Proposed Debate: TruthSeeker1234 vs. RMackey

[David Wong]

Could they get Alex Jones to moderate?

EDIT: Because I would totally watch that.

 

[T.A.M.]

Could they get Alex Jones to moderate?

EDIT: Because I would totally watch that.

Only way that is happening is If Mackey gets Jesus himself to be a moderator as well. Gotta have something to counter alex's "antichrist" effect on the debate.

TAM

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Input switcher

Somebody wondered

What is the function and purpose of an "input switcher" in this application?

The purpose is to switch between having the monitor display whatever is on RMackey's laptop, and display whatever is on mine.

An alternative is to route both laptops into the control room and allow the engineer to switch between the three cameras and the two laptops. This would actually be a higher quality way to display the material. As long as the engineer could hear us, and we could see the monitor of the live feed, I suppose that would work out too, and would eliminate the need for the montior behind the desk.

 

[Bell]

Somebody wondered

The purpose is to switch between having the monitor display whatever is on RMackey's laptop, and display whatever is on mine.

An alternative is to route both laptops into the control room and allow the engineer to switch between the three cameras and the two laptops. This would actually be a higher quality way to display the material. As long as the engineer could hear us, and we could see the monitor of the live feed, I suppose that would work out too, and would eliminate the need for the montior behind the desk.

And ones again, you evade your remarks in this thread. How's 'bout it, BS101?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Say, 1234, this wouldn't be one of those oh-so-clever little schoolyard attempts at manipulating public opinion, now would it? Y'know, so the CTer can go frolicking through the playground claiming victory because "they" wouldn't debate him since of course "they" know "they" can't win?

Regardless of how many threads you start, it won't make your storybook fantasy any more true. Run along now.

 

[Gravy]

Somebody wondered

The purpose is to switch between having the monitor display whatever is on RMackey's laptop, and display whatever is on mine.

An alternative is to route both laptops into the control room and allow the engineer to switch between the three cameras and the two laptops. This would actually be a higher quality way to display the material. As long as the engineer could hear us, and we could see the monitor of the live feed, I suppose that would work out too, and would eliminate the need for the montior behind the desk.

Not exactly confident in your command of the material, are you, "truth" seeker?

 

[R.Mackey]

I'm sure you saw this coming, but just so there's no doubt...

Debate will take place for one hour taped at a public access t.v. studio in the Los Angeles area. [...]

RMackey will begin by stating "The 3 buildings at the World Trade center were brought down by a combination of impact damage and fires" (or words to that effect). [...]

TruthSeeker1234 will begin by stating "The 3 buildings at the World Trade Center were brought down by pre-planted incindiaries and explosives" (or words to that effect).

Denied!!

Have you learned nothing in your time here? You have already given ample evidence that you will not support a single statement you make, regardless of whether said statement is physically impossible or entirely plausible. I documented this the last time you deigned to call me out. Since then, your continued inability to follow through has been brought to your attention, but to no avail.

Heck, this latest stunt of yours occurred simultaneously with yet another dodge of a simple question.

And this was before you admitted, without any prompting whatsoever, that you lied and attempted to spread misinformation through a public resource in order to further your own, still unsubstantiated agenda.

A less worthy debating opponent is difficult to imagine. Your challenge is summarily rejected. If you have anything to say, say it here. You've been given plenty of opportunities.

 

[David Wong]

Besides, how can there be a debate where no facts are referenced? He believes any data that goes against his position is falsified by a conspiracy. So how can you bring up data in support of any argument?

And how can you have a non-retarded debate if you can't support an argument with facts? One guy pulling out several feet of reports and the other guy saying, "that's all a bunch of lies planted by conspirators," isn't a debate. It's something else. I can't think of a word for it.

 

[kevin]

Truthseeker - you would pay for studio and air time and all equipment except the opponents laptop? You seem to have proposed something that is intentionally impossible to setup, unless you're a tv exec.

This is of course in spite of R. Mackey's complete correct reasons for not participating, even if he agreed I don't think your proposal is possible for you to setup.

 

[Loss Leader]

One guy pulling out several feet of reports and the other guy saying, "that's all a bunch of lies planted by conspirators," isn't a debate. It's something else. I can't think of a word for it.

I think I found what you're looking for here.

 

[DavidJames]

One guy pulling out several feet of reports and the other guy saying, "that's all a bunch of lies planted by conspirators," isn't a debate. It's something else. I can't think of a word for it.

you're forgetting the pictures and video.

"See... it looks just like a CD"

 

[defaultdotxbe]

id like to see a debate where mackey pulls out all 11,000+ pages of the NIST report and plop it in front of TS1234 who counters by saying "oh that, its all fake"

 

[LashL]

BS101 is not capable of legitimate debate. That has been made abundantly clear in the myriad of threads he has started and then run away from without ever answering the most basic of queries.

