"Hey buddy. Just wanted to say I noticed you took YouTube up on their profit sharing offer if they are allowed to post advertisements next to and on your videos. They have been sending me these offers for over a year, and my videos get way more views than yours (my total upload views are 2,500,000, yours are 30,800). Yet, every single time I've rejected this offer. Why? Because I'm only interested in spreading the truth, not making money. I've never accepted a penny for making my videos.
So, the next time you and your little truther friends talk about how us debunkers are being paid for doing what we're doing, just remember how hilariously hypocritical you are."
-RKOwens4
Unfortunately for Mr. Owens, his accusations were completely false. I responded with the following:
"I don't know what you're on about. First of all, I have never accused you or any other debunker of being "paid" by anyone to do what you do. I'm sure other truthers have accused you of it, but I have never thought that. Just because I'm a truther doesn't mean I believe everything all other truthers believe. Secondly, I've never accepted any offers from Youtube. The only reason I might have some ads on my videos is because I have some copyrighted material in them. Youtube did inform me of that, but they haven't offered to pay me and I haven't recieved a check yet. Like you, I could care less about making money off this. Next time watch what you say about my videos and motives."
Mr. Owens did apologize (sort of):
"Alright, if what you say is true then sorry."
-RKOwens4
I accepted his apology, and sent him this link to show what I said was true.
I found Mr. Owens' message very intersting because it showed his apparent strategy for how he would respond to my videos. It's been over three months since I released my updated "9/11 Un-debunked" series, and Mr. Owens has made no attempt to legitimately refute a single video. And he is fully aware of them. About two months ago I had a short debate with Mr. Owens about Building 7, and here was his summary of why the building could not have been a demolition:
I directed him to two of my videos, one of which was part of my Un-debunked series:Sounds of Explosions- How Much Do They Matter?
9/11 Un-debunked Version 2.0: Every Characteristic Of Controlled Demolition
He only responded to the first of my videos discussing the "lack of sound" issue. He essentially criticized it, claiming that I had no proof the explosions featured in the video came from the WTC. He basically missed the whole point of the video, which is that the actual "sound" of an explosion is not neccessary to warrent an investigation into whether explosives were used or not.
I felt it odd that he did not bring up my other video, as it clearly addressed the issue of the lack of explosive flashes in all of the buildings. My video features these three demos that clearly produced no flashes.
Now I was willing to believe he didn't bring up the other video because he genuinely had no response for it, and therefore excepted that this was a misleading argument in the debate over the collapse of the buildings. However, I was shocked to see that about a month later he brought up the exact same arguments to another truther almost word for word.
It seems to me that Mr. Owens has simply chosen to ignore my videos, and instead has decided to make baseless accusations in an attempt to discredit me. Very similar to how debunkers have chosen to avoid any scientific debate over the nanothermite paper and have continuously tried to discredit the authors and the journal. I see a pattern here.Mr. Owens, you are more than welcome to respond to my rebuttals of your videos, but I don't appreciate the empty accusations. But I'm not usually one to hold a grudge, and I did accept your apology, so I hope we can eventually get back to more civilized debates in the future.
I wish Mr. Owens and everyone else a happy 4th of July.
