Air America/Thom Hartman 9/11 Truth Debate: Kevin Ryan vs. Michael Shermer MP3

After working with my freeware Audacity wave editor ( all afternoon, I've managed to compile a relatively complete audio version of the debate (from hours 1 & 2) that is generally commercial-free.

Here is the Putfile link:

In case you have trouble downloading it from there (as opposed to just listening to it) you can get the full 41.38 MB MP3 file at the following (somewhat slow) link:

Also, mirrored for QUICK download here.

Thank you, Kevin! It was a good debate!

It should be

from hours 2&3 not hours 1&2. Sorry. I'll fix my blog later so people can at least for now download the files.

Show "Thank you for your work on this" by peakdavid


Mr. Skeptic repeated himself and did not address the points raised. Kevin Ryan did excellent and I'd be honored to be on a debate team with him.

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.

Watch Kevin Ryan demolish the NIST report:

A New Standard for Deception by Kevin Ryan


Kevin did great

Kevin sounded well-informed, level-headed, intelligent and logical. He did great. Here's to more to come!

Why would Kevin want

to "prepare" himself for debunking nonsense.
He had a thoughtful, intelligent answer every single time. He obviously won the debate in my opinion.

Good Start

I think Kevin did a great job though I would have preferred a more science heavy debate, but this airing is a great step into progressive media.

Agreed... I also believe that Thom Hartman deserves...

a good deal of credit too !!!

He was very well informed and seemed to be an excellent host / moderator. The calls at the beginning of the third hour were great also (with a couple of exceptions).

The format (i.e. several long ad breaks) makes a flowing debate very difficult, but all in all it went ok !!!

I look forward to the next :-{)

Best wishes

The skeptic guy just kept

The skeptic guy just kept repeating the same old generic talking points used by debunkers all the time: Conspiracy theorists focus in on areas that are just benignly unexplained, and fill in those gaps with sinister assumptions; A conspiracy of the type that 9/11 "truthers" postulate would have required thousands of people to be carried out successfully; In all the time since 9/11, no one has leaked out information about the plot; Why did they have to go to all that trouble when they would have gotten their war anyway; Why did the conspirators do it this way and not that way, and so on and so forth. Not once did he address the actual hardcore facts like the impossibility of near free fall collapse, the pools of molten metal seen by so many witnesses, and videotaped pouring out of a corner of the South Tower SECONDS BEFORE IT COLLAPSED. He even said that Building Seven didn't collapse straight down, but collapsed toward the damaged part of the building - a total falsehood. Weak.


I was *very* impressed!

I didn't get the chance to listen to it today and was really disappointed by the comments in the other thread . . . I felt concerned, even as I know Kevin is an excellent speaker, wondering, what happened?

Now that I hear it -- thanks for the commercial free version -- I realize how good it was. I think those being critical had their own idea of what they wanted to happen, nothing more. I don't think anyone had negative intentions. These things happen.

It was a very powerful debate (actually hardly even a debate! Shermer basically looked idiotic most of the time) and Kevin won it hands down.

Thom Hartmann was also excellent.

And GW's post on top-down demolitions was perfect timing, as always.

Why completely destroy WTC for false flag

There was an issue raised by Schermer and seconded by Hartman, on why would have it been necessary to completely demolish the towers, if the point of creating the false flag was meant to have a reason to go to war alone, surely they stated, that having two plane crash into the WTC would have been enough. So the remaining question was why was it necessary to bring the buildings completely down.

That is a good question, and when in the planning stage surely that question was on the table for some time. Since we are talking about business minded and risk management people, most probably it was a *business decision* and not a political one. The fact that asbestos removable was a extremely high ticket item (in the billions) for future responsibility of whomever had possession.

Why would any business person take such a risk with that type of white elephant, unless they knew what the outcome would be in the first place? The people who orchestrated this are humanly detached, heartless, faceless, and soulless.

not the white elephant aspect, but

>>That is a good question

With a simple strategic answer: shock and awe.

Psychology works. That's why they used it in Iraq. That's why the CIA has been exposed devoting a great deal of resources to manipulating it. Because it works.

Yes, and why hit a homerun

Yes, and why hit a homerun when you can hit a grand slam? They were going for maximum shock effect. Like Ryan pointed out, they knew that once the first plane hit, news cameras would be trained on the WTC complex, and millions would be gathered around televisions watching the events unfold live. They carried the whole thing out over that extended period of time exactly as they planned it. I am of the opinion that nothing was left to chance. I believe they even knew exactly where the planes would impact, having the second one hit near the corner, thereby spilling out the majority of its burning jet fuel for maximum shock and awe effect. The whole thing was carried out with military precision.

