Challenge to conspiracy "debunkers"

[Mike Stephens]

Since I can't post a linc try
tvnewsliesdotorg

Challenge above, excerpt below.

Quote:

This message is addressed to all the deniers and nay sayers who have spent almost six years swearing to the lies of the official story of 9/11. It is high time to throw down the gauntlet and dare you to confront the questions that have to be answered. Consider it done

You won’t let us speak to you in public and you won’t attend our events. So tell me, who exactly is running and hiding…and why? It sure as hell is not any of us in the 9/11 truth movement. We’ve been out there with the facts and evidence just waiting for you to respond and show us where we are wrong and you are right, face to face and in public! Not one of you has ever responded and we’re damn tired of waiting.

And so, there really is only one way to go right now: the 9/11 discussion either has to end immediately or it has to go public full force! I am personally calling out the people who continue to cling to the official story! Bring your experts, bring the 9/11 Commission, bring your debunkers and openly debate me and the team I put together. If you hear us out and answer our questions honestly in a public and open forum, we’ll go away! If not, we want mainstream televised coverage of the research we have done.

http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=597
Looks like they actually welcome critical thinking there.

Please review the Membership Agreement: "The JREF has adopted a policy of considering all published material copyrighted, including articles, images and other media, it is not the responsibility of the JREF to determine whether or not the work is in the public domain or if the work may be republished without explicit permission of the copyright holder. Copyrighted content may be posted within the doctrine of "fair use" therefore quoting of brief portions of articles, books, emails, or bulletin board messages, relevant to discussion, is permitted. All quoted material should be credited to the original author or publisher and a link provided (when available) to the original work. It is not possible to declare precisely how much material may be quoted, as it will vary from article to article. We suggest quoting no more than a paragraph. Authors of copyrighted material may post their own work, provided they hold publishing rights to the material. "

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

[Gravy]

I meet conspiracy believers face to face. I did so again yesterday. I'm debating Jim Fetzer next week.

Your post is silly and contains blatant falsehoods. "Hijacker identity issue!" Please get a grip on reality. It's the conspiracists who are intellectual cowards. We prove it all the time.

Edit: Are you claiming that Jesse of TVnewslies has access to airtime on Larry King, Oprah, Regis, etc.? If so, count me in. I'll gladly debate any prominent 9/11 conspiracist on national TV. Any day.

Clear enough?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

RE: "If you refuse this challenge, your silence will show that you have no explanations and no defense to support the official story of 9/11. If you refuse to respond, you lose by default. Simple as that."

Quote:

Argumentum ad ignorantiam
The argument from ignorance usually involves assuming that something is true because it has not yet been proven false. For example:

You say that faeries don't exist, but you can't prove that they don't.

The implicit idea at work is that since the existence of faeries has (allegedly) not been disproved, it follows that they do exist. This is not relevant, however: that this disproof has not been forthcoming says nothing about actual existence or otherwise. Even if nothing disproving faeries ever comes about, this cannot form the basis of a proof of their reality.
To see some of the issues involved in the argument from ignorance, we can also look at a more involved example:

Evolution is false because it can't explain how life could evolve from non-life.

Here the assumption is made that for evolution to be a successful theory it must be able to explain how life itself came about in the first place; since it is supposed that no one can do this at the moment, it follows (allegedly) that evolution fails. We can try to put this in syllogistic form:

P1: A successful explanation of life must be able to account for the development of life itself;
P2: Evolutionary theory cannot do so;
C: Therefore, evolution is not a successful explanation.

We can agree that P1 seems reasonable, but the problems lie with P2. It may be that evolutionary theory can provide an explanation, but that this is insufficiently understood by the person making the argument and hence thought to be unsuccessful. However, even if we suppose for the purpose of discussion that P2 does hold, the conclusion still need not follow. What we require is an additional premise, to the effect that evolutionary theory currently cannot provide an explanation and, moreover, that we have good reason to believe that it never will be able to.
Here we arrive at the crux of the matter: even if evolutionary theory cannot help us at the present time, it may be that tomorrow, next week or in several years with more research and study that the hoped-for explanation can be found. That we are ignorant of such an explanation now is no reason to suppose that we always will. In the syllogism, then, we might have:

P1: A successful explanation of life must be able to account for the development of life itself;
P2: Evolutionary theory currently cannot do so;
C1: Therefore, evolutionary theory can never do so.
C2: Therefore, evolution is not a successful explanation.

Viewed like this, we can readily see that C1 does not follow from P2. We would require another premise, such as:

P3: There are strong reasons to suppose that evolutionary theory can never do so.

This, of course, is just the kind of premise that would be disputed and it would require a good argument of its own. The argument, without this expansion to understand what is going on, relies on current ignorance to justify a conclusion about the future.

http://www.galilean-library.org/int1...ad_ignorantiam

RE: "If you can’t answer our questions, ALL OF THE QUESTIONS, the verdict will be obvious. "

Quote:

Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. This fallacy often appears in the context of a straw man argument. This is another case in which the burden of proof determines whether it is actually a fallacy or not. If a proposing team fails to provide sufficient support for its case, the burden of proof dictates they should lose the debate, even if there exist other arguments (not presented by the proposing team) that could have supported the case successfully. Moreover, it is common practice in debate for judges to give no weight to a point supported by an argument that has been proven invalid by the other team, even if there might be a valid argument the team failed to make that would have supported the same point; this is because the implicit burden of proof rests with the team that brought up the argument. For further commentary on burdens of proof, see argumentum ad ignorantiam, above.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallac...20ad%20logicam

[twinstead]

OP your little emotionally charged yet short on real facts diatribe is everything in a nutshell as to why we do what we do.

Thanks.

[NobbyNobbs]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

And so, there really is only one way to go right now: the 9/11 discussion either has to end immediately or it has to go public full force!

I absolutely, 100% agree! Enough already! Let's get it done!

(This means, of course, that you need to either bring all your data to the proper authorities or media, or else shut up once and for all. That is what your above quote means, doesn't it?)

[Pardalis]

I don't speak to rude people.

[Spindrift]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

We are not interested in some intellectual exercise.

Perhaps you should take your intellect out for some exercise and fresh air.

Contrary to what you see on TV, a debate is supposed to be an intellectual exercise not a competition of who can interrupt the most and shout the loudest.

[DarkMagician]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

Since I can't post a linc try
tvnewsliesdotorg

Challenge above, excerpt below.

