Some helpful links for those without cable or satellite:

BOOK TV on C-Span2 Schedule
Watch or Listen to Book TV on C-SPAN2 (Real Player, Standalone & Windows Media Player audio & video links on left sidebar)

Does anyone know if the questions that Clint Curtis answered in his polygraph test have been made public, and if so, are they posted anywhere?

WP --

The link in this thread: "View from Another Planet" is broken. Here is the Philadelphia Enquirer, Josh Middledorf article: My Election 2004 bad dream.

These are David Ray Griffin's two books, the background for the original lecture in Madison: The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11; and, The 911 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. He gave other lectures on this topic, too, but CSPAN recorded the one in Madison.

You can link to here for the notice of the April 16 lecture: http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/911/

Walkshills #4 --

Thanks for your link! There is a 36 minute interview (The 9-11 Commission Report: Omissions & Distortions) of David Griffin by KBOO radio in Portland linked from your page as well.

If you are curious for a preview, the MP3 downloads are here.

I did't see anything on the Schedule for 4/30/05 on CSPAN for David Ray Griffin but tommarow they have a bunch of people that see to have interesting things to talk about....

Check out this link to the CSPAN listing for tommarow

http://www.booktv.org/mi...ival_043005.asp#saturday

Alright update.... David Ray Griffin will be on at 10:30 AM.....

heres the link
http://www.booktv.org/Ge...gID=5677&schedID=343

later
charlie

you can also check out a site that Mr. Griffin is affiliated with

http://www.mujca.com/

Thread Hog Alert!
Corrections - "My Election 2004 bad dream" link in #3 above may work from this google page? Also for WP View from Another Planet

Thanks to all for everything. Torqued: I've fixed the link in the post at the top of this page, special thanks for that. And I can't get into the Philly Inquirer without creating an account, and it won't let me create an account. So ... whatever ...

WP #10 --

Did you try the Google News link I provided in #9? The Philadelphia (Daily News?) article should be the first one returned, entitled "My Election 2004 bad dream". It's the only way I can view the article without registering, and I hope it works for you.

The article appears to be a reprint of the Free Press' View from Another Planet though it has been renamed.

Again, sorry for not checking my links and for hogging this thread!

Torqued #11 ---

yes I did and it worked and thanks again.
also thanks for reminding people not to read my blog.
one more thing: no problem. oink oink.

WP #10

Here's a site you may find helpful. I found it originally posted at another site.

Bugmenot Don't bug me

Oops - that was straight out of the Department of Redundancy Dept. (My post #13)

thanks, kira. thanks, kira. thanks, kira.

Kira #13- Thanks for the great link!

GREAT RESPONSE TO wycliff BY JOAN HERE

You guys! I've been plagued by on-again-off-again web service all day, in spite of premium prices for 26.4kbs dial-up service. So I haven't been in on the melee. But you people are antic. You're great.
I love you!

Now - just where are we? We have set our timers for C-Span 2 at 10:30 EST tomorrow, and have cancelled all prior and subsequent commitments. Will they air this? The suspense is unbearable. I tell you, if they don't we should bury them in our ire!!!

Re the Mitteldorf article: wasn't Clint asked to create that program in 2000, not 2001? I'm probably misremembering, but that's the year my mind had registered...

No, I just checked. I'm right.

P.S. to #19 -

That's a pretty big gaffe on Mitteldorf's part. Can someone contact him before whatever hits the fan?

Thanks, Kira.

May be a bit off topic but there is an open letter by Tom Hayden to Howard Dean---well worth reading:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/042905E.shtml

Tom expresses the problem and the wide chasm that seperates the so-called Demo leadership from those who would give the boot to bush in a heartbeat.

You guys are welcome for the link. I've found it invaluable.

I just lost to the ethernetssss a fairly long comment I was about to post - and now I'm tired & have to finish washing dishes. It was about how disheartened I feel lately when I think about the Corporate Takeover of America. The corporations are huge & have so much power and they are stealing from us on every level. Dumber than a rock W is just their figurehead. How ARE we going to make any changes?

Oh - I'm just down right now. I hope the 10:30 show makes me feel better.

thanks again, Kira. I hope it makes you feel better too. I hope it makes us all feel better.

Well, after seeing site, I'm losing all faith in the ability of humanity to survive. Not sure someone presenting "facts" will matter :crazy:

Strange.. the site wasn't listed.. I'll try again here ..

Ah.. missed the damn closing > on the href.. bleh..

Savanster #26 -

OMG. Maybe it doesn't deserve to survive. I calls itself homo SAPIENS, after all. WHAT about this is sapient?

Kira #23 -

We're sunk in the same desolation-pit, I'm afraid. Let's perk up together tomorrow! C-Span 2 still has Griffin on its schedule.

savanster you should know about this great tool written for us by our friend Torqued ... it lets you type or paste in a URL and some text to go with it, then it generates the HTML to encode whatever you put in. Way easy. Way cool. Trust us just this once and try it out! click here! You might not need to type angle brackets and quotation marks ever again.

