Debators Needed for National 9/11 debate

[TruthSeeker1234]

http://www.teamliberty.net/id282.html

Here's your chance OCT's. Greening's already on board, go get 'em.

[gumboot]

http://www.teamliberty.net/id282.html

Here's your chance OCT's. Greening's already on board, go get 'em.


Wow... sound like a biased debate much?

-Andrew

[JamesB]

http://www.teamliberty.net/id282.html

Here's your chance OCT's. Greening's already on board, go get 'em.

I thought Steven Jones and Judy Wood were going to debate each other...

[Brainache]

I hope someone from here takes them up on their challenge and smacks them down good and proper.
Although as our Kiwi friend points out the chances of it not being biased are next to zero.

[apathoid]

Forget debates. We need to arrange a 9/11 cage-fighting tournament. I'm game for that, and I got dibs on Alex Jones. :viking1

[chran]

http://www.teamliberty.net/id282.html

Here's your chance OCT's. Greening's already on board, go get 'em. So "Truth"seeker1234, did you contact the Port Authority about the WTC blueprints yet?

[qarnos]

“The elapsed collapse time of WTC 1, 2, and 7 debunks the government’s pancake theory of collapse. Coupled with the fact that chemical traces of substances normally associated with controlled demolition have been found on debris from ground zero, and the fact that the government never developed a working “controlled demolition hypothesis” when investigating how WTC 1, 2, and 7 collapsed even though the collapse of each clearly looked like controlled demolitions, is sufficient cause to hold a public National 9/11 Debate. Basically, all one needs is a stopwatch to understand that the government has yet to provide a sustainable theory as to how the twin towers and building seven collapsed,” explains Ed Haas, National 9/11 Debate Coordinator. “A $2 stopwatch provides hard evidence that the government has failed to adequately explain what happened in NYC on 9/11. Why those desperate to believe the government’s account of 9/11 continue to ignore this basic fact must be answered.”

Nope. No bias at all! :D

There's no need to hold this debate. The conclusion has already been decided.

[qarnos]

“The elapsed collapse time of WTC 1, 2, and 7 debunks the government’s pancake theory of collapse. Coupled with the fact that chemical traces of substances normally associated with controlled demolition have been found on debris from ground zero, and the fact that the government never developed a working “controlled demolition hypothesis” when investigating how WTC 1, 2, and 7 collapsed even though the collapse of each clearly looked like controlled demolitions, is sufficient cause to hold a public National 9/11 Debate. Basically, all one needs is a stopwatch to understand that the government has yet to provide a sustainable theory as to how the twin towers and building seven collapsed,” explains Ed Haas, National 9/11 Debate Coordinator. “A $2 stopwatch provides hard evidence that the government has failed to adequately explain what happened in NYC on 9/11. Why those desperate to believe the government’s account of 9/11 continue to ignore this basic fact must be answered.”

Nope. No bias at all! :D

There's no need to hold this debate. The conclusion has already been decided.

[valis]

Forget debates. We need to arrange a 9/11 cage-fighting tournament. I'm game for that, and I got dibs on Alex Jones. :viking1

And don't forget that the non CTers get to be armed with boxcutters, since the CTers find it laughably easy to disarm someone who has one.

[shuize]

I hadn't thought of that before, but the next time some wackjob tells me how easy it would be to take someone on boxcutter vs. bare hands, I'm going to challenge them to put up or shut up.

I'll be the one holding the cutter, of course.

(Having previously worked in a profession related to court services, I've had occasion to view the results of knife/razor blade fights. I guarantee you, four big guys armed with cutters in a small area would clean house. It's amazing to me that anyone was able to get in the cockpit of flight 93 at all. Those passengers are f*cking heros.)

[NDBoston]

http://www.teamliberty.net/id282.html

Here's your chance OCT's. Greening's already on board, go get 'em.

That would be a fun crowd to debate in front of. 100% filled with CT's My bet is they won't be able to control them when someone like Mark is answering. They will boo and hiss and treat every word from Steven Jones like it came from Jesus Christ himself.

I wouldn't bother Gravy.

[StoneWT]

It's a rigged event. They want to get a few important speakers from the reality-based side. It will be a replay of the LC debate on Democracy Now!. It reminds me of the $1 million offered by Jimmy Walter to anyone that could disprove the CD guess. Thing is, all of his questions were rigged. You can't answer how the towers fell in single-digit seconds as they actually took longer to fall.

Oh, what sort of fool sets up a debate first and asks for participants second? How hard would it be to have a real debate at a college in front of a live audience with cameras recording and an unbiased moderator? Why is there the need to have a rigged CT debate?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://www.teamliberty.net/id282.html

Here's your chance OCT's proponents of the mainstream accepted explanation of events. Greening's already on board, go get 'em.

Fixed your typo.

[TK0001]

I wonder if the "OCT" debaters would even be supplied with microphones?

This is how I see this going down:

Nutjob: "SKWIBS!!!@#"

Voice of sanity: "I think-

Crowd: "BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!"

VoS: -and that's what I think about that."

Crowd: "Kill him!! Jethro, git to the truck and unlock the gunrack!!"

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I wonder if the "OCT" debaters would even be supplied with microphones?

This is how I see this going down:

Nutjob: "SKWIBS!!!@#"

Voice of sanity: "I think-

Crowd: "BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!"

VoS: -and that's what I think about that."

Crowd: "Kill him!! Jethro, git to the truck and unlock the gunrack!!"


Yes but imagine what would happen if the truth side looses the debate, that would greatly weaken if not destroy them.
All you have to do is take enough evidence and over whelm them with it.
The evidence is on our side and the debate rules could be used to our advantage!
Amendments to the rules should be made one no unedited videos, that would throw out loose change videos from being used.
Two only Scientifically verified Arguments.
The truthers want the debate, so take them on and make the rules level they can not object since they are seeking truth right!

[Peephole]

What's an OCT anyways?

[chipmunk stew]

What's an OCT anyways?
It's a pejorative acronym that stands for Official Conspiracy Theorist.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What's an OCT anyways?

If you can forgive me a little self promoting, this post explains: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1914112#post1914112

[Brainster]

I hadn't thought of that before, but the next time some wackjob tells me how easy it would be to take someone on boxcutter vs. bare hands, I'm going to challenge them to put up or shut up.

I'll be the one holding the cutter, of course.

(Having previously worked in a profession related to court services, I've had occasion to view the results of knife/razor blade fights. I guarantee you, four big guys armed with cutters in a small area would clean house. It's amazing to me that anyone was able to get in the cockpit of flight 93 at all. Those passengers are f*cking heros.)

No doubt about it. The terrorists were extremely unfortunate with Flight 93; they were short one man, and the flight included several very athletic, beefy Americans. Jeremy Glick was a national collegiate judo champion; Mark Bingham was a 6'5" rugby player. I think Thomas Burnett had been a quarterback in college. And despite the fact that the non-pilots were referred to as "muscle hijackers" they were not beefy guys; IIRC they averaged about 5-7, 170 pounds.

[R.Mackey]

http://www.teamliberty.net/id282.html

Here's your chance OCT's. Greening's already on board, go get 'em.
Why should we "debate" the likes of you, now, after you've all delayed for five years? And why on a battlefield of your choosing?

The real debate, at least on scientific grounds, takes place in conferences and scientific journals. Many papers have been presented, published, reviewed, and discussed. This process is open to anyone and always has been.

Your side, in contrast, has decided not to participate for reasons only they understand. Instead, some have seen fit to create their own "journal," a perversion of the scientific method, with neither peer review nor objectivity. This exposes the cowardice and dare I say unscientific nature of the supposed "Truth Movement."

The gauntlet was thrown the day the towers fell. Your side has been a no-show. This circus you propose won't change that a bit. And you should be very, very grateful indeed to Dr. Greening, who despite these facts takes time out to try to help the conspiracy theorists. You should listen to him and try to learn.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Why should we "debate" the likes of you, now, after you've all delayed for five years? And why on a battlefield of your choosing?

The real debate, at least on scientific grounds, takes place in conferences and scientific journals. Many papers have been presented, published, reviewed, and discussed. This process is open to anyone and always has been.

Your side, in contrast, has decided not to participate for reasons only they understand. Instead, some have seen fit to create their own "journal," a perversion of the scientific method, with neither peer review nor objectivity. This exposes the cowardice and dare I say unscientific nature of the supposed "Truth Movement."

The gauntlet was thrown the day the towers fell. Your side has been a no-show. This circus you propose won't change that a bit. And you should be very, very grateful indeed to Dr. Greening, who despite these facts takes time out to try to help the conspiracy theorists. You should listen to him and try to learn.


Because the debate is not about the Cters it is about the gullible young kids that might get suckered into Pseudo Science CT. Bull, and a few really good smart Debaters could turn the tide in that and save a few brilliant minds of the future from falling victim to stupidity.

[T.A.M.]

The only way I think anyone here should consider entering such a debate would be under the following conditions:

1. Closed Set (No Live Audience)
2. Neutral Arbitor/Referee (agreed on by both parties)
3. Only one debator per side
4. Limited Topics, with no diversion from said topic.
5. Audio and Video Coverage for both sides allowed.

If any of the 5 is not satisfied, I would not suggest participating.

TAM

[Beleth]

National 9/11 Debate
Media Panel


DEBATE MONITOR - TBA
Ed Haas – Muckraker Report
Panelist - TBA
Panelist - TBA
Panelist - TBA
Panelist - TBA
Panelist - TBA
(http://www.teamliberty.net/id245.html)

Why would any reputable person choose to debate where the panelists are either CTists or TBA?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Perhaps the organizers are open to some of the suggested format changes. Contact them.

[Arus808]

perhaps the orgnaizers should step aside and let someone more professional handle the debate and organize whom should be on it?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I looked at this thread shortly after waking up today and I hadn't rubbed the sleep out of my eyes yet and I thought it said "Defibrolators Needed for National 9-11 Debate".

Of course I realized quite quickly I was wrong... but I still like my version better. :D

"Wake up, dumbass!... BZZZAAPPP!!!"

[Beleth]

Perhaps the organizers are open to some of the suggested format changes. Contact them.
If they need to be told what's wrong with the format, they won't understand why it's wrong.

[Gravy]

(http://www.teamliberty.net/id245.html)

Why would any reputable person choose to debate where the panelists are either CTists or TBA?
Yup. I was going to let them know I would take them all on, alone if necessary, as long as I was guaranteed equal time and approved of the moderator.

They don't have a moderator. They have one media panelist, a CT. Pathetic.

[StoneWT]

It's desinged to fail. They actually didn't want anyone to show up. With a nonexistent opposing side, they could have rambled on for a couple of hours. With Greening there, they will simply bring up 'points' he isn't familiar with while ignoring the points he makes. They piss and moan for a debate and run like scared children when a real one is offered.

[R.Mackey]

Yup. I was going to let them know I would take them all on, alone if necessary, as long as I was guaranteed equal time and approved of the moderator.

They don't have a moderator. They have one media panelist, a CT. Pathetic.
Actually, Gravy, you bring up an excellent point.

I notice you have challenged, and accepted challenges, to debate CT's on numerous occasions. At the moment, it's the redoubtable Bermas who's pledged to enter the ring, correct?

Point is, if it's a debate they want, we can easily support that. This stunt doesn't satisfy the barest requirements of a debate.

So who's really afraid here? Hmm?