Re: 9/11 Debate- Ben Emlyn-Jones vs Andy Mercer

From: jon_devlin

Date: 2015-06-22 15:15:06

Hi Ben, I was curious who this person was and the context for the debate so I’m listening to the interview that spawned your debate request with Andy. I think your on a hiding to nowhere with this guy, I don’t know what his other knowledge sphere is (I’m hearing a JFK  background and I’m paraphrasing here but he did say something like …”this, JFK, (unlike 911) is a very serious topic”) but just listening to his current knowledge or lack of it about 911. I don’t see you getting very far trying to ‘educate’ him as his ignorance, not of 911 but basic physics and dare I say real world commonsense would mean he’s not got an intellect to be able to listen to the information that I’m sure you’ll bring to him via the works of Dr Wood? I once tried to explain the effects of an aluminum drinks meeting the resistance of a 2″ steel box-section girder and after about 1 hour he finally got it i.e. no matter how fast a body of the cans tensile strength is traveling, if it meets a steel H beam then the beam will not suffer much other than a mark to show that something hit it hard and fast. However, the very next thing out of his mouth (I’d started the conversation when he was asking me about the hijackers) so where did all the people on the planes go then? Yes, its a question that might be valid in its asking but I can think of many more surrounding questions once the penny dropped about planes not physically impacting the buildings.I wish you well but I suspect that you’ll be the one supplying all the evidence and he will sit back on his ignorance spouting you to prove this and that without him refuting any of the common-sense physical evidence presented including what his eyes should be seeing once its been pointed out by your good self.Not sure of your format of the debate nor the questions but might be an idea to pre-agree that he at least watches Dr Wood’s presentation’s, so that he has a chance to see all the possible causes and how they don’t account for what was left following the destruction? I’d be very interested at that point to see how he refutes these with his own understanding?Regardsp.s. Just out of curiosity, as he said he was a big JFK researcher or a reader of researchers. Does he acknowledge the seminal work of Mike Piper (and to my current thinking) the only no-holes-barred version of the JFK conspiracy that names the group that orchestrated it?

Related articles...

Comments are closed.