Proposed Debate: TruthSeeker1234 vs. RMackey

[Kent1]

molten iron with entrained barium

http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645201360,00.html
Jones states:
"I accept that. But whoever does it will have to explain this molten metal to me, and especially all the barium found. That's nasty stuff that's not going to be used in a building."

Hmmm, well maybe someone forgot to tell these guys:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...arium.&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=safari

"The levels of many of the elements are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and BARIUM."

 

[tsig]

I might agree to a moderated debate thread here. I might not. It would depend on rules of evidence, mostly. It would be downright disappointing to have my best work vandalized, I'm sensitive to that after Wikipedia.

Ts1234

Vandalising your work would be doing you a favor.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The analogy by [presumably attorney] Loss Leader is telling. This offer to debate reminds him of a case where he was successful at excluding evidence. I coudn't agree more. It reminds me of the same thing. For example, I post Jim Hoffman's calculations showing that the energy requirement for expanding the North Tower dust cloud is an order of magnitude too large to be explained by GPE. The thread is edited, citing rule 4, when actually Jim Hoffman allows reprinting of his paper.

Too much excluding of evidence around here.

Never mind the comedy gold of that last statement, you are aware that the forum rules are for everyone, yes? Even for charmers such as yourself.

Yes, I offered to debate on a "closed thread" although I didn't know it was called that, nor do I know if this forum considers such a thing. Considering the problem with posting certain types of material here, such as large pictures, and videos, and previously copyrighted works, the limitations are what I would characterize as "not supporting of the scientific method".

You lecturing about the scientific method is like me suggesting driving tips to Michael Schumacher.

The truth is, Mackey knows perfectly well that the official story (that he supports) cannot withstand scrutiny, and the last thing in the world he wants is for people to actually look at the videos and pictures. Nor can the official story withstand the calculations done by Legge, Ross, Kuttler. Hoffman. Nor the material testing by Jones.

Then get off the forum and submit all your work to reputable scientific journals. Hold a press conference. What...are you afraid?

Mackey's tactic then, is to obfuscate, deny evidence (like the charade about the radar times not being reliable), create artificial scenarios that bear no resemblance to either the picture data, or the eyewitness testimony, or the scientific tests, or anything in reality, conforming only to the government reports which are a mixture of irrelevant facts, mysterious computer simulations, distortions, outright lies, and ommissions of pertinant data (such as the behavior of the towers during collapse, a subject ignored in 10,000 pages of NIST).

Your criticising R.Mackey is like Emperor Joseph II's offering: "Too many notes, my dear Mozart."

On T.V., its simple. Present your evidence. I'll present mine. You explain why I'm wrong, I'll explain where you're wrong. Then we'll answer some questions, sum it up, and that will be that.

Ha!

Mackey, if my arguments are as vacuous as you claim, this is your golden opportunity to hand it to me. What are you so afraid of? Bring your reams of data, graphs, bring whatever you want. On T.V. even if I ignore you, the audience won't . Show them whatever you want them to see.

Or...you could do it the right way. Peer-reviewed journals. Y'know, that "scientific process" you love to yammer on about.

 

[Belz...]

See, you're obfuscating again, right there. you know exactly what I am talking about, and instead of admitting it, you obfuscate.

Asking you to support your statements is obfuscation ? That's an interesting way of approaching a debate. I'll try to remember that.

 

[greyleonard]

I haven't backed away from a thread debate. Somebody propose one and i will look at it.

A couple weeks ago, I was one who offered to debate you here. What happened?

 

[Ducky]

In fact, He already proposed the debate structure in a thread on this forum.


So what about it Truthseeker1234? Why are you backing away? Why did you lie about the forum debate proposal here?

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Too much excluding of evidence around here.

Now that's pretty funny.

 

[Dave1001]

id like to suggest the 10 min "case presentations" should be prewritten, and submitted to the moderator beforehand, to prevent rebuttal attempts prior to designated rebuttal time allotment (specifically during the second parties statements, regardless if TS1234 or Mackey speaks second)

That's dull. Better to just flip a coin on who goes first.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I might agree to a moderated debate thread here. I might not. It would depend on rules of evidence, mostly. It would be downright disappointing to have my best work vandalized, I'm sensitive to that after Wikipedia.

Okay, hold on, I'm trying to grasp this nonsense. YOU, after vandalizing Wikipedia with nonsense on some obscure topic, and after gloating about it, are concerned about having "my best work vandalized"??? (Bolding mine.)

Your best work is a sophomoric forgery? What's your second-best work, may I ask? The ca-ca finger-painting you made on the dining room wall when you were 18 months old?

I think Gravy's right, dude. You've booked a one-way ticket to Christopheraland.

Back to the thread. Mackey called you down from day one. Post your evidence and make it real, and he'll reply. You posted, he shredded you. End of story. He has stated numerous times that he would not bother with you as long as you were opining, observing, and surmising. And yet, when you cam back with Son-of-Ross and the seismic timing issue, he (and Ziggurat) took the bit into their teeth, answered and discredited the data, and again handed you your a** in a greasy brown paper sack.

