Screw Loose Change to Host Debate Between Brian Good and Willie Rodriguez

Brian wrote in the post on Steven Jones' earthquake machines:

Willie doesn't have the guts to debate me--not here, not in person, not anywhere on the internet, and not on Carol's program. That's because he knows better than anyone that he's a liar and a fraud.

Somebody must have informed W-Rod of Brian's challenge because today I received an email from Willie offering to debate Brian live, right here on Screw Loose Change. Obviously we have to work out the details, but I am sure that Brian will agree to the debate in principle, given what he wrote on that thread.

In related news, Jones is not backing away from his latest research. In a post over at Flogger on Jesse's new infatuation with space beams, Jones writes:

Those who go with wild theories such as no-planes-hit-the-Towers and space-beam knocked the Towers and WTC7 down (both promoted by Fetzer/Wood) OR mini-nuke destroyed the Towers. Destruction starts at the top, since the energy-beam is from space -- totally ignoring facts and publications to the contrary. No experiments. But entertaining. They fight against the science group, too.

On Coast-to-coast radio, Judy Wood said that WTC 7 was "dustified" -- what a load of bull manure, flying totally in the face of facts that the rubble piled rather neatly on the WTC 7 footprint -- Observed! She also argued that the falling buildings could have produced the observed thermitic material, from iron-dustified- turns to rust on the way down, combining with aluminum from the building. Unbelievable crap.

But he got some pushback:

Earthquake inducing devices Prof. Jones? Sounds like a wild unsupported theory to me that will certainly do a good job of making us sound and look crazy.

Jones replied:

The evidence supporting the existence of Earthquake inducing devices is considerable and growing, along with statements by Sec'y of Defense Cohen (and Z. Brzezinski) of their existence.

You would do well to attend my talk, or get a copy of the DVD of it. After you have seen the hard evidence presented, you may wish to withdraw your statement that this view is "unsupported."

However -- I hasten to add that this is not something that I can do direct experiments on. This is not on a par, in this sense, with my 9/11 research. I have to wait for the grid-patterns and cluster-patterns to appear where there are no known earthquake faults, and gather and analyze the data. This I have done.