Merged: 9/11 Physics Debate: Any Takers?/Dr Griscom Wins

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by beachnut

How in the world would a movement based on lies be called truth?

правда

[Jim_MDP]

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

правда

I don't read Cyrillic, but I bet I can guess what that says.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by Jim_MDP

I don't read Cyrillic, but I bet I can guess what that says.

Think RT.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

правда

Quote:

Pravda
And they say...
We will speak the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for you.

Think what the world would be like if 911 truth ruled the world...

I would be in the 911 truth fema camps - the torture would be required to read aloud 911 truth claims... Those targeted for special treament...

You are given the choice, death or debate Griscom.
You pick death, knowing the Gish Gallop of debating Griscom is cruel torture.

They decree, death by debating Griscom.
fate... (yep, stole the joke, death by booga, booga)

[chrismohr]

Here is the public challenge that was just issued yesterday:

There is one week to go until the scheduled debate on Kevin Barrett's show
on March 15, 2014 at noon Eastern Standard Time.
www.911Debate.org

Please send the top 3 candidates you have with a PhD in Physics
and Hirsch Index > 50 so we can send the invitations in time.

From what you say, there are many PhDs in Physics on the side of the
official government story - in fact every one in the world who is not
affiliated with 9/11 Truth. So that would be thousands.
Feel free to call on our friends at JREF to submit qualified nominees.

So please just pick 3 for now so we can find out who is available.
PhDs in Physics are busy. There is much to be done,
such as making sure the PhD is set up with Skype,
and agreeing on a specific time for the calls.

The proposed debate question is:

Resolved:

1) The laws of physics were broken by the official story and we need a new investigation
or
2) The laws were not broken, and everything was explainable. The 9/11 Commission Report is fine as is.

The debate will be 2 hours with three 10 minute breaks every half hour for a total time of 1.5 hours.

Kevin is very experienced in holding such events, and conferencing people together.
The debate will be recorded so that everyone can benefit from the knowledge
and interesting discussion that will surely be heard.

It should be an interesting debate. May both sides learn a lot from each other.

[Stamuel]

A Hirsch index of 50 means the researcher has 50 publications that have been cited at least 50 times in others' work. Tough requirement to meet. The creator of the index estimates:

Quote:

Based on his calculations, Hirsch suggests that, for physicists, a value for h of about 12 might be a useful guideline for tenure decisions at major research universities. A value of about 18 could mean a full professorship, 15–20 could mean a fellowship in the American Physical Society, and 45 or higher could mean membership in the National Academy of Sciences.

The chance that a physicist of such stature would waste time debating crazy engineering claims and random tiny details of the NIST reports is low.

(Quote is from here: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/rating-researchers)

[Spanx]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Here is the public challenge that was just issued yesterday:

There is one week to go until the scheduled debate on Kevin Barrett's show
on March 15, 2014 at noon Eastern Standard Time.
www.911Debate.org

Please send the top 3 candidates you have with a PhD in Physics
and Hirsch Index > 50 so we can send the invitations in time.

From what you say, there are many PhDs in Physics on the side of the
official government story - in fact every one in the world who is not
affiliated with 9/11 Truth. So that would be thousands.
Feel free to call on our friends at JREF to submit qualified nominees.

So please just pick 3 for now so we can find out who is available.
PhDs in Physics are busy. There is much to be done,
such as making sure the PhD is set up with Skype,
and agreeing on a specific time for the calls.

The proposed debate question is:

Resolved:

1) The laws of physics were broken by the official story and we need a new investigation
or
2) The laws were not broken, and everything was explainable. The 9/11 Commission Report is fine as is.

The debate will be 2 hours with three 10 minute breaks every half hour for a total time of 1.5 hours.

Kevin is very experienced in holding such events, and conferencing people together.
The debate will be recorded so that everyone can benefit from the knowledge
and interesting discussion that will surely be heard.

It should be an interesting debate. May both sides learn a lot from each other.

Hi Chris,
Do you know where this debate is being promoted ?

Is Jref really the right place to find the participants they require ?

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Resolved:

1) The laws of physics were broken by the official story and we need a new investigation
or
2) The laws were not broken, and everything was explainable. The 9/11 Commission Report is fine as is.

Why give any credence to such an obvious truther styled false dichotomy? Very few JREFers would fall for the trap.

Originally Posted by chrismohr

It should be an interesting debate. May both sides learn a lot from each other.

How could it be of any interest given that the true position is specifically excluded?

Anyone occupying either of those two false positions is unlikely to be amenable to leaning from the other.

[chrismohr]

Spanx, my suspicion is that we are being set up so we fail to find anyone who will debate, and then they will use that as evidence that our "common narrative" position is not so common. I hope they prove me wrong. JREF would be the best place to find SOMEONE to debate Dr. Griscom, since a physicist of high stature who has not looked into 9/11 details would not be prepared to answer Griscom's claims on the fly. I'm guessing we're the target of most of the promotion. I think it may well be possible to find someone here, say, Dave Thomas, with debating exprerience, who is fully qualified to respond to the rather basic physics claims being made by Dr. Griscom.

There are lots of problems with this. Kevin Barrett is not doing a radio show for physicists. It's for laypeople. A full-on debate between two physicists for two hours would make for DREADFUL radio (I know, I've been a radio host since 1978 and published a national radio magazine). So, let's say I debated Griscom. He could overwhelm me with physics claims I would be unable to respond to. So I would lose. Dave Thomas could probably hold his own very well, but they are setting up the rules so that he is unqualified. Dave could do a great job. But they win because they have a way of keeping him out. To my knowledge, no one who might qualify has made it their avocation to carefully study 9/11 Truth claims. So we lose. Might as well say it in advance and be the first person to concede defeat before they claim victory.

[carlitos]

These guys are hilarious. They can't even construct a cogent debate topic. The 9/11 Commission Report didn't have anything to do with physics.

This made me laugh:

Originally Posted by chrismohr

three 10 minute breaks every half hour

Kevin Barrett is a tool.

[Spanx]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Spanx, my suspicion is that we are being set up so we fail to find anyone who will debate, and then they will use that as evidence that our "common narrative" position is not so common. I hope they prove me wrong. JREF would be the best place to find SOMEONE to debate Dr. Griscom, since a physicist of high stature who has not looked into 9/11 details would not be prepared to answer Griscom's claims on the fly. I'm guessing we're the target of most of the promotion. I think it may well be possible to find someone here, say, Dave Thomas, with debating exprerience, who is fully qualified to respond to the rather basic physics claims being made by Dr. Griscom.

There are lots of problems with this. Kevin Barrett is not doing a radio show for physicists. It's for laypeople. A full-on debate between two physicists for two hours would make for DREADFUL radio (I know, I've been a radio host since 1978 and published a national radio magazine). So, let's say I debated Griscom. He could overwhelm me with physics claims I would be unable to respond to. So I would lose. Dave Thomas could probably hold his own very well, but they are setting up the rules so that he is unqualified. Dave could do a great job. But they win because they have a way of keeping him out. To my knowledge, no one who might qualify has made it their avocation to carefully study 9/11 Truth claims. So we lose. Might as well say it in advance and be the first person to concede defeat before they claim victory.

Well, if nobody joins their debate ? Perhaps they could fill their time by answering a few questions.

http://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/...iority-complex

[DGM]

Originally Posted by carlitos

These guys are hilarious. They can't even construct a cogent debate topic. The 9/11 Commission Report didn't have anything to do with physics.

They figure everyone is too stupid to notice. It has to do with the company they keep.

[pgimeno]

Debate between PhDs judged by the public??????

It's like requiring the contestants of a mud fight to wear their own jewelry with 24k gold and 10AGS diamonds.

It's still a mud fight.

[pgimeno]

Now, if the contest was over the jewelry and the judges were truly independent and agreed jewelry referees instead... things might be different.

Or without the metaphor: to present the debate to a group of independent and agreed scientists to judge it on the technical merits.

