Jonathan,
the purpose of me challenging you to a debate was not to educate myself
I didn't think it was, for a moment. Apologies if you took it that I meant otherwise.
The purpose of me challenging you to a debate was because I often see your site referenced when people try to silence people within the 9/11 Truth Movement, and quite honestly, I wanted to take that option away from them.
Then the arguments I put forward will have to be confronted, one by one, and either accepted or overturned. Too big a job for a "show" debate, which must inevitably reduce complex arguments to brief summaries.
If you feel strongly enough about your opinion, and think you have enough facts to dispute the claims of the 911 Truth Movement, then essentially, you should welcome a debate.
Why? As I said, what I believe is out there, in the open, in full, on the site. What is to be gained by investing time and effort in producing a shorter, less complete version for you? If you and your forum members don't think anything I said has validity now, how is a debate going to convince you?
The thing is, I'm not evangelical about this, I'm just saying what I believe. I'm not out to convince people, one by one. I don't promote the site. I don't plug it on forums, I didn't add the Wikipedia references. All I've done is produce a collection of points and discoveries, everything else has been done by word of mouth. I'm not out to become some kind of conspiracy-busting Internet personality, make a "name" for myself, produce a DVD: there's too much of that exploitation already. If readers think I have a point, that's great; if they think I'm talking rubbish, well, they're entitled to their opinion. Either way, it's the contents of the site as a whole that speak for me: I don't see producing a condensed version for a hostile audience as serving any purpose at all.
Regards,
Mike Williams
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by somebigguy