WP #29
re: John #2
Does anyone know if the questions that Clint Curtis answered in his polygraph test have been made public, and if so, are they posted anywhere?

any idea on this?
Thanks

re #2 and #32 --- I have seen this question asked several times but I've never seen it answered. Not yet anyway. If anyone else has seen anything, please post!

Look who's hogging the thread now! oink! oink!

one more comment with a few links to a articles I had seen a while ago but couldn't retrieve in time for the post at the top of this thread: you may find one or more of them worth reading if you've got nothing to do while waiting for 10:30 EST to roll around.

The Badger Herald: Author blames Bush for 9/11 attacks.

The Daily Cardinal: Theologist suggests Sept. 11 conspiracy

The Capital Times: Theologian calls for response to 9/11

9/11 CitizensWatch: Speaker Says Bush Knew Of Sept. 11 Plans

Kira, I have reason to believe that the corporations will be largely self destructing in the coming years. If you can muster some patience, and take care of your own personal needs, you might be surprised. There are laws of nature at work, and these entities cannot sustain this kind of cancerous growth. It will eventually destroy the host. What you are witnessing now it a last desperate grab. Let them all have it. If you are smart you can protect your own interests. They are the ones who will suffer the most.

I was wrong...CSPAN is airing it. Hope everyone's watching.

#17
Steve,
Thanks for that link! Very kind of you.
I hope to God everyone is watching CSPAN right now. I'm happy to say I was wrong & they actually aired Griffin's excellent talk.

Joan #36 I don't have a tele ... what was it like?

Dredd #38
Amazing, disturbing and pretty goddamn scary. But unfortunately eminently believable.
Griffin is scholarly & thorough.

Winter Patriot~
Any chance the transcript of Griffin's talk could be posted? Or is it too long?

Sorry for my redundant posts, btw...they took awhile to go through & I got paranoid there for a moment. hehe...gee, no reason to be paranoid, right?
*she says, looking over her shoulder*

you can download the full presentation from 911blogger.com as well.. here is the direct link:
http://www.911blogger.co...-griffin-in-madison.html

I just noticed that the second comment on this thread came from John Bonham. Wow! We haven't heard from John Bonham for a long time. Welcome aboard, John!

Griffin was totally believable. Had his facts in order, presented them in a calm but foreceful fashion, and was used strong but civil language...as one would expect from a clergyman.

He didn't use word "liar," but said things like, "We know now he wasn't telling the truth." He offered up benign explanations for odd occurrences, then debunked them. I thought the strongest part of his talk was concerning the twin towers; it's clear THEY DID NOT COME DOWN BECAUSE OF THE PLANES HITTING THEM, OR BECAUSE OF FIRE. ENTIRE BUILDINGS CANNOT BE REDUCED TO DUST ON ACCOUNT OF FIRE OR VERTICAL COLLAPSE. THAT ONLY COMES FROM AN EXPLOSION FROM WITHIN.

I also loved his response when confronted with the term "conspiracy theorist." He said, "We read every day about conspiracies of one kind or another. When two or more people meet to plan something, that's a conspiracy. The 9/11 attack was a conspiracy, we know that. The question is, which conspiracy to you believe in?" Beautiful.

Peg C. #27

I think it's time you posted one of your beautiful fractals to brighten up our pit!

Reopen911.org is offering a free 3+ hour DVD called "Confronting the Evidence: A Call to Reopen the 9-11 Investigation" The DVD can be copied and distributed freely. The presentation is hosted by Ed Beagly Jr and the distinguisehed panel includes David VonKleist, Dr. David Ray Griffin, Jenna Orkin, Jeff King, James Hecht, and Barrie Zwicker. It is long....and very disturbing. But you will be convinced of conspiracy....the 9/11 commission report is useless. Dr. Griffen's fact finding is more than compelling.

Peg that's a great catch! 2001 was not the year of our friend Clint Curtis' big meeting with our other friend Tom Feeney...

I found it odd [or telling] that the piece was headlined in various places as either a "view from another planet" or a "bad dream". [Why not "bad dream from another planet"?] ... It may well be that Mr. Mittledorf was so blown away by what he learned at this so-called convention of conspiracy theorists that the numbers managed to elude him. And if that's the case, he would probably be happy to know it.

Here's an e-mail address for Josh Mittledorf: josh@mathforum.org

It might be a good idea to write to the editors of the Philadelphia Inquirer, thanking them for running the piece, wart and all. Maybe it wasn't the greatest in terms of accuracy, but the mere mention of Clint Curtis puts them way ahead of the mainstream pack and they should be praised, for pragmatic reasons if nothing else ... like a good dog maybe they'll do it again! woof! woof!!

I was also thinking that If maybe 6 or 7 people wrote polite but informative letters, it might help to speed up fido's education. What say ye? How's about a brief message of gratitude for the editors of the Philadelphia Inquirer?? woof woof Philly rocks!! woof woof ...

yes, get the free DVD from reopen911.org if you have any questions.. you can find it here:
http://www.reopen911.org/freedvd.php

you can also download the whole thing (except the painful questions addendum) from that link as well.

