Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Debunking the "9/11 Debunkers" With Stewart Bradley

John-Michael Talboo (JMT)-Q:

So Stewart, let's jump right into our shared passion of debunking the so-called 9/11 debunkers shall we? You have put together some great videos on the subject including, 9/11 Debunking for Dummies, History Exposed - Critique of History Channel's documentary "9/11 Conspiracies- Fact or fiction", 9/11 Cheney Connection, as well as putting out, 9/11 Cheney Connection rebuttal, where you address the small amount of debunking that was attempted in regard to the piece, and most recently you explained, Why Debunkers Make Lousy Cops! :)

I love your work because while you tackle the physical anomalies surrounding 9/11, you also put much focus on the non-scientific issues. I believe these issues get brushed to the side far too much by "debunkers" for the simple reason that so many of them are just plain public knowledge and un-debunkable. I have often pointed out that even if the 9/11 truth movement were to concede the issue of controlled demolition, for arguments sake, the case for complicity is still very strong.

A Few Facts:

FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, in an open letter to the 9/11 Commission, reported that there was "specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden," that mentioned major cities, airplanes, approximate timeframe, and operatives already in place in the US. This was reported by FBI agents to "Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism Thomas Frields at the FBI Washington Field Office," but was subsequently ignored.

The FAA received 52 pre-9/11 warnings, including five that "specifically mentioned Al Qaeda's training or capability to conduct hijackings," and two that "mentioned suicide operations." Facts such as these are often glossed over, or downplayed. In regard to the FAA warnings a "debunker" would likely focus on the fact that the suicide operations mentioned were "not connected to aviation," while ignoring that the FAA warned airports that "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable." In your video "9/11 Cheney Connection" you point out similar and even more damning facts.

So, please speak to these points, and give the readers a run down of some of the facts you expose in this and other pieces that "debunkers" don't like to tackle much, at least not honestly.

Stewart Bradley-A:

The case that the debunkers try to avoid, and what I believe to be the 9/11 Truth Movement's best hope for getting a new investigation, is the LIHOP evidence that key members of the Bush Administration knew the attack was coming and took measures to ensure it's success for the very purpose of building the long sought after oil pipeline through Afghanistan, starting a war in Iraq by falsely connecting Iraq to 9/11, thereby implementing the "Pax Americana" plan purposed by the PNAC while vastly expanding executive secrecy and power.

The evidence to back this claim can be laid out in a thirteen point timeline based on readily available public records easily found by an internet search. Each point taken alone could be brushed off as coincidence, but when taken together presents an incriminating case that only the most thick headed debunker could deny.

1. The Trans-Afghani Pipeline:

Shortly after the end of the Cold War several major American energy companies began buying up oil supplies in the Caspian Sea region, but without a way to transport this oil to the market these companies could not recoup their investments worth billion of dollars. So in 1997 Dick Cheney led a consortium of energy companies, including Unocal and Enron, in an effort to build a pipeline from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, to the Pakistan coast. The problem was the Taliban, who were in power in Afghanistan refused the pipeline deal, and a Unocal spokesman is quoted in the 1998 Congressional Record stating that the pipeline could not happen until the Taliban are removed from power.

2. The PNAC Plan:

Also as a result of the end of the Cold War the Pentagon's funding was being cut because they no longer had an enemy to justify their massive budget. In response Dick Cheney's conservative think tank "The Project for a New American Century," (PNAC) submitted their manifesto, "Rebuilding America's Defenses". This report suggests that although "the United States faces no global rival," (p.i) the U.S. military should prepare "to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars,"(mission outlines) and set up "an enduring American military presence" (p.74) in the Persian Gulf, including Afghanistan and Iraq. Chapter 5 admits this would take a long time,"absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

3. First Actions as Vice President:

Dick Cheney then selects himself to run as George W. Bush's Vice President in a campaign largely funded by Enron. Shortly after the Supreme Court's intervention made Cheney the VP, he reopened the pipeline negotiations with the Taliban but the original financial offer was now accompanied by threats of military action if the pipeline was not allowed. The Taliban was told, "You either accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we bury you under a carpet of bombs!"

According to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, in their very first National Security Council meeting Bush and Cheney began brainstorming ideas for how to start a war in Iraq, and Judicial Watch has exposed secret maps drawn up by Cheney's Energy Task Force in March of 2001 detailing Iraq's oil industries size and estimated value.

4. Ignored Warnings:

The Bush Administration received dozens of detailed warnings of an impending al-Qaida attack, which included method, likely targets, and names of people involved, from many international and domestic intelligence agencies. Yet all of these warnings were systematically blocked, suppressed, or ignored by the Bush Administration.

5. Obstructed Investigations:

Instead of investigating these warnings President Bush signed presidential directive W199I protecting members of the Bin Laden family and telling FBI Agents and defense intelligence officers to back off from al-Qaida related investigations. Although debunkers will argue the validity of the W199I directive, the testimonies of FBI counterterror chief John O'Neill, field officer Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit of the Minnesota FBI, translator Sibel Edmonds, Anthony Shaffer of Able Danger, and prosecutor David Shippers indicate a concerted high level effort to protect domestic terrorists.

6. Wargame Drills Scheduled for 9/11:

In May, 2001 President Bush put Dick Cheney in charge of the "Office of National Preparedness" charged with protecting America from domestic attacks involving weapons of mass destruction, and managing training exercises throughout all military agencies in preparation for such an attack. It was later revealed that multiple military exercises, remarkably similar to the 9/11 attack, were scheduled for the morning of September 11, 2001. Although military officials refuse to confirm who managed to schedule these drills during the very time of the real attack, these drills would clearly fall under Cheney's jurisdiction.

7. Changes in Military Procedures:

There were already Standard Operating Procedures set in place well before 9/11 concerning how to respond to the hijacking of commercial flights. As soon as any flight goes off course or looses contact with the controllers, the FAA immediately contacts NORAD who scrambles fighters to intercept. This happens on a regular basis. From September 2000 to June 2001, 67 planes steered off course. All 67 times our air defense systems worked as they should, and interceptors were launched.Yet in June of 2001 these procedures are altered to require approval from Secretary of Defense before NORAD could respond with "potentially lethal support", ( launching combat aircraft ), to an emergency call.

8. Afghan Invasion Plans Finalized:

Pakistani Foreign Secretary, Niaz Naik, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October despite having no Congressional approval for any military action. September 9, two days before the attack, the final plans to go to war against the Taliban to begin in October were ready for President Bush to sign in to action. It is critical to point out that without the 9/11 attack the Bush administration would not have had justification to use this plan, yet they continue to claim they had no advance warning about 9/11.

9. Connection to 9/11 Sponsor:

According to the FBI the chief of ISI -Pakistani Intelligence, Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed, approved over $100,000 in wire transfers to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta as payment for the attacks. During the week of the attack Gen. Ahmed is visiting Washington where he had meetings with Colin Powell, Richard Armatige, CIA Director George Tennant, Porter Goss and other Bush administration officials. The media and the 9/11 Commission both refuse to acknowledge this man who funded the attack or investigate his meetings with Bush officials.

10. Day of the Attack:

While the 9/11 Commission fails to mention the military wargame drills in progress during the attack or the changes in NORAD's hijack interception procedures, they also ignore or distort the many other anomalies concerning the day of the attack including the absence of top officials from their posts, the contradicting stories from NORAD and the FAA, the arrival time of Dick Cheney to the PEOC bunker, and the time that shoot down authorization is announced.

11. Afghanistan Invasion:

The September 11 attack gave Bush and Cheney the very pretext they needed to use the awaiting war plans under the pretext of getting Osama Bin Laden for the attack. Although the Taliban agreed to apprehend Bin Laden on the condition the U.S. would provide evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11, the Bush Administration ignores this request and the invasion starts right on schedule in October.

