Upcoming Debate: Jon Gold Vs. Pat Curley

[Walter Ego]

Pat (Brainster on this forum) has mentioned this on his blog but it was officially announced today on 9/11 Blogger.

Moderators:
Eric Jackman
Justin Martell

The show's name is "The Dynamic Duo", and it's a TV show. It will be taped on Monday [11/24/2008, 6pm EST] , and put up shortly after.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/18561

I'm not sure why Pat would let two truthers moderate but he can comment on that aspect himself. I thought The Dynamic Duo was the Jim Fezter/Kevin Barrett internet radio show so I'm not sure how it's going to be on "TV" unless it's being done by webcam.

[RedIbis]

The comments after the article are pretty funny.

[Arus808]

yeah the comments are hilarious. Shows how delusional everyone at 911 blogger really are.

[T.A.M.]

yawn!

Sorry Brainster, I admire you for doing this, but aren't we done already.

TAM:)

[jhunter1163]

Maybe Mike Metz will call in. I'd listen to that all right.

[RedIbis]

yawn!

Sorry Brainster, I admire you for doing this, but aren't we done already.

TAM:)

You sound a bit nervous for your friend.

[Jon Gold]

Good luck Pat.

[Brainster]

I've had some friendly conversations with Justin, so I'm not concerned about him being a reasonably fair if obviously not impartial moderator. The show will just be me and Jon on the phones with Justin and Eric in the studio. I hadn't bothered announcing it because it will (as far as I know) only be broadcast live on their campus. They will upload it to YouTube afterwards.

The topics are one of the main reasons I agreed to do the show; it's not missile into the Pentagon or controlled demolition, but the "Truther" fallback position of "Are there unanswered questions" and "Was the 9-11 Commission a legitimate investigation?" At this point I find those more interesting topics. I'm in the process of reading the Shenon book, and I've already read the Commission Report itself and Kean and Hamilton's Without Precedent.

Any suggestions for other stuff to check out would be appreciated. I'm actually surprised at how much interesting information I've discovered about Zelikow in the past few days; he really gets an unfair rap from the Troofers.

[T.A.M.]

You sound a bit nervous for your friend.

not really. More like bored with the fact that anyone actually still wants to debate this stuff...there is nothing new, so it will HAVE to be the same old stuff, just different mouth pieces.

Jon Gold is far from a threat, especially to someone as knowledgable as Pat.

Thanks for the concern though.

TAM;)

[beachnut]

Does 9/11 truth have something new? No

Did 9/11 truth find some evidence to support their nut case ideas? No

Thus, 9/11 truth will win in the minds of people unable to understand reality.

Pat wins before the debate begins. A review of 9/11 truth fantasy ideas with real information will help those who are able to use logic, knowledge and sound judgment defeat the anti-intellectual 9/11 truth fantasy club. Good work Pat.


If the debate is with this Jon Gold, I see the only thing Jon uses is hearsay and opinions based on fantasy and bias political junk. Here he supports Barrett who has the same evidence on 9/11 as Jon has, none.

We Support You Kevin

If anyone were to take the time to research 9/11 on their own, they would see that the “Official Story” can not stand up to scrutiny. We were lied to. Those who lied to us benefitted the most from the attacks. The United States has a history of deceiving the public in order to start wars. Thank you Kevin for everything that you do.

Jon Gold, Rocket Scientist at NASA, at 9:10 am EDT on July 3, 2006


Seems Gold's primary evidence is talk.

[Walter Ego]

Good luck Pat.

Welcome to the forum, Jon. While you're here, could you tell us why you censor the comments on your YouTube videos? Don't you believe in free speech?

[Jon Gold]

Welcome to the forum, Jon. While you're here, could you tell us why you censor the comments on your YouTube videos? Don't you believe in free speech?

Sure, I'll answer one question while I'm here. Because I don't like death threats being posted, I don't like slanderous comments against the families and responders being posted, I don't like when "debunkers" choose to use slander against me, as opposed to just trying to counter what's said in the video, and I do not like when people like Nico Haupt and others try to promote ******** information that I do not endorse. If you don't like youtube's commenting features, then take it up with youtube.

Take care.

[Walter Ego]

Sure, I'll answer one question while I'm here. Because I don't like death threats being posted, I don't like slanderous comments against the families and responders being posted, I don't like when "debunkers" choose to use slander against me, as opposed to just trying to counter what's said in the video, and I do not like when people like Nico Haupt and others try to promote ******** information that I do not endorse. If you don't like youtube's commenting features, then take it up with youtube.

Take care.

Thanks for your reply, Jon. I don’t see the comments you don’t approve or delete of course so I’ll take you at your word. But I do know for a fact that you do censor comments that merely “counter what's said in the video.” Different standards for different people I suppose. Take care.

(Btw, one of the videos you have on YouTube was provided by me. You posted in on 911 Blogger, too. It happens to be on an issue we actually agree on. PM me if you want to know which one.)

[Arus808]

HAs jon read the entirety of the 911 commission report/ THe various FBI investigations? The Pentagon Performance Report? THE NIST reports (both the towers and hte Wtc7)? or will he come to the table as usual, ignorant of what any of these reports actually state?

[tomwaits]

Why?



I understand that Pat likes to look at this from a sort of anthropological perspective, but this is just silly.

[T.A.M.]

HAs jon read the entirety of the 911 commission report/ THe various FBI investigations? The Pentagon Performance Report? THE NIST reports (both the towers and hte Wtc7)? or will he come to the table as usual, ignorant of what any of these reports actually state?

What do any of those thorough investigations have to do with 9/11 truther theories?

TAM;)

[Homeland Insurgency]

Welcome to the forum, Jon. While you're here, could you tell us why you censor the comments on your YouTube videos? Don't you believe in free speech?


Yeah debunkers like RKO never do that!

lol

[tanabear]

The topics are one of the main reasons I agreed to do the show; it's not missile into the Pentagon or controlled demolition, but the "Truther" fallback position of "Are there unanswered questions" and "Was the 9-11 Commission a legitimate investigation?" At this point I find those more interesting topics. I'm in the process of reading the Shenon book, and I've already read the Commission Report itself and Kean and Hamilton's Without Precedent.

Any suggestions for other stuff to check out would be appreciated. I'm actually surprised at how much interesting information I've discovered about Zelikow in the past few days; he really gets an unfair rap from the Troofers.

The topics for discussion are:

1. Are there unanswered questions? Yes
2. Was the 9/11 Commission a legitimate investigation? No

Does Zelikow get a unfair rap? That depends on one's belief concerning the goals of the 9/11 Commission. Was the goal to discover and report the Truth about 9/11, or was the goal to produce a report favorable to the official 9/11 fairy tale? If you believe the former, then Zelikow's bad rap is well deserved. If you believe the latter, then maybe he did get a bad rap.

As Philip Shenon reports,

"By March 2003, with the commission's staff barely in place, the two men [Philip Zelikow and Ernest R. May, a Harvard historian] had prepared a detailed outline, complete with 'chapter headings, subheadings, and sub-subheadings'...Zelikow shared the document with Kean and Hamilton, who were impressed by their executive director's early diligence but worried that the outline would be seen as evidence that they--and Zelikow--had predetermined the report's outcome. It should be kept secret from the rest of the staff, they all decided...He labeled it "Commission Sensitive," putting those words at the top and bottom of each page."

Investigative reporter, Peter Lance, in his book Cover Up also comments on Zelikow,

"When I began this phase of my investigation in the fall of 2003, I developed a confidential source on the commission staff...The source, who had a heavy law enforcement background, revealed that of the eight teams set up to investigate various aspects of the attack..., only one had issued subpoenas. It was run by John Farmer...who was close to chairman Tom Kean. 'The other teams are completely controlled by Zelikow down in D.C.," he said...'Zelikow is calling the shots. He's skewing the investigation and running it his own way. What's worse, none of the other team leaders talk to the Commissioners. Farmer is the only one who deals with the Commissioners, because he has the relationship with Kean.'"

[Bosozoku]

The topics for discussion are:

1. Are there unanswered questions? Yes
2. Was the 9/11 Commission a legitimate investigation? No

Does Zelikow get a unfair rap? That depends on one's belief concerning the goals of the 9/11 Commission. Was the goal to discover and report the Truth about 9/11, or was the goal to produce a report favorable to the official 9/11 fairy tale? If you believe the former, then Zelikow's bad rap is well deserved. If you believe the latter, then maybe he did get a bad rap.

As Philip Shenon reports,

"By March 2003, with the commission's staff barely in place, the two men [Philip Zelikow and Ernest R. May, a Harvard historian] had prepared a detailed outline, complete with 'chapter headings, subheadings, and sub-subheadings'...Zelikow shared the document with Kean and Hamilton, who were impressed by their executive director's early diligence but worried that the outline would be seen as evidence that they--and Zelikow--had predetermined the report's outcome. It should be kept secret from the rest of the staff, they all decided...He labeled it "Commission Sensitive," putting those words at the top and bottom of each page."

Investigative reporter, Peter Lance, in his book Cover Up also comments on Zelikow,

"When I began this phase of my investigation in the fall of 2003, I developed a confidential source on the commission staff...The source, who had a heavy law enforcement background, revealed that of the eight teams set up to investigate various aspects of the attack..., only one had issued subpoenas. It was run by John Farmer...who was close to chairman Tom Kean. 'The other teams are completely controlled by Zelikow down in D.C.," he said...'Zelikow is calling the shots. He's skewing the investigation and running it his own way. What's worse, none of the other team leaders talk to the Commissioners. Farmer is the only one who deals with the Commissioners, because he has the relationship with Kean.'"



The mere fact that Zelikow had an agenda does not by itself mean that the 9/11 Commission was not a legitimate investigation. Zelikow attempted to predetermine the report's outcome for the same reason that Sandy Berger was stuffing memos in his shoe - they each wanted to make sure the administration they represented was not faulted for the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11.

Anyone who reads Shenon's book can see that the 9/11 Commission Report was in many ways flawed; however, to say that it was "not a legitimate investigation" is another thing entirely.

[metamars]

The mere fact that Zelikow had an agenda does not by itself mean that the 9/11 Commission was not a legitimate investigation. Zelikow attempted to predetermine the report's outcome for the same reason that Sandy Berger was stuffing memos in his shoe - they each wanted to make sure the administration they represented was not faulted for the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11.

Anyone who reads Shenon's book can see that the 9/11 Commission Report was in many ways flawed; however, to say that it was "not a legitimate investigation" is another thing entirely.

Amazing. "Debunkers", who tend to eschew nuanced arguments, even when attempting to explain complex phenomena involving ever-so-complicated humans in their -ever-so-irrational interactions, will nevertheless make fine distinctions if it helps them perpetuate their collective myth.

It's admitted that Zeikow attempted to predetermine the outcome of the "investigation", but we are still to believe that the investigation is legimate. Wow, just wow. I'm sure you'd feel the exact same way if your family members were murdered on 9/11, right?

Actually, I'm giving too much credit to the poster, since he hasn't really provided an explanation involving a point (subtle or otherwise) that would make his Orwellian claim of the legitimacy of the "investigation" seem reasonable. So let me help him out.

Me:
"The 911 teams were composed of patriotic Americans, who would never help cover up a crime."

or

"The 911 teams worked their tails off."

or

"If the 911 teams not completely controlled by Zelikow had thought there was a need for subpoenas, they would have screamed bloody murder if they were denied."

See? Playing at "debunker" can be very easy!

Almost any kind of real-world problem solving, described by the word "investigation", involves lots of trial and error. Asking a question may generate a response or finding of fact that leads to a better question. To pre-emptively abort a chain of question/responses is not the way that things are done in, say, a criminal trial. A prosecutor will not take testimony as gospel truth, but rather witnesses are cross-examined, contradictions are sniffed out, etc.

I suggest Jon Gold prepare for the debate by studying how other cover-ups in plain sight are done in Washington, such as the Iran Contra hearings. For a cover-up to be worth it's salt, it's important not to ask certain questions.

Note: I haven't read Shenon's book, so maybe it's overflowing with examples of why deep questioning wasn't necessary or indicated, and zero examples indicating that deep questioning (aided by subpoenas) would likely have been productive. So, my advice to both debaters is to try and figure this out before-hand, from within the context of Shenon's book. Does Shenon explain just how Zelikow skewed the investigation? (By "how", I mean in what direction, not the mechanics of accomplishing the skewing.)

If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be research.
Albert Einstein (http://www.yourfamousquotes.com/albert-einstein-quotes.html)

[T.A.M.]

Given what Tanabear has described as the topics to be covered.

I restate my earlier position.

YAWN!

TAM:)

[beachnut]

Amazing. "Debunkers", who tend to eschew nuanced arguments, even when attempting to explain complex phenomena involving ever-so-complicated humans in their -ever-so-irrational interactions, will nevertheless make fine distinctions if it helps them perpetuate their collective myth.

It's admitted that Zeikow attempted to predetermine the outcome of the "investigation", but we are still to believe that the investigation is legimate. Wow, just wow. I'm sure you'd feel the exact same way if your family members were murdered on 9/11, right?

Actually, I'm giving too much credit to the poster, since he hasn't really provided an explanation involving a point (subtle or otherwise) that would make his Orwellian claim of the legitimacy of the "investigation" seem reasonable. So let me help him out.

Me:
"The 911 teams were composed of patriotic Americans, who would never help cover up a crime."

or

"The 911 teams worked their tails off."

or

"If the 911 teams not completely controlled by Zelikow had thought there was a need for subpoenas, they would have screamed bloody murder if they were denied."

See? Playing at "debunker" can be very easy!

Almost any kind of real-world problem solving, described by the word "investigation", involves lots of trial and error. Asking a question may generate a response or finding of fact that leads to a better question. To pre-emptively abort a chain of question/responses is not the way that things are done in, say, a criminal trial. A prosecutor will not take testimony as gospel truth, but rather witnesses are cross-examined, contradictions are sniffed out, etc.

I suggest Jon Gold prepare for the debate by studying how other cover-ups in plain sight are done in Washington, such as the Iran Contra hearings. For a cover-up to be worth it's salt, it's important not to ask certain questions.

Note: I haven't read Shenon's book, so maybe it's overflowing with examples of why deep questioning wasn't necessary or indicated, and zero examples indicating that deep questioning (aided by subpoenas) would likely have been productive. So, my advice to both debaters is to try and figure this out before-hand, from within the context of Shenon's book. Does Shenon explain just how Zelikow skewed the investigation? (By "how", I mean in what direction, not the mechanics of accomplishing the skewing.)


Albert Einstein (http://www.yourfamousquotes.com/albert-einstein-quotes.html)
Your lack of evidence is due to your common sense. Einstein was right, you are wrong on 9/11.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
- Albert Einstein
The cover-up experts for 9/11 are the terrorist apologist, 9/11 truth. The best 9/11 truth can do is glom to books slamming the left or right with implications of cover-up. The 9/11 truth cult members fail to see the implications are pure hearsay and lies. What is your excuse?

The cover-up experts for 9/11 are the terrorist apologist, 9/11 truth. The best 9/11 truth can do is glom to books slamming the left or right with implications of cover-up. The 9/11 truth cult members fail to see the implications are pure hearsay and lies. What is your excuse?

My excuse for slamming 9/11 truth; the absent of evidence in 9/11 truth arguments. Why do you join them, weighing in with zero evidence to support your implication on behalf of the terrorist apologist?

You could save these books of woo by adding evidence and get them out of the political section of the library, or move them away from the bigfoot books.

[Bosozoku]

Amazing. "Debunkers", who tend to eschew nuanced arguments, even when attempting to explain complex phenomena involving ever-so-complicated humans in their -ever-so-irrational interactions, will nevertheless make fine distinctions if it helps them perpetuate their collective myth.

It's admitted that Zeikow attempted to predetermine the outcome of the "investigation", but we are still to believe that the investigation is legimate. Wow, just wow. I'm sure you'd feel the exact same way if your family members were murdered on 9/11, right?


If the investigation was solely the result of Zelikow's work, then I would certainly be quite upset. You may be amazed to learn, if you ever read Shenon's book, that Zelikow was one of many contributors the 9/11 Commission, and that many of the things he pushed for to be included in the report were not in the final report.

Let's say, theoretically, the Truth Movement gets its wish and a new investigation is launched into 9/11. Would you want 9/11 truthers to be a part of the investigation? Would their findings be illegitimate, since they would presumably be working toward the goal of proving that 9/11 was an inside job?

[Gravy]

Good luck Pat.Hi, Jon. Welcome to the JREF forums. When you and I last communicated (several months ago, via SLC comments and email), you had lost a $100 bet to me and were going to donate that amount to the FealGood Foundation.

I asked for confirmation of that donation but didn't receive it. Please send it at your earliest convenience. My email is nyctours(at)gmail(dot)com.

Thanks.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Hi, Jon. Welcome to the JREF forums. When you and I last communicated (several months ago, via SLC comments and email), you had lost a $100 bet to me and were going to donate that amount to the FealGood Foundation.

I asked for confirmation of that donation but didn't receive it. Please send it at your earliest convenience. My email is nyctours(at)gmail(dot)com.

Thanks.

derail

reported

[metamars]

If the investigation was solely the result of Zelikow's work, then I would certainly be quite upset. You may be amazed to learn, if you ever read Shenon's book, that Zelikow was one of many contributors the 9/11 Commission, and that many of the things he pushed for to be included in the report were not in the final report.

Let's say, theoretically, the Truth Movement gets its wish and a new investigation is launched into 9/11. Would you want 9/11 truthers to be a part of the investigation? Would their findings be illegitimate, since they would presumably be working toward the goal of proving that 9/11 was an inside job?

They would be illegimate if the Truthers attempted to pre-determine the outcome, and there was no counter-balancing individuals who could make sure that the truther constituents didn't have sole ability to ask questions and subpoena documents.* In other words, if there was no balance in the investigative committees, such that if the Truthers really did have a hidden agenda of laying blame where it doesn't belong, it would succeed. And of course, dissenting opinions should be allowed. "Men of good will disagree."

You're being a bit abstract when you lay out your fear of "proving 911 an inside job". 911 Truthers have no state power, right now, and can't compel testimony. But for anybody in a committee with state power, to prove an inside job, you'd have to identify individuals who clearly behaved in a conspiratorial manner. You'd also have to unearth more details than we have now. E.g., if Mohammed Atta was a patsy working with international drug smugglers, who gave him his orders? What was this person's name, and who was this person working for? What group or individuals would have profited from Mohammed Atta's drug dealings? And what would be their interest in perpetrating a 911? If it was solely a contract with another group, what is this group, what are some names of members, and what was their interest in 9/11? Etc.

I would recommend that the Jersey girls be part of such a new investigation, even though they probably don't have an investigative or prosecutorial background. I really believe that they want to know exactly why and how their husbands were murdered, whatever that may be. Would it bring them any closure if they laid blame for MIHOP, say, when really it was MEGA-OOPS and CYA? I don't think so, since that would involve blaming innocent individuals. Do you think it would bring them closure?


N.B.: Aaron Russo is no longer alive, but a serious investigation would fully investigate his claim of Nick Rockefeller's "911 precognition", also.

* By "911 truther", I mean somebody who has shown evidence of 911 activism, but has shown no evidence of deliberately twisting or evading the truth for political ends. Unfortunately, I know of at least one person in the Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice who would do such a thing, and I have email to prove it.

[RedIbis]

derail

reported

Good luck on that one.

[stateofgrace]

Good luck on that one.

Reported, off topic, total derail, absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the OP and silly.

(Only joking).

:)

[T.A.M.]

did I miss something, or is someone trying to report a "derail".

Since when did derailing a thread with a single post become a "reportable offense"?

I do know that ABUSE OF THE REPORT FUNCTION might be considered one though.

Unless I am missing something

TAM:)

[chillzero]

Discuss moderation and reporting issues in Forum Management, not ion threads.

[Brainster]

The show has been taped and will be put up on YouTube tonight or tomorrow. I felt it came off pretty well, and Justin and Eric handled themselves in a professional manner. Jon and I managed to avoid getting into a shouting match, so this was not a good audition tape for us to appear on Hannity and Colmes.

:D

[PhantomWolf]

Discuss moderation and reporting issues in Forum Management, not ion threads.

Would that be a positive or negative ion thread?


(And don't worry HI, I've already reported myself for attempting to derail.....)

[PhantomWolf]

Amazing. "Debunkers", who tend to eschew nuanced arguments, even when attempting to explain complex phenomena involving ever-so-complicated humans in their -ever-so-irrational interactions, will nevertheless make fine distinctions if it helps them perpetuate their collective myth.

It's admitted that Zeikow attempted to predetermine the outcome of the "investigation", but we are still to believe that the investigation is legimate. Wow, just wow. I'm sure you'd feel the exact same way if your family members were murdered on 9/11, right?

You really don't get it do you.

Let me try a little story...

Bill and Joe are two ex-cops working as security guards in a bank. One day a gang of bank-robbers decides to rob the place, so they spend a day casing the place. This is during Bill's watch, but he doesn't notice them. The next day Joe is on duty and the robbers rob the bank taking him by surprise and making him look rather foolish when it is discovered that his gun's not loaded, something that is bank policy.

After the robbery partners Officer Jeff and Officer Mick turn up. Turns out that Jeff is an old friend of Bill and when Mick was a rookie he was partners with Joe. Both decide that due to their friendship they aren't going to put their friends in the firing line and so not steer the investigation towards blame for the robbery being placed on their friend.

The investigation quickly shows that the robbery was done by a group of bikers from a few towns over, the leader of which had a grudge against the bank because he'd been turned down for a loan extention and had lost his home in a forclosure sale. As far as the bank security is concern, the reccomendation is that the bank arm them properly, but that the failure in realising the bank was a target and preparing was in the training of the guards and so was no one's fault.

Now here's the question for you. Just because those doing the investigation set out to make sure their friend wasn't fired for not doing his job, was the investigation no longer legimate? Why, or Why not?

Now the argument certainly could be made that both guards could have done more to realise the threat and have possibly stopped it and that this was focused on in the investigation, but would looking at that really have changed the main issues of who did it and the main areas of what when wrong?

In the same way, the 9/11 Commision certainly could have made more of both Clinton and Bush's administrations blunders, but that wouldn't have changed the main answer of who did it, how, and where certain things fell over. In essence all it does is give a scapegoat and a false sense of security with the believe that once those that failed are gone the problems are solved. The 9/11 Commission went further than that, they pointed out that the system was sobadly flawed that regardless of who was in charge ot it, it had holes the size of Texas, that it is the system that needs fixing, that blaming individuals inside the system and sacking them wouldn't actually solve the real issues.

Which is better, finding scapegoats and sacking them, or actually dealing with and fixing the problems?

[Walter Ego]

Justin Martell has the first part of the bebate up on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBPWIpCGQGY

There will be two other parts and I'll have a playlist of the complete bebate on my video blog when all the segments are available.

Edit: Part two now uploaded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvFWlzhM8H8

[Lennart Hyland]

Justin Martell has the first part of the bebate up on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBPWIpCGQGY

There will be two other parts and I'll have a playlist of the complete bebate on my video blog when all the segments are available.

Thanks! And woot at widescreen-youtube!?

EDIT: And oh very low sound :(

[nicepants]

Jon seems to think that the existence of ANY unanswered questions means that the investigation was faulty. I would love for him to point out any investigation that leaves NO unanswered questions.

Interesting debate...would have been 100x better with better audio.

[JamesB]

You know the 9/11 Comission never established what was served for breakfast on United 93. I suspect a coverup!

[RedIbis]

I call it a draw. Poor production. Poor audio, and not very compelling nor specific questions.

I commend all involved for the attempt at civil debate, but in the two clips I heard, not much was accomplished.

Pat seemed to agree that Zelikow compromised the Commission Report, but any honest person would have to admit that.

[Brainster]

I call it a draw. Poor production. Poor audio, and not very compelling nor specific questions.

I commend all involved for the attempt at civil debate, but in the two clips I heard, not much was accomplished.

Pat seemed to agree that Zelikow compromised the Commission Report, but any honest person would have to admit that.

No, I agree that Zelikow probably should not have been chosen, despite the fact that he was clearly the best-qualified individual, because of the conflict of interest issues which are legitimate if commonly overstated.

[T.A.M.]

I call it a draw. Poor production. Poor audio, and not very compelling nor specific questions.

I commend all involved for the attempt at civil debate, but in the two clips I heard, not much was accomplished.

Pat seemed to agree that Zelikow compromised the Commission Report, but any honest person would have to admit that.

If "Complete lack of conflict of interest and politik" were the #1 criteria for choosing members of the commission, then the commission would have been full of soccer moms from the mid west.

TAM;)

[SpiritMolecule]

Part 3 is now up, but i do not have enough posts to post a link yet :)

[Brainster]

Here's Part III:

yv4_7q7Hlk8

I went for the nuclear option on the closing statement; that seems to be getting the most commentary at 9-11 Blogger, with a lot of people griping about my bringing up Nico. They don't get the point. Yes, Nico's crazy, but no more so than Gage and Griffin and Jones and Ryan.

[funk de fino]

That coin toss was faked.

[JAMartell]

Yeah, sorry about the poor audio/production quality. The show was done right before thanksgiving break and most of our crew had already left, so we were working with a crew of three people when we should have had eight. If we do more we'll have a full crew so we won't have those kind of problems...

We're looking to set up more debates like this between other representatives from each side. Some of the people we thought about from the side of the debunkers are James B, Mike W, Ron Wieck, Ryan Mackey, Kryptos, and Gumboot. Obviously, we would cover other topics and topics that are of particularly interest to those debating.

Pat has told me that we were fair and impartial. We would, of course, provide others with the same courtesy should we do another debate. Any takers?

[DGM]

Yeah, sorry about the poor audio/production quality. The show was done right before thanksgiving break and most of our crew had already left, so we were working with a crew of three people when we should have had eight. If we do more we'll have a full crew so we won't have those kind of problems...

We're looking to set up more debates like this between other representatives from each side. Some of the people we thought about from the side of the debunkers are James B, Mike W, Ron Wieck, Ryan Mackey, Kryptos, and Gumboot. Obviously, we would cover other topics and topics that are of particularly interest to those debating.

Pat has told me that we were fair and impartial. We would, of course, provide others with the same courtesy should we do another debate. Any takers?
With no disrespect intended, What's left to be debated? You have to admit no one (mostly) is listening to your side.

[Walter Ego]

Yeah, sorry about the poor audio/production quality. The show was done right before thanksgiving break and most of our crew had already left, so we were working with a crew of three people when we should have had eight. If we do more we'll have a full crew so we won't have those kind of problems...

We're looking to set up more debates like this between other representatives from each side. Some of the people we thought about from the side of the debunkers are James B, Mike W, Ron Wieck, Ryan Mackey, Kryptos, and Gumboot. Obviously, we would cover other topics and topics that are of particularly interest to those debating.

Pat has told me that we were fair and impartial. We would, of course, provide others with the same courtesy should we do another debate. Any takers?

You did a good job moderating and even with the technical problems it was a good debate. Kudos for your efforts, Justin.

My only question is what is that framed certificate Jon Gold was holding?

[JAMartell]

I believe that there are enough people listening to warrant further debates...In previous debates I don't think that the people that represented the truth movement, while they are influential, were not the best choices. I want to do debates with people that I feel can better represent the truth movement...

Walter, the framed certificate is an award given to Jon by the FealGood Foundation.

[T.A.M.]

I would love to see Pat and Mark Roberts debate David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage combined. That would be a good debate (even if the issues are long dead).

TAM:)

[Walter Ego]

I believe that there are enough people listening to warrant further debates...In previous debates I don't think that the people that represented the truth movement, while they are influential, were not the best choices. I want to do debates with people that I feel can better represent the truth movement...

Walter, the framed certificate is an award given to Jon by the FealGood Foundation.

Jon's efforts of behalf of the first responders is to be commended. Good luck on organizing further debates. I don't doubt your or Jon’s sincerity on the 9/11 issue. I just think you’re both dead wrong in your conclusions.

[RedIbis]

I believe that there are enough people listening to warrant further debates...In previous debates I don't think that the people that represented the truth movement, while they are influential, were not the best choices. I want to do debates with people that I feel can better represent the truth movement...

Walter, the framed certificate is an award given to Jon by the FealGood Foundation.

Technical issues aside, you did a great job moderating and pulling off a civil debate is an accomplishment.

My main criticism was that the questions were far too broad. A more formal approach might be to set up a proposition and then the negative. For instance, The NIST WTC 7 report conclusively explains the collapse of Bldg 7. One side would argue yes and another no.

[SpiritMolecule]

I want to see Gumboot and FAA's Robert Hordon Debate NORAD. That'd be fantastic :D

[JAMartell]

My main criticism was that the questions were far too broad. A more formal approach might be to set up a proposition and then the negative. For instance, The NIST WTC 7 report conclusively explains the collapse of Bldg 7. One side would argue yes and another no.

We want to discuss more in depth topics in future debates. Right now we're trying to organize a debate with Michael Berger. Right now Ron Wieck is slated to oppose him. We haven't discussed any topics yet. Wieck said he would do it if no one else wanted to take his place. He specifically suggested Gumboot if we're going to talk about the flights. I wouldn't mind doing a show on the flights (norad's response, the wargames, etc.) and the Mineta controversy. Neither of these have been discussed in depth in a debate setting (that I know of).

Some ideas we were throwing around (but haven't talked to anyone about yet) would possibly Sander Hicks V.S. someone regarding the whistleblower and even though CD has been beat to death, maybe Kevin Ryan V.S. Ryan Mackey...

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Okay, I haven't posted here in a while but I had to post a comment when I saw Martell crawl out of twoofer retirement and try the debate scene again. I can't believe the debate actually happened for one, and secondly I thought it was funny that Martell proposed the same topics he wanted to debate me about, but never did.

Let me guess Brainster, he was trying to get you to debate Gold and some other twoofers at the same time but then settled for moderator so he could get some camera time, close? I'm pretty sure he wanted to get you to debate the Daniel Hopsicker nonsense and the Pakistani ISI connection, but then settled for his other vague question about whether the 911 commission answered all the questions, blah, blah! After this he went on and on about how he's single handedly fixing universal healthcare and spending lots of his free time with his "girlfriend" so backing out at the last minute would be easier.

Well that was my experience anyway. This "production" was horrible and the moderation was even worse, but it's pretty much what I expected.

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

I really can't believe this is still going on BTW. I'm 100% sure that this is giving a dead movement more attention and now I'm wondering why debunkers are even doing this stuff anymore.

How did this forum and SLC go from laughing at twoofers a month ago, to now attempting to humor their insanity with "serious" debates? I'm starting to wonder if you SLC guys have become too attached to your blog to let it go now.

[ref]

I want to see Gumboot and FAA's Robert Hordon Debate NORAD. That'd be fantastic :D

That would be Robin Hordon, whose latest association with FAA was back in 1981 :rolleyes: but he still is considered an expert among truthers.

[Brainster]

Okay, I haven't posted here in a while but I had to post a comment when I saw Martell crawl out of twoofer retirement and try the debate scene again. I can't believe the debate actually happened for one, and secondly I thought it was funny that Martell proposed the same topics he wanted to debate me about, but never did.

