AE911Truth Founder Richard Gage, AIA, in Live Debate 1/10/2010

Original post at

Listen live to a two-hour debate on "The Conspiracy Show" with Richard Syrett.

• 2 hours: 11 p.m. – 1 a.m. EST
• AM740 Zoomer Radio Toronto, Canada

Sunday, January 10th 2010 "The Conspiracy Show" will cover the topic of the evidence for controlled demolition of the WTC Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 on 9/11. On this show Richard Gage, AIA and Ron Craig will debate once again the two opposing sides. Listen to the original debate ( from November 2007 and read the listener comments.


This should be a great show. I hope it doesn't get Richard Syrett fired again like NAU did. I just listened to the original debate posted here before my awakening and the truth was a hands down winner. I am surprised the same person is willing to debate it again especially with the new developments such as NIST's own published admission of the free falll acceleration of WTC 7 and the publishing of the peer reviewed paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. Should be a powerful show. We can listen to the live airing here

Give 'em hell Richard.

peace all

"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear."
- Douglas MacArthur

Slam dunk time!

I'm looking forward to it. With 991 architectural & engineering professionals, 6104 (and millions more) other supporters, plus the cold hard facts of science and engineering on his side, I'm sure Richard is looking forward to the debate also.

What is there, in fact, to debate? The significance of freefall acceleration? The Law of Conservation of Energy? Feel free, Mr Craig.

9/11 Truth booklet PDFs:

I'd love to see how Ron

I'd love to see how Ron Craig tries to "debunk" the nanothermite paper.

Edit: In a sense this pisses me off because I thought we had long moved beyond the question of "if" there were explosives or not. Why are we still dignifying the junk scientists at this late stage?

Oh well, should be an easy win.

Check Mate--

Free-fall, molten steel, nanothermite: Check Mate. Plus 29 Structural Engineers vs. 3

Exposing One of the 9/11 Commission's Blatant Lies:

Exposing One of NIST's Blatant Lies:

McGee, I am trying to gather a list of opposing engineers...

McGee, I am trying to collect a list of engineers and architects who PUBLICLY support the official NIST Report on Building 7. Do you know of any?

Just those on the JREF forum

That is the only place I have seen any engineers who say they have looked into this issue and still support the NIST position, besides those who actually wrote the fraudalent conclusions of the report.

However, the only engineer who says he supports the NIST position on WTC 7 and actually gives his real name on the JREF forum is Ryan Mackey.

Thanks Tony!

Thankyou Tony! You are a mainstay in the 9/11 Truth Movement!

There is a dynamic contrast in the number of professionals who support the government's NIST Building 7 Report as to those who say it is a crock of lies. I feel this aspect can be used as an interest-generating marketing tool for promoting 9/11 Truth.

Leslie Roberston, the

Leslie Roberston, the engineer of the Twins accepts the OCT officially. However, I would guess he feels pressure to do so and he might have good reason to do so.

There is enormous pressure not to buck the tide here. John Q Engineer is of no consequence in nthe over all debate. At most he might lose his job (unlikely) for holding a belief that the twins were exploded and did not collapse from fires. However Leslie Robertson is too smart to believe the OCT, but realizes the forces aligned on the side of the OCT. At the very least NIST, FEMA and so forth have issued their edict about what happened. What would happen is the engineer of the twins were to call them out on their myth?

There are only a few possibilities. One is that NIST et al are forced to address his position, use REAL science and physics and this means that their myth crumbles. They can't face that sort of scrutiny so they don't. They simply remain silent and don't take any critics seriously. They don't feel compelled to. But they would if it were the engineer for the twins. Robertson realizes that this would mean that the 19 hijacker story is myth, might point at government complicity or breech of security and that breech is far more frightening to Americans that being attacked from disgruntled Arabs.

He might have an accident so that this issue would not be revisited. This is a real possibility since 3,000 people were murdered, why stop at one more pesky engineer? Logic alone indicates that the murders who killed 3,000 would not even think twice about one more if it made life easier for them. This is an implied threat that doesn't have to come in the form of some mysterious call or letter. People who are in his position quickly feel the pressure and act to pressure their life, their family and so on. Karen Silkwood was murdered for being a whistle blower. This is a well know fact.

They might simply ridicule him as an old senile man who can no longer be taken seriously, or he has some other mental defect. Ridicule and so forth are often used to silence people. Blackmail is another means to control people.

The fact remains that there are enough inescapable inconvenient facts which any engineer or scientist cannot ignore which topples the OCT of the destruction of all three towers. One need not have a complete theory as to every aspect of how the destruction was accomplished. All one has to show is that there are unmistakable signs of explosives which are counter to the OCT. Each sign becomes another nail in the coffin of the OCT.

But the reality is that 3,000 have died because of some plot and life is clearly expendable so for anyone who treasures theirs they need to consider who they are up against and what protection they might have against them.


Has Mr. Ron ever tried using nano-thermite explosives?

Loisseaux talks about CD but the guy has "zero" experience with nano-thermite. So where does that place him in the debate?

I would keep harping on this point with Craig. Show us the beef Ron.

So if I'm not mistaken, this

So if I'm not mistaken, this debate is going to air live in a couple hours from now at 11 p.m. EST?

Looking forward to tuning in to the live cast at

Its starting now..

its starting now

35 minutes in...

Gage is owning Craig.


Vote on this poll here: