Today I noticed an incoming link from a thread about Jim Hoffman on the JREF forum, where ref1, a.k.a. ref, relayed my message about a possible debate between Jim Hoffman and a “debunker.”
Over there, T.A.M. wrote:
I believe Doc has a site that allows for a one on one written debate, but I doubt Hoffman wants that, as he will not be able to move the topic “on the fly” like the truther mantra dictates.
I have not specifically asked him about a written debate, but I doubt he’d be interested simply because he has been very busy lately, and writing is more time-consuming than talking. He has not yet had time to correct quite all the errors I’ve pointed out on his website, which he has promised to correct, so, if he doesn’t even have enough time to keep his own website up-to-date, he probably does not have enough time to participate on anyone else’s website either. But I will ask him if he would be interested in a written debate.
I also suspect he will not debate Mark Roberts anyway. Did he indicate anyone in particular he would or would not debate?
We didn’t discuss anyone in particular. I’ll ask how he feels about debating with Mark Roberts.
Later, T.A.M. wrote:
The only even remote possibility in terms of a perhaps somewhat neutral host might be the one in TO that hosted Gage and the special effects guy. He seemed to be able to keep himself out of it, and allowed both people a good share of time, IIRC.
Further down, RedIbis wrote:
I thought Amy Goodman (who I am not a fan of) was relatively objective, calm and respectful to both sides of the LC PM debate. Do you disagree?
Further down, lozenge124 wrote:
Some good debates I’ve heard:
Kevin Ryan vs. Michael Shermer (Thom Hartmann show)
Steven Jones vs Leslie Robertson (KGNU, “Morning Magazine” show, don’t know the name of the host)
Mike Berger vs Matthew Rothschild (Dino Costa show)
In all 3 cases, the moderator was fair and let both debaters air their side; I’d recommend any of them for a Jim Hoffman debate.
Does Jim Hoffman have any conclusions that are rational?
You know I looked up Jim Hoffman and he is dead, just like the terrorist that are alive.
Fact 1 on Jim Hoffman – his web site debunks himself; debunks all his so called conclusions. Jim’s dust calculations are funny; check them out if you want to waste time with another nut case non theories.
The latest version of his page about the dust clouds says, “This paper is currently under development, taking into consideration critiques by various reviewers.” So he has acknowledged that there are at least some problems with what he had written on this particular matter previously. He has not yet gotten around to finishing the new version. I have not discussed this particular issue with him, nor have I yet paid much attention to it.
pomeroo, who is apparently Ronald Wieck, pooh-poohs the idea that he himself could possibly be the reason why Jim Hoffman doesn’t want to appear on his show. Earlier in the thread, RedIbis had written:
If Hoffman got even a glance of how the DRG exchange with Wieck went, would you really be surprised that he asked for a non jref related venue?
Back to the JREF forum thread. Wieck/pomeroo’s own very next post says, “TAM, these people are frauds, cowards, and liars.”
In my opinion, this is obviously not the kind of attitude one would want to see in a debate moderator, who, even if not perfectly neutral, should at least be capable of giving the people on both sides the benefit of the doubt. To ask Hoffman to participate a debate moderated by someone who believes we’re all “frauds, cowards, and liars” is a little like asking a JREF member to participate in a debate moderated by someone who not only supports the 9/11 Truth movement but who also believes that all “debunkers” are nothing but paid shills – even if said moderator has a track record of giving participants equal time, as Arkan_Wolfshade alleged regarding Wieck, earlier in the thread.
Gravy, who is apparently Mark Roberts, wrote:
Last week I emailed Hoffman and for the second time asked him to remove a statement that appears twice on his site, including on the home page. He claims that the NIST report is deceptive because it doesn’t show the tower column dimensions.
I showed him where the dimensions appear in the report, as well as the diagram of where the columns transition from box to wide flange.
Someone named Victoria Ashley replied and said that it’s not so much that the dimensions don’t appear in the report, but that Hoffman thinks the report “appears crafted to conceal such information.”
If I remember correctly, what Hoffman believes is that the information is buried, relative to other, more conspicuous claims which, in Hoffman’s opinion, are contradicted by that information.
I have yet to study this particular issue in detail myself, and it has been a while since the last time I looked at it, so I won’t say whether he’s right or wrong about this. I’m just clarifying his point, as best I remember it.
However, if anyone here happens to have handy the specific disputed statements of his and the URL’s of the pages containing them, then I can perhaps suggest to him some better wording to clarify his point.
Later this evening, I hope I’ll have time to reply to charlienneb’s review of Richard Gage’s Power Point presentation. Then, later in the week, if there aren’t too many more distractions, I hope to get into my long-promised detailed discussion about WTC 7.