AE911truth "debate challenge"

[rjh01]

Here is the archived show.

Thanks. Shows how low they have come. The only person who they even hope to debate is a person they cannot even provide a CV for. Everyone else just ignores them. If I was doing the show I would contact several well known names and ask them to come on to the show. If they are willing then organize a date and time where they can come. All this before I give any publicity to the show. But then that assumes that the cause has credibility. What they have done is show that they do not have any credibility.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Thanks. Shows how low they have come. The only person who they even hope to debate is a person they cannot even provide a CV for. Everyone else just ignores them. If I was doing the show I would contact several well known names and ask them to come on to the show. If they are willing then organize a date and time where they can come. All this before I give any publicity to the show. But then that assumes that the cause has credibility. What they have done is show that they do not have any credibility.

I listened (live) to the first maybe 15 minutes of it before I lost interest, and what I learned about the guy Frank McLaughlin who didn't show up is that he is a real life friend of the guy Rick Shaddock who was supposed to debate him. And they said all kinds of nice things about him but that he had some blockade (paraphrasing) that made him weasel out of the debate. So if anything, it shows that even friendship and continuous lobbying can't deliver you a "debunker" debater these days.

 

[DGM]

. So if anything, it shows that even friendship and continuous lobbying can't deliver you a "debunker" debater these days.

What's left to debate? Why would anyone want to. We can argue with them here if they want. The audience would be about the same.

 

[LSSBB]

What's left to debate? Why would anyone want to. We can argue with them here if they want. The audience would be about the same.

Plus they'd just ignore us anyway, just like CE who has half of us on ignore, me included.

 

[Childlike Empress]

What's left to debate? Why would anyone want to. We can argue with them here if they want. The audience would be about the same.

You guys pretend to have given up the "fight" because you won just before your alpha males went on vacation, but that is far from the truth even if Alex Jones' black shirts aren't as visible as they were in 2007/2008. And you know it perfectly well. As I do. So in some sense there is indeed nothing to debate. You're in the tree house and everything is fine. Carry on.

 

[LSSBB]

You guys pretend to have given up the "fight" because you won just before your alpha males went on vacation, but that is far from the truth even if Alex Jones' black shirts aren't as visible as they were in 2007/2008. And you know it perfectly well. As I do. So in some sense there is indeed nothing to debate. You're in the tree house and everything is fine. Carry on.

What a cryptic response.

There truly is nothing to debate. There is no evidence yet presented that anyone but the 19+ hijackers were involved, plus their financial, logistical and planning backers.

 

[DGM]

You guys pretend to have given up the "fight" because you won just before your alpha males went on vacation, but that is far from the truth even if Alex Jones' black shirts aren't as visible as they were in 2007/2008. And you know it perfectly well. As I do. So in some sense there is indeed nothing to debate. You're in the tree house and everything is fine. Carry on.

Actually, I was talking about in the real world.

What "truther" talking point is actually debatable. Certainly not controlled demolition as Richard Gage pretends.

 

[beachnut]

... continuous lobbying can't deliver you a "debunker" debater these days.

Debate 911? lol, 911 truth is populated with dumbed down lies; like idiotic 911 truth claims from CIT. To fall for the fantasy of CIT, people have to ignored evidence from the FDR, DNA, RADAR, and the reality of damage. How do you debate an event? Explain how you debate what happened on 911? 911 truth has delusional fantasies. How do you debate things like Santa, and all 911 truth claims? Void of evidence, the ae911t debate is more smoke to make Gage money.

Can you debunk them? 13 years, and nuts like CIT were self-debunking, as are these dolts who claim they can debate fantasy.

 

[chrismohr]

I did debate Gage, and twice as many people in the audience changed their position towards mine as towards Gage's. Gage explains this by saying ""In the past, debates have occurred where our opponents were not technical professionals. Consequently, they were allowed to skim over facts or develop explanations that were not consistent with either building structures, the laws of physics, or the evidence. In those cases, their misstatements have led to no professional repercussions. As a result, we feel it is appropriate to restrict this challenge to those who have 'skin in the game.'" (see http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...edentialed-professionals-need-only-apply.html)

This feels weird to me. What does he mean by "skin in the game"? What professional repercussions are they predicting will be suffered by those who debate them and say something they disagree with?

Gage and I are both talented and experienced public speakers. I did better in the debate format because I was better prepared. I was more ready to call him on his countless inaccuacies. I said inaccurate things as well (and I have learned a LOT since then) but he rarely called me on them. Rather than challenge my assertions (accurate or not), he simply did a "cut and paste" from his standard lecture on each point. I expected he would do much better, and a more skilled debater would have been more challenging. I'm not putting him down by saying he just didn't present as well as he could have that evening. I got a lot of facts right, and some of them wrong, which I agree I got a "pass" on. But no one is an expert on everything. Gage is an architect, but we also debated chemistry, forensics, physics, and other subjects outside our areas of expertise. Our debate was comprehensive and there's no other way to be comprehensive as well as to have two experts debate.

These debate challenges are kind of weird, too, because most real scientists I talk with say they would never debate a pseudoscientist and give them the credibility their own credentials would bestow upon them. That's what scientists say, but what I hear coming from the 9/11 Truth people instead is "they know they don't have a case, we win by default, no real scientist believes the official story," etc. They say everything else, but they hear nothing of what their would-be opponents are actually saying and the real reasons for their refusal to participate.

 

[JSanderO]

The debate concept re 9/11 raises to many weird issues... several have been mentioned in this thread.

For one the destruction involves several fields including aviation, structural engineering, chemistry, materials science, forensics analysis, physics of course which is the over arching science of the physical world and LOGIC. The event was a physical occurrence and so accurate data from observations of the event are key to understanding. Without them all you have is a GIGO... garbage in = garbage out.

And yes no true expert in their field will want to debate a novice and create the impression that the novice is on the same technical level as the expert... and their statements merit the same level of consideration. However... most of the people are non experts and can only be informed when experts *help* them. This usually results in various dumbed down or cartoon-like descriptions, analogies or animations. You can't expect a naive public to understand the complexity and sophistication of science, math or engineering based arguments. Many, perhaps most experts seem to not be concerned that the non technical masses can't understand what they do. Many don't see the point in debating people such as Gage who leads a populist group of largely very naive people driven by political agendas which filter how they see the world.

Chris Mohr who is not a technical expert in any field of science or engineering attempted to take on the misconceptions of the AE911T in a few debates and studied and informed himself and went to experts to do so. Even many experts had not spent lots of time on the event seeing no purpose in it. Chris did very well all things considered. But even if he *won* hands down the victory would not be acknowledged because he would be characterized as a an average Joe not a technical wiz.

The entire 911 as false flag / inside job /CD will not go away as long as there is fog surrounding the event... and people can *interpret* observations to suit their agenda. That's a problem that is not going away. Molten steel is an example of an issue which will continue to be touted as evidence for CD. And there are many others. Can a debater *prove* that there was no melted steel... or that the steel that did melt was not associated with a CD? Not to someone who wants to believe otherwise.

Whose mind would be changed or informed by such a debate? Perhaps you could find an audience who had no preconceived notions of the event and then decide what happened based on what was heard at a debate. This audience would be subject to the debating skills and their response also informed by their own technical education and perhaps even political perspective. It's hardly likely that people who have made up their minds will be motivated to abandon their beliefs by such as debate.

Yet not taking up the debate challenge would be fodder for Gage to assert that he won't be debated because the *other side* can't win the debate. In a sense it's analogous to Gage challenging Mike Tyson to a boxing match and Mike not wasting his time and then Gage pointing out that the other side would lose so they wouldn't fight.

So why do people need to have their minds changed? Which people? It seems that the truth movement people are a fringe group with an anti government, anti authority agenda using 9/11 as a platform for their beliefs. But not very many people actually take this seriously and very few in positions of authority are even will to consider these views because they seem so outlandish on the face.

So... in the end... 9/11 discussion and debates basically amount to the same as arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Those who want to understand... can educate themselves technically. There's more than enough material available for this purpose. And the discussions seem to go round and round now for years not revealing anything new.

 

[Horatius]

These debate challenges are kind of weird, too, because most real scientists I talk with say they would never debate a pseudoscientist and give them the credibility their own credentials would bestow upon them. That's what scientists say, but what I hear coming from the 9/11 Truth people instead is "they know they don't have a case, we win by default, no real scientist believes the official story," etc. They say everything else, but they hear nothing of what their would-be opponents are actually saying and the real reasons for their refusal to participate.

This is the old "Damned if we do, damned if we don't" conundrum, and it's exploited by all sorts of psuedoscientific types. Truthers, Holocaust deniers, Apollo hoaxers, Creationists, you name it. If you take them seriously and debate them, they spin it as "Teach the controversy!", as if their positions were on an even level with the accepted science. If you ignore them, they go into the "They're scared to debate us/secretly agree with us!" mantra.

