The Mikey Metz Non-Debate

It has now been over a month and I've heard nothing from Mikey Metz since he last responded to me on his blog on 2/12/08. For those who are not familiar with this situation, Metz is the 9/11 Truther turned "debunker." After running his mouth in the comments section of the popular "debunker" hangout,, I challenged Metz to a debate:

"Hello Mikey,

Would you be interested in debating Mike Jackman and I on a radio show next Friday? We promise to give you equal time, etc. The topic I'd like to discuss is whether or not the 9/11 Commission provided "the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11," and whether or not the commission, along with individuals and departments within our government are participating in a cover up in regard to 9/11.

If this sounds like something that interests you please message me back. However, if you're just going to spend the hour attacking my character and making unfounded accusations that I have somehow been a incompetent leader of www. sst911. org then you need not bother.

I look forward to hearing back from you and hope you accept my invitation.

P. S. The station is 91. 3 WKNH in Keene, NH and has quite a few listeners...

Justin Martell
www. sst911. org"

I posted the challenge on 9/ and Metz became upset. He posted a response to my challenge on his blog that I now refer to as the "fake accept." Here is his post with additional commentary from me appearing in bold:

"So Justin Martell has challenged me to a debate. Since he's young I'm 21 years old, Metz is, to the best of my knowledge, in his early 20's as well, 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 whatever reason Metz believes that his letter or resignation was "news" to the's statements like these that make Metz's insinuation that I am the one who is narcissistic look ridiculous.

For the record, Justin, I will gladly debate you anytime, anywhere, so long as it fits into my schedule Oh yes, Mikey, you are the only one with a full 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. Judging by the fact that you've run away from this debate, my "BS" about you "being a coward" appears to have been correct.

And also, it's going to be me vs. you, one-on-one, not because I can't handle the two of you, but more because I can't stand the sight of Jackman 1. What does Jackman's appearance have to do with 9/11? 2. I challenged you to a radio debate, therefore, you wouldn't ever have to look at Jackman. 3. This is also interesting, because not only did Metz talk about the way Mike Jackman looks, but he's also commented on my appearance over at Screw Loose Change...take a look at the picture of Metz I posted at the top of this entry and please let me know if he looks like someone who should be critiquing the looks of others. Yeah, 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? Mikey, didn't you just say in the paragraph above that you'd debate me "anytime, anywhere," as long as it fits into your "schedule?" If you're as good as you say you are you should be able to "debunk" Jackman and I regardless of what format or environment in which you appear. Additionally, for the record, Eric Jackman and I hosted a 9/11 Debate on OUR television show at Franklin Pierce University. I'd say we were pretty respectful to the defenders of the official story, a courtesy that Metz would undoubtedly not afford us if the situation were reversed. His inappropriate personal attacks and insults have made that quite clear.

Damn Justin, do you have a life? Yes. You've spent the last 5 days screaming from the rooftops that I haven't accepted your Internet challenge. And you still haven't. Do you have a job? Yes. Do you focus on your schoolwork at all? Yes, I do quite well, thank you for your concern. Girlfriend? Yes. Friends, for that matter? I believe you've actually met quite a few of my friends, so I don't understand why you would ask me that. What do you have to say now that I accepted your challenge?" Well actually, Mikey, you didn't accept my challenge. You danced around and made a couple of demands.

Here was the response I left in the comments section of his blog:

"Mikey, 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)? I'm also willing to make it just you and I, no Jackman (also, you're not really the best looking so just chill. What we look like has nothing to do with this at all, this is a clash of ideas not a beauty contest). 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."

Metz responded simply by saying:

"Retract your story from 911Blogger, and we'll discuss a new date for the radio debate."

I agreed to do so, and as someone who remains true to his word (a trait that Metz apparently does not possess), I decided to humor Metz and retract the comments I made over at 9/11 blogger that hurt his feelings:

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

Since my retraction I have heard NOTHING from Metz about rescheduling a new date for the debate. The only people that I have heard from are his new found "debunker" friends who have tried over and over again to make excuses for Metz by telling me that I'm a "nobody" and suggested that I'm not worthy of debating. Here is an example:

"Problem is numbnuts - nobody wants you - you're a joke - nothing more - nothing less..." - Max Powers, February 12, 2008 8:20 PM

They've also tried over and over to get me to participate in a debate with them in the comments section of Metz's blog. I explained several times that I issued the challenge to Metz and not them. I then received comments like this:

"What ever floats your boat truther faggot, why don't you just go whack off to loose change again..." - William, February 18, 2008 3:58 AM

Only in the world of the "debunkers" can the individual asking for an open and honest debate be spun to look like a coward. After waiting for over a month, I'm giving up, and have now washed my hands of this. Thank you, Mikey, for showing your true colors. Next time you go to write something negative about myself, Michael Jackman, or Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth, please remember that it is you who ran away, as I said you would. You disappoint me, Mikey.

Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Note: The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of Justin Martell and do not aim to represent the views and opinions of all the members of Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Of course...

..the cointelpro club had to disproof the movements claim that people only went from believing the OT to knowing that it was false and not the other way round!

"Too bad" that this proof turns out to be so useless.

How many times have they "debunked" the TT demolition claiming that top down demolition is impossible
until we found a clip showing just that!
Not that we ever needed to find this clip. They just want to send us off to all kind of ridicolous directions and disprove their stupid claims.


Mr. Metz,
I know you will get this message as it is obvious from your comments that you check out this site on a regular basis.

Actually I have no idea who you are or why I should care. But learning that you were a 9/11 Truther who "came to his senses" and joined the debunkers does not really strike me as a path taken by an intelligent critical thinker.

I would therefore be interested in reading a step-by-step, point-by-point accounting of your journey. I am sure that 9/11 Blogger would be quite willing to host such a piece, and if your reasoning is sound, you might even be able to convince a few of us to follow your lead.

I hope you will take this opportunity to make your case in a rational and intelligent manner, foregoing any impulses to engage in any sort of ad hominem attacks.

I look forward to your response.


Show "I'd love to, but..." by MikeyMetz

"and decided to move on with

"and decided to move on with my life (like the rest of the world is doing)."

For someone that's moved on from the truth movement, you sure do lurk on 9/11 truth sites quite a bit...

Just an observation.


Show "the above post was written by Mikey Metz" by MikeyMetz

"the above post was written

"the above post was written by Mikey Metz and voted down, although I don't recall any personal attacks, whatsoever. I mean come on guys, I'm the subject of this post and was simply responding to a question directed at me!"

It's frustrating when you try to talk to people rationally and they put you down for the hell of it, isn't it? Sound familiar? Does this remind you of any recent situations, Mikey? Why on earth should you be treated with any sort of respect when you've demonstrated, in what I have posted above, that you are not man enough to return the favor?

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!

Show "this monday or tuesday, Martell" by MikeyMetz

Mr. Metz -

What does it say to you that 90% of the architects and engineers who attend one of Mr. Gage's lectures agree that there is a serious problem with the government's explanation? Many sign on at the site, but many more express trepidation that doing so will injure their professional careers and thus do not.

I'm assuming you've had high school physics. How do you explain the complete destruction of WTC 7 in under seven seconds in what can only be a textbook controlled demolition?

Additionally, the put options have never been adequately investigated or credibly explained.

Furthermore, even Kean and Hamilton admit that NORAD officials were not being truthful in their testimony and should have been investigated for perjury by the DOJ. How do you explain the complete lack of response for 100 minutes by NORAD?

Finally, in what way do you feel you were "being deliberately deceived by leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement"?

I look forward to your thoughtful reply.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Show "If 90% of the architects and" by MikeyMetz

I'll play for a bit, Mr. Metz

Fairly standard rhetorical dodges so far, but let's see if you will actually answer anything using facts and logic. Please don't insult my intelligence and I will avoid condescension.

If 90% of the architects and engineers agree with Gage, I'd expect some peer-reviewed papers by now.

What would you accept as a peer-reviewed paper? Certainly nothing from Popular Mechanics would qualify, agreed? Btw, do you consider the NIST report to be peer-reviewed? Considering that all the steel from the site was removed without a proper forensic investigation and no significant, publicly available documentation exists of the crime scene, what would a forensic structural or fire engineer base their analysis on? Could you provide an abstract outline for a peer-reviewed paper that you would find acceptable?

WTC7 did not collapse in 6.6 seconds or whatever artificially low number your citing. It was much longer if you start with the collapse of the East Penthouse.

While I think most analysts would cite the roof kink and the main building facade "collapse" as the most relevant start time for the "collapse" of the entire building and thus the 6.6 second time is valid, I won't quibble until NIST releases its final report with times that are more intelligible than those in the FEMA report. That said, how do you explain the complete, rapid and symmetrical nature of the "collapse"? Please be specific.