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

[Richard Dawkins'] position on debating creationists is directly analogous to debating truthers...viz:

There is no "both sides" to the alleged "creationism v evolutionary biology" "debate". The evolutionary biology side is a compete scientific theory backed by overwhelming aspects of accepted science from multiple fields. There is no such basis for "creationism". The only purpose of creationists seeking to debate Dawkins (and other eminent scientists) is to give pseudo credibility to the creationists from appearing opposite the legitimate scientist on the debating platform. They are well aware that they would not win any points in the debate - the goal is simply to appear on the platform so that they can misrepresent that appearance.

Incidentally, and sorry for the topic drift, that's also the reason why I think Dr. Millette should NOT publish his findings. Currently it has the audience it deserves, and things are good as they are. Publishing the paper would be one more excuse to add more fuel to the fire by publishing rebuttal papers, maybe in more serious publications, and get more and more undeserved attention.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Might as well say it in advance and be the first person to concede defeat before they claim victory.

What do they win? They still have the same arguments that no one has paid attention to for years. The best they can hope for is to convince some people that wanted to believe anyway.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by tsig

I don't think I could debate calmly anyone who would write this:

An underlying postulate, or working hypothesis, of my Pentagon-model precedent was
that the passengers on AA-77 volunteered to feign their deaths in return for cushy
“witness protection” program


Later modified to:

In earlier versions of this hypothesis, I supposed that all passengers were co-conspirators,
who would have been sent on their separate ways to tropical islands or mountaintop
retreats of their choices. Subsequently, it was suggested to me that the head conspirators
might not have had complete trust in everyone privy to the conspiracy. Thus, while
promising a cushy “witness protection program” to every co-conspirator ordered to board
one of these flights on the morning of 9/11/01, it seems very possible that the leaders
shunted aside and murdered those they considered less trustworthy. Moreover, on study
of the occupations and travel priorities of some of the people on the passenger and cabin-
crew lists of the 9/11 “hijacked” jetliners, I now believe that a number of innocent people
were allowed to board these flights as well ...and that
all
of these innocents were
murdered
.

That's a whole sank of nuttery right there.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

It should be an interesting debate.

Sorry to be so blunt, but verbal debates over matters of fact are fatuous.

At best, facts win the day. At worst, well-presented delusions can appear to win the day.

I wouldn't touch such a thing with a bargepole.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Here is the public challenge that was just issued yesterday:

There is one week to go until the scheduled debate on Kevin Barrett's show
on March 15, 2014 at noon Eastern Standard Time.
www.911Debate.org

Please send the top 3 candidates you have with a PhD in Physics
and Hirsch Index > 50 so we can send the invitations in time.

From what you say, there are many PhDs in Physics on the side of the
official government story - in fact every one in the world who is not
affiliated with 9/11 Truth. So that would be thousands.
Feel free to call on our friends at JREF to submit qualified nominees.

So please just pick 3 for now so we can find out who is available.
PhDs in Physics are busy. There is much to be done,
such as making sure the PhD is set up with Skype,
and agreeing on a specific time for the calls.

The proposed debate question is:

Resolved:

1) The laws of physics were broken by the official story and we need a new investigation
or
2) The laws were not broken, and everything was explainable. The 9/11 Commission Report is fine as is.

The debate will be 2 hours with three 10 minute breaks every half hour for a total time of 1.5 hours.

Kevin is very experienced in holding such events, and conferencing people together.
The debate will be recorded so that everyone can benefit from the knowledge
and interesting discussion that will surely be heard.

It should be an interesting debate. May both sides learn a lot from each other.

Where was this issued? Is this an email? Kevin is very experienced in spreading lies and idiotic claptrap.

LOL, how can you break the laws of physics on a macro event like 911? An idiotic statement which no physicist except 911 truth nuts will touch; it make no sense.

Quote:

1) The laws of physics were broken by the official story and we need a new investigation.

What a delusional statement, and you should respond to the idiot who made up 1) and tell them it is fantasy at face value. They make up the "laws of physics were broken" and that fails out of the box.

Griscom is not a physicist for the debate, he is full blown nuts on 911.