It's an old game, and they all play it, because it still works in keeping their flocks of sheeple in the fold.

And even if we refuse to play this game, and make public statements about how we refuse to engage them because they simply haven't met any of the burdens needed to be taken seriously by legitimate authorities, that just makes us look like arrogant ivory-tower types to the real audience of their carnival act.

 

[LSSBB]

This is the old "Damned if we do, damned if we don't" conundrum, and it's exploited by all sorts of psuedoscientific types. Truthers, Holocaust deniers, Apollo hoaxers, Creationists, you name it. If you take them seriously and debate them, they spin it as "Teach the controversy!", as if their positions were on an even level with the accepted science. If you ignore them, they go into the "They're scared to debate us/secretly agree with us!" mantra.

It's an old game, and they all play it, because it still works in keeping their flocks of sheeple in the fold.

And even if we refuse to play this game, and make public statements about how we refuse to engage them because they simply haven't met any of the burdens needed to be taken seriously by legitimate authorities, that just makes us look like arrogant ivory-tower types to the real audience of their carnival act.

Well put.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Just an update...I have never heard back from AE Truth or Wayne Coste, after numinous emails. Any bets if any of these debates ever take place?

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

The emails are not bouncing back anymore. They're not being responded to but, that's to be expected from a group that's only "asking questions".

The person sponsoring the debate as far as I know is Rick Shaddock (rick@aneta.org). You can write to him. Rick wanted someone with a science background to agree to debate Dr. David Griscom, and he wanted me to debate him on Kevin Barritt's radio show. I ended up exchanging emails with Kevin, this insanely angry guy named Ziggi and a guy named Wayne claiming to be a civil engineer. I declined the debate. How do you debate people who argue by making things up?

During the back and forth I stated that I thought David Griscom had Alzheimer's--based on what he said during an interview with Barritt, and how he said it. Next thing, they had Griscom writing me.

There really isn't anything to debate if you suggest that "evidence" must be presented before a claim is made and "evidence" must be independently verified.

 

[MileHighMadness]

I did email Rick Shaddock directly. Rick did email me back, and said he had forwarded my email onto Wayne Coste, and I would hear back shortly. That was over a month ago and I haven't back from anyone at AE Truth.

I just what to know who their debate team is...that cannot be that tough of a question.

 

[jakesteele]

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...edentialed-professionals-need-only-apply.html

I've always wanted for exactly this to happen. Sitting across from each other with a moderator. The OSer side doesn't seem to be inclined to offer the same type of challenge. It's always easier to be rudely dismissive of someone rather than going head to head and stand the chance of being wrong

"Why is AE911Truth issuing a 9/11 Debate Challenge? Ever since 2006, when AE911Truth founder Richard Gage, AIA, started a petition calling for a new, independent investigation of the WTC destruction on 9/11, detractors have claimed that the "small minority" of architects and engineers who have signed it — 2,216 to date, and counting — "do not represent" the prevailing sentiment of either the architectural or engineering professions."

Just because someone doesn't join a group doesn't mean that they automatically believe the OS. Who exactly are these detractors other than debunkum sites like this? How do they know what the prevailing sentiment of architects and engineers are? Did "they" take a nation wide poll? I need charts, graphs, computer simulations, etc. If what you call a Truther made a generalized statement like they would be rat packed with demands similar to what I've just done.

 

[LSSBB]

I've always wanted for exactly this to happen. Sitting across from each other with a moderator. The OSer side doesn't seem to be inclined to offer the same type of challenge. It's always easier to be rudely dismissive of someone rather than going head to head and stand the chance of being wrong

"Why is AE911Truth issuing a 9/11 Debate Challenge? Ever since 2006, when AE911Truth founder Richard Gage, AIA, started a petition calling for a new, independent investigation of the WTC destruction on 9/11, detractors have claimed that the "small minority" of architects and engineers who have signed it — 2,216 to date, and counting — "do not represent" the prevailing sentiment of either the architectural or engineering professions."

Just because someone doesn't join a group doesn't mean that they automatically believe the OS. Who exactly are these detractors other than debunkum sites like this? How do they know what the prevailing sentiment of architects and engineers are? Did "they" take a nation wide poll? I need charts, graphs, computer simulations, etc. If what you call a Truther made a generalized statement like they would be rat packed with demands similar to what I've just done.

Who is an OSer?

