To debate or not to debate, that is the question!

This forum will be dedicated to responses to our detractors.

To debate or not to debate, that is the question!

Adam Ruff
Curious Citizen
Adam Ruff
Curious Citizen
Joined: 21 May 2010, 00:31

22 May 2011, 20:09 #1

To debate or not to debate, that is the question.

By Adam Ruff


In light of the recent propaganda stunts the state run media complex have been trying to foist off on us as truth, I think it is more important than ever for us in the 9/11 truth movement (truthers), to do a refresher course on how to spot lies and disinformation, and a refresher course on how to root those lies and liars out of our movement. One of the very best ways to expose deceptive individuals or groups is to engage them in public debate and directly challenge their assertions. These days, however, actually engaging in such a debate is much easier said than done. In fact, it can be fairly stated that, given the choice to debate or not to debate a contentious issue, many prominent figures in the 9/11 truth movement are increasingly choosing not to debate. My challenge in writing this article is to examine the reasons for this increasing avoidance of legitimate debate, and to highlight the inherent danger to our movement should we fail to reestablish an environment where legitimate civil debate is part of our daily discourse. It is natural for people to disagree, especially about complex issues such as 9/11, but when those disagreements can no longer be openly debated because a hostile environment has been created within our movement, it is time we recognize that something is very wrong and time we do something about it. It is also time we face the strong possibility that this corruption of our movement leading us away from open civil debate and towards divisiveness and hostility is not accidental.

Those of us who have investigated the 9/11 false flag attack, have a keen eye for spotting deceptions, such as the Hollywood scripted shootout at the Pakistani corral, that supposedly got Bin Laden after years of searching. Most of us truthers are all too familiar with massive deceptions such as this, and we are familiar with the nefarious reasons they are perpetrated. Many of us are also familiar with the 25 Rules of Disinformation: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050116064744556 and with the COINTELPRO program: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO because we have experienced them in operation against us and our fellow citizens first hand. We know very well how these disinformation techniques are used to fool the gullible into buying “the big lie” and we are painfully aware of the cost, in human lives, of the masses accepting those lies at face value.

What many of us in the 9/11 truth movement are not familiar with, however, is the way these same disinformation and counter intelligence techniques are used against us from within our own ranks. Although a more sophisticated infiltration and disinformation campaign is required to effectively penetrate the 9/11 truth movement, in my opinion, it has been done successfully. Cass Sunstein openly advocated such a sophisticated campaign and called his version of it “cognitive infiltration”. http://dailycensored.com/2010/09/06/cognit...oject-censored/

An increasing number of us within the 9/11 Truth Movement, myself included, are convinced that disinformation specialists, aka “cognitive infiltrators”, have deeply penetrated our ranks and are working to destroy the 9/11 truth movement from within. For us the question is not “have we been infiltrated”, but rather the question is “by how many”? For us the issue is how do we recognize these infiltrators, how do we expose them, and most importantly, how do we defeat them?

How do we first recognize, and then expose, the genuine cognitive infiltrators. How do we distinguish them from the well intentioned but misguided truthers out there, who are inadvertently providing them with aid and comfort? To do this, we need to be acutely aware of the tactics and the modus operandi of cognitive infiltrators. We need to recognize how they differ from misguided individuals, or “dupes”, who may, at first glance, appear to be infiltrators themselves. My own experience, surrounding the contentious pentagon issue, and resulting infighting within the truth movement, have allowed me to observe cognitive infiltrators and their dupes, in action, first hand.

