Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Thom Hartmann's 9/11 Debate Challenge

http://911blogger.com/

Submitted by Reprehensor on Tue, 06/19/2007 - 2:03pm.

Thom Hartmann's 9/11 Debate Challengedebate Nationally syndicated progressive talk show host Thom Hartmann, (Air America), has issued a challenge to those researching 9/11.
He wants a representative from the skeptics of the Government's "Official Conspiracy Theory", the "OCT", and a defender of the OCT, to come on his show at the same time, and debate their positions in a civil manner.
Hartmann tasked his producer approximately 6 months ago to find a well-known defender of the OCT to accept the terms of the debate, and not a single one would. On Friday, June 15, Hartmann renewed his challenge on air, and noted that the problem seems to lay with the OCT defenders, who won't come on the show at the same time as the skeptics, and won't take calls from the public following a few rounds of debate.
On Monday, June 18, Hartmann renewed the call again;
"I mentioned on the program a couple days ago that we tried to put together a program about 9/11 where we wanted to get on the folks from Popular Mechanics, or some variation, someone who would take the position of the 9/11 Commission... and get some representatives from the 9/11 Truth community of one of its variations, and Dave, my producer came on and said we couldn't find anybody who would come on and debate.
First of all we can't find anybody, NOBODY has contacted us (on the OCT side), and we've contacted a number of them, the magazine (Popular Mechanics) wouldn't do it... would come on and take that position, and so... to have somebody come on and say, "it was a controlled demolition", and not to have somebody on the other side say, "no, wait a minute, here", it wouldn't be a discussion, it just be... bad.
It's amazing, I've gotten several hundred emails over the last couple days in consequence of that, many of them people saying, "I'd be glad to come on", I'd be glad to debate... all of them on the conspiracy side of it...
(More after the jump.)