Taming the Beast: A short history of the AE911Truth debates

"Soon after Richard Gage, AIA, became interested in the subject of the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11, he began debating critics who felt qualified to challenge the explosive evidence. Gage twice debated Ron Craig (International Society of Explosives Engineers), as well as Mark Roberts (tour guide), Michael Shermer (founder of Skeptic Magazine), and Dave Thomas (mathematician and physicist).

The first debate, between Richard Gage, AIA, and Ron Craig, took place on November 12, 2007, on “The Richard Syrett Show,” in Toronto. Gage argued that explosives had been used to bring down the buildings and cited several points of explosive evidence such as the discovery of thermite in the debris, witness testimony citing explosions, beams hurled six hundred feet, and the free-fall of WTC Building 7. Gage also cited the lack of 110 floors of 4” thick concrete -- each an acre in size -- at the bottom of the Twin Towers and the huge amount of pulverized concrete powder that blanketed lower Manhattan."

Full story here:


Debate? That's debateable.

I have never been of fan of "debates," even those who are structured according to classic rules of debate.

But the 9/11 debates usually do not take the standard, academic format, usually degrading into "a he said, she said" argument with sprinkling of ad hominem attacks.


1st speaker:

"This is what happened....A, B, F, G and H."


"Obviously that's wrong. What happened is C, D, E, and F. and you're only out to sell books."

These so-called, "De-bunkers" like Michael Shermer and the good people at JREF are professional de-bunkers. They know how to lie, trick, attack and humiliate their opponents and their opponents arguments without actually stating fact. It's very annoying and frustrating. You cannot debate them. They won't take part in debate, they will only shout and obfuscate.

Additionally, the subject of 9/11 is, we all know, well beyond being DEBATABLE. There IS nothing to debate, so overwhelming the evidence for the use of controlled demolitions, etc. etc...
So, all debating does is give a platform for liars, mountebanks and assorted frauds, and gullible listeners are free to hang their beliefs on them. I believe it is a no-win situation for the TRUTH, and should be avoided.

The events of 9/11 are far too serious, too painful, a subject to be fodder for this kind of debasing at the hands of fools or agents of the establishment.

How 'bout a comic mock debate?

If they won't debate us, why don't we STAGE a debate where we use the best arguments that the defenders have fielded in the past against us.

Trump it up as a REAL debate and put in on YouTube with some sarcastic comedian making comments and providing attributions.

I think there has only been that one French comic who has ever stepped into the 911 debate.

Debates? That's debatable.

You convinced me!

Well said.

A Common Refrain

"Gage and Craig discussed the possibility of explosives having been secretly installed in the buildings, Craig maintaining that it was unlikely anyone could have pulled that off."

A common refrain among the "debunkers" is that it would have been impossible for any group to secretly plant explosive charges in the twin towers. However, in 1978 the newly constructed Citicorp Center had to undergo major structural upgrades because of a design flaw that could have caused the building to collapse in strong winds. This retrofitting was done without any of the tenants knowing about it. Planting explosives would have been far easier to do in secret than retrofitting a building. You can view a video about it here.

The argument that it could not have been accomplished in secret is just another ploy the "debunkers" used to dismiss the evidence.

Good luck to Richard in his debate against Dave Thomas.

p.s. And thank God that pompous @*$ Mark Roberts has faded from the scene.


To treat the question of whether such-and-such could have been done as a matter of mere conjecture, rather than of investigation, is the epitome of a non-empirical approach to the truth. What if police detectives attempted to solve crimes by sitting around guessing about what might or might not have been possible, without making any actual inquiries?