Proposed Debate: TruthSeeker1234 vs. RMackey

[Ducky]

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.

Clearly state your requirements for a moderated thread so that we can have mods on this forum begin to accomodate what is needed for you to debate here.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mackey's tactic then, is to obfuscate

e.g. irrelevant propagation times, irrelevant (not detailed) diagrams of core structues, appeals to authority when the validity and motives of the authority is one of the very things under debate

deny evidence

impact times
dismissal of William Rodriguez + a litany of others
pulverization of non-metallic mass
molten iron with entrained barium
partially evaporated steel
pyroclastic flows

create artificial scenarios that bear no resemblance to either the picture data, or the eyewitness testimony, or the scientific tests, or anything in reality

The notion that a skycraper, or any other object on earth which could broadly be considered a solid, (as opposed to a liquid or a gas), contains enough gravitational potential energy in its own elevated mass, that it could crush itself into a fine power and expel this fine powder horizontally for a distance of more than half the height of the intact object, all in something quite close to free fall time, . . .

. . .This notion does not conform to reality (as there are zero examples of this in all history), it does not conform to the eyewitness testimony (as a litany of eyewitneses reported explosions) it does not conform to the scientific tests (e.g. Jones - molten iron, barium, Barnett - evaporated steel) and it does not conform to the picture data (which does not look like buildings falling, but looks like buildings being blown to kingdom come).

 

[CptColumbo]

Not to be too skeptical, but is this going to be like Gravy and that guy from LC. You spend time setting it up, and one side runs at the first sign of trouble.

 

[qarnos]

Not to be too skeptical, but is this going to be like Gravy and that guy from LC. You spend time setting it up, and one side runs at the first sign of trouble.

Has that been canned, too? Last I heard Korey, IIRC, wanted to wait untill October (he needs the time to work out which version of the truth he will debate).

 

[R.Mackey]

Rant Deleted

I said to BACK UP your claims about me, not reiterate your own delusions. That means show where I did what you say I did.

I've been after you to do this ever since you arrived here.

You honestly don't get it, do you?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Not to be too skeptical, but is this going to be like Gravy and that guy from LC. You spend time setting it up, and one side runs at the first sign of trouble.

Who ran at the first sign of trouble in that one? Forgive me, I wasn't around.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Clearly state your requirements for a moderated thread so that we can have mods on this forum begin to accomodate what is needed for you to debate here.

I posted my idea for a televised debate, perhaps someone else can draft a proposal to look at. I don't know what is and is not possible, allowable.

Maybe somebody else in the L.A. area has the courage to debate me on television.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

That means show where I did what you say I did.

See, you're obfuscating again, right there. you know exactly what I am talking about, and instead of admitting it, you obfuscate. I could spend a bunch of time linking to all the places you did exactly what I say you did. But it would be easier for you just to admit it. In my litigation expleriece, I've found that a nice request for admissions is a real ice-breaker in the beginning of discovery.

Admit that steel beams recovered from WTC7 were partially evaporated.
Admit that a litany of eyewitnesses observed seeing, hearing, feeling, and/or being injured by what they believe were explosions in the twin towers.

ETC.

Go through all of the evidence I just summarized (stop pretending you don't know what I'm talking about), which you characterize as a reiteration of my "delusions". Admit or deny each thing, here in writing.

Perhaps Loss Leader can advise you on how to answer a request for admissions.

 

[R.Mackey]

That means show where I did what you say I did.

See, you're obfuscating again, right there. you know exactly what I am talking about, and instead of admitting it, you obfuscate.

You have got to be kidding.

Time's running. Put up, or shut up. I'll not respond to you again.

 

[Gravy]

Admit that a litany of eyewitnesses observed seeing, hearing, feeling, and/or being injured by what they believe were explosions in the twin towers.

Need a little clarification here. Are you talking about any explosions, or people who claim there were preplanted explosives?

Please state why a televised debate is a better way for you to present your claims than by doing so in writing? Also, what television program would this be on? I assume you know, since you're offering the challenge.

 

[Gravy]

Who ran at the first sign of trouble in that one? Forgive me, I wasn't around.

The side that has all of the intellectual cowards.

 

[Ducky]

I posted my idea for a televised debate, perhaps someone else can draft a proposal to look at. I don't know what is and is not possible, allowable.

Maybe somebody else in the L.A. area has the courage to debate me on television.

You didn't read the forum rules before joining? Or the membership agreement?

Why are you backing down from a debate here? Why would you not propose a protocol for a moderated thread that you would be happy with to debate R.Mackey?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

gravy querried

Please state why a televised debate is a better way for you to present your claims than by doing so in writing? Also, what television program would this be on? I assume you know, since you're offering the challenge.

