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 have updated this essay to discuss theories of directed energy weapons. Specifically, I argue that even if such weapons did, in fact bring down World Trade Center buildings 1,2 and 7 (which I personally do not believe), the task of trying to convince the public of that would be insurmountable, as people think of such ideas as pure futuristic science fiction.

If you disagree with what I say, ask 10 good lawyers whether they think I am right or wrong.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/09/burden-of-proof.html

The legal principle called "burden of proof" can help 9/11 activists to be more effective in promoting 9/11 truth and in obtaining justice against all of the perpetrators of those attacks.

Introduction

The following questions are, or should be, vital to 9/11 all activists:

• Who bears the burden of showing that its version of 9/11 is accurate: the government or the 9/11 truth movement?