San Diego 9/11 Truth Confrontation of Michael Shermer

SD 9/11 Truth Meetup went to confront Shermer tonight. We handed out flyers that got around the room and to him before he even started speaking. After the Q and A we had many concerned citizens who wanted to talk to us because they saw how Shermer disregarded our issues. We handed out all our movies and received thanks from people who said they were glad to see the dissent. The Shermer adoring moderator later agreed that she too is skeptical of the official story, and that she is excited to watch final cut. We stuck around until the very last person had their book signed to continue the discourse. The more we pressed him the more we realized that he is very willfully ignorant. He agrees to debate the leaders of the movement.

We must follow him wherever he goes:

Kevin Ryan v. Shermer

Shermer has already debated Ryan;



"...I typed in to Google Video "building demolition", and there are no less than 2200 videos of buildings that collapsed due to intentional demolition. And every one of them – I haven't found one exception, yet – collapses from the bottom up." - Michael Shermer

Anything you say... "skeptic".

If someone does set up a debate, do it somewhere neutral, with someone with real debate moderation experience presiding, so some rules can be laid down and followed. These talk-show debates are rarely balanced, although Richard Gage held his own and "won" this debate v. demolition expert, Ron Craig;

Plus talk radio always has commercials screwing up the momentum.

I understand your frustration, Rep

Shermer has answered quite a few 9/11 truth questions since his debate on Air America and yet even though he should already know better by now, he keeps invoking the same argument that controlled demolitions are never top down events. What's up with that?

Abby: That was GREAT! I was actually getting worried as I hadn't seen any of your blogs around here in quite awhile and thought there might have been a discouraging rift or something that had formed between and I actually sent a copy of the information in my most recent blog to your website ( just because I thought you guys might not see it here (maybe you guys can set up a good video question for tomorrow's MySpace/MTV event). Whether you were indeed temporarily gone or not, glad to have you back!


Thanks for the support friend. Never left, just busy as hell with all our truthin. I still visit blogger every day, this site is the best.

"I will not withdraw from this war even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." -George W. Bush

Love it!

This is a great example of using our collective power. Shermer is one slippery little shit, but when he is confronted from all sides of the room, his evasions wear thin and break down.
I don't give a damn about the audience members who want proponents of 9/11 truth to shut up and sit down and let the program go on as planned.
Great, great job! Let's keep swarming this smarmy f@cker.

Well constructed question

but why do we feel compelled to interrupt the response. If he wants to bring up the collapses, let him talk. Then you only have to add - "in free-fall speed and absolute symmetry" !?! Period. Case closed (or at least opened for the 'sceptics') We don't need to filibuster, right ?

Good New Strategy.

The passing out of flyers around the room was a brilliant tactic.

These are gatekeepers. They

These are gatekeepers. They are not ignorant.


Note " A New Investigation" by the likes of these would be just another coverup like the Kennedy Investigations.

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

Did I correctly hear Shermer

Did I correctly hear Shermer to proclaim that the passport (al-Saqami) found near the WTC was an "urban legend"? Could he conceivably be that uninformed? He is bluffing, betting his false confidence will dissuade most of his audience from fact-checking his assertions. That one's gonna bite you, Mr. "Skeptic".

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

what can i say... so

what can i say...

so good---so archetypical of a good youtube confrontation

when they make documentaries about this----theyll show this one as a good clip of when things really got cooking on the youtube level

the blond girl was excellent------the guy in the blue shirt really commands respect from that guy too

of course the guys in the beginning...

5 stars
the tactic of trying to act like it's "just not upper middle class " to discuss 911 truth
--is falling away

time to start to put this opposition to rest

Hi Michael.

Shermer insinuates that if YOU don't know exactly who was responsible or exactly how it was done, that you must by default accept the official story. I'm not a crime investigator but I don't think that is a reliable method of crime solving.
It may help to be prepared for that response next time you meet him.
Oh and by the way, Hi Michael. It's obvious he has done his research well in order to counter Truthers accusations and arguments, so considering 911blogger is one of the most respected and reliable sources for 911 news, and considering this blog concerns him, he's probably reading this right now.
Also, why didn't someone mention building 7? It is universally acknowledged as one of the big smoking guns because it is a classic case of controlled demolition that is difficult to rationally explain in any other way.
Please register and join in the discussion Michael. We would love to hear your honest thoughts. And tell us, is your conscience clear? Do you believe in justice in the after life? Do you sleep well or do you have bad dreams?
Once again great work San Diego. Intrepid, sensible and credible.
Keep up the great work. Today is a great day for confronting lies. (see above Frum blog)

And Shermer's second straw

And Shermer's second straw man argument is that the movement is merely poking holes at the official story, which gives arise to these theories. That there is no substantive evidence that cannot replace the official story with a better theory. But David Griffin's Omissions and Distortions of the 911 Commission Report, the government story, more than just pokes holes, it finds serious flaws that can only be explained at the very least by internal complicity to outright volition: from pre-intelligence of terrorists, war games hindering response, the lack of plane interception 4 different events, 4 different time-lines from the government, no serious accountability but plenty of promotions in US departments, and post internal corruption expose by Sibel Edmonds to name a few.

As tactfully put by San Diego 9/11 Truth there is plenty of evidence put forth by Richard Gage and the Architects and Engineers, Kevin Ryan, Dr. Steven Jones including the finding of thermite, and the reference to a top down demolition was superb, thanks for the video Reprehensor. Excellent San Diego, these puppets can't defend the government against the wave of truth. Same goes for the CIA-CNN or government propaganda FOX networks. Same goes for lack of Ron Paul attention or how the networks say another terrorist leader was killed each night (then follows it up with how many soldiers were killed), to let one know how important all the defense (offense) spending for the DOD is, but I digress with concern.


Just like David Ray Griffin points out, all you need to do is find one thing about the official story that is a lie, then by default the entire thing falls apart. Since we have countless examples of lies, it's a closed case. He claims we need to replace one theory with another complete theory. He is a moron.

"I will not withdraw from this war even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." -George W. Bush

Shermer: 9/11 “Truthers” Harass Shermer on Book Tour

This is from the Shermer website, includes video and comments:

I left him my 2 cents.


Yes I remember the debate with Kevin Ryan, I even called in the show afterward. I wonder why he didn't remind us of that.

"I will not withdraw from this war even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." -George W. Bush

why not let him answer

He said that truthers say the collapse has the appearance of a controlled demolition in so many words, so isn't that true?

Pro Shermer Audience Members Afraid To Leave Comfort Zones

Notice the timid souls in the audience who enthusiastically support Shermer, because it allows them to remain in their comfort zones.

"There is nothing to see here. Please continue shopping."

Cui bono?

The key thing to understand about Shermer and the magazine he edits, The Skeptical Inquirer, and the mysteriously funded organization -- CSICOPS -- that underwrites them all, is that they're absolutely selective as to what they pick to be skeptical about. They only ever express "skepticism" when it's something that the governmental/academic/MSM/medical establishments don't like.

Not that those establishments -- I'll call them the Secular Establishment (and I say that as an agnostic myself) -- are always wrong. (Hell, even a stopped clock . . . .) But the important thing to bear in mind is that Shermer et al. operate solely to uphold the Secular Establishment via the backdoor route of sniping at its critics.

Genuine skepticism is the opposite of upholding anything. Instead it's calling into doubt positive assertions where they're inherently weakest. Skepticism can be a valuable intellectual tool, but not when it's used as a trick to avoid a larger confrontation with the issues.

It's all a manipulation, most likely funded by Project Mockingbird and/or other interests seeking to mold public attitudes. It's certainly disingenuous. A real skeptical publicist and journal would be calling stuff like the official interpretation of 9/11, or the facts of the sinking of the USS Liberty, or Project Bluebook, into doubt. You won't find any of that coming from the mouth of Shermer or the pages of his magazine.