Thom Hartmann's 9/11 Debate Challenge

Nationally syndicated progressive talk show host Thom Hartmann, (Air America), has issued a challenge to those researching 9/11.

He wants a representative from the skeptics of the Government's "Official Conspiracy Theory", the "OCT", and a defender of the OCT, to come on his show at the same time, and debate their positions in a civil manner.

Hartmann tasked his producer approximately 6 months ago to find a well-known defender of the OCT to accept the terms of the debate, and not a single one would. On Friday, June 15, Hartmann renewed his challenge on air, and noted that the problem seems to lay with the OCT defenders, who won't come on the show at the same time as the skeptics, and won't take calls from the public following a few rounds of debate.

On Monday, June 18, Hartmann renewed the call again;

"I mentioned on the program a couple days ago that we tried to put together a program about 9/11 where we wanted to get on the folks from Popular Mechanics, or some variation, someone who would take the position of the 9/11 Commission... and get some representatives from the 9/11 Truth community of one of its variations, and Dave, my producer came on and said we couldn't find anybody who would come on and debate.

First of all we can't find anybody, NOBODY has contacted us (on the OCT side), and we've contacted a number of them, the magazine (Popular Mechanics) wouldn't do it... would come on and take that position, and so... to have somebody come on and say, "it was a controlled demolition", and not to have somebody on the other side say, "no, wait a minute, here", it wouldn't be a discussion, it just be... bad.

It's amazing, I've gotten several hundred emails over the last couple days in consequence of that, many of them people saying, "I'd be glad to come on", I'd be glad to debate... all of them on the conspiracy side of it...

(More after the jump.)

...I am absolutely neutral on this. I'm neutral because I went through this with the Kennedy assassination...

I'm calling for serious investigation of this (9/11) and I'm really pleased to see a community forming trying to find out, not just what happened with buildings 1 and 2, but why did this happen? Who was asleep at the switch? How many warnings did Bush get? Why did he ignore them?

There are these weird coincidences, Bush's oil company was funded by Osama bin Laden's brother, another one of his brothers was having breakfast with his father the morning of 9/11, and these things just make you scratch your head... you know, "what is going on?"

So I just want to put it out, I don't need anymore emails telling me how terrible so-and-so is, or that movie's the bad one, this is the good one, we've got enough of those, enough already, we got it.

And if anybody can get somebody from the "there was no conspiracy, it was just these 19 guys with boxcutters", and "it was all Osama bin Laden", if somebody can someone from that group to come on the program, and debate... then let us know."

What's the problem? An earnest, honest, open, nationally-broadcast debate, with a neutral moderator. Isn't this a dream situation? If the OCT is so rock-solid, what's the issue?

David Ray Griffin is willing to debate someone with an established track-record on Hartmann's show, like "anyone from NIST, the 9/11 Commission, the US government, or even Popular Mechanics".

If the only OCTer willing to step up wishes to focus on the official collapse theory, then Kevin Ryan is happy to oblige.

Arguably, David Ray Griffin and Kevin Ryan are two of the most well-known and articulate proponents of skepticism of the OCT, therefore, any OCTer willing to go on Hartmann's show should come from the OCT "A-list": NIST, the 9/11 Commission, the US government, or Popular Mechanics.

The "B-list" would be published authors like The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, or Counterpunch's Alexander Cockburn. These authors in particular have abused their pulpits, putting out very biased pieces in condemnation of 9/11 skeptics.

Will this be a repeat of Ed Haas' call to the "A-list", who refused to come to the National 9/11 Debate?

If you have direct contact with someone from the A-list, or would care to pass this challenge on to Rothschild, Taibbi, or Cockburn, please do. All they have to do to accept is get in touch with the Thom Hartmann show.

(One OCT defender, Manuel Garcia, has already declined. Oh, and "paging David Dunbar", Kevin Ryan is waiting to hear from you!)

