by Ron Brookman, S.E.
Thank you to Mickey Huff and KPFA radio for hosting the Twin Towers debate on the tenth anniversary of September 11. Richard Gage and Niels Harrit described hard evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis; Dave Thomas and Richard Muller promoted the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. Listen to the entire debate at http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/73245.
Richard Gage, AIA is a San Francisco Bay Area architect and founder of AE911Truth—a nonprofit organization with over 1,600 professional architects and engineers plus over 13,000 others who are calling for a science-based investigation of the destruction of the three high-rise buildings.1
Dr. Niels Harrit, associate professor emeritus of chemistry from the University of Copenhagen, has published over 60 peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals including ''Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe."2
Pacifica Radio Broadcast
All 5 of Pacifica's stations, the Pacifica Radio Archives and Democracy Now will offer 9 hours of broadcast. Affiliate stations are also invited to simulcast via KU or Audioport stream.
Please find below the first draft of the schedule.
Broadcast airs September 11, 2011
Time: noon EST - 8pm EST (8 hours)
11am-7pm Central time
9am- 5pm Pacific time
9am - Democracy Now !
10am - Pacifica Archives - Reflections from the People
11am - KPFK - U.S. Impact on Foreign Policy in the aftermath of 911
12pm - WBAI - Casualties of 911 - The Loss of Civil Liberties
1pm - KPFT - From the Bible Belt - The Rise of the Religious Movement, Post 911
2pm - WPFW - The Pentagon: People Who Lived It and Still Unanswered Questions
3pm - KPFA - The Twin Towers Debate - 911 Commission Report
4pm - KPFA- The Twin Towers Debate - The Science
5pm - KPFA - Listener Call-Ins (nationwide)
On Wednesday 6th April 2011, in closed session, read to Select Committee [Hon Rodney Hide, Hon Phil Goff, Rt Hon John Key, Dr Russel Norman, Hon Tariana Turia]
on the 8th floor Parliament 'Beehive' buildings Wellington, New Zealand, the following statement concerning the relationship between New Zealand's Security Intelligence requirements,
and use of the 911 War on Terror as mandate for expansion of powers.
It is offered for the record here, because the papers and reference work submitted were tabled,
therefore are now on NZ Parliamentary record.
Submission on the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill
On March 6th, 2011, Richard Gage, AIA, will debate journalist Rev. Chris Mohr.
The question? What brought down the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11/2001.
Gage noted, “I’m looking forward to debating someone who has an open mind and is respectful of our position, yet who firmly believes that the twin towers were brought down by a “natural collapse” due to fire and jet planes. I expect a lively, intriguing debate that promises to emerge as one of the most productive public discussions of 9/11 to date. Chris has already shown himself to be a formidable opponent and I eagerly await a congenial conversation with him of a kind that NIST officials have not granted us."
Published January 8, 2011
“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191
German philosopher (1844 - 1900)
This article is a response to “Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?”, credited to “staff writers” at the Rock Creek Free Press, November 2010 edition, available at:
The “leading 9/11 Truth site” being referred to is 911Blogger.com. The authors of the article critiqued here chose to remain anonymous, and the article’s title doesn’t lend itself to an easily pronounceable acronym. Therefore I will refer to the article’s authors, along with their vocal message board sympathizers and Barrie Zwicker, as The Complainers. We will abbreviate Citizen Investigation Team as “CIT” and their video National Security Alert as “NSA” (noting the irony).
September 5th, 2010, by Shawn Hamilton, theswillbucket.com
Most observers consider the informal Coast to Coast “debate” between architect Richard Gage, chemist and scholar Niels Harrit, and physicists Dave Thomas and Kim Johnson to have been a success although who “won” depends largely on who you ask. The August 21st event, which was more of a conversation than a formal debate, explored what caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001. Gage and Harrit argued that explosives destroyed the buildings while Thomas and Johnson reaffirmed the official explanation that office fires ultimately led to collapses.
Complaints to Coast to Coast about Ian Punnett in 9/11 debate Aug 21 - Please Fwd to them if you agree!
If you missed it, here is the 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast on August 21 between Richard Gage of AE911Truth and Dave Thomas, posted on YouTube:
I listened to it and was really disgusted and annoyed by Ian Punnett's performance. It was highly obstructive, ignorant and crossed the line several times. Therefore, I've sent this letter of complaint to Coast to Coast management, including to Ian himself. Please read it and forward it to them if you agree, to their public emails below.
I strongly believe these complaints are legitimate and Ian's negative obstructive behavior should be called attention to. He was NOT a good host during this debate at all, and showed a lot of ignorance which he falsely pinned onto Richard. I gave some examples below in the letter.
