Debate

Thanks For Playing...

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.

Debate! Jon Gold Vs. Pat Curley - 11/24/2008 - 6PM EST


Click Here

Topics:
1. Are there unanswered questions?
2. Was the 9/11 Commission a legitimate investigation?

Moderators:
Eric Jackman
Justin Martell

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.

Press TV 9/11 Discussion

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)

Richard GageBuilding 7Michael ShermerNoLiesRadio.org
Click Here To Listen -- http://noliesradio.org

Saturday, Sept 20th at 11am Pacific - 2pm Eastern - 18:00 GMT
Will be archived HERE after the broadcast.

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!!!



The Art of Debate

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.
Cheers,
MG

DEBATE

Definition: formal method of suppositional argument, including rules and appeals to reach agreement on an issue

Chomsky and Newman - The False Debate

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 ]

Mainstream Paper Prints Four "Althouse, Debate Barrett!" Letters

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!

-KB

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

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/letters/270287

Richard C. Lowe: "Nutty" belief? Let's put that to debate
Letter to the editor — 1/31/2008 9:35 am

Effective Email (Thanks to Myopicvoid and AboveAverageAmerican)

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?

"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.

Pentagon attack debate (CIT vs The Frustrating Fraud)

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).

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

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 question

YouTube GOP Debate November 28, submit your questions up to Nov 25. Moderated by Anderson Pooper
http://www.youtube.com/contest/RepublicanDebate

BBC Reports "9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged" by Dr Keith Seffen

digg_url = 'http://digg.com/world_news/9_11_demolition_theory_challenged_2';

An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

The study by a Cambridge University engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".

The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.

Over 2,800 people were killed in the devastating attacks on New York.

After reviewing television footage of the Trade Center's destruction, engineers had proposed the idea of "progressive collapse" to explain the way the twin towers disintegrated on 11 September 2001.

This mode of structural failure describes the way the building fell straight down rather than toppling, with each successive floor crushing the one beneath (an effect called "pancaking").

RSS