Debunker Mikey Metz Accepts Student Scholars' Debate Challenge

I would like to officially retract any statements in my previous post that insinuated Metz was too cowardly to debate, he is not.

Metz has responded on his blog ( to my debate challenge. Here is an excerpt from his response (I'm leaving out non-pertinent statements by Metz about the appearance of Student Scholars Co-Founder, Mike Jackman, and questions regarding my academic career and social life):

So Justin Martell has challenged me to a debate. Since he's young, he assumed that MySpace would be the best place to lay out the actual challenge (despite me posting here more regularly), but I really have better things to do with my time than surf around on MySpace. I actually found out about it on 9/11 Blogger, which covers this as "news," although I never remember them covering my Letter of Resignation back in September.

For the record, Justin, I will gladly debate you anytime, anywhere, so long as it fits into my schedule. Unfortunately, I work on Fridays and there's no way of getting out of it. Perhaps we can reschedule. But, if you ever actually want this to happen, I suggest you retract all your BS about me being a coward from Blogger and wherever the hell else you posted it. That might show some intellectual integrity.

And also, it's going to be me vs. you, one-on-one...I know you want a little phone interview on your own turf, but I'd much rather do it in person. How about in neutral ground like NYC?

Excerpts from my response (again, leaving out rebuttals to Metz's comments about Mike Jackman's appearance, my academic career, and social life):


I'm glad you accepted the debate challenge. Unfortunately, I live in New Hampshire so I don't go to NYC often. Can we reschedule for the radio? As I said, I promise to give you fair time, etc. I don't know if you've ever seen the debate I did with some OCT's on my school's t.v. last year? That was on my own television show (my "turf) and I was more than fair.

As far as calling you a coward, if I were you I'd ask the people who post in the comments section of this blog not to answer for you. I was merely responding to their unfounded, pseudo-intellectual, hypocrisy. I'm not sorry for the way I responded to people who have tried to speak for you, however, I am sorry if what I said offended you. I never took you to be a coward, that's why I was surprised when I didn't hear back from you.

Anyway, are you only willing to debate in person? Or is there any way we can work this out for the radio? Perhaps a different radio show with a more "neutral" host (although I don't know where we'd find a neutral host on this subject)?

So how about it? No Jackman. Just you and I. I can also reschedule the radio for a different day (preferably Mondays or Wednesdays). This may be my "turf," but again, you have my word that you will be given equal time and respect. Deal?

If you want to email me to get this set in stone my email is

The ball is in your court.

After this, Metz asked that I retract my previous post "and we'll discuss a new date for the radio debate." I don't see why I would have to retract the entire post, so again, I retract "any statements in my previous post that insinuated Metz was too cowardly to debate..." Now, I hope, we can get this show on the road. More updates to come...



When you modify a blog entry, it goes back into the moderation queu, FYI.

A suggestion...

I've never heard a radio debate where our representative really emphasized or spoke sufficiently in-depth about Dr. Steven Jones' work (at least not to my satisfaction, given my opinion of the strength of his research).

So, at the risk of sounding pushy, or telling you to do something you've already done:

please bone up on topics, terms, and facts related to
X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopic analysis of dust;
the discovery of Mo-rich, Fe-rich, etc. spherules, and how they condense from metal vapor;
USGS' corroboration of microspherule evidence and the provenance of the various dust samples;
the various nature of thermate oxidizers beyond the typical barium nitrate;
the MSM report of the mystery of extreme-high-temperature oxidization, sulfidation, intergranular melting and evaporated steel;
the debunking of the gypsum-as-sulfur-source myth;
the iron/sulfur eutectic, multiple corroboration of molten-metal pools/flows in the pile, and the molten-metal issuing from the 82nd floor;
the volatilization temperature of lead, and the melting points of molybdenum and iron;
red/grey thermate (or possibly superthermate) chips, their elemental composition versus commercial aluminothermics and the WTC microspherules, and their reaction to ignition by oxy-acetylene torch;

I could go on, but I think you catch my drift. And don't forget Barry Jennings' WTC 7 account.

Keep in mind; just because the person you're debating doesn't seem to fully understand scientific evidence of this nature doesn't mean they shouldn't have it shoved in their face repeatedly until they concede it is well beyond their (or anyone else's) ability to explain away or discount. Do not tolerate redirection or issue-avoidance on the part of your opponent.

