DEBATE: WTC Controlled Demolition? Richard Gage, AIA, of versus Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine

(Scroll down for direct links to MP3 D/Ls)

Richard GageBuilding 7Michael
Click Here To Listen --

Saturday, Sept 20th at 11am Pacific - 2pm Eastern - 18:00 GMT
Will be archived HERE after the broadcast.

Exciting on-air debate with Richard Gage, AIA, of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth and Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine on Oakland's KKGN 960am radio this last Thursday, September 18th. Don't miss this one!!!

ha! Michael Shermer...skeptic!

Skeptical of anything and everything EXCEPT what the government puts out. Then what they say is GOSPEL. That's his REAL religion. Government propaganda.

Shermer is pro-establishment thru and thru

Another example of his skepticism suddenly turning itself off when it comes to the State: man-made global warming. He supports the official thesis of the bureaucrats, politicians, and government-paid scientists.

Bottom line, this guy is a coward. He's scared to stand alone. He's needs the comforts of the main-stream intellectuals.

Shermer was VERY POOR... Gage was exceptional...

Spot-on david chen

I must say, I'm very glad I listened to this... PODCAST LINK

Richard was so far out in front, Shermer could not counter any actual evidence, just offering condescending "do you really think" replies !!!

Also thanks for clarifying the "no planes" at the WTC versus the Pentagon.

Brilliant stuff, many thanks to all the those who actually care !!!

Oh boy! Pop the popcorn!

At 11 AM. Oh well, it's 5 o'clock somewhere.

If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

Shermer is NO skeptic

I could hardly listen to Shermer's dissembling and lies.


Gage: "We have thermite.
Shermer: "So what."


Shermer is not interested in truth.

Schermer tried one distraction trick

after the other.
Very poor perfomance and reasoning.

When do they archive this?

When do they archive this? Hoping to listen asap!

Get it from Green 960 now

Looks like you can download it at . (I'm waiting to finish downloading my canvassing instructions video on my telephone modem, so I'm waiting for it to finish on my telephone modem first.)

Fred W

Get it from Green 960 now

The whole link in my previous method doesn't seem to be printing through. But if you go to and click on the Angie Coiro "audio archive" graphic, you'll get to it.

And if the above link doesn't come through (!!), just Google "Green 960", click on the "podcasts" link in the first listing, and follow the above instructions.

Fred W

why can't Gage be ...

debating someone with some kind of physics knowledge? Shermer!?
To quote old Bugs, "What a maroon!"

all the knowledge people know the score

at school today . . . I started talking about WTC7 and one parent scoffed at what I was saying . . . two other parents jumped in and began talking about the problems with the official story . . . one mentioned "thermal expansion" and we all chuckled.

Times are changing . . . keep handing out the DVD's.

Thanks Phredo, got it.

I felt like one of the strongest points made by any caller was at the end with regard to the Pentagon. My very first questions about 9/11, what initially got me involved in questioning the official story, was the Pentagon.

No plane at the Pentagon

That's what got me into the movement, too. One day at work, I overheard a coworker telling another coworker "This movie Loose Change says that no plane hit the Pentagon... that it was more likely a missile." That's all I needed. I was off and running. I remembered having questions about the Pentagon that day. I had never seen any crazy footage of a horrid plane wreck at the Pentagon. I watched Loose Change that night.

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA -

Knowledge Does NOT Equal Debate Skills

I admire Richard Gage. He is a brave patriot. I know he is right. Michael Shermer is a snake and a professional obfuscator. But I have bad news for the Truth Movement. To the average uninformed person who is not EMOTIONALLY READY for the horrors of 911 Truth, Shermer won this debate.

I know. Shermer avoided the real issues. He ignored facts. He did what the "sceptics" always do: He relied on the EMOTIONAL resistance that people feel towards facing the facts. He knows they do not want to admit that powerful interests prefer wars and money enough to attack their own fellow citizens and allies to get a war started. He taunted Gage and belittled rational inquiry. He simply denied facts and evidence with a dismissive tone. He turned the scientific method upside down by demanding that we produce a total theory before looking at the facts that theory has to explain.

But he won because he understands how people form opinions to avoid discomfort. Gage sounded shrill and fanatical. He let Shermer come off relaxed and unconcerned, as if he was just brushing a few more crackpot flies off his face.

