ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags david ray griffin , jim hoffman

Reply
Old 26th November 2007, 12:02 AM   #1
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
Jim Hoffman willing to debate in a neutral environment

I have been posting on Diane's blog for a few days now, and she has had several e-mail exchanges and phone calls with Jim Hoffman in the past. I asked, if she could ask Hoffman to appear on Hardfire.

Here is the reply:

"I’ve written to Jim Hoffman, and he has replied telling me that he would be interested in a debate, but only in a relatively neutral environment, with a host who is capable of being neutral. He would not be interested in a debate with Ronald Wieck as a host."

Can we come up with a debate in some relatively neutral environment, and unfortunately not with Ron hosting? Any takers? Hardfire hosted by Gary Popkin?
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro

Last edited by ref; 26th November 2007 at 01:13 AM.
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 05:05 AM   #2
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Shocking. Jim doesn't want to debate against a team of jrefers with a hostile jrefer as host. What a coward.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 05:11 AM   #3
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Red:

Gravy is hardly a "team of JREFers". Ron has made no bones about his lack of bias. You should stop exaggerating or we might mistake you for a truther...lol

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 05:11 AM   #4
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Shocking. Jim doesn't want to debate against a team of jrefers with a hostile jrefer as host. What a coward.
To my understanding he is willing to debate a jref'er. I suggested Mark, of course. He just declines to debate, if the host is not more neutral and declines to debate if Ron hosts.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro

Last edited by ref; 26th November 2007 at 05:12 AM.
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 05:12 AM   #5
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
I believe Doc has a site that allows for a one on one written debate, but I doubt Hoffman wants that, as he will not be able to move the topic "on the fly" like the truther mantra dictates. I also suspect he will not debate Mark Roberts anyway. Did he indicate anyone in particular he would or would not debate?

TAM

Edit:

The fact is, Ron Weick is one of the few, if not the ONLY, Talk Show Host who is not bias in favor of the truthers, that will actually take the topic serious enough to provide a forum to debate. Hence, I see any other host as being unfair to the Debunker.

TAM

Last edited by T.A.M.; 26th November 2007 at 05:14 AM.
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 05:14 AM   #6
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
I believe Doc has a site that allows for a one on one written debate, but I doubt Hoffman wants that, as he will not be able to move the topic "on the fly" like the truther mantra dictates. I also suspect he will not debate Mark Roberts anyway. Did he indicate anyone in particular he would or would not debate?

TAM
The only response from him thus far is the quote in the OP.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro

Last edited by ref; 26th November 2007 at 05:14 AM.
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 05:17 AM   #7
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
The only even remote possibility in terms of a perhaps somewhat neutral host might be the one in TO that hosted Gage and the special effects guy. He seemed to be able to keep himself out of it, and allowed both people a good share of time, IIRC.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 05:25 AM   #8
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Red:

Gravy is hardly a "team of JREFers". Ron has made no bones about his lack of bias. You should stop exaggerating or we might mistake you for a truther...lol

TAM
Call it a preemptive strike, but I've seen DRG and others insulted because they would not accept the strange terms of debate that is often proposed here.

If Hoffman got even a glance of how the DRG exchange with Wieck went, would you really be surprised that he asked for a non jref related venue?
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 05:26 AM   #9
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
I believe Doc has a site that allows for a one on one written debate, but I doubt Hoffman wants that, as he will not be able to move the topic "on the fly" like the truther mantra dictates. I also suspect he will not debate Mark Roberts anyway. Did he indicate anyone in particular he would or would not debate?

TAM

Edit:

The fact is, Ron Weick is one of the few, if not the ONLY, Talk Show Host who is not bias in favor of the truthers, that will actually take the topic serious enough to provide a forum to debate. Hence, I see any other host as being unfair to the Debunker.

TAM
I thought Amy Goodman (who I am not a fan of) was relatively objective, calm and respectful to both sides of the LC PM debate. Do you disagree?
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 05:49 AM   #10
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Call it a preemptive strike, but I've seen DRG and others insulted because they would not accept the strange terms of debate that is often proposed here.
they arent ridiculed for not accepting a hardfire debate, they are ridiculed for not suggesting an alternative

Tuther: I want to debate a JREFer but they wont accept becuase they are scared!

JREFer: No, we arent scared, hows hardfire?

Truther: No, i want a neutral host

JREFer: Ok, who do you suggest?

Truther: ...

JREFer: Hello?

Truther: ...

