There are two:
1) The NIST WTC 7 theory is crackpot faith-based pseudo-science.
2) WTC 7 was brought down by an unusual form of controlled demolition.
No, no, no.
These are claims (and they are indeed hypotheses) but there is no point in debating about claims. That's not to say that so-called "debate" about claims doesn't happen, but it is always pointless when it does.
Either the NIST WTC 7 theory is crackpot faith-based pseduo science, or it is not. Either way, the outcome of a debate cannot change it from one to the other. Either WTC 7 was brought down by an unusual form of controlled demolition, or it was not. Either way, the outcome of a debate cannot change it from one to the other. In fact, nothing in the universe can change any historical fact, ever.
Debate is for decisions, legislation, and courses of action.
The distinction is subtle, and often overlooked by the simplifications of the popular press ("the evolution debate" or "presidential debates" that are nothing of the kind), but it is real. There is no actual debate about whether or not evolution explains the origin of species -- not because "evolution is right" but because whatever happened, whether it was evolution or creation or something else, happened and no amount of discussion can ever change it. What we can and do debate about is whether alternative narratives to evolution should be taught in public schools. Because that is a decision that people are actually able to make about what people will do in the future.
If you want to make claims about historical fact, then what you want is not a debate, but an argument.
There are many appropriate venues for such arguments. For example, if the evidence that you want to offer for your claims is historical (e.g. documentary evidence for the planning or logistics of the supposed demolition), then writing a paper for a historical journal would be the best approach. If the evidence is scientific in nature, then a scientific paper for a scientific audience is called for. Since you claim you can prove one of your claims in two sentences, completing such a paper that will pass peer review should be no difficulty.
If you do not have evidence of sufficient quality for such a paper, then you can make your argument elsewhere. Popular venues for arguments lacking sufficient evidence for a peer reviewed paper include YouTube comments, online message boards, blogs, printed self-published newsletters, letters to the editor, lawsuits, and speaking on public street corners. Have you availed yourself of these opportunities?
A presentation of your argument at a JREF conference is not on the table, based on how they have conducted matters in the past. (Of course, they can do what they want.) You will notice that when a claimant claims to have the ability to exhibit paranormal phenomena, the JREF does not debate about it. They instead simply ask the claimant to exhibit the phenomena, under controlled conditions. The nature of the claims usually requires some kind of face to face test.
Your claim is that you can prove the occurrence of certain historical events that are not currently part of the current consensual historical narrative. So, don't expect to debate about it. Do it. Write a paper exhibiting your proof.
Or are you also claiming that your proof somehow requires your physical presence to present? If so, please explain why so the JREF (or some other appropriate organization) can consider arranging such a presentation.
If you do want an actual debate, then your chances are much better if you present a proper debate premise, a claim regarding not historical fact but a future decision or course of action that you wish to advocate.
Respectfully,
Myriad
