Thursday, July 13, 2006

Roginsky concedes defeat without firing a shot.

Sorry folks, but the debate is over already – before it started in fact.

Jacob Rogisnky – supporting the official story of Sept 11- has already conceded defeat.

This began because Roginsky challenged anyone who was prepared to take him on to debate the events of Sept 11. I accepted the challenge. We set up this blog, so that we would have a forum free from interference. A chance to go one on one.

I made my opening statement. In response, Roginsky went ballistic, claiming that I had violated debate protocols. Rogisnky wanted to impose a condition that I not be allowed to post anything without his permission. He claimed that by posting something without his permission I had displayed unethical debating practice.

Still, what else can you expect from someone loony enough to believe the official story of Sept 11? The article below was written about people like Roginsky.

“Watch out for mad conspiracy theories” http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/mad.html

I’ve met some loonies in my time, but I think this is the first time I've met someone who believes that a debate is conducted by one side vetting the posts of the other. Here is the email which Rogisnky wrote to me, after I posted my introductory statement.

BEGIN ROGINSKY EMAIL

Gerard:I have not posted any opening statements at all, and find it impossible to move forward with you as a debating partner. I am astonished at your continued one-sided, self-serving, and ungentlemanly approaches to this debate. As seen from the below posts, I repeatedly complained of your disregard for the minimal norms of setting up and conducting a debate, and I have repeated that our agreeing on the focus and rules of the debate must come before we begin to debate. Now you ignored my sentiment once more by proceeding to post your "opening statement" to the web site, without checking with me first as to my readiness to begin, willingness to allow you to go first, and my willingness to forgo the aforementioned preliminaries. In addition, your "opening statement" contains the totality of your theories and arguments. Even if the theories and arguments were meaningful and correct -- I will not concede that -- such an opening statement belies the essence of the opening statements. Moreover, it is in the nature of the statement dumped by peddlers of conspiracy theories, who swamp the reader with tons of "information" so that no intelligent, sophisticated people -- almost always a busy person -- could afford to put in the time to understand and debunk the nonsense. You should remember that I repeatedly stressed that I would only debate my opponent one issue at a time. I will conclude by saying that your debating tactics are unprofessional, amateurish, and underhanded, and that I have neither time nor reputation to waste on the ridiculous pursuit you have in mind as our "debate." My challenge to APFN was to let me debate the best debater the 911 conspiracy movement has. If you are it, my already dim view of the movement has been overrated.


Jacob Roginsky

END ROGINSKY EMAIL

Well... so sorry for writing without your persmission, Jacob.

I was under the misconception that a debate was each person putting forward their evidence and arguments. Apparently I misunderstood the concept. Apparently only one side is allowed to do that.

But it gets better. I told Jacob that he could write whatever he wanted on this blog - just like me, but that if he was going to use this pathetic excuse to back out of the challenge which he himself had issued, then I was not going to keep it a secret. That I would publish his email on the blog so that people would know why the great debate never took place.

Well…if you thought he was angry that I had the temerity to write a post without his permission, then things were only just warming up.

Here’s his ballistic response to my notification that I would post the email on the blog.

BEGIN ROGINSKY EMAIL

should you add your titles to my post, or change anything else in it, or declare it to be my capitulation, the web site of A Matter of Justice, which is well known and well-visited, will have a page for you, your fraud, your manipulations, your dirty tricks, your crackpot theories, and the comments others in the 911 movement have made about you -- some warned me that you would behave the way you turned out to behave here. You want war, you will get war!Jacob Roginsky

END ROGINSKY EMAIL

Shaking in my shoes…

This was meant to be a debate about Sept 11, but only one person wanted to debate those facts.

Would somebody else like to try ?

Or is Jacob Rogisnky the best that the official conspiracy theory has to offer ?.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Gerard Holmgren - Summary of main points of evidence

Summary of points of evidence.

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

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

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

It needs to be divided into a number of sections.

The first is what can be called LIHOP (Let it happen on purpose)

This section hypothetically concedes, for the sake of argument, that the events of Sept 11 happened more or less as we were told, and then goes on to show that if this were so then the Govt must have had full foreknowledge and taken conscious and deliberate steps to ensure that the attacks were successful, because they wanted them to happen.

The second can be called MIHOP (Made it happen on purpose) which demonstrates that in fact, the official version of events is almost complete fiction, and that the atrocity was entirely orchestrated by the Govt and media.

Within each of these two sections, I will divide the points into those which are major points of evidence and those which are more circumstantial or minor when viewed in isolation, but when taken in total context , act cumulatively to add more weight to the case.

This list is not necessarily exhaustive, and I reserve the right to later add anything which may have been missed by oversight in this list.

LIHOP – MAJOR POINTS.

1.The failure of the US air force to even attempt to intercept any of the allegedly hijacked planes, and the later attempts to cover this up is powerful evidence that if we were being told the truth about the timeline of the alleged hijackings, then the air force must have been ordered to stand down from routine interception procedures.

2. The movements and actions of GW Bush on the morning and the subsequent lies about where he was, what he was doing and what he knew in the crucial period between 8.45 and 9.45 AM indict him as having foreknowledge of the event and conspiring to deliberately avoid taking any action which might have minimized the impact of the attacks. Similar evidence exists against Acting Chaiman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.

MINOR POINTS.

1.The invasion of Afghanistan – supposedly in retaliation – had already been planned prior to Sept 11.
2 Financial transactions surrounding the soon to be gone WTC towers indicate foreknowledge on the part of certain business interests.

MIHOP – MAJOR POINTS.

The WTC towers and WTC 7 were brought down with controlled demolitions, and there is evidence that highly advanced technology was used – not just conventional explosives alone.

No large aircraft struck the Pentagon. And the flight alleged to have been involved – AA 77 did not even exist.

No plane crashed in PA. And the plane which flew UA 93 that day was still registered as valid in the FAA aircraft registry for more than 4 years later.

The object which hit the Nth tower was not a large passenger jet, nor any kind of conventional aircraft. The flight alleged to have been involved - AA 11 - did not exist. The media published faked passenger lists for this non existent flight.

The footage we were shown on TV of a large plane apparently hitting the WTC Sth is faked. On close examination, the video is a crude animation, and the many different videos all radically contradict each other in the approach to the tower. The plane which flew this flight on the day was still registered as valid in the FAA aircraft registry for more than 4 years after.

There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the alleged hijackers were aboard any of the flights ( even ignoring the fact that two of the flights did not exist). There is evidence that several of them are still alive, or at least were immediately following Sept 11, and protesting their innocence.

The alleged “confession tape” of Osama Bin laden is a fake.

MINOR POINTS.

There are too many to list here, but as a way of generalization, there are many points presented as evidence for the official story which can only be described as bad cartoon scripts. They are so implausible as to be laughable. There are too many to list here fully, but for example:

Supposedly , four large planes crashed that day, but the wreckage and the bodies of the occupants were never found, supposedly effectively vaporized by the impact. But somehow, the passports of the alleged hijackers were miraculously found nearby in good enough condition for the FBI to name the suspects within a few days. In addition, although the mythical hijackers had supposedly completed their flight training well before the operation, they somehow found it necessary to take flight manuals in Arabic to the airport and leave them in cars which they had been rented in order to be quickly found by the FBI. As if that wasn’t enough, the luggage of the ringleader Mahommed Atta, was fortuitously left behind at Logan, and just happened to contain instructions to his fellow hijackers. Add to that the ridiculous idea that a plane could be taken over by people with little knives, without the crew first getting the chance to punch in the four digit hijacking code. Not just once – but four times out of four. On the mythical flight 11, they are alleged to have gone on a lengthy shooting and stabbing rampage before gaining entry to the cockpit, and somehow the crew still didn’t activate the code.

I could go on, but this is just a small sample. In summary – even with evidence positively to the contrary, the official story of the hijackings is intrinsically ludicrous. Such a thing simply could not happen in real life. It’s easy to say “they took over the planes”, but not so easy to describe exactly how this would be possible in real life.

Perhaps this list of absurdities can be examined in more detail, bit it is more logical to examine the major points first. If there were no hijacked planes to begin with, then the *entire* Govt and media story collapses – without the need for more detailed deconstruction.

Demonstrating even one of the major points above demonstrates either Govt complicity or orchestration – depending on which point one was to demonstrate.

Depending on the point which is demonstrated, other parts of the official story might still stand, or they may all collapse, because their founding assumption is gone.

For example – if one were to demonstrate only the LIHOP evidence, this would still demonstrate treason and mass murder on the part of the administration, even if the demolition argument were to fail.

If one were to demonstrate only the demolition, this would have a similar effect.

But if one were to demonstrate the TV fakery in relation to the Sth tower, then the *entire* official story collapses, without the need to individually examine the other points, and it would also directly indict the media in a generic sense.

Also a note about standards of evidence.

Weight of evidence is not a yes or no question.

It is not as if something is either proven or baseless. There are many shades in between. There is such a thing as proof and where it is demonstrated , it is appropriate to call it as such. However there are also situations where one can demonstrate weight of evidence which may stop short of proof but be sufficiently strong that a reasonable person might accept the case as probable truth. There are even situations where the weight of evidence is less than overwhelming but still of sufficient strength to justify strong suspicion that the case may be true.

As the debate proceeds, I will demonstrate that the great majority of the points listed above deserve the status of “proof” in their own right, let alone when taken in the larger context of all of the evidence together. There are other points which , when viewed in isolation deserve only the status of “strong evidence” or “grounds for significant suspicion”, but when added to the overall context become proven.

By contrast, we will see that the official story provides *no* evidence for itself whatsoever. It is an illusion propped up by mere blind faith that if the Govt and media tells us such things, surely they would not lie on such a grand scale.

This will be a case of critical analysis vs blind faith.

If we apply equal burden of evidence/proof to both sides it is non contest.

Even the heavily skewed playing field of demanding proof of my case and no evidence whatsoever for the official story will still yield the proof required.

Let the debate begin.

Gerard Holmgren. Opening Statement.

In this debate, I will present the case that the events of Sept 11 2001, were planned and carried out by the US Govt and its agencies, with the full complicity of people high up in the mainstream media.

It is a question not only of who did it, but also that the details of what actually happened on the day are very different from what the media led people to believe.

A summary of this evidence is presented at my site

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

From there you can follow the links to detailed research and documentation.

Jacob Roginsky apparently intends to take issue with my position. I now await his opening statement.

This Blog Created for Roginsky -- Holmgren Debate

To create a widely accessible neutral ground for debating issues surrounding 911.
Since all posts will show the same name, both participants must sign their posts.