This message is addressed to all the deniers and nay sayers who have spent almost six years swearing to the lies of the official story of 9/11. It is high time to throw down the gauntlet and dare you to confront the questions that have to be answered. Consider it done

You won’t let us speak to you in public and you won’t attend our events. So tell me, who exactly is running and hiding…and why? It sure as hell is not any of us in the 9/11 truth movement. We’ve been out there with the facts and evidence just waiting for you to respond and show us where we are wrong and you are right, face to face and in public! Not one of you has ever responded and we’re damn tired of waiting.

And so, there really is only one way to go right now: the 9/11 discussion either has to end immediately or it has to go public full force! I am personally calling out the people who continue to cling to the official story! Bring your experts, bring the 9/11 Commission, bring your debunkers and openly debate me and the team I put together. If you hear us out and answer our questions honestly in a public and open forum, we’ll go away! If not, we want mainstream televised coverage of the research we have done.

Edited by Darat:

Breach of Rule 4 removed.

Looks like they actually welcome critical thinking there.

There, italicized most of the plain wrong statements.

[Brainster]

I replied to this yesterday on the blog.

Quote:

Here's my proposal. I will go on any TV or radio show that has a legitimate audience that is not entirely made up of nutbars and fruitcakes. That is, I'm not interested in Alex Jones, but I would go on with Charles Goyette, even though I think he sandbagged Popular Mechanics. The other condition I would add is that the focus of the debate has to be on the question, "Was 9-11 an Inside Job?", not "Are there problems with the 9-11 Commission Report?"

[chipmunk stew]

When was this written? It sounds like it's at least a year old. The author even mentions "Michael Chertoff’s cousin who wrote the recent propaganda piece in Popular Mechanics"


edit: YESTERDAY?!? This confirms for me that once people cross the threshold from reality to Truthiness, whatever Truthy claims were around at the moment they took that final step are frozen in time for them, and they will simply not stop believing them, regardless of the quality of any subsequent contra-evidence.

[uk_dave]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

Since I can't post a linc try
tvnewsliesdotorg

Challenge above, excerpt below.

This message is addressed to all the deniers and nay sayers who have spent almost six years swearing to the lies of the official story of 9/11. It is high time to throw down the gauntlet and dare you to confront the questions that have to be answered. Consider it done

Well, firstly, welcome to the forum.

Secondly, who are you and why should I care?

Quote:

You won’t let us speak to you in public and you won’t attend our events. So tell me, who exactly is running and hiding…

yes yes get on with it....

Quote:

And so, there really is only one way to go right now: the 9/11 discussion either has to end immediately or it has to go public full force!

I vote for end immediately, since you have nothing new to bring.

Quote:

We are not interested in some intellectual exercise ....

Well that'll be a relief for the 'truthers'

Quote:

I am sending this challenge to a whole range of people who are trying so hard to ridicule and destroy the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement.

It's really not all that hard...

Quote:

The gamut runs from Michael Chertoff’s cousin who wrote the recent propaganda piece in Popular Mechanics

You're already telling lies, why should anyone take anything else you say seriously?

Quote:

to all the people involved in a coordinated effort to eliminate any 9/11 discussion at all. It also includes every one of the people working with coordinated venom to discredit the reputation of anyone who might influence Americans to actually look at the 9/11 evidence.

Actually, the people on this forum actually look forward to a decent discussion, it's just we seldom find it with 'truthers'.

And we're always encouraging people to study the evidence, especially the 'truthers'. It's just that most of them refuse to. Can you help rectify that?

Quote:

All of these people, along with their cohorts who regularly chime in and mock the 9/11 truth movement need to do one of two things: show up and discuss the evidence in public, recorded on video, with 9/11 experts CHOSEN BY ME, or shut the hell up!

Ahhh stifling debate now, are you?
Agree to discuss your people on your terms or SHUT UP. How very democratic.

Quote:

I’m tired of it. I’m tired of watching.....

Wanna know what tires me?

Listening to people droning on endlessly as if the 911 conspiracy is a done deal and ignoring all the evidence contrary to their fantasies.

What also annoys me is that thosesame people then go about their everyday lives, working, eating, making with the love, paying taxes, going on holiday etc etc.....but become fearless warriors for the'truth' when they sit in front of their computers.

Quote:

The Popular Mechanics article I referred to is only the most recent life raft for those still drinking the official 9/11 Kool-Aid. That issue should have come with a set of highlighter pens ......

yeah yeah boring.

Quote:

If you can’t answer our questions, ALL OF THE QUESTIONS, the verdict will be obvious. If you refuse this challenge, your silence will show that you have no explanations and no defense to support the official story of 9/11. If you refuse to respond, you lose by default. Simple as that.

Bollocks. Simple as that. You don't make the rules (though it's clear that you would like to. Let me guess, you're under 5' tall, right?)

Quote:

The burden of proof must now shift from the people with questions to the people who have given us the official explanation of the events of 9/11.

nope, innocent until proven guilty.

I know in your utopia that would be slightly different.

Quote:

So come on Larry King, Oprah Winfrey, Regis....

Talk shows? Is this the level you work at?


Well, that was fun

[beachnut]

Why are you lacking facts? Simple question. Where are your facts and evidence? Where?

[chipmunk stew]

And how does one highlight an omission?

[ihaunter]

Looks to me like one giant attempt to shift the burden of proof. Debunker's have to answer every single question they have or be considered 100% wrong. How does that make sense. Not to mention the "practice what you preach against" mentality that seems so prolific amongst the CT crowd. Accusing debunkers of a "debunk a raindrop to disprove a storm” approach while he tries to snipe out with the Michael Chertoff's cousin junk. (Which only proves that he's not really up to date on his CT info, that's been debunked ages ago)
He must know he has no facts or real evidence on his side, which is why he has to set all the rules to be in his favor. Wouldn't want to have a level playing field now, would we?

[Arus808]

this same guy has spammed myspace news and politics foru with the same posting. its a drive-by poster.

[CHF]

Here's a challenge for you, Mike Stephens:

Contact engineers and bring them on-side with your movement.

www.progressiveengineer.com/firms.html

You guys don't have any real experts on your side and appear uninterested in changing the situation.

Why is that?

[hellaeon]

So er...I think I missed something...got any evidence?

[T.A.M.]

Please note, my responses are to the article, not the person (Mike) who posted it....The quotes I have highlighted are not his, but from the article.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

Since I can't post a linc try
tvnewsliesdotorg

Challenge above, excerpt below.

This message is addressed to all the deniers and nay sayers who have spent almost six years swearing to the lies of the official story of 9/11. It is high time to throw down the gauntlet and dare you to confront the questions that have to be answered. Consider it done

Bring it on...again.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

You won’t let us speak to you in public and you won’t attend our events. So tell me, who exactly is running and hiding…and why? It sure as hell is not any of us in the 9/11 truth movement. We’ve been out there with the facts and evidence just waiting for you to respond and show us where we are wrong and you are right, face to face and in public! Not one of you has ever responded and we’re damn tired of waiting.

I have discussed this at length with a truther who lives in my city. It went absolutely nowhere. As for all the truthers out there waiting for us...if NYC GZ for the 5th ani was any sort of meter stick, your movement is beyond miniscule...800-1000 people...yet you claim 100,000+ in your movement...that isnt a very good showing if you ask me...who isnt coming out to discuss the issues???

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

And so, there really is only one way to go right now: the 9/11 discussion either has to end immediately or it has to go public full force!

Who the hell are you to decide when and where the discussion is to take place?

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

I am personally calling out the people who continue to cling to the official story! Bring your experts, bring the 9/11 Commission, bring your debunkers and openly debate me and the team I put together. If you hear us out and answer our questions honestly in a public and open forum, we’ll go away! If not, we want mainstream televised coverage of the research we have done.

History has taught us different. In many forums people have answered your questions. Debates have been held, NIST put out an FAQ. What you really mean is "If you admit we are right, and you wrong, we will go away".

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

We are not interested in some intellectual exercise or publicity stunt. On the contrary, confronting the facts we have unearthed may very well be a matter of national security. It is very possible that the perpetrators of the events of 9/11may very well be members of our own government!

Then do what a good american should do. Go to someone who can do something about it, show them your "evidence" and bring your alleged criminals to justice....Piss or get off the pot.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

I am sending this challenge to a whole range of people who are trying so hard to ridicule and destroy the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement.

Beyond the fact that your movement does more to hurt its own credibility than all the debunkers could possibly do themselves, maybe you should focus on change from within.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

The gamut runs from Michael Chertoff’s cousin who wrote the recent propaganda piece in Popular Mechanics

False, untrue, proven to be false. Thats lie #1.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

to all the people involved in a coordinated effort to eliminate any 9/11 discussion at all.

False, untrue. That is lie #2. There is no co-ordinate effort, just a bunch of smart, logical, unduped individuals who think what you spue is dispicable.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

It also includes every one of the people working with coordinated venom to discredit the reputation of anyone who might influence Americans to actually look at the 9/11 evidence.

False, untrue. that is lie#3. We encourage people to look at THE EVIDENCE. We encourage them to look at it with a SKEPTICAL eye, and to make sure the sources are reputable, to make sure the articles are TRUELY peer reviewed. It is the truth movement that spues venoms accusations based on nothing only evidenceless speculation.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

All of these people, along with their cohorts who regularly chime in and mock the 9/11 truth movement need to do one of two things: show up and discuss the evidence in public, recorded on video, with 9/11 experts CHOSEN BY ME, or shut the hell up!

Yes daddy. I've been a bad boy. I promise to do what you say, when you tell me to do it...cause your the boss.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

I’m tired of it. I’m tired of watching how unqualified and uninformed lemmings pick off a few raindrops in the storm of 9/11 evidence and claim that there are no clouds hanging over the official story.

Well you know what I say to my children...If you don't like whats on, TURN THE CHANNEL, or TURN IT OFF.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

Once in a while you people claim to have found some holy grail to back up your argument.

Pot meet Kettle...Kettle meet Pot.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

But you don’t seem to realize that about 10 minutes after your mythical security blanket articles are published, we in the 9/11 reality community are counting the deceptions, omissions and outright falsehoods it contains.

works both ways...

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

I am tired of arguing with Joe Shmo on Espn.com’s forums or on other forums around the Internet. Get away from me kids, you bother me. Take me to your leaders.

here is a challenge, take the average age of the users here at JREF, and compare it to the average age of the posters at any of the top 9/11 truth forums...

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

I want to speak to your daddy’s the ones in the Bush administration and on the 9/11 Commission. I am tired of dealing with illogical people who keep presenting the same argument over and over no matter how many times we expose the problems with the points that they make. I want to to deal with the people who put forth the 9/11 story, not the people who close their eyes and believe in it!

So I guess you'll be buying a ticket and travelling to DC, right? That is where the leaders are...At least Michael Moore had the courage to actually go there, and confront some of them...have you?

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

The Popular Mechanics article I referred to is only the most recent life raft for those still drinking the official 9/11 Kool-Aid. That issue should have come with a set of highlighter pens to help readers separate the author’s claims into three appropriate categories: lies, deceptions & omissions. But no one will come forward to publicly defend the contents of the article in a public forum with experts who are willing to expose its distortions an deceptions. Wonder why.

Funny, for all the lies and omissions and errors you claim PM have written, I have yet to see one truther article that actually DEBUNKS any of the claims, unless you call a hundred LINKS to PRISONPLANET articles a debunking.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

If you can’t answer our questions, ALL OF THE QUESTIONS, the verdict will be obvious.

Yes, the verdict will be that there are some unknowns...are you surprised?

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

If you refuse this challenge, your silence will show that you have no explanations and no defense to support the official story of 9/11. If you refuse to respond, you lose by default. Simple as that.

Untrue, false, that is lie #4. That may be your opinion, but it is not fact. If we fail to take up your challenge, it could mean (a) we live too far away, (b) we don't care to share the same room or airtime with you, (c) we just don't like you, (d) we feel other modes of debating the issues are better suited to our style of debate or discussion...it is an individual thing.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

The burden of proof must now shift from the people with questions to the people who have given us the official explanation of the events of 9/11.

Untrue, false, lie #5. The burden to prove extraordinary claims, held by a VERY SMALL minority, in opposition to the view held by the MAJORITY, is on the minority with the alternative view...that is you.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

Your explanation does not hold water. We can prove that.

Lie #6. In SIX years, your movement has PROVEN nothing. They have insinuated an aweful lot, have made conjecture, have asked questions, but you have not, and cannot prove your case.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

Can you prove that it does? If yes, then do so, and let us go back to our normal lives.

You can go now then. It has been proven to the general public who accept the majority of the official story. We do not need to prove it to all...you are a small minority.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

If you can’t the American people better wake up and begin to understand what that means. And the American people had better be prepared to do something about it!

Or else what, you gonna drag your neighbour out of his house to march on washington...I hope he appreciates it?

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

So come on Larry King, Oprah Winfrey, Regis, let’s do a few hours in front of America and see how the questions impact your viewers. Let’s dedicate a week of TV coverage, COMPLETE COVERAGE, to this vital issue.

On this I agree. the more your top truthers speak, the MORE REDICULOUS YOU SEEM. Lets get Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, Alex Jones, Morgan Reynolds, all of them out on the TV...trust me, you will NOT LIKE THE RESULT.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

And I’ll set the agenda, not you. I won’t let you edit the segments and then bring on your hit men to talk about the issue with out our representatives there!

You'll set the agenda? I think Larry, Oprah, and Regis will SET THE AGENDA, not you.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

No more playing by your rules because you are liars and I can prove it.

Go for it.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

I’m ready to do this. Are you? Right now, either put up or shut up! - Jesse –Editor, TvNewsLIES.org

See you on the tv Jesse.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

Question for the people who can’t take a hint and are now arguing, from their safe little Internet connection, and using the “debunk a raindrop to disprove a storm” approach to debate…how many Americans know about the war games on 9/11? How many Americans know about WTC7? How many Americans know about PNAC and their motives?

Tell them, and then when you awaken the giant, and they crush your pathetic speculations and coinsidences with the REAL truth, don't come whining back here.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

This debate is not over because it never started! Americans could not possibly have made a sound decision about the events of 9/11 because THE MEDIA NEVER REPORTED THEM! Holy cow…Americans don’t know about hijackers turning up alive

You've got to be kidding right. 6 years into this you are not still bringing up the rediculous "hijackers are still alive" stuff are you...this debate will be over before it starts if that is what you are bringing to the table.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

and about the FBI director admitting that they do not know the identities of the hijackers! So far I have never ever heard one person explain that! Man, I could not imagine how humanity survived with so many simpletons out there!

Can we reprint and read out this segment when you get on TV. I am sure your audience will love being called "simpletons".

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

Do people even know what logic is? Do you know the hijacker identity issue alone disproves the official story! Can you be so stupid as to not understand this? So what I am saying is let’s get this all out in the open once and for all. I’m betting that if ALL Americans were aware of what I am aware of…the official story would die a quick death and you would see some angry Americans taking to the streets!

If all americans were aware of the things you are, the only thing you will see is alot of people in the audience shaking their heads and laughing.

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

Official 9/11 report team refuses to debate critics - These sons of bitches have a lot to hide and they are running scared! There is no excuse for this unless they are guilty! Go ahead…spin this!

Hard to spin such childishness and hatefulness.

TAM

[gumboot]

I'm sure I read this challenge in another thread here somewhere...

-Gumboot

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

Since I can't post a linc try
tvnewsliesdotorg

Challenge above, excerpt below.

This message is addressed to all the deniers and nay sayers who have spent almost six years swearing to the lies of the official story of 9/11. It is high time to throw down the gauntlet and dare you to confront the questions that have to be answered. Consider it done

Consider what done exactly? Your questions have been answered, all your bunk as been debunked, yet you still throw it out. If you have something new to bring to the table do so, otherwise stick to your personnel attacks of those who find your conspiracies hard to believe. Remember I am Joe Public, I am not the guy who has to prove you wrong, and I am the guy you have to convince. The burden of proof does not lie with me.

Quote:

You won’t let us speak to you in public and you won’t attend our events. So tell me, who exactly is running and hiding…and why? It sure as hell is not any of us in the 9/11 truth movement. We’ve been out there with the facts and evidence just waiting for you to respond and show us where we are wrong and you are right, face to face and in public! Not one of you has ever responded and we’re damn tired of waiting.

Who won’t let you speak in public? Who is censoring you? Who is stopping you getting on mega phones and screaming "911 was an inside job"? Who exactly is bursting your door down, confiscating your computer, dragging you off and locking you up?

No one is responding because many people adopt the simple approach of never giving a fool the time of day, not because people are afraid of you, not because you are the saviour of humanity and have unearthed the most dastardly plot ever, but because most people simply do not believe you. You have been debunked by facts, logic and evidence, you refuse to accept this, therefore you are not even worthy of any public attention. The only attention you get , is exactly what you deserve, that being internet based, here you will remain, pumping out you tube videos and subscribing to Prison Planet and pretending everybody needs to listen to you. Nobody needs to listen to you, until you produce some facts and evidence and not the same recycled rubbish.

Quote:

And so, there really is only one way to go right now: the 9/11 discussion either has to end immediately or it has to go public full force! I am personally calling out the people who continue to cling to the official story! Bring your experts, bring the 9/11 Commission, bring your debunkers and openly debate me and the team I put together. If you hear us out and answer our questions honestly in a public and open forum, we’ll go away! If not, we want mainstream televised coverage of the research we have done.

Oh I hope you do get main stream coverage and I really do hope the research you have done is covered. I am sure you, like all other fringe cults will be torn apart. I hope the press come knocking on your door and demand to know why you accused perfectly innocent people of mass murder. I hope you are exposed by the main stream media, hounded by them in the same manner this despicable movement has hounded the victims of this event. This despicable movement who mocks the final calls made by the passengers, who denies their very existence. The same despicable movement who distorts the statements made by the FDNY in order to squeeze them into there ill thought out theories. I really hope you get what you crave son, that being completely destroyed by the very fame and fortune you so desperately want.

Quote:

We are not interested in some intellectual exercise or publicity stunt. On the contrary, confronting the facts we have unearthed may very well be a matter of national security. It is very possible that the perpetrators of the events of 9/11may very well be members of our own government!

Yes it is, you crave the publicity you have stated so above, you are not accusing the USG, you are accusing hundreds if not thousands of perfectly innocent, law abiding citizens of being involved in a mass murder plot. You are accusing your fellow Americans of mass murder of 3000 of their own. You are excusing the real perpetrators, Al Qaeda, in favour of pointing your accusing finger at your own. You pretend that nobody but your own countrymen was capable of such a dreadful act and you believe you are the good guy, a saviour of humanity. You are not; you are terrorist defender, a defender of mass murderers. An individual so devoid of critical thinking skills he is unable to see through the bunk produced by like minded individuals who crave the same glory and attention you crave. You do not deserve it, you do not deserve anything from the dreadful event of 911, other than to be completely shunned and ignored and you have been for the last five years and you deserve to be for as long as you promote lies and distortions.