According to the FBI, to this day the Bush administration has yet to present any hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to the 9/11 attack. This means that the invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified and violates international law.

Despite the claim that the invasion of Afghanistan was to apprehend Bin Laden, the U.S. military allows Bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora into Pakistan while many al-Qaida soldiers are allowed to escape capture by a Pakistan airlift.

The Taliban was quickly overthrown and the Bush Administration picks Afghanistan's new president, Harmid Karzai, who was a consultant for Unocal. Less than a year later the 3.2 billion dollar pipeline through Afghanistan began construction.

12. Obstructed Investigations:

For 14 months the Bush administration was able to hinder and obstruct any public investigation of the attack. According to Senator Tom Daschle, both the President and the Vice President lobby him for no 9/11 investigation. Dick Cheney even threatens Congressional Democrats with "interfering with the war on terror" if they press for a 9/11 investigation.

When the 9/11 Commission was finally formed, it was rife with conflicts of interest and severely underfunded. Bush and Cheney refuse to testify unless they are questioned by the commission together, behind closed doors, without being taped, without taking an oath, and with no records kept. The final report is filled with dozens of factual omissions and distortions.

13. There is no doubt that the Bush Administration has used 9/11 to justify it's policy of military aggression along with an unprecedented level of power and secrecy. They then used false evidence to expand the war into Iraq.

All of this information taken together builds a compelling case that members of the Bush administration, namely Dick Cheney, at the very least knew the 9/11 attack was coming and took steps to insure it's success for personal and political benefit. Dick Cheney had a clear motive for the attack, was in a position to facilitate the attack, and is implicated by evidence and witness testimony of involvement. One must only ask why this information is not public knowledge and why formal charges have yet be made against him.

JMT-Q:

Very compelling stuff, and shockingly only a portion of the non-scientific evidence publicly available. We also have the issues of insider trading, FAA tapes and CIA interrogation tapes being destroyed on purpose, dubious evidence relating to the hijackers, the fact that Hani Hanjour, who is said to have flown flight 77 into the Pentagon, and pulled off the most complex maneuvers of the day, was a terrible pilot, the un-Islamic behavior of the hijackers, reports of the airplane black boxes being found at ground zero, which contradicts the official story which says they were not found, reports that the father of alleged lead hijacker Mohammed Atta spoke to him on September 12th, 9/11 family member Patty Casazza stating that whistleblowers told her the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets, it is just staggering. And I could go on for a bit with more points still.

Shifting gears a bit, I'd like to touch on the issue of the ongoing importance of the attacks. We have Noam Chomsky saying "who cares," and I have seen many people contend that 9/11 is a distraction from more important issues. Could you address this, and also speak to how these events have global repercussions?

Stewart Bradley-A:

Yes, I have been very puzzled and distressed by the comments about 9/11 made by Noam Chomsky, who has an almost cult like following among progressive intellectuals and was one of my personal inspirations to study political corruption in the first place. This is a man who, in response to his own work being called "conspiracy theory", said that the term conspiracy theory is "something people say when they don't want you to think about what's really going on." So to hear Chomsky repeatedly use this term to describe 9/11 research exposes his conscious attempt to prevent any serious discussion of 9/11 anomalies among the very progressive establishment that 9/11 Truth would benefit the most.

Unfortunately I have seen firsthand how this obstruction has been effective when talking to many otherwise brilliant political activists who reject any 9/11 evidence simply because Chomsky speaks out against it. And while Chomsky claims that he has never seen any evidence to support the theory of a conspiracy, in the book "Towers of Deception", Barrie Zwicker discusses Chomsky's stubborn refusal to actually review any credible evidence from leading 9/11 researchers. So of course he cannot see what he refuses to look at.

But as to why Chomsky, after encouraging people for decades to question authority and dig for the truth, would suddenly turn around and ask people to simply ignore the many 9/11 anomalies is still a mystery to me. In the statement you refer to Chomsky starts by suggesting that although the Bush administration, and other authoritarian governments, will use 9/11 as a way to expand a tight control over their populations under the guise of fighting terrorism, they wouldn't be able to hide such a conspiracy. That is, unless they can hide the conspiracy under the guise of fighting terrorism as Noam just indicated.

