In the AirAmerica comments section appended to the 5/22 Richard Greene show, I offered several polite challenges to Ron Wieck and one or two critiques of his arguments. I got the usual JREFer treatment in response; avoidance or misapprehension of my pointed questions and patronizing, smart-alecky comments. (To be fair, this type of behavior is too common on all sides of this and most other disputes on the internet.)

My comments can be found here: http://airamerica.com/clout/blog/2008/may/22/clout-thursday#comments

(You can find my posts by doing a search in your browser for the name: omniadeo.)

In the course of these exchanges, I offered to debate Wieck, Mackey, Roberts or whomever. Mr. Wieck responded with an acceptance to set up a debate with Mark Roberts. His exact words were, "An unknown, anonymous internet denizen wants to debate Mark Roberts? Sure you do. What's your name? Let's set it up."

I responded with my internet handle, my real name and my contact information. If you read that post, you may see that I mangled this disclosure slightly, and, frankly, that was because at first I feared to reveal my contact info on a public website; but after thinking hard about the harassing phone call to Bob McIlvaine below, and all he has lost and gone through, my conscience told me to ignore my trifling fears and go for it. So, all the information is there.

In spite of Mr. Wieck's mocking tone, and the opinion of many I respect that such encounters with him are a monumental waste of time, I am quite serious about pursuing his promise to set up a debate. I am posting here, as a way to renew my challenge, and also as a way to explain why I, an unlikely candidate, feel qualified to do so.

Before I do that, I wish to salute my heroes in this movement. I have long known some of their names: The great innovator Paul Thompson, the wise Peter Dale Scott, indefatigable David Ray Griffin, meticulous Jim Hoffman, master sleuth Daniel Hopsicker, inspiring Kristin Breitweiser, fearless Laurie Van Auken and the other amazing "Jersey Girls" together with the hauntingly touching Bob McIlvaine. Some, like Jon Gold, "George Washington" and "reprehensor" (whom I especially thank for this wonderful site) I am just learning about. Many others are more or less nameless to me; spirited people, who organize locally to pass out pamphlets, put out signs and ask questions at speaking events. Truly, I am humbled by all of you. I respect you more than I can say. I do not compare to any of you.

I am not an architect, not an engineer, not a pilot, not an explosives expert, not a scientist of any kind; I am not a Phd in religion and philosophy (though, of all of these fields, these are the ones in which I am best read and most comfortable). I am an erstwhile poet and theatre artist turned salesman. My main skills have been the use of language and personal presence to provoke, entertain and, yes, I confess, sometimes subtly manipulate people.

Curiously, I believe this latter survival skill, of which I have often been somewhat ashamed, to be my strongest qualification in this matter of 911 truth. I hasten to point out that I have not used this skill to defraud widows, but rather to sell software and other services which are, all in all, at least as good as their competitors and useful to their buyers, but nevertheless there are some manipulative skills involved, as there are in certain types of performance.The basis of all such manipulative techniques is the same as in stage magic: keep audience attention where you want it.

Now, I am not saying I want to manipulate anyone in debate. Far from it. No, I want to use what I have learned to identify and counter those manipulative techniques which I see employed frequently to sideline and obscure 911 inquiry. I saw these same techniques used to waylay the public conversation about other national tragedies. I am seeing them again, and I vow this time to use my experience and meager talents to do what I can to prevent the repetition of those travesties.

So, Mr. Wieck and Mr. Roberts, in spite of my great respect for the proponents of alternative theories above, I will not come to debate as a proponent of any solution to the mystery of 911. You will not lead me down into the weeds of any conspiracy theory except the one you defend. We will not be sidetracked into discussions of the size of the holes in the Pentagon, sulfurous residues or what Silverstein meant by "pull." You will be led back from controlled demolition to controlled information and why it needs to be controlled. You will find yourself having to defend the destruction of evidence or forced to call for the censure and firing of those who destroyed it. You will find yourself defending lies and concealment or forced to call for revelation and investigation. You will defend the misdirection of public attention or become part of the movement to redirect it back to those remarkable improbabilities, without which many thousands of people would still be alive. Some will say that debating you is a waste of time. They may be right, but I do it to make a point about who bears the burden of proof in the consideration of 911 and its aftermath. One way or another, if you or Mr. Roberts dare debate me, I will make you a part of the 911 Truth Movement.

Resolved: The official version of 911 is untenable.

Bring it on.