Quote:

I am sending this challenge to a whole range of people who are trying so hard to ridicule and destroy the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement. The gamut runs from Michael Chertoff’s cousin who wrote the recent propaganda piece in Popular Mechanics to all the people involved in a coordinated effort to eliminate any 9/11 discussion at all. It also includes every one of the people working with coordinated venom to discredit the reputation of anyone who might influence Americans to actually look at the 9/11 evidence.

The so called truth does not need destroying, it destroys itself. It does so by fools and idiots promoting outrageous lies and claims based on nothing other than poor science, no understanding of physics and a complete lack of logic.
There is no coordinated effect by people to eliminate 911 discussions, it is healthy and welcome. What is not welcome is the venom spewed by individuals like you who wrongly believe that your evidence is credible and deserves to be heard again and again. It does not, it has been heard the first time, it has been debunked, yet you keep repeating them, you keep repeating the same lies over and over again. Your lies will never become fact, irrespective of how many times you repeat them.

Quote:

All of these people, along with their cohorts who regularly chime in and mock the 9/11 truth movement need to do one of two things: show up and discuss the evidence in public, recorded on video, with 9/11 experts CHOSEN BY ME, or shut the hell up!

No I will not shut the hell up; I will continue to attack your lies on this forum and any other forum I go to. Your lies have gone on, unchecked for years and now you are finally meeting your worst fears. That being a wall of debunkers who will not simply allow you to continue to make completely unfounded accusation of mass murder against your fellow countrymen unchallenged. You don’t like it, you know you are being exposed time and time again, so you demand that people shut up.

Quote:

I’m tired of it. I’m tired of watching how unqualified and uninformed lemmings pick off a few raindrops in the storm of 9/11 evidence and claim that there are no clouds hanging over the official story. Once in a while you people claim to have found some holy grail to back up your argument. But you don’t seem to realize that about 10 minutes after your mythical security blanket articles are published, we in the 9/11 reality community are counting the deceptions, omissions and outright falsehoods it contains. I am tired of arguing with Joe Shmo on Espn.com’s forums or on other forums around the Internet. Get away from me kids, you bother me. Take me to your leaders. I want to speak to your daddy’s the ones in the Bush administration and on the 9/11 Commission. I am tired of dealing with illogical people who keep presenting the same argument over and over no matter how many times we expose the problems with the points that they make. I want to to deal with the people who put forth the 9/11 story, not the people who close their eyes and believe in it!

I am tried of individuals who think they are my intellectual superior issuing statements about me when they have no idea what they are talking about. I am tried of seeing unqualified and uninformed lemmings spew their garage onto the internet, pretending they are important, pretending they are super cool and anti establishment, when the reality is they are nobodies, complete nobodies who feed off 911 to promote their own egos. People who are so inadequate they have spew rubbish about this dreadful event onto the net in order to hide their own shortfalls. People, who, without 911 would be nothing and because of 911 they have figured a way to promote themselves, feel important and be the centre of attention.
I am fed up with fools from the truth movement presenting the same arguments over and over again and no matter how many times they are debunked they still come. I am fed with fools from the truth jumping on the moral high horse and pretending they are the only people who can see Bush for what he is and that everybody else is blissfully unaware of the world’s problems. I am fed up with you tube investigators, 911 conspiracy DVDs and I am fed with “inside job “T shirts. I am fed with individuals like you feeding off this event and individuals that simply line their own pockets by spreading lies about it. I am fed up with nobodies thinking they are important and deserve to be heard so they can further promote their lies. I am fed up with individuals who, when their lies are exposed and then ignored try to claim it all part of a massive conspiracy to silence them.

Quote:

The Popular Mechanics article I referred to is only the most recent life raft for those still drinking the official 9/11 Kool-Aid. That issue should have come with a set of highlighter pens to help readers separate the author’s claims into three appropriate categories: lies, deceptions & omissions. But no one will come forward to publicly defend the contents of the article in a public forum with experts who are willing to expose its distortions an deceptions. Wonder why.

.

You wonder why? Because your silly little fringe movement has been exposed time and time again as frauds and liars. You have been given your fifteen minutes, you deserve no more. Yet you will still whinge and cry for more, demand that people listen you and cry like a baby because they will not.

Your lies and deceptions have all been exposed, your movement is dying and will soon be consigned to the history books as on of the most despicable and desperate things that ever came out of this dreadful event. Blood suckers who have not get a care for anything other than promoting their DVD, book, T shirt or their own ego.

Welcome to history, you are part of it.
.

Quote:

If you can’t answer our questions, ALL OF THE QUESTIONS, the verdict will be obvious. If you refuse this challenge, your silence will show that you have no explanations and no defense to support the official story of 9/11. If you refuse to respond, you lose by default. Simple as that.

I do not need to answer a single question you ask, neither does anybody else. YOU are accusing innocent people of mass murder. PROVE IT. The burden is on you. Put up or shut up.

Quote:

The burden of proof must now shift from the people with questions to the people who have given us the official explanation of the events of 9/11. Your explanation does not hold water. We can prove that. Can you prove that it does? If yes, then do so, and let us go back to our normal lives. If you can’t the American people better wake up and begin to understand what that means. And the American people had better be prepared to do something about it!

Incorrect, your lies have all been exposed and hold no water. You have no normal life, you do not want a normal life you want fame and glory. You want everybody to look at you and see you as the saviour of humanity. You are not; you are an egomaniac, internet kook. You abandoned your normal life, the moment you made false accusations of mass murder against your fellow countrymen.

As for the rest of your self centred drivel it does not even deserve a response. The only reason I even bothered responding in the first place is because I feel like good rant and I am sick of this sort nonsense still being promoted by self styled gurus who know they are lying but could not care less.

[FactCheck]

This crap a PR stunt. I can see through it a mile away. They know the truthers are the ones discrediting themselves. I'll just repeat what's on my site...

Q: Why don't you engage in public debate? Doesn't that mean you can't back up what you're saying?
A: What in the world do you think I'm doing on this web site? Am I not publicly debating the issue? Why should a hall filled with conspiracy theorists clapping at every utterance from one of the "scholars" change the facts on this site?

I find it interesting that for some reason the people in the "truth" movement need an audience to cheer them on in order to find the truth. I prefer that people read the sites without interruption and make up their own minds. This is just more evidence to me that the "truth" movement is all politics. They need a person to person debate as if this was a political race. I say put it up on your web sites and shut up about debates. You're just pissed because you can't change the topic and ask 20 questions to things which take more time than we might have to explain. Too BAD!