Then he sweepingly dismisses all the anomalies, inconsistencies, and evidence of 9/11 conspiracy as mere naturally occurring coincidence without addressing a single fact or explanation for how such an improbable number of coincidences could happen simultaneously.

And he finishes by saying that even if the Bush administration was involved in the attack, "who cares?", which contradicts his point that if a conspiracy was found it would destroy the Republican party and put the involved officials in front of a firing squad. Chomsky's "who cares" attitude is not only incredibly insensitive to the many heroes and victims of 9/11, but is an almost hostile betrayal of the truth and justice he and his loyal followers claim to hold so dear.

To address the argument that 9/11 research is a distraction from more important issues we need to acknowledge some of the important issues that have been created, both domestic and global, as a direct result of the 9/11 attack:

1. War in Afghanistan:

Although most people agree that the war in Afghanistan was justified, as I have already pointed out, to this day we have been given no hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to the 9/11 attack. Compounded with the Taliban's rejected offer to apprehend Bin Laden, and our military's reluctance to capture Bin Laden in Tora Bora, it is clear that the true reason behind the invasion of Afghanistan was never made public as the war now continues costing lives and tax dollars.

2. Loss of Constitutional Rights:

In the wake of the attack the American public, fearful for the safety of their families, were convinced to trade their liberty for security. The "Patriot Act and Homeland Security Bill" were passed nullifying many Constitutional rights and protections while granting the federal government an unprecedented level of secrecy and un-accountability. And as Chomsky pointed out, now all authoritarian governments can take similar action under the guise of fighting terrorism.

3. War in Iraq:

I have often heard the argument that despite the false intelligence used to sell the Iraq war, the war is legal because it was approved by Congress. What is not being acknowledged is that Congress violated the Constitution when they passed HJR114, supposedly giving President Bush the power to wage pre-emptive war against any country vaguely defined as a threat to American interests. Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow one branch of government to give away the responsibility it was assigned. And now other nations can justify launching pre-emptive war based on our example.

4. War Profiteering:

On September 10th 2001, the day before the attack, Donald Rumsfeld announced in a now forgotten speech that the Pentagon cannot account for $2.3 trillion, and the related CBS article exposed a policy of Defense Department book cooking that "loses track" of a full quarter of the Pentagon's funding.

Since 9/11 Defense spending has far surpassed the Cold War budget, draining funding from vital social programs sending our nation into unfathomable debt as no bid contracts are handed out to politically connected companies known for fraud and corruption. This amounts to a wholesale looting of American tax dollars protected by the very high ranking government officials that profit from war spending. Considering the financial crisis our country now faces this blatant criminal activity adds insult to the injustice.

5. Human Rights Violations:

Despite the GOP talking point during the run up to the Iraq war that Saddam Hussien had to be removed because he was torturing people, the obvious act of a despicable monster. But now we are told that torturing people is a necessary part of the war on terrorism despite violating the Geneva Convention. We are not just talking about water boarding here. Our government policy of kidnapping, holding people without charge or legal representation, and secret overseas prisons where suspects can be beaten, sometimes to death, has endangered our own troops and citizens in if they are captured. If we can justify torture, then so can our enemies.

There are many more examples I could list but the fact is that the Bush administrations response to 9/11 has violated both U.S. and International law, squandered our military and financial resources, and ruined America's "good guy" reputation in the world community. (Click HERE for the latest news on this subject.)

JMT-Q:

Very good points, when I recently made a short blog post about Chomsky's comments, this comment was made...

"Um... I do not see anything mentioning Peer review in your so-called scientific section. My guess is they are a self-selected group of people who knew what they wanted to find before they "found" it. That is not good science.

And one of your articles is actually a link to something else on your own website! That's not biased at all, is it?

Sorry. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and this isn't it."

To which I replied...

"You want peer-review? Here ya go...

http://www.journalof911studies.com

I have no clue what you are talking about when you say "one of your articles is actually a link to something else on your own website". Everything on this post links to outside sources."

I also pointed out that influential conservative, and father of Reaganomics, Paul Craig Roberts, has stated that false-flag events are actually pretty mundane. This is demonstrated very well in the film TerrorStorm...

And as an article entitled, Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories" from GateCreepers.com points out...

"Just because someone says a claim is extraordinary does not make it so. People often label any theories that are contrary to the government's version as 'extraordinary', thus implying that the government and it's associated media have a monopoly on what is considered reasonable.

Claims are only extraordinary if they have no historical precedent. Therefore, all that is needed to prove that the theory can be proven with ordinary evidence is to point out to a similar case that has happened before."

When debunkers get the type of evidence they say they are looking for, and still deny it, I think it demonstrates that the issue at hand is cognitive dissonance.

Shifting gears a bit again, I'd like to get your thoughts on whether you believe we will be able to manifest a new investigation, and if so do you think it will be effective?

As I'm sure you know there is a push for an international investigation taking place. We have Japanese MP, Yukihisa Fujita, calling for a global body to investigate alongside British MP, Michael Meacher, as well as UN Human Rights Official Richard Falk.

Do you think this would be more effective than a new US investigation?

Also, what are your suggestions for people that would like to get involved in a calling for a new investigation?

Stewart Bradley-A:

It's funny that you mention the debunkers issue of cognitive dissonance. While some 9/11 Truthers will debate endlessly with debunkers about the evidence of controlled demolitions in the WTC, I have found that path to be futile. Even after directing them to the WPI Study, cleverly buried in Appendix C of the FEMA report, which details the WTC steel being "melted like swiss cheese" by temperatures impossible by burning jet fuel in a diffuse environment, the debunkers still stubbornly insist that does not "prove" the use of a thermite type demolition charge. Although they can offer no alternative hypothesis to explain this phenomena, trying to convince them of any foul play on 9/11 is like banging your head against a wall.

So in my own experience at debating 9/11 with debunkers, a list has developed of common debunker tactics, which I call the "Four Ds of Debunking":

1. Deceive - Misrepresent the claims of 9/11 researchers into "Straw Man" issues that are easily knocked down.

2. Dodge - Try to avoid or ignore any 9/11 evidence that you cannot explain away.

3. Deny - Refuse to acknowledge that any irrefutable evidence given is relevant to the 9/11 argument.

4. Discredit - Use any possible ad hominem accusation to ruin the credibility of 9/11 researchers.

But I don't think that debating 9/11 in a chat forum is a futile effort. I have had a fair degree of success arguing with skeptics which I attribute to keeping the discussion respectful and constructive. You see, 9/11 Truth contradicts many patriotic beliefs that Americans hold dear which is why the concept is so offensive to them. So I sympathize with the idea that nobody wants to believe our leaders would allow something as terrible as 9/11 to happen, but facts are facts. And it is because I'm sympathetic and civil that people are more receptive to evidence I present and, as a result, I have changed the minds of many skeptics and made some good friends in the process.

And don't forget about the people who are listening in to the debate. Even if the debunker still doubts you, if you make a strong and convincing case you may have won over many of the audience following the thread.

As far as how to fix it, I have heard the possibility of an International investigation. I would be curious what evidence they could present and if anyone in America would take the findings seriously or just dismiss it more anti-American sentiment. The best possible scenario for exposing 9/11 would be an American criminal investigation, open to the public, and with subpoena power.

But of course the first step is to try to inform the American people of the need to re-open the 9/11 investigation. And with the mainstream media unwilling to discuss such topics, then we must become the media. There are many ways to do this.

I started by writing editorials to my local paper with my questions about 9/11, then downloaded flyers from the net and began handing them out at local events. I've also handed out free DVDs that I made, held public meetings and screenings of 9/11 movies at the local library, and circulated petitions for people to sign supporting a new investigation. I have even started my own local chapter of 9/11 Truth to help organize an awareness campaign in my area.

Still the most efficient way to spread the word is by simple one on one conversations with your friends and family. People have become suspicious of the media but they will still trust the opinions of friends. Keep the message simple: "We have not been told the whole truth about 9/11, and considering how it has changed all of our lives, we need a new investigation to find the whole truth or we risk loosing our democracy."

It may seem overwhelming, but you know how these things spread. You tell 2 people, and they tell 2 people, and so on. Before long there will be enough public support that the media and politicians will have to respond, peacefully and according to the law.

JMT-Q:

How do we curve the cynicism out there regarding a new investigation? I often point to the second JFK investigation known as, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations. The Committee found that...

"Two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy"

"Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President."

And that...

"President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."

The problem however is that they didn't pinpoint the extent of the conspiracy, and only years later did the lead counsel conclude that the CIA wasn't being cooperative and forthcoming with the investigation. No, the CIA not being forthcoming?! You're kidding!

So you can see why even this can be viewed as a whitewash in that while it acknowledges the conspiracy, it then downplays it and still only pinpoints blame on Oswald.

So, what steps do you think can be taken to ensure that a new US investigation will not just be another whitewash, or semi-whitewash?

And as you may know when Obama was asked by Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth if he would join Congressman Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich in calling for a new investigation, he stated...

"Yeah, okay, I think that we need to investigate a whole range of options, although I have to admit that, some of the issues that I understand you guys have raised I'm not as entirely confident are the case."

Then in a letter to one of his constituents who raised concerns to him he stated that...

"While I do not believe the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks, I do think it should be held accountable for the unacceptable mistakes it made in the run-up to that terrible day."

So perhaps he is not a lost cause? He says that "we are the ones we have been waiting for," and I couldn't agree more, now we just need to convince him to join us!

So my questions concerning him are one, is some of this maybe just election time posturing, and might he be even more open to this than he seems? Two, does he even need to be in the equation, or are things the route of the NYC 911 Ballot Initiative more of what you think is needed?

Stewart Bradley-A:

I certainly don't blame people who are skeptical that even if a new 9/11 investigation would be allowed, that it would expose the true criminals or hold them accountable. While the unspoken purpose of "officially endorsed" investigations are normally to appease public demand while reinforcing the fabricated version of the crime, I think it heavily depends on if the group in charge of the investigation is truly impartial and if they have legal power to obtain incriminating documents and question high level officials under oath.

Although I have not given up hope on Barack Obama to try to change Washington politics if he is elected, I understand that our corporate controlled political and media system would never allow someone, anyone, to rise to his level of power if there was a genuine danger of him actually wresting government control from our corporate masters and return it to the common man. Prime example is Ralph Nader who has run for president five times now, yet the media intentionally ignores his campaign, excludes him from polls and debates, and only ever mentions him in reference to the futility of his efforts. If the media had treated Obama like this then I would be more inclined to believe Obama was really going to change things.

Not that Obama's endorsement of a new investigation is really necessary. Sure Obama's blessing would be helpful in gaining public support, but I think the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative is a much more effective way to get an investigation started. But all of that still depends on educating people on why a new investigation is necessary. If we can build a "critical mass" of public demand then the media will be forced to address the issue and our elected representatives will be forced to react.

JMT-Q:

Yes people really need to post the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative link as many places as they can think of, and not let up on Obama either... http://obama.senate.gov/contact/

Getting back to the "debunkers" for a second, one thing many of them do is try to paint everything with a black and white brush, never considering complex scenarios, such as this...

"The most robust way for insider masterminds to stage 9/11 and get away with it is to arrange for their agents to infiltrate among "real foreign terrorists." Let them come up with their own plots (or plant plots among them), choose a plot that will produce the results desired by the masterminds, and see that through to fruition. At some point, the masterminds and their agents will hijack the plot from the would-be hijackers, to make sure it happens. You won't risk the whole game on the ability of amateurs to get away with it, you will help them along or even replace them (with a remote control hijacking, for example). But it's best to have "real terrorists" in play. They leave a more solid trail of evidence internationally. Cops and agents and academics of two dozen countries can honestly confirm the existence of an al-Qaeda network. That way there is less need to initiate outside observers into the plot and you don't have to hope they are all stupid, as they would have to be to fall for a complete fabrication of "Qaeda." (Qaeda at this point is just a term of convenience for the Islamist extremist networks.) - Nicholas Levis, summeroftruth.org

Have you too seen that many debunkers ignore possibilities such as these?

Stewart Bradley-A:

If debunkers are masters of anything it is finding ways to ignore and deny any possible conclusion that contradicts the official story. They are capable of the most unreasonable twists of logic, the least credible of scientific methods, and the wildest leaps of pure speculation to defend their fragile ideological worldview. Then they have the audacity to accuse 9/11 Truthers of engaging in the very intellectual dishonesty that they have developed into an art form.

The worst is when a debunker becomes so smug and over confident in their misinformation it becomes a matter of stubborn pride to discredit any fact, no matter how irrefutable, in order to maintain a self serving reputation as a "master debunker." I will confess that occasionally in debates about 9/11 I have been proven wrong, such as figures I had mis-quoted or assumptions I had made without adequate evidence, yet I was able to concede the argument with dignity and even thank my opponent for correcting my information. But debating for the hardcore debunker has become a game they cannot admit to loosing, even if they are faced with hard evidence of a factual error. Indeed, how can you win an argument with someone who refuses to admit when they are wrong?

JMT-Q:

To wrap up, please point out some of the places that people can find your works, and any specific things, or upcoming projects you would really like them know about. Beyond that, make any final statements that you would like to. And of course thanks for doing the interview and all of your hard work, if only everyone was as dedicated as you are, we would be much further along.

Stewart Bradley-A:

Even with all the different degrees of 9/11 Truther, ranging from the reserved skeptic, to the political based LIHOPs, to the scientific based MIHOPs, to the wildly speculative fringe, the one underlying theme that unites us all is the justified call for a long overdue legitimate investigation. I even try to convince debunkers to back a new investigation by pointing out that if a genuine investigation proves the "official story" to be correct then it would effectively end the 9/11 Truth Movement. Of course the debunkers usually reject the investigation, I believe, because they know if a genuine investigation proves the "official story" to be false then it would vindicate the 9/11 Truth Movement. Debunkers just don't want to take that chance.

One final thought for my fellow Truthers on successful tactics for winning people over. I like watching video clips where high profile politicians are ambushed with questions about 9/11 like, "Do you support the victims families call for a new investigation?" or,"What is the hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to 9/11?" These questions, when respectfully asked, put the person on the spot to explain their position. What is not helping is shouting comments like, "You are New World Order scum!", or calling them traitors, criminals, or murderers. This not only allows the person to simply reject our questions but makes Truthers look like disrespectful and raving bullies. Mudslinging tactics will only ruin our credibility. If we expect to be taken seriously then we must keep the name calling out of it and stick to relevant questions.

I really want to thank you for this chance to share my views, and hope I have helped you and your readers develop winning strategies both in debates and in the fight for a legitimate 9/11 investigation. I am currently working on a new feature length video which simulates a criminal inquiry into 9/11, which is scheduled to be released by December. But till then you can check out my videos at: http://www.youtube.com/stoobradley. And check out my "Mayhem"conspiracy research, "BrainLab" science/spirituality research, music, art, and more at: http://bradleyinfotainment.com/

Peace, Truth, and Justice......... Stewart Bradley

PS...

JMT- Here is comment recently posted on my YouTube account by a "debunker" I had never even spoken to before...

"jonLukasC has posted a comment on your profile.

9/11 was an inside job?? really no it wasn't where are your facts? bitch."

The epitome of intelligent discourse if I do say so myself! Internet tough guys are so adorable. :)

This blog entry can also be viewed on 9/11truth.org and visibility911.com.