JREF: Alleged death threats from 9/11 Truth activists

Catching up on 9/11-related stuff that I’ve been taking a break from for a while, I come across the following in the JREF forum: “We will kill 9/11 CT skeptics after 9/11 Truth comes out.”. The thread is full of claims like, “9/11 truthers believe that only they should be allowed to kill people in furtherance of a political agenda.”

Email debates, and more about Mark Roberts

I just now ran across this post by Gravy (Mark Roberts) in the JREF forum. He says about me, “I asked her twice if she could name a single significant claim that the truth movement gets right. Like every other truther I’ve asked, she couldn’t or wouldn’t.”

What actually happened was that I refused to get into a debate with him via email and told him that if he wanted to get into an online debate with me, he was welcome to do so in comments here on my blog.

Obviously, this blog contains plenty of examples of claims that I think the 9/11 Truth movement gets right, although it also contains plenty of examples of claims which I think many people in the 9/11 Truth movement get wrong, or at least overstate, or which I think need further analysis or research.

Debates and such – further reply to some JREF folks

I’ll now reply to various points in the thread Diane’s Question for Mark in the JREF forum, beyond the points already discussed my posts Reply to debate invitation from Ron/pomeroo on JREF and My decision about Ron Wieck’s show and the subsequent comment threads.

• Mark Roberts vs. Jon Gold
• Apology and further clarification to Mark Roberts
• More about me

My decision about Ron Wieck’s show

In the JRFF forum, ref (a.k.a. ref1 here) says, about the possibility of me appearing on Ron Wieck’s show:

I think she will be the toughest opponent as of yet. Dylan & Jason were easy, Fetzer… crazy. Diane has good argumentation, she is thorough and polite, it’s not going to be a walk in the park like dismissing some “no plane” or Loose Change claims. She’s by far the nicest truth movement representative I have ever had any interaction with. And she seems sincere. Although we very much disagree on almost every topic.

Thanks for all the compliments. But I’ve decided, as per my initial reaction, that I’m not yet ready to participate in a televised debate because I’m too new to the 9/11 Truth movement and too new at studying various topics pertaining to the events of 9/11. (I’ve been at it only since this past summer.) There are too many topics I haven’t yet researched in enough detail – even regarding just WTC 7 (to which the proposed debate would be limited) for me to participate adequately in a televised debate about it.

Reply to debate invitation from Ron/pomeroo on JREF

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).

“9/11: Press for Truth” – my response to an official-story defender’s comments

ref1 has asked me to comment on this review of “9/11: Press for Truth”:

Proposed debate with Jim Hoffman (reply to ref1 and some folks in the JREF forum)

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.”