Richard Syrett Show 9/11 Truth Debate: Richard Gage vs. Ron Craig


Richard Gage, AIA debated Ron Craig, a member of the International Society of Explosives Engineers, on the "collapse" of the 3 WTC buildings, Monday, November 12, 2007 (2 hours).

The interviewer/host was Richard Syrett, of The Richard Syrett Show, on Newstalk 1010, Toronto, Canada.

I was able to create a generally commercial-free MP3 of the show. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find an audio file hosting website that could handle the required 64.6 MB, so I just directly uploaded a WMV version of the debate to YouTube, which then rejected it because it was too long. So now it’s available on but who knows for how long . . .

I won’t spoil the surprise. But I will say that the debate went very well and is yet another indication of good things to come for 9/11 truth!

Audio Hosting Site :

I have found the website Radio 4 All at to be a great source of information on all sorts of alternative ideas.

It's real simple to log in as a user to post your audio.

Word out to all!!

I would like to see more 911 truthers using this site.

Being in radio up here in the Yukon, I can download a show and put it on the air right away, or listen to it on my MP3 player while I do my daily stuff.

You Tube is fine but it is difficult to extract audio from to burn CDs.

I have made audio versions of Loose Change 2nd ED, Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometimes, David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones. PSAs, 911 music all sorts of alternative perspectives.

I hope this sparks interest in audio interviews of 911 truthers of all stripes.

Think about recording speakers that come to your town. If you ask you may be able to plug into the sound system for better quality than an audience recording.

Think of all the great content this site posts every day and the loss of an audience because it is only available on You Tube.

While you are uploading to You Tube make an audio version and post to Radio 4 All to double the impact of your hard work.

Audio is not dead.

Keep up the good work everybody.

Bill Polonsky
"The evidence is there no matter how much you don't want it to be."

Thanks for the tip Bill

Your website is informative and useful -

Thanks again for the Radio 4 All link. This is a pretty impressive resource, it supports fast download speeds and has a number of interesting audio programs on.

There are topics in Political Activism, Arts & Humanities, Education & Reference, News, Health etc etc.

This is why 911 Blogger is so useful as it allows us to exchange and share good ideas and resources such as these.

Keep it up fellow truthers.

Btw, do you have a specific Radio 4 All channel of your own where we can see the audio programs you have downloaded.

Currently I am browsing by topic and it does seem mixed with other topics.

Thanks. Its a good site.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

I have a few programs from

I have a few programs from way back when under Strange Things Done Internet Media I have a couple of John Lennon shows that may be of interest to some.

A 911 show I did in 2003 called Aftermath of 911 is a little out of date, but I'm glad I did that. At the time I was broadcasting from CFUV at the University of Victoria in BC.

Check out the artist B*O*K* I interspaced betweed talking bits. "Afraid of Enduring Freedom: A 'War on Terrorism' Documentary", This CD is incredible. she is from Austrailia and does political audio collage. ( also check out The Spoils of War full download here

I used Barrie Zwickers Great deception to glue the bits together.

Like I said It's a little out of date ( pre David Ray Griffin, controlled demolition ) but I had the most response from this show than I had of any i did in 12 years of broadcasting at CFUV.

Today I'm in Whitehorse Yukon doing screenings at the local library and usually get 15 to 20 people showing up to each one.

My interest in audio sources of current 911 talks is because I'm a program director at CJUC FM in Whitehorse and have a couple of hours a day to fill with spoken word.

for 911 stuff I would direct a search at the program "911" "Unwelcomed Guests" , "TUC Radio" , "John Judge" also David Ray Griffin, "Steven Jones".

There are 911 programs going back to the week of 9/11/01

Bill Polonsky
"The evidence is there no matter how much you don't want it to be."


Barrie Zwickers work is pioneering and excellent.

The concept of political audio collage is powerful.

This is the power of the New Media.

Something to tap into the next generation to get them to stop and listen.And take action.

How big is the approx listening audience at CJUC FM in Whitehorse?

And what type of mix of audience do you think there is? Student? Professionals? Homemakers etc?

This is interesting and good news.

I am glad you are broadcasting Truth information and good alternative news out there.

Great to hear about your screenings at the local library.

This is the type of grassroots plus radio activism that will, as it builds momentum ,shake the foundations of those dark forces that are carrying out false-flag terror events and unjustified wars.

Pls keep it up and hope to hear more often from you.

If I may suggest, why not post some blogs on your current broadcasts, events, etc. This will attract more viewers/ listeners and possibly from around the world.

Thanks again for the work you are doing.

I for one find the information you offer compelling, useful and effective.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Unwelcome Guests and TUC Radio

Unwelcome Guests and TUC Radio, both on the A-Infos site are really good, also Truth Revolution Radio without adverts is now being put on there:

Thank the Station Who Hosted this.


Contact Richard Syrett:

Contact Us
CFRB's Main Switchboard: 416-924-5711
CFRB's Main Fax Line: 416-872-8683
CFRB's Newsroom Line: 416-924-6717
To advertise on CFRB call Scott Johns, Sales Manager 416 924-5711
CFRB's News Fax Line: 416-323-6816
On-Air Talk Show Line: 416-872-1010
Long Distance Talk Show Line: 1-800-561-CFRB [1-800-561-2372]
Cellular Talk Show Line: *8255 [*TALK]

2 St. Clair Avenue West, Second Floor
Toronto, Ontario M4V 1L6
How do I get my prize? | Map
In order for a fast response please be sure to send your questions or comments to the correct email address
Questions or comments for our hosts
CFRB Show Hosts:

Questions about guests, programs or sponsors
Carlo Massaro - Information Officer:

Check out this list of videos!!!!

Great interview

It's amusing how Supporters of the official story are never able to explain the evidence such as freefall speed which is impossible through gravitational collapse, or the symmetric nature of the WTC7 collapse, or the leaning top section of the South tower leading to a symmetric collapse, or the 64% uniform freefall acceleration of the (virtually disintegrated) north tower top section through the path of a greater upward resistance.

They always try to draw the debate into speculative territory, demanding explanations of exactly how they did it to prove controlled demolition. This is the height of logical fallacy as often Gage has used the analogy of a man found shot dead and the authorities not needing to know who did it to initiate a criminal investigation.

Ron Craig uses multiple fallacies including assertions that the structure of the steel frame somehow negated thermal conductivity, or that the lesser concrete somehow made it more vulnerable to fire when in fact the concrete encasement in the Windsor Tower for example actually trapped heat making the steel hotter and yet it did not fully collapse. As for his thermite comments, he assumed the same lame application as evidenced in the sad excuse for a national Geographic experiment, some thermite placed next to a beam etc. He ignored nanothermite which is much more explosive and reactive, and the iron spheres.
He lacked serious chemical and metallurgical knowledge for a demolitions expert claiming that a material with a low melting point could stay extremely high temperatures (Hotter than the fire???!!!) for an extended period.
He also said it's impossible to place the charges with NO explanation!!!! He had no valid response to the elevator modernisation opportunity issue.

All credit to Ron Craig for not resorting to personal attacks and remaining calm. One gets the feeling that he knew he was just there to obfuscate relying on his field of explosives expertise and avoid the collapse-physics evidence. This was probably the reason a physicist did not debate Richard because such an expert would not have been able to support the official story, best to send someone who can legitimately avoid it.

Great work Richard Gage (Nailed him!) and Richard Syrette host for ensuring a fair and civil broadcast.

Excellent job Mekt_Ranzz.

Thanks for your efforts in getting this out so quickly.

This is helpful. Appreciate it,


The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it


Thanks for the post.
As expected the terrorist - Richard 'Pipe Bomb' Gage - got the job done.
Kudos to 1010 and Syrett.

What a horrible thing to say.

If you were debating Gage you would likely fare poorer than Mr. Craig.

It's called sarcasm.

It's called sarcasm.

Thanks Richard for defending the truth!

Well done! Ron Craig repeatedly used the (worn and weak) argument
that placing explosives would be impossible and would be noticed.
This argument is however no defense what so ever to the evidence!
(Besides, the new investigation into 911 will probabaly shine a light on that issue also)

Craig kept denying thermate as it would not have been used because it is unreliable, unpredictable and not hi tech(?)

Hoffman came on the show also and debunked some of Craigs crap!
Craig called his debunking "spaghetti" (too much to handle I guess! )but it was excellent.

Who sent Mr. Craig in as defender of the official lie?

Looking at the website for International Society of Explosives Engineers
it's rather apparent that they're quite close to the alphabet soup agencies and the military.
Where would the perps go to recruit someone to plan the demolitions? The ISEE?
Mr. Craig obviously knew he was defending a lie.
The perps are getting very nervous and it just may be that they've shown a little bit more of themselves.

disinfo agents like Ron Craig

make me feel sick in the stomach... filthy lying scum!