If the movement wants to win these debates, it needs to develop withering answers to the distraction techniques posing as questions used by Shermer et al. It needs to figure out 1 minute comebacks to the "why does no one talk?" and "government is too incompetent" pseudo arguments. Not answers geared towards the small percentage of people who spend hours looking into the shadow governement, but answers geared towards the psyches of people who want to go get a good night's sleep.

Ridiculing such people won't help, but ridiculing Shermer might.

- omniadeo

Bunch of nails versus canonball.

1) I agree with the point, that the "light" physical arguments plus appeal to emotion and the idea of incompetence, incredible scale of conspiracy etc. will "satisfy" many people. The strenght of Gages position (to focus on the same thing again and again) is also a weakness, since there should be ready arguments against the imcompetence (etc.)arguments Shermer et al delves into.

2) There is a good intuitive argument (which I can't remember where I saw the first time) about the supposed crushing of the top of the buildings of the rest of the buildings (wtc 1 and 2), which I think could be used in debates which are meant to adresss non-911researchers and - skeptics. The argument rests on two simple premises: a) The opposing re-action on the toppart of the building falling on the part below is equal to the action on this lower part - wich means, that the top part of the building would be destroyed and dismembered early on in the (supposed) collapse/crush, and this top part (the alleged "sledgehammer") would then consist of a bunch of non-connected steelmembers, crushed girders etc.; but b) the effect of such a bunch of loose steelmembers falling would not be able to totally and symmetrically overcome the rest of the building (which gets even stronger and stronger towards the bottom), but resemble the difference between a bunch of nails (weighing a total of fx 2 kg) dropped on your foot versus a solid ball (or tight structure) of steell, weighing the same, dropped on your foot.

I wouldn't mind having a bunsh of nails dropped on to my foot, but I would rather not have the same thing done to me with a ball or tight structure of steel of the same weight !!

Omerta, code of silence.

"It needs to figure out 1 minute comebacks to the "why does no one talk?" and "government is too incompetent" pseudo arguments."
It shouldn't be too difficult to research and compile a long list of examples in which "no one talked." It happens every day from corrupt police to organized crime families to dirty little family secrets. I'm not a debater but it seems we have seen enough of the tactics of Shermer and his ilk that it wouldn't be difficult to discredit his specious reasoning while forcing him to respond to the obvious problems with the official story.

A few examples of past US false flag operations

We need to publicize more the successful use of false flag terror by NATO's underground armies (set up with the help of the CIA and MI6) durning the cold war.

NATO, The CIA and MI6 in cooperation with various other west European intelligence agencies ran undercover armies in all the west European countries, ostensibly to stage insurgent attacks against any invading Soviet forces. In many cases these underground armies were manned by ex-Nazis and far right reactionaries or co-opted by far right extremist groups and were used to stage murderous terror attacks on civilian targets in various Euopean cities ( including the 1980 bombing of the Bologna train station which killed some 85 people). Many of these terrorist attacks were intentionally and falsely blamed on communists and radical leftist groups by intelligence services, governments and the media in order to demonize leftists and communist parties and politicians and to keep them from winning elections.

More about Operation Gladio and The Strategy of Tension here:

There is also the more well known Operation Northwoods (well known in the 911 Truth movement, but I'd bet not in the population at large) showing the Pentagon Joint Chiefs of Staff were quite prepared to stage false flag terror attacks including blowing up US ships and possibly even attacking Cuban refugees on the high seas in order to get backing for an invasion of Cuba. The plans were never implemented after they were forwarded to the White House for approval, but all the Joint Chiefs at the time signed off on them. Presumably they were prepared to implement them without any apparent concerns that they would be exposed by whistle blowers.

Operation Ajax, the overthrow in the 1950s of the democratically elected PM of Iran, Mohammed Mossadeg, to replace him with a US/British puppet dictator in the form of the Shah also used the false flag techinque. Mercenary mobs were paid by the British and US agents to pretend to be members of the Communist Party in support of Mossadeg and then to attack Mosques and religious leaders in order to try and convince the Iranian people (and international public opinion) that Mossadeg intended turning Iran communist and imposing an atheistic rule on the country (anathama to the very religious Muslim Iranians).

