• 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'm seeing a real problem here in the format for this debate.
Format:
Each proponent will open with a five-minute introduction.
Each side will choose in advance five specific points to discuss. They should include an explanation either of the completeness or the shortcomings of the NCSTAR 1A final report, as well as such key topics as free-fall acceleration, symmetrical destruction, compactness of the pile, extreme heat, Appendix C of the FEMA report on WTC 7, and additional points of evidence.
Click to expand...

Where is it established that these are key points that should have been covered by the NIST report?

They specify that the challenger is defending something they were under no obligation to explain in the first place.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I'm seeing a real problem hear in the format for this debate.


Where is it established that these are key points that should have been covered by the NIST report?

They specify that the challenger is defending something they were under no obligation to explain in the first place.
Click to expand...

That's not the only red flag in the challenge itself. It's phrased such that the challenger has to defend NIST. They offer you the opportunity to accept a burden of proof to prove them wrong. They beg every single leading assumption, including the assumption of their own relevance to the question.

This fits the pattern of many conspiracy theories. Some farfetched pile of woo gets thrown out there, and any disputation of it on its own lack of merit gets rewritten as the need to defend the "official story."
 
Kevin Barrett said:
We're hoping that some guy named Frank McLaughlin from the anti-9/11 truth site JREF will show up to debate Rick Shaddock during the first hour. Rick is a "computer professional for 9/11 truth" who has been trying to find a qualified JREFer willing to debate either physicist Dr. David Griscom or himself. Frank, who like Rick is a computer professional, at first appeared willing to debate - but then started generating endless excuses for weaseling out. Will Frank show up? Or will Rick have to debate an empty chair? Tune in and find out!
Click to expand...


link

No idea who of you that guy is, what communication took place and any other details (don't care to read this subforum anymore), but just got news per feed that the show is on live 5-7 pm Central time, so here's a heads-up.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
link

No idea who of you that guy is, what communication took place and any other details (don't care to read this subforum anymore)
Click to expand...

No idea. I wouldn't be surprised if there was no such person. So, what qualifications does Rick Shaddock have to make him worth debating? Personally, I can't think of a debatable topic that AE endorses.
 
I know Frank McLaughlin well, and he is certainly well-versed in the subject. Not sure if the debate is taking place tho.
 
It just started, pushed back a couple of hours.

http://www.freedomslips.com/legacy.htm

Studio B button.

I'm not interested enough to listen to it but they're already disparaging Frank for not agreeing to participate, the Forum ingeneral, Beechnut and others in particular and wondering if you Chris are going to agree to a debate.

All while spouting paranoid conspiracy nuttiness. Good times, I'm sure.
 
There are no qualified 911 truth experts to debate. 911 truth has a fantasy, how do you debate fantasy?

Gish Gallop times are coming, presented by 911 truth nuts; the only humans on earth who can't figure out 911.

A debate with 911 truth dolts - is there Dolts for 911 truth? D911T
 
Last edited:
Jim_MDP said:
It just started, pushed back a couple of hours.

http://www.freedomslips.com/legacy.htm

Studio B button.

I'm not interested enough to listen to it but they're already disparaging Frank for not agreeing to participate, the Forum ingeneral, Beechnut and others in particular and wondering if you Chris are going to agree to a debate.

All while spouting paranoid conspiracy nuttiness. Good times, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

I listened for about 5 minutes...that all that I could handle. Clueless, totally clueless...

I has sent AE Truth (now) two emails, asking who their debate team is...no response, and has been two weeks. This is looking like the typical AE Truth B.S., lies and games.
 
Sorry Beachnut... it's the aviation connection that makes me associate your nic with Beechcraft and so I went and spelled it wrong without thinking. :D


And MHM... I listened for another ~5 minutes after posting, but it was really starting to get stupid so I just closed it out. Can't feel I missed anything.
 
Jim_MDP said:
It just started, pushed back a couple of hours.

http://www.freedomslips.com/legacy.htm

Studio B button.

I'm not interested enough to listen to it but they're already disparaging Frank for not agreeing to participate, the Forum ingeneral, Beechnut and others in particular and wondering if you Chris are going to agree to a debate.

All while spouting paranoid conspiracy nuttiness. Good times, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

In other words they found and used a name at random. Did not even use a forum name. He cannot agree to participate if he is not contacted by them first. I also note that there is nowhere where they give his qualifications and experience on the topic.

I cannot get to studio B to work at all.
 
MileHi, if you want I can connect you directly to someone who will talk with you about all this. I'm not sure why they don't respond to your emails
 
chrismohr said:
MileHi, if you want I can connect you directly to someone who will talk with you about all this. I'm not sure why they don't respond to your emails
Click to expand...

I just want to know who are the proposed members of the AE Truth debate team. I understand those members may change, depending on the time and location of the debate(s). But at this time, Richard Gage and AE Truth have got to have at least a short list of names they can give out.

If Richard Gage wants the true...then he needs to be open and truthful.
 
Seems to me that a big problem with such a debate... is to identify and stipulate to various facts... and then find the areas which are perhaps subject to *interpretation* which could be debated... perhaps. You simply can't make up your own facts. My sense is this is precisely what Gage and his supporters do... make up facts and them use these falsehoods to built their case. There are any number of examples... take molten iron or steel as one. AE911T insist that steel melted and they see evidence of it. I don't think this evidence exists and so they clearly appear to be projecting what they want to see. Is this the sort of issue that needs to be debated?
 
JSanderO said:
Is this the sort of issue that needs to be debated?
Click to expand...


Debate is for considering future courses of action.

You don't debate about whether humans were created or evolved. You can argue about it, but the origin of humans is part of the inalterable past and not up to anybody to decide. You can, however, debate about whether to teach Creationism in public school science classes.

You don't debate about whether the atomic bomb should have been dropped on Nagasaki. You can argue about it, but the people who made the decision are dead and the morality of their choice cannot be other than a matter of opinion and is not up to anybody to decide. You can, however, debate about whether to target retaliatory nuclear strikes against civilian population centers in the future.

You don't debate about whether a hurricane is going to hit Miami in the 2020's. You can argue about it, but where hurricanes will happen years from now is not under anyone's control and so is not up to anybody to decide. You can, however, debate about whether to build a sea wall.

Arguing about what happened on 9/11 is not lent any dignity by someone calling it a debate. When they offer specific proposed courses of action, we can debate about those.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom