• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

911 Audio Debates Thread!

CompusMentus said:
Bill, not really a debate though is it? More like an arse-kissing contest. How about something with a bit more meat? These two just kick through the 9/11 CT boneash.

Got anything that includes opposition to the TM point of view?


Compus
Click to expand...

I'll have a look but I don't think nything effective is available in that sense. That seems to be the rule these days. I don't see it improving for the OCT either

Did you notice that at he Commonwealth Club 60 of the 200 people present initially believed the OCT but by the end 54 of those 60 believed the explosive controlled demolition theory ?
 
Last edited:
Bill have you listened to the other stuff? I'm interested in what the Truthers of JREF think of any of these debates.
 
knife fight colobus said:
For now I could only find Jim Fetzer vs Alan Colmes:
Click to expand...


Oh I sooo wish I hadn't listened to that one. It had me seething. When Alan Colmes took the caller that had lost a relative on Flight 93, Fetzer was coming out with all sorts of garbage as to why his Uncle was probably still alive and in on the plot (but I'm not saying he is even though I am!) - disgusting.

Fetzer changed his claim about the phone calls within a few minutes, but couldn't bring himself to admit they'd happened.

Phone calls were impossible because he'd been told they were.
Phone calls were nearly impossible because he'd been told they were.
They might have been possible, but you needed a credit card, AND what self respecting terrorists would have allowed them to make calls?

So the caller had spoken to his uncle while he was on board the plane- not so says Fetzer, he's probably living in Europe and only pretending to be dead so Bush and Cheney can play war.

Not to mention when he says if he was faced with several men with box cutters(short bladed weapons perfectly suited for enclosed spaces) he would have beaten them up with his hand luggage..... Yea you go girl!

The comment about the planes hitting the WTC was another monitor screaming moment.

"Don't worry about being trapped above the impact points guys! Don't worry about the choking black smoke and the searing heat - because Jim Fetzer says it's only like a pencil hitting a mosquito net!"

Oh gawd.. what a clown.
 
knife fight colobus said:
Bill have you listened to the other stuff? I'm interested in what the Truthers of JREF think of any of these debates.
Click to expand...

Sure. I've heard lots of them over the years. Nice that you are collating them. Compus too.

These days I am more interested in the tone. In the beginning it was all laugh-at-the-silly-conspiracy-theorists and all that good stuff Continuous ridicule. It wasn't very easy to listen to.

Things are different now what with the boot being on the other foot. The tone is respectful and the demeanour of the opposition is often pleasingly defensive. We have made great strides and you can tell it simply from listening to the interviews.
 
Last edited:
ScottyMate said:
Oh I sooo wish I hadn't listened to that one. It had me seething. When Alan Colmes took the caller that had lost a relative on Flight 93, Fetzer was coming out with all sorts of garbage as to why his Uncle was probably still alive and in on the plot (but I'm not saying he is even though I am!) - disgusting.

Fetzer changed his claim about the phone calls within a few minutes, but couldn't bring himself to admit they'd happened.

Phone calls were impossible because he'd been told they were.
Phone calls were nearly impossible because he'd been told they were.
They might have been possible, but you needed a credit card, AND what self respecting terrorists would have allowed them to make calls?

So the caller had spoken to his uncle while he was on board the plane- not so says Fetzer, he's probably living in Europe and only pretending to be dead so Bush and Cheney can play war.

Not to mention when he says if he was faced with several men with box cutters(short bladed weapons perfectly suited for enclosed spaces) he would have beaten them up with his hand luggage..... Yea you go girl!

The comment about the planes hitting the WTC was another monitor screaming moment.

"Don't worry about being trapped above the impact points guys! Don't worry about the choking black smoke and the searing heat - because Jim Fetzer says it's only like a pencil hitting a mosquito net!"

Oh gawd.. what a clown.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is definitely one of the more ridiculous ones. Fetzer does come off as a soulless prick.
 
Bump.

I'm bumping my beloved thread back from the dead because I now have a lot of time to help and contribute to www.911debates.com which Compus has put together.

If anyone wants to contribute their thoughts on any of the debates posted so far or send links of other debates to me that would be awesome!

Also, the links at 911debates and the ones I've provided in this thread are either not working or sending ppl to some other page.

The ones that lead you directly to a blank Google page you can still download. Right click on the link that I have provided and save the mp3 file.

I'm also posting some of them again here:

DRG v Chip Berlet
here

DRG v George Monbiot
here

Kevin Ryan v Michael Shermer
here
callers

And here is a new one I think, it has Shyam Sunder:
here
 
1. Some of these have video

2. you should have a youtube account to host these imo.
 
Edx said:
1. Some of these have video

2. you should have a youtube account to host these imo.
Click to expand...

I'm more of an mp3 guy. I like to have them to listen to on my ipod.

I do have a youtube account! And you reminded me that I do have a video of me arguing with some Truthers. I just have videos of a group of friends and I arguing with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort for now...
 
knife fight colobus said:
http://www.paulsdomain.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=615885

Jeff Hill v. Craig Ranke of CIT

I haven't listened to it yet and have no idea who Jeff Hill is but I wanted to bump this thread so here we are.
Click to expand...

Hill's the Crazy Canuck. He earned that sobriquet by calling the NY counter-terrorism task force of the FBI and suggesting that they watch the move Loose Change on the internet to find out who really committed the crimes of 9-11. Repeatedly. Generally seems thoroughly stoned out of his gourd, so I don't have high hopes for his debunking of Cranky Ranke.

BTW, there's a terrific free web-based application called YouTube to MP3; I use it to download a lot of Truther videos that basically amount to speeches.
 
Brainster said:
Hill's the Crazy Canuck. He earned that sobriquet by calling the NY counter-terrorism task force of the FBI and suggesting that they watch the move Loose Change on the internet to find out who really committed the crimes of 9-11. Repeatedly. Generally seems thoroughly stoned out of his gourd, so I don't have high hopes for his debunking of Cranky Ranke.

BTW, there's a terrific free web-based application called YouTube to MP3; I use it to download a lot of Truther videos that basically amount to speeches.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm about 40 minutes into it and Craig talks as if he is about to flip out and start yelling and seems really snide...Hill doesn't sound too bad so far but he is awful at debating and is really passive and doesn't really attempt to present any argument...so far at least.

The other issue is that they're debating as if the audience that is listening is pretty much the few ppl who post on P4T and at CIT...they reference a lot of people and quotes and give no context. I mean, this is kind of understandable considering this is just some guy's podcast and there is a good chance that the only ppl who do listen to this are just the posters on P4T and at CIT...but with how much time and freedom they were both allowed they should have at least elaborated on some things.

It is a bummer to a person like me who loves debates because 911 CTs have become so much less popular since 2006. It seems the only people who want to debate Truthers now are other Truthers who are only slightly more crazy than themselves to begin with!

Thanks for the yt to mp3 suggestion, I use zamzar whenever I wanna watch yt videos on my ipod.
 
If you show you've done your homework (at least at Jeff Hill level), i'm sure they would be happy to debate you. You would be the first debunker to be willing to do that (a live audio debate), as far as i know. Brainster was invited nearly two years ago, and while he did similar things with Jon Gold and Dylan Avery, the debate with Craig never happened.

Right, Brainster? What went wrong?
 
Reported? That is ...
Childlike Empress said:
Reported.

We stopped with me asking Brainster why the debate with Craig Ranke never happened.
Click to expand...

Childlike Empress said:
What an evasive crap. Why are your actions dependent on what snake oil sellers do?

Why is the forum search full of Loose Change, Alex Jones, Rob Balsamo, Eric Hufschmid, James Fetzer, Richard Gage etc. pp. and has problems to find something on Ray McGovern, the Jersey Girls, Sibel Edmonds, Daniel Hopsicker, Dave Emory, Nafeez Ahmeed, Peter Dale Scott, Paul Thompson, Sander Hicks or Bob Bowman that is not forced into discussion by me or some other "dissidents"?

I tell you why. You are a bunch of frightened cowards. Shame on you.
Click to expand...
Bob Bowman? He is nuts... lol, you picked the insane people.

Your post is a good reason not to debate you and the 911 truth movement no evidence no action people. Who can debate the delusion masters you support (with the same no evidence 911 truth method)? What you do you discuss how stupid the beam weapons stuff is, or after finding the Passenger DNA and the FDR from Flight 77 in the Pentagon how if flew over the Pentagon or was not even there? Pure idiotic delusions; How do you debate idiots who spew lies and use hearsay and opinions as evidence?



knife fight colobus said:
Hey all,

I became interested in 911 CT because I love listening to debates.
...


Steven Jones vs Leslie Robertson

This one is pretty well rounded. Both Jones and Robertson are civil and it seems like a discussion more than a debate. You still get a great audio source of Robertson stating what he really thinks about the collapses.


...
Click to expand...
The best part was Robertson calling the ideas of Jones nonsense. Robertson was the structural engineer for the WTC towers and understands the CD claims are nonsense. Robertson is the only real expert on the WTC structure.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
If you show you've done your homework (at least at Jeff Hill level), i'm sure they would be happy to debate you. You would be the first debunker to be willing to do that (a live audio debate), as far as i know. Brainster was invited nearly two years ago, and while he did similar things with Jon Gold and Dylan Avery, the debate with Craig never happened.

Right, Brainster? What went wrong?
Click to expand...

I don't recall ever actually being asked to debate Ranke, although I could be wrong. There are several problems that I see with such a debate.

First, I have little interest in doing a podcast or internet "Truther" radio show, for the simple reason that I believe the only value in debating is to sway undecideds. When I'm on the BBC or Rob Breakenridge's program in Calgary, I'm hitting a lot of listeners who may have no firm opinion on the topic. That's not the case with Truther radio.

Second, debating Ranke would come down to a few simple observations: Eyewitnesses are quite often wrong in their memory, and where their memory differs from the physical evidence, go with the physical evidence. Virtually every episode of CSI highlights this point.

Third, I don't feel the need. I see little evidence that the NOC/flyover theory is gaining converts. Many "Truthers" have done excellent work debunking the CIT gang, including Arabesque, Caustic Logic (former truther), and Jim Hoffman and Russ Pickering.
 
Keep it on topic and keep it civil. If you feel you should report a post, then do so. There is no need to announce it.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Childlike Empress said:
Thanks for the answer, Brainster.

(edit due to removal of derail (thanks): Here's another recent audio debate:)

Dave Emory goes deep with Daniel Hopsicker, aired June 1st 2010, 60min, 63MB
Click to expand...

This is hardly a "debate."

I love WFMU, a free-form listener supported radio station in New Jersey (check out the tons of free music and other goodies on their blog), but Dave Emory is not a skeptic and he doesn't debate Hopsicker.

Here's a description of Emory's show on WFMU from Wikipedia.

Programs consist of two 30-minute monologues or telephone interviews on one or more topics, including Fascism, Corporatism, genocide, the Cold War, Fifth column movements, and international banking scandals. Recurring topics also include the Kennedy assassination and its alleged relations to the FBI, George H. W. Bush, Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal, German-controlled industry and banking, the Muslim Brotherhood, 9/11, the Bush family and its business connections to the Osama Bin Laden family and the Third Reich (through Senator Prescott Bush), the P-2 Lodge, disinformation, mind control and cults.
Click to expand...

I'm listening to the program right now and Hopsicker is going on and on about his conspiracy theories about the school in Venice, Florida, where some of the 9/11 hijackers took fight training and nary a discouraging word is voiced by Emory. There are lots of digressions (including something or other about General Chiang Kai-shek and CIA drug smuggling) but I don't think I'll going to stick around to hear the "dots" get connected.

This audio is a complete waste of time for skeptics.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom