Support 911Blogger

(Video) Richard Gage AIA Interview with “Skeptical” Inquirer

(Audio is low, you may want to use headphones or speakers)


This is an interview that took place right before the beginning of our Engineering Change event in Atlanta on May 21st 2011.

Richard Gage AIA, founder of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth discusses the explosive evidence which demands a new, independent and immediate investigation of the unsolved crimes of September 11th, 2001.

The interviewer, Bob J. Blaskiewickz teaches a course on “conspiracy theory” and “pseudoscience” at the Georgia Tech Institute of Technology. Though he has been challenged to feature one of the 1,500 + Architects and Engineers in either a live or Skyped debate of the evidence, he has declined to test his knowledge in front of his students with any of the 1,500+ experts.

Gee, I wonder why…. Perhaps it is because if he were to attempt to defend the thoroughly discredited “official” conspiracy theory of the US government in a debate with a representative from, that he would be exposed completely, as having little to no knowledge or understanding of the forensic evidence that he presumes to debunk in his classes.

To his credit he did behave in this interview, though many of his questions were simply reciting long discredited arguments from fellow pseudo debunkers, such as Ryan Mackey or Jonathan Kay.  It remains to be seen whether or not any of the incredible forensic evidence that is brought forward in this interview or in the subsequent presentation of “Blueprint for Truth: The Architecture of Destruction” will ever find a way into any of the “Skeptical” Inquirer’s media catalog of magazines, podcasts, and videos online.


If you would like to follow up with Bob and attempt to encourage him to factually present this evidence. Please stop by his blog and let him know We Are Change Atlanta sent you. Here are a few articles demonstrating the complete refutation of Bob’s fellow faux skeptics as mentioned in the interview

Ryan Mackey

Jonathan Kay

Volume too low?

Is this just me? It seems like every time I pull up a YouTube now, the volume is too low even with all my system controls cranked high.

Am I supposed to download something? Why is this happening all the time now?

Skeptics? How about Pseudoskeptics?

Many of the so-called "skeptics" organizations and websites tend to steer away from controversy, and 9/11 is a classic case of such. On, for example, all of the glaringly obvious lies and impossibilities associated with the official version are ignored; in their place are instances of relatively insignificant fluff and trivia. Wikipedia...? Unbalanced. We all know about the self-proclaimed "experts" that infest the JREF forums and similar. We've all looked at "9/11myths", "Screwloosechange" and a bunch of similar "debunkers" that spread fraudulent material masquerading as "science". We know about the appalling, embarrassingly "incompetent" work of NIST. We have all read the dry-labbed, scientific hairball known as the "9/11 Commission Report". We all know about how the mainstream media treat the topics of not just 9/11, but other events in which, common sense tells us, elements within the "powers-that-be" are up to their proverbial necks in criminality.

On account of the cherry picking and wholesale omission of vital facts/evidence by the "debunkers" and "skeptics", it appears that these people/organizations are toeing the agendas of other parties, having to steer well away from the scientific method in the process. What are these people trying to hide, and why? What is so scary as to have to trash one's own "investigations", launch misleading websites, render certain subjects taboo, and routinely use ad hominem techniques against those who ask the "wrong questions"? What is so outlandishly terrible about the facts of 9/11 that has caused so many "debunkers" to turn out in such force, presumably to prevent the facts from surfacing, re. the awareness of the general populace? If 9/11 was an act carried out by "militant Muslims", then why the lies, the wild coincidences, the unlikelihoods, the impossibilities/miracles, the coverups, the changing stories, the omissions, the fraudulent reportage, and more?

Overall, the 9/11 debunkers generally can be categorized under the "pseudoskepticism" moniker: that is because they tend to follow the following traits (taken from the wikipedia entry):

(1) The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
(2) Double standards in the application of criticism
(3) Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
(4) Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
(5) Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
(6) Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
(7) Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
(8) Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for completely dismissing a claim.

For the amount of effort spent in trying to debunk, or discredit, or shut down anyone involved in 9/11 research and investigation, it appears that there is a mission, a purpose that unites all these so-called "skeptical" parties. I won't speculate as to what that mission might be, let's leave that to the reader...

pseudoskeptics are in good company

I wonder if there is a way we can call the many well-intentioned, influential pseudoskeptics on the carpet in a new way that holds there feet to the fire and forces them to live up to their own standards of inquiry.

Can we brainstorm for a second? I think this is worth a discussion.

We are up against a monumental task to change the minds of people who don't want to be challenged with the facts. I can't help but think of Dr Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1840's who was appalled at the high death rate of postpartum mothers and saw a causal link between the physicians' filthy hands and high infection rates. These same physicians apparently were performing autopsies in the basement then assisting with baby deliveries without washing in between. I understand he was ridiculed by his peers for quite some time for simply suggesting prophylactic hygiene standards (washing your damn hands).


The history of science has been a battle for the truth and for facts between visionary skeptics and the status quo EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. Scientific professions have an EMBARRASSING history of holding on to comfortable bias and forsaking the need to continue to ask questions. Human pride I suspect has played a horribly antagonistic role in the search for answers, yes?