More on Operation Ajax here:

I think it is very likely that Pearl Harbor itself was a false flag operation and Roosvelt and the US military knew damn well the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and left if undefended (like they did with Washington and NY on 9/11) in order to gain the propaganda points and get the US into the war. However, that one carries lots of emotional baggage, especially for Democrats who think of Roosvelt as a candidate for sainthood, but just google "Pearl Harbor False Flag" and you'll get lots of hits.

I think Operation Gladio is probably our best bet with Northwoods as a runner up for evidence that the US military and its allies have used (or planned) false flag attacks in the past with a wanton disregard of civilian casualties, even civilian casualties from our own side.


"Why does no one talk?": (1) Hmmm... the dead keep secrets very well, or (2) Ask Osama how he has kept his location secret. What a crock of bullpucky Mr. Shermer!

Why did no one talk?

Who flew the planes?
Who put the bombs in the buildings?
Who do you think did it?
Why did no one talk?

I have the same answer to all these. This is how I respond, and it works:

"That's a good question. That's why we want a new investigation. Should we pretend that the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 didn't actually happen because we don't know who did it?"

Then I ask the person to please stop making excuses and to look at the evidence.

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA -

"The entire 9/11 Conspiracy rests on thermite."

Sorry Michael. It doesn't.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?


I wonder were Michael might have picked up that idea?

shermer's opening assertion is false

Question: But Osama bin Laden is the one that -- you keep talking about his lieutenants, and, yes, they are very important, but Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11 --
MS. PERINO: No, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of 9/11, and he's sitting in jail right now. (Sept 10, 2008, eve of the 7th year anniversary, after 2 illegal wars and untold torture victims)

of course 9/11 is a lie; and many, many people know it. ridiculous straw man arguments such as "how could they keep it secret?/how many people would have to be in on it?" ... or my favorite, the "Incompetence Theory" lead nowhere and should be dismissed, or shut down quickly.

but what's interesting is that the "debate" is completely turned around when shermer is assumed to be "the skeptic". it is WE who are the skeptics... and we've done our homework; the fruit of the research is there and it's shermer who must deal with it. if he wants to be "skeptical" of our skepticism, he must in turn do his own research to disprove our "theories" (even though to us it is clearly conspiracy fact).

it doesn't matter whether it could be kept secret or not: clearly it's NOT a secret. we talk about it openly, so how much of a secret is it, really? and there are many whistleblowers; some in the mainstream media, too. the point here is is that we don't have to prove the government was "smart enough"; the burden is on these so-called skeptics to disprove our assertions. shermer must disprove our theory, not the other way around. if shermer is the skeptic and voice of reason, then let him disprove the fact of free-fall collapse. what kind of skeptic would shermer be if he didn't have a grasp of high school physics? don't let them lead you into a ridiculous debate about "secrecy" or "implausibility". there are plenty of examples of the government keeping secrets, and also plenty of examples of incredible competence and achievement. these points are moot and are used to lead us away from the evidence.

a fact is a fact whether you believe it or not. it's not our belief that there is a force in the universe known as gravity that holds us on the ground... it is gravity itself. if i "stop believing" in gravity i will not be flung out into space. they can disprove thermate residue by testing for it, yet they refuse to, regardless of a mandate to do so after a building collapse.

shermer's either a shill, or someone too insecure to think for himself.

Richard said the right things

Richard Gage did the right thing in continually bringing the discussion back to the evidence.

Michael Shermer's arguments, that Bush's people couldn't be involved due to incompetence, somebody would have talked, and that the conspiracy would have had to be too large, are ridiculously specious and without a basis.

I agree with other posters here that quick counters should be defined, to ridicule and expose these fallacious arguments. However, it has to be realized that only the most lazy of thinkers would accept these, over logic and evidence presented pointing to the opposite. The calls proved that, as most of the callers did not bite on Shermer's arguments.

Shermer was also ridiculous in using the jet fuel argument, to weaken steel. The jet fuel that didn't go up in the fireball would have been aerosolized and been a thin film over a large area. Even NIST had to admit that it would have burned off in the first several minutes. The jet fuel would only have ignited the office furnishings which was the only fuel for the fires thereafter.

