• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

bill smith said:
Well three million sets of ears tonight DGM. Whatever happens we will have a minimum of hundreds of thousands of new converts by tomorrow. You know it.Potentialy even millions of new converts.
Click to expand...
Would that estimate be based on the last time the "truthers" graced the C2C airways?


:rolleyes:
 
DGM said:
Would that estimate be based on the last time the "truthers" graced the C2C airways?


:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ask Dave. I think he my have said that three million listeners is typical. Two million will do though.
 
Unfortunately, Bill, the converts you are talking about are going to be nutjobs, so I guess you have will more nuts, making truthers nuttier.
 
TexasJack said:
Unfortunately, Bill, the converts you are talking about are going to be nutjobs, so I guess you have will more nuts, making truthers nuttier.
Click to expand...

You should have more confidence in Dave Thomas. Maybe he will make it all go the other way. I hope he's not reading this. You will be making his heart sink.
 
If you take that tack we will have a field day saying (with perfect justification) that you refuse to defend the OCT against an organisation of ,more than 1,200 professional architcts and engineers.. Then you can explain to the population that you think it best just to ignore us. Perhaps they will understand.
Click to expand...
False dichotomy (thanks heavens for the built-in Firefox spell checker:D). You're making it sound as if we can either debate you, or sit there twiddling our thumbs while wondering what's on TV.

Empirical questions, such as "Who flew the planes into the towers", and the aptly misnamed "9/11 truth" mess in general, isn't handled by debates, it's handled by scientific investigation. When you were given math problems to solve in high school, you didn't get up on a podium and declare that life is meaningless if x does not equal 60, you got out your calculator, pen and paper and solved the problem. When track runners compete in the Olympics, the referees don't hold formal panel debates to determine how fast they run, they check their stop watches and camera recordings. When scientists (true scientists, that is) want to establish who killed 3000 people on 9/11, they investigate the attack.

The 9/11 truth movement is not being ignored. It has had its claims shot down by actual scientists for a decade. Science doesn't need to waste its time with pointless debates. Anyone curious about what really happened can read the scientific literature. You'd probably get more out of a fistfight.

You have the actual, small-t truth on your side.
Click to expand...
But debates aren't about establishing who is right, any more than ski jumping is about determining who is best at playing the violin. Skilled debaters aren't good at determining and spreading facts, they're good at rhetoric and coming across as convincing. In debates, they are up against people who are experts at the field being debated, but not necessarily skilled at all in the field of debating. Now, you can reply, "that may be true, but can't the side of reason send its own master in rhetoric, a professional debater, perhaps?". Sure, we could pool our money and hire someone. But then it would be just that -- a professional debate, a fight to determine who has the sharpest tongue. A battle of wits, as it were.

Science isn't about wits. It's about learning.
 
I doubt that bill has considered who the audience is. I know that I occasionally listen for the chuckles at the idiocy presented and when I do listen I hear a lot of truckers call in. Now then, either truckers are a really loony group of people or they listen to keep from falling asleep at the wheel.

I'll leave it up to the lurkers, posters, families victims and anyone else who finds this post in a google search to decide for themselves why the audience might be listening in at O'dark thirty. Either they believe the topic is important or they can't go to sleep for whatever reason and infomercials or Limbaugh reruns just aren't their cup o' tea.
 
I doubt that bill has considered who the audience is.
Click to expand...
Quite the contrary. If bill is on the "truther" side, then he has probably figured that Coast to Coast AM is the perfect place to fish for converts.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
False dichotomy (thanks heavens for the built-in Firefox spell checker:D). You're making it sound as if we can either debate you, or sit there twiddling our thumbs while wondering what's on TV.

Empirical questions, such as "Who flew the planes into the towers", and the aptly misnamed "9/11 truth" mess in general, isn't handled by debates, it's handled by scientific investigation. When you were given math problems to solve in high school, you didn't get up on a podium and declare that life is meaningless if x does not equal 60, you got out your calculator, pen and paper and solved the problem. When track runners compete in the Olympics, the referees don't hold formal panel debates to determine how fast they run, they check their stop watches and camera recordings. When scientists (true scientists, that is) want to establish who killed 3000 people on 9/11, they investigate the attack.

The 9/11 truth movement is not being ignored. It has had its claims shot down by actual scientists for a decade. Science doesn't need to waste its time with pointless debates. Anyone curious about what really happened can read the scientific literature. You'd probably get more out of a fistfight.

But debates aren't about establishing who is right, any more than ski jumping is about determining who is best at playing the violin. Skilled debaters aren't good at determining and spreading facts, they're good at rhetoric and coming across as convincing. In debates, they are up against people who are experts at the field being debated, but not necessarily skilled at all in the field of debating. Now, you can reply, "that may be true, but can't the side of reason send its own master in rhetoric, a professional debater, perhaps?". Sure, we could pool our money and hire someone. But then it would be just that -- a professional debate, a fight to determine who has the sharpest tongue. A battle of wits, as it were.

