9/11 Radio Debate: Berger vs. Rothschild

[G-K-4]

A Colorado sports radio host named Dino Costa changed his usual format to host a debate about 9/11 last week. I think that it may be instructive for myth-debunkers to listen to it to see how "our" "side" can do better in debates.

There is a link here with two MP3's at the top: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060927230014133 The total duration is two hours.

I'm still listening to part one, but here are my impressions so far:
Costa, the host, is biased in favor of the conspiracy buffs, and says so up front. This shows the importance of a neutral moderator.
As a result, Costa lets Berger have more airtime (so far as I have listened). This shows the importance of equitable time. I don't say "equal" because the CTbuffs want to leave questions unanswered, and they can ask a dozen questions in the time it takes to answer one.
Berger rebuts everything Rothschild says, but Rothschild doesn't get to rebut everything Berger says. In a debate, we might want a rule in which every time one party asks a real (that is, non-rhetorical) question to the other, they are automatically granting the other party time to answer. The more open questions they ask, the more time they give their opponent.
Rothschild is not as steeped in the 9/11 conspiracy lore as Berger, so he cannot answer several questions put to him. Yeah, but we have Gravy and several other people who have put in more time on these matters.
Berger goes into barrage mode in a couple of places, asking a flurry of "what about this?" kinds of questions. See comment above about time to answer questions.
Rothschild can't keep up with Costa and Berger feeding off each other AND conspiracist listener call-ins. We should consider whether or not we should allow audience questions during live debates. And remember, CTbuffs could direct softball questions to their side. So you might want to have rebuttals even here.Some of the questions to which Rothschild could not adequately respond (IMHO) include:
How can we possibly have hijacker DNA samples?
What about the large picture, including Pakistani ISI funding of Atta?
How could the civilian air traffic controllers know what was real and what was fake with the military exercise "inserts" on their screens?
Etcetera. (I'm still only about halfway through part one, but I expect that there will be others.)I mention these because they are more obscure and thus not usually addressed by debunkers. That leaves them open as "gotchas" for people who look for such things. These questions also have less to do with the physical details of the plane crashes, which is what we often focus on.

These MP3's might be worth listening to for our future debates. And we might want to consider how formal debates are organized. FYI.

[kookbreaker]

]
How can we possibly have hijacker DNA samples?


The hijackers weren't put on the plane in a hermeticly sealed box. They lived, had a patht through the US. The FBI did its gumshoe work. All of it added up to Saudi Arabia admitting that most of the hijackers were their children. They did not want to admit that.


What about the large picture, including Pakistani ISI funding of Atta?


To date, nothing more than speculation by an Indian newspaper.


How could the civilian air traffic controllers know what was real and what was fake with the military exercise "inserts" on their screens?


Do such exercises involved this 'inserts'? I don't recall these 'inserts' being an issue with the radar tracking. What hit the buildings were certainly not 'inserts'.

[G-K-4]

[quote=kookbreaker;1968068]Do such exercises involved this 'inserts'? I don't recall these 'inserts' being an issue with the radar tracking. What hit the buildings were certainly not 'inserts'.[/
I think this is a good example of knowing a good response to an expected question. In fact, a really good response can highlight the kinds of assumptions that CTbuffs make. In this case, an assumption about how military exercises are carried out.


Okay, here I admit to not knowing every little detail. Civilian air-traffic controllers would not see any part of the NORAD exercise simulations, right? The exercise and its simulations would only be seen on the screens of those participating, right? Am I missing anything here?


And now back to regular postings about debate tactics...

[JamesB]

[quote=kookbreaker;1968068]Do such exercises involved this 'inserts'? I don't recall these 'inserts' being an issue with the radar tracking. What hit the buildings were certainly not 'inserts'.[/
I think this is a good example of knowing a good response to an expected question. In fact, a really good response can highlight the kinds of assumptions that CTbuffs make. In this case, an assumption about how military exercises are carried out.


Okay, here I admit to not knowing every little detail. Civilian air-traffic controllers would not see any part of the NORAD exercise simulations, right? The exercise and its simulations would only be seen on the screens of those participating, right? Am I missing anything here?


And now back to regular postings about debate tactics...

What is the origin of this fake blips thing? I have heard it repeated, but have never heard a source. As far as I can tell they are just making it up on the basis of having seen it in a movie once.

[G-K-4]

What is the origin of this fake blips thing? I have heard it repeated, but have never heard a source.
I keep hearing them ask it, too. But I never see a source. Which is why I think it's a pile of assumptions, a pile easily knocked down by an informed person.

[Kent1]

A Colorado sports radio host named Dino Costa changed his usual format to host a debate about 9/11 last week. I think that it may be instructive for myth-debunkers to listen to it to see how "our" "side" can do better in debates.

There is a link here with two MP3's at the top: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060927230014133 The total duration is two hours.

I'm still listening to part one, but here are my impressions so far:
Costa, the host, is biased in favor of the conspiracy buffs, and says so up front. This shows the importance of a neutral moderator.
As a result, Costa lets Berger have more airtime (so far as I have listened). This shows the importance of equitable time. I don't say "equal" because the CTbuffs want to leave questions unanswered, and they can ask a dozen questions in the time it takes to answer one.
Berger rebuts everything Rothschild says, but Rothschild doesn't get to rebut everything Berger says. In a debate, we might want a rule in which every time one party asks a real (that is, non-rhetorical) question to the other, they are automatically granting the other party time to answer. The more open questions they ask, the more time they give their opponent.
Rothschild is not as steeped in the 9/11 conspiracy lore as Berger, so he cannot answer several questions put to him. Yeah, but we have Gravy and several other people who have put in more time on these matters.
Berger goes into barrage mode in a couple of places, asking a flurry of "what about this?" kinds of questions. See comment above about time to answer questions.
Rothschild can't keep up with Costa and Berger feeding off each other AND conspiracist listener call-ins. We should consider whether or not we should allow audience questions during live debates. And remember, CTbuffs could direct softball questions to their side. So you might want to have rebuttals even here.Some of the questions to which Rothschild could not adequately respond (IMHO) include:
How can we possibly have hijacker DNA samples?
What about the large picture, including Pakistani ISI funding of Atta?
How could the civilian air traffic controllers know what was real and what was fake with the military exercise "inserts" on their screens?
Etcetera. (I'm still only about halfway through part one, but I expect that there will be others.)I mention these because they are more obscure and thus not usually addressed by debunkers. That leaves them open as "gotchas" for people who look for such things. These questions also have less to do with the physical details of the plane crashes, which is what we often focus on.

These MP3's might be worth listening to for our future debates. And we might want to consider how formal debates are organized. FYI.
Many of these have been covered at 911myths
DNA
http://www.911myths.com/html/hijackers_dna_profiles.html
ISI
http://www.911myths.com/html/pakistan_s_isi_link_to_9_11_fu.html
False blips
http://www.911myths.com/html/false_blips.html

[MikeW]

What is the origin of this fake blips thing? I have heard it repeated, but have never heard a source. As far as I can tell they are just making it up on the basis of having seen it in a movie once.

Not quite. Mike Ruppert mentioned it in Crossing the Rubicon:

As it turns out, on September 11th, various agencies including NORAD, the FAA, the Canadian Air Force, the National Reconnaissance Office, and possibly the Pentagon were conducting as many as five wargame drills — in some cases involving hijacked airliners; in some cases also involving blips deliberately inserted onto FAA and military radar screens which were present during (at least) the first attacks
http://www.newsociety.com/titleimages/rub_war.pdf

Evidence? All he mentions is this article:

The Federal Aviation Administration has evidence of a hijacking and is asking for NORAD support. This is not part of the exercise.