This issue is much like the evolution/creation debate in that I can mirror the reasons why I chose not to debate conspiracy theorists.

The proper venue for debating scientific issues is at science conferences and in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In such a venue, the claims can be checked by anyone at their leisure. Conspiracy Theorists are unwilling to debate there.

Public debates are usually set up so that the winners are determined by public speaking ability, not by quality of material.

Debate formats, both spoken and written, usually do not allow space for sufficient examination of points. A common tactic used by some prominent conspiracy theorists is to rattle off dozens of bits of misinformation in rapid succession. It is impossible for the responder to address each in the time or space allotted.

Notwithstanding the above points, there have been several debates, both live and online. I don't need to add myself to the list.

[Mike Stephens]

Am glad to see that there have been a few replys to my post. Have any of you followed up with the offer for debate with the editor of the story I posted - Jesse? Naw, I didn't think so.

I have debated this with several friends and co-workers. None of us really have a clue as to what went on that day, mainly because there never really was much of an investigation. Not to mention that most of the evidence was trucked away to a barge and shipped to China. Now why would that be necessary unless there was something to hide?

And Arkan, you should know that it is impossible to "prove" a negative.

I am licensed as a professional engineer in two states, Arkansas & Oklahoma, and before you start belittling me because I practice in these states, rest assured that engineers here have to pass the same test that all other engineers across the country have to take in order to get licensed, that is except for California and Alaska, where obviously they have some seismic issues that have to be addressed.

As for identy of the terrorists, how can we question when the passport falls from the pocket of a "terrorist" to the street below where the plane struck the building. That same passport, found in pristine condition, blown safely away from the fireball that we have all witnessed dozens of times. How convenient.

Myself, all I require for proof is my own perception. I have seen buildings fall as a result of controlled demolition, and my own training as a professional engineer aids in this respect. As a result of studying subjects like statics, dynamics, strengths of materials, I know that it is very difficult to get a building to fall down within its own footprint without the help of some very talented explosives experts. If only one column holds its integrity for half a second longer than other columns, this alone would be enough to cause the structure to fall laterally, outside its own footprint. Yet this is just what happened to WTC 7, even though it was not struck by a jet (hence no jet fuel - just diesel from backup power generators) it too fell neatly inside its own footprint, even though buildings between the twin towers and bldg 7 are still standing today. When I see the crimp in the middle of the building and squids popping out the sides as the building crumbles down, I see a controlled demolition. I wonder, what do the rest of you see?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

<snip>
And Arkan, you should know that it is impossible to "prove" a negative.
<snip>

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports does that have to do with the fact that two of your conclusions were based upon fallacious thinking and I pointed that out?

[The Doc]

Mike,

You may be an engineer, but you are spouting the same stuff we have heard hundreds of times.

The "footprint" issue, the steel being sold, the crimp, no jet at WTC.

Do yourself a favor and use the search function, read the Loose Change guide, read 911myths.com, read debunking911, read the 9/11 Mysteries guide, read the NIST report (even just the FAQ). Take some time to educate yourself.

We've heard it all, and debunked it all before.

[Mobyseven]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

Am glad to see that there have been a few replys to my post. Have any of you followed up with the offer for debate with the editor of the story I posted - Jesse? Naw, I didn't think so.

Er...could you maybe give us some contact details? An email address, for example?

[Mancman]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

As for identy of the terrorists, how can we question when the passport falls from the pocket of a "terrorist" to the street below where the plane struck the building. That same passport, found in pristine condition, blown safely away from the fireball that we have all witnessed dozens of times. How convenient.

A suicide note written on an air-sickeness bag survived this plane crash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_1771

Guess that was fake too. Bit too convenient?

Quote:

I know that it is very difficult to get a building to fall down within its own footprint without the help of some very talented explosives experts. If only one column holds its integrity for half a second longer than other columns, this alone would be enough to cause the structure to fall laterally, outside its own footprint. Yet this is just what happened to WTC 7, even though it was not struck by a jet (hence no jet fuel - just diesel from backup power generators) it too fell neatly inside its own footprint, even though buildings between the twin towers and bldg 7 are still standing today. When I see the crimp in the middle of the building and squids popping out the sides as the building crumbles down, I see a controlled demolition. I wonder, what do the rest of you see?

Here's your 'footprint' collapse:


Why if there debris atop a 15 story building across Barclay St if WTC7 fell neatly inside it's own footprint?

Squibs - these 'squibs' are couple of blotchy marks that appear after the building has begun to drop, and appear in windows that were hit by debris from WTC1: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html

Why on earth would explosives be placed on the 40th+ floor of a building that clearly collapsed from the base? And why would they be placed next to the windows? Why does the area with explosives detonating stay intact as it falls to the ground? Why did nobody hear these explosives?

And the building between WTC7 and WTC1 was WTC6, it was totally wrecked on 9/11 and the remains were demolished before the end of 2001.

[MarkyX]

Quote:

Have any of you followed up with the offer for debate with the editor of the story I posted - Jesse? Naw, I didn't think so.

Why should we? This person is a nobody and repeats the same garbage we've been hearing for years. He still brings up "hijackers are alive" story. I've already offered my debate, it's called "Screw Loose Change - Not Freakin' Again edition". So far no one cannot debunk any of the information I present.

Quote:

I have debated this with several friends and co-workers. None of us really have a clue as to what went on that day, mainly because there never really was much of an investigation.

Yeah, it wasn't looked out by dozens of universities, collages, structural engineer societies, and other related experts on the field. No, they didn't write a commission that involved various intelligence agencies about what happened on that day or the history leading up to 9/11. NIST never wrote a scientific report that has been peer reviewed by experts all over the country and can be seen by anyone in the entire world. Clearly, no investigation was done.

Quote:

Not to mention that most of the evidence was trucked away to a barge and shipped to China. Now why would that be necessary unless there was something to hide?

Another statement not backed up by anything.

Quote:

I am licensed as a professional engineer in two states

Engineer at what, exactly? Do you not have a speciality?

Quote:

As for identy of the terrorists, how can we question when the passport falls from the pocket of a "terrorist" to the street below where the plane struck the building. That same passport, found in pristine condition, blown safely away from the fireball that we have all witnessed dozens of times. How convenient.

I don't see how being an engineer makes you an expert on something like this. You make it sound like if it weren't for Passports, this whole thing would blow over. What about the airport security footage? The flight schools? The Saudi Arabia embassy? The radio transmissions? What about the victims? If the passports did not exist, there would still be evidence of the hijacker's existence.