You can get an audio of the lecture here (quicktime format). It's only 9mbs, so nice for youse that only have dial-up (the video is 120mb or something huge like that)

Audio Version

I still haven't listened/watched yet.

Incidently, whatever my feelings about the so called 9-11 coverup, I think Dave VonKliest propogates disinformation with the whole 'pod plane' theory, though I think he actually believes it. But judge for yourself eh?

Also, David Ray Griffin appeared on Democracy Now! A while back, debating the merits of his book with Amy and Chip Berlet (both people I respect). He kinda loses the debate I think.

Judge for yourself.

I didn't sense from his talk that Griffin has all the answers, but that he knows what we've been told so far is bogus. It's hard to win a debate with a devil's advocate if you're an intellectually honest person when your basic position is, "I'm not sure where the exact truth lies, but I know we haven't been told it so far."

That he might have lost a radio debate doesn't concern me, as far as his credibility is concerned. He came across beautifully in the Madison speech.

#46
RLM
Well said.
Griffin: "I'm not sure where the exact truth lies, but I know we haven't been told it so far."
Very important point. Neo-con spokesmen love to pretend outrage over the supposed claims of the left...claims they haven't made.

re #45, #46 : I'm not even convinced he lost the radio debate. I actually thought he kicked Chip Berlet's butt.

I'm wondering what Robert meant when he wrote "he might have lost a radio debate" ... that you agree with Partridge about the radio debate? ... or that the radio debate is meaningless in light of how he performed in Madison? ... or something else? ... [sorry to be so picky! just curious is all]

Partridge #44
Griffin doesnt lose the arguement. Amy Goodman set up the debate to deliberately hamstring Griffin. Indeed, for ages she refused to have on her show anyone debating the official conspiracy theory.
The folowing articles might enlighten you about Amy Goodman and 9-11.

http://www.oilempire.us/democracynow.html

http://septembereleventh.org/alerts/dn.php

Um. I wasn't trying to cast aspersions on Griffin or his views - that's not the case at all. To be honest I'd never heard of him 'til about Sept 2004 when I started looking more critically at 9-11 (or I should really say, looking deeper - I never really bought the whole offical story, but as the Commission went on and not one head rolled I thought it'd be worthwhile looking a lot deeper). But I understand he is a respected figure in theology circles. Being athiest I think its understandable that I wouldn't know much about those things.

So yeah, the first I'd heard of him was in relation to 9-11 truth - specifically on 9-11 Truth Radio. And I've since become familiar with a lot, if not most, of the research and theories about 9-11 - and Griffin is definitely one of the movement's better spokespeople.

Now, when I said I respected Amy and Chip I didn't mean that I disrespected David - rather than this was a debate between three people I hold as intelligent and generally honest people, who happen to have opposing views on a particular subject. All I said was that in my opinion, I think in this debate while he did admirably he seemed to come off the as the loser. Not in the sense that his arguments were invalid or whatever, but like have you ever gone to debate competetion in schools or similar, where its not always the best arguments that win, but the best arguers. And in that respect I felt he 'lost'.

I didn't sense from his talk that Griffin has all the answers, but that he knows what we've been told so far is bogus. It's hard to win a debate with a devil's advocate if you're an intellectually honest person when your basic position is, "I'm not sure where the exact truth lies, but I know we haven't been told it so far."

I agree, and even harder when your opponent starts from the position that conspiracy theories are unhealthly (and in a certain sense, I think is a somewhat valid criticism, which I will clarify if you want). For Chip's part, he's apparently a somewhat contraversal figure on the left - I don't know all that much about himself, 'the man' specifically, but I've read quite a lot of his work on the far-right in the US at his website Public Eye, which I think is a good site as it goes.

Amy Goodman actually annoyed me more than anything else in that debate, in that you could almost sense the disdain in her voice sometimes, and she seemed a bit aggressive given that she was the Chair. Still, I think David Griffin did well in the circumstances - and I do recognise that it wasn't a debate where he was saying 'this is how it really went down', it was more an argument of 'this official story has more holes in it than a sieve'.

And perhaps despite being a good orator, David isn't the best person for an aggressive debate? Undoubtedly there are others in the movement that are better at getting stuck into an argument - the problem of course is that Griffin is probably the most 'credible' (in the eyes of certain others) of the critics, and therefore has become, I guess, the defacto spokesperson. Still, getting on C-Span is a pretty big breakthrough all the same. I hope it develops into something much bigger.

I'd say, in Griffin's terminology, that I'm in the Third column of people, with strong inclinations towards the Fourth. However, even if a wholly independent legally empowered commission was set up, and investigated every minute detail of the whole affair. And this commission still found it to be a monumental failure/co-incidence/cock-up with no complicity or usable foreknowledge. It would still have been worth the investigation because US citizens - whom the US government is supposed to represent - demanded a real investigation and not the sham that was the 9-11 Omission Commission flowing from which not one head rolled. And I'm not speaking for myself here, I'm not a US citizen - but I'd hope some people who are regulars here would bear me out if I said I have a pretty decent knowledge of US politics, at home and abroad.

For Winter Patriot: I didn't hear the radio debate itself, so I don't know who won. My point was that Rev. Griffin might not have been suited to that kind of forum, but came off beautifully at the podium on C-SPAN.