 

[Redwood]

I've always wanted for exactly this to happen. Sitting across from each other with a moderator. The OSer side doesn't seem to be inclined to offer the same type of challenge. It's always easier to be rudely dismissive of someone rather than going head to head and stand the chance of being wrong

"Why is AE911Truth issuing a 9/11 Debate Challenge? Ever since 2006, when AE911Truth founder Richard Gage, AIA, started a petition calling for a new, independent investigation of the WTC destruction on 9/11, detractors have claimed that the "small minority" of architects and engineers who have signed it — 2,216 to date, and counting — "do not represent" the prevailing sentiment of either the architectural or engineering professions."

Just because someone doesn't join a group doesn't mean that they automatically believe the OS. Who exactly are these detractors other than debunkum sites like this? How do they know what the prevailing sentiment of architects and engineers are? Did "they" take a nation wide poll? I need charts, graphs, computer simulations, etc. If what you call a Truther made a generalized statement like they would be rat packed with demands similar to what I've just done.

Real scientists and engineers don't decide matters by holding public debates; they publish papers in professional journals and let their peers decide.

So far, dozens of papers have been published (not just by NIST) explaining the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Not one has supported any notion of a surreptitious demolition.

Not one Truther has ever published a paper in a professional journal explaining how a surreptitious demolition was supposedly done, or how fire and/or impact could not have caused what we saw on 9/11, or even submitted such a paper, or even reported attempting to submit such a paper. Thus, the "OSers" win by default.

 

[beachnut]

I've always wanted for exactly this to happen. Sitting across from each other with a moderator. The OSer side doesn't seem to be inclined to offer the same type of challenge. It's always easier to be rudely dismissive of someone rather than going head to head and stand the chance of being wrong

911 truth only has fantasy based on ignornace. How do you debate a dumbed down version of Santa Claus? Do you debate Bigfoot believers too, an illusion some have, and when they persist it becomes a delusional fantasy with no evidence past the initial illusion BS.

What did the OSer side get wrong; 19 terrorists took four planes and crashed. Do you have more? Any evidence to support 911 truth lies and dumbed down claims? no

"Why is AE911Truth issuing a 9/11 Debate Challenge? Ever since 2006, when AE911Truth founder Richard Gage, AIA, started a petition calling for a new, independent investigation of the WTC destruction on 9/11, detractors have claimed that the "small minority" of architects and engineers who have signed it — 2,216 to date, and counting — "do not represent" the prevailing sentiment of either the architectural or engineering professions."

Yes, Gage has less than 0.1 percent of all engineers signing up for his failed claims and BS. Gage claims it was CD, thermite, and high explosives. Three lies. Did you sign up yet? A failed BS movement, Gage makes 500k/yr from idiots who think he is doing something. Gage travels the world on other poeple's money, and he ignores the many independent studies of 911, and he lies to promote his scam.

Just because someone doesn't join a group doesn't mean that they automatically believe the OS. Who exactly are these detractors other than debunkum sites like this? How do they know what the prevailing sentiment of architects and engineers are? Did "they" take a nation wide poll? I need charts, graphs, computer simulations, etc. If what you call a Truther made a generalized statement like they would be rat packed with demands similar to what I've just done.

Most engineers and I hope architects are not idiots who fall for the fraud of Gage, and 911 truth. Do you?

 

[Muc]

Just because someone doesn't join a group doesn't mean that they automatically believe the OS. Who exactly are these detractors other than debunkum sites like this? How do they know what the prevailing sentiment of architects and engineers are? Did "they" take a nation wide poll?

It's quite telling that, with all their hopeless but sometimes costly projects over the years, this is what AE911 never attempted to do: a nation wide poll among (preferably high rise) building professionals and (structural) engineers to see how many of them actually believe in "controlled demolition". After all the claim that a large portion of "building professionals" supports their cause is the central point in AE911's self-marketing, so doing something like this should normally seem obvious. Instead what AE911 truth is actually doing is financing opinion polls for laypeople, so they can proudly claim that so and so many percent of "Americans" or "Candadians" or "New Yorkers" doubt the "official theory", as if that was of any actual use for anything other than providing some numbers to spice up the inevitable calls for donations. The interesting question still is: would the percentage of qualified professionals that supposedly support Gage's position be even remotely near to those in the general public polls?

In a quite similar example, it seems that a rather shocking percentage of 20% of people in the US think that vaccinations cause autism. Now, to prove their point anti-vaxxers should try to do the same survey among those medical professionals who actually know what they are talking about regarding this issue and see if the the result would be of any use in their propaganda. Of course they don't do this, for very similar reasons.