Hardfire News

[LashL]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Let me know when Gravy debates Alex Jones on Jones' radio show.

Let us all know when you do anything but dodge, weave, and run away with your tail between your legs whenever you are confronted with your own nonsensical posts and your complete lack of facts or evidence to support your baseless claims.



FYI, Gravy has already confronted Alex Jones live and in person in NYC, and your pal, Alex, failed miserably in the exchange. Have you not seen that recording?

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by LashL

Let us all know when you do anything but dodge, weave, and run away...

He's not running away, he's just advancing in a different direction!

[mrbaracuda]

Originally Posted by Garb

I'm sure he already did that while being surrounded by his supporters while the guy high fived everyone when put into a corner.

Haha, quality moment right there.

Quote:

And as a viewer of Ron's show, I am actually quite surprised at the civility he shows on his show, especally compared to his attitude on these forums.

I'm pretty sure here he comes across worse than he actually is, which I also thought before I knew he's the host there.

[MikeW]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Let me know when Gravy debates Alex Jones on Jones' radio show.

This would be the Jones who said that 7/7 was a ploy to rescue Tony Blair and win him the election, even though in the real world the election actually happened two months before the bombings, and the polls said Blair would win it all along?

Or would it be the Jones who said it was documented that "hundreds" of Odigo employees fled their WTC offices on 9/11 after being warned of the attacks? Even though, in the real world, Odigo in Israel received the message, which did not mention the WTC, they did nothing before the attacks, and didn't have a WTC office for anyone to flee?

Or was this the Jones who said that "President George W. Bush signed secret National Security order No. W199-eye telling FBI agents as well as defense intelligence officers that if they tried to stop Al-Qaeda they would be arrested under national security implications"? Even though, in the real world, "W199-eye" was an FBI case number from a case that was closed back in 1996, and has precisely nothing to do with Bush?

Yeah. Right. Now there's a guy who's on top of the facts. Not that you're going to care, of course. Fiction is just fine in the service of The Truth, right?

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by MikeW

This would be the Jones who said that 7/7 was a ploy to rescue Tony Blair and win him the election, even though in the real world the election actually happened two months before the bombings, and the polls said Blair would win it all along?

Or would it be the Jones who said it was documented that "hundreds" of Odigo employees fled their WTC offices on 9/11 after being warned of the attacks? Even though, in the real world, Odigo in Israel received the message, which did not mention the WTC, they did nothing before the attacks, and didn't have a WTC office for anyone to flee?

Or was this the Jones who said that "President George W. Bush signed secret National Security order No. W199-eye telling FBI agents as well as defense intelligence officers that if they tried to stop Al-Qaeda they would be arrested under national security implications"? Even though, in the real world, "W199-eye" was an FBI case number from a case that was closed back in 1996, and has precisely nothing to do with Bush?

Yeah. Right. Now there's a guy who's on top of the facts. Not that you're going to care, of course. Fiction is just fine in the service of The Truth, right?

I really don't know what you're going on about, I just don't think it's likely that Gravy would accept the challenge of debating with a biased host in hostile territory. You can swap Alex Jones for Charles Goyette if it makes any difference.

[CHF]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I really don't know what you're going on about, I just don't think it's likely that Gravy would accept the challenge of debating with a biased host in hostile territory. You can swap Alex Jones for Charles Goyette if it makes any difference.

He was ready to allow Kevin Ryan to pick the venue and topics. Kevin ran away.

[T.A.M.]

Gage and DRG et al, won't even debate online, on a forum, where they can present their arguments in a logical, didactic form...

It boils down to this...the truth movement leaders KNOW who Mark is, they KNOW what he has done when debating other truther leaders, and they DO NOT want their house of cards knocked down for all to see online.

TAM

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I really don't know what you're going on about, I just don't think it's likely that Gravy would accept the challenge of debating with a biased host in hostile territory. You can swap Alex Jones for Charles Goyette if it makes any difference.

Goyette would be cake for Gravy, and he's a professional who would not allow the other side to dominate the debate like Alex Jones would. On the other hand he's just a minor radio host in Phoenix, so I don't know if Gravy'd be interested. I'd be happy to go up against any of the major "Truthers" on Goyette's show.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by CHF

He was ready to allow Kevin Ryan to pick the venue and topics.

...and the date and the moderators. He ran away a second time when I was asked to debate him on a show which he had already agreed to do, with a host who is biased towards truthers, and after he said supporters of the "official version" were afraid to take him on. Then he had me banned from 911blogger.

Several times I've said to truthers who said they wanted to debate me, "Go ahead: set it up." You know the outcome.

I cannot figure out why people are still responding to RedIbis.

[T.A.M.]

I find him civil...

TAM

[uk_dave]

Well, I hope the beeb do a feature on Ron and Mark and how they have so comprehensively demolished the 'truther' loons previously on Hardfire that further requests for participation from the 'truth' movement was simply met with embarrassed silence.

[pomeroo]

I met with Diane today in a diner near my apartment and I found her very pleasant and reasonable. She has tentatively accepted my invitation to appear on 'Hardfire' in late February opposite Mark and Arthur Scheuerman. She requested that I ask Mark what he thinks of her, so that's what I'm doing.

[Mr.Herbert]

Are we talking about Diana Johnstone?...sorry

[DGM]

Ron:
I've read a fair bit of her blog, she seems quite good at "connecting the dots" and putting out arguments from speculation and conjecture. How do you think she will do when someone argues against her with logic and facts?

What I want to ask is, are you luring this poor girl into the snake pit with no anti-venom. Do you think she's fully aware of what she's up against?

[ref]

Originally Posted by DGM

Ron:
I've read a fair bit of her blog, she seems quite good at "connecting the dots" and putting out arguments from speculation and conjecture. How do you think she will do when someone argues against her with logic and facts?

What I want to ask is, are you luring this poor girl into the snake pit with no anti-venom. Do you think she's fully aware of what she's up against?

I think she will be the toughest opponent as of yet. Dylan & Jason were easy, Fetzer... crazy. Diane has good argumentation, she is thorough and polite, it's not going to be a walk in the park like dismissing some "no plane" or Loose Change claims. She's by far the nicest truth movement representative I have ever had any interaction with. And she seems sincere. Although we very much disagree on almost every topic

I'm really looking forward to this. And I hope she will eventually switch sides

[uk_dave]

Why does she believe what she believes?

[ref]

Originally Posted by uk_dave

Why does she believe what she believes?

She sums it up in her blog post here:
http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/200...ous-about-911/

Even if one strongly disagrees with her, she still is the truther with one of the the best skills at defending her position I've seen.

Maybe this is the case Michael Shermer brought up in his revised edition of the book "Why People Believe Weird Things":

Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.

[uk_dave]

I don't see anything new in her blog. Just the same old speculation, hindsight and personal incredulity.

She may well be 'anti alex jones' and not buy all the illuminati/masonic rubbish spewed by the 'truth' movement, but she is hitting the fundamental problem which makes 9-11 'truth' an irrational position: Everyone has to be in on it.

'Truthers' embrace the NWO/Illuminati/Reptoid/Masonic BS because they have to. Without some all powerful cabal working behind the scenes to suppress the investigation they all so desperately want to see, there is no excuse for all this obvious evidence to go untouched by either the worlds media or the political opposition parties.

[ref]

Originally Posted by uk_dave

I don't see anything new in her blog. Just the same old speculation, hindsight and personal incredulity.

There is nothing new, and I'm not saying she knows any better than the next truther. But at least she is civil and can argument, and she does read and write more than a couple of nonsensical sentences.

That's about as good as a truther representative can get. In my opinion anyway.

[Max Photon]

No argument herement.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by ref

There is nothing new, and I'm not saying she knows any better than the next truther. But at least she is civil and can argument, and she does read and write more than a couple of nonsensical sentences.