At the center of this storm of controversy within the truth movement is the work of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/index.html and Pilots for 9/11 Truth (P4T) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ who have painstakingly analyzed the pentagon attack. These two organizations have uncovered compelling evidence that flight 77 did not actually strike the pentagon. In summary these groups have effectively proven that the pentagon crime scene was staged, and the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) data, allegedly from flight 77, does not support impact with the pentagon, nor does it support the “official” flight path, and is very likely to be fabricated data. It is critically important to note, that this evidence is particularly dangerous to the perpetrators of 9/11, because, once it is widely accepted, there is no way they can evade the obvious conclusion, that 9/11 was in fact an inside job. Who else but insiders could stage evidence at the pentagon, and falsify the FDR data, or lie about what it really means? With the controlled demolition (CD) of the three towers in New York there is, arguably, no definitive proof that insiders did the deed. At the WTC crime scene the perpetrators do have, a weak, but still plausible, fall-back position, in which they could admit CD took down the towers, but still shift blame to outsiders for planting the explosives, and by so doing escape justice themselves. That is obviously not an ideal situation for the perpetrators to be in but it is far better than the alternative. There is no such fall-back position, or escape from justice, from the CIT/P4T evidence at the pentagon, because, no one could reasonably believe, that outsiders could have penetrated pentagon security, to the degree necessary, to stage the crime scene, or to falsify the FDR data, or lie about what it shows, and still have it officially endorsed. The pentagon evidence that CIT and P4T have uncovered is, therefore, incredibly dangerous to the insiders who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. Therefore, from the perspective of these insiders, this evidence must be stopped from reaching widespread acceptance at all costs. In step the “cognitive infiltrators” who have been given the monumentally important task of stopping or disrupting CIT and P4T any way they can.

Given this understanding, of the true objectives and priorities of the infiltrators, it becomes a bit easier to recognize them, and to differentiate them, from the dupes, who are unwittingly, following their lead. One of the first goals, of any genuine infiltrator, is to embed themselves, into prominent 9/11 truth organizations, and attempt to gain positions of influence and/or control of those organizations. These infiltrators will strive to become owners, organizers, steering committee members, or moderators, inside prominent 9/11 truth organizations. They will naturally gravitate towards, the largest and most effective organizations, and strive to penetrate as many of these groups as possible. We may therefore have a situation where a single infiltrator now holds positions of authority within multiple organizations. Positioning themselves in this way allows infiltrators to exert considerably more influence over the targeted group, us truthers. Dupes, on the other hand, because of their lack of confidence, due in part to their poor understanding of the issues, avoid taking on leadership positions, preferring instead to follow “leader” figures. This common characteristic of the average dupe makes the task of differentiating them from genuine infiltrators a bit easier. The tell tale difference being confidence. Additionally a dupe is capable, with some difficulty, of admitting errors or altering his/her position, while a genuine operative cannot admit mistakes or change course simply because his/her job is to spread disinformation and disrupt our progress. Telling the truth goes directly against such a mandate.

A signature characteristic, common to genuine infiltrators and their dupe followers, is a consistent avoidance of legitimate debate, even when challenged directly by opponents. The reason for this is that the infiltrator knows that, their contrived disinformation, will not survive a direct public confrontation, with their opponent’s factual information. Debate must be avoided at all costs, therefore, by genuine infiltrators lest their deception be exposed. Dupes will also assiduously avoid debate, but for very different set of reasons. The dupes avoid debate, because they lack confidence in their position, due to their poor grasp of the material, and the fear that their ignorance will be publicly exposed in such a debate. Dupes are also highly susceptible to “groupthink”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink or a kind of hero worship, where they base their arguments not upon their own research, but rather upon the “authority” of the leader figures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority they follow. Dupes, therefore, behave in a less confident way, than genuine operatives do, while still shunning debate. With careful attention to detail, we can differentiate between the genuine operatives, and the less confident dupes who follow them. In the 8 traits of the disinformationalist http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html the avoidance of debate characteristic, common to genuine operatives, and to a lesser degree their dupe followers, is explained as follows.

“1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.”

The main point here is that genuine operatives will do everything to appear authoritative while assiduously avoiding public debate. For example both CIT and P4T have publicly issued a number of debate challenges to their more prominent attackers which have so far all been carefully ignored and/or avoided with only one exception. John Bursill, a well known Australian P4T/CIT critic, debated Craig Ranke of CIT, and was soundly and thoroughly defeated. http://paulsdomain.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=562135 That defeat, is perhaps another reason, the current batch of P4T/CIT attackers, avoid debate at all costs. Bursill himself, who claims to have performed simulator flight tests, states that, based on his tests, P4T presentations are full of errors, yet he steadfastly avoids debating them about those very same issues to this day, perhaps still stinging from the defeat handed to him by Craig Ranke.

A second characteristic, common to genuine infiltrators, is their tendency to work with each other in teams or packs, and to develop multiple dupe followers, to bolster their apparent numbers. Also of note is that genuine operatives, and sometimes dupes too, will strive to develop multiple “sock puppets” or fake personas http://info-wars.org/2011/02/21/black-prop...sona%E2%80%99s/ in order to create the false appearance of popularity for their position. The “teamwork” characteristic is best explained by trait #4 of the 8 traits of the disinformationalist (linked above).

“4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.”

Nowhere, is the teamwork trait, of the infiltrators, more pronounced, than it is in the highly contentious pentagon issue. A number of CIT/P4T attackers work directly in mutually supportive and congratulatory packs. The members of these packs, tend to reference each others’ work within their own, thereby creating a self supporting closed loop of apparent peer review. For example, David Chandler and Jon Cole recently wrote a very shoddy attack piece on CIT, http://911truthnews.com/the-pentagon-a-joi...ndler-and-cole/ which was quickly and decisively responded to and debunked by CIT http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/CI...agon-Statement/ . Chandler and Cole have since steadfastly refused to acknowledge CIT’s powerful response to their paper, and refused to debate this issue with them. The Chandler/Cole piece frequently references Jim Hoffman (a well known CIT attacker) who himself references Arabesque (another well known though anonymous CIT attacker). Chandler/Cole, Hoffman, and Arabesque have each been individually debunked, and forcefully so, by CIT among others yet Chandler/Cole reference both Arabesque and Hoffman. Hoffman in turn traces many of his arguments back to the anonymous Arabesque. Also of significant importance, is the fact that the Chandler/Cole attack piece was posted prominently at 911truthnews (linked above). Truthnews, though only a lightly trafficked website, is a site which is managed, in part, by Victoria Ashley (a notorious CIT attacker herself), who just happens to be Jim Hoffman’s girlfriend. Additionally the Chandler/Cole attack piece was featured on the front page at 911Blogger where, as it happens, Victoria Ashley is now a moderator.

In steps, Richard Gage who, in my opinion, is now surrounded by infiltrators and their dupes, who have managed to gain positions of authority in his organization. Mr. Gage, under considerable pressure from these operatives and dupes, recently withdrew his support of CIT’s presentation National Security Alert. http://911truthnews.com/richard-gage-compl...pport-from-cit/ In the text of that withdrawal letter Gage actually endorsed the attacks of Hoffman, Chandler/Cole, Chris Sarns, Gregg Roberts, and even the notorious Jeff Hill against CIT. Chandler/Cole and Hoffman of course both endorse each other and ultimately trace much of their source material back to the anonymous entity Arabesque. Gregg Roberts references Victoria Ashley, Chris Sarns, Jim Hoffman, and both Frank Legge and Kevin Ryan, who are chemists, trying to position themselves as experts on aviation issues, argue against the genuine experts at P4T. Quite a nice little closed loop. Now I am not saying that I know for a fact that Jim Hoffman, and his prolific CIT attacker partner Victoria Ashley, are infiltrators. I am not saying that I know for certain that Chandler and/or Cole are infiltrators either, or Roberts, or Sarns, or Legge, or Ryan are either, one or more of them could very well just be dupes. What I am saying is that they are all ultimately relying upon the credibility of, and tracing much of their research back to, a single anonymous source, “Arabesque” who, for all they or we know, could work for the NSA “Q” group. http://rr-conspiracy-truth.blogspot.com/20...plug-leaks.html . What I am saying is that these individuals do avoid debate at all costs, do work in self congratulatory packs, do reference and promote each other’s work, creating a closed loop, and do employ various disinformation techniques in their writing. For example, both Hoffman and Chandler/Cole use “Alice in Wonderland Logic” liberally in their attack pieces against CIT. This method of argument is better known as technique #13 of the 25 rules of disinformation.