If Griscom had some evidence or rational claims, they would be on 60 Minutes long ago. He and Barrett are BS artists, spreading their idiotic claims with fake debates.

"laws of physics were broken" is the red flag of woo, and Barrett is woo.


Where did you find this information? Was it emailed to you?


Love that super person Kevin Barrett who is so intellectual...

Quote:

PS Three cowardly UW-Madison professors - Donald Downs, Ann Althouse, and Marshall Onellian - have insulted me in the media, but chickened out of my challenge to debate. (As has State Rep. Steve Nass.) Please contact them and urge them to debate Dr. Kevin Barrett on 9/11.

An immature conspiracy theorist too chicken to sign up at JREF because he knows he is the personification of BS on 911 issues.

What does Kevin Barrett say, "if you don't debate me, Kevin Barrett the truth Jihad man of woo, you are a coward; nah nah nah"

[George 152]

Originally Posted by carlitos

These guys are hilarious. They can't even construct a cogent debate topic. The 9/11 Commission Report didn't have anything to do with physics.

This made me laugh:




Kevin Barrett is a tool.

Well you have to admit theres plenty of time (30 minutes in every half hour) at their 'meetings' to accomplish something of merit

[HotRodDeluxe]

What a con. With an audience of truthers deciding the outcome, no sane physicist would be gullible enough to enter into this obvious setup. However, with no-one stupid enough to accept this moronic challenge, the truther fruit bats will still claim victory and use it for propaganda purposes.
It's all rather pathetic, but sadly typical of their tactics.

[beachnut]

This is the best Kevin Barrett has on 911.

Quote:

"If you are not aware that you're covering up for that traitor and mass murderer and yes insurance fraudster Silverstein, you'll figure it out when you're beside him on the scaffold. I'll be saving this email as evidence for your trial." – Kevin Barrett, "Scholar For 9/11 Truth"

To Gravy with love from Kevin.

[HotRodDeluxe]

Originally Posted by beachnut

This is the best Kevin Barrett has on 911.



To Gravy with love from Kevin.

That's a 9/11 scholar?



Sounds more like the raving and drooling of a lunatic.

[chrismohr]

"To Gravy from Kevin," WOW. What a letter Beachnut. Pretty chilling. And yes, the debate challenges were emailed to me. I don't even know if anyone else got it. On posts 1 and 45, I just "passed the word" without comment. Other posts (like this one) I share my rather low opinion of what looks like a setup. Which is why I admit utter defeat from the get-go.

With one litytle caveat: why, when I first explored the collapse of the WTC buildings, was I unable to find a single physicist who aghreed with even a single element of the 9/11 Truth assertions? Of the 14 physicists who were willing to talk with me personally, 14 said there was plenty of energy to bring the buildings down via natural collapse once initiation began. Then I went onto physics chat rooms. Several physicists answered my questions. EVERY SINGLE ONE of them was in general alignment with the common narrative of natural collapse. So after talking personally to over 20 ransom physicists, why couldn't I find a single physicist who doubted the main elements of the common narrative?

Oh, and when I talked to structural engineers, architects, other kinds of engineers, all kinds of experts NOT in JREF, just local professors etc. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, without fail, agreed with the major outlines of the common narrative of natural collapse.

Why is there such vast consensus among real experts about what caused the WTC buildings to collapse? And if you think that this is some stunning coincidence, then why is the list of people whose papers support some element of the natural collapse theory so vast? http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=5543

These are the questions this ignorant English major marrying minister would like to ask Dr. Griscom. Oh, and one last one: since so many respected evolutionary scientists refuse to debate creationists, does that make creationists right? Or do they not want to waste their time?

[JSanderO]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

These are the questions this ignorant English major marrying minister would like to ask Dr. Griscom. Oh, and one last one: since so many respected evolutionary scientists refuse to debate creationists, does that make creationists right? Or do they not want to waste their time?

I think they don't want to waste their time and dignify the truthers by appearing with a legitimate professional.