I was also glad to hear Richard effectively counter Shermer's argument about controlled demolitions having to start only from the bottom up.

Shermer's statement that the investigations have already been done was also effectively countered. None of the evidence for controlled demolitions was investigated and nobody who had access to the interiors of these buildings, like ACE elevator, were ever deposed.

excellent point, Tony

"nobody who had access to the interiors of these buildings, like ACE elevator, were ever deposed."

Shermer is a caricature of a "skeptic". He cannot be unaware that the strawmen he tediously erects have long ago been shredded by true skeptics of the 9/11 event. The fact that he rarely deviates from his rhetorical template suggests his role as a disinformation asset.

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

911 Truth Reality Check?


I don't think we actually disagree on much. Certainly almost everything Shermer said was ridiculous. Certainly coming back to the evidence is important.


1) The callers do not in any way represent a more general audience. This is exactly the attitude that I believe is dangerous. I stand in awe and admiration for the people on the front lines of the 911 truth movement. Their energy and positivity are inspiring, but like most "movements" it tends to preach to the choir way too much. We all resent being shut out of the MSM, but if we are not prepared to speak to the MSM audience it will be useless when we get a crack at it.

2) Hate to break it to you but lazy ( I prefer to see it as emotionally defensive) thinking is endemic in the populace. We may regret that, but it's a fact. After the Kennedy & King assassinations, USS Liberty, Vietnam, Watergate, the Church committee (revelations of MK-Ultra etc.) October Surprise, Iran Contra, and too many US Engineered military coups and assassinations to mention, half the voting populace voted for Bush II and few blinked when he put the Cheney-Rumsfeld team in charge of the US Military and Intelligence establishment. (Those two and/or Bush senior, were principals in many of the above. Including, possibly, the Kennedy asassinations.)

I realize criticising the movement is, shall we say, delicate, but I have a final comment to make. I notice that Gage, Griffin, and some of the principals at this site, all play up the fact that they first believed the official 911 story and were shocked when the evidence led elsewhere. In other words this was their first experience with "the big lie" in American politics. I believe you are closer to my age and have worked on K assassinations stuff, so you are not in the same category, but many of the people in the movement are very young (or recently awakened) and new to the dynamics of "conspiracy theorists" vs. "debunkers."

They need to realize: There is not much new here.

I am not trying to one-up any one. God knows if the movement were in the hands of a philosophically minded book worm like myself with a business to run, it would be dead before it started. I bow down to the eager work horses of the movement, but I don't plan to sacrifice my historical consciousness for them. I knew this was false flag as soon as the Suqami passport was found and the "perpetrators" were id'd within hours (minutes?). It's a very old story now. Perhaps the movement needs to study the history of past movements and "conspiracy theories" more? Perhaps it needs to listen to some of the more critical voices on this board and elsewhere.

True, 911 has some features that distinguish it from the K assassination, but both were operations that allowed the MIC to go wage useless unnecessary wars in which millions have been kiled. And the general directions of the controversies around both are the same: bogged down in technical debates that only "aficionados" appreciate and that few ordinary people have time for, while the phony "skeptics" skip over the real evidence with dismissive tones, pseudo arguments and cat-calls in the MSM. Privately many people have doubts, but few want to be called wackos by Shermer and the MSM.

Somewhere Jon Gold said that he did not want 911 truth to end up like the K assassination, a topic for party conversations. We must learn from the past: The BIG LIE cannot be countered by a plethora of small truths, however important they may seem to us. It must be countered with a BIGGER TRUTH that meets the fear powering the lie head on. Otherwise, Jon's fear will be realized. I fear it will be realized, but I beg to be proven wrong.

Part of that bigger truth, btw, is the laying bare of Shermer's diversionary techniques for what they are. First suggestion: in debates, cut down the breathless intonation of factual evidence a little—make that a lot—and replace it with unanswerable questions posed to your opponent. Put Shermer on the defensive. Example: Destruction of evidence and hiding of evidence is rampant in 911 matters. Don’t let that issue get confused with the “plane at the Pentagon” controversy. The evidence is withheld. Period. Does Shermer support that? The tapes from the airport cameras were destroyed. Does Shermer support that? FBI mucky-mucks re-wrote the FISA request to leave out evidence that would have led to Moussaoui’s computer being searched. Those guys got promotions and raises, while whistleblowers were ostracized. Does Shermer support that? Family members wept because they were not allowed to have their questions answered at the 911 commission hearings. Does Shermer support that?