This is what we're up against, hired liars with no morals and no conscience.

These people have nothing to offer the discussion, they are pure poison.

They are enemies of the truth, their job is to obscure and confuse the issues.

They should be loudly discredited and roundly rejected.

Craig's inability to respond to Jim Hoffman's incisive comments with anything other than a childish insult - "it's all spaghetti" - is typical disinfo agent characteristic and clearly shows that Craig has spaghetti brains and no reasonable arguments to counter Hoffman's eminently reasonable remarks.

Probably the best 9/11 truth debate yet.

Thanks for posting it, I really enjoyed it. We're getting closer daily to accountability!

Great show, thanks for the audio Mekt_Ranzz...

Considerate to even remove the ad-breaks, cheers


Final score (out of 10) : Gage 9 - Craig 0 (I did give him one, but took it away for not being straight in his summation re no violent expulsions and his smarmy comment re promotion of "just the truth")

Watch this Ron... and

More... WTC1 -

WTC2 -

WTC7 -

and some LOUD explosions -


Great Call-in by Jim Hoffman too !!!

Fantastic job Richard, shilltastic job by Ron !!!


Many thanks for all you and do, best wishes

Thank You.

Great Debate. I thought two of the strongest points made by Richard Gage were that the twenty or so floors above the crash site couldn't pile drive the undamaged lower portions of the towers into the ground and into dust at free fall speed. That was solid. And the second point that was great was the lateral ejections of steel beams and even body parts from the towers. Ron Craig couldn't explain that, and we know the original fire balls couldn't have and didn't eject body parts onto the Deutche Bank Building. Great aspects that were hammered home real well.

I was impressed and I think Richard Gage will get better and more confident in the more debates he does. He has a knack for it. Thank You.

Thank you Richard.

Excellent, as usual, from Richard. Hoffman's contributions were also very effective. The civility was a great example of how to participate in a debate. Well done! You are a jewel in the movement of truth and justice.

Why was all the most compelling evidence left OUT of LCFC ?

Listen how Richard closes the deal.

Not the same with LCFC.

- Nothing about Dr Jones' research into the sulpherisation.

- No real info about the missing core-columns .

- No squibs

- No Richard Gage.


Good questions, post here too... or


Great debate, thanks Richard Gage!

Emails sent.

"The important thing is to not stop questioning" - Einstein
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" - Einstein
Many hands make light work!
RRREMA=realize, recognize, reconcile, educate, motivate, activate

Gage's explanation for "why use thermite?" was excellent.

Gage's explanation for "why use thermite?" was excellent.

He was really cookin'. Very quick and totally convincing.

I also listened to Kevin Ryan debate Spermer and thought only of the missed opportunities.

Ron Craig

Ron Craig really didn't want to talk about free fall speed or symetrical free fall. He kept going back to how thousands of pounds of explosives could have been planted and why he personally wouldn't use thermite/thermate.

Agreed - perhaps a tactic for future debates?

1. If they refuse to explain the free-fall speed / other features

Response: "You are promoting a theory which YOU YOURSELF cannot show is even SCIENTIFICALLY POSSIBLE, never mind repeatable and testable - as required by the scientific method. How are we to debate if you cannot even explain YOUR OWN THEORY?"

2. When they mention how many explosives/men/etc would have been needed to wire the WTC

Response: "Do you really think that a professional, trained group (ie from an intelligence agency/special forces) cannot rig a building for demolition undetected?"

Richard is one of the biggest assets to the movement IMO

Las Vegas Controlled Demolition

New Frontier Hotel and Casino demolition. Here is the link to the controlled demolition shown on BBC world news. They called it a "controlled explosion" on the broadcast.

The AP link;

tinfoil (70+ / 0-)

tinfoil will be the new black ;-)

by lukery ( Comment on Dkos)

The countdown was a great

The countdown was a great touch! ...along with the fireworks on the roof. almost genious

Thanks for the audio!

Good job...

Richard. You certainly sound like you know what you're talking about.

Who Is? Archives

That was a very civil

That was a very civil debate. Richard was great - calm, erudite and armed with facts. His adversary's argument was weak to say the least. His argument was essentially: "We've never seen such large buildings fell so that's why everything happened the way it did." Clearly, as you can see, he is a brilliant man.

Use for big files

It always amazes me that so few people use the Internet Archive, for uploading audio and video files. They don't have the same file limited as other places, they convert your files into all sorts of other versions and they have flash players, and no adverts!