Quote:

...I know that it is very difficult to get a building to fall down within its own footprint without the help of some very talented explosives experts.

Strawman argument. Building didn't fall on it's own footprint, otherwise it would have not damage other buildings such as the WTC7.

Quote:

Yet this is just what happened to WTC 7, even though it was not struck by a jet (hence no jet fuel - just diesel from backup power generators) it too fell neatly inside its own footprint, even though buildings between the twin towers and bldg 7 are still standing today.

Another strawman argument. If WTC7 fell on it's own footprint, why were other buildings near WTC7 slighty damaged and the debris filled the streets surrounding WTC7's footprint?

Did the buildings between WTC7 and the Twin Towers ever got hit? Was there any fire? It's hard for a buildng to go down when there is no initiation.

Quote:

When I see the crimp in the middle of the building and squids popping out the sides as the building crumbles down, I see a controlled demolition.

Now I know you are lying that you watched controlled demolitions and that you are an engineer. Puffs of smoke from explosives in a CD come before the collapse, not after/during. You don't even know how a controlled demolition works or how it looks like.

[Augustine]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

I am licensed as a professional engineer in two states, Arkansas & Oklahoma, and before you start belittling me because I practice in these states, rest assured that engineers here have to pass the same test that all other engineers across the country have to take in order to get licensed, that is except for California and Alaska, where obviously they have some seismic issues that have to be addressed.

How old are you? How long have you been licensed? What were you formally disciplined for by the Oklahoma Board? What other professional organizations are you a member of? I hope you're not claiming to be a structural engineer...

[A W Smith]

proof stephens not an engineer in his own post

Quote:

If only one column holds its integrity for half a second longer than other columns, this alone would be enough to cause the structure to fall laterally, outside its own footprint. Yet this is just what happened to WTC 7

[Mike Stephens]

One more point: why does everyone except the truthers have amnesia with regard to Al Qaeda (the database)? Am I the only one in here who remembers that our own CIA started Al Qaeda in order to aid the afghanis in their struggle against USSR? Qaeda literally means database - database of foreign insurgents in this case. But all of a sudden the Al CIA-duh went rogue and turned on their masters without their handlers knowing anything. How moronically naive.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

As for identy of the terrorists, how can we question when the passport falls from the pocket of a "terrorist" to the street below where the plane struck the building. That same passport, found in pristine condition, blown safely away from the fireball that we have all witnessed dozens of times. How convenient.

First of all, the passport is hardly pristine. Second of all, if you had the level of engineering experience you claim to have, you would know that small, lightweight items can be blown away from explosions. You do realise that patches from the destroyed shuttle survived, yes? You do know that papers from offices that were utterly destroyed in the impact were found, yes?

You should also know that the identity of the hijackers does not depend one bit on the passport being found. Sufficient evidence was found, much of it displayed in the Mossoui trial. There was enough evidence to convince the Saudi government that it was mostly their children on those planes. They were not exactly happy to admit that.

Quote:

Myself, all I require for proof is my own perception. I have seen buildings fall as a result of controlled demolition, and my own training as a professional engineer aids in this respect. As a result of studying subjects like statics, dynamics, strengths of materials, I know that it is very difficult to get a building to fall down within its own footprint without the help of some very talented explosives experts.

Which is why the buildings did not fall within their own footprint. Please note the photo Mancman posted above.

Quote:

If only one column holds its integrity for half a second longer than other columns, this alone would be enough to cause the structure to fall laterally, outside its own footprint. Yet this is just what happened to WTC 7, even though it was not struck by a jet (hence no jet fuel - just diesel from backup power generators) it too fell neatly inside its own footprint, even though buildings between the twin towers and bldg 7 are still standing today. When I see the crimp in the middle of the building and squids popping out the sides as the building crumbles down, I see a controlled demolition. I wonder, what do the rest of you see?

I see a building that had been burning uncontrolled for 7-8 hours with no firefighting reaching its natural conclusion. I see no other engineer or demolitionist coming to the conclusion that it was demolition. I see no squibs, hear no detonation charges going off, and heard of no evidence of demo charges being used. No detcord, no signs of charge cut columns, etc.

You might want to read the preliminary report by NIST on WTC7. Its hardly final, but between that and your claim that it fell into its footprint, you might need some things explained to you.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

One more point: why does everyone except the truthers have amnesia with regard to Al Qaeda (the database)? Am I the only one in here who remembers that our own CIA started Al Qaeda in order to aid the afghanis in their struggle against USSR? Qaeda literally means database - database of foreign insurgents in this case. But all of a sudden the Al CIA-duh went rogue and turned on their masters without their handlers knowing anything. How moronically naive.

How about you address some of the talking points already brought up in this thread and reply to some posters before introducing a new one?

[The Doc]

al Qaeda was not founded by the CIA. It was founded by Osama Bin Laden in 1988. The translation is "the base", not "the database".

Quote:

Peter Bergen, a CNN journalist known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997, refuted Cook's notion, stating on August 15 2006:

The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.[24]

Your knowledge on the matter at hand is ridiculously minimal.

[kookbreaker]

'The database'?

[A W Smith]

Michael Stephens
P.O. Box 15
Welling, OK 74471

Phone Number: (918) 458-5256
Email Address: ses@lrec.org

EmployerAddressMichael Stephens, dba Stephens Engineering ServicesP.O. Box 15
Welling, OK 74471
PDH CarryOver Hours: 15

Disciplinary Status
This individual has been formally disciplined by the board.
Please contact the board for information.
RegistrationType: PE
Number: 20643

Registration Date: 14-JUN-02
Expiration Date: 28-FEB-09

This post was reported for revealing private information, however this information is publicly available and and anyone with internet access can find it therefore given the nature of this discussion and the claims made the post is not in breach of the Forum's guidelines.

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

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

One more point: why does everyone except the truthers have amnesia with regard to Al Qaeda (the database)? Am I the only one in here who remembers that our own CIA started Al Qaeda in order to aid the afghanis in their struggle against USSR? Qaeda literally means database - database of foreign insurgents in this case. But all of a sudden the Al CIA-duh went rogue and turned on their masters without their handlers knowing anything. How moronically naive.

Really? you know all about the CIA funding of Al Qaeda do you? Please enlighten me.

The CIA started Al Qaeda did they? Well why don't you just enlighten me?

