• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

AE911truth "debate challenge"

I listened and so far I heard them not understand the explanation about why for part of the collapse there could be a point measured on the exterior that fell "at free fall"
Seems they don't understand that the interior was already collapsing (as we can see had started because the penthouse had collapsed) and that interior could yank on the exterior for part of the collapse.
 
Update...

I finally heard back from AE 9/11 Truth after numinous emails...Recap:

1) Wayne Coste is no working with AE 9/11 Truth or the Debate Challenge. He has moved on to 9/11 Truth Outreach, and (I assume) totally involved with that organization.

2) No, they didn't release the proposed names of the debate team for AE 9/11 Truth. You are required to submit a detailed debate proposal, and only after that proposal is reviewed and accepted, will they release the names of their debate team.

3) The proposed rules and guidelines for the debate are set, and they are not open to changing them.

No big surprise...so much for being open, honest and transparent.
 
Last edited:
MileHighMadness said:
Update...

I finally heard back from AE 9/11 Truth after numinous emails...Recap:


2) No, they didn't release the proposed names of the debate team for AE 9/11 Truth. You are required to submit a detailed debate proposal, and only after that proposal is reviewed and accepted, will they release the names of their debate team.
Click to expand...

The question I asked and never got a reply. Are their team members subject to the same requirements as their challengers? If Gage qualifies, it opens the challengers selection up to just about any architect.
 
Due to AE's lack of response, I think it's reasonable to assume they can't field a qualified team (meeting their qualifications for the challengers).
 
I suspect this a PR stunt... they advertise to debate and then don't accept any of the qualifications of these who would debate them... and they declare that they win by default since no one was up to the challenge...

How about the reverse...

Challenge Gage et all (his 3 favorites *scientists*) to a debate live on the net...
 
JSanderO said:
I suspect this a PR stunt... they advertise to debate and then don't accept any of the qualifications of these who would debate them... and they declare that they win by default since no one was up to the challenge...
Click to expand...

You think? :rolleyes:

JSanderO said:
How about the reverse...

Challenge Gage et all (his 3 favorites *scientists*) to a debate live on the net...
Click to expand...

Why? Do they have anything credible to debate? Are they credible enough to warrant debate?

I've seen no evidence to treat them as more than charlatans and clowns.
 
LSSBB said:
Who is an OSer? :boggled:
Click to expand...

Official Story, those who always believe the Official Story is right, no matter what.

Law of the “Official Story” (aka. Safe refuge in a harbor) – The Official Story is always right. It's true because it’s true/if it’s true it can’t be false. If the OS says it was a weather balloon, then it was; proof positive, case closed. No question, no doubt, total acceptance.
 
jakesteele said:
Official Story, those who always believe the Official Story is right, no matter what.

Law of the “Official Story” (aka. Safe refuge in a harbor) – The Official Story is always right. It's true because it’s true/if it’s true it can’t be false. If the OS says it was a weather balloon, then it was; proof positive, case closed. No question, no doubt, total acceptance.
Click to expand...

No one here is like that, so your cute little backronym is a strawman. If you had any actual, real evidence to support another theory, we would believe you. No, seriously - if you brought evidence to the table, we would listen. But you haven't and you won't, so we don't.
 
jakesteele said:
Official Story, those who always believe the Official Story is right, no matter what.

Law of the “Official Story” (aka. Safe refuge in a harbor) – The Official Story is always right. It's true because it’s true/if it’s true it can’t be false. If the OS says it was a weather balloon, then it was; proof positive, case closed. No question, no doubt, total acceptance.
Click to expand...
What do you call people that refuse to believe anything that they believe to be "official"?

I call them sheep.
 
jakesteele said:
Official Story, those who always believe the Official Story is right, no matter what.
Click to expand...

Who would those be? I only see people who believe the official story because it's the one that best explains the consilient totality of evidence.

But please, continue railing against your straw men if that's what your argument consists of.
 
jakesteele said:
Official Story, those who always believe the Official Story is right, no matter what.

Law of the “Official Story” (aka. Safe refuge in a harbor) – The Official Story is always right. It's true because it’s true/if it’s true it can’t be false. If the OS says it was a weather balloon, then it was; proof positive, case closed. No question, no doubt, total acceptance.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Where is the "official story"?

19 terrorists did 911, no CD, no thermite, no high explosives.

The official story plot.
1. Take planes
2. Crash planes

The official story is what happened on 911 for me. It is not a story, it is what happened on 911, it is on film/video, Radar, FDR, DNA, and other reality based evidence.

Are you upset what happened on 911 is based on evidence, and not the dumbed down fantasy from 911 truth, a movement of dirt dumb lies?

So you believe what you are told, is that what you do? I use evidence, what do you use? 911 truth has no truth, only lies and false claims.

You need no official story to understand 911 truth is BS.

Where is the official story located; what book? Source please.
 
Last edited:
jakesteele said:
Official Story, those who always believe the Official Story is right, no matter what.

Law of the “Official Story” (aka. Safe refuge in a harbor) – The Official Story is always right. It's true because it’s true/if it’s true it can’t be false. If the OS says it was a weather balloon, then it was; proof positive, case closed. No question, no doubt, total acceptance.
Click to expand...

There is no official story, there is only the truth. Unfortunately, you are on the wrong side of that equation. You have aligned yourself with idiots, lairs, con artists and the truly insane. You are a member of a political cult that gave up logic and reason a long time. You have bought into one of the stupidest theories in the history of mankind, and are wasting your life promoting it.
 
JSanderO said:
I suspect this a PR stunt... they advertise to debate and then don't accept any of the qualifications of these who would debate them... and they declare that they win by default since no one was up to the challenge...

How about the reverse...

Challenge Gage et all (his 3 favorites *scientists*) to a debate live on the net...
Click to expand...

I think the highlighted sentence is disingenuous. You're making an assumption about something you don't know about, yet.

Moving along, what you say about "the reverse" is basically the same thing as the Gage challenge. Since his was out there first we'll go with that. Since you(plurals) have been challenged you have the right to choose the weapon of your choice: Have an independent council choose who's qualified and what the topics will be, give each side plenty of time to get their material in order and then both sides have to live with it. Also, as somebody said previously, formal debate rules with a moderator. By all means, have it live on internet, tv, pay-per-view, etc.

The whole reason I brought this up is that in today's world the media is a joke, IMO. It seems like everything quickly devolves into shouting/screaming matches and you never get to learn much. I just want to see one side make a statement and then the other side rebuts the other and so forth.
 
The closest thing to a respectable debate I've seen is between chrismohr and Gage. He had the patience and time to do it and I'm not going to denigrate him for his choices regardless of what I think of them.

Me personally... Gage believes a lot of stuff that requires him to set aside whatever design experience and integrity he has. I can't do that. His mistakes are so elementary that he's been addressed and the skit gets repeated like a Monty Python film.

At any rate... if you're looking for a respectable debate you now have a recommendation on what to look for.
 
jakesteele said:
Official Story, those who always believe the Official Story is right, no matter what.

Law of the “Official Story” (aka. Safe refuge in a harbor) – The Official Story is always right. It's true because it’s true/if it’s true it can’t be false. If the OS says it was a weather balloon, then it was; proof positive, case closed. No question, no doubt, total acceptance.
Click to expand...

Ah, so nobody I know of here on JREF. Got it. Where are these elusive OSer creatures to be found? In the Land of Straw?
 
jakesteele said:
... I just want to see one side make a statement and then the other side rebuts the other and so forth.
Click to expand...
19 terrorists did 911, with four planes. That is the statement, that covers the whole thing.
Want to debate it?
How do you debate what happened? You want to debate opinions based on BS?


What statement of substance does 911 truth have? 13 years, which claim by 911 truth would be debatable? Nukes? lol, no planes? CD? Thermite, High Explosives? These are all fantasies based on nonsense, lies, quote mining, and cute statements that sound good to paranoid nuts.

Have you found any 911 truth claims which are true? No.

Make a statement. Where is the "official story" you posted about? Source it please.
 
jakesteele said:
Official Story, those who always believe the Official Story is right, no matter what.

Law of the “Official Story” (aka. Safe refuge in a harbor) – The Official Story is always right. It's true because it’s true/if it’s true it can’t be false. If the OS says it was a weather balloon, then it was; proof positive, case closed. No question, no doubt, total acceptance.
Click to expand...

No, it was Boeing airliners, nary a weather balloon in sight.
 
jakesteele said:
I think the highlighted sentence is disingenuous. You're making an assumption about something you don't know about, yet.

Moving along, what you say about "the reverse" is basically the same thing as the Gage challenge. Since his was out there first we'll go with that. Since you(plurals) have been challenged you have the right to choose the weapon of your choice: Have an independent council choose who's qualified and what the topics will be, give each side plenty of time to get their material in order and then both sides have to live with it. Also, as somebody said previously, formal debate rules with a moderator. By all means, have it live on internet, tv, pay-per-view, etc.

The whole reason I brought this up is that in today's world the media is a joke, IMO. It seems like everything quickly devolves into shouting/screaming matches and you never get to learn much. I just want to see one side make a statement and then the other side rebuts the other and so forth.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, it appears you want a contest in how well each side is able to formulate an argument that resonates with laymen with little relevant training or experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom