Jonathan,
How would an online debate benefit anyone? It's already easy for anyone to see what I think on any particular issue: go to the site and look it up. All that would happen in a debate is I'd have to summarise things, condense arguments, and while that might appeal to some ("find out everything I believe in 500 words") I don't think it's a good idea. These are complex issues, there's no getting away from that, and to consider them properly you need all the information. Not simply a shortened debating list.
This is especially problematic in any form of controlled debate. It would be very easy for you to say, for instance, "there are too many oddities and unlikely coincidences over 9/11: what about the hijackers who are reportedly still alive, the explosions heard at the WTC, the mobile calls that couldn't possibly have been made?". Thus you've posted less than 40 words, but on the site I've got thousands of words discussing these very issues. And arguably need even more. If we followed any conventional rules about limiting size of posts then I would be permanently constrained, never able to properly answer questions you might raise. And if we didn't, if it was okay for me to post vast answers, then again, why not just go to the site and read the full text?
And then as the arguments get shortened to fit the format, so other things rise in importance to fill their place: who's the most confident, the best at summing up, has the prettiest turn of phrase, essentially superficial things that have nothing to do with whether you're right or not, and are more about presentation. Maybe I would do well at these, maybe I wouldn't, but either way, they colour the result. And to me that's a problem, because the full arguments should be all that matter. Finally, we'd come to the result. What might it be, what would we achieve? As I said, you'd inevitably be able to raise more questions than I could answer, not least because I'm far from having all the answers anyway.
Therefore anyone who requires me to answer every single question you might pose will find that I do not, and inevitably conclude that I haven't convinced them. I see no way in which such an exercise would change anyone's mind, or achieve anything of any significance at all, and for that and these other reasons I'm afraid I'll have to decline your offer.
However, let me also say this.
As I said earlier, if someone wants to find out what I think, then they can just go to the site and read about it.
If you, or anyone else wants to know what I think about an issue that maybe isn't on the site, or only briefly covered, then they can email me and ask. I reply to just about everyone (only the more abusive one-liners get binned).
If you, or anyone else, wants to contend that I'm making a misleading case somewhere, then email me and tell me why. If we can come to an agreement (which has happened before) then I'll amend the site; if I disagree but feel there's a case for showing people that side of an argument, then I'll happily link to a site that covers it.
And if you, or anyone else, wants to debate a particular point, then again, just send me an email and I'll respond. I've no problem with that, as long as you're able to stay civil. (Including lots of smears or personal attacks gets you less attention, not more).
And if you, or anyone else, wanted to reduce their debating ambitions to specific points rather than all of 9/11 in one go, email me about these, and publish the results on their site, then I'd have no objection. Although it would be polite if you told me you were going to do that first.
I'm not worried about debating people, then -- I do it all the time. However, I believe trying to condense everything into one "Inside job: yes or no?" debate is unrealistic, and will achieve nothing, and so prefer to carry on with email discussions as they arise. Hope you can accept that.
Regards,
Mike Williams
