Ron Wieck Agrees to Set Up a Debate Between Me and Mark Roberts

In the AirAmerica comments section appended to the 5/22 Richard Greene show, I offered several polite challenges to Ron Wieck and one or two critiques of his arguments. I got the usual JREFer treatment in response; avoidance or misapprehension of my pointed questions and patronizing, smart-alecky comments. (To be fair, this type of behavior is too common on all sides of this and most other disputes on the internet.)

My comments can be found here:

(You can find my posts by doing a search in your browser for the name: omniadeo.)

In the course of these exchanges, I offered to debate Wieck, Mackey, Roberts or whomever. Mr. Wieck responded with an acceptance to set up a debate with Mark Roberts. His exact words were, "An unknown, anonymous internet denizen wants to debate Mark Roberts? Sure you do. What's your name? Let's set it up."

I responded with my internet handle, my real name and my contact information. If you read that post, you may see that I mangled this disclosure slightly, and, frankly, that was because at first I feared to reveal my contact info on a public website; but after thinking hard about the harassing phone call to Bob McIlvaine below, and all he has lost and gone through, my conscience told me to ignore my trifling fears and go for it. So, all the information is there.

In spite of Mr. Wieck's mocking tone, and the opinion of many I respect that such encounters with him are a monumental waste of time, I am quite serious about pursuing his promise to set up a debate. I am posting here, as a way to renew my challenge, and also as a way to explain why I, an unlikely candidate, feel qualified to do so.

Before I do that, I wish to salute my heroes in this movement. I have long known some of their names: The great innovator Paul Thompson, the wise Peter Dale Scott, indefatigable David Ray Griffin, meticulous Jim Hoffman, master sleuth Daniel Hopsicker, inspiring Kristin Breitweiser, fearless Laurie Van Auken and the other amazing "Jersey Girls" together with the hauntingly touching Bob McIlvaine. Some, like Jon Gold, "George Washington" and "reprehensor" (whom I especially thank for this wonderful site) I am just learning about. Many others are more or less nameless to me; spirited people, who organize locally to pass out pamphlets, put out signs and ask questions at speaking events. Truly, I am humbled by all of you. I respect you more than I can say. I do not compare to any of you.

I am not an architect, not an engineer, not a pilot, not an explosives expert, not a scientist of any kind; I am not a Phd in religion and philosophy (though, of all of these fields, these are the ones in which I am best read and most comfortable). I am an erstwhile poet and theatre artist turned salesman. My main skills have been the use of language and personal presence to provoke, entertain and, yes, I confess, sometimes subtly manipulate people.

Curiously, I believe this latter survival skill, of which I have often been somewhat ashamed, to be my strongest qualification in this matter of 911 truth. I hasten to point out that I have not used this skill to defraud widows, but rather to sell software and other services which are, all in all, at least as good as their competitors and useful to their buyers, but nevertheless there are some manipulative skills involved, as there are in certain types of performance.The basis of all such manipulative techniques is the same as in stage magic: keep audience attention where you want it.

Now, I am not saying I want to manipulate anyone in debate. Far from it. No, I want to use what I have learned to identify and counter those manipulative techniques which I see employed frequently to sideline and obscure 911 inquiry. I saw these same techniques used to waylay the public conversation about other national tragedies. I am seeing them again, and I vow this time to use my experience and meager talents to do what I can to prevent the repetition of those travesties.

So, Mr. Wieck and Mr. Roberts, in spite of my great respect for the proponents of alternative theories above, I will not come to debate as a proponent of any solution to the mystery of 911. You will not lead me down into the weeds of any conspiracy theory except the one you defend. We will not be sidetracked into discussions of the size of the holes in the Pentagon, sulfurous residues or what Silverstein meant by "pull." You will be led back from controlled demolition to controlled information and why it needs to be controlled. You will find yourself having to defend the destruction of evidence or forced to call for the censure and firing of those who destroyed it. You will find yourself defending lies and concealment or forced to call for revelation and investigation. You will defend the misdirection of public attention or become part of the movement to redirect it back to those remarkable improbabilities, without which many thousands of people would still be alive. Some will say that debating you is a waste of time. They may be right, but I do it to make a point about who bears the burden of proof in the consideration of 911 and its aftermath. One way or another, if you or Mr. Roberts dare debate me, I will make you a part of the 911 Truth Movement.

Resolved: The official version of 911 is untenable.

Bring it on.