“13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.”

The pack approach to attacking CIT/P4T is illustrated further when you consider that Jim Hoffman references his own girlfriend Victoria Ashley in his work and she in turn references him in her writings. The closed circle of the CIT/P4T attack group is further exposed by the pack behavior and systematic censorship practiced at 911Blogger. Virtually all of the CIT/P4T attackers just mentioned above, along with a small cadre of other attackers, mostly dupes, can be found actively participating at 911Blogger. This group works as a team, to attack anyone who supports CIT/P4T research, or attempts to question Blogger’s official position on the pentagon attack. An example of this outrageous behavior can be found here: http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/news/2011...-luke-rudkowski . In this particular thread, We Are Change Atlanta announces their event, which will include pentagon survivor April Gallop. Gallop says she did not see evidence of airliner wreckage at the pentagon, despite crawling out the hole in the pentagon facade. The attacks against April Gallop and her supporters begin immediately, with Victronix aka Victoria Ashley launching the first salvo, and others piling on shortly thereafter. Ashley wastes no time again promoting various attack pieces such as Chandler/Cole which, she knows, have been decisively debunked by CIT. Knowing that, she and the other unscrupulous moderators at 911Blogger, have purged virtually everyone who could defend Miss Gallop and CIT. Ashley and the cadre of attackers proceed to badger the organizers of the event, for having the nerve to invite Miss Gallop, an actual pentagon attack survivor, to their event. The brazen hubris of Ashley and these attackers cannot possibly be over emphasized nor can the flagrant disinformation promotion she is knowingly engaged in be over emphasized. They are actually chastising a woman who barely escaped the pentagon attack alive, and who literally crawled out the still smoldering hole with her injured child. The pack chastises her, for stating what she saw, and more importantly did not see, namely airliner wreckage, at the pentagon. They are further chastising the people who organized the event for inviting Gallop in the first place; the hubris is breathtaking. In my view, this one thread alone, illustrates perfectly everything that has gone wrong with the truth movement, and exposes, what in my view, is an operational cognitive infiltration team, working openly in our midst.

In point of fact, Victoria Ashley was recently elevated to the position of moderator at 911Blogger, giving her the ability to silence the opposition. Interestingly Ashley also has considerable influence with the Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice, group, headed up by Steven Jones. http://www.stj911.com/ The Scholars group, as it happens, has two prominent members, Frank Legge and Kevin Ryan, who have recently launched concerted attacks against CIT and P4T as well. I understand that, Frank Legge and David Chandler are currently working on a new paper, which purports to debunk the key evidence CIT and P4T have uncovered, namely the north of Citgo flight path. They intend to have this paper peer reviewed, but since neither, Legge or Chandler, have the credentials to evaluate the aviation issues involved, the question is, who will the peer reviewers be? The Pilots for 9/11 Truth certainly do have the expertise to evaluate these aviation issues, and they have tried on numerous occasions to discuss Legge’s previous paper, currently on its eight revision, to no avail. Chandler too, has avoided responding to CIT’s thorough dismantling of his previous paper, so it appears that, both he and Legge, are slinging arrows from the sidelines, while steadfastly refusing to debate the issues with those they have attacked. These examples demonstrate the close relationships all the CIT/P4T attackers have to each other.

Now Victoria Ashley as Jim Hoffman’s girlfriend obviously has considerable influence with him and can be influenced by him. Considering the fact that Hoffman is used as a source by virtually all CIT/P4T attackers and his girlfriend has moderating powers at 911Blogger, editor powers at 911truthnews, and influence at Scholars for truth and justice, where Ryan, Legge, and Chandler are established, the stark conflict of interest comes into full view, as does the potential for just one or two actual infiltrators to exert enormous influence across multiple prominent 9/11 Truth organizations. Consider further, that the owner of 911Blogger, Justin Keogh, who is a well known CIT attacker, also holds a position on the board of directors at AE911Truth. Keogh has placed rabid CIT/P4T attackers such as Victoria Ashley aka Victronix and Eric Larsen aka Loose Nuke in control of moderating 911Blogger. Keogh has also been working constantly to pressure Richard Gage to withdraw his support of CIT’s work, through his position on the AE911Truth board of directors. David Chandler and Chris Sarns have also been applying pressure on Mr. Gage, from within his own organization, even though both have been decisively debunked. The insular nature of the pack is clear.

