Ron:
I really wonder why you and many other JREFers would want to debate the likes of Gordon Ross or Steven Jones when you spend so much time on this site describing such "Truthers" as stupid, inane, idiots and liars. If that is what you really believe, then surely any logic and reason applied to the debate would be wasted on such fools and charlatans; so why bother? A “debate” surely implies a situation where both sides initially have a chance of “winning”. A process involving a thesis and an antithesis leading to a synthesis – a true Hegelian dialectic! However, given that the JREFers have an obvious distain for anyone who exhibits even a modicum of skepticism over the official line on 9/11, I would expect a JREF “disputation” with any “Truther” to be more like a scene from a Kafka novel (or perhaps Orwell's 1984)…
Frank, I have tried to be clear in stating the aims of this proposed series of disputations. They are, to repeat, to show as fully as possible the substance of the arguments made by the opposing sides and, ideally, to permit an objective assessment of the competing claims.
You are back to your puzzling pose of accusing JREFers of intolerance. At this juncture, I can only throw up my hands in exasperation. Is Mackey
intolerant? Are the people here who have science backgrounds close-minded about the new evidence? What new evidence has come to light? Has anyone rejected a serious, well-founded argument because the conclusion was distasteful? What argument was that?--I seem to have missed it.
For cryin' out loud, Frank, what are you complaining about? You raised the issue of iron spherules in dust samples from the WTC and were asked to explain their significance. You chose to tantalize rather than enlighten. If you want to pretend that you've been
silenced, I'm afraid that nobody will believe you. Your work has been greeted with enthusiam here and your opinions are eagerly sought. But, when you paint this forum as a benighted bastion of orthodoxy, you do many people an injustice.
The people we label as "fools" and "charlatans" are precisely the fools and charlatans who make unfounded, wildly implausible claims and then flee from honest, open discussions. Jones refuses to defend his bogus science, demanding that you and Mackey submit your work to peer review. Isn't his refusal to take his own advice an appropriate target for ridicule?
Your final sentence is outrageous and indefensible. From where do you suppose the Kafkaesque elements in the disputation would originate? Would the JREFer make assertions that fly in the face of our current understanding of physics? Would the JREFer knowingly misstate data? Tell us, Frank, how the obscurantist JREfer would
suppress the truths being presented by the fantasist. And what truths are those? Are the positions held by the JREfers demonstrably false? What is holding up the demonstration? What is the JRERer's motive for defending a discredited position? And, although I hate repeating myself, tell us again how the JREF position was discredited.
I have been your most consistent advocate, but that last sentence of yours has worn out my patience. Do you imagine that in a debate between a serious historian and a Holocaust-denier both sides have an initial chance of winning? What
are you saying?