As has been said here, debates are often won by debating technique or verbal bluster, not by facts. Rev. Griffin is a man of the cloth, a writer, and an intellectual person. He isn't a professional wrestler, which is the current model for "newsperson." Put a left-wing pro wrestler up against a right-wing pro wrestler and call it "Crossfire." That's the way TV operates, and I suspect there was an element of that in the Amy Goodman thing...she's a liberal, yes, but she's also a media person, which means her first priority is entertaining an audience, not uncovering unpleasant truths.

Ask yourself this: "Regardless of their political leanings, and regardless of the political leanings of their guest, did you ever hear Sean Hannity, Chris Matthews, Paul Begala, Tucker Carlson, or Bill O'Reilly say, 'You know, you might be right about that. I never looked at it your way before.' " ??????
Commercial "news" isn't mean to inform, it's meant to excite, stimulate, and anger people. Just like a professional wrestling match.

In the current media environment, a scholarly, thoughtful man like Rev. Griffin can get buried by noise and conflict. That didn't happen on C-SPAN. For me, it was a revelation to see truth come through on the air, unfiltered by commercial media imperatives.

He is a man alone. Yes, he is a scholar, which is one of the reasons this is so intriguing. And so deeply affecting. He lacks the popstar, ego searching, theatrical, abusive, bombastic, too clever style that I, personally, am sick of. It is not a competition. You're right, Robert. It is one man's search for some moral and ethical fiber in our society on which to build. His distress at our condition is obvious. I get the feeling that he wouldn't ordinarily do something like this. He is compelled to try and awaken this country to look accurately at our government and do something about its immoral behavior. The details are moot. Who wins what debate is trivial. This man is not.

I agree with Robert that this was a moment of truth.

To me, the greatest triumph I could witness would be to see this softspoken, gentle man cut through this wall of horror with his subtle strength and grace. I need to know that can be done.

response to Chip Berlet's review of THe New Pearl Harbor

re #51 thanks Robert. This is more or less what I thought you must have meant. But your previous comment could have been seen as a concession that Griffin had lost the "radio debate" and I wanted you to make that clear. Personally I haven't heard the broadcast but I've read the transcript, and as always it's more than a wrestling match; it's more like an ambush.

I was trained as a competitive debater, so I'm fairly well-versed in the "tactics" that are being used in these so-called "debates". You can have all the facts you need to support your case but if the "house rules" are stacked against you, and "rough tactics" are not only permitted but actually encouraged, it's a tough job.

I can't find the exact spot in the transcript but at one point I thought I was reading a script because the attack-dog was saying [and here I'm paraphrasing of course]:

You were saying "blah-blah-blah" as if it was a fact --- but prominent, professional researchers have traced the source of the original "blah-blah-blah" story and they found that the original source is an anonymous writer. Now, how much credibility does that carry? And yet you act as if "blah-blah-blah" was a proven fact! On the other hand there are a great number of websites which are devoted to investigating "blah-blah-blah" and they all come to the same conclusion: that "blah-blah-blah" is false and therefore "not-blah-blah-blah". And in the face of all that opposition, and based on an anonymous source, you're still saying "blah-blah-blah" and that not only cuts no ice but it also diminishes your credibility, so it's hard to take you seriously when you say "yada-yada-yada".....

Right? Ever seen that one before? It's not actally a single tactic but a flurry of them.

First, the fallacy of "tracing back" to an anonymous source. "Anonymous" means "we don't know who wrote it". So tracing back to an anonymous writer means we didn't trace it at all. That specific charge has to be phony. It's not only faulty reasoning but it's also irrelevant. Because it doesn't matter who first said "blah-blah-blah", the question is : Is "blah-blah-blah" true or false?

Logically, it doesn't matter who said it first. Even if the first guy who ever said it was certifiably insane, that doesn't mean that every single thing he ever said was wrong! So the track-back to a source is a distraction at best, and a track-back to an anonymous source is no counter-argument at all. It's an extremely sophisticated trick. A left-jab followed by a right-cross. Think of it as a combination in that sense.

That's the first part; now comes the other half of the attack. The argument that "there are a large number of websites which are devoted to proving that blah-blah-blah is false..." What does that really mean? It means How much does it cost to set up a website? How much does it cost to set up a bunch of websites? Does it matter? I argue that the cost is negligible. Especially if the budget happens to be secret and the mission happens to be "discredit anyone who has the utter audacity to go around saying blah-blah-blah".

We know the CIA and other intelligence agencies have been in the publishing business for a long long time We know they are not only interested in paper publishing but all media. Movies. Magazines. Television. Did I happen to mention television? And of course let's not forget those pesky internets.

The greater the number of sites devoted to claims of not-blah-blah-blah and the greater their slick charming air of professional ease, the more it makes me think that perhaps, just perhaps... blah-blah-blah is as true as it appears to be, all the anti-blah-blah-blah talk is professional propaganda, and remember they only fight the battles that are important to them. So if they are funding dozens of websites devoted to not-blah-blah-blah, this is fairly clear evidence not only that blah-blah-blah is true, but also --- and even more importantly --- that widespread knowledge of blah-blah-blah would be extremely damaging to the regime.

But who has time to say all that in a sound bite?. Who in the middle of all this would have the presence of mind to say: "Those websites were set up to fight the people who say blah-blah-blah because blah-blah-blah is so blindingly obvious that any group of people left to their own devices would all be saying blah-blah-blah before very long ... why should there be such a rash of websites "devoted" to that very question? Is that not suspicious in and of itself? All those websites are propaganda so blatant that their mere presence proves my point, so thanks for mentioning them"???

Nobody.That's who. Instead they go "gulp" and there's all this meaningless stuff to deal with where there should have been a question. So that's the second half. You get hit by the "anonymous source" combination followed by the "numerous websites" fallacy. To extend the analogy, it's not just a left-right combination anymore; now it's a multi-punch flurry! This kind of flurry is not a natural mode of conversation. It's a prepared and rehearsed and deliberately misleading tactic. And it happens all the time.

What if you go into a debate with a reasonable argument and some dude drops a flurry on you? What does that say? To me it says he has no case: his opposition to your argument is based on tactics and nothing else. And the judges will see it too, if they are astute.

In the present case, it was clear to me that there was an ambush going on, even before the flurry; I knew it was an ambush as soon as the attack-dog steered the conversation around to "who was the first person who said blah-blah-blah?"

Nobody who was genuinely interested in finding out whether or not blah-blah-blah was true --- in fact, nobody but a sophisticated debater, who didn't have a leg to stand on --- could possibly care who was the first person to say "blah-blah-blah". Because it doesn't matter who said "blah-blah-blah" first or who says "blah-blah-blah" now. Who says it is rrelevant. Is "blah-blah-blah" true or false? That's what we are trying to find out, isn't it?

Well, in proper debates, at least in my experience, the judges knew all this. They should know it, that's why they're the judges. They should all know that if somebody starts asking an opponent "Do you know who first said blah-blah-blah?", this is the logical equivalent of throwing a shoe, or screaming "oh yeah? well your mother wears army boots!" ... meaningless. lost. hopeless ...

But on the other hand there's Lincoln and he was quite correct when he said

you can fool all the people some of the time

as is proven these days with nauseating regularity.

But on the other hand if you can filter out all the tactics, and get back to "just the facts ma'am", it's often fairly easy to see who won the debate.

If my longish and mostly disorganized rant proves one thing, it's this: We need to get better at recognizing the tactics being used against us.

If it proves two things, the second thing is: I need some sleep!!

I apologize in advance for the inevitable typos. I'll talk to you again soon! And in the meantime, please don't read my blog!!

Partridge #45,#50 In a sense he looses the debate ... but note that he says:

Well, sure, and that's exactly what I'm arguing for, as you know. My last chapter is called, "The Need for a Full Investigation." I do not make charges in the book. I do not draw conclusions. What I do is say that we have a prima facie case here and a massive prima facie case that involves every aspect of the official story, and these things need to be checked.

So the debate should be about whether or not the official story answers all the questions that need to be asked. It is a straw man to debate Griffin about what actually happened because that is not what he has said his purpose is.

His basic thrust, according to the above quote anyway, is to prove an independent investigation should take place because the official story doesn't hold up. In guess that also implies that the 911 Commission was not "independent" in the sense that they did not seek so solve the hard questions.

I note that you also point this out in your #50. Another thing is that Chip Berlet casts his criticism as "I think Griffin should do better fact checking" to which Griffin did not give a clear enough response.

Griffin should admit factual flaws and correct them instead of saying "my type of presentation is cumulative and does not depend on just one or two facts" which is what I understood his comeback to be.

Winter Patriot exposes the tactical essence of the debate and the characteristics it had. He points out that it was not a debate intending to improve the situation, but rather one to subvert the situation.

And there is one exchange that reveals, at least to me, that both sides of the isle on this one need to take a deep breath, loose personal attachment to the facts, and once again grasp the norm in understanding that the facts belong to everyone.

Notice:

"DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: Well, it is. You start with the premise that it is not good for people to believe in this conspiracy, so you construct a refutation of ---

CHIP BERLET: That's not what I say. I say it's not good to believe in conspiracies that cannot be proven by available evidence. I have worked as a paralegal investigator on lawsuits against government intelligence abuse. I have been involved in suits against the C.I.A., military intelligence, F.B.I., local police. I know that the government engages in conspiracy. I'm arguing for fact-checking."

This alerts me to the possibility that both sides are perhaps spending too much time on their own argument and not enough time actually listening to the other side and thereby getting a grip on what the criticisms really are.

Did anyone read the Griffin refutation of the Berlet criticism (Teresa #54)?

It does show that Griffin understands formal logic and its use in debating an issue.

It also reinforces my belief that Berlet et. al. have not grasped the purpose of the book and Griffin's arguments because they have not carefully and concisely appraised what exactly the arguments are.

One characteristic of good civil and formal debate, perhaps most excellently institutionalized in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence, is to (when unsure of an opponent's position) move for a "more definite statement".