One aspect of 9/11 and the way truthers are is that there enormous amounts of details and flat out assertions which are not true. Their observations are largely wrong in significant way. And they pop from one so called anomaly to another as if their mis observations represent some manner of proof that the event had a CD cause.

Let them make a complete detailed consistent affirmative case regardless and irrespective what NIST said or didn't say and link it to all observations.

They can't.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

"To Gravy from Kevin," WOW. What a letter Beachnut. Pretty chilling. And yes, the debate challenges were emailed to me. I don't even know if anyone else got it. On posts 1 and 45, I just "passed the word" without comment. Other posts (like this one) I share my rather low opinion of what looks like a setup. Which is why I admit utter defeat from the get-go.

In no way is avoiding a con-trick scam a "defeat".

Originally Posted by chrismohr

With one little caveat: why, when I first explored the collapse of the WTC buildings, was I unable to find a single physicist who agreed with even a single element of the 9/11 Truth assertions? Of the 14 physicists who were willing to talk with me personally, 14 said there was plenty of energy to bring the buildings down via natural collapse once initiation began.

Recognise that most academics accepted the B&Z 2001/2 energy explanation as sufficient. and that is the position your 14 were coming from. Later research - possibly led by members of this forum plus The911Forum - has explained the actual collapse mechanisms in significant detail. BUT there is still a big distinction between "real collapse explainers" and those relying on Bazantian abstractions. BOTH are correct - B&Z is sufficient for most professionals - the details of the real event are irrelevant to them and the main interest here is in the professionally unimportant activity of discussion with truthers and trolls.;

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Then I went onto physics chat rooms. Several physicists answered my questions. EVERY SINGLE ONE of them was in general alignment with the common narrative of natural collapse. So after talking personally to over 20 ransom physicists, why couldn't I find a single physicist who doubted the main elements of the common narrative?

There is no doubt. There is no "two sides". The analogy to "creationism" is accurate. There is no interest in serious discussion of truther nonsense outside these narrow foci of forums and similar "meeting places". The "real world" isn't so stupid as to care. Put simply we could well be the fools for continuing to entertain the remnant trolls of 911 Truth - given that most "Genuine Truthers" learned the real truths a long time ago and the remaining few are almost certainly beyond rational help.

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Oh, and when I talked to structural engineers, architects, other kinds of engineers, all kinds of experts NOT in JREF, just local professors etc. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, without fail, agreed with the major outlines of the common narrative of natural collapse.

Why is there such vast consensus among real experts about what caused the WTC buildings to collapse?

you know the answer Chris! There is not and never has been the slightest doubt about the "major outlines".

Originally Posted by chrismohr

And if you think that this is some stunning coincidence, then why is the list of people whose papers support some element of the natural collapse theory so vast?

Your conditional "if" clause is wrong. So the question is without foundation.

Originally Posted by chrismohr

...These are the questions this ignorant English major marrying minister would like to ask Dr. Griscom.

Ask yourself "Why do I want to ask him?" IF it is in hope of him doing a Saul on the way to Damascus - don't waste your time.. 911 truth is continually adding to the small number of aged professionals who for whatever deep need of ego stroking OR attention seeking OR self worth OR....etc -- are prepared to sacrifice all their professional integrity - Jones, Harrit, Griscom.

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Oh, and one last one: since so many respected evolutionary scientists refuse to debate creationists, does that make creationists right? Or do they not want to waste their time?

Your ironic statement of the logical error understood. Dawkins enunciation of his stand probably fits most genuine professionals - whether in "creationism" or "9/11 Truth" - "They" are after publicity and the pseudo credibility of appearing on the same platform and thereby falsely appearing to have equal credibility with the genuine professional person of esteemed status. There simply is no "second side" of creationism worthy of debate alongside evolutionary biology NOR of "Truther style Truth" alongside the real situation with 9/11 matters in those four/five main areas of technical claims.

Since they are untruthful - whether liars OR obsessed believers - why give them the publicity or credibility for their false ideas?