That's about as good as a truther representative can get. In my opinion anyway.

She hasn't got a chance after reading her blog, that is clear her main argument is that she does not know like many in the truth movement she does not understand that the physical constants of the universe are against her.
She is relying on the flawed science of Jones, and Gage her only possible argument will be one of lack of knowledge.
That argument is flawed from the start, to bad she seems like such a reasonable person that she is taken in by the smoke and mirrors of the truth movement is sad.
She assumes a lot and much of what she assumes is dead wrong, that is easy to see.

[Max Photon]

Too funny.

Are you guys actually expecting that there are mere mortals walking around out there with unique, superior collapse-initiation models?


911-God

[T.A.M.]

The fact is that if someone is defending a position that is built around speculation and opinion only, there is no point in even arguing it...all you can say is

"that is your opinion, and I feel it is wrong. Back it up with evidence, or it is worthless as an argument."

TAM

[Swing Dangler]

I would suggest getting a neutral host on Hardfire for the debate. That might lead to greater interest in the debate from the Truth side.
Raise your hands if you think the BBC would show a balanced debate considering the last hit piece.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

I would suggest getting a neutral host on Hardfire for the debate. That might lead to greater interest in the debate from the Truth side.
Raise your hands if you think the BBC would show a balanced debate considering the last hit piece.

Why should it be on Hardfire at all? How about some neutral ground?

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by ref

She sums it up in her blog post here:
http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/200...ous-about-911/

Even if one strongly disagrees with her, she still is the truther with one of the the best skills at defending her position I've seen.

That's not saying much. I asked her twice if she could name a single significant claim that the truth movement gets right. Like every other truther I've asked, she couldn't or wouldn't.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

I would suggest getting a neutral host on Hardfire for the debate. That might lead to greater interest in the debate from the Truth side.
Raise your hands if you think the BBC would show a balanced debate considering the last hit piece.

It's so unfair that people who absolve the terrorists of the crimes of 9/11, and accuse the U.S. government of those crimes, and completely dismiss the results of all investigations without providing a shred of evidence to back their own claims, should be expected to answer questions about their claims.

Pity the poor, persecuted babies!

[chillzero]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

I would suggest getting a neutral host on Hardfire for the debate. That might lead to greater interest in the debate from the Truth side.
Raise your hands if you think the BBC would show a balanced debate considering the last hit piece.

Where would you ever find a person who has not formed any opinion one way or the other about what happened on 911?

I think the best solution is a host who is upfront about where their opinion lies, and who steps back from the discussion to allow the guests to debate with minimal intervention. And that is what I feel Ron achieved. In fact, he was more than fair with time allotted to the CT believers.

[jon]

Originally Posted by Gravy

It's so unfair that people who absolve the terrorists of the crimes of 9/11, and accuse the U.S. government of those crimes, and completely dismiss the results of all investigations without providing a shred of evidence to back their own claims, should be expected to answer questions about their claims.

Pity the poor, persecuted babies!

IIRC, the BBC let Dylan Avery speak for a fair amount of time. Didn't they?

Actually, on second thoughts - that was about the cruellest thing they could have done to the 'truth' movement

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by chillzero

Where would you ever find a person who has not formed any opinion one way or the other about what happened on 911?

I think the best solution is a host who is upfront about where their opinion lies, and who steps back from the discussion to allow the guests to debate with minimal intervention. And that is what I feel Ron achieved. In fact, he was more than fair with time allotted to the CT believers.

None of the participants on Ron's shows have complained about unfair treatment, and I was there when three of them (four if you count Korey Rowe) were asked that question.

The truthers create this objection simply because they're afraid. If they had confidence in their position, they'd be able to defend it in a fairly equal-time format like Hardfire.

[Swing Dangler]

Originally Posted by chillzero

Where would you ever find a person who has not formed any opinion one way or the other about what happened on 911?