I wish you all the luck in the world. Tear this guy a new one.
"All that is required for evil to fail is for good men and women to do something."

Thank you, Awake...

And note that I personally prefer the more rigorous and "referenced" venue of published papers rather than verbal jousts.

"our represenative"

says “We’re not the controlled demolition movement,"

sry guys

"says “We’re not the

"says “We’re not the controlled demolition movement,"

sry guys"

That's correct. We're not the the controlled demolition what's your point?

Justin A. Martell

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern t

my only point is just that

my only point is just that if you allow the 'screwloosers' to explain away smoking gun physical evidence of controlled demolition, then they can easily explain away lihop-ish arguments such as 'bush got warnings and didn't do anything' or 'the commission didn't answer all the families questions' so therefore we should reinvestigate

Sorry to hear it

Thanks for the info.

Justin, you can work for the truth of 9/11 without taking down the work of others, that being some of our best researchers, to the public.

It sounds like you aren't interested in any of the physical evidence of the crimes. That's fine. But then a better public statement is "Our focus is on ...." and simply ignore the parts that are not your focus.

Well Veronica, I

Well Veronica,

I never put down the research of others and fully support the work of Richard Gage, Steven Jones, etc. However, it is my opinion (an I am not the only one who thinks this), that the movement is identified too often as the movement who thinks the twin towers were "blown up." There is so much more to this movement besides that, and that's the point I have tried to make. I am, in now way, attempting to put the work of those researching controlled demolition down and any fair minded member of this movement will see that.

Justin A. Martell

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern t

I also

like Richard Gage's power point. It's cool to see a challenge accepted, and it's also ashame that their wont be bigger media coverage.
Thanks Metz for stepping up to the challenge.


Get 'em Justin. Sounds good to me. Go in there with your confidence and I'll enjoy seeing the updates. Peace man.

Pardon me for not knowing

Pardon me for not knowing who Mikey Metz is. What is his argument? Certainly it is on the wrong side of the table, but for the sake efficiency has anybody ever heard is particular brand of debunking? It'd be good to know what he will be focusing on. Though if you follow Professor Jones' advice you could be done with him regardless of his stance, especially because the Truth is on your side. Another thing, I do hope it will be taped independently so we can hear or see the unedited debate. Anyway, way to go Justine, get prepared and remember you are debating for truth and justice, two of the greatest things for mankind.

in october 2001 "el diario"

in october 2001

"el diario" the biggest newspaper in mexico---headlined
mossad agents were apprehended with bombs and fake pakistani passports at the mexican national parliament building

the biggest smoking gun of 911truth
why were mossad obviously staging a false flag attack on the west only a couple of weeks after 911??

Is Mikey related to Besty Metz?

And was Mikey a former poster here?


Metz's real name is Michael Metzger, as far as I know. Although, I stand to be corrected.

Justin A. Martell

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern t


"Ahh, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now"

The evidence and coincidences are many. What's compelling about Prof Jone's work is the iron-clad logic.
If it can be proven -- and I think we're there -- that temperatures in excess of jet fueled office fires existed
in the WTC then the official story is dead.

We should go after this like a pit bull after a pork rind. At that point it's not open to conjecture: the official
version of 9/11 is revealed as the lie that it is.

I'll talk to Dr. Jones about

I'll talk to Dr. Jones about it.

Justin A. Martell

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern to bow.

I had to

..come back to this post , and ask. How could an ex truther switch to the dark side? As time goes by we add more to our list.
Anyone know what made him switch?

Better question:

Is he even on the level?

How much more stagged could it look like? His "explanation" for having been a truther and "flipping" has holes you could drive a lorry through, and Screw Lucy's ra-ra act so soon was too convenient. Then his partner and bosom pal allegedly feels hurt, but never talks about it like what someone who was hurt actually would--anything from "Fuck, this is unbelievable" to, shall be say, coarser language--but there's nothing. Complete silence--and I emailed the lad out of sincere concern and interest. I won't say how he responded, but I will say it was dead dodgy.

Put yourself in their boots. Does any of this even make sense without it being a set up on someone's part from go?

To be clear: I am not making any particular accusation against Mike's former partner. He is probably an innocent victim but knows something he's not sharing.

Mikey, on the other hand is fair game. He wants to play in the disinfo big league? Then show us what yeh got, golden debunker boy.