In a flash, Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what's known as an "inject," is purged from the screens.
http://www.911readingroom.org/bib/whole_document.php?article_id=92

But this is only talking about screens at Norad, nothing about the FAA. Ruppert doesn't care, though, and uses the favourite technique of "just asking questions", instead:

The reference to “injects” was chilling. No other mainstream press (especially in the US) had mentioned that false radar blips had been inserted onto radar screens on September 11th. But on whose screens? Where? A major anomaly in official 9/11 accounts had been officially ignored.
http://www.newsociety.com/titleimages/rub_war.pdf

And it's the same a little later:

It certainly appeared that someone in authority had deliberately interfered with FAA/NORAD operations on September 11th to make sure that some of the attacks succeeded. Richard Clarke’s book, previously edited by the White House, had FAA administrator Garvey referring to as many as 11 off-course/out-of-contact aircraft. Was she saying that she couldn’t tell the wargame inserts from the real thing?
http://www.newsociety.com/titleimages/rub_war.pdf

No, there's no evidence she was doing that at all, but just asking the question is enough, apparently.

So, we have the article mention of "injects". And there was a reference in the Vanity Fair article to a pilot wondering if they were chasing one, if I remember correctly. They then guess that the FAA wondering about some suspect planes related to this (something which makes no sense at all, as how could a "false blip" be off course or have lost contact?), and that's about it. No real evidence of false blips interfering with NORAD, and absolutely zero evidence of them appearing on FAA screens.

[G-K-4]

Thanks for addressing that, everyone.

But I do want to make sure that the matter of the debate is not lost in this thread. So I'm mentioning it again.

Try those MP3's, if you can keep from punching your speakers.

[CurtC]

I was just about to post the same thing, G-K-4. Everyone here is itching for a fact-based debate, and your mentioning those several things in the OP just got everyone focused on those. But the overall point got lost: if someone is going to debate these nuts, he has to be extremely well-versed in the facts, because any particular Looser may pull a bogus factoid out of left field, and it's very hard to have the details about every single thing a Looser has ever claimed, off the top of your head.

It's like trying to debate creationist Kent Hovind. Try to pin him down on one lie, and he quickly spouts off ten more. He has been doing that for years, and has literally thousands of slides in his arsenal. Every one is a lie, but in a debate format, he's a slippery opponent. I think the only way to present a convincing case with them is to not let them change the subject if they get cornered.

[T.A.M.]

Despite having 4-5 months of reading under my belt, I do not know sufficient details on all aspects of 9/11. I think I could hold my own on a given topic.

Here are some things I think one should think about wrt getting involved in a debate.

1. One on One only. None of this 5 Loosers versus 1 debunker crap.

2. Stick to one topic until it has been sufficiently addressed. If it means you waste "air time" demanding an answer on an issue, than so be it.

3. Demand a source for any comment or alleged "fact" they bring up. Most of them can spue off all he pseudo-facts of the movement, but few of them, on questioning, know where these "pseudo-facts" come from. If they cannot provide a reference, than you can state that what they have said is mere opinion or speculation until a source is provided.

4. If they resort to name calling, such as Bermas did with Miegs, and the "Liar" rhetoric, call them on it. Demand "How am I a liar? Prove what I have said is wrong. Show me references that prove I am lieing to you." most will run for cover at this tactic alone.

5. Remember when you have the floor, you have the floor. Do not let them hijack your time. Make your case, succinctly, with references whereever possible.

6. When they bring out the "shill", "Disinformation Agent" comments, make them prove it. When they bash the main stream media, ask rhetorically what most of america trusts. Bring up stations and get them to publicly denounce individual channels. This will make them look foolish to most middle americans.

7. DO NOT RESORT TO THEIR LEVEL. It is tolerable to do so occasionally here on the blogs/forums, but not acceptable in a debate format.

There are more, but these are a few tips.

TAM

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Regarding #3; should we spend our debate time demanding/asking for sources, or instead just point out that it is unsourced and therefore is unsubstantiated/anecdotal/hearsay/etc ?

[Bell]

<snip>

2. Stick to one topic until it has been sufficiently addressed. If it means you waste "air time" demanding an answer on an issue, than so be it.