I think the best solution is a host who is upfront about where their opinion lies, and who steps back from the discussion to allow the guests to debate with minimal intervention. And that is what I feel Ron achieved. In fact, he was more than fair with time allotted to the CT believers.

No, the best solution is to find a neutral host who can moderate the debate, keep track of an alloted time for comments and retorts, and remain completely neutral. Not only that, the opinion of the host should be unknown to the viewers and the presenters and should in no way be interpreted as support for one side or the other.

Hardfire, the only show were 1+1=3. Example, Fetzer versus Roberts (and Ron).

Quote:

Gravy-The truthers create this objection simply because they're afraid. If they had confidence in their position, they'd be able to defend it in a fairly equal-time format like Hardfire.

Yeah, thats why you have me on ignore after your debacle in the basement explosion thread. Afraid? Afraid of the unknown? How many people are even aware of this 'debate' proposal not including members of JREF?

If you want a debate I would recommend getting in contact with:
Col. Bowman who served as the Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. He also flew over 100 combat missions in Viet Nam as a fighter pilot.

or perhaps...

Dr. David Griscom who spent 33 years at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society. He was the recipient of the 1993 N.F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. He is the principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work highly cited by his peers.

or perhaps Edward S. Munyak, MS, PE, has over 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs. He is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities. He serves as a member of the Board of Directors for the Northern California - Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers. A Licensed Professional Mechanical Engineer and Fire Protection Engineer in the State of California, Mr. Munyak currently serves as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States.

Dwain Deets, MS, former Director, Aerospace Projects at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center,Mr. Deets also served as Director of the Research Engineering Division at Dryden. He is the recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988). He served at NASA for 37 years.

I'm sure you could find more at Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report, or more from the Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation, or from Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11, or perhaps someone from Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11.

I could go on and on of course. But how in you right mind can you state people are scared to confront you or appear on Hardfire. That is comical. How many "truthers" are even aware of this proposed debate as advertised on JREF? You think because no one has accepted the invitation that everyone involved with 9/11 Truth is afraid? JREF is quite the bastion of advertisement for a Hardfire debate now isn't it. I suggest spamming truther sides and emails requesting participants in a debate. You could ask yourself why no one from the 9/11 Commission will debate the truth movement and use that same reasoning as to why no one will debate on Hardfire. Have you sent a request to Scholars for 9/11 Truth?

I'm curious Mark, did your request to participate in the National 9/11 Debate get refused by the host? Did your even request to participate?

[chillzero]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

No, the best solution is to find a neutral host who can moderate the debate, keep track of an alloted time for comments and retorts, and remain completely neutral. Not only that, the opinion of the host should be unknown to the viewers and the presenters and should in no way be interpreted as support for one side or the other.

Hardfire, the only show were 1+1=3. Example, Fetzer versus Roberts (and Ron).

<snipped out stuff that should really be kept off the thread in the hopes that no further bickering occurs>

No - there have been more shows than that, and in the example you gave, Fetzer barely let anyone else get a word in. That's why I referred to how Ron was more than fair.

In any case, your timed and stifled debate is not the standard format followed by Hardfire, so is irrelevant, although I know other offers for this kind of debate have been made, and are still being refused by CTists. I prefer an honest host, and the clear attempts such as were made by Ron, to keep the show on track. Someone like Fetzer is never going to be appropriately constrained for the debate format you describe.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

Hardfire, the only show were 1+1=3. Example, Fetzer versus Roberts (and Ron).

Wrong.
Jamieson vs. Wieck
Avery & Bermas vs. Roberts & Wieck
Fetzer vs. Roberts & Wieck

None of those people had a problem with their treatment.

Feel free to raise money for any influential truther you think should appear on Hardfire.

Quote:

But how in you right mind can you state people are scared to confront you or appear on Hardfire. ?

1) People on your side who have agreed to be on Hardfire, then backed out:
Jim Hoffman
Korey Rowe
William Rodriguez
David Ray Griffin
Diane (last name?)

