NYT 9/11 DEBATE INVITATION from Don Paul & Jim Hoffman

[graphixtech]

Formal Debate Invitation Letter
http://wtc7.net/events/nyt/letter.html

Don Paul and Jim Hoffman Challenge NEW YORK TIMES'
Writers James Glanz and Eric Lipton to Debate
on the Crimes of September 11, 2001 in New York City

"LET'S SEE WHAT'S TRUE"
http://wtc7.net/events/nyt/index.html
Monday, May 22, 2006


A letter delivered by USPS Express Mail to The New York Times' editorial offices today invited Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton to debate two of the most acclaimed researchers into the crimes of September 11. 2001, Jim Hoffman and Don Paul, about the provable and likeliest causes for the murderous collapses of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 during the 'Attack on America' five years ago.

Glanz, who has a Doctorate in Physics from Princeton University, and Lipton, winner of a 1992 Pulitzer Prize for explanatory reportage, are co-authors of a 428-page book, City in the Sky / The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center, published by Times Books and Henry Holt and Company in 2003.

Paul, a former Stegner Fellow in Creative Writing at Stanford University, and Hoffman, whose work has been featured in Nature, Science, and Scientific American, are two of the most lauded researchers into 9/11/01 (see quotes below). Both believe that a public debate about what truly happened during the attacks of 9/11/01 in the United States continues to be urgent.

"The evidence and the proofs of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers should compel us
in this nation to examine who must really be guilty for the crimes of September 11, 2001,"
Hoffman said. "Had mass media in the U. S. practiced responsible journalism toward those
crimes, the Official Story for them would have itself exploded years ago. Instead, we have
anthropomorphic absurdities from Glanz and and Lipton and many others."

"The public here stands on the edge of another war, a war on Iran, that derives directly from the 'pretext' that the 'big lie' about September 11, 2001 has provided for a completely unproductive 'War on Terrorism", Paul said."We ask the authors of City in the Sky to look at findings that any person of fair and open mind can confirm."

Reason for the Challenge

On the occasion of the release of their new DVD, 9/11 Guilt / The Proof Is in Your Hands, Jim Hoffman and Don Paul, two of the most acclaimed writers on the subject of 2001's 'Attack on America', invite James Glantz and Eric Lipton, staff writers for The New York Times and authors of a 2003 book on the World Trade Center and its destruction to a debate on the facts and consequences of the 9/11/01 crimes in New York City.

"We chose James Glantz and Eric Lipton for our invitation because their skills and prominence nicely
represent the illusion-bearers in mass-media who have steadfastly covered up the obvious demolition
of World Trade Center Building 7 and the Twin Towers," said Don Paul, whose presentation in the
new DVD is titled 'Indicting Financiers behind the Crimes of 9/11/01'.

"City in the Sky stands out for its use of inventive prose and silly anthropomorphisms to hide
basic realties about the Twin Towers' structures and their explosive, symmetrical destruction,"
said Jim Hoffman, creator of the highly praised websites WTC7.net and 911Research.WTC7.net,
"We hope Mr. Glantz and Mr. Lipton will join us in a discussion that could help to restore
journalistic integrity in the United States."

"We need our mass-media to at last expose the 'Big Lie' of 9/11/01 before more of such lies provide
the 'pretext' for a war on Iran," Paul added. "We hope for a public debate before that war starts."

http://wtc7.net/store/videos/proof/index.html

Hoffman and Paul will fly themselves to New York City for the prospective debate.
Several venues are under consideration.

[wildbilln864]

1. Great post! Thanks!

I am so looking forward to the outcome of this debate. This must be recorded and televised.

[greyl]

2. It's only an "invitation" to a publicity stunt at this point. nt

[petgoat]

3. A "Publicity Stunt." I see.

Right, Mr. Paul and Mr. Hoffman just want to sell more copies of those books that they're
getting rich selling.

They have no interest in sparking some public dialogue on important issues. They just want
to be on TV.

I think public dialogue is a good thing. Why are the defenders of the official story
unwilling to engage in it?

Here's about the only dialogue they can get in California, and they have to risk arrest
to get it.



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8888742751442686831

[greyl]

4. It sure as hell isn't a debate yet.

It's clearly a publicity stunt with some goading thrown in. The link in the OP is a press release, not a news item.

Is it an open invitation? No, it's directed at two specific people and then called a debate with the New York Times. The release makes clear that Glantz and Lipton aren't held in any high regard by Hoffman and Paul: "City in the Sky stands out for its use of inventive prose and silly anthropomorphisms to hide basic realties about the Twin Towers' structures and their explosive, symmetrical destruction," said Jim Hoffman, creator of the highly praised websites WTC7.net and 911Research.WTC7.net That quote is on wtc7.net. That's where it originated.

They're trying to get publicity. There's nothing to argue with about that.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Is there something wrong with that?

This reminds me of a story I heard about Dolly Parton. Parton was blessed with a beautiful singing voice and is a talented songwriter. However, an interviewer asked her once about her appearance and she responded that despite having talent, sometimes you just have to do something else to get their attention.

[Grateful for Hope]

8. I see nothing wrong with it

They posted the challenge on their website -- where their books/DVD's are already mentioned and available to purchase. It is not on their front page, but rather, it is listed under their events section.

It is not as if they took a full-page ad out in the NYT to publicize this -- they are obviously merely letting people who already visit their website know that this challenge was issued. These same people presumably already know about their books, and, if they don't, the website would provide the info anyway.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether the NYT will take them up on it.

[greyl]

12. Ask petgoat. Apparently she thinks so.

Can anyone in here follow a conversation?

[Jazz2006]

5. It obviously IS a publicity stunt...

to issue a breathless "press release" about the fact that you've delivered a letter to someone (wow!!!) challenging them to a debate, while enclosing copies of your new book (the real point of the "press release"), and then publicizing your "challenge" on your website immediately (i.e. before the recipients would even have a chance to read your book, let alone consider whether or not they want to be seen in public with you, let alone consider whether they think you are a legitimate debate opponent, and before giving the recipients a chance to respond to your letter.

Sounds like the kind of tactics republicans and freepers employ.

I would actually like to see Glanz and Lipton debate Hoffman and Paul (though I wouldn't blame them if they tossed that letter straight into the circular file, considering the source), but that doesn't change the fact that Hoffman and Paul are obviously engaging in freeper tactics to hype their book and themselves at this point.

[rastafan]

9. The NYT role in the Cover-up, REALITY is quite different

It is ludicrous to compare Paul and Hoffman's debate challenge as freeperish.
The corporate press' cover-up role of the crimes of 9/11 is an extremely valid issue!

Glanz and Lipton appear to be NYT government propagandists for the official story.
http://www.holtzbrinckpublishers.com/academic/book/BookDisplay.asp?BookKey=1448583


There was an excellent "NOT the NYT" tabloid I saw from last year's Ground Zero event, full of actual facts and information and legitimate questions about the 9/11 attacks. Readers should REPLACE the Pravda corporate press with this type of legitimate alternative press! Corporate press are rendering themselves obsolete as an increasing number of americans see through the near complete BLACKOUT of honest coverage about America's (and the planet's) most critical issues, including clear US government complicity in 9/11.


propagandist
n : a person who disseminates messages calculated to assist some cause or some government


ALL 9/11 aware americans should pressure NYT writers
Glanz and Lipton to AGREE TO THIS DEBATE!


Superb Edward R. Murrow speech about ethical journalism (Good Night and Good Luck)
http://wip.warnerbros.com/goodnightgoodluck/index1.html

[petgoat]

10. Not the New York Times! Love it! nt

[Bryan Sacks]

13. you would really love the content, too

jack riddler was the author, I believe. Think he'd send you a copy if you wanted.

[JackRiddler]

14. Thanks guys

Here is Not The New York Times on the Web

Frontpage


That and two other pages also available in PDF, go here
http://summeroftruth.org/09-11-2005.html

And scroll down for a while, it will appear on the right side.

[rastafan]

15. Mass media's failure to investigate

Thanks for the scans. I'd nearly forgotten what real news media looked like! The Not The New York Times puts the corporate NYT to shame.

This Paul/Hoffman debate invitation serves as a potentially great publicity avenue to focus attention on the mass media's failure to investigate the crimes of 9/11.

Riddler, will 911Truth.org be publishing this NYT Invitation Challenge?

I will be sending a communication to NYT staff writers James Glantz and Eric Lipton. I would pay good money to see any variation of this particular 9-11 debate.

[Hoping4Change]

16. Thanks for posting this. I've never heard about Not the NYT.

Very effective.

[Hoping4Change]

17. Thanks for posting this. I've never heard about Not the NYT.

Very effective.

[HornBuckler]

6. When is this debate going down?

I have read your post but I don't see a time and date - did I miss it?

[greyl]

11. and you would have us believe that you comprehend

what McIntyre's quote means?

There is no debate.