Agree Bela and Victronix

You're probably both right about the shock and awe effect. They don't even deserve the benefit of doubt that it may have been a business decision. These people are not merely soulless they are evil, and I can't release my mind of how many people suffered and died that day, and the first responders illness and deaths continue this nightmare.

There's also the 1993 bombings

If you accept that the 1993 WTC bombing was perpetrated by the same group of people, it's important to remember that they were trying to bring the buildings down then, but failed.

So if they were going to try it again this time with planes, they'd probably want to be really sure that their original plans of *bringing the buildings to the ground* succeeded this time. So they wire the whole thing up with hundreds more explosives than last time, in addition to flying planes into them.

I think 1993 was seed-planting...

These guys plan long in advance, and they are smart. Its not far fetched to think that these plans were long in the making, and I cant imagine that these experts, knowing every inch of how that building was constructed, would think a van full of explosives would bring down either of those towers. As we saw, it didnt - but it did allow them to put "The World Trade Center" into the minds of people. Then after 2001 its a matter of saying "see, we told you they'd be back".

imho 1993 is just part of the psyop.

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

It's Obvious why Complete Demolition was Necessary

Had they not destroyed the towers they would have been left with the remains of an airplane, passengers, pilots, black box, etc. for all to analyze.

remains of evidence left

had to be destroyed, had to be pulverized. right on CA.


people - agreed, joann. heartls psychopaths also.

Another Convincing Point

is the fact the EPA allowed workers to continue cleanup when they knew the environment was toxic!!

That is damning and can open the mind to the possibility that goverment officials can and do lie with little regard for the average citizen.

Hartmann was a fair moderator, and Ryan was great.

I was completely dumbfounded when Shermer actually signed off with, "Al Qaeda *said* they did it, and I think we should believe them."
That's possibly the weakest argument ever. Believe criminals. First off, it's not as if terrorist organizations don't falsely claim responsibility for acts they don't commit all the time. Second, the video he's referring to is highly contested.. first in it's translation, which European agencies disagreed with, and then of course the fact that it isn't actually Osama Bin Laden, and how easily that is determined just by comparing some pictures of OBL to the video.
Shermer sounded to my ears like he was just woozy, dismissive, uninformed and cocksure (like his website says) up until that point.
But when he said that, all I could think was, "shill".
Sick, and sad.

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
~George Orwell

Cop to criminal:

"did you do it?"

criminal: "no"

Cop: "Ok release him, he didn 't do it"

Would be a nice and simple world wouldn't it?

Better check your assumptions on the 'Fat OBL" video...

I had to shame-facedly drop the FATTY OBL argument after reading this:

We have been duped on this one.

At least a few admit it

Yes we were duped on the "Fatty Bin Laden" front. There are more reports than the muckracker report that also go in depth into it. The problem is that knowing the video is REALLY Bin Laden doesn't "hurt" anything for us. Once you dig into it, you actually see how audio was manipulated and frames were missing or deleted. Many experts have come to that conclusion. THAT is why they don't want attention on it. They don't want questions into...

1) what sting operation was going on and why does the camera pan in third person?

2) If it was a sting or information gathering session, where did Osama go, and what was the nature of the operation.

3) What was REALLY discussed on the film, and who was responsible for the false interpretation.

4)Why the vague description and cutaways when discussing relevant parts.

5) And my personal observed anomaly....who or what is "MOTHER".

We gotta stop hanging this one out there, Mike Rivero and many others were wrong on this, but it doesn't change anything. It's proven misinfo and should be shitcanned IMO.

Thanks to you both for

Thanks to you both for pointing this out to me. I hate being duped. I'll never make the point again.

However, I'm going to still point out that there's another video where Bin Laden denies involvement, which makes his testimony... inadmissible.

It's really too bad that nobody in the top tier of our government has even as much credibility as Bin Laden though, and so they have to hang it on his word.

I listened to the debate again and thought more about the the "controlled demolition happens from the bottom up" argument.

Controlled Demolition, by definition, isn't a natural process. It is engineered; steered by human agency.

If one were describing a natural process, such as gravity, one could legitimately make such an argument, like: the force of gravity acts towards the center of the Earth on or near the Earth, and gravity cannot fling objects radially outwards.

Saying that CD only happens from the bottom up is like saying that cars can only drive down the right side of the street. And then if someone shows you video of a car driving down the left side of the street, you say, "well then, that can't be a car". This fails to acknowledge the human agency that steers the process of driving the car or engineering the demolition.

When a PhD with a lucrative non-profit comes out exposing himself as a total moron, I get suspicious.

Who would spend $200,000 and years of hard work on building a reputation as a critical thinker and then go
on national radio sounding like a slobbering fool who doesn't understand the difference between a natural event and an one directed by human agency?

Someone who's getting paid. That's who. The top-down demolition argument is dishonest and is intended to confuse convention w/ natural law. It is also, IMO, a sign of shill status, at least when it's coming from someone who has a reputation to defend.

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
~George Orwell

Totally agree Markov... If OBL was involved, he would have...

happily accepted his "victory" from day one !!!


I personally remember in the days and weeks immediately following 9/11, that there was an imposed media blackout on broadcasting any OBL statements...

The authorities were concerned that they may have contained coded messages to his supporters... yeah right

This television blackout enabled his denial of involvement in 9/11, made just 5 days after to be missed by almost everyone.


In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.

Link :


Best wishes


Both times I tried downloading it stopped at 49% and stayed there. Just like Javimoya (which I never use anymore). Drats.I'll try the mirror.

Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all.
- Dale Carnegie

re: mirror

"The webpage cannot be found"

Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all.
- Dale Carnegie

is there another place one could get the whole file?

Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all.
- Dale Carnegie

Great job Kevin!

Kevin Ryan was absolutely fantastic. I feel that he overwhelmingly won this debate.

Mr. Skeptic didn't address most of facts.

I love the breaking down and denouncment of the 'derogatory term: conspiracy theory.'

I was surprised Kevin didn't mention Dr. Steven Jones' physical evidence findings when Mr. Skeptic claimed 'there is no physical evidence pointing to demolition.' That being said, Kevin did an Excellent job!

After a series of points of fact, Mr. Skeptic wanted to talk about how 'there are no prior examples of buildings being demolished from the top down.' Which as we know is false. The point being is that he conveniently ignored several points such as the history of Al-Queda and the Pakistani connection.

Kevin kicked his butt, HANDS DOWN, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

Ok, I finally just listened

Ok, I finally just listened to the program. I don't have to elaborate to say that this is a DEFINITIVE victory for the truth movement. Kevin did wonderfully, if not exceptionally. Most of the callers were cogent and insightful (yes, especially Abby) and Michael Shermer seemed at a loss for words. I can understand why he kept trying to change the subject. This one goes to the truth movement, straight up. I hope this spreads across the internet like a rabid virus.

Show "It was a let-down" by DeweFour3s

Ryan kicked his ass

... unless of course you didn't listen to the debate.
Points to note:
Ryan did most of the talking, spoke clearly, and got most of the important messages across.
Nevertheless, the time he had available to speak was still very limited. He did a tremendous job. Yeah, if I were critical I would have expected discussions about thermite, but there wasn't time to get all our pet favourite bits of evidence in there.
Shermer offered no evidence to back the official story - all he did was offer strawman arguments to discredit the conspiracy theories, churning out all the usual crap about Bush is too stupid, thousands of people required for the government conspiracy, why no one has talked - all issues that can be easily explained.
Nearly all the talkers after the show were 9/11 truthers.
Hartmann is definitely sympathetic to 9/11 truth.
PS: I thought I heard Judy Woods call after the show hinting at her theories of DWE, although she was introduced with another name.

Yes, Judy Wood, it sounded like her.

That's why I couldn't understand a word she said.
What did she say anyway (if it was her)?

Mr. Ryan

Thank you Kevin for your great work, yet again! Thank you 911 blogger for always being there with what's important. Way to be Johnny on the spot with the demo video. Mighty fine work there, gents.


And thank you very much Thom

And thank you very much Thom Hartman for having this debate on your show!!

No it can't be! That's Judy Woods!


At 38 minutes and 30 seconds you hear:

Thom Hartman: Lisa in South Carolina...

Lisa (Judy Woods): Hello. Er.. I would like to know why they only limited it to 2 hypotheses and why not look at the physical evidence

Thom Hartman: Well i think that's what we're trying to do is say that there's more than just 2 possibilities or hypotheses...

Lisa (Judy Woods): Yeah... and where did the material go? There's no material there. The guy they rescued down stairwell B.. when they came out they said it was like walking out onto an empty football field. That's not like any controlled demolition i've ever seen

Thom Hartman: Well thats an interesting one. Thank you Lisa. And the steel got shipped off if i recall to Korea to be melted down.. strangely enough

She obviously hasn't learned a thing from the Greg Jenkins interview and it's write up in the 'letters' page of the Journal of 911 Studies

And i thought Kevin did really well by the way. Well done!