Here it is. If you agree with it, copy and paste it and send it to their emails below. Or send them your own complaint letter. If enough people complain, they might listen and do something about their host's bad behavior.
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN OPINION, BUT NOT YOUR OWN FACTS.
Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 truth, and Ron Craig, explosives and Hollywood special effects expert locked horns in their second live radio debate in two years. The exchange was hosted by Richard Syrett of The Conspiracy Show. LISTEN TO THE DEBATE NOW.
While no data is available yet for listenership numbers, we do know that the show could be heard from Thunderbay Ontario to the Carolinas....from Maine to Minnesota, NYC, Chicago, Washington and all points in between. Also, the program is offered as a podcast, so it will be available on iTunes as a download. It's the most downloaded show on the radio station – Zoomer Radio from Ontario. The show will also be broadcast on TV - www.theconspiracyshow.com
A week ago, I was excited to hear that one of CIT's critics accepted Craig's challenge to step up to the plate and engage in live, recorded debate.
John Bursill debated Craig Ranke on 12/19/09 and the entire conversations lasted longer than most full-length motion pictures! Paul Tassopulos of Artists for 9/11 Truth recorded and hosted the debate, although he virtually never stepped in as a moderator.
John has posted his own essay+writeup over at the 911oz forum; maybe he'll submit it here too. While John and Craig still have specific disagreements mostly centering on choice of words and method of approaching people (i.e. whether to call the flyover scenario "proof" or a "working hypothesis"), I was surprised to see him graciously concede the following point:
today the 11th of September 2009 is an important day around the world. Not only is it eight years after the 11th of Septembre 2001 but it is also the day when an increasing number of citizens in the world are going to leave their computers and go onto the street and ask for a New investigation into the 911 attacks and ask the journalists do their job in informing our populations on the 911 truth movement. Inspiring from the many manifestations in front of the BBC London exemple
I distributed the french tract " The 911 debate is forbidden in France"
in front of the France 2 television's offices at 7 esplanade Henri de France, Paris.
below is the text that my wife and I have written to send to our journalists in France and to distribute on our market at Herblay see annex °1. The orginal version in french (see °2) is better as we had worked many late hours to get it together, the english version is not so good as it is just a too rapid translation of the french one, however it is the best be can do in the time that we have.
°1 _ _ _ _ _
The 911 debate is forbidden in FRANCE
Eight years after the attacks of the 11th of September 2001, in spite of the black out in the media in
General, a little everywhere in the world the movement for the truth on the 911 progresses thanks to citizens implied directly like the families of the victims, or indirectly by
163 minutes in duration. (Yup, it's long!) I'm about half way through right now. Jason is kicking ass. The host doesn't seem to be too impressed with Bennett's counter-arguments to Bermas. Bennett and his kind are not debunkers. They're anti-truthers. WE are the real debunkers, as we debunked the official story and proved it to be a lie. I refuse to any longer dignify them by using the word "debunker," even in scare quotes.
A lot of people are suggesting that 9/11 Truth is a dead issue. I didn't hear no bell.
This debate is dedicated to Patty Casazza and Bob McIlvaine.
1. Are there unanswered questions?
2. Was the 9/11 Commission a legitimate investigation?
The show's name is "The Dynamic Duo", and it's a TV show. It will be taped on Monday, and put up shortly after.
more airtime for truth :) Wendy Grossman and Nick Pope feebly attempt to hold up the OCT against Annie Machon and Ian Henshall
DEBATE: WTC Controlled Demolition? Richard Gage, AIA, of AE911Truth.org versus Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine
(Scroll down for direct links to MP3 D/Ls)
Exciting on-air debate with Richard Gage, AIA, of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth and Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine on Oakland's KKGN 960am radio this last Thursday, September 18th. Don't miss this one!!!
After spending September 11, 2008 at Ground Zero and engaging various members of the public on subject of 9/11, I thought to share a few common points of informal debate that frequently ensued on the street.
It is interesting to note that logical hazards can occur on either side of deliberation and that a refined understanding of an issue is traditionally considered to be the prime objective.
Those more educated in polemics, please feel free to correct and inform the thread. Please also note that I’ve marked arguments as [counter and (mutual per 9/11 skepticism.
Finally, although I believe our discussions are of civic and intellectual value, it would seem that that the most effective method of understanding the events of 9/11 is through a trial subject to due process in court.
Definition: formal method of suppositional argument, including rules and appeals to reach agreement on an issue
In preparing for my recent interview with Kevin Barrett on June 6, since I knew he wanted to talk about Noam Chomsky, I had the dubious pleasure of reviewing my own correspondence (1989-1995) with the man who seems to have become, in addition to the world's most famous linguist and leftist dissident, the most famous "left gatekeeper." I may have had more than a little to do with that, since I published three articles based on our correspondence (and his book Rethinking Camelot), and eventually the correspondence itself (my letters and summaries of his replies) on the internet, later included in my book Looking for the Enemy (2007).