He has demonstrated that he hasn't the education, qualifications or comprehension to even remotely understand what he reads, let alone try to debate it. The extent of his debating skills are to shout that some other tinhatter said so, so it must be true.

Admittedly, it would be hilarious to watch, but he's blowing smoke as always.

 

[Mince]

How does Truthseeker1234 have a "Critical Thinker" tag? I guess it is merely an indication of post volume. Yes?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

How does Truthseeker1234 have a "Critical Thinker" tag? I guess it is merely an indication of post volume. Yes?

yeah

 

[Ducky]

Somebody wondered

The purpose is to switch between having the monitor display whatever is on RMackey's laptop, and display whatever is on mine.

An alternative is to route both laptops into the control room and allow the engineer to switch between the three cameras and the two laptops. This would actually be a higher quality way to display the material. As long as the engineer could hear us, and we could see the monitor of the live feed, I suppose that would work out too, and would eliminate the need for the montior behind the desk.

You have either missed my follow up posts to this, or are purposely dodging my statements.

Once again: Why do you need it to be live, and why do you not want to have a moderated thread set up to your mutually agreed upon debate standards here?


ETA: And you missed my technical appraisal of such a setup. Please reread the posts I have made on this topic in this thread. Your idea is overly complicated and unneccesary regarding laptop displays. Such an overly complicated setup leaves many chances for mistakes and obfuscation technically in a live debate and is not needed. you could post all of your material here and in a closed thread to you and R.Mackey and accomplish the same thing.

 

[R.Mackey]

You have either missed my follow up posts to this, or are purposely dodging my statements.

Once again: Why do you need it to be live, and why do you not want to have a moderated thread set up to your mutually agreed upon debate standards here?

See what I mean?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

The analogy by [presumably attorney] Loss Leader is telling. This offer to debate reminds him of a case where he was successful at excluding evidence. I coudn't agree more. It reminds me of the same thing. For example, I post Jim Hoffman's calculations showing that the energy requirement for expanding the North Tower dust cloud is an order of magnitude too large to be explained by GPE. The thread is edited, citing rule 4, when actually Jim Hoffman allows reprinting of his paper.

Too much excluding of evidence around here.

Yes, I offered to debate on a "closed thread" although I didn't know it was called that, nor do I know if this forum considers such a thing. Considering the problem with posting certain types of material here, such as large pictures, and videos, and previously copyrighted works, the limitations are what I would characterize as "not supporting of the scientific method".

The truth is, Mackey knows perfectly well that the official story (that he supports) cannot withstand scrutiny, and the last thing in the world he wants is for people to actually look at the videos and pictures. Nor can the official story withstand the calculations done by Legge, Ross, Kuttler. Hoffman. Nor the material testing by Jones.

Mackey's tactic then, is to obfuscate, deny evidence (like the charade about the radar times not being reliable), create artificial scenarios that bear no resemblance to either the picture data, or the eyewitness testimony, or the scientific tests, or anything in reality, conforming only to the government reports which are a mixture of irrelevant facts, mysterious computer simulations, distortions, outright lies, and ommissions of pertinant data (such as the behavior of the towers during collapse, a subject ignored in 10,000 pages of NIST).

On T.V., its simple. Present your evidence. I'll present mine. You explain why I'm wrong, I'll explain where you're wrong. Then we'll answer some questions, sum it up, and that will be that.

Mackey, if my arguments are as vacuous as you claim, this is your golden opportunity to hand it to me. What are you so afraid of? Bring your reams of data, graphs, bring whatever you want. On T.V. even if I ignore you, the audience won't . Show them whatever you want them to see.

 

[R.Mackey]

Mackey's tactic then, is to obfuscate, deny evidence (like the charade about the radar times not being reliable), create artificial scenarios that bear no resemblance to either the picture data, or the eyewitness testimony, or the scientific tests, or anything in reality, conforming only to the government reports which are a mixture of irrelevant facts, mysterious computer simulations, distortions, outright lies, and ommissions of pertinant data (such as the behavior of the towers during collapse, a subject ignored in 10,000 pages of NIST).

This is exactly why you are not worthy of debate.

Rather than answer any questions, you launch into a completely unsubstantiated, utterly erroneous vilification of me, my position, and my beliefs.

I dare you to back this up.

You have 24 hours. Do so in this thread. Fail to do so, and your post will be reported.

I will not stand to be slandered by the likes of you.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I might agree to a moderated debate thread here. I might not. It would depend on rules of evidence, mostly. It would be downright disappointing to have my best work vandalized, I'm sensitive to that after Wikipedia.