Make him look like the heartless hack he is and his sneers will be less powerful. Then direct people to the website.

- omniadeo


And I have to add that this is one of the finest posts I have ever read on 911blogger. You should put together a more developed version of this as a blog entry. :-)


Well said.

JFK on secrecy and the press

Thank you

I thank everyone who makes an effort to speak out for 9/11 truth. However, I think we should be open to critique that helps us mop the floor with government apologists.

"First suggestion: in debates, cut down the breathless intonation of factual evidence a little—make that a lot—and replace it with unanswerable questions posed to your opponent. Put Shermer on the defensive. Example: Destruction of evidence and hiding of evidence is rampant in 911 matters. Don’t let that issue get confused with the “plane at the Pentagon” controversy. The evidence is withheld. Period. Does Shermer support that? The tapes from the airport cameras were destroyed. Does Shermer support that? FBI mucky-mucks re-wrote the FISA request to leave out evidence that would have led to Moussaoui’s computer being searched. Those guys got promotions and raises, while whistleblowers were ostracized. Does Shermer support that? Family members wept because they were not allowed to have their questions answered at the 911 commission hearings. Does Shermer support that?"

Exactly. Points like these expose how absurd the official position really is. Put these people on the defensive! They can't justify things like the fact that NORAD gave three different stories for their actions on 9/11. They can't justify the promotions. They can't justify the destruction of evidence. And so on.

We should be embarrassing these people with the amount of 9/11 information we have. So, while I thank the people who debate official story apologists, I think we should carefully examine the strategy that we need to take and be critical about how we approach debates. We have to understand the tricks that people like Shermer are going to use to "defend" the official story and expose them. It's about winning the debate and exposing the lies of 9/11. Keep up the good work and learn from these debates. We can always improve our approach!

Destroy the talking points!
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Michael Shermer,s responses

Michael Shermer,s responses were the same tired propaganda that we have faced from day one.Bin Laden admitted it? no in fact he denied it.Steel does not need to melt only weaken?well it did melt.How could demolition crews get into the building without detection?how did the welders enter the Citigroup Building to weld plates over 3 months without anybody noticing.

The secret would come out? just like it did with the Manhattan Project and Iran Contra though those secrets remained secrets for a very long time.1000,s of people were involved?12 people could bring down a building and seeing as WTC7 collapsed over 7 hours because of one single column failure, one man and a reciprocating saw.

Richard Gage should not have even offered any responses to Shermers dross and should have used Shermers tactics of ridicule.Richard did well in his sphere, the engineering side of the debate and Shermer won in his sphere,bullshit and obfuscation.Personally this interview made me angry,arguing with Shermer reminded me of arguing with my ex wife, a no win situation.



FROM Science Is My Savior:

"[I]t may surprise you to learn that I was once a born-again evangelical Christian who attended Pepperdine University (a Church of Christ institution) with the intention of becoming a theologian.…

"But somewhere along the way, I found science, and that changed everything…. I switched to psychology and mastered one of the languages of science: statistics. In science, I discovered that by establishing parameters to determine whether a hypothesis is probably right (like rejecting the null hypothesis at the 0.01 level of significance) or definitely wrong (not statistically significant), it is possible to approach problems in another way. Instead of the rhetoric and disputation of theology, there were the logic and probabilities of science. What a difference this difference in thinking makes [emphasis added]."

FROM Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Ben Stein Launches a Science-free Attack on Darwin:

"In 1974 I matriculated at Pepperdine University as a born-again Christian who rejected Darwinism and evolutionary theory—not because I knew anything about it (I didn't) but because I thought that in order to believe in God and accept the Bible as true, you had to be a creationist. What I knew about evolution came primarily from creationist literature, so when I finally took a course in evolutionary theory in graduate school I realized that I had been hoodwinked [emphasis added]. What I discovered is a massive amount of evidence from multiple sciences—geology, paleontology, biogeography, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, genetics and embryology—demonstrating that evolution happened."