1) Video evidence can be presented and commented upon, and interacted with, and spoken over. This is much more compelling and directed than linking someone to a video which they may or may not watch.
2) Same with photographic evidence.
3) Copies of the program could be distributed, and this may have far more potential to influence than a forum thread.
4) No, I don't have a program in mind. I know there are dozens of public access studios in LA, and dozens of producers at each one. I am quite confident that many producers would be interested in providing the time, and also that the technical requirements are within the scope of the typical public access studio.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Why are you backing down from a debate here? Why would you not propose a protocol for a moderated thread that you would be happy with to debate R.Mackey?

I haven't backed away from a thread debate. Somebody propose one and i will look at it.

 

[Ducky]

any link not followed would be shortly exposed in debate. Pictures can be posted here using the vbulletin hosting feature.

You are not making any clear sense as to why you will not debate here.

 

[Gravy]

gravy querried

1) Video evidence can be presented and commented upon, and interacted with, and spoken over. This is much more compelling and directed than linking someone to a video which they may or may not watch.
2) Same with photographic evidence.
3) Copies of the program could be distributed, and this may have far more potential to influence than a forum thread.
4) No, I don't have a program in mind. I know there are dozens of public access studios in LA, and dozens of producers at each one. I am quite confident that many producers would be interested in providing the time, and also that the technical requirements are within the scope of the typical public access studio.

Got it. You want to show videos that you feel will influence people. That's what I thought. Interesting form of "debate."

 

[qarnos]

I posted my idea for a televised debate, perhaps someone else can draft a proposal to look at. I don't know what is and is not possible, allowable.

Maybe somebody else in the L.A. area has the courage to debate me on television.

Who is actually going to organize this debate?

Is there a television station which would support it?

 

[Ducky]

I haven't backed away from a thread debate. Somebody propose one and i will look at it.

Ok. Since you seem to be able to submit a format for one debate but are too cowardly to submit a proposal for one here, I will propose it.

1) You and RMackey are given a thread in which only you two can post.
2) Any breeches of civility between you two will be moderated in the typical fashion as is seen on this forum, and will be moved to the AAH section.

Now, will you debate here? Yes or no.







Edited to clarify and fix speelng

 

[Kent1]

See, you're obfuscating again, right there. you know exactly what I am talking about, and instead of admitting it, you obfuscate. I could spend a bunch of time linking to all the places you did exactly what I say you did. But it would be easier for you just to admit it. In my litigation expleriece, I've found that a nice request for admissions is a real ice-breaker in the beginning of discovery.

Admit that steel beams recovered from WTC7 were partially evaporated.
Admit that a litany of eyewitnesses observed seeing, hearing, feeling, and/or being injured by what they believe were explosions in the twin towers.

ETC.

Go through all of the evidence I just summarized (stop pretending you don't know what I'm talking about), which you characterize as a reiteration of my "delusions". Admit or deny each thing, here in writing.

Perhaps Loss Leader can advise you on how to answer a request for admissions.

I asked Barnett about the "partially evaporated" quote so often used by Jones. Silly Jones claims it is proof of temps at 2860C.
Here is the part in Jones paper:
"Fire and the structural damage... would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated", Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001). The obsered "partly evaporated" steel members is paticulaly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5180F (~2860C) needed to evaporate steel.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/


But in reality it was in reference to the hot corrosion/errosion which happened at less than 1000C.
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
The corrosion was likely caused by the sulfer in the gyp. walboard and/or the heating oil.
Funny that Jones or his other members couldn't seem to ask Barnett to clear up this quote.

 

[tsig]

Draft 1.0

Debate will take place for one hour taped at a public access t.v. studio in the Los Angeles area. Set will be a desk seating 3 (RMackey, Moderator, TruthSeeker1234), with television monitor behind it facing the cameras. An additional monitor will be present off camera presenting the participants the live feed.

RMackey and TruthSeeker1234 will each bring laptop computers, both of which will be hooked up to an input switcher under the control of the moderator. The output of the input switcher is routed to the on-camera monitor.

RMackey and TruthSeeker1234 each write 5 questions for the other. These are submitted to the moderator at the beginning of the show, and are kept secret until being read during the Q & A section later.

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). RMackey will then proceed to present his case for 10 minutes, utilizing his laptop and the monitor as desired, interacting (or not) with the moderator, as desired. TruthSeeker1234 will remain quiet during this time.

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). TruthSeeker1234 will then proceed to present his case for 10 minutes, utilizing his laptop and the monitor as desired, interacting (or not) with the moderator, as desired. RMackie will remain quiet during this time.

RMackey rebuttal for 5 minutes.
TruthSeeker1234 rebuttal for 5 minutes.

The Moderator begins reading the pre-submitted questions. First asks TruthSeeker a question written by Mackie, then the reverse.

Continue alternating Q & A until all 10 questions are done. Should take about 12 minutes.

Live call in question. Both participants comment.

Final clock is checked, remaining air time (about 6 minutes), is divied up equally for RMackey closing statement, then TruthSeeker1234 closing statement.

What does all this have to do with the truth that you seek?