2) Rob Balsamo, head of Pilots for 9/11 truth, repeatedly agreed to debate me in another venue, then backed out.

3) Scholar for Truth "peer reviewer" and A&E member Tony Szamboti first accepted, then declined, my challenge to defend his paper in a written debate with me.

4) March, 2007: Kevin Ryan flees from my debate challenge, although I offer to let him chose the time, the place, the topics, and the moderators. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=81207

April, 2007: Kevin Ryan declines an invitation to debate me on the TV show "Hardfire" http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=12

July, 2007: Kevin Ryan says no one will debate him on Thom Hartmann's radio show – then flees and has me banned from 9/11blogger.com when I tell him that Hartmann's producer asked me if I'd do it and I immediately accepted http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=88469

5) I had agreed to do the "National Debate," but its organizers couldn't come up with a format, moderators, or the media panel they promised. There was talk (originated by Jim Fetzer, I believe) of moving it to my alma mater in New Hampshire, which I was all for, but which obviously didn't happen.

6) Jon Gold has apparently been running off at the mouth about debating me in 2008. Funny, I challenged him to a debate in 2007 and he ran away. Nor has he contacted me since. I guess I'm hard to find.

Your very best are utterly incompetent and can easily be destroyed by a tour guide. That's a fact you simply can't get around.

Quote:

I'm curious Mark, did your request to participate in the National 9/11 Debate get refused by the host? Did your even request to participate?

See above.

[Spins]

Originally Posted by Gravy

6) Jon Gold has apparently been running off at the mouth about debating me in 2008. Funny, I challenged him to a debate in 2007 and he ran away. Nor has he contacted me since. I guess I'm hard to find.

That doesn't surprise me in least after being humiliated on the Opie and Anthony show back in November 2004...

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/gold9472oanda1.mp3

[T.A.M.]

you know what Swing, Red:

I am usually quite open on the issue of both parties being allowed to air their view points, and I still am, but I have to say this is more of the same BS...

1. Ron is upfront with his views on the matter. Unlike most of the hosts that I have heard touted around by the truthers. These hosts claim to be neutral, but when you do some investigating, you soon find they are far from it.

2. I think the truth movement simply dislikes tasting their own medicine. They have no problem with getting on the AJ show, or other nutjob talk shows and spewing their nonsense...BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY WILL NOT BE CALLED ON IT!! But when the opportunity arises for them to go toe to toe with someone where they are going to have to back up their claims, and are going to be called out on their accusations both by their opponent and their host, well they all run for cover, or cry foul about how the host doesn't like them...

3. There have been many, MANY offers to debate online, to debate in a regulated forum where both sides can take their time and type out their arguments and rebuttals...yet what do we see from the TM leaders....NOTHING!!! Why? because when they cannot use the snake oil salesman's bag of tricks (moving goal posts, switching topics, obfuscation), they soon realize their BS amounts to just that, BS, and will be shown to be such.

TAM

[Swing Dangler]

Originally Posted by Gravy

Wrong.
Jamieson vs. Wieck
Avery & Bermas vs. Roberts & Wieck
Fetzer vs. Roberts & Wieck

None of those people had a problem with their treatment.

Feel free to raise money for any influential truther you think should appear on Hardfire.
I'm not the one calling for debate on Hardfire. Perhaps Ron can raise the money?

2) Rob Balsamo, head of Pilots for 9/11 truth, repeatedly agreed to debate me in another venue, then backed out.
Source?
3) Scholar for Truth "peer reviewer" and A&E member Tony Szamboti first accepted, then declined, my challenge to defend his paper in a written debate with me.
Source?

4) March, 2007: Kevin Ryan flees from my debate challenge, although I offer to let him chose the time, the place, the topics, and the moderators. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=81207 See below.