(Hint The CIA funded the Mudahedeen; the CIA left Afghanistan when the Arab Afghan fighters left, when the Soviets pulled out.)

[MarkyX]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

One more point: why does everyone except the truthers have amnesia with regard to Al Qaeda (the database)? Am I the only one in here who remembers that our own CIA started Al Qaeda in order to aid the afghanis in their struggle against USSR? Qaeda literally means database - database of foreign insurgents in this case. But all of a sudden the Al CIA-duh went rogue and turned on their masters without their handlers knowing anything. How moronically naive.

Al Qaeda means "the base", as OBL says this himself in a 2001 interview with al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Aloun


The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed.


http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/a...ipt/index.html

The only people who say it is called "The Database" are dumb white people who don't even speak arabic.

Continuing further, the mujahedeen was made up of several factions. There wasn't a single leader controlling all of them as 9/11 Deniers like to believe, so although there is evidence that the United States did fund the rebels through Pakistani ISI, there isn't any proof that they funded anything to Osama's army or "created" Al Qaeda. In fact, before the war ended, the organization was Maktab al-Khadamat founded by Osama Bin Laden and Abdullah Yusuf Azzam whose role was mainly to channel funds instead of direct combat. It was after the war that they named themselves Al Qaeda.

The reason why the US had to go through Pakistan ISI is because the rebels weren't too fond of the United States either. They didn't want western influence whatsoever, so suggesting that they were trained by westerns would be a big disgrace to their belief and foundations of the organization. It would also make no sense because OBL was angry at the States for stepping into "holy land" (Mecca). He was angry with Saudi Arabia as well. This isn't consistent with your pet theories.

Now back at the topic. Since you haven't answered any of our statements and resorted to derailing, I assume you have no evidence. Don't worry, your silence tells us all we need to know about your "expertise" and theories.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

I am licensed as a professional engineer in two states, Arkansas & Oklahoma, and before you start belittling me because I practice in these states, rest assured that engineers here have to pass the same test that all other engineers across the country have to take in order to get licensed, that is except for California and Alaska, where obviously they have some seismic issues that have to be addressed.
...
Myself, all I require for proof is my own perception. I have seen buildings fall as a result of controlled demolition, and my own training as a professional engineer aids in this respect. As a result of studying subjects like statics, dynamics, strengths of materials, I know that it is very difficult to get a building to fall down within its own footprint without the help of some very talented explosives experts. If only one column holds its integrity for half a second longer than other columns, this alone would be enough to cause the structure to fall laterally, outside its own footprint. Yet this is just what happened to WTC 7, even though it was not struck by a jet (hence no jet fuel - just diesel from backup power generators) it too fell neatly inside its own footprint, even though buildings between the twin towers and bldg 7 are still standing today. When I see the crimp in the middle of the building and squids popping out the sides as the building crumbles down, I see a controlled demolition. I wonder, what do the rest of you see?

Actually I have no doubt that engineers in Arkansas or any other state of the U.S. are qualified and competent. After all, when do you ever hear warnings from AAA or other travel or consumer information providers say anything like "When you go to Arkansas, don't cross the bridges!"

Here's the information you need:

ASCE, Journal of Architectural Engineering, Submission Guidelines page

Quote:

SUBMISSION OF PAPERS

Submit five (5) double-spaced copies of papers and notes along with a copy on CD or diskette to the Journals Department along with a completed ASCE Sizing Guide. Check manuscript length limitations listed below. Papers under review, accepted for publication, or published elsewhere are not accepted. Write, phone or email the Journals Department for ASCE Authors Guide to Journals, Books, and Reference Publications for complete instructions for manuscript preparation. You can access the ASCE Authors’ Guide to Journals, Books, and Reference Publications on the Publications Web site. It is also available in printed form and can be obtained by writing or phoning the Journals Department at ASCE, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, Virginia, 20191-4400; 1-703-295-6290.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal should be accompanied by a list of four potential reviewers suggested by the author(s). This list should include the complete name, address, telephone and fax numbers, e-mail address, and at least five key words that identify the expertise of each reviewer. The journal is not obliged to use the suggested reviewers; however, we feel that this policy will lead to an improved reviewers process.

As an engineer with professional experience in a relevant field, you should have no difficulty getting your paper considered for publication, nor in recommending suitable colleagues for the peer review process. Upon publication, I hope you'll post an announcement on this board, as it would be of great interest to everyone.

On the other hand, if your professional colleagues don't accept your hypotheses, why should we?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Mike Stephens]

AW Smith, if you call that proof, you are a fool. My proof in hanging on the wall of my home office, next to my sheepskin, it's called a license to practice engineering, right there next to my certificate of authorization for my company. I guess you found proof as you have seen fit to publish my personal contact information.

And Augustine, why don't you go ahead and ask for my ss# phone and phys address too while you are at it? btw I was disciplined for writing a report for a client recommending the type of foundation to construct after I had passed my exam but before the state gave me my certificate, got in too big of a rush to practice engineering. And no, I am not a structural engineer, I practice in the fields of civil, environmental and geotechnical engineering. I don't design high-rises, but I probably know more about the physical world that most in this forum. At least I know that you cannot prove a negative, right Arkan?

Judging by the number of posts of some you, you guys really should step away from your computers once in a while. There is a beautiful world around you waiting.

Right now I've gotta go pick up some construction drawings from my draftsman, run them by the client before sending to state for approval. Somebody's gotta pay the bills around here...

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

Am glad to see that there have been a few replys to my post. Have any of you followed up with the offer for debate with the editor of the story I posted - Jesse? Naw, I didn't think so.

Yep, I thought so.

Originally Posted by pomeroo

I posted the following on this latest fraud's site:

"I accept your challenge. In the past year, I have debated Les Jamieson, and have hosted debates between Mark Roberts and the Loose Change boys. This week, Mark and I will debate James Fetzer, assuming he shows up.
In five years of screaming, conspiracy liars have produced bogus science, distorted quotes, a blizzard of outright falsehoods–and not a shred of actual evidence for their pernicious and absurd fantasies.
Every week, Mark Roberts confronts the charlatans and fools who profane Ground Zero. He will demolish any of them willing to subject their cherished fabrications to the light of reason and science. I lack his encyclopedic knowledge of 9/11 conspiracy myths, but I will debate any of the wrongheaded frauds who promote these thoroughly debunked canards.
You’re calling us out? You can’t be serious.
Anywhere–any time."

Does it sound like I'm drumming up business for Hardfire? Geez, what a huckster I've become.