[read more at http://www.mdmorrissey.info/falsedebate ]
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:
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.
Congratulations to Richard, Lon, James and Jeannon, and a huge thanks to everybody who wrote to Althouse, the UW, and/or the local newspapers. This must be by far the biggest flood of 9/11 truth every published in the letters section of any mainstream US newspaper!
Ann Althouse, a law professor who seems to have a very high opinion of herself, needs to find the courage to defend her assertion that 9/11 skeptics are "nutty." If our arguments are that weak, it should be a piece of cake for an experienced law professor to take them apart...right?
Scroll down for a list of places to write and call to keep the pressure on her, and on the UW. We DEMAND a 9/11 debate in 2008!
PS I'll discuss this during the second hour of today's radio show (first hour guest Jarek Kupsc, writer-director of The Reflecting Pool). 4-6 pm CT http://www.gcnlive.com Network 4 Call-in number 866-582-9933 Complete schedule & guest list: http://www.mujca.com/airwaves.htm
Richard C. Lowe: "Nutty" belief? Let's put that to debate
Letter to the editor — 1/31/2008 9:35 am
After reading a couple blog posts by Myopicvoid and AboveAverageAmerican (thank you for the insight by the way and I hope you aren't upset I "borrowed" your ideas). I put together this email that I then forwarded to everyone I know friends, family, etc. The response has been phenomenal! People who vehemently argued with me before are now, at least, admitting the official collapse explanation is not adequate. I could not believe the responses I received. One person said, and I quote," It was like someone suddenly turning on a light bulb." I am very encouraged by this and I owe it all to the sharing of ideas and strategies we have utilized on this site. Thanks to everyone, but in particular thank you to Myopicvoid and AboveAverageAmerican. Here is the email and you have my express permission to copy paste cut (as long as it stays within the general theme) or email to anyone you feel inclined to.
"Whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Here it is:
This email is slightly more complicated than my usual emails, however, I believe it is pretty striking when viewed in whole.
"Where's Your Evidence?"
This statement is an inevitable response given by people who have trouble see the obvious lies and distortions regarding 9/11. Of course none of us have slam-dunk documented evidence that proves exactly what happened. The whole raison d'etre of this movement is to discover the who, how, and why (although the why seems pretty clear at this point). So the next time you encounter this reactionary auto-response a very effective strategy is to simply in return ask them, "where is your evidence that the official story is wholly true." Thus de-activating this ridiculous mental block. I have utilized it several times and at the very least it enables the conversation to focus on what has not been proven rather than what can be proven.
Props to Caustic Logic, creator of The Frustrating Fraud blog for agreeing to accept my challenge to a recorded debate. He has declined to discuss the info over the phone in the past but the fact that he finally agreed does add a notch of credibility/legitimacy to his truth seeking efforts in my opinion.
I must admit it was strange to hear him verbalize his contradictory explanation for the north side evidence.
Although he is a self proclaimed LIHOPer he has stated that he believes the most likely scenario is that all of the CITGO witnesses are part of the conspiracy and are planted operatives put out to spread disinformation that proves the official story false.
The irony in this is that he has to accept this wild conspiracy theory (with no evidence) as a method to dismiss what he asserts is a wild conspiracy theory (that is supported with strong evidence).
Tomorrow, at the basement level of Lolita Bar at 266 Broome St. at the corner of Allen St. on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, one block south and three west of the Delancey St. F, J, M, Z subway stop, Sander Hicks will be debating Karol Sheinin.
The topic of the debate? Did the Government Know in Advance About 9/11?
Please go and show support for Sander.
Time for a to-the-table Dialogue/Debate/Discourse re: KW fallout, decisiveness vs. divisiveness, Strategy and Tactics
Ok, in terms of what I would like to call the 9-11 truth and justice movement, things are both gearing up in energetic momentum and spinning apart centrifugally at the same time. I think these are both good signs, if we are to pause for thought, dialogue and tactical talk, rather than ignore the signs of our moment and press forward willy nilly. The pitch of the talk about disinfo and how to engage it and/or disengage it is high. And rightfully so. There are many divisions and dischords right now, and some would say this is a good start in sorting out the wheat from the chaff. Being that we are a group of people that take such a thing as the idea of "truth" seriously, intense dialogue is very necessary. And the focus must be on ideas and an honest engagement of debate and dialogue both. The problems of unknown truth and undone justice around 9-11 that we seek to rectify can be explained as a problem of silence. The Official Conspiracy Theory people won't have it out with us in a vigorous and public fashion.
YouTube GOP Debate November 28, submit your questions up to Nov 25. Moderated by Anderson Pooper