It's telling that

many of these scientific bodies and scientists don't appeal to the obvious solution to many of these debates: a scientific study that leaves nothing to chance (unlike the compromised studies by FEMA and NIST). One would expect a scientist worth his salt to say: "OK, clearly you (the skeptics) have some questions about our work. So why don't we do some specific studies aimed at answering your specific questions, instead of hiding behind the obviously inadequate studies that exist?"

Or, if US govt agencies won't do more studies, allow foreign scientists to fund their own studies of the WTC steel and whatever evidence remains.

That is, if there's nothing to hide, let's do the properly scientific thing here and have an open investigation that will resolve outstanding questions. If there were no explosives in the towers, then a proper study of that particular hypothesis should resolve the question.

People would not have opportunity to postulate alternative theories, if the scientific evidence were as rock solid as NIST and FEMA say it is.

another Hartmann Strategy...

If the Gov officials/NIST/Popular Mechanics/etc guys don't want to appear, perhaps our guys (Hoffman, Jones, Ryan, Gage) could take their points from the 911 report and just analyze those?
I wouldn't let Hartmann off the hook so easily.

Is it really that hard to understand why...

Is it really that hard to understand why the puffed-up, arrogant, supporters of the official conspiracy theory won't stand up and debate?

Their house of cards is crumbling on innumerable fronts. Their story never had a good, strong foundation in the first place. It depended on a dumbed-down, tuned-out public being overly concerned with Britney Spears, Anna Nicole, and Paris Hilton.

At this stage of the game, I have a problem with someone saying that they are absolutely neutral because [he] went through this with the Kennedy assassination. That's a cop-out.

Meanwhile, these left-wingers who so delicately appear to want to broach the facade of 9/11 are being demonized by others who continue to claim that those who question 9/11 are anti-American and aiding and abetting the enemy.

Chalk Fred Thompson in the ring with Rudolph Giuliani who thinks he has a right to be King and tell others they are anti-American and threatening the nation:

I had to laugh

I had to laugh when he said "I went through this with the Kennedy assassination". Went through what? I had that figured the day Ruby shot Oswald and I was just a kid. I can sure understand why nobody wants to debate people from the 9/11 truth movement. The Official Story has so many holes in it that it makes swiss cheese look solid. They would be made fools of. The official story is a joke. 19 cavemen with boxcutters? Are you kidding me? Don't expect a debate. It won't happen.

destruction of evidence

"That is, if there's nothing to hide, let's do the properly scientific thing here and have an open investigation that will resolve outstanding questions."

That may not be possible anymore that the bulk of steel evidence was destroyed.

" If there were no explosives in the towers, then a proper study of that particular hypothesis should resolve the question."

I've been trying to communicate to Steven Jones that the steel that remains was cherry picked so that it would not show high temperature and blast damage. That is the only way they could conclude that none of the samples got above 600C.

This is a delicate area.

What remains of the original steel is something like 0.4% by my own rough calculation. This should be clarified further with more accuracy. It is a crucial point that needs to be driven home. They did not save large amounts of relevant evidence and their sampling is not representative.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

No need for the steel

the video and photographic evidence is sufficient.
On the 11th day, of every month.

Molten by pressure

Hi guys,

I don't know who brought up this point, but I had two arguments already about this. Always after the skeptics bring up the 'fire didn't melt steel, just weakened it!' argument, I reply with the 'so what caused the molten metal?'. And here comes the hilarious (to me) counter-argument...: "the *pressure* caused the metal to melt", they claim.

That's right, so much pressure from the weight of the falling tower, compressed the metal so much, that caused it to *melt*. I can't freaking believe this! unfortunately I cannot explain it away.

Is there anyone out there that has some physical explanation against this? Thanks.


Is force per unit area. The units we use are pascals (newtons per square meter).
Pressure can change the phase of a material. While under extreme pressure solids can behave like liquids. The pressures necessary to do this are many many magnitudes of order greater than are available in a "gravity only" collapse that the official story requires. Furthermore as soon as the pressure is gone it re-solidifies almost instantly. The pressures available at the bottom of the pile are near 0 compared to what is necessary to liquefy metal and none of this can explain liquid metal existing under atmospheric pressure as was observed.

To liquefy metal you need heat energy. Joules (kilograms*meters per second squared). Thermite analogs.

Jumbo-Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.

Pressure melting

More info I dug up:

"The melting curve of iron is reliably determined to 105 GPa using the laser-heated diamond cell. (...) The best estimate of the high-pressure melting curve of iron, as derived from the laser-heated diamond cell and Hugoniot temperature measurements, yields melting temperatures of 4800 (± 200) K and 6700 (±400) K at 133 GPa and 243 GPa, respectively."

Those temperatures and pressures are *not* to be taken lightly. From Wikipedia:
"10 GPa Pressure at which diamond and tetraoxygen forms." and
"100 GPa Theoretical tensile strength of a carbon nanotube (CNT)."

That's 100 Giga-Pascals, or 100 billion Newtons of force over one square meter.

10 N ~= 1 kg for quick calculation (actually 9.8N = 1kg)

100 billion Newtons => 10 billion kg = 10 million Tons

The building weights about 0.5 million Tons (a figure a bit big I found)

So let's see... if the entire building were to fall over a one meter square:

0.5 million Tons / 1 sq mt. = 0.5 GPa... which looks orders of magnitude lower than the 133GPa required to raise the temperature to 4800K to melt steel. (!)

I've done this calculation in a quick'n dirty way, so correct me if I'm wrong.
This looks like we're not even close to getting pools of molten metal by compression by the building weight and gravity alone.
Feel free to correct it if you find a mistake.

Too Much Pressure

It's all just too much.

Hey Joe, you clicky here.

Too Much Pressure

Too Much pressure, too much pressure, too much pressure, too much pressure
Too much pressure, this pressure got to stop
Too much pressure, it's getting to my head
Too much pressure, they're giving me hard times
Too much pressure, my man made me sad
Too much pressure, him try to make me look small
Too much pressure, end up with no money
Too much pressure, my car fail its MOT
Too much pressure, I said my car fail its MOT
Too much pressure, too much pressure, too much pressure, too much pressure
Too Much pressure, Him fumble up a woman
Too much pressure, my life's so hard
Too much pressure, and all them certain kind of people
Too much pressure, them having it easy
Too much pressure, them having it easy
Too much pressure, them sail through life
Too much pressure, them have no joy
Too much pressure, them have no joy
It's too much pressure, it's too much pressure
This pressure got to stop
This pressure got to stop
This pressure got to stop
It's got to stop, it's got to stop....
Too much pressure, oh lord oh lord
Too much pressure, oh what me a go do
Too much pressure, it's too much pressure
Too much pressure, it's too much pressure
Too much pressure, oh lord oh lord
Too much pressure, somebody help me
Too much pressure, it's too much pressure
Too much pressure, it's too much pressure
This pressure got to stop............

"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)

I listen to Thom Hartmann Live

I just finished my last post . . .

. . . at the Journal & Courier message boards:

The topic was the new WTC collapse computer animations done by Purdue University.

I could use a little feedback from you guys to see how I did as toning up my debate skills is always a good thing.

Just so you know, the debate appears over because the last guy exchanging words with me decided to quit after comparing me to the Unabomber.


Freefall trumps all...

...end of debate.

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Pretty much

to within a mere second or two of absolute free fall in nothing but air, and in the case of WTC7, within HALF a second of absolute freefall in a complete VACUUM.

Don't need the steel, only the videos and photographic evidence ie: squibs.
On the 11th day, of every month.

9/11 Bombshell: WTC7

9/11 Bombshell: WTC7 Security Official Details Explosions Inside Building
Says bombs were going off in 7 before either tower collpased

The Alex Jones show today welcomed Loose Change creators Dylan Avery and Jason Burmas to discuss an exclusive interview they have conducted with an individual with high level security clearance who was inside the Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center 7 and has descibed and detailed explosions inside the building prior to the collapse of any of the buildings at ground zero on 9/11.

The interview, to be featured in the forthcoming Final Cut of Loose Change is currently under wraps but the creators have allowed some details to leak purely to protect themselves and the individual involved who has asked to remain anonymous until the film is released.

While details remain scant for obvious reasons, we can reveal that the individual concerned was asked to report to building seven with a city official after the first attack on the North tower but before the second plane hit the South Tower and before their eventual collapse, in order to provide the official with access to different floors of the building.

The city official he was escorting was attempting to reach Rudy Guiliani, who he had determined was inside building 7 at that time. According to Avery and Burmas this official now works for Guiliani partners.

The individual was also asked to provide access to the Office Of Emergency Management on the 23rd floor of the building, this was the so called "bunker" that was built inside WTC7 on the orders of Rudy Guiliani.

When he got there he found the office evacuated and after making some calls was told to leave immediately.

It was at this point that he witnessed a bomb going off inside the building:

"We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark."

The individual in a second clip detailed hearing further explosions and then described what he saw when he got down to the lobby:

"It was totally destroyed, it looked like King Kong had been through it and stepped on it and it was so destroyed i didn't know where I was. It was so destroyed that had to take me out through a hole in the wall, a makeshift hole I believe the fire department made to get me out."

He was then told by firefighters to get twenty blocks away from the area because explosions were going off all over the World Trade Center complex.

The key to this information is that the individual testifies this all happened BEFORE either tower collapsed, thus building 7 was at that point completely undamaged from any falling debris or resulting fires. It also means that explosions were witnessed in WTC7 up to eight hours before its collapse at around 5.30pm.

listen to the clips here.

Avery and Burmas, who played the two short clips of the interview prior to further analysis and more clips to be played on their own GCN radio show later tonight at 7pm CST, further described how the individual had witnessed dead bodies in the lobby of 7 and was told by the police not to look at them.

This is vital information be cause it is in direct conflict with the official claim that no one was killed inside building 7. The 9/11 Commission report did not even mention building, yet here we have a key witness who told them he saw dead people inside the building after explosions had gutted the lower level.

What makes all this information even more explosive is the fact that this individual was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission as they conducted their so called investigation.

The fact that the building was not even mentioned in the report in light of this information thus becomes chilling and indicates that officials have lied in stating that they have not come into contact with evidence of explosive devices within the buildings.

Avery and Burmas successfully contacted the individual after discovering a TV interview he did on 9/11 while they were trawling through news footage from the day in research for the Final Cut.

Avery says that he can and will prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the individual was in building 7 on 9/11 and that what he is saying is accurate.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Show "Hartmann refers to the intolerance of some 9-11 Truthers" by Chander
Show "Thank you Chander" by sheeple1950


folks like Woods and Fetzer resorted to ad hom and slime to respond to Jones, et al. If they had, instead, merely said, 'We think the issue of exotic weapons should be considered and we will experiment and present evidence suggesting that they should', then they would not have been vilified and, perhaps, not put in the category of disinfo. Few would have accused them of sabotage to the 911 truth movement. But they didn't. And now we have the situation we do have. And supporting them without the caveat that, ' They really f'd up'. For whatever reason. Only serves to discredit any endorsement of them. Sorry.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)

I agree

This is why I wonder if the whole "debate" and division into two camps has been contrived.

Are you joking? Judy Wood

Are you joking?

Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds must be two of the most intolerant people I've ever come across. They rely on ad hominem attacks (referred to Steven Jones as being "retarded", for example), use faulty logic and deceive those who would read their research with selective presentation of evidence and blatant lies.

Wood's hypothesis HAS been considered, and there are papers which analyse her ideas in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. To me, an outside observer when it comes to the DEW controversy, her hypothesis lacks merit.

I agree with one of your points though: there are those in the movement who are intolerant and there are those who are just plain stupid.

I would be very surprised...

...if you were able to provide a source for your accusation that Profs. Wood and/or Reynolds, "...referred to Steven Jones as being 'retarded...'" If this, probably erroneous, quote is your sole reason for calling Reynolds and Wood "intolerant" and ignoring their research, then you are needlessly denying yourself access to some extremely thought-provoking investigation.

What usually happens is that Wood, Reynolds and Fetzer are accused of making "ad hominem" attacks whenever they simply point to an error or shortcoming in the work of Steven Jones.

You may think Prof. Wood's DEW hypothesis lacks merit, and that there is a conventional explanation for the dustification, the burned cars and various other anomalies. But to go from there to attacking and banning her and her defenders and trying to pretend that she is not a valuable contributor to the 9-11 Truth movement is completely unjustified and counter-productive.

They used the word "retarded"

"We gasp at Jones’ 'analysis' of tower oscillation. Can a Ph.D. physicist be this retarded?"

This was unnecessary to make the point. They could have used a word like "obtuse."

Show "PLEASE" by Tiguhs OndaBayou

These are all great

These are all great suggestions. The fact that you're voted down for making this suggestion is a good demonstration of what's wrong with 911Blogger and those who dominate it. has review of "America's War on Terrorism has a great review of
Michel Chossudovsky's "America's War on Terrorism"

Read it and comment. Encourage their COURAGE

Stephen Lendman Reviews Michel Chossudovsky's "America's War on Terrorism"

"America's War on Terrorism" - An Overview
Part I - September 11
Part II - War and Globalization
Part III - The Disinformation Campaign
Part IV - The New World Order
"America's War on Terrorism" - An Overview
Chossudovsky's book is a greatly expanded version of his 2002 book titled, "War and Globalization: The Truth behind September 11." The current newly titled 2005 edition (post-9/11 and the 2003 Iraq invasion and occupation) includes 12 new chapters with those in the original edition updated. The author states the book's purpose is "to refute the official narrative and reveal - using detailed evidence and documentation (not speculation based on opinion alone)" - the true nature of America's "war on terrorism," that's as relevant now as when the book was first published.
Chossudovsky calls it a complete fabrication "based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden (from a cave in Afghanistan and hospital bed in Pakistan) outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus." He calls it, instead, what, in fact, it is - a pretext for permanent "New World Order" wars of conquest serving the interests of Wall Street and the financial community, the US military-industrial complex, Big Oil, and all other corporate interests profiting hugely from a massive scheme harming the public interest, in the name of protecting it, and potentially all humanity unless it's stopped in time.
On the morning of 9/11, the Bush administration didn't miss a beat telling the world Al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center (WTC) and Pentagon meaning Osama bin Laden was the main culprit - case closed without even the benefit of a forensic and intelligence analysis piecing together all potential helpful information. There was no need to because, as Chossudovsky explained, "That same (9/11) evening at 9:30 pm, a 'War Cabinet' was formed integrated by a select number of top intelligence and military advisors. At 11:00PM, at the end of that historic (White House) meeting, the 'War on Terrorism' was officially launched," and the rest is history.....

Stephen Lendman

has written many incisive and accurate articles on everything from Chavez to the Wall Street Journal's editorial section lying to Americans. I have not read the Chomsky article. I dislike Chomsky (for all the usual suspects) and believe very fully Barrie Zwicker's discussion regarding Chomsky.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)

Go to DowningStreet and post a thankful Comment.

Go to DowningStreet and post a thankful Comment.


If Hartmann treated those researching 9/11 with respect and allowed them to come on-air without a government chaperone... any other guest.

9/11: 2nd class researchers?

No defenders = no credence

Yeah, I hope Hartmann isn't setting this thing up just to create hype and then not follow through. I think a big part of the story that he can present on-air is the fact that no-one is willing to defend the official conspiracy theory. And that issue should be yet another reason that we've been lied to. No defenders = no credence.