JREFer: Ummm

Truther: See! Their afraid to debate us! We win!
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 06:09 AM   #11
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,702
Personally I don't see the point of debating any of them. With the exception of Griffin who sells books the rest are nobodies. Debating them would just give their theories an air of credibility and give them the attention they desire. Let them stay the internet loon show they are now.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 06:15 AM   #12
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Personally I don't see the point of debating any of them. With the exception of Griffin who sells books the rest are nobodies. Debating them would just give their theories an air of credibility and give them the attention they desire. Let them stay the internet loon show they are now.
But there is a chance, that some will change their views. I remember when someone posted here after the Loose Change vs. Mark & Ron debate. He said that after watching that debate, he went from thinking the Loose Change boys had something, to knowing they had nothing.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 06:29 AM   #13
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,702
Originally Posted by ref View Post
But there is a chance, that some will change their views. I remember when someone posted here after the Loose Change vs. Mark & Ron debate. He said that after watching that debate, he went from thinking the Loose Change boys had something, to knowing they had nothing.
I see your point but why give them the mainstream exposure when their presence now is zero. I don't see a huge number of recent (sane) converts to the movement.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 06:55 AM   #14
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
There is no such thing as a neutral host- Ron, however, makes it perfectly clear that he's not neutral, which is what makes the playing field neutral.

If ANYONE can point to ANY example where Ron has unfairly used his non-neutral position to take over the debate or otherwise give an unfair shot to one side, then I will not only eat my hat, but I'll stop laughing at these loons because all they're doing is looking for a scapegoat.

Beware anyone who tells you that they ARE neutral- they are lying.
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 07:21 AM   #15
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Totovader View Post
There is no such thing as a neutral host- Ron, however, makes it perfectly clear that he's not neutral, which is what makes the playing field neutral.
Let me see if I got this straight. Ron is not neutral which is what makes his show neutral. Ok, huh?
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 07:25 AM   #16
SDC
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,244
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Let me see if I got this straight. Ron is not neutral which is what makes his show neutral. Ok, huh?
I suspect you are being intentionally disingenuous. Ron is not neutral and makes that clear, which means that everyone knows where they stand.

Others are not neutral, and pretend they are neutral, so the grounds of the debate shift in the middle; there is a hidden agenda, instead of Ron's revealed one.
SDC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 07:29 AM   #17
einsteen
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 917
That would be the same as a German referee in a German-Dutch Soccer game (or is it football?)
einsteen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 07:33 AM   #18
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by einsteen View Post
That would be the same as a German referee in a German-Dutch Soccer game (or is it football?)
which in itself doesnt mean anything, he isnt automatically biased, just as an italian ref isnt automatically neutral
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 07:37 AM   #19
Mooseman
Thinker
 
Mooseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 219
I am surprised when any of them debate, it just is not in their best interests.
Mooseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 08:19 AM   #20
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Call it a preemptive strike, but I've seen DRG and others insulted because they would not accept the strange terms of debate that is often proposed here.
Griffin won't accept a debate under any circumstances. The guy has written 5 books on the subject, but has never even done a serious interview.
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-

Last edited by JamesB; 26th November 2007 at 08:20 AM.
JamesB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 08:25 AM   #21
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
 
Drudgewire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,421
Originally Posted by Mooseman View Post
I am surprised when any of them debate, it just is not in their best interests.
Sure it is, as long as they have a moderator who is sympathetic and someone who gets flustered when they spout out a soundbyte as "fact."

Shermer wrote about the frustration of debating these wackjobs. It's easy to get lost in emotion when dealing with liars/delusional personalities.
__________________
"You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc."
-lapman describing every twoofer on the internet
Drudgewire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 08:28 AM   #22
MarkyX
Master Poster
 
MarkyX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,157
Originally Posted by einsteen View Post
That would be the same as a German referee in a German-Dutch Soccer game (or is it football?)
So 9/11 is a sport to you?
__________________
MarkyX's Haunted Bloghouse - Read my boredom
MarkyX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 08:29 AM   #23
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
Griffin won't accept a debate under any circumstances. The guy has written 5 books on the subject, but has never even done a serious interview.
Google David Ray Griffin Interview, there's no less than 20 different interviews, mainstream, alt news, and everything in between.

At least try to do a bit of research before making broad, unsubstantiated blanket statements.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 08:40 AM   #24
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Google David Ray Griffin Interview, there's no less than 20 different interviews, mainstream, alt news, and everything in between.

At least try to do a bit of research before making broad, unsubstantiated blanket statements.
Notice I said "serious" interview, every one of them was a softball interview. He has never had to defend his assertions in any forum.
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 08:46 AM   #25
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
Notice I said "serious" interview, every one of them was a softball interview. He has never had to defend his assertions in any forum.
Tucker Carlson and BBC are too radical for you I guess.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 08:51 AM   #26
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Tucker Carlson and BBC are too radical for you I guess.
They were not confrontational. The hosts don't know anything about the gists of his arguments, so when they get on there they can't really get into it. The only person in the media who has really challenged the truthers is Bill O'Reilly, but he doesn't really know much about it either, so he just insults them. Which is entertaining admittedly, but not very productive.