FROM Fools and the Wise of Heart (on alternative medicine):

"Since I have a doctorate in the history of science, professional training in statistics and research methodologies, and some internet skills, I was able to answer a lot of questions on my own by doing research. But how many people are so equipped to conduct their own medical investigations?"

"As a long-time public defender of modern scientific medicine, I have commonly labeled medical scientists as wise of mind, and alternative medical practitioners as fools. The wind of quackery we have inherited, I reasoned, is surely the result of an uneducated public duped by the otherwise risible tactics of flimflam artists praying [sic] on the unsuspecting masses."

FROM What I Believe But Cannot Prove:

"In conclusion, I believe but cannot prove that reality exists and science is the best method for understanding it; that there is no God; that the universe is determined but we are free; that morality evolved as an adaptive trait of humans and human communities; and that ultimately all of existence is explicable through science [emphasis added]."


Too late

I wanted to give Gage some advice, but apparently this announcement is way too late.


Mr Gage,

For debate strategy, you should be prepared to discuss issues beyond demolition. See Kevin Ryan's previous debate with Shermer, and my own article critiquing Shermer:

Kevin Ryan debate:

"Skeptics" or Dupes? Skeptic Magazine Not So Skeptical of 9/11 Lies

But, more importantly, you should be prepared to expose Shermer for not being a skeptic of the government's official account. That will destroy his credibility.

Comprise a list of at least 10 lies and covered up aspects of 9/11 and directly challenge him on his non-skeptical acceptance of the USG storyline.

His crowd prides themselves on being skeptics. If their leader is shown to be a gullible dupe, then they may turn on him.

Central to debunking Shermer is establishing that an obvious COVER UP exists. Not the least of which is that "foreign governments" were directly involved in the operation, as revealed by Senator Bob Graham, a Senate resolution, Sibel Edmonds and numerous other witnesses and FBI Documents.

Protecting "foreign governments" who attack America is the constitutional definition of TREASON ("aid and comfort").

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

That's the Ticket!

"Comprise a list of at least 10 lies and covered up aspects of 9/11 and directly challenge him on his non-skeptical acceptance of the USG storyline. His crowd prides themselves on being skeptics. If their leader is shown to be a gullible dupe, then they may turn on him." - John Doraemi

Right on, John!!!!

Everyone debating 911 Truth with a "skeptic" should memorize these simple sentences and act accordingly.
The coverup is the one thing we can absolutely PROVE from the generally accepted historical record. When a skeptic buys the official story, they are DEFENDING the coverup.

Roll that up and stuff it back down their throats. Then, when their credibility is demolished, introduce the evidence for the "shocking" nature of the operation a little bit at a time.*

*(Suggestion: Start with B-7 and the Suqami passport on the physical evidence side and Ali Mohamed and Moussaoui on the intelligence/personnel side.)

- omniadeo

Sound bite replys


Richard Gage has read the well thought out constructive criticism offered here and appreciates the input. He will use these suggestions to improve his responses in future debates.

I have put together a list of short come backs [including yours] to the standard questions and arguments presented by the opposition. They are all working from the same playbook and their 'plays' are limited. They have nothing of substance so pointing out how vacant their arguments are won't be that difficult. I have forwarded this list to our resident master wordsmith for editing and will post it here when it is ready.

Thank you all for your input and support.


Chris, Thanks for your post.


Thanks for your post. If time allows, please convey to Richard Gage my profound gratitude for everything he has done and continues to do every day. That in the midst of his daunting schedule he would pay any attention at all to my hasty Monday morning quarterbacking only underscores the obvious: He is a rare soul. I am flattered to play some small part in his great undertaking, but more importantly, this acknowledgement inspires me to try to do more.

You have zeroed in on the central point: Call attention to the pseudo arguments in the limited play book. I would like to say as well, that the person below who points to the fact that the "debunkers" have no technical expertise makes an important point. I fear Richard Gage is too much the gentleman to feel comfortable pulling rank, but it needs to be done. How about something like:

"Mr Shermer, I appreciate the importance of psychology as a discipline, and your belief that you can explain our objections in psychological terms is interesting but I think there are other psychologists who have explanations for your opinions, so you will excuse me if I choose to give more weight to the technical expertise of actual Architects and Engineers (almost 500 of them) who say that the NIST report is untenable in its explanation for B-7 and that the all 3 buildings show clear signs of controlled demolition. If you can produce 500, or even 5 Architects and Engineers who would like to debate me on the buildings from a technical point of view, I would be interested. So far, I have not found one. Now, lets go back to how you said you were satisfied with the offical inquiry...."

Thanks again for your kind note and your own work for 911 Truth. I promise to do more.

- omniadeo

The Who,How, Why

....Damn i hate that. If we had a new REAL investigation we might get those three little things answered.
Whistle blowers? Ever heard of Sibel Edmonds? What do you think about the 9/11 HERO Willie Rodriguez? Norman Mineta said they were tracking flight 77...Cheney said the orders still stand. Wouldn't you like to know what f**king orders were they?
And in my opinion the hands down winner..........WTC#7 fire dropped this baby in 6.5 seconds symmetrically.

We have enough professionals on our side...

First of all, Gage did an excellent job. Personally, I am of the opinion that Gage "won" this debate.
But I'm curious: Why, in 2008, are professionals from our side debating laymen on the debunking side? Are these professional gatekeepers the ONLY ones who are willing to debate us? According to debunkers, 99.999% of the world's architects/engineers don't support Gage, so it should be easy to find one to debate him. So why Michael Shermer or Mark Roberts?

As the movement grows, our "debate" task should become much easier. Remember back in mid 2006, before the advent of Architects/Engineers/Pilots/Veterans/Firefighters for 9/11 truth? At that point, the movement had to use lay people like Dylan to do the debating. Remember Amy Goodman's challenge to Dylan & crew when she was moderating the debate between them and Popular Mechanics? "Name JUST ONE structural engineer who agrees with you guys!" Just look how much the movement has grown since then. But Shermer and other paid agents refuse to acknowledge this, and instead trot out the same tired talking points.

Let's dwell on the issue of layperson versus expert. Lay people are central to the 9/11 movement: ordinary, concerned citizens who love their country and realize that there is an obvious cover-up. Because of the human tendency to appeal to authority, the support of architectural and engineering professionals gives the movement weight. But the arguments for controlled demolition are basic enough that a 7th grade science education is all that's needed to understand them. Also, lay people like Dylan came first because they had more courage and less to lose (money and otherwise).

The "debunkers" (heavy emphasis on the scare quotes) also have tried to use "lay people." They packaged Mark Roberts as an ordinary citizen, a tour guide, who researched 9/11 and came to the conclusion that the official story was true, and therefore it's his civic duty to counter our poisonous lies. Indeed, they packaged Roberts as someone who, despite his "lay" status, is so smart and knowledgeable that he can easily take on professionals like Richard Gage.

Michael Shermer is of the same ilk. In this debate, we have an architectural professional, debating a lay person. The idea being: "You may be an architect, but your arguments are so nutty that an ordinary guy like me can blow them out of the water!" For the record, I feel 100% sure that Shermer and Roberts are paid agents, trained to obfuscate and spin. To that end, I agree 100% with the comment in this thread that detailed how "knowledge does NOT equal debate skills" and how to quickly counter such spin and talking points from our opposition.

Where ARE the experts who will debate us? The silence is deafening.

Another thing...

One of the debunker talking points is that the reason the buildings collapsed straight down is because 99% of a skyscraper is air.

Um, doesn't air comprise the vast majority of ANY building? I'm sitting in my house right now and the amount of space being taken up by air is gargantuan compared to the amount of space being taken up by building materials separating the rooms and floors.

experts won't debate

I gather that many experts won't debate other experts because those who believe the "official" version of the truth either can't or won't debate as a debate like that would be "unwinnable" for those whom back the official version. Shermer and the folks at PM aren't experts and have nothing to lose (except for perhaps their jobs) by debating. As has been stated, until we get a real investigation our questions will go unanswered.

The topic of global warming draws many parallels with the 9/11 truth movement. There are many scientists on both sides of the issue but those who follow Al Gore also refuse to hold any debates with the scientists whom are opposed. Those in opposition are ridiculed and given little to no funding to examine other possibilities that could be cause for climate change. An "expert" like Al Gore should relish the chance to a debate of this nature but as the official believers of the 911 story he chooses to ignore and denigrate anyone with an opposing opinion to his own.