A judge well versed in the procedures will look at the assertions and determine if they are clear enough for a reasonable person to understand, and if so will deny the request for clarification, or if unclear, will require the other opponent to clearify the assertions, allegations, or statements.

The purpose of this rule is to make sure the assertions, allegations, and statements are known to all concerned before admissions or denials take place.

Once it is known what each party agrees to be the assertions, allegations, and statements, then admissions and denials can take place coherently.

This avoids the muddle of arguing over what both sides already agree to, and focuses instead on making the arguments focus on what the parties disagree on. And it makes the arguments more clear by focusing them specifically.

At least the two debaters exposed their proposed criticisms to each other before they were publicly displayed, and made some modifications prior to publication, according to the webpage.

However these efforts were not fully compliant with a strong effort to "join issues" in a crisp and clear manner.

The result is that the readers are burdened with sifting thru the argument and counter arguments about who said what and what it meant.

This detracts and deviates from a full focus and we loose some of the momentum to frame the issues and to attach factual evidence to those issues.

WP #55
First of all, thanks Winter Patriot for the excellent lesson in debate!! It was very easy for me to understand & I'm grateful you took the time to discuss some of the tactics used in debate (for me and any others who don't have training in debate.)

The part about Griffin not being credible because of an anonymous source is a hoot! He should have just said, "yes, we call him Deeper Throat!"

Anyway, I'm still trying to catch up on the incredible comments that appear here each day! Y'all are amazing!

#55 Winter Patriot,
This, in my opinion, is one important nugget from your so-called 'rant':

'So if they are funding dozens of websites devoted to not-blah-blah-blah, this is fairly clear evidence not only that blah-blah-blah is true, but also --- and even more importantly --- that widespread knowledge of blah-blah-blah would be extremely damaging to the regime.'

YES.

And I thank you for that plunge into debate tactics. You do pretty well when you're sleep-deprived, son!

I have not heard/read the radio debate of which you were speaking, but one tactic I've noticed (well it would be hard NOT to notice it, it's so blatant & so frequent) listening to Hannity is the interrupting. They
all do it, but there seems to be a certain kind of very persistent, aggressive interrupting that fairly often succeeds in tripping up the opponent, causing him to lose his train of thought entirely. He did this to Al Franken brilliantly. O'Reilly does it daily, I think, but it's actually painful to my psyche to watch him too often so I don't.

Joan #59

"They" have been using the "flurry" tactic with impunity for so many years & by doing so (with a total lack of integrity) have made it difficult or impossible for the other side to be able to join in a real debate and usually bury any other perspective & keep it from even being heard.

In the early '90s I was appalled at the kind of bashing I heard coming from the wrong-right. I still wonder how people can stand it, much less support it.

I'm from another planet, I guess.

re 60 --- Kira apparently we are from the same planet because I have the same sorts of questions about earthlings as you do --- especially Amerikan earthlings!

re 59 --- yes Joan you are exactly right and there are several other tactics which are used frequently but I didn't have time to go into it all ... we don't need this all at once, do we? ... Another of my favorites is called "piling on" or "ganging up" ... two fire-breathing neocons agains one tame [not to say timid] liberal or democrat or whatever, and whenever the "lone lefty" starts to make sense, one of the fire-breathers starts interrupting while the other starts throwing in logically irrelevant questions... gotta run, more later...

ps thanks for all the kind words ... you guys rock!

HIGH RESOLUTION VIDEOS OF THE 9/11 HOAX (AND MUCH MORE).

Here you will find hi-resolution video of the (obvious) demolition of World Trade Center Seven and of the (less obvious) demolition of the Towers. The Naudet brothers stunning footage of the first plane hitting the North tower is also presented (at least one of the brothers quite clearly knew the first aircraft was about to hit the North Tower) together with less well known footage of the first plane hitting the tower, accidently caught by someone filming, while waiting in traffic.

If you are using Windows Media Player you need the DivX3.11a codec plug-in (many non-Microsoft movie players come standard with the codecs necessary to play DivX movies (eg Mplayer for Linux)).

If you do not already have it, you can find it here:

http://public.planetmirr...ndows/divx_3.11alpha.zip

The files from public.planetmirror.com are bit for bit the same (I checked) as those I have had on my system for years (with no harmful effects). You unzip the files and double click on Register_DivX.exe

If you wish to learn about DivX movies, in particular, why they sometimes play upside-down, read this thread:

http://globalresearch.ca....net/viewtopic.php?t=599

HIGH RESOLUTION VIDEO

Here HiRes (high resolution) video means video recorded with the DivX3.11a codec with the (variable) bitrate set to 6000 and crispness/smoothness set to 100. The HiRes videos are much larger files than necessary for good viewing. They are meant to convey as much of the original detail as possible.

THE FIRST PLANE STRIKE ON THE NORTH TOWER

The First Plane Hitting The North Tower (13 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×408) Copy.
Video taken while waiting to enter the Brooklyn Tunnel (0.8 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 360×240) New.

THE SECOND PLANE STRIKE ON THE SOUTH TOWER

Plane Hitting South Tower. View from south (10 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×472) Copy.
View from north-east (4.9 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 716×480) Copy.
View from north (13 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×472) Copy.
View from east (1.2 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×356) Copy.
Close view from east (1.3 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×356) Includes the "911 In Plane Site" flash. Copy.
Another view from north (0.8 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×356) Copy.
Short view from north-east (1.2 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 696×472) Copy.
Longer view from north-east (2.8 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 716×480) Copy.

NORTH TOWER DEMOLITION

Video one of the WTC North Tower demolition (2 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 492×408) Copy.
Video two of the WTC North Tower demolition (5.6 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 716×480) Newest.
Video three of the WTC North Tower demolition (0.5 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 676×408) Newest.
Video four of the WTC North Tower demolition (13 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×472) Copy.
Premature Detonations in North Tower Demolition. (4.8 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 692×472) Newest.
North Tower Premature Detonations (Marked) (2.8 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×472) Copy. Newest.
More North Tower Premature Detonations (6.1 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 696×472) Copy.
Another view of the North Tower Predetonations (1.4 MB HiRes Codec: MPEG1 352×264) New.

For those interested, here is an article on the Premature Detonations.

SOUTH TOWER DEMOLITION

Video one of the WTC South Tower demolition (1.6 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 716×480) New.
Video two of the WTC South Tower demolition (2.3 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×408) New.
Video three of the WTC South Tower demolition (1.5 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×352) New.
Video four of the WTC South Tower demolition (1.7 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×356) New.
South Tower Premature Detonations (Marked) (0.4 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 704×480) Newest.

WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDING SEVEN DEMOLITION

The WTC Building Seven Demolition (0.9 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×408) Copy.
The WTC Building Seven Demolition (another view) (0.8 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×408) Copy.
The WTC Building Seven Demolition (yet another view) (9.5 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×408) Copy.
The WTC Building Seven Demolition - Four (0.8 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 360×240)
The WTC Building Seven Demolition - Five (1.1 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 542×407)

PENTAGON

Pentagon Collapse One (2.2 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 696×472) Copy.
Pentagon Collapse Two (0.8 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 696×472) Copy.
Video one of the Pentagon on Fire (4.2 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×480) New.
Video two of the Pentagon on Fire (3.5 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×464) New.
Video three of the Pentagon on Fire (1.4 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×464) New.
Video of the Pentagon damage from the air (9.6 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×480) New.

WHAT A DEMOLITION LOOKS LIKE

What A Demolition Looks Like (6 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 600×320) New.

WOMAN WAVING FROM WTC NORTH TOWER IMPACT HOLE.

Woman Waving From WTC North Tower Impact Hole. (1.2 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692×356) Copy.

The woman is in the lower righthand corner and why this is of interest.

OTHER VIDEO

Painful Deceptions by Eric Hufschmid (windows media player comes with the necessary codec to play these).

Painful Deceptions. Part 1 (39 MB Codec: WMV1 360×240)
Painful Deceptions. Part 2 (42 MB Codec: WMV1 360×240)
Painful Deceptions. Part 3 (35 MB Codec: WMV1 360×240)
Painful Deceptions. Part 4 (28 MB Codec: WMV1 360×240)
Painful Deceptions - Pentagon Update (5 MB WMV1 360×240)

Alternate Painful Deceptions (only the correct stuff about WTC7 (no missile crap))

Painful Deceptions (22 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 360×235). The section on World Trade Center Seven.

WTC Construction Manager (0.8 MB WMV3 320×240) states WTC would survive multiple airplane strikes.
911 In Plane Site Debunked (25 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 360×240)
911 In Plane Site. (104 MB Codec: DivX5 352×240)
911 In Plane Site. (129 MB Codec: Quicktime MOV 352×240)
Von Kleist admitting possible involvement and even guilt, in the events of 9/11 (1.3 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 340×240).

From the page http://www.question911.com/links.php you can download:

All the "Painful Deceptions" videos mentioned above
Painful Deceptions - 911 Commission Report (25 MB WMV1 360×240)
Painful Deceptions - Pentagon Update (5 MB WMV1 360×240) same as above but misnamed "Uranium Report"
911 In Plane Site Directors Cut. 2 parts (45 MB and 47 MB WMV3 320×240)
911 In Plane Site Update (8 MB WMV1 240×160)

MORE 9/11 RESOURCES (ANIMATIONS, BOOKS ETC).

BOOKS:

The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin (entire book).

ANIMATED GRAPHICS:

Predetonations in the World Trade Center Demolitions Copy 1 and commentary.
North Tower Demolition 0.9 MB Copy 1 and commentary.
South Tower Demolition 2.1 MB Copy 1 and commentary.
First Plane Hits 2.2 MB Copy 1. From Naudet Brothers footage and why this is of interest.
What a jets exhaust does to a car 0.9 MB Copy 1 and why this is of interest.
World Trade Center Seven Demolition 0.6 MB Copy 1.
The dust cloud that gave rise to the WTC6 explosion myth 0.9 MB Copy 1 and why this is of interest.