Science isn't about wits. It's about learning.
Click to expand...

You can either debate us or you can explain to the people why you will not defend the oficial story even though you are known to support it. It's as simple as that.

You can say that the thousands of scientists and building professionals who support the millions strong Truth movement and are often members of it are crazy if you ike. That sounds crazy in itself as will be clear to anybody.

So to say that you will not debate these motivated and eminently qualified individuals puts you in a very difficult position which we are ready to capitalise on in a New York minute should you fail to step up to the mark.

In any case these particular debates are about persuading or swaying people with superior detail. There are more things in Heaven and Earth than mathematical calculations as you should know. And fortunately we have masses of such detail. RRichard Gage has a 90% conversion rate at his lectures which tells it's own story.

And the bottom line is- if you are not scared to debate us let us set up some televised public forums where the debates can proced on coast to coast television. Or let us have a full-scale independent investigaton. I have a model for that that we can look at another time by the way.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
You can either debate us or you can explain to the people why you will not defend the oficial story even though you are known to support it. It's as simple as that.

You can say that the thousands of scientists and building professionals who support the millions strong Truth movement and are often members of it are crazy if you ike. That sounds crazy in itself as will be clear to anybody.

So to say that you will not debate these motivated and eminently qualified individuals puts you in a very difficult position which we are ready to capitalise on in a New York minute should you fail to step up to the mark.

In any case these particular debates are about persuading or swaying people with superior detail. There are more things in Heaven and Earth than mathematical calculations as you should know. And fortunately we have masses of such detail. RRichard Gage has a 90% conversion rate at his lectures which tells it's own story.

And the bottom line is- if you are not scared to debate us let us set up some televised public forums where the debates can proced on coast to coast television.Or let us have a full-scale independent investigaton. I have a model for that that we can look at another time by the way.
Click to expand...

Who the hell is stopping you?
 
bill smith said:
:words:
Click to expand...
Thank you for the illustration. This, folks, is why we have nothing to gain debating these people. For example, you speak of the "thousands of engineers and millions of supporters of your theory" -- ignoring not only how vastly outnumbered those mere thousands and millions are, but also that science isn't done by counting votes. It doesn't matter in science if you're one person strong or a thousand, if you're wrong, you're wrong.

This is the kind of tactics we would expect to see in a "debate" on 9/11 truth. Not facts, just rhetoric and boasting. I pass.

In any case these particular debates are about persuading or swaying people with superior detail. There are more things in Heaven and Earth than mathematical calculations as you should know. And fortunately we have masses of such detail. RRichard Gage has a 90% conversion rate at his lectures which tells it's own story.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It tells us we should not enable you to spread your nonsense by engaging you in "debate".
 
Last edited:
Safe-Keeper said:
Thank you for the illustration. This, folks, is why we have nothing to gain debating these people. For example, you speak of the "thousands of engineers and millions of supporters of your theory" -- ignoring not only how vastly outnumbered those mere thousands and millions are, but also that science isn't done by counting votes. It doesn't matter in science if you're one person strong or a thousand, if you're wrong, you're wrong.

This is the kind of tactics we would expect to see in a "debate" on 9/11 truth. Not facts, just rhetoric and boasting. I pass.

Exactly. It tells us we should not enable you to spread your nonsense by engaging you in "debate".
Click to expand...

I'll write you down as one who advocates ignoring the Truth Movement and it's thousands of highly qualified professionals then shall I ?
 
Last edited:
TexasJack said:
So, I guess the best alternative is Mackey's--ignore it entirely. They'll probably claim some sort of victory, but they can't say you said no.

For me, it would be like accepting a sponsored debate by flat-earthers. There's really nothing to gain from it, so why bother?
Click to expand...

Bonehead Truthers, as usual, are missing the point.

Gage has already ducked the debate. I wrote a 300 page expose of Truther mistakes. Gage promised, to another poster here, in person, to respond to it.

He hasn't. He either can't find enough time :rolleyes: as he gallivants around the world, on the donations of wide-eyed Truther followers, or he's not smart enough to do so.

There's no point trying to cajole me into traveling to DC, on my own dime, with only three weeks warning, if he can't be bothered to respond to my own written debunking. Or to the literally hundreds of published papers that all say, in so many words, he's totally insane.

And yet, in the eyes of Truthers, it's me who's at fault here.

You can't win arguing with crazy people. I no longer bother. They should at least give me credit for not making fun of them, baiting them, or taking cheap shots at them 24/7. Ignoring them is honestly better than they deserve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom