On my “blog stats” page, I found that two users had gotten to this blog via a link in page 4 of a thread in the JREF forum titled Hardfire News. On page 4, “Brainster” (who I think is Pat Curley) suggests to pomeroo (who I think is Ron Wieck) that he invite me onto a debate on a public-access cable TV show.
Ron/pomeroo said he would consider me, and wondered how he could get in touch with me. Answer: Post a comment here on my blog. Once you do, I’ll automatically have your email address (or at least the email address you used to register as a user here at WordPress).
Anyhow, I personally would like to take a raincheck on the debate offer, because I feel that I’m too new to the movement to represent it in a public debate. I’ve been around only since summer 2007. Maybe I’ll be ready by this coming summer. (Edit: See P.S.’s at the bottom.)
But, in the meantime, I’m willing to try to help Ron/pomeroo find someone else. I’ve posted a message on the private message board of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.
One problem, which came up earlier in the discussion following my post Proposed debate with Jim Hoffman (reply to ref1 and some folks in the JREF forum) is that Ron/pomeroo has a reputation for being thoroughly obnoxious. But it is claimed by many people in the JREF forum that that Ron/pomeroo is a Jekyll/Hyde, and that the obnoxiousness is just his online persona. Supposedly he’s much more civil in person and on his show.
Ron/pomeroo, would you be willing to send a DVD of past shows of yours dealing with 9/11 to anyone who is contemplating appearing on your show, so that we can see what you’re like on your show?
To ref1, or to any other JREFer reading this: Could you please call pomeroo’s attention to this post?
P.S.: There has been some discussion about Ron’s/pomeroo’s show in the Truth Action forum, in the thread BBC Hitpiece on B7 in the Making. In that thread, Nick Levis has urged me to appear on Wieck’s show. (See Nicholas’s post here.) Well, I’ll consider it, but I’m still going to try and see if I can get someone from Scholars from 9/11 Truth and Justice.
Further P.S.: I’ve decided that I am at least tentatively willing to appear on the show if the discussion can be limited (at least for the most part) to WTC 7. Before I make that final, though, I’ll need to see some of Ron Wieck’s previous shows. In the meantime, I’ll keep trying to find someone in the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice forum.
P.S., 1/27/2008: On JREF, DGM wrote:
I’ve read a fair bit of her blog, she seems quite good at “connecting the dots” and putting out arguments from speculation and conjecture. How do you think she will do when someone argues against her with logic and facts?
Some of my posts feature “speculation and conjecture,” while others do feature more rigorous logic. More importantly, I know when I’m doing each of these. When I put forth “speculation and conjecture,” I usually include some sort of overt disclaimer indicating this.
I have a B.S. in electronic engineering, with a stronger physics background (including a stronger dose of basic mechanics) than most EE’s, because I started out as a physics major. I also have a stronger math background than most EE’s. I also had some very interesting and enlightening debates with a structural engineer here on this blog a while back. So, while I’m far from the most qualified person in the world to discuss the collapse of WTC 7, I’m not exactly a scientific ignoramus.
What I want to ask is, are you luring this poor girl into the snake pit with no anti-venom. Do you think she’s fully aware of what she’s up against?
Yesterday Ron Wieck gave me a DVD containing a couple of his previous shows. I hope I’ll have time to write a review of them on Tuesday. I’ll also need to spend some time looking at Mark Roberts’s website, as well as studying other info on WTC 7.