9/11 debate

Audio Debate Transcript: 09-11-11: "9/11's Footprint on America Ten Years Later"

We have gone through the audio of the recent 9/11 debate between Richard Gage and Neils Harrit against Dave Thomas and Richard Muller:

http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/73245

The transcript of the debate follows below. We encourage everyone to read this carefully to understand the true character of our county's enemies. We will be going through their statements point by point to identify existing video/audio/text to refute them. We will add our own where we need to. Our intention is to produce text and video responses for widescale distribution. If anyone would like to participate in the complete dismantling of these ridiculous and unethical 'arguments' we would welcome your help. We are a small group but determined. Email us at the following address. Thank you.

PortlandAE911Truth@yahoo.com

Oregon AE911Truth - Ashland - Newport - Portland

(Audio) 9/11 WTC Debate: Collapse by fire or explosive controlled demolition?

On Sunday afternoon, March 6th, at the Boulder campus of the University of Colorado, Colorado 9/11 Visibility hosted a debate between Richard Gage, AIA (American Institute of Architects), and Chris Mohr, Denver investigative journalist and nondenominational minister. This is the audo of that historic debate.

Download the audio file here.

The question: What brought down the three World Trade Center skyscrapers?

Colorado 9/11 Visibility.org, Colorado Citizens Concerned Over What Really Happened on September 11, 2001

Mar. 4, 2011 (PR Newswire) --

From the iStockAnalyst website.

DENVER, March 4, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Colorado citizens are among the nation's leaders in pursuing the growing questions of what really happened on September 11, 2001.

Two developments are of particular interest:

1) On Sunday March 6, 2011, Colorado citizens will sponsor a debate at the University of Colorado at Boulder exploring the question, "What brought down the three World Trade Center Towers?"

At 5:00 PM, Richard Gage, AIA, a 23-year architect and founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, squares off with Chris Mohr, a Denver investigative journalist. See http://colorado911visibility.org/ for event details.

2) On May 20 last year, the Colorado Democratic Party (CDP) adopted its 2010 Platform (http://coloradodems.org/docs/2010PlatformWeb.pdf) that includes a resolution calling for a new, independent investigation of the events of, and related to, September 11, 2001:

9/11 WTC Debate: Collapse by Fire? or Explosive Controlled Demolition? March 6, 2011 in Boulder!

Colorado 9/11 Visibility is pleased to announce a live debate addressing the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001.

Sunday afternoon, March 6th, at the Boulder campus of the University of Colorado, Colorado 9/11 Visibility will host a debate between Richard Gage, AIA (American Institute of Architects), and Chris Mohr, Denver investigative journalist and nondenominational minister.

The question: What brought down the three World Trade Center skyscrapers?

The Debate Over 9/11 Truth - Jon Gold & ScrewLooseChange

I transcribed Pat Curley and Jon Gold's closing arguments, quoted Jon from the 911Blogger debate thread and added many hyperlinks, plus my own comments at the end:

The Debate Over 9/11 Truth - Jon Gold & ScrewLooseChange
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/the-debate-over-911-truth-jon-gold-screwloosechange/

This is a documentary commentary on 9/11 Truth and the 9/11 Debate: Jon Gold Vs. Pat Curley, which took place November 24, 2008 on the Franklin Pierce University closed circuit television show, “The Dynamic Duo”, was moderated the show's hosts Justin Martell and Eric Jackman, and is now on youtube.

The topics of the debate were:

1. Are there unanswered questions?

2. Was the 9/11 Commission a legitimate investigation? a

Closing arguments of Pat Curley and Jon Gold:

The Debate: 9/11: Physical Evidence *well, not really*

Good to get airtime, good Mr Keefer and Mr MacQueen stood up for truth and logic, good it's available on the net.......bad they call it a physical evidence debate and not have any physicists or engineers on as guests.... I mean, c'mon!!!!! I guess Richard Gage and other architects and engineers didn't want to be on the show.... they're so hard to get a hold of when it comes to appearing on tv.....*end sarcasm*

------

The Debate: 9/11: Physical Evidence

The physics of 9/11: why do the rumours live on? 9/11 Truthers, the laws of probability ... and the laws of science.
Guests

Jefferson Flanders is a professor of Journalism at New York University. Visit jeffersonflanders.com.

