To:
korey@loosechange911.com
Subject: I accept your challenge of a videotaped debate.
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:28:08 -0500
See my post at the JREF forum:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1838028&postcount=1453
****
To:
korey@loosechange911.com
Subject: RE: I accept your challenge of a videotaped debate.
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:56:16 -0500
Hi Korey.
Thanks for responding. Your blog post said that the recut was already up on Google, and I just spent some time looking for it. You may want to edit that part of your post so others don't get confused like I did.
As for Nancy Jo Sales, I have never communicated with her in any way, nor do I know of anyone who has communicated with her in any way. If your blog comments about me are based on that, they are wrong. The only issue I am aware of regarding a possible exaggeration of your military service is the one raised on the Screw Loose Change blog, and I didn't know about that until someone pointed it out to me a couple of days ago, after your blog post was up. Obviously, this is the main issue I have with you guys: you jump to conclusions before checking the facts.
Likewise, you (and Dylan) have publicly claimed that my name isn't Mark Roberts. It is, and I'm not the same guy as MarkyX or Pat from SLC, and I don't work for an intelligence agency, and I really am a licensed tour guide in New York, and I have no idea what issue you have with that.
There are several ways to do a debate quickly and inexpensively (my budget is zero). All that's needed is a room, a moderator, and a camera operator. The most difficult thing might be finding a moderator or moderators who are knowledgeable but impartial. Then again, there are probably lots of news media people who would like to participate. The Village Voice comes to mind. There was a (very) young reporter from U.S. News & World Report at Ground Zero who seemed to be doing a good job of covering the various opinions expressed. He's writing an article on the upcoming 5th anniversary. I have his email if necessary.
I assume that you guys have been contacted by [name deleted], who is the School of Visual Arts professor I mentioned in my JREF post. If you haven't been approached by him, let me know, because he has contacted me several times about doing a forum or debate with you three and I've said yes each time. I don't know where he stands on the issues. His early emails to me lead me to believe that he's a fan of the Scholars. He's doing a study of internet "viral video" and he thought that LC's popularity, and the questions it raises, would be a good subject for a debate or class seminar. The advantage is that he would do all the prep work. The disadvantage is that he'd control the format and final product.
I know you were interviewed by Fletcher Holmes last month. He also interviewed me and some NY911truth.org people at Ground Zero, and he said he'd be back to film on the 11th. Again, I don't know if he "takes sides" at all. His questions to me were impartial. But I bet he'd be willing to film. Not that others wouldn't, but having a third party involved might be wise.
Just some ideas.
Sincerely,
Mark Roberts
****
To:
korey@loosechange911.com
Subject: RE: I accept your challenge of a videotaped debate.
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:58:24 -0500
(Excerpts from our last exchange. Bolding mine.)
Korey: Just a heads up, so that at ground zero you have enough material to
refute our claims. We will have 15,000 DVDs of the new cut and some old that are laying around, plus papers and cards and what not. This should be interesting. Also we are breaking (Jason, Dylan and I) into separate parts each with our own camera man. You might want to recruit a few more guys so that you can cover all three of us.
I mean imagine the debates we can get into in front of people! Everyone will be so interested in what we are arguing about that they will go home and inform themselves. Which I hope is the point of your side.
Mark: Thanks for the heads up. I've been assuming you'd be splitting up for maximum coverage. The 911truth people also plan to have a large group there, and I assume other groups will attend. I have no interest in
trying to compete with or draw more attention to anyone, and I certainly won't be debating with anyone at Ground Zero on 9/11. To me that's a day of remembrance, period. I'm going to try to get several people together who are willing to stick with the leaders of the different groups and are comfortable being on camera, to give our side of the story when you give yours.
Korey: Actually, real quick, what is your point? What are you trying to do by what your doing? I know we are not 100% right, as neither are you. Are you just out to discredit us or our info? Or do you have your own conclusions about that day you are trying educate, or do you believe the 9/11 commission? Just my own personal interest.
I don't have the time to go out and read your stuff. As I said I will send you the link when I have it.
Mark: Mostly I'm motivated by anger. I don't like seeing misinformation about 9/11 spread. It's not that Loose Change gets some things wrong, it gets every claim wrong. It absolutely promotes ignorance. And you reinforce that by saying even more bizarre things in interviews.
Dylan doesn't like that I pointed out his Jack Blood interview? Then why promote it on your website? Most of those claims can be disproven with the slightest bit of research, but you can't be bothered with that. That really gets to me. I don't think you guys, and your supporters, respect the victims, respect critical thinking, respect logic, or respect professionalism. That goes for the other "9-11 Truth" groups I've encountered. I kept track of what the NY911truth.org people said at Ground Zero on Saturday. In four hours they did not say one true thing to the public. Not one! And they have
the nerve to call themselves promoters of truth! I've never, ever seen anything as wrongly-named as the "9-11 Truth Movement."
I've used this analogy many times: If you were accused of a serious crime that you did not commit, would you want investigators in your case to be professionals motivated by the search for truth, or amateurs motivated by political concerns? Would you want your defense attorney to be an auto mechanic who owns a couple of law books, or would you want an experienced criminal trial lawyer? And most importantly, would you want to be judged by your standards of evidence, which allow conjecture, rumor, and hearsay?
This isn't a game. You're accusing people of mass-murder, and you don't have a shred of evidence to support your accusation. And by doing that you're giving moral support to the terrorists who did attack us and who say they'll keep doing it.
I see such intellectual laziness and intellectual cowardice from your side every day. Again, today, someone pointed me to this post by Dylan on the LC forum:
[Sarns] "Can you possibly believe that the PENTAGON was DEFENCELESS on 911, that there was NO on site radar or anti aircraft ability? At very least they would have stinger missels and certianly a lot more very sophisticated stuff. "
[Avery] "no, i can't believe it. but mark roberts does. he states it like it's fact. just like he states factually that there were no wargames on the morning of 9-11... the smartest tour guide in the world."
Wrong again. My reply:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1844174&postcount=1680
I don't know, Korey. I see a lot of moving of goalposts, but not much improvement overall. You haven't read my pieces? I wrote them for you guys, to encourage you to get your facts in order. I only had 3 weeks of looking into this stuff under my belt when I wrote the "Viewer Guide." The next one will be much more thorough and accurate. I hope your films will also be improvements.
–Mark