Virtually all of the attackers described above post frequently and congregate at 911Blogger. Blogger has, therefore, become the de-facto home of the cadre of CIT/P4T attackers, who frequently post lengthy screeds and vote each others’ comments up, while simultaneously voting down, anyone who challenges them, about the pentagon. In addition to the pack behavior (reminiscent of the notorious James Randi and Screw Loose Change forums) flagrantly displayed at 911Blogger, Blogger moderators have aggressively purged virtually all of the articulate and knowledgeable opponents (see disinformation rule #24 “silence critics”) who can counter them. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20855 Blogger has thereby guaranteed that only the views of the small anti CIT/P4T clique will be represented. Purging the opposition has allowed the clique to employ hit and run tactics (Disinformation rule #6 “hit and run”) against their opponents, knowing full well they have been silenced. Furthermore, by purging all their opposition, none of the pack members will have to face a potentially dangerous back and forth public debate situation, which could lead to their exposure as dupes, or worse, as genuine infiltrators. Such an exposure would obviously be devastating to the wider effort to suppress the 9/11 truth movement and keep the perpetrators safe from prosecution. Debate with articulate opponents therefore must, in their view, be avoided because of the inherent danger of exposure leading, by chain reaction, to their capture and punishment.

A secondary, but equally important, goal behind the overall effort against CIT/P4T is to manufacture a new truth with regard to the pentagon evidence. This goal is explained perfectly by rule number 22 of the 25 rules of disinformation.

“22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.”

With this transparent effort to co-opt “leaders” such as Richard Gage and turn them against CIT/P4T, the cognitive infiltrators are attempting to divide and conquer the truth movement, while at the same time muddy the waters concerning the dangerous pentagon evidence CIT and P4T have uncovered, evidence which could ultimately destroy them, if it reaches widespread acceptance. We have, in this case, Chemists such as Frank Legge and Kevin Ryan, literally trying to foist themselves off as experts in aviation issues, fulfilling the mandate of disinformation rule #22 to “create your own experts”. We also have multiple individuals actively “influencing existing leaders” such as Richard Gage, again fulfilling the rule #22 mandate. This is literally, to them, and to us truthers, a battle for the hearts and minds of the truth movement as a whole, and by extension for the hearts and minds of everyone else, who look to the truth movement, for the answers about 9/11.

In order to defeat the cognitive infiltrators, we have to recognize that, the truth movement cannot allow them to suppress debate about the pentagon or for that matter any relevant 9/11 issue, nor can we afford to allow them to shout down the opposition or to silence their voices. Only in the fires of an open and honest public debate can this issue be truly resolved. It is therefore up to us, the rank and file members of the truth movement, to demand accountability, transparency, and real truth, from our own movement leaders. It is up to us, to demand that, those who have attacked CIT and P4T, step forward and engage them in legitimate debate, as they have been honorably challenged to do. If their anti CIT/P4T position has real merit, it will gain credibility and acceptance through such a debate. If on the other hand, their various positions do not have merit, which I contend they don’t, their misguided errors or even intentional deceptions will be fully exposed. In any case, a serious moderated debate, about the pentagon, ultimately benefits the truth movement greatly. It will weed out the infiltrators and dupes, and get us all that much closer to the whole truth of 9/11. I call upon all truthers, therefore, to demand a debate about the pentagon! Demand it from Jim Hoffman, David Chandler, Victoria Ashley, Justin Keogh, Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, and demand it from the truthers within your own circles and organizations. Remember always that a real 9/11 truther embraces open debate, and isn’t afraid to be proven wrong, because that just gets him or her that much closer to the whole truth. We must all be wary of anyone who attacks other truthers from the shadows and refuses debate, for it is they who are the real enemy of the 9/11 truth movement, it is they who want to destroy us. The real litmus test for distinguishing real truthers from imposters is their willingness to debate and, more importantly, to admit mistakes. To debate or not to debate, that is the question!
Reply
Like

onesliceshort
A Regular Jim Garrison
onesliceshort
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: 29 Apr 2009, 22:11

22 May 2011, 22:42 #2

Spot on Adam. As usual.

:thumbsup:
Reply
Like

Adam Ruff
Curious Citizen
Adam Ruff
Curious Citizen
Joined: 21 May 2010, 00:31

23 May 2011, 00:06 #3

Thank you OSS. I want to add one of my personal sentiments to this as well. In my view, anyone who takes a strong position on an issue, be it the pentagon attack or any other issue, and refuses to debate the legitimate opposition is a fraud. Anyone who outright attacks the opposition and refuses to debate them is both a fraud and a coward.
Reply
Like

Adam Syed
Citizen Investigator
Adam Syed
Citizen Investigator
Joined: 18 Aug 2009, 01:23

23 May 2011, 00:13 #4

Very in depth and hard hitting, Adam. I went ahead and posted it at the Aussie forum in addition to forwarding it to my listserve and a number of others.
Reply
Like

Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: 30 Aug 2007, 02:01

23 May 2011, 17:24 #5

Correction:

Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley were married in September 2008 as confirmed by Carol Brouillet in her blog:


I can never catch up, but at least the challenging part has been tempered by dome pleasant gatherings- including a party in celebration of Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley's wedding last night (I baked a quickly devoured 6 layer coconut cake).

source
Reply
Like

Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: 30 Aug 2007, 02:01

24 May 2011, 02:09 #6

Adam Ruff @ May 23 2011, 12:06 AM wrote:Thank you OSS. I want to add one of my personal sentiments to this as well. In my view, anyone who takes a strong position on an issue, be it the pentagon attack or any other issue, and refuses to debate the legitimate opposition is a fraud. Anyone who outright attacks the opposition and refuses to debate them is both a fraud and a coward.


Agreed.

I would just like to make sure the point is not lost that these people have not only already refused/failed to debate, but that it has also been fully established that they are furiously working to control the discussion in general with mass bans and bullying techniques (via aggressive character assassination efforts against anyone who dares speak out in our favor).

The calls for debate have been made by us for years, and they have been either steadfastly ignored or outright rejected by most.

For instance.....

In our response to Chandler and Cole's dishonest, unprovoked hit piece against us we conclude with a debate challenge:

I would like to formally challenge both David Chandler and/or Jonathan Cole to debate the issue with me in person and on video. I will come to them on my own dime. I will assume for now that when presented with the information in full, and when all of their questions/concerns are directly addressed, that they will revise their opinions and realize that they have had a hasty a reaction and have severely misjudged the situation here.

If they refuse to debate the subject with me directly, yet also refuse to retract the many untrue and in some cases defamatory things they have said and insist on leaving this extremely inaccurate essay up, I think this will speak very negatively to their honesty, sincerity, honorability, and forthrightness on this issue, especially given their calls for "intellectual rigor" and internal self-"policing" of the movement.  Here's hoping that such refusals do not take place.  Given the quality and importance of their WTC work and its synergistic nature to the evidence we have uncovered during our Pentagon investigation, we have no desire for the adversarial relationship they have chosen to initiate to continue.


Since then Chandler has specifically turned down a request by the Rock Creek Free Press to debate me, and he also essentially declined my debate request in a podcast interview with Jeff Hill, stating:

CHANDLER: I'm not gonna debate people who I feel are gonna be dishonest.  Because, I mean-- the only-- I mean, that's just a total waste of time.  I will sit down and have a conversation with somebody who's willing to have an open exchange of information, and where there's some sort of an, uh, attempt on all sides to arrive at the truth.  So I don't mind having a conversation with people I disagree with.  But the kind of strategies they've used, and the types of character assassination they've used.

JEFF: (laughs)

CHANDLER: And uh, I mean, these guys are a joke.  So, NO I'm not going to perpetuate the discussion with them.  I'm sure they will listen to this thing tonight and write me up and all the rest...

JEFF: (laughs)

CHANDLER: But, um, go for it guys.  But uh, that's not-- anyway-.


As far as I know that is the closest he has come to even publicly acknowledging the existence of our extremely thorough written rebuttal to his attacks against us and my debate challenge, all of which was published 3 1/2 months ago and sent to him by numerous people, including us. He simply continues to repeat the same disinformation talking points against us that we already rebutted while adding new ones to his repertoire, all while ignoring an opportunity to expose us as the "scum" (his word) that we supposedly are.

His excuse for this is total non-sense, of course. First of all, If that is really his position, I guess he won't be debating NIST, given the opportunity. (Or does he think they are "willing to have an open exchange of information" and will "attempt... to arrive at the truth"?) Secondly, if anyone has engaged in "character assassination" it is him. If launching dishonest, unprovoked attacks in public forums where it is well known that the targets of the attack are forbidden from responding, and then continuing to repeat the same bogus attacks even after the target responds at length, all while steadfastly refusing requests for a debate isn't the M.O. of a character assassin I don't know what is.

We, on the other hand, "had never spoken to David Chandler or Jonathan Cole prior to the publication of their 'joint statement' on the Pentagon attack" and "we had always considered them natural allies, had never badmouthed them or had any inclination to do so, and had even praised their work", as explained in the introduction to our response to their attacks against us. We responded to their attacks in an honest, thorough, and forthright way while offering to debate them directly, and have even maintained that "we have no desire for the adversarial relationship they have chosen to initiate to continue." This is the opposite of the "strategies" of a character assassin.

That is just one example though. Over the years we have also formally challenged:

Michiel de Boer aka "SnowCrash".

Brian Good aka "truebeleaguer" aka "snug.bug" aka "punxsutawneybarney"

Chris Sarns aka "bs buster"

Jim Hoffman

Erik Larson aka "loose nuke"

Michael Wolsey

"Cosmos" aka "YT"

Arabesque

and others.

Although we have always made it clear that we are open to debate I'd like to extend our list of formal challenges to Kevin Ryan, Frank Legge, & Victoria Ashley (Jim Hoffman's wife), since all three have made public and dishonest attacks against us.

I'd like to also clarify that other than my debate with John Bursill, there were two others in the past who have accepted the challenge. Those being Jeff Hill (see here for full context) and Adam Larson aka "Caustic Logic" who eventually stopped blogging about 9/11 entirely.
Reply
Like

A. Marquis
A Regular Jim Garrison
A. Marquis
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: 31 Aug 2007, 20:26

24 May 2011, 19:01 #7

As I wrote back to Adam...

"I just wanted to touch on the single point that must be repeated over and over as the clear litmus test:

The north of the gas station flight path proves an absolute inside job. This is obvious and everyone agrees with this. The witnesses to this flight path stand by where they saw the plane EVEN AFTER they learned the implications. Some, including the police officers, would testify to it in a court of law. So why would alleged genuine truthers fight so hard to discredit these witnesses and the organizations who present them???"
"Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph."
~Emperor Haile Selassie I, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Ras Tafari)
Reply
Like

onesliceshort
A Regular Jim Garrison
onesliceshort
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: 29 Apr 2009, 22:11

24 May 2011, 22:41 #8

A. Marquis @ May 24 2011, 11:01 AM wrote: As I wrote back to Adam...

"I just wanted to touch on the single point that must be repeated over and over as the clear litmus test:

The north of the gas station flight path proves an absolute inside job. This is obvious and everyone agrees with this. The witnesses to this flight path stand by where they saw the plane EVEN AFTER they learned the implications. Some, including the police officers, would testify to it in a court of law. So why would alleged genuine truthers fight so hard to discredit these witnesses and the organizations who present them???"

Exactly mate. Exactly.
Reply
Like