Michael Keefer is a professor of English and Theatre Studies at the University of Guelph. Visit his faculty web page.

Ron Wieck Agrees to Set Up a Debate Between Me and Mark Roberts

In the AirAmerica comments section appended to the 5/22 Richard Greene show, I offered several polite challenges to Ron Wieck and one or two critiques of his arguments. I got the usual JREFer treatment in response; avoidance or misapprehension of my pointed questions and patronizing, smart-alecky comments. (To be fair, this type of behavior is too common on all sides of this and most other disputes on the internet.)

My comments can be found here: http://airamerica.com/clout/blog/2008/may/22/clout-thursday#comments

(You can find my posts by doing a search in your browser for the name: omniadeo.)

In the course of these exchanges, I offered to debate Wieck, Mackey, Roberts or whomever. Mr. Wieck responded with an acceptance to set up a debate with Mark Roberts. His exact words were, "An unknown, anonymous internet denizen wants to debate Mark Roberts? Sure you do. What's your name? Let's set it up."

Ann Althouse Refuses Debate Proposal, Hurls More Insults

University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse has upped the ante. Now she says 9/11 truth is not just "truly nutty," it's "despicable," and 9/11 truth-seekers are like "Nazis or Klansmen."

If it's that nutty and despicable, it ought to be easy for a law professor to shoot down in a debate. But once again, Ann has taken the cowardly route of hurling vicious insults while refusing a polite offer for a debate based on logic and evidence. Below is my recent correspondence with her.

On Feb 2, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Kevin Barrett wrote:

2/2/07

Dear Ann Althouse,

I am writing to request that you back up your characterization of 9/11 skepticism as "nutty," and your many public attacks on me, by stepping forward to defend the official story, using logic and evidence, in a free and fair debate.

As you may know, last year the UW-Madison History Club attempted to sponsor a debate or panel discussion pitting critics of the government's version of 9/11 against its defenders. After thoroughly canvassing the UW faculty, especially the History and Political Science departments, they were unable to find any defenders.

Kevin Ryan Debates Michael Shermer transcript

Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/debates/ryan_v_shermer/index.html

Related Blog: http://www.911blogger.com/node/12441

Thom Hartmann Show, November 8, 2007
Kevin Ryan and Michael Shermer Debate
What Really Happened on 9/11

[The transcript below begins as Host Thom Hartmann is explaining some background relating to his research into the JFK assassination, about an hour an eight minutes into the unedited recording of the show at http://www.whiterosesociety.org/content/hartmann/HartmannShow-(8-11-2007).mp3 .]

TH: I’m very skeptical of anybody who says I know exactly what went on, or I know exactly what didn’t go on. So my position is very agnostic on this. I think it's going to take – I mean, here we are, with the JFK assassination, 40 years later, 44 years later – I think it's gonna take a long time to figure out. That said, a good healthy discussion, a good healthy debate and raising the questions and for that matter raising the answers to the questions, is a reasonable and healthy thing.

Thought From the Trenches: Get Them to Prove Something

I had a bunch of 9/11 truth debates recently, and there is one tactic I find to be useful that I wanted to share. It is simply trying to structure your debate so that your opponent has to prove a point. For instance, if the debate is all about you having to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, then they can just ignore you, or choose not to believe facts. If the debate is about them trying to prove something -- for instance, that bin laden did 9/11 -- then you can use your knowledge to shoot them down, and to prove that they are just a dumb sheeple who doesn't know anything and who needs to wake up ASAP.