Let me guess Brainster, he was trying to get you to debate Gold and some other twoofers at the same time but then settled for moderator so he could get some camera time, close? I'm pretty sure he wanted to get you to debate the Daniel Hopsicker nonsense and the Pakistani ISI connection, but then settled for his other vague question about whether the 911 commission answered all the questions, blah, blah! After this he went on and on about how he's single handedly fixing universal healthcare and spending lots of his free time with his "girlfriend" so backing out at the last minute would be easier.

No, that was not my experience. The debate came off exactly as he had first proposed, and it was always those topics and Gold and I as debaters. The only changes that came were minor and logical tweaks to the format; IIRC the coin toss came up as a proposal in the second planning phone call.

Again, I felt Justin was honest and straightforward in the way he handled the debate. I have no complaints.

[JAMartell]

Okay, I haven't posted here in a while but I had to post a comment when I saw Martell crawl out of twoofer retirement and try the debate scene again. I can't believe the debate actually happened for one, and secondly I thought it was funny that Martell proposed the same topics he wanted to debate me about, but never did.

Still telling lies, I see. I believe we were going to debate about Able Danger, the ISI, and Daniel Hopsicker. Jon Gold proposed the questions for this debate. I don't know how many times I need to call you out on this lie but the debate didn't happen because you mixed up the time zones and didn't call me. I cancelled the debate once because I was busy, whatever I was busy doing isn't any of your business, and worked with you to set the whole thing set up again. Then the night of the debate I sat and waited for your call and you never did. Then got aggravated when you started claiming I ran from you. How is this my fault? Who is it that messed it up, Justin? You. So get over it. I really don't understand why you continue to perpetuate this distorted view about what happened, liar.

[WildCat]

continue to perpetuate this distorted view about what happened, liar.
Which is pretty much all the "truth" movement has ever done.

Lies, distortions, stalking, ignorant fools thinking they know more than accredited experts, this is the legacy of your pathetic movement.

7 years later, not a single truther discovery challenging the accepted course of events. Not a single truther paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Not a single truther narrative of what happened that horrible day.

It's pathetic, and yet the truthers plod on completely oblivious to the fact that nearly everyone thinks they're fools, charlatons, and snake-oil salesmen seeking to profit from tragedy.

About what one would expect from a movement founded by anti-semite Holocaust deniers.

[JAMartell]

Ummm, I've supported the family members' call for a new investigation. I don't really see how that falls under what you described, or makes it okay for Justin (Dan K. Stanley) to make things up. If he's on the side of truth and reason, shouldn't he tell the truth? I don't even want to spend too much time on him anyway, we were supposed to debate and he couldn't figure out the time difference between CST and EST. It's not worth discussing beyond that. If anyone wants to discuss further debates I'm here to discuss that.

[Arus808]

Ummm, I've supported the family members' call for a new investigation.

And you are looking for a new investigation for all the wrong reasons. The family members wanted to have closure (by NAMING individuals to BLAME) but didn't get it, because the entity that caused 911 was far in another country, nearly untouchable. THEY want to blame someone, so their 'call' for a new investigation is simply a call to 'BLAME and PUNISH' someone; anyone, since they can't get their justice by blaming a group of terrorists that have only one face; Osama Bin Laden.

SEVERAL investigations have been done. THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of man hours devoted to invetigating EVERYTHING about why 9/11 happened and the events that followed.

Simply these "family" members DO not like the answers they were given. BEcause they can't SEE justice being served.



By "supporting" them you are only supporting their cause to blame the govt, of which the GOVT has agreed that there was failings from top to bottom (namely the closed communications between the CIA and the FBI) which have been somewhat resolved, concerning 9/11/2001.


Dont put your deluded beliefs that 9/11 was an inside job, and think that the family members want an investigation simply because YOU think they believe that 911 was an inside job.


Debates are over. No one in the Truth movement has put forward any type of sensible timeline and theory, based on ALL the collected evidence and testimony.

Why don't you RALLY your movement to do this FIRST?

[JamesB]

Pat has told me that we were fair and impartial. We would, of course, provide others with the same courtesy should we do another debate. Any takers?

Yeah, I want David Ray Griffin on there explaining how exactly he thinks the FBI goes about faking the body parts of airplane crash victims.

And I realize I didn't respond earlier to the question about the bodies. First there were bodies, there were 125 Pentagon workers who were killed. But we have no evidence that anyone from an airplane died at the Pentagon. At best we know that bodies from the airplane, and bodies from the Pentagon showed up at the Army's pathology institute. But these were transported by the FBI and the military and we know that was irregular. They went from the Pentagon to another building, and then from that building were taken to the pathology institute. So the bodies from the airplane could have been transferred to that middle building from somewhere else and to the people at the pathology institute they would assume they all came from the Pentagon

[JAMartell]

YOU think they believe that 911 was an inside job.

Well, no, I've never said it was an inside job. I've said that there are cover ups, and your explanations for the cover ups are just as speculative as mine. You say there's nothing to debate? There are plenty of topics to cover, considering the only topics that have been covered in debates have been about the physical evidence of 9/11. I've always been more interested in other topics and that's why I've been trying to organize debates that focus on those. I don't have to be here. If anyone is interested contact me directly. I'm done here for the time being.

Have a happy Thanksgiving.

[Arus808]

Well, no, I've never said it was an inside
job.

Then why do you support the crackpots who do?

I've said that there are cover ups, and your explanations for the cover ups are just as speculative as mine.Gee, you wonder why they would cover up their ERRORs? doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that those who should have seen the events that lead up to 911, wanted to displace the blame.

how many people work in various agencies in our govt?
There are bound to people who will shift blame to someone else.
Its a known fact that the FBI and the CIA DID not communicate with each other leading up to 9/11. IF the CIA had information on OBL activities, THE FBI was PREVENTED from knowing this.

ERRORS are made. the Govt isn't an autonomous machine, on one set track. It's made up of millions of individual human beings with their own beliefs, and sadly, their own agendas.

Cover ups. Yes, we've never disputed that there wasn't any cover ups. but those COVER UPs do NOT mean that the Govt was 100% responsible for the events of 9/11/2001.

You say there's nothing to debate?
Yes there is nothing to debate. What you want to debate is the POLICIES and POLITICS that were in place before 9/11/2001. THAT has nothing to do with 911 or any of the crackpots who think that 911 was an inside job.


There are plenty of topics to cover, considering the only topics that have been covered in debates have been about the physical evidence of 9/11.BECAUSE that is what matters. Its those that you support that the think evidence doesn't matter. EVIDENCE proves that operatives within Al Quaeda were responsible for the execution and events of 9/11/2001. To ignore this, means that you are ignoring reality.

[T.A.M.]

I want to see Gumboot and FAA's Robert Hordon Debate NORAD. That'd be fantastic :D

Gumboot or Cheapshot (you know, one of the actual ATCers who worked that day, and was responsible for tracking one of the 9/11 flights), would likely tear Robin "Stopped working in the Reagan Area" Hordon a new one on the matter.

TAM:)

[WildCat]

Gumboot or Cheapshot (you know, one of the actual ATCers who worked that day, and was responsible for tracking one of the 9/11 flights), would likely tear Robin "Stopped working in the Reagan Area" Hordon a new one on the matter.

TAM:)
Era, TAM, era.

/pedant

;)

[bje]

As much as I respect Pat Curley, Mark Roberts, and anyone else who chooses to debate 9/11 Deniers, I still maintain that no one should debate 9/11 Deniers any more than they should debate Holocaust Deniers.

That position is still controversial ever since Deborah Lipstadt declared in no uncertain terms that she would never appear on the the same stage as a Holocaust Denier, and would never debate one under any circumstances.

What is the purpose and end result of such debates? What have such debates accomplished to date?

Do we need any more evidence than our own experience here and on other forums for the last seven years to understand that reason and rational thinking play no part in in 9/11 Truthers thinking or appraisal of reality?

Are we subconsciously caving to the post-modern assertion that "every opinion counts equally", that "every person has a right to be heard no matter what they espouse?"

Do such debates change minds? Do they serve the purpose to deflect a newcomer's ignorance of 9/11 to assess the positions rationally or to have no effect on one whose mind, ignorance, or motivations will make them a Truther no matter what? Do we have any hard evidence that debating 9/11 Truthers serves any purpose to introduce rational skepticism with positive results?

Having fought Holocaust Denial vigoursly online before 9/11, I have been fighting (far less vigorously) the exact same battle about 9/11 as I was then. The subject matter (the Holocaust and 9/11) are completely different subject matters, but the psychology that ultimately fuels denial of reality in each subject and any semblance of actually trying to acheive the truth as the end result, is exactly the same. I find it particularly horrifying that Jon Gold, of all people, should not understand that, and that what he is actually doing is perpetuating (not intentionally but through vast ignorance and obsession) the same kind of thinking, obfuscation, and mental gymnastics that resulted in the possibility and reality of the Holocaust.

Have any of the debates that have appeared so far by any of us defending reason and truth accomplished anything? Do we not see the same outcome each time we applaud Gravy, Pat, and others for jobs well done in mostly civilized debates? While the 9/11 Truthers celebrate the same thing, both sides claiming victories but for different reasons and motives?

By what standard, then, do we decide it is legitimate and worthwhile to debate 9/11 Truthers? What indeed is the rational standard that justifies giving 9/11 Truthers the time of day?

Hannah Arendt famously wrote,

"Facts inform opinions and opinions, inspired by different interests and passions, can differ widely and still be legitimate as long as they respect factual truth. Freedom of opinion is a farce unless factual information is guaranteed and the facts are not in dispute."

- Hannah Arendt, "Truth and Politics", 1968Do any of us really think that 9/11 Truthers "respect factual truth"? Do we think they are just confused and we all posess the power and ability to show them the reality of how objective reality is determined and why? Just what factual information is guaranteed when we deal with 9/11 Truthers in any forum? Hasn't Craig Ranke of CIT shown us that the forum structure on the Internet guarantees that he can say anything he wants without ethical regard for the accuracy, validity, or truth whatsoever of whatever he wants to claim?

"There are matters about which those who have investigated them are agreed. There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. .... Nevertheless, the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment."

- Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical Essays", 1928With our seven years experience with Truthers, have we established that the 9/11 Truth Movement has the intellectual honesty to adhere to any acceptable standard of rational discourse?

Perhaps our individual motives are different. We all may agree that we don't want others to fall into the denial trap and fight it. Perhaps we just like to test our reasoning and logical skills against those who ultimately could care less, their motives, psychology, and desires ruling the day over any concernns for reason, accuracy, or truth.

Should we give 9/11 Truthers an audience which appears to give them legitimacy and recognition they neither deserve or have earned by agreeing to debate with them?

Is not the purpose of debate to air and illuminate to the light of day equally valid, but different or opposing views, for further rational discussion and resolution? What does debating 9/11 Truthers actually serve other than to satisfy the adage that perception is reality and reality is irrelevant?

That perception could only be that by agreeing to debate them, we tacitly recognize "9/11 Truth" as a body of legitimate points of discussion. We become the lifeblood of the 9/11 Truth Movement by anointing them with undeserved legitimacy, do we not?

Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact -- which they are very good at. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists in debate. [...]
- (Caltech lecture, 1985) - Stephen Jay Gould

I have no doubt why Justin Martell is excited to want to sponsor more debates and why Jon Gold was happy to be "legitimized" by Pat. It has been no different throughout the 63 years of Holocaust Denial or the more recent history of Creationism and "Intelligent Design." It serves no valid pupose, IMHO, and only serves to perpetuate fraud and ignorance on the human race.

I urge anyone to carefully think about the purpose and consequences of debating anyone from the 9/11 Truth Movement. Don't give Justin Martell and Jon Gold what they need to survive, no matter how polite they are to you, to achieve an undeserved legitimacy they desperately need from us.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Good point bje. Dawkins feels that debating creationists gives them the oxygen they need to get a fire going. I feel the same way about 9/11 denial. As if there's something to debate here. Like we need to debate if a secret shadow government that controls a secret shadow government rigged the twins with explosives just so they could pass off a controlled demolition as a progressive collapse from impact damage and fire. It'd be more fruitful debating the evolutionary ancestors of unicorns.

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Well, no, I've never said it was an inside job. I've said that there are cover ups, and your explanations for the cover ups are just as speculative as mine. You say there's nothing to debate? There are plenty of topics to cover, considering the only topics that have been covered in debates have been about the physical evidence of 9/11. I've always been more interested in other topics and that's why I've been trying to organize debates that focus on those. I don't have to be here. If anyone is interested contact me directly. I'm done here for the time being.