I listened to the "debates" on Richard Greene's Clout radio program. Each time the Movement presented Phds, retired Air Force colonels, architects and various other experts in their field. Each time the person supporting the official conspiracy theory was Ron Wieck. Although he is not a scientist, architect or retired Air Force colonel, he seemed to be very skilled at argument. He knows how to come across as confident and honest, even though he may be neither. He referred to websites and documents that he knew most people would not go to the trouble to check out when he made a counterpoint in an argument about a particular subject. He is an excellent confidence man. He says he does not have a law degree, but he has the skills of a lawyer. His background is mysterious. I don't know what he does for a living, or what he did before he became this dedicated debunker. I suspect he is being subsidized by parties who benefit from the perpetuation of the official conspiracy theory. The point I am making is that debate is a skill set that most scientist, architects, colonels etc. don't employ very often. Someone who has a broad knowledge of the general facts, and has well honed skills in debate can come off looking strong in spite of their lack of expertise and possible lack of honesty. This is how I see Ron Wieck. I suspect that he could argue the 911Truth side just as well.

Good luck with your debate. It appears that you have the skill set that is needed. I hope so.



Thank you so much for your kind wishes and your comment, the first on this blog, which I hope to continue. You have aptly pointed to some of those topics I wish to discuss: The way things 911 are presented, the relationship between debating skills and technical expertise, the need for more attention to rhetorical finesse in the 911TM.

I also hope to spend some time on the emotional and psychological "undertow" operating beneath the visible waves we create when we present our call for 911 Truth, and on the way we handle the divisions between ourselves, which, history tells us, are as inevitable as the next sunrise.

Another point if I may. I would be lying if I said that I have not wondered about Mr. Wieck's means of support, and I definitely consider it a legitimate area of inquiry and curiosity. But I do not know, and until I do I prefer to deal with him as one, just like myself, who is concerned with truth, not money. For that matter, if money is involved, it would be an emotional attachment like any other impeding his perception of the truth and long experience tells me we all have them. My point is, let's deal with his alleged facts and arguments, not his motivations. I think that is cleaner. He (and others like him) have impugned our motivations and I do not appreciate that, because it derails the discussion. The way to nip that in the bud is to refuse to go there.

One final thing: I hope you will allow me to use this response to you to repair a troubling oversight in my initial post. I forgot the names of Steven Jones and Richard Gage in the list of my 911 Truth heroes and I wish to acknowledge and thank them here.

- omniadeo


I understand your not wanting to go there. I, however, am expressing my opinion. That is what I think until proven otherwise. In other words, how does he get to be the spokesman for the debunkers? From what environment does Wieck come? What is his true motivation? Being that I know that some of the websites that he referred to as proof of his position didn't prove Jack shit, I wonder what would motivate him to deceive. Case in point: He referred to a website with photos of the Pentagon debris. When I went to the site, I saw what we all have seen, the same pictures which show very little debris and the same few larger pieces of metal still small enough for one person to carry easily. As I stated earlier, he knew that only a fraction of the listeners would check him out. By then, the debate would be over and he would have appeared knowledgeable and credible. This is what I am referring to. He is good at it, but why does he do it?


He is also using divide and conquer tactics. I am sure you are aware that the plane at the Pentagon issue is a hotspot inside and outside the 911TM, but you bring us to the crux of the matter: How do we debate and avoid that situation? I believe that debate is very important, but you are right. Careful research can be dismissed with a blithe dismissal and a reference to a source few will ever check. Those who do are marginalized, and the majority go on to the next drunken starlet story. That is what we face with Fox and all the MSM to a greater or lesser degree. That is "how they get away with it." It is also why our society is a sucker for the big lie, and the complex inside job. Any story that doesn't fit the sound bite is easy to manage.

Add to this (and I think this is far underestimated by many of us in this movement) there is deep emotional resistance by most to living in a world where we cannot trust our leaders. We may grow to hate Bush, but that can be co-opted and pretty soon its "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Even the leftist "gatekeeper phenomenon" is part of this. Chomsky and Taibbi think they can trust the ruling classes to be a certain way, even if they hate them. It's a security blanket, in a weird way.

This time, I think the masters of war and deception are facing a few things they didn't bargain for, though. The Internet. Increased Communication across national and cultural borders. Generations for whom looking past advertiisng manipulation is a survival skill. The weakening of the US Dollar and Empire.

Every day there are more of us. Let's hope they have met their match.

- omniadeo

I agree completely

Well said.

The task is monumental, but it is noble, and we have the truth on our side.

I look forward to your debate.