The put options have been investigated. No one has yet to cash in on them. Doesn't make sense for people to put their names on the line like that, be in on the cover up, and not even collect. Perhaps the put options were the result of other movements in the market?

You clearly have been mis-informed here. Andreas von Bulow (former member of the West German parliament and West German Defense Minister in charge of intelligence oversight) and others have put the amount of still unexplained securities transactions at around $15 billion U.S., with only $2.5 million U.S. unclaimed to date. I suggest that you get a hold of a copy of Hidden History Of 9-11-2001 edited by Paul Zerembka (a peer reviewed volume of papers published by a top academic publisher, btw) and study it very carefully, as I have. The government has all the transaction records, but refuses to release them, even with the names redacted.

Kean and Hamilton don't agree with 9/11 truth. Never have, never will.

Let's dispense with the straw, shall we? Do you dispute the fact that Kean and Hamilton have publicly stated that they knew that the NORAD officials were lying and should have been investigated for perjury by the DOJ? How do you explain the complete lack of response for 100 minutes by NORAD? Kean and Hamilton also now question the information provided to them by the CIA which was derived from secret interrogations of alleged terrorists who have yet to be seen in public, the tapes of which have now been destroyed. This information was cited as the basis for their conclusion that al Qaeda was responsible for the "attacks". Does that fact that Philip Zelikow, a White House insider, was completely in charge of the 9/11 Commission staff and was the final editor of the final report cause you to question the validity and credibility of said report?

The leaders of the movement keep spitting out long debunked claims like "the hijackers are still alive," "the BBC had a script," and "the airphone calls were faked." Look at Gage-- he claims that the squibs are not proof of controlled demolition, yet keeps the claim on his website and powerpoint presentations.

First of all, who do you identify as leaders? Do you have information showing the BBC and Guardian reports indicating Waleed Al Shehri alive to be false? What credible evidence have you seen that the alleged "hijackers" were even on the planes? How do you explain the early reports of WTC 7's "collapse" by the BBC and CNN? Do you have evidence showing that there were, in fact, airphones on AA77 (N644AA)? What evidence have you seen that confirms that AA77 (N644AA) even impacted the Pentagon? What evidence have you seen that confirms the identities of any of the four planes alleged to have been used in the "attack"? (you may wish to check this: before answering) Do you dispute that rapid gas and debris ejections (squibs) are clearly visible along the side of WTC 7 just prior to the building's "collapse"? Do you dispute that these squibs progress from bottom to top in the manner of a classic controlled demolition? Do you dispute that well-defined and localized squibs can be seen during the "collapse" of WTC 1 & 2 and that these squibs are often well below the "collapse" front?

How do you explain the lack of significant plane wreckage in Shankesville, Pennsylvania?

Have you researched the history of "al Qaeda"? If so, please cite sources.

Continued cursory answers will indicate your lack of interest in an honest and meaningful debate and terminate this dialogue.

[edit: If your account is blocked, feel free to email me at marin911truth at to continue the dialogue]

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

"P.S. Challenge accepted,

"P.S. Challenge accepted, waiting for some type of concrete date/time."

If you're referring to my debate challenge, I believe I gave you plenty of time to talk to me about a concrete date/time. If you want to seriously get on this and figure it out then send me an email. If you're just going to play ring around the rosie some more then don't bother me.

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 emailed you this morning...

hours before i posted on here.

Show "the email, BTW" by MikeyMetz


Ok, Mikey, looks like Justin got your attention. I'm kicking this off the front page, and blocking your account. You've got plenty of places to spew your venom.

Justin, let us know if there is a debate.

While I understand why you chose to block his account,

Reprehensor, I had hoped to continue my dialogue with him here. We'll see if he contacts me via email. (I won't hold my breath)

From his email it appears that Mr. Metz quit 9/11 truth not because he found fault with the facts and evidence, but because the slow pace of the movement was unacceptable to him.

One wonders if he thinks that the fact that 1 in 3 Americans no longer buy the OCT and that well over 50% want new investigations is insignificant.

As Sgt. Schultz on Hogan's Heroes would say: Very interesting, but shhtuupid.

I hope that you and yours are well and thanks again for all your hard work.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

How about

Danny Jowenko, the Dutch demolition expert?
He looked at 7 and was shure with what it was.
The fact that you do name the ae911truth and NOT him is telling...

Show "Jowenko doesn't think WTC1 & WTC2 were controlled demolition." by MikeyMetz


Gee Mr. Metz,

You didn’t even try to offer insight. You only did what deniers always do…try and obfuscate the facts. Your reply was nothing more than generalities and unsubstantiated opinions.

“most of the "inconsistency" claims made by the movement were easily explained”

That would be a lie Mr. Metz. I have heard NO explanations of the hundreds of inconsistencies in the OCT, and the reason is simple. OCT defenders like yourself WILL NOT face open debate.

“explanations such as explosions were flat-out wrong.”

Clearly an opinion with no facts behind it.

“Please don't point me to the A&E for 9/11 Truth Site or the Journal of 9/11 Study, as they are not legitimate sources of info”

I don’t intend to point you anywhere, son, but when you present me with your degrees in architecture and engineering, I will be happy to listen to your opinions on those subjects.

“The only explanation for this is that every respected engineer in the world is "in on it," and that's just not likely”

A hollow red herring intended to divert attention from the facts. I don’t chase fish, Mr.Metz.

“many other claims regarding the planes, the investigation, and the "suspects" can, for the most part, be disproven.”

Again, I have seen none of these slam-dunk debunks, and I search for them daily. You will have to be more specific…and try including some facts next time.

“I realized that I was being deliberately deceived by leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement”

It seems a more accurate account would be that you realized that you would never be a “star” in the 9/11 Truth movement, so you decided to try and get some screen time by embracing the other side. Given the stakes, I find that action to be monstrously beneath contempt. There is a word for those who sell themselves, Mr. Metz. Do I have to tell you what that word is?

I do thank you for your invitation into your website, but I have always preferred non-fiction. There is more important work to be done than to spend any more time casting attention in your direction. I am finished with you, Mr. Metz. You may go now. .


"It seems a more accurate

"It seems a more accurate account would be that you realized that you would never be a “star” in the 9/11 Truth movement, so you decided to try and get some screen time by embracing the other side. Given the stakes, I find that action to be monstrously beneath contempt. There is a word for those who sell themselves, Mr. Metz. Do I have to tell you what that word is?"

This pretty much sums it up perfectly.

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!

Show "i'll point you in the right direction..." by MikeyMetz


I have contempt for the crimes of 9/11, the maniacs who perpetrated them and their minions who, for whatever reason, protect the criminals and in turn contribute to the destruction of the country I love.

But I'm working on it.

One day I will be perfect....but not today.

is that so

Flat out wrong...Hmmm, I have yet to see one engineer explain WT7 other than controlled demolition. I guess that the hundreds of eyewitness reports by police, fireman, newscasters and occupants of the building hearing and feeling explosions in the building were made up by the 911 truth movement. It's obvious you can't see the forest because the trees are in the way. I sincerely doubt you would be foolish enough to debate the subject because you don't have a leg to stand on. We (the 911 truth movement) have Scientific fact and the laws of physics on our side they have assumptions, opinions and makebelieve on theirs! Go ahead make my day....setup the debate.

right on target

FredHendrik said:

"..the cointelpro club had to disproof the movements claim that people only went from believing the OT to knowing that it was false and not the other way round!"

I couldn't agree more. Now that Metz has set up his blog, any time that DRG or someone else claims that the flow of conversions is one way, shills can point to Metz as disproof of that claim.

One of Metz' arguments is that while he was a "troofer," he only read the truth movement's claims, without researching the counter-arguments by debunkers. As soon as he read those arguments, he realized that the debunkers' side made more sense.

I don't buy that. The most scrupulous of us 9/11 researchers did indeed look at all sides before firmly making up our mind; obviously DRG has read the Popular Mechanics literature and other debunking materials, and in his previous book (I received 9/11 Contradictions in the mail today - YAY!) Debunking 9/11 Debunking, he thoroughly eviscerates the "debunking" materials for the frauds they are.

Show "DRG has, but have you" by MikeyMetz

research, study, learn

I've been involved in this movement for 4 years now. Since day 1, I have done research on both sides and I've read most of the information out there; I've read Popular Mechanic's rebuttal, as well as the Screw Loose Change site, debunker blogs, and debunker sites. I don't take anyone's word for anything; I do my own research and each time I find affirmation with the 9/11 Truth Movement. These "debunker" sites are really quite feeble and leave me rather disappointed actually. To date I've yet to find a single "debunker" or "debunker site" that has been able to stay away from disinformation arguments/logical fallacies, nor fully understands the official story or the alternative to it. I find it rather pathetic that if indeed I am such a "conspiracy theorist" and so easily duped by "lies", that I understand both sides of this argument better than any so-called debunker I've ever come across.

The Nice Thing About 'Loose Change Final Cut' Is ...

That it puts the Screw Loose Change folks out of a job.

LCFC is a difficult to attack film.

Haha, over at SLC they've

Haha, over at SLC they've attempted a "debunking" and have only been able to come up with semantics and out-right lies. They say that reporter in the beginning asking Ari Fleischer about bin Laden ... is NOT talking about bin Laden.


Show "In all fairness," by MikeyMetz

More of the same SLC

More of the same SLC bullshit.

SLC: A little later, the screen reads "Five Years Earlier", leading us to believe that he's going to transition into the events of 9-11. But instead he starts off with a British interview of Dan Rather that took place in May 2002.

Me: Yeah, the events of 9/11 come right after the opening credits' footage of Atta and Jarrah. Obviously I'm not referring to the Rather interview, you toolboxes.

SLC: Then we get into a few clips of several news reporters speculating (almost certainly on the day of 9-11) that it was an "inside job". As usual with the Troofers we are given no context for these remarks. Suppose a reporter had claimed that a bomb had gone off in the WTC; there were such reports that day. Was the news reporter trying to make sense of that report by talking about "inside job" theories?

Me: Once again delving into semantics. They were referring to the attacks. And there were several reporters who made that assumption that day, not just one.

SLC: President Bush states "A country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught." Of course, that is not about 9-11, but about Iraq.

Me: NO SHIT. It's still a very poignant statement for someone like President Bush to be making.

SLC: FBI Agent Robert Wright is shown a little later at a news conference, saying, "FBI management intentionally and repeatedly thwarted and obstructed my attempts to launch a more comprehensive investigation to identify and to neutralize terrorists. To the families and victims, of September 11th, on behalf of John Vincent, Barry Carmody, myself, we’re sorry." Except that you read about that press conference and it was not about Al Qaeda, it was about his investigations of money-laundering for Hamas and Hezbollah.

Me: So, does that mean that SLC admits the FBI blocked investigations into Hamas and Hezbollah?

I could go on, but I have better things to do with my time.

Hahaha, yeah, Pat's

Hahaha, yeah, Pat's "tackling" of the final cut is pathetic. I've been considering writing a rebuttal piece for quite some time.

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!

Yes, you do have better things to do with your time

Have you corrected the audio on LCFC yet?

Have you moved out west yet?

I hope that you and yours are well.


The truth shall set us free (and some folks will get to make films about something other than 9/11).

Love is the only way forward.

Hmmmm...a job?

I have a striking suspicion they're used to being "out of a job".

I don't understand...

How someone can go from questioning the 9/11 attacks because of the obvious lies and cover-ups to a position that says, "You know what? It's OK to lie to this country. It's OK to cover-up things from this country. No one in Washington D.C. should ever be held accountable. The laws do not apply to our elected officials, etc..." unless that someone was dishonest from the start. That's what I'm going with. Otherwise, it's incomprehensible to me.

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

Show "Did it ever occur to any of you guys that maybe you're wrong?" by MikeyMetz

We're not wrong...

Mikey. Anyone that spends ANY amount of time REALLY looking into 9/11 is BOUND to stumble across at least ONE blatant cover-up, lie, omission, or contradiction. Did it ever occur to you, and your debunker friends that maybe YOU'RE wrong in actively opposing those seeking truth, accountability, and justice for the day that created the "Post 9/11 World", where wars can be fought pre-emptively, where civil liberties can disappear, where Executive Power is abused, where America can be bankrupted, where our soldiers are forced to serve using "Stop-Loss", where our soldiers don't rate as highly as the private military, and on and on and on...?

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

Brother Jon -

We're clearly not dealing with a critical thinker here, or he has decided that "the truth" will not "win" and wants to be on the "winning" team.

Had I read the entire thread I would not have bothered engaging him in debate.

No cover-up? expleted deleted

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Metz, please debunk this "conspiracy theory"

Mr. Retz.

Please name one--any single government official fined, fired, held accountable, or reprimanded in any way for the events of 9/11.

Sorry, but the only people "punished" in relation to 9/11 were the whistle blowers. So names like Kevin Ryan, Sibel Edmonds, and others don't count.
Arabesque: 911 Truth