[chrismohr]

You're right Ozeco41, of course. As I've said before, I don't think a marrying minister debating 9/11 Truth people gives them a very big platform to stand on. The value of this is that my YouTube videos have been watched by over 100,000 people, and when I debarted publicly against Gage, twice as many people in the audience shifted towards my position and away from Gage's as the other way around. You may know the old adaged that the best person to teach a five year old how to tie his shoes is a six-year-old! But... I'm wrapping this up soon. Past time to move on, and after this last YouTube video and some responses to the inevitable reactions, I think my work here is mostly finished.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

You're right Ozeco41, of course. As I've said before, I don't think a marrying minister debating 9/11 Truth people gives them a very big platform to stand on. The value of this is that my YouTube videos have been watched by over 100,000 people, and when I debarted publicly against Gage, twice as many people in the audience shifted towards my position and away from Gage's as the other way around. You may know the old adaged that the best person to teach a five year old how to tie his shoes is a six-year-old! But... I'm wrapping this up soon. Past time to move on, and after this last YouTube video and some responses to the inevitable reactions, I think my work here is mostly finished.

If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche

[JSanderO]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

You're right Ozeco41, of course. As I've said before, I don't think a marrying minister debating 9/11 Truth people gives them a very big platform to stand on. The value of this is that my YouTube videos have been watched by over 100,000 people, and when I debarted publicly against Gage, twice as many people in the audience shifted towards my position and away from Gage's as the other way around. You may know the old adaged that the best person to teach a five year old how to tie his shoes is a six-year-old! But... I'm wrapping this up soon. Past time to move on, and after this last YouTube video and some responses to the inevitable reactions, I think my work here is mostly finished.

Thanks Chris! You pretty much demolished Gage's arguments. Well done. I think most of their talking points.. so called anomalies have all been explained. No... they were not fires from a few file cabinets but major fires over hundreds of thousands of square feet with no fire suppression. The effect of fire on steel is an established fact. The frame was stressed, members shifted, warped and connections failed and the integrity and capacity of the structures were lost.. and gravity took over and collapsed them. The stupid argument of the small block being unable to destroy the much stronger one shows the complete lack of understanding of the structure and basic physics. One the truther side embraces such obviously flawed thinking and junk science it's a waste of time to debate... science versus astrology.

Sadly there are persistent loud mouths that carry on for ego and cash... and without someone to point this out the naive public can be swayed as the are by things like scientology and other irrational belief systems. No scientists bother to debate scientology nor religions. They have serious work to do.

And like with scientology or creationism it is sad to see how intelligent people can be so stupid.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

The proposed debate question is:

Resolved:

1) The laws of physics were broken by the official story and we need a new investigation
or
2) The laws were not broken, and everything was explainable. The 9/11 Commission Report is fine as is.

Removing everything that is unsalvageable as part of a valid debate proposition, we get

Resolved: ...a new investigation...

Adding in some necessary and clear context, we get

Resolved: [There should be] a new investigation [of 9/11].

However, this still isn't a valid proposition, because it's a passive wish (a la "There should be world peace") rather than a course of action. That might be fixable by:

Resolved: [Someone] should act to bring about a new investigation of 9/11.

Now all they need to do is fill in the [Someone]. The U.S. Congress? The United Nations? The NYC bureau of licensing and inspections? Some private group?

Once that's done, I could debate either side of it (which, I am given to understand, is generally true among competitive debaters for a debate premise that is both valid and at least somewhat interesting), and none of my arguments either way would depend on knowledge of physics.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[carlitos]

I'd love to hear how a story broke the laws of physics. Was it written in a font smaller than a Planck or what?

[cjnewson88]

Originally Posted by carlitos

These guys are hilarious. They can't even construct a cogent debate topic. The 9/11 Commission Report didn't have anything to do with physics.

lol that's exactly what I thought when I read that. Hilarious.

[Dog Town]

Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe

That's a 9/11 scholar?



Sounds more like the raving and drooling of a lunatic.

Well...they're NOT mutually exclusive.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

"To Gravy from Kevin," WOW. What a letter Beachnut. Pretty chilling.

Barrett's had half of the world up on his imaginary scaffold at one time or another. Let's remember too that participating in this debate means accepting a moderator who's also a Holocaust denier.