SOME ARTICLES FROM THE GLOBAL RESEARCH FORUM:

http://globalresearch.ca...ms.net/viewforum.php?f=2

THE 9/11 "MISSILE HITS THE PENTAGON" HOAX.
MANY HI-RESOLUTION VIDEOS OF THE 9/11 HOAX (AND MORE).
WTC TOWERS - PREDETONATIONS OF EXPLOSIVES CAUGHT ON VIDEO.
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER FIRES (NOT SO HOT EH?).
SO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED (TO THE HIJACKED FLIGHTS) ON 9/11?
THE SUPER-LUCKY PENTAGON RETROFIT (A 9/11 SMOKING GUN).
MEDIA RELEASES FAKED PHOTOGRAPHS OF 9-11 PENTAGON EXPLOSION.
THE 9-11 PENTAGON HOAX (WHY A BOEING 757 DID NOT HIT THE PENTAGON).
SO WHAT DID HIT THE PENTAGON? (PROBABLY AN AA BOEING 737)
THE GOVERNMENT FEMA REPORT. ITS AUTHORS DELIBERATELY LIED!!
DID JEWS FRAME THE ARABS FOR 9/11? DID JEWS DO 9/11?
ARREST FOR JEWS CLAIMING GAS CHAMBERS TRUE (BY US MILITARY).
SOME ARTICLES ON THE TRUTH OF THE HOLOCAUST (BONUS VIDEO).
MANY OF THE SUPPOSED 9-11 HIJACKERS ARE STILL ALIVE.
EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSES.
THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS CONSPIRACY THEORY OF THEM ALL.
COMMENTS ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DEMOLITION.
THE GOVERNMENT FEMA "INVESTIGATIONS" - TWIN TOWERS - PART 1
THE GOVERNMENT FEMA "INVESTIGATIONS" - TWIN TOWERS - PART 2
THE GOVERNMENT FEMA "INVESTIGATIONS" - WTC SEVEN
CALCULATIONS SAY 14 TONS OF EXPLOSIVE USED TO DOWN EACH WTC TOWER
SHOCK, HORROR, ALLIANZ AG INSURANCE TO INVESTIGATE WTC FIRES?
Versicherungsgesellschaft Allianz AG zum Nachforschen der WTC-Feuer?
WOMAN WAVING FROM WTC NORTH TOWER IMPACT HOLE (VIDEO).
WATCH THE WTC EXPLOSIONS HERE. WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED?
YET ANOTHER 9/11 SMOKING GUN (NO AUTOS BLOWN OFF FREEWAY)?
THE RAG "POPULAR MECHANICS" LOSES ALL CREDIBILITY.
http://letsroll911.org = FALSE OPPOSITION IN PLAIN SIGHT.
"911 IN PLANE SITE." A TOTALLY BOGUS PRODUCTION.
THE FAKE EXPLOSION AT WORLD TRADE CENTER SIX.
FACTS ABOUT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS.
Jo�l van der Reijden = MORE FALSE OPPOSITION.
THE PENTA-LAWN 2000 HOAX.

9/11 WEB-SITES

These are deliberately suppressed, so I specially mention them.

http://guardian.150m.com (has smaller images for faster downloads)
http://guardian.250free.com (has smaller images for faster downloads)
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/
http://911review.org/Wge...nerdcities.com/guardian/
http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/

THE COMPLETE GOVERNMENT FEMA REPORT INTO THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSES.

Introduction - The FEMA "investigations" Copy 1.
WTC 1 and WTC 2 - The Twin Towers - The FEMA "investigations" Copy 1.
WTC 3 - The FEMA "investigations" Copy 1.
WTC 4,5 and 6 - The FEMA "investigations" Copy 1.
WTC 7 - The FEMA "investigations" Copy 1.
The Bankers Trust Building - The FEMA "investigations" Copy 1.
Peripheral Buildings - The FEMA "investigations" Copy 1.
Overview of Fire Protection in Buildings - The FEMA "investigations" Copy 1.
Structural Steel and Steel Connections - The FEMA "investigations" Copy 1.
WTC Steel Data Collection - The FEMA "investigations" Copy 1.

Please add to this list here http://globalresearch.ca....net/viewtopic.php?t=679 (No Login Necessary).

Copied from http://globalresearch.ca....net/viewtopic.php?t=599

re # 62 that's a great post; thanks so much for sharing it here.

9/11 Truth On American TV #62 Thanks for your post.

I commented on the manner in which some of these videos are named (link here).

David Ray Griffin's talk, "9/11 and the American Empire," will be be aired AGAIN on CSpan2's BookTV this Saturday, May 7, at 2:30 PM Eastern time.

Set your VCR. It's a great talk!

See: http://www.booktv.org/Ge...gID=5677&schedID=362

Winter Patriot: You commented on BradsBlog that you apprecated the list of links that I posted, however, you never posted them at your site or linked to them.

Why is that?

#66
I don't understand why you're suggesting Winter Patriot is a fake (as your moniker suggests.)

Would you please explain?

#66 Winter Patriot gave you a compliment and you should leave it at that.

He may not have enough space, etc. etc. Plus he has known about this from day one so he is not a neophite at it.