AE911truth "debate challenge"

[Newtons Bit]

Most states haven't created a structural engineering license. Even fewer actually require them to do structural engineering work.

see here: http://www.ncsea.com/resources/licensure/

 

[Newtons Bit]

Well, Gage DID give a presentation at a recent AIA Convention in Denver, and got several dozen arcchitects to sign his petition (I saw the signatures myself).

I have to wonder why he doesn't try to present at SEA Annual Conferences.

 

[MileHighMadness]

If you are going to debate AETruth, besides a Architect and a Structural Engineer, you are also going to need:

Clinical Psychologist – specializing in delusional paranoia
IRS Investigator – specializing in non-profit originations

 

[chrismohr]

For a debate, a marrying minister would be OK.

 

[Myriad]

And one again, they've failed to comprehend what debate is for, and have thus come up with a "debate topic" that has nothing to do with a proposed decision or available course of action.

 

[DGM]

And one again, they've failed to comprehend what debate is for, and have thus come up with a "debate topic" that has nothing to do with a proposed decision or available course of action.

They know exactly what they want debate to mean. It's attention and validation, if someone "debates" them it means their views have merit.

It's really the universal meaning in the CT world (and other woo also).

 

[JayUtah]

They know exactly what they want debate to mean. It's attention and validation, if someone "debates" them it means their views have merit.

I can't agree more. I was looking for a way to state this as succinctly as you have. For all their bluster, Tony S. and the others know full well they have practically no credibility in the real world. It's an almost fanatical scramble for attention -- even bad publicity works. Another case in point: Moon hoax author Bill Kaysing tried to sue astronaut Jim Lovell (case dismissed with prejudice). If people with real-world knowledge, expertise, and credibility publicly acknowledge you and your work in any way, it suggests the work stands on somewhat equal footing with theirs and is worth the same class of attention.

Accepting only highly qualified opponents wrongly implies their side has that same level of rigor and merit. It's a gamble. In effect they imply, "Our arguments are too technical to be understood by laymen, and we're too important to be bothered debating anything less than the best experts." Obviously this serves only to narrow the field of opponents.

Commensurately, accepting only narrowly qualified opponents means the list of candidate opponents is very small indeed. And this leads to the other leg of the Let's Have a Debate ploy: if no one accepts their challenge, because none in the tiny list of opponents they'll accept wants to stoop to their nonsense, they can then plausibly claim that they offered the world a fair debate and no one "was able" to answer their challenge. "We invited the world's experts to debate us on the merits of our claim, but none was able to rise to the challenge." To them -- and more importantly, to their vast ranks of potential contributors -- this stands as a different kind of validation.

The tautological nature of this ploy is, as you say, well known in the survey of conspiracy rhetoric.

 

[carlitos]

Agree 100%. Look at this quote from a Huffington Post article on Ken Ham.

Creationist Ken Ham, who recently debated Bill Nye the Science Guy over the origins of the universe, is calling for an end to the search for extraterrestrial life because aliens probably don't exist -- and if they do, they're going to Hell anyway.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Reporting-MTA: dns; qmta13.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.27.243]
Received-From-MTA: dns; omta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.20]
Arrival-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 01:31:31 +0000


Final-recipient: rfc822; debatechallenge@ae911truth.org
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 <debatechallenge@ae911truth.org> No such user here
Last-attempt-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 01:31:32 +0000

This is starting to look like a total scam...I haven't been able to get an email thru in four days.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Reporting-MTA: dns; qmta13.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.27.243]
Received-From-MTA: dns; omta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.20]
Arrival-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 01:31:31 +0000


Final-recipient: rfc822; debatechallenge@ae911truth.org
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 <debatechallenge@ae911truth.org> No such user here
Last-attempt-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 01:31:32 +0000

This is starting to look like a total scam...I haven't been able to get an email thru in four days.

I just shot them an e-mail as well:

Message Not Delivered

Something went wrong.

We were unable to deliver your message to the following address​

​

​

debatechallenge@ae911truth.org

because User name of email address not valid​

​

​

 

[Sceptic-PK]

The entire thing is just so adolescent.

 

[JSanderO]

The organization is run by immature people... and their mission is gathering attention...

 

[rjh01]

Strange, I have sent an e-mail to DebateChallenge@AE911Truth.org but it has not come back. Maybe those that tried before can try again. Or maybe this was a fluke?

 

[swright777]

Your emails didn't go through because they know that you don't meet the criteria to join the debate.

 

[JayUtah]

Your emails didn't go through because they know that you don't meet the criteria to join the debate.

Hehe, except that the transcript above shows that their mail agent isn't configured to receive messages there at all, from anyone. It's therefore clearly a publicity stunt with no intent ever to have any such debate, regardless of the applicants' qualifications.

 

[JayUtah]

Strange, I have sent an e-mail to DebateChallenge@AE911Truth.org but it has not come back. Maybe those that tried before can try again. Or maybe this was a fluke?

Mail agents sometimes try for days to deliver a message, so be patient. Also, your ISP's own mail agent may be configured not to deliver rejected messages back to you. The SMTP diagnostics are pretty clear what happened at AE911T's end in those other cases.

 

[rjh01]

Mail agents sometimes try for days to deliver a message, so be patient. Also, your ISP's own mail agent may be configured not to deliver rejected messages back to you. The SMTP diagnostics are pretty clear what happened at AE911T's end in those other cases.

I have had rejected e-mails before. Still waiting for this one. How long before you lot got your reject e-mails? Normally when I get one I get mine within minutes of sending the original e-mail.

 

[DGM]

I have had rejected e-mails before. Still waiting for this one. How long before you lot got your reject e-mails? Normally when I get one I get mine within minutes of sending the original e-mail.

Within a hour or so.............

I just resent it...........I'll let you know.

ETA: This is what I asked in the email: "Will the AE team members be held to the same qualifications as the challengers? If so, who are they?"

I also sent it to Gage and his office (person) email.

 

[DGM]

The emails are not bouncing back anymore. They're not being responded to but, that's to be expected from a group that's only "asking questions".

Maybe they think they need to keep their dream team under wraps until they see their opponents.

The funny thing, If Gage is qualified, a "high-rise architect" is anyone that worked on a project 3 stories or higher.

 

[tsig]

The emails are not bouncing back anymore. They're not being responded to but, that's to be expected from a group that's only "asking questions".

Maybe they think they need to keep their dream team under wraps until they see their opponents.

The funny thing, If Gage is qualified, a "high-rise architect" is anyone that worked on a project 3 stories or higher.

I once worked as a software project engineer on the ninth floor of an eleven story building so I might qualify.