<snap>

The deniers like to 'answer' the questions posted to them, by returning with a barrage of unrelated claims. For example, one might ask where the real evidence is for the CD of the Twin Towers, and the deniers retaliate with claims about 'pull it', faster than freefall, Windsor tower, footprints, powderize and what not. Go back to the original question.

See the LC vanity video with Gravy in it, on how he keeps pinning Jones on answering his question about WTC7, while Jones is doing everything possible to dodge the question. I think Jones' best dodge was turning to his flock and asking who thinks that 9/11 was an inside job.

[T.A.M.]

Regarding #3; should we spend our debate time demanding/asking for sources, or instead just point out that it is unsourced and therefore is unsubstantiated/anecdotal/hearsay/etc ?

I understand your point, and it is well taken. I guess it depends on the format of the debate, time limits etc...

If you are limited for time, I would only utilize tip #3 if the fact they bring up is key, or something that could make or break the debate. If time is not that big an issue, than try to get them to list sources for points you know they will have a hard time referencing. This will make them look weak on the point.

TAM

[G-K-4]

I have just continued listening to the second hour. Matt Rothschild had to go, so they brought in (ta da!) another conspiracist. (At least no one accused him of being one of those Rothschilds!)

In hour two, Matt is replaced by a guy named Joe Plummer, of the site www.StopTheLie.com (http://www.StopTheLie.com). He apparently lives in New Hampshire, so maybe we'll see him at the debate at Franklin Pierce College?

One of the other topics that comes up is the call for another 9/11 investigation. One of the people in the second hour suggests grand juries. This is interesting, considering that grand juries are put together by the Federal or some state governments. A good question for the CT buffs would be what, for them, would constitute an investigation that is independent but which also has teeth to compel testimony, subpeona evidence, level indictments, and order arrests. Maybe the lack of these powers is why they haven't done their own investigation yet. But only the government could have these powers..BUT the CTers wouldn't accept the government investigating itself.

So around we go.

And in response to TAM:
I think Jones' best dodge was turning to his flock and asking who thinks that 9/11 was an inside job. I think it must be stressed in any formal debate that rallies by the audience will not be tolerated. Maybe, if the responses are being timed, the penalty could be that the time rallying is taken from that sides allotment.

[Brainster]

Okay, got a chance to listen to the first hour today. I agree with G-K-4 that these debates are important to analyze and see where Debunkers go off the rails and where we can see what claims are made by the Deniers.

General observation: Berger does a good job of keeping the topic on "holes" in the official story, and talks very little about the CT. As I've discussed before, Debunkers should make every effort to move the debate to the Denier's theories. Of course, Deniers know this, so it requires some degree of artful setup. One thing I've suggested is asking the Deniers what they disagree with about the 9-11 Commission Report; if they say it doesn't answer their questions, you've got them on the hook. They won't answer your questions, but they criticize the Commission for not answering theirs? Another possibility is to argue that the only way to judge whether the 9-11 Deniers have a case is to place their theories next to the official version and see which explains events better.

A specific note: One of the callers at about 25:30 of the first hour claims that Cheney was appointed commander of NORAD about five months before 9-11. This one has popped up a few times, and it's the usual BS from the Deniers. The commander of NORAD (which, unintuitively, stands for North American Aerospace Defense Command) on 9-11 was Ralph E. (Eb) Eberhardt (http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/eberhart_bio.html).

[pgwenthold]

Thanks for addressing that, everyone.

But I do want to make sure that the matter of the debate is not lost in this thread. So I'm mentioning it again.




As I have pointed out probably 100 times, any debate has to be narrowly focused. Pick ONE specific topic, and only agree to discuss that topic. If the topic is whether the falling of WTC 1 and 2 were controlled demolition, then Atta/Pakistan connections are not relevent, and you can say that is the subject of another debate.

The whole "9/11 was a conspiracy" top is way too out of control to handle in a two hour radio program. DON'T DO IT.

[Hellbound]

Just a thought here, but:

Why not specify a set number of questions/topics?

Before the debarte starts, decide on how many questions/issues will be covered, and let each side propose half this number (say 10 issues, each side chooses 5 and one or two alternates in case of duplication). The moderator then gives out these topics, rather than the debaters directly addressing questions to each other. Either side can ask questions as they go, but those need to be relevent to the topic/issue at hand...no long chains of "what about...what about...what about...!" Each side could get time for post, rebuttal, and counter. Whichever side proposed a topic would get the choice of going first or second, say.

Dunno how that compares, but it's a thought :)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

As I have pointed out probably 100 times, any debate has to be narrowly focused. Pick ONE specific topic, and only agree to discuss that topic. If the topic is whether the falling of WTC 1 and 2 were controlled demolition, then Atta/Pakistan connections are not relevent, and you can say that is the subject of another debate.

The whole "9/11 was a conspiracy" top is way too out of control to handle in a two hour radio program. DON'T DO IT.

<Devil's advocate>
What do you do then, when you are in a debate focused on, for example, flight 93, and they whip out the Pentagon? How do you refocus without appearing to be trying to dodge the issue?
</Devil's advocate>

[MikeW]

Minor derail, but just to explain something...

A specific note: One of the callers at about 25:30 of the first hour claims that Cheney was appointed commander of NORAD about five months before 9-11. This one has popped up a few times, and it's the usual BS from the Deniers. The commander of NORAD (which, unintuitively, stands for North American Aerospace Defense Command) on 9-11 was Ralph E. (Eb) Eberhardt (http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/eberhart_bio.html).

This comes from Mike Ruppert again, who takes one fact and stretches it to breaking point. Here's what he says:

On May 8, 2001 - four months prior to 9/11 - the president placed Dick Cheney in charge of "[A]ll federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies…" This included all "training and planning" which needed to be "seamlessly integrated, harmonious and comprehensive" in order to "maximize effectiveness." This mandate created the Office of National Preparedness in FEMA, overseen by Dick Cheney. 15

Dick Cheney was placed directly in charge of managing the seamless integration of all training exercises throughout the entire federal government and all military agencies. On 9/11 Cheney oversaw multiple war games and terror drills, including several exercises of NORAD, the Air Force agency whose mandate is to "watch the sky."
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml

So this Bush move creates a new office. Ruppert then says this means Cheney oversaw the NORAD exercises, something for which there's no evidence at all. Some truthers then take this a little further and say he was "commander of NORAD", which is totally absurd, but then they're plainly so used to that they really don't notice.

ETA: I see Alex Jones has done something about this, too. Fun debunking exercise: see how many fictions you can spot in the 3:34 YouTube clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o11u4EW9Hn8)

Derail over. Sorry!

[pgwenthold]

<Devil's advocate>
What do you do then, when you are in a debate focused on, for example, flight 93, and they whip out the Pentagon? How do you refocus without appearing to be trying to dodge the issue?
</Devil's advocate>

Easy. You say, "So you concede that flight 93 happened exactly as described in the 9/11 Commission report?"

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Easy. You say, "So you concede that flight 93 happened exactly as described in the 9/11 Commission report?"

Hrm, let me give a better example of the exchange I would expect to see:

(debate topic is collapse of WTC 1 & 2)
CTist: blah blah blah CD blah blah
Debunker: evidence, evidence, fire, plane, gravity
CTist: Ah, but no plane hit WTC 7 and the fires were not nearly as intense blah blah blah (Trying to suggest that WTC7 was a CD and therefore the idea that 1 & 2 were also CDs is not as outlandish as the debunker is proving it to be).
Debunker: <how to refocus on just 1 & 2 (since that's the point of the debate and what you are prepared to discuss) without looking like you are dodging 7>

[CurtC]

Something like "we were talking about WTC 1 and 2. By switching to the subject of WTC7, I assume that you're conceding there is no evidence for controlled demolition in 1 and 2?"