A televised debate? Why? You have all the time in the world in a controlled thread and can post any/all 'evidence' you want. A timed debate only allows you to throw out forty or fifty non-sequitirs and then claim jubilantly over on YouTube "See! They couldn't answer me on the great chicken conspiracy!"

And your concern about "all your best evidence" is an excuse and you know it. All your evidence is here on these threads. Who's done anything to delete or change a single word? I call bulls***! You're still a liar and now you're showing that you're a coward.

ETA: Ooops, I forgot..... "downright sensitive"? Awww is ums feewings hoit?

 

[chipmunk stew]

I might agree to a moderated debate thread here. I might not. It would depend on rules of evidence, mostly. It would be downright disappointing to have my best work vandalized, I'm sensitive to that after Wikipedia.

Your best work is a cut and paste job???

The only "work" of yours that has been "vandalized" here is your reprinting of other people's work. Everyone here is perfectly capable of following a relevant link. It's your job to highlight how the linked work contributes to your argument.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I posted my idea for a televised debate, perhaps someone else can draft a proposal to look at. I don't know what is and is not possible, allowable.

Maybe somebody else in the L.A. area has the courage to debate me on television.

I challenge you to a debate, TS. It will take place on the international space station. Do you accept?

 

[Z]

Hell, I accept Chip! Anything to get onto the space station!!!

"Yuh, you can see here in dis foto dat dese here moon craterz wus manafracturized, not nat'ral..."

"whaddyamean, 9-elebun? I thunk we wuz here 'bout moon 'spiracies!"

 

[Ducky]

Bump.

Well truthseeker1234? Why are you not responding to our proposals for a moderated thread debate?

Hello?

Did you just pull a roxdog?





Coward.

 

[Architect]

Tell you what, Truth, I'm not interested in a TV debate but I'm willing to do a UK public inquiry against you on the subject. A proper one. Precognitions and cross-examination, evidence and everything.

Interested? Get yourself over here....

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

1) What is the structure of the thread debate?
2) Are we given equal space?
3) Do the replies alternate, or what?
4) Are there time limits?
5) Is the resulting document public domain?
6) when is it over?

If someone will draw up an actual proposal that seeks to answer these questions, and clarify what will take place, and what will not be allowed, I am interested in this.

 

[T.A.M.]

1. Closed Thread to all but Mackey and TS and a designated Moderator from this site.
2. If either party has a problem with the "moderation" they can send their complaint to the other moderators for review.
3. One topic per thread.
4. Photos and audio/video are to be linked to, not posted on this site.
5. Articles are not to be posted unless sourced.
6. 24 hours to respond, unless clear reasons given and accepted by both parties (we all have real lives remember).

Anything anyone would add.

TAM

 

[Ducky]

There you go.

Yes or no truthseeker1234?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

This doesn't address my questions. I don't know what a "topic" is in this context. Is "9/11" the topic? Or is "Metallurgical Report" the topic? I'm concerned about equal space, this is not adressed.

How about something like this.

We start 2 threads, both closed to all but me and Mackey. One is "his" thread, one is "mine".

He begins his thread with a research paper, authored by him, of the title "WTC buildings brought down by impact damage and fires" or words to that effect. He makes the positive case.

I begin my thread with a research paper, authored by me, of the title,
"WTC buildings blown up" or words to that effect. I make the positive case.

On his thread I rebut his postitive case. On my thread, he rebuts my positive case.

On his thread, I ask him specific questions, and he answeres. On my thread, he asks me specific questions and I answer.

We can post pictures directly into the threads. Copyright exemption is claimed under fair use doctrine.

He posts a discussion and conclusion on his thread, I post a discussion and conclusion on my thread.

Time limit for entire debate is 60 days.

No ad hominem attacks.

Both parties, and JREF, agree that the resulting two documents are public domain, and may be reproduced, in part or in full, by anyone, anywhere, without permission.

 

[Ducky]

Why can'[t you two have one thread? less confusing than having to switch back and forth. Or do you not want to be destroyed in your own thread?

The topic is your choice. You chose it. You laid out the debates.

Pony up coward. Stop stalling.

 

[R.Mackey]

TruthSeeker1234, your 24 hours are up

In this post, you made a series of completely unfounded attacks directed at me personally.

In the intervening 24 hours, you have not provided a single shred of supporting evidence.

I therefore conclude this attack was solely of a personal nature. Combined with this strange, stalker-like behavior you've recently exhibited, attempting to call me out in increasingly bizarre "debate" proposals, I find your manner reprehensible and entirely counter-productive.

Expect no further communication with me. You have proven your incapability for gentlemanly discussion.

To the rest of the forum, I apologize for this unseemly exchange. I now wash my hands of this thread and the offending poster.