NEW 911 DEBATE BLOG

Gerard Holmgren

NEW 911 DEBATE BLOG

Thu Jul 13, 2006 16:17

NEW 911 DEBATE BLOG

Gerard Holmgren wrote:
Jacob, I have started a blog at
http://911debate.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Debate address moved
Due to some technical teeething problems, this debate has been moved to
http://national911debate.blogspot.com/

Gerard Holmgren - Summary of main points of evidence
Summary of points of evidence.

The list below is a bullet point of some of the more important and more conclusively proven aspects of the case I present. This list of course does not purport to provide here and now the detailed research and documentation. It is simply an introduction to points which will be presented for debate.
The detailed research and documentation for some of it can be found at

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truth.html

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/S11articles.html

It needs to be divided into a number of sections.

The first is what can be called LIHOP (Let it happen on purpose)
http://national911debate.blogspot.com/
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Debate paramters
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:10:59 +1000
From: Gerard Holmgren holmgren@iinet.net.au

I think Jacob has a good point in asking that we two be allowed to sort out
the parameters ourselves, since we are the two who will be debating. I know
that everyone will have their own legitimate ideas, but if we are not
careful, this will become an endless debate about how to have a debate. I
think that Jacob and I can come to our own agreement.

I also agree that cheap shots at either of us from list recipients prior to
the debate don't really help the process.

There is a place for mass list brawling, but just for the moment, Jacob and
I are trying to organize something a little different.

Nevertheless, I thought Jon Roland's suggestion was thoughtful enough, and
helpfully intended enough that it deserved an acknowledgment.

Jon Roland wrote

[[efore you can have a proper debate you need to agree on a proposition,
"Resolved, that ..." and it doesn't seem to me that there is agreement on
how to frame the question. ]]

I think it would be better to apply that principle to each mini debate with
the larger debate.

For example, whether a big plane hit the pentagon is a self contained
debate. If it was to be resolved in the affirmative, then it would still
leave the question of whether it was actually AA 77, as a separate
proposition. And that would still leave the question of how the air force
failed to stop it, etc,etc.

So we see propositions nested within other propositions.

The ramifications of those self contained debates have wider implications
within the larger debate - ie What really happened on sept 11 ?
Who did it ?

The two latter questions are too complex and multi faceted for a single
proposition.

There are some aspects of the larger question which interact with others in
a complex manner, but there are others which are reasonably self contained.

By deconstructing the larger debate into its individual component
propositions, to the extent which is sensible and practical, we follow the
above principle, without the risk of excluding relevant issues and evidence.

I must also point out that I don't claim to know everything which actually
happened on sept 11. You could pick me a fraud straight away if I claimed
that I did. I claim to know a lot of what did *not* happen. From this, some
specifics which did happen can be deduced with varying degrees of
confidence.

Others can be deduced to within a range of possibilities, but still leaving
many questions open. Some are still a mystery. So from my side of the
debate, much of the argument is along the lines of

"The Govt claims x,y,z. I propose that this claim is impossible, and leaves
us only a,b,c as the remaining possibilities."

Or sometimes.

"The govt claims x,y,z. I will demonstrate that this is unsubstantiated by
any evidence and implausible to the verge of impossibility. I cannot say
exactly what happened, as there are many possibilities, but I can say what
did *not* happen."

It's not always easy to frame such arguments with a snappy formal
proposition, although the wider question can often be deconstructed into a
composite of mini propositions, which are then added together to form the
larger picture.

--
------------------------------
RE: 9/11 DEBATE......

Gerard wrote:

>> I didn't ask Jacob to debate 10 different theories. I asked him
>> to debate specific pieces of evidence which I've put forward.

Precisely, and this is a large part of what I find so nauseating in the
comments of those defending the official story, here and elsewhere: that is,
the repeated assertion that 9/11 truth advocates are talking about theories
when they are actually talking about facts. Also nauseating is the evident
dependence of the official side on the ignorance of the average person -
this is also, of course, insulting.

What are these ten different "theories" that Gerard has been proposing,
Jacob? Put up or shut up.

I can understand, now that I think of it, why Jacob wouldn't accept
the condition that the term "conspiracy theory" not be used during a
debate on this subject. Without this linguistic trick, defenders of
the official story really have very little left at their disposal.

Roy McCoy
Rotterdam, NL

Be careful out there!

Police are warning all men who frequent clubs, parties and local pubs to be
alert and stay cautious when offered a drink from any woman. Many females
use a date rape drug on the market called "Beer."

For a video to see how beer works click here:
http://www.brackenspub.com/beer.swf

In previous research and video documentaries by many people including Eric Hufschmid, evidence was presented that a missing Global Hawk aircraft is what hit the Pentagon: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1336167662031629480&q=painful+deception

Here’s more.

TOTAL 911 INFO

9/11 - FLIGHT 77: Pentagon eyewitness IDs Global Hawk

Sun Jul 9, 2006 01:32

72.201.70.108

* Pentagon eyewitness IDs Global Hawk
http://www.total911.info/2006/07/pentagon-eyewitness-ids-global-hawk.html

Audio report from Republic Broadcasting Network.
Summaries via LibertyForum July 7, 2006:
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Piper/0607/20060707_Fri_Piper.mp3