Student Scholars Challenge "Debunker" Mikey Metz To a Debate
Mikey Metz, the truther turned "debunker," has been spewing lies about myself and Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth for quite some time. I sent Mikey the following message on 2/7/08. As of today, 2/11/08, I have heard nothing...
Hello Mikey,
Would you be interested in debating Mike Jackman and I on a radio show next Friday? We promise to give you equal time, etc. The topic I'd like to discuss is whether or not the 9/11 Commission provided "the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11," and whether or not the commission, along with individuals and departments within our government are participating in a cover up in regard to 9/11.
If this sounds like something that interests you please message me back. However, if you're just going to spend the hour attacking my character and making unfounded accusations that I have somehow been a incompetent leader of www. sst911. org then you need not bother.
I look forward to hearing back from you and hope you accept my invitation.
P. S. The station is 91. 3 WKNH in Keene, NH and has quite a few listeners...
Justin Martell
www.sst911.org
Funny, when a truther doesn't want to debate a "debunker" they all jump up and down screaming, "He ran away from me! He couldn't defend his lies! We win! Another victory!" On the other hand, when a "debunker" doesn't want to debate a truther they play it off like this, "Why would I waste my time debating him? He's not worth it!" Well Mikey, I'm asking you to put your money where your mouth is. You can accept my debate challenge any time. Until you do so, however, I ask you to please show up or shut up!
STUDENT SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
WWW.SST911.ORG
- jamartellxiv's blog
- Login to post comments
I bet he refuses the challenge
In the off-chance event that this clown accepts your debate challenge, I wish you the best of luck. It's not that I don't think you have the facts and knowledge on your side. I certainly do. Just watch out for all of the 'red herring' arguments and character assassination that these type of people want to indulge in.
I'm thinking of a scene from John Gibson of FOX News. According to his logic, if you can't explain what happened to the people of Flight 77, then Flight 77 had to have struck the Pentagon!
Take him to the mat.
www.Cincinnati911Truth.org
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow
Still no word from Metz.
Still no word from Metz. Just a couple of his bootlickers on his blog trying to defend his lack of response in the comments section.
Justin A. Martell
www.sst911.org
jamartell.blogspot.com
In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern t
Debate and the Burden of Proof
I think the way you handled this was almost perfect. As someone who has seen the development of several "conspiracy" debates and what happens to them over time, I would like to make some observations.
First, DEBATE is the key. I suggest that all 911truthers focus on challenging the so called "debunkers" to fair debates. Trying to counter them with questions (not to speak of angry rants) at the end of their speeches or blogs or columns or whatever is rarely effective, for they always get the last word and never have to answer with anything but redirection techniques.
Next, I suggest we all do as you have done and keep the BURDEN OF PROOF where it belongs: on the official story and the popular received truths. Those fictions can never stand the light of rational inquiry and facts, and when your opponent has to defend the offical fictions you have him in your grasp. As soon as the burden of proof slips back to US to prove a theory, whether it is "controlled demolition" "the government did it" "Israel" etc, we are put on the defensive. Remember that there are false trails all over the place (some put there by design and some by chance).
I am not trying to discredit any of these theories here either, but even the best researchers can go down blind alleys. Also remember that most people do not want to believe you. This is not because they are bad people; it is because to believe you makes the world they believe in much more complex and frightening than the one they believe in now. Try not to give them the chance to find something wrong with your argument or facts. Stay on the offensive. Make your oponent do the work.
Why was your approach "almost" perfect? I think you got a little too nasty a little too fast. It's better to issue the challenge and politely taunt your debate targets when they refuse to debate. That bespeaks confidence and good will. As angry as we all get about this stuff, the goal is to convince people.
Keep up the good work!
- omni
I'd be surprised if you get a response
Apathy Supports the Status Quo
It's been over a year now, but a local talk radio host by the name of Dori Monson (KIRO AM 12-3 pm) had announced that he was going to have a fellow from Popular Mechanics on his show to debunk the 9-11 Truthers. Monson has an irritating, smug voice and his positions are often completely alien to me, at least. But I will give him credit, he decided to have this PM guy on against a local Scholar for Truth, Richard Curtis, a PhD from U of Washington.
I was helping Curtis prepare by sending him some material I wasn't sure he had seen yet, and sure enough he hadn't. I sent him the transcript of John J. Maresca testifying before a subcomittee of Congress in 1998 about the need to remove the Taliban from Afghanistan so that the Centgas pipeline could be built.
So I listened to Monson's show and lo and behold, the PM guy dropped out at the last minute for unknown reasons. Monson was pissed and said so. He so badly wanted to debunk the 9/11 Truth and it blew up in his face.
How can you argue with the math? You can't. The buildings were brought down by controlled demolition and the math and physics prove it beyond all doubt.
Good on you guys for challenging him.
Did Curtis appear?
I missed that. He's a smart guy and great speaker.
I was on the Dory Munson show years ago talking about schools pushing soda pop on kids to raise money. He was against my position but not a jerk about it. I imagine on 9/11 he'd be more aggressive.
Richard Gage is coming to town. It's be cool to hear on Dory Monson. Or NPR, but they won't touch it 'm sure.
Metz responds!
http://jamartell.blogspot.com/2008/02/mikey-metz-responds.html
Justin A. Martell
www.sst911.org
jamartell.blogspot.com
In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern to bow!
What happened to Mikey Metz?
Screw Loose Change smacks of a legal viewpoint where no credible legal arguments can be found in Loose Change and ignores entirely the acute similarities and questions presented? Screw Loose really smells of working overtime to counter the effectiveness of LC! It's actually flattering to the film!
I don't see how the Screw Loose film could convert anyone? It smells of alphabet agency backing! They always seem to think if it's not provable in court than you've got nothing?
Was Mikey recruited or have a bad experience?
I'm rooting for you, Justin!
...don't believe them!