So here's my idea. I would love to see a Who's Who of scientific truth through the ages- the antagonists and the protagonists. Imagine a timeline (maybe Paul Thomson can help us here) with a breakdown of historically key scientific ideas that were at one time ridiculed to the point of religious fervor, the ideas only later to be accepted as fact by layman and scientists alike. I'm not talking about small scientific disputes but rather paradigm changing ideas that were well supported by strong data but resisted and ridiculed by antagonists who should have AT THE LEAST allowed for discussion and consideration of the possibilities.

I think this timeline should obviously extend right up the present day and ultimately ask questions about 911, anthrax attacks, pre-war intel, the whole bit. The implications would be obvious. We should identify the modern antagonists to the questions of the day and show that they are in good company and yet wrong for repeating the same mistakes of pseudoskepticism that so many before them have committed.

It is a shameful thing, I think, to identify oneself as a skeptical inquirer in the sense of being a standard bearer of principles of science while hypocritically turning one's back on the very principles of the scientific method.

Let's put people on the record. Let's actually draw a line in the sand of scientific standards and differentiate between those on one side or the other. There are those who are willing to ask the hard questions and follow the evidence to wherever it takes us no matter how painful or confusing but are still willing to accept the data and then there are those who deny that they are cherry picking the data.

I'll close with this familiar quote...

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer


Skepticism is a philosophic, not a scientific, viewpoint and like other philosophic doctrines at times it is true and at other times it leads you down a blind alley. Skeptics believe that they have a superior method of reasoning which negates the necessity to acquire in real world knowledge about the subject they are discussing. Certain things are considered to be true or false a priori. Conspiracy theories just happen to be one of those things that a skeptic deems false a priori. Dogmatic skepticism would be a valid way to describe those who frequent the James Randi Educational Forum and read Michael Shermer.

Penthous-collapse as part of the implosion?

Question about the content of the second video, time-index 1:30.

The skeptical speaks here about the penthouse-collapse as the start of the global collapse. That is nonsense, but in implosions (controlled demolitions) firstly the inner core columns have to be cut, and seconds later the global collapse starts. For me the collapse of the penthouse would fit into this observation perfectly. Why is Mister Gage not saying that in the discussion?

RE: Penthous-collapse as part of the implosion?

The goal of the skeptics and debunkers is to draw out the collapse of WTC7 as long as they can. The longer the collapse takes the less suspicious it supposedly looks. If it takes the building say 16 seconds to collapse then maybe we can reconcile that with the laws of physics. The problem is that different parts of the building collapse at different times. The east penthouse collapses first but the roof-line isn't moving yet. Once the roof-line begins to move it almost instantly enters free-fall(for 8 stories). Measuring from the time the roof-line begins to move, the collapse takes around 7 seconds. To understand the dynamics of the collapse we would need to determine how fast the east penthouse fell, then how fast did the external perimeter collapse etc? The debunkers want to give the impression that the entire building moved downward for 16 seconds. This is just another example of their intellectually dishonest arguments.

Watch this video+by+achimspok. It's a little debunker riddle.


yes, but I just wanted to say, that the skeptical makes up a conflict, where no conflict exists! Why let Mister Gage engage himself in this nonsense?

Great Comments Here

Thank you everyone.
Really appreciating the comments here.
If you get a chance pay Bob of "Skeptical" Inquirer a visit.

Ask him if he will host an honest debate of the facts with a representative of
in his classroom or not.

Here is the link.

Thank you.

-We Are Change Atlanta

Explosive Opportunity

I'd like to see Frank Legge defend the Bentham thermitic paper against the Skeptical Inquirer--both in writing and by interview.

Hard as it might be to believe, they may be *more* receptive to truth than many other mainstream publications. They need to be shown something very concrete and specific, something they can't dance around, that they must confront, detail by detail, right in front of their face.

A way to challenge the deniers would be...

To contrive a list of similarly constructed and maintained steel framed high rise buildings, ask these experts if these buildings would also be expected to fall down in a similar fashion from office fires alone. Assuming they will want to defend the unlikely conclusion that they will probably say yes..

Then present this evidence to the AIA, and major insurance companies. and suggest that all of these buildings need to be immediately modified to withstand a fire.

Once maintaining the lie costs the end user LOTS OF MONEY, then thay may reconsider their rationality.

I would have thought that if these buildings could fall down so dramatically, that there would be pressure from insurance companies to ensure they are not held liable for the same occurance in the future.


I recently discovered the true definition of the term, Ad Hominem.

If a denier is asked if they know the meaning of this term before any further dialogue is pursued they are forced into a corner and cannot use the same strawman, ad homnem and insulting tactics usually presented by such people.

I was watching some interviews from Bill O'reily on the subject.

If anyone is is interviewed by him in the future, I suggest the fIrst question to him would also be,

Do you understand the definition of the term, Ad Hominem...

then the rest of the intrview he would look like a complete Ass, as that is all he has in the subject.

He likes cats

The "skeptic" decided to communicate by posting pictures of cats.