By the way, before you attack my lack of knowledge of David Ray Griffin, you should do a little research.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com...id+ray+griffin
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 08:54 AM   #27
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
 
chillzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,546
I feel we are straying a little away from discussing Jim Hoffman's debating requirements.
chillzero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 09:16 AM   #28
lozenge124
Scholar
 
lozenge124's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 83
Some good debates I've heard:

Kevin Ryan vs. Michael Shermer (Thom Hartmann show)

Steven Jones vs Leslie Robertson (KGNU, "Morning Magazine" show, don't know the name of the host)

Mike Berger vs Matthew Rothschild (Dino Costa show)


In all 3 cases, the moderator was fair and let both debaters air their side; I'd recommend any of them for a Jim Hoffman debate.
lozenge124 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 10:10 AM   #29
nicepants
Graduate Poster
 
nicepants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,722
Originally Posted by ref View Post
To my understanding he is willing to debate a jref'er. I suggested Mark, of course. He just declines to debate, if the host is not more neutral and declines to debate if Ron hosts.
I wonder if this means he would be willing to debate Mr. Roberts?
__________________
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen -Einstein

Last edited by nicepants; 26th November 2007 at 10:11 AM.
nicepants is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 10:36 AM   #30
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,203
Does Jim Hoffman have any conclusions that are rational?

You know I looked up Jim Hoffman and he is dead, just like the terrorist that are alive.

Fact 1 on Jim Hoffman - his web site debunks himself; debunks all his so called conclusions. Jim's dust calculations are funny; check them out if you want to waste time with another nut case non theories.

Cute how all the little drones for 9/11 truth come out and defend Hoffman by bashing themselves. Good job JREF truthers.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 12:12 PM   #31
JAStewart
Graduate Poster
Tagger
 
JAStewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,521
Get Hoffman and David Ray Griffs TOGETHER against Mark and Ron.

Why shut down one when you can shut down two?
__________________
Ignorance and google is a horrible combination. - BigAl

Argumentum ad YouTubeum - sts60
JAStewart is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 12:33 PM   #32
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
That Ron has a bias/opinion on the issue is moot unless it can be demonstrated that such bias/opinion in conjunction with this role on the show is leveraged to slant the debate. I'd argue that his past 9/11 debates show him perfectly willing to provide equal talk time, not silence mikes, not shout people down (a la Oh'Really), etc.
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 12:40 PM   #33
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Hoffman and DRG versus Weick and Roberts would be a GREAT idea...as well, DRG may be a little more agreeable to it, if he has help.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 12:44 PM   #34
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Gravy is hardly a "team of JREFers".
Are you sure about that?

"If Mark Roberts is a person, let him identify himself and provide background about himself and his many sources. If not a person, then let the group identify itself and its many sources." –Excerpt from Wikipedia's Loose Change discussion page
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 12:44 PM   #35
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Before our resident conspiracy liars work up a full head of steam rationalizing Hoffman's cowardice, let's have a reality check. Hoffman was scheduled to appear on 'Hardfire' as my very first guest. He pulled out at the last minute, for no particular reason, and announced that he might be available later in the summer, but probably wouldn't be available ever. It is possible that one particularly deranged fantasist on a libertarian debate forum I used to frequent tipped him off to my stated intention of using Dr. Greening's work to refute his faulty calculations. Indeed, my preparations for the interview led me to contact Dr. Greening, and I have been grateful for his help many times since then. We managed to find a replacement in Les Jamieson. You know the rest of the story.

Hoffman is, of course, blowing smoke when he suggests that I'm the reason he wouldn't appear on 'Hardfire.' He wouldn't dream of facing Mark Roberts under any reasonable conditions. He would require the host to cut off Roberts the moment he began to speak. But Hoffman isn't alone. There are several well-informed rationalists on the JREF who could never persuade any of the more visible charlatans to stop running long enough to subject the myths of the fantasy movement to critical scrutiny.

What else is new?
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 12:46 PM   #36
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Hoffman and DRG versus Weick and Roberts would be a GREAT idea...as well, DRG may be a little more agreeable to it, if he has help.

TAM

TAM, these people are frauds, cowards, and liars. They would never accept such a challenge.
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 12:49 PM   #37
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
I know Ron, remember I am usually the one telling you this...lol One can always dream...

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 01:07 PM   #38
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Last week I emailed Hoffman and for the second time asked him to remove a statement that appears twice on his site, including on the home page. He claims that the NIST report is deceptive because it doesn't show the tower column dimensions.

I showed him where the dimensions appear in the report, as well as the diagram of where the columns transition from box to wide flange.

Someone named Victoria Ashley replied and said that it's not so much that the dimensions don't appear in the report, but that Hoffman thinks the report "appears crafted to conceal such information."

__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 01:14 PM   #39
JAStewart
Graduate Poster
Tagger
 
JAStewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,521
Thats pure insanity. If anything that shows proves that hoffman doesn't take time to read things.
__________________
Ignorance and google is a horrible combination. - BigAl

Argumentum ad YouTubeum - sts60
JAStewart is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2007, 03:46 PM   #40
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,630
Let me suggest a written debate rather than an oral one. I'm not mocking Hoffman, but he has a very pronounced stammer which is not conducive to verbal arguments. In addition, a written debate eliminates the advantage the "Truthers" have in that they can spout 30 bits of nonsense in a minute, each of which requires a detailed response, which inevitably means that lots of their claims don't get rebutted due to time constraints.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:09 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.