, there were no plane, no holograms, it was all donw with CGI overlays on live TV man, yeah that's how it was done, yeah man... (don't laugh, I;ve heard people say this and mean it )
The towers collapsed completely in intervals of time similar to that taken for a block of wood dropped from a tower's roof to reach the ground. A block of wood has about the same average density as the main components of the towers near their tops.
In a vacuum a block of wood (or lead) would take 9.2 seconds to fall from the tower's roof. In the air a block of wood, say ten inches on a side, might take 50 percent longer than in a vacuum. Fifteen seconds, a good estimate for the total time of collapse of the North Tower, is about the time it would take our block to fall from the roof. The rubble from the tower probably had similar average density to our block of wood, since the floor slabs consisted of corrugated sheet metal and lightweight concrete, and the perimeter steel columns were hollow with walls only 1/4th inch thick at the towers' tops. Air resistance alone could account for the slowing of the falls to the point where each tower took about 15 seconds to completely come down.
The official story requires that more than air resistance was slowing the descents. The falling rubble would be having to crush every story below the crash zone -- ripping apart the steel grids of the outer walls and obliterating the steel lattice of the core structure. The resistance of the intact building itself would be thousands of times greater than air resistance.
If air resistance is able to increase total collapse times by even 20 percent, then shouldn't the addition of the resistance of the buildings themselves increase the time several thousand percent, to at least tens of minutes?
Of course the idea of a collapse lasting minutes is absurd. So is the idea of a steel frame building crushing itself.
Now, this may be a simplistic view of the situation, but why should air resistance slow the building down when it's not falling through air? I'd think the air resistance from the air within the building negligible compared to the resistance of the steel trying to support the collapse.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
Your average piece of wood has a density of about 0.5kg/L.
What the hell are they talking about?
The only thing I can think of is that maybe they think the combined density, counting empty space in the building, averages out to the density of wood.
I'm skeptical to say the least.
The Gentleman from Texas abstains. Discourteously.
PRFYNAFBTFC-Vice Admiral: MFS Masturbating Walrus :: Omine subtilite Odobenus rosmarus masturbari Soy un perdedor.
"WHO POOPED IN A NORMAL ROOM?!"-Commander William T. Riker
I hope I don't appear to be a loon, but I do wonder if we have seen all the video that captured the Pentagon attack. It's hard to believe that there aren't numerous cameras around the building covering every inch from all angles. I'm not suggesting any conspiracy theory, but it does seem strange that there isn't more footage. The fact that Judicial Watch had to force them to release what little film has been seen is a bit troubling as well. Not that it would show a missile or a military jet crashing into it, but why wouldn't they have made it public on their own?
Rocker5150 wrote:I hope I don't appear to be a loon, but I do wonder if we have seen all the video that captured the Pentagon attack. It's hard to believe that there aren't numerous cameras around the building covering every inch from all angles. I'm not suggesting any conspiracy theory, but it does seem strange that there isn't more footage. The fact that Judicial Watch had to force them to release what little film has been seen is a bit troubling as well. Not that it would show a missile or a military jet crashing into it, but why wouldn't they have made it public on their own?
If I recall correctly, the airplane impacted a newly renovated wing of the Pentagon that did not yet have full camera coverage. The good news is fewer casualties; the bad news is very little security camera footage. Of course, the tinfoil hat crowd finds the 1:5 odds of this particular side of a pentagon being impacted far too small to be a coincidence.
"This war, all around us, is being fought over the very meanings of words." - Chad, Deus Ex
It makes sense that an area under construction would not yet have the cameras affixed to the structure, but shouldn't there be an extensive video system throughout the parking lots, etc. that would face the building? Maybe mounted high up on lighting poles around the outer edge of the property? It would be shocking if there really was only one camera that captured the attack on such a secure location. If that is so, they need to put more in!
Rocker5150 wrote:It makes sense that an area under construction would not yet have the cameras affixed to the structure, but shouldn't there be an extensive video system throughout the parking lots, etc. that would face the building? Maybe mounted high up on lighting poles around the outer edge of the property? It would be shocking if there really was only one camera that captured the attack on such a secure location. If that is so, they need to put more in!
-Kevin
The answer is, yes, they *do* have those cameras. However, they mostly face... guess what... the parking lots, i.e. pointed downward watching the cars and such. To have captured the plane in its actual descent to impact, they would have to be facing either more or less parallel to the ground, or be tilted upwards. Not many of those. And those that *are* positioned optimally would either be too far away for it to be really clear or wouldn't see much at all-- a flash of aluminum skin perhaps, a row of windows zooming by, and then smoke from the crash.
Cameras positioned to capture the *entire* incident, or more than a few milliseconds of plane zooming by, would therefore be pretty rare...
The people who expect a video of the plane crash should remember that most video security cams use an extremely low frame-rate, which is why videos from hold-ups tend to look really jerky. Some of them snap only a couple of frames per second.
With that type of camera, it could be pointed right at the exact point of impact and still not see a damned thing. I think people have some pretty unrealistic notions of what you're liable to get from these cameras.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:With that type of camera, it could be pointed right at the exact point of impact and still not see a damned thing. I think people have some pretty unrealistic notions of what you're liable to get from these cameras.
There was a camera pointed right at the exact point of impact, and, as expected, there's nothing going on, and then in the next frame, there's an explosion.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
)