Of course also putting video on commercial sites to increase the people who get to see it makes sense, but put the raw MPEGs on and get them to generate the other versions.


Care to blog this so others can learn about

"The important thing is to not stop questioning" - Einstein
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" - Einstein
Many hands make light work!
RRREMA=realize, recognize, reconcile, educate, motivate, activate

BMAC: Did you notice the amount of explosives they needed?

For a 16-story building? Over 1000 pounds! The Stardust Casino and Hotel was 32-stories and imploded with only 428 pounds of explosives. So what gives? Kinda strange . . .

Maybe The Light Show At The Beginning Was Included

Not sure what they include in the tally. The camera shot by the wall shows the 3 or 4 floors exploding out. Maybe they went with more explosives on fewer floors than was the case with The Stardust.

Good debate so far...

Very civil and informative. I like the format too but the host seems a taaaaaaad biased, just a tad. I think I just heard Jim Hoffman call in, lol. He's an excitable chap.

A lot to dissect here because both sides gave a good argument. I tend to agree with Gage more though. Bias? Maybe guilty. So I have to give it a second listen.

Thanks for posting this.

Ok Ron Craig Lost me....

I was giving Ron Craig the benefit of the doubt as an expert in his field, but toward the end of the debate. He said something to the effect of "As an investigator I want to or would go back to HOW the supposed explosives were smuggled in, and unless you can prove to me the "WHODUNNIT", I can't take the hypothesis seriously."

Wrong Mr. Craig...dead wrong and oh so unscientific. You know damn well that proving the "who" is nearly impossible at this juncture. To prove that crime or anomaly exists does NOT depend on proving the "who" and "how". If I saw a man shot dead on the street and noticed bullet wounds in his head, I would not need to know WHO did it to know a crime occurred. That was very unscientific of you to rest the burden of prove on the "who" knowing full well we do not know the WHO and can only postulate on the HOW.

By saying you will not give the hypothesis attention for lack of the WHO's and HOW's you have closed the door on the science(post event). You failed Sir. You lost with that premise. I applaud your civility and effort, but you failed.

It reminded me of Shermer's "Well Al Qaeda admitted they did it so there you go".

He no like free fall speed

Of course we all know that Sir Isaac Newton is one of the several number two Al Kidas in Iraq. I hate them Al Kidas!


(bad attempt at humor - great job Richard!!!!)

QuickTime formats (.mov and .zip) on the way

I will post the links in about 15 minutes.


Does anyone know if a written transcript is in the works? I'm only about 40% of the way through the debate, and I've also detected Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Emotion, question evasion, and hand-waving platitudes IMHO.

Is this the same Ron Craig who is a movie special FX guy?

[if so, there is some interesting info here]
[Page 2 states: Trained in Advanced Practical Effects under Special Effects Coordinator Ron Craig]
[Under "Film and Television", page 2 states: JUNGLE GROUND Special Effects Assistant RON CRAIG, CO-ORDINATOR

Under Training, Page 4 states: Advanced fire safety - Ron Craig]

I'm sensing some less-than-scientific MSM "myth-busting" here IMHO...

From the first Craig article

"'I deal in smoke and mirrors — magic,' says Craig"

No kidding.


Thank you Mr. Richard Gage. You are one of our best representatives and this debate further solidified your position as one of our most important leaders. Unlike the recent lackluster performance of Mr. Kevin Ryan, you clearly addressed each and every point made by your opposition, and time and again hammered home our most significant evidence. It's unfortunate that these ultra-consequential issues have been confined to candian radio shows and quick sound bytes, but you made the most of the situation, and no doubt advanced this movement another step closer to a more widespread awakening.

I salute you.


Kevin Ryan

wasn't so bad either!

Here we Go!

God Bless you Richard...

This is the moment we have been waiting for......combine your civil and intelligent analysis of WTC 'collapses' with the family members (especially the 'Jersey' Girls' and the first Responders who are dieing from the this same "dust' in their lungs) ...and you have a winning combination...
...that can save our Constitution,....... our Republic and ........thousands of innocent lives....

Nothing else will stop their "generations of war " abroad and facsism at home.

strong>Radical Pragmatist

Audio on Conspiracy Central


Yes, I will be making a transcript, hopefully in the next few days. I think it will be posted on, or on the radio host's site.


Just so you know

I accidentally forgot to press the record button on my wave editor about two or three seconds into Richard Syrett's intro to the, I believe, last segment of the debate. All that is basically missing is this introduction of one of the callers. No 9/11 truth information was lost and none of the guests were speaking at the time. But for the sake of accuracy, I thought I should say it now -- especially if you're going to draw up a transcript. There's probably some way for me to get the part that's missing. Maybe the radio station has an MP3 of the debate (but with commercials)? ;)

When you have finished please put a link to it on

When you have finished please put a link to it on

Thanks for putting this together--it was hilarious

Gage absolutely eviscerated Mr. Bombadier, who almost seemed like a 9/11 Truther plant at times. I spit coffee on my screen when he said, in response to Gage noting that Lower Manhattan was covered in 1-4 inches of WTC dust of less than 4 micron particles--

"Concrete disintegrates at such-and-such amount of force, so the airplane's impact accounts for some of the dust."

Did he really just make Gage's point for him??

marvin and his cousin

Why the guy (ron) didn't answer about the comment or question on bush's brother and their cousin
that they were in charge of the security of the WTC complex?.....
(They had the time to rig the building with explosives)....didn't they??

Ron Craig's Paradox

Ron Craig only made two only points, which can summed up thusly:

1) "Do you realize how many miles of wire, how many tons of explosives, and how many jigawatts of power it would take to dmolish those buildings? It would be impossible to rig it up without getting caught"
2) "The kinetic energy of the plane was sufficient to bring down the buildings"

Does anybody see a fundamental contradiction here?

Richard Gage owned this clown. He's the real deal.

That's the one thing that stood out most...

...for me, and I was on the edge of my seat waiting for Mr. Gage to land this knock-out blow to the other guy's cred, but he didn't come thru. Otherwise, good interview.


2) Kinetic energy is energy of motion. When the plane stopped moving, by crashing into the building, it gave up its kinetic energy to the building. The building absorbed that energy and did not collapse, so therefore the kinetic energy of motion of the plane was in fact insufficient to bring down the building.

1) With remote control detonators, I would imagine that zero feet of wires would be necessary. If he actually wonders at all the gigawatts of explosive energy that would be required to blow the buildings into dust, that begs the obvious question–How did the buildings pulverize themselves without explosives? Really, this is a truly mindless argument that refutes itself.

Precisely what I was yelling

at my puter monitor while this imbecile was saying it.

Ron Craig is either in deep hard core religious denial of absolute fact, OR he is a lying piece of shit, those are really the only 2 possibilities.

Same here ...

the planes kinetic energy brought down the towers?!! such an obvious load of crap ... i'll go with lying piece of shit!

Not exactly...

Hello tzo,

You are correct that there is a FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICAL concept called "conservation of momentum". "Collision dynamics" is not all that tidy, but it uses Conservation Laws as its foundation.

RE: "Remote control detonators"-- by definition, "remote" indicates that NO wires, det-cord- that's FUN!, or other "wired networks" would be required... RF, Microwave, ELF, ULF, VHF, SHF--- which "remote" band are you interested in??

P.S. I believe that "GW" is prounounced "GiGGAwatts", not "JiggaWatts"... [All apologies to Christopher Lloyd and Michael J. Fox]

competing theories - demolitions vs planes/fires

Hi, ha ha, yes, I was going off about the same problem, below.

Ok, so I just had a funny graphic idea, with two pictures of how to take out a skyscraper.
1) Carefully place thousands of charges strategically throughout the building, cutting thousands of columns, and watch it all go down (quick).

2) Slam a 757 into the 80th floor, and in the graphic make it so that the whole building (cartoon-quick) crackles and falls into rubble on the ground.

These are two ways supported by official demolitions experts for taking out a skyscraper.

And as a later, 3rd pic bonus, make it so that some damage and some fire makes 47-story building 7 cartoon-quick crumble into the ground.

Ok, that's the idea. One of the things I think is highlighted for me is the tremendous contrast between such an elaborate and meticulous task, and such a blunt, random and asymmetrical act. Twice for the towers. It's cartoon-like.

All demolitions arguments, pro or con, are severely contrasting with the planes and fires theory, which is a simple, blunt act. That means that all demolitions arguments are pro-911-Demolitions-Truth.

Cheers -
Coop Assembly

Why miles of wire? Explosives can be set of by radio !

Herblay FRANCE

why miles of wire? Today, for situations where we do not want wires trailing and visible, it is wiser to set of the explosives via radio by a computer

Exactly right

And really, check it out put so SIMPLY!

When asked "How much explosives does it take?" Craig says so many. The real official answer is ZERO explosives. If Craig doesn't say ZERO, then he needs to be demolished, right?

According to Craig, thousands of columns would have to be wired. So bury the guy, because the planes and fires did not wire any columns on the lower 70 or 80 floors (and the fires don't cut columns).

Then, state the amount of energy required to overcome the columns on a single floor, and make that a unit of one's argument - all of one's arguments. Where is the energy to cut all 70 floors below? I believe Gage briefly mentioned this problem at one point.

Jeez, I have to say this. Jim Craig's credentials are so illustrious, I think he and his argument should be used as a poster child. No one could ever live down that kind of bull-tickie.

Sorry for the editing...
1) He says that the planes and fires caused total global collapse.
2) He says that it would be very difficult, and a great deal of explosives would have to be used, with miles of wires, and thousands of charges.

His own demolitions argument refutes the planes and fires as causes.

Cheers -
Coop Assembly

Ron Craig Conceded Defeat When He....

...said he agreed with Richard that a new investigation of Number Seven was neccesary. Ron Craig would be ridiculed by some OCT adherents just for taking that stance alone. Both men were rational. This was a masterful debate. I can't help but conjure up ideas of a Jedi (Our Beloved Richard) and the Sith who Richard is trying to bring back to the Light Side of the Force with irresistable arguments that are charged with pain and emotion over all the lives lost most probably through a manmade artificially engineered event.

The blinding highlights to this Battle Royale in My Opinion were:

1. The Sith claimed that all of the tons of molten metal must have been solder. Where then pray tell is all of the tons of molten solder under longer burning steel framed high rises (or low rises for that matter) ?

2. The Master Stroke was Richard pointing out that the 200 body fragments from the one individual were blown out of the plane strike side of the building. That was an unexpected retort that dropped my jaw and I doubt even the erudite and mercurial Kevin Ryan could have nailed that one. Ron Craig's voice was almost shaking after that.

3. The hi-lighting of the symmetric squibs was even better timed than the squibs themselves.

4. When Richard reminded our little explosive expert Sith that wireless IS available in the modern age, the Sith came off like he was over-engineering his arguments disengenuously to mislead.

5. The Sith claimed that 1300 lbs of explosives alone couldnt be enough to bring down one Tower because of the unsuccessful inside job of 1993. Um, excuse us, but a van parked in a basement is not the same as 1300 lbs of unkown explosive spread throughout the frame of a structure to bring it down at key points.

6. Our brainwashed Sith claims noone could've wired these buildings, someone would have seen them. But they had at least EIGHT YEARS from Inside-Job-1993-WTC to do it. And the same people who wired the building might have been sent to work at Ground Zero during the cleanup, so that the poisons would kill them and their future damning testimony to any Grand Juries.

Here is a Video where all of you here can hear for a few seconds the same explosions that the first responders heard...which you cannot hear on 999.99% of WTC collapse footage.

It sounds just like "Platoon" or " Full Metal Jacket" :

I am sorry, but Richard kicked that man's a$$ from here to Kingdom Come.

Rock On Rich!

Updated Addendum: I must give props to Richard's crystal clear description of the virtually impossible and ludicrous idea of a free-fall collapse of a nearly "indestructible" core. That made the hair stand up on my head and gave me goosebumps. That was really the #1 Highlight and the debate was over at that point as far as I'm concerned.

truthersexposed ?

On looking for info on Ron Craig came across this
Know well your contridictor's aguments and it is easier to make him fall.



Mr Gage, is like a rock

I must say i couldnt have done this interview with this idiot, he was pulling staws from thin air. I loved the part about the fires in the basemeant.
Mr gage should have asked this tool. how does a fire 80+ storys up fall six storys in the basemeant and burn for three weeks?
I heard one thing, i would like this demo guy to try it. Try to clap your hands 90 times in 10 seconds

Hoffman wanted blood

And I enjoyed him coming in at the end. Hoffman well raised the point that Craig's arguments needed to be used as a way to discredit or destroy Craig, by at the very least taking the time to say that his position was collectively absurd.

I think these are interesting points to consider, because when someone is making bad arguments, you can also destroy those arguments, laugh at them, and attack the character o fthe person making the argument.

Gage and Craig had a very nice debate and kept it going without flaring up. I liked what it looked like Hoffman wanted to do, which was to take and put Craig's argument in a new light.

Cheers -

Coop Assembly