Have a happy Thanksgiving.

Yeah, yeah you never SAY anything do you? BTW I still have the emails showing you blowing me off TWICE, and the recording of me calling you out on the Alex Jones show, which was the same day as the debate when you claimed to be "busy." Why would I take you seriously after you blew off the debate twice? Heck, I'm sure I could even link one of the several threads of you on here trolling for a debate and practically begging to debate someone, anyone!

Lets be honest, you and I were only debating because almost everyone else in here, thinks you're too much of a joke to give you the time of day. This debate I just watched between Gold and Brainster accomplished absolutely nothing and Gold simply rehashed a bunch of garbage that has been discussed either here, or on SLC, several times before. You have no new evidence to contribute and I'm still wondering what the heck Pat was thinking even debating Gold. I just hope you finally got that "debate bug" outta your system.

[T.A.M.]

Era, TAM, era.

/pedant

;)

DOH!!!!

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Seriously, bje hit the nail on the head Pat. It's almost like you want to run that blog of yours forever. I haven't been on JREF or SLC for a couple months, until recently, and in my time away I haven't heard one single person even mention 9/11, let alone a CT. As a matter of fact, I rarely heard anyone talk about 9/11 until a guy who runs a head shop here in TX turned me on to Zeitgeist (Willie Nelson Hypothesis style). The twoof movement is like tinkerbell and Brainster is clapping it right back to life. Why can't you just make fun of them like everyone else Curley, huh!?!?!

[Brainster]

I have no doubt why Justin Martell is excited to want to sponsor more debates and why Jon Gold was happy to be "legitimized" by Pat. It has been no different throughout the 63 years of Holocaust Denial or the more recent history of Creationism and "Intelligent Design." It serves no valid pupose, IMHO, and only serves to perpetuate fraud and ignorance on the human race.

I urge anyone to carefully think about the purpose and consequences of debating anyone from the 9/11 Truth Movement. Don't give Justin Martell and Jon Gold what they need to survive, no matter how polite they are to you, to achieve an undeserved legitimacy they desperately need from us.

This is a valid argument and one that I've wrestled with for awhile. I took this challenge on because I found the topics more interesting. This is where Trooferism is going in the USA, back to the "just asking questions" phase, partly because the debunkers have so thoroughly demolished the controlled demolition and missile into the Pentagon arguments.

It's a tough call; on the one hand you have the argument raised by Lipstadt and others that debating these people is legitimizing them; on the other you have "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." And there I'd say everybody has to make their own judgment.

[DGM]

Well, no, I've never said it was an inside job. I've said that there are cover ups, and your explanations for the cover ups are just as speculative as mine. You say there's nothing to debate? There are plenty of topics to cover, considering the only topics that have been covered in debates have been about the physical evidence of 9/11. I've always been more interested in other topics and that's why I've been trying to organize debates that focus on those. I don't have to be here. If anyone is interested contact me directly. I'm done here for the time being.

Have a happy Thanksgiving.
Happy Thanksgiving to you also.

Can we now assume that you give no credence to "controlled demolition" and all of the other wacky "theories" that the "truth" movement puts forth?

Personally I think looking for someone (an individual) is pointless and only equates to a "witch hunt" I can agree that there is (and always will be) points to be discussed.

Will you now focus your efforts on silencing the outlandish claims in favor of learning what really happened (although the commission report was not bad:D)?

[Mr.Herbert]

Era, TAM, era.

You talk like Ted Kennedy. :p

(Boston joke)

[R.Mackey]

We're looking to set up more debates like this between other representatives from each side. Some of the people we thought about from the side of the debunkers are James B, Mike W, Ron Wieck, Ryan Mackey, Kryptos, and Gumboot. Obviously, we would cover other topics and topics that are of particularly interest to those debating.

Pat has told me that we were fair and impartial. We would, of course, provide others with the same courtesy should we do another debate. Any takers?

Let me just say that I found the debate to be handled well, technical glitches notwithstanding. Well done.

Personally, I am not in the business of debating a person, any person. This is not and should not be a contest of personalities. I need a topic. If there's a given topic that needs to be discussed, and that topic has a natural representative who wants to stand up and talk about it, that's fine. Frankly, though, the number of remaining topics to be discussed is rather small. If you want to get my attention, I would need a name and a frame of reference.

The lone exception would be, of course, Dr. Griffin. Here he has published, and I've put out several hundred pages of criticism to which neither he nor anyone else has competently responded, in the fourteen months since I released my critique. In this case, the topic is obvious, and no further introduction would be necessary.

Some ideas we were throwing around (but haven't talked to anyone about yet) would possibly Sander Hicks V.S. someone regarding the whistleblower and even though CD has been beat to death, maybe Kevin Ryan V.S. Ryan Mackey...

The last three things I've seen from Kevin Ryan are (a) his laughable response to my whitepaper, which I already treated in the v2.1 release, showing him to be factually uninformed; and (b) the embarrassing paper in The Environmentalist; and (c) his simple abuse of NIST regarding the WTC 7 report. There is also his track record versus Mark Roberts, viz. his history of fleeing challenges in the past. I am not convinced he'd make a worthwhile opponent. For him I would certainly want to see what he thought he had to offer before signing up.

Only speaking for myself, of course.

[Brainster]

The lone exception would be, of course, Dr. Griffin. Here he has published, and I've put out several hundred pages of criticism to which neither he nor anyone else has competently responded, in the fourteen months since I released my critique. In this case, the topic is obvious, and no further introduction would be necessary.

Oh, man, wouldn't we all like to get a shot at DRG! I'll acknowledge that you've earned it more than I have, but definitely don't hold your breath. He's never going to let himself get pinned down.

[JamesB]

Oh, man, wouldn't we all like to get a shot at DRG! I'll acknowledge that you've earned it more than I have, but definitely don't hold your breath. He's never going to let himself get pinned down.

Well, he is coming to town on Wednesday... :D

[T.A.M.]

Oh, man, wouldn't we all like to get a shot at DRG! I'll acknowledge that you've earned it more than I have, but definitely don't hold your breath. He's never going to let himself get pinned down.

I think either of you three (Pat, R.Mackey, or Mark) would be excellent choices to debate against the High Priest (DRG), but I think the odds are better for the lottery...he knows his limitations, and the limitations of his information. You will not get him to debate.

TAM:)