Looking forward to seeing the interview taken apart in the Journal as was done with the Steven Jones & Leslie Robertson interview (here) on KGNU Radio, Denver (mp3 here)

Gareth this is a must see ...

The interview below: Dr. Greg Jenkins Interviews Dr. Judy Wood

is an example of why DEW (or whatever she calls it) is from shillville... IMHO

That caller "Lisa" I think

That caller "Lisa" I think was almost definitely Judy Wood.

It was her

I believe Judy Wood lives in South Carolina as she taught at Clemson. The caller was "Lisa from South Carolina" who unmistakeably sounded just like Judy Wood and had the same theories.

Kevin Ryan was fine, imo

I think many of us were hoping for a homerun with this one, which we didn't get, but Kevin did a good job. He came across as rational and I think he represented the movement well. It's difficult to debate someone who isn't bound by truth--they can get away with saying anything that sounds good and puts doubt in the minds of others... Even though it would be hard to do on the radio, I'd prefer to have 2 truthers vs 2 OCTs like the Democracy Now format w/ the Loose Change guys and the two from PM. It allows 1 guy the freedom to think of all the things they're missing while the other one is talking.

I remember when Prof. Jones debated Leslie Robertson and Robertson dismissed the idea of molten metal at ground zero. Jones reminded him that he was one of the ones quoted as seeing it originally and Robertson just denied it. What was Prof. Jones supposed to do, call him a liar? That just sounds petty and allows everything to get sidetracked. The opposition in these debates are not bound by truth, and that can be difficult to overcome.

But listening to the entire broadcast I think it was definitely a win for 9/11 truth. Hartmann seemed more than open-minded to the idea of govt complicity... And with Kevin's reasoned approach and the flurry of support from callers at the end (Abby was great) I think it put this topic in a positive light. People in this mvmt will learn from this and adjust accordingly. Thanks to everyone who took part in this.

I spend some time on the

web site, James Randi.. Which has a huge majority of offical goverment story believers.

They gave the debate nod to Kevin Ryan.

Open discussion like this is great, let's hope to see more of it.

Do you have a link?

It does surprise me that they gave the nod to KR. I don't recall them being that rational over there.... but it has been a long while since I visited.

btw, does anybody know if a transcript is available or being produced?

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

JREF'ers didn't explicitly give the nod to Kevin

In fact, they felt their man Shermer didn't get enough airtime. You could almost read between the lines that they were upset, from which the implication is that Kevin won the debate.

"That caller "Lisa" I think was almost definitely Judy Wood."

Nah, that caller's voice wasn't sexy enough to be Judy Wood's. ;)

How long

Why Mr. Ryan didn't say that bush's brother marvin bush and their cousin
WERE suspects on planting the explosives in the WTC?????
And why the other guy DIDN'T answer anything about Mr. Mineta's testimony??
Why "the moderator" didn't ask him to ANSWER that comment or question??

ps: "truthers" and "defenders" are full of S, ...,
Do they wanna drag this thing FOREVER??
There's 100's of evidence......
Another "investigation" is NOT needed........
All is needed to do is HANDLE the evidence to the
prosecutor and start MAKING Indictments..

We need everyone to share their opinion...

...just try to keep the facts and your opinion clean so we can be efficient and organized.

I am happy with the debate. I, along with many other people, would have changed a few things here or there but my energy is better spent on thinking about the next step, advancements, evolution and progression. Good place to polish your debate skills:

I'm very curious and anxious to learn about the debate Sander Hicks took part in. Any word? *checks for other thread*

Update: Go And Support Sander Hicks Wednesday, Nov. 7 At 8PM

"The important thing is to not stop questioning" - Einstein
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" - Einstein
Many hands make light work!
RRREMA=realize, recognize, reconcile, educate, motivate, activate

links don't work

well i'd like to hear it again -- i heard it on the radio. But I can't get a single one of the links here to work. The first one just brings up a program called Audiocity to download. That done, there is still no file that has the program. All the other links failed; the second one brought me to some file storage site where you had to register. After registering, there was no file. The third one didn't work. Has this site been hacked or what?

Try these MP3 Links...

1993 bombing was also an inside job.

I disagree on two levels. First, there is no way in hell a single truck bomb is going to bring down one of the towers; period.

Second, it is well established that the FBI was running the 1993 plot through two confidential infomers. Ali Mohamed, an army special forces trained covert operative, and Emad Salem, who thought he was helping the FBI setup a sting operation, and was upset when the FBI let the bombing proceed.


thumbs up

Tremendous job, Kevin. Very proud of you, thanks