April, 2007: Kevin Ryan declines an invitation to debate me on the TV show "Hardfire" http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=12

July, 2007: Kevin Ryan says no one will debate him on Thom Hartmann's radio show – then flees and has me banned from 9/11blogger.com when I tell him that Hartmann's producer asked me if I'd do it and I immediately accepted http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=88469

He had you banned? From the read, it looks like Reprehensor banned you (I don't necessarily agree btw) because instead of answering the question he proposed you sent him on a goose chase through a cornucopia of links.

5) I had agreed to do the "National Debate," but its organizers couldn't come up with a format, moderators, or the media panel they promised. There was talk (originated by Jim Fetzer, I believe) of moving it to my alma mater in New Hampshire, which I was all for, but which obviously didn't happen.

6) Jon Gold has apparently been running off at the mouth about debating me in 2008. Funny, I challenged him to a debate in 2007 and he ran away. Nor has he contacted me since. I guess I'm hard to find.

Your very best are utterly incompetent and can easily be destroyed by a tour guide. That's a fact you simply can't get around.
LOL. How can you destroy something if you don't or can't encounter it?
I posted who I thought would be a good opponent.

See above.

I checked this source after searching through the gobblygook. To read up on the discussion between you and Ryan. I was sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for your answer to Ryan's question:

Quote:

Please tell me how much jet fuel was left remaining to feed the fires on the floors of impact and failure in either of the WTC towers....If you can answer this one simple question, I will again accept your challenge.

Quote:

Mark-I'll be glad to discuss fuel distribution in the towers on air. I'll let the producer know you've accepted....I discuss jet fuel dispersion in the towers at length in my William Rodriguez paper.

Mark-I was so hoping you would answer the challenge, but alas all you do is reference a discussion in a paper and then constrain the answer to an on air forum. But earlier in your discussion you state

Quote:

However, since I've previously said that I would debate you and allow you to choose the time, location, moderators, and debate subjects, of course I have no problem constraining the discussion to the subjects you're comfortable with.

Did you ever think that the lack of such a simple answer and the change in the conditions you agreed to is a good indication it would be a waste of time to debate you? Yet the answer to the simple question is turned around and limited to "on air" and a response found in a conglomeration of links? LOL. No wonder Ryan gave up on you.

Instead of a straight forward answer, you give a reference to your Willie paper by definition a coy response. Granted I don't think that should have gotten you banned. Well I went to the Willie links and did a quick search for dispersion. No results. Hmm tried again with jet fuel. No results. Lets try floors. Bingo! Oh wait I have to open an account with the New York Times to find an answer that should have been given rather expediently by you. The same thing with the term "jet". Wait, this isn't a Mark Robert's answer as per the request! As I continue to read the blogger entry...4 hours later in the discussion and still no answer, Mark? How can the debaters take you seriously?

Based upon your response above and the blog in question, I can now see why they don't want to debate you. You didn't write the NIST report!
Not because they are 'afraid'. He/they wanted to debate the authors of the report, not a tour guide who doesn't know or can't find the answer to a simple question.. I think your ego is getting the best of you, Mark, but your spin on the facts has actually improved.

Just a suggestion, perhaps you can organize your research into say chapters instead of questions. I can't find anywhere in that paper where you answered Mr. Ryan's question directly. Why the coy response?

This request here
is addressed to Ryan. Why not get his email and ask him directly instead of posting the request at JREF. I've had no problems emailing him. Why limit your request to JREF only.

And the greatest suggestion yet, petition the authors of NIST to debate these so called 'nut jobs' to shut them up once and for all. Are engineering journals or the mainstream media for that matter going to give a rats ass about a tour guide defending an engineering report put out by the U.S. government?

By the way did you ever answer Ryan's question anywhere?

Quote:

TAM-3. There have been many, MANY offers to debate online, to debate in a regulated forum where both sides can take their time and type out their arguments and rebuttals...yet what do we see from the TM leaders....NOTHING!!! Why? because when they cannot use the snake oil salesman's bag of tricks (moving goal posts, switching topics, obfuscation), they soon realize their BS amounts to just that, BS, and will be shown to be such.

High Tam!

Actually if you pay attention, the leaders of the truth movement don't need to debate "debunkers".

They want to debate those responsible for the official story whether it be the authors of NIST or the 9/11 Commission, etc.
As the forum for debunkers, I would encourage all of you to petition the United States Government and its relevant agencies to either debate the leaders of 9/11 Truth in an open forum or request from the USG the right to officially represent them in a debate. Anything else is a waste of time for 9/11 Truth versus 9/11 Debunker Debates.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

They want to debate those responsible for the official story whether it be the authors of NIST or the 9/11 Commission, etc.
As the forum for debunkers, I would encourage all of you to petition the United States Government and its relevant agencies to either debate the leaders of 9/11 Truth in an open forum or request from the USG the right to officially represent them in a debate. Anything else is a waste of time for 9/11 Truth versus 9/11 Debunker Debates.

Frankly, if your evidence was half as solid as your movement claims it is, this wouldn't be necessary--legitimate news organizations from around the world would be clamoring to be first to get the story of the millennium.

The fact is nobody will listen to you, be it NIST, the 911 Commission, the mainstream media, or any legitimate scholarly or scientific organization. I'm not sure why YOU think that is, but I'm sure whatever it is, it doesn't reflect the truth.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

I checked this source after searching through the gobblygook. To read up on the discussion between you and Ryan. I was sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for your answer to Ryan's question:

Still delusional, I see. Try reading these posts for comprehension.

July, 2007: Kevin Ryan says no one will debate him on Thom Hartmann's radio show – then flees and has me banned from 9/11blogger.com when I tell him that Hartmann's producer asked me if I'd do it and I immediately accepted.

December, 2007: Ryan lies about how hard it was to find someone to debate him on the Hartmann show.

Quote:

This request here
is addressed to Ryan. Why not get his email and ask him directly instead of posting the request at JREF. I've had no problems emailing him. Why limit your request to JREF only.

I did. He did not reply.

Quote:

And the greatest suggestion yet, petition the authors of NIST to debate these so called 'nut jobs' to shut them up once and for all. Are engineering journals or the mainstream media for that matter going to give a rats ass about a tour guide defending an engineering report put out by the U.S. government?

Why would NIST debate these fools when a tour guide can easily defeat them?

Quote:

By the way did you ever answer Ryan's question anywhere?

I thought you said you'd read my Rodriguez paper? Obviously not. And you're welcome to check my posts here from the day before Ryan ran away, in particular a response to Heiwa about fuel dispersion in the towers, which I also informed Ryan of.

Quote:

Actually if you pay attention, the leaders of the truth movement don't need to debate "debunkers".

They want to debate those responsible for the official story whether it be the authors of NIST or the 9/11 Commission, etc.

You're absolutely right: as I said to Ryan, the leaders of the "truth" movement will only challenge people to a debate who they know have a policy of not debating.

That's because they're sad, intellectual cowards. How does it feel to be their follower? Proud of yourself?

[chillzero]

With less subtlety this time. Please stop the bickering, and keep this thread on topic. It isn't about previous challenges to debate and how they turned out.

Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:chillzero

[T.A.M.]

Swing:

believe what you want.

My opinion, they are simply afraid.

I would love to see Gage versus any member of the NIST team, or even S. Jones against them, on a single debate covering one topic (relevant to their expertise). The snake oil salesmen want to take on the experts because they have no intention of debating with said experts on an issue they are an expert in. The truther leaders/salesmen thrive on the snake oil bag of tricks, as I have mentioned before.

Without being able to move the goal posts, change topics, or whine about coincidences, Gage, Jones, Griffin, would be useless against any of them.

The reason they won't debate Mark, is such an event would make them look like idiots to their adoring fans/cult followers, who would be horrified to watch, but would none the less.

TAM