[Muc]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Please send the top 3 candidates you have with a PhD in Physics and Hirsch Index > 50 so we can send the invitations in time.

From what you say, there are many PhDs in Physics on the side of the official government story - in fact every one in the world who is not affiliated with 9/11 Truth. So that would be thousands. Feel free to call on our friends at JREF to submit qualified nominees.

So please just pick 3 for now so we can find out who is available. PhDs in Physics are busy. There is much to be done, such as making sure the PhD is set up with Skype, and agreeing on a specific time for the calls.

Maybe this statement could be taken slightly more seriously if they themselves were able to find just ONE more candidate on the 9/11 Truth side who fits those requirements, which were obviously taylored after Griscom's CV for this silly little game they are trying to play. I dare to bet that there is none.

[Frishman]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Dr. David Griscom...blah blah blah

The 9/11 Physics Debate is about physics, not what happened to the passengers. I do not find any reference of his hypothesis (not a conclusion) on any web site or journal with his name on it that is within the past few years (2011-2014). Scientists change their hypothesis with the results of scientific research. Besides, the topic is the "9/11 Physics Debate" on March 15 at 12:00 noon EST.

How is it coming on picking a contender? There are 24 hours to go until high noon on the Ides of March. It must be difficult to choose from the "hundreds of top scientists", surpassing Dr. Griscom's credentials, who support the official government story of 9/11, ready to defend the NEOCT. What's the matter, are they unpatriotic?

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Frishman

How is it coming on picking a contender?

How's it coming finding a physics topic to debate?

No one is going to waste time on this.

[phunk]

You can't debate physics in that format. You can't do the math and show your work, let alone give people time to double check any of it, in a verbal debate.

And the audience is guaranteed to be loaded with truthers, so having them decide the "winner" seems just slightly biased.

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Frishman

The 9/11 Physics Debate is about physics, not what happened to the passengers. I do not find any reference of his hypothesis (not a conclusion) on any web site or journal with his name on it that is within the past few years (2011-2014). Scientists change their hypothesis with the results of scientific research. Besides, the topic is the "9/11 Physics Debate" on March 15 at 12:00 noon EST.

How is it coming on picking a contender? There are 24 hours to go until high noon on the Ides of March. It must be difficult to choose from the "hundreds of top scientists", surpassing Dr. Griscom's credentials, who support the official government story of 9/11, ready to defend the NEOCT. What's the matter, are they unpatriotic?

It is coming great. How are you coming with supporting your conclusion that Griscom changed his "hypothesis" that the passengers are still alive.

Or, ya know, as pointed out before, finding a "physics" topic to discuss?

I do have a concern that the type of listeners that listen to Kevin the Holocaust denier Barrett are going to be very disappointed to learn that no one wanted to debate Griscom on a lunatic's radio show.

[Frishman]

Originally Posted by DGM

How's it coming finding a physics topic to debate?
No one is going to waste time on this.

Physics is a wide open topic. Surely Dr. Griscom and your physicist can work it out. Everyone will learn something more, which is the goal of debate.

Originally Posted by phunk

You can't debate physics in that format...And the audience is guaranteed to be loaded with truthers, so having them decide the "winner" seems just slightly biased.

How did you determine that that is "guaranteed"? Responsible weathermen and stock brokers, relying on sophisticated models, are careful about making guarantees. As for the number in the audience for the Debate, won't you guys support your physicist? I seem to be outnumbered here, but truth gives me the advantage. The audience could be loaded with Falsers.

Originally Posted by 16.5

It is coming great. How are you coming with supporting your conclusion that Griscom changed his "hypothesis" that the passengers are still alive.

You are the one making the allegation, so it is your responsibility to prove it. A hypothesis an explanation to be tested, to see if it holds true or not.

You are against making hypotheses? Thomas Edison made over 1000 hypotheses, trying every element and combinations from A to Z, from "Alumnium will glow" to "Zinc will glow" until he found that "Tungsten will glow."

Who are your Top Takers for the 9/11 Debate?