The Pacifica Debates on 9/11 Tonight -- Tune In!


Tonight, Pacifica Radio (KPFA) is hosting the second radio debate between architect Richard Gage, AIA, and physicist Dave Thomas in New York City. Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff, directors and editors of Project Censored, will moderate.

Pacifica is the oldest public radio network in the U.S. Project Censored, housed at Sonoma State University and now in its 35th year, has been referred to by the Los Angeles Times as “offering devastating evidence of the dumbing-down of mainstream news in America”; as “one of the organizations that we should listen to, to be assured that our newspapers and our broadcasting outlets are practicing thorough and ethical journalism” by Walter Cronkite and as “a terrific resource” by Library Journal.
Physicist Dave Thomas will once again attempt to juggle the discrepancies in the official 9/11 story

The previous showdown pitted Gage and Dr. Niels Harrit against Thomas and industrial physicist Kim Johnson on Coast to Coast AM. With all due respect to Ian Punnett, the host of the debate, many reviewers felt the presentation was yet another stacked deck of preconceptions from the defenders of the official story.

Dr. Harrit later described one of the problems with the Coast to Coast debate. He pointed out that when scientists debate an investigation, they agree on the observations; otherwise, there is nothing to talk about. “If A and B are both looking at the same thing,” he explained, “and A says, “This is black” while B says “This is white,” it won’t work.” Harrit said this is essentially what happens in discussions with Thomas, Johnson, and other debate opponents. “They poison the supposed communication with false information,” he added.
Architect Richard Gage, AIA, is ready to detail the explosive 9/11 evidence in a radio rematch with a familiar debate opponent

Such issues are much less likely to happen with the forthcoming Pacific engagement. According to Huff, “the Pacifica National Broadcast on the 10th anniversary will be both commemorative and investigative.” Sponsoring this event is a big step for a public radio station in light of the continued silence even among progressive media organizations.

Project Censored’s management of the debate will likely be consistent with their policy for selecting “the most censored” news articles, which includes the requirement of “clearly defined concepts” that are “backed with solid, verifiable documentation.” Project Censored has already helped in the effort to expose information about the WTC demolitions, highlighting David Ray Griffin’s article “Building What?: How State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs) Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight” in their annual list, Censored 2011: The Top 25 Censored Stories of 2009/10.

“The role Project Censored plays in moderating the debates about the many difficulties and controversies surrounding unanswered questions from the 9/11 Commission Report and the science and forensic concerns regarding the destroyed buildings in NY is in the spirit of free speech, free expression, free inquiry, in maintenance of a free press,” Huff said. “Without a truly free press, one that explores the most difficult and potentially controversial issues of the present and recent past, democracy cannot survive, let alone flourish.”

We encourage all of our readers to let as many people know about this debate as possible. The debate on Coast to Coast reached half a million people, and now, with Pacifica Radio entering the picture, we are coming closer reaching a critical mass in our push for an independent 9/11 investigation.

Pacifica Debate:
Richard Gage, AIA, others - Peter Phillips
Sunday, Sep 11 2011 • 4:00 p.m. PT
KPFA 94.1 FM • Pacifica 9/11 Special
Date: Sun, Sep 11, 2011

4:00 PM PT

Radio Interview
Station: KPFA 94.1

Berkeley, CA

Peter Phillips

Richard Gage, AIA, & Neils Harrit debate with

Dave Thomas & Richard Mueller
Full Program:

3-4 PM PST David Ray Griffin Ph.D. & Kevin Ryan debate with Jonathan Kay and Karen Stollznow
Peter Phillips—Host
Topic: Veracity of the 9/11 Commission Report and Related Issues
4-5 PM PST Richard Gage, AIA, & Niels Harrit debate with Dave Thomas & Richard Mueller
Mickey Huff—host
Topic: The Science of the Collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7.

listening now

Todd Fletcher replaced David Ray Griffin. It was unfortunate, however, that Todd used his time on the "hijackers are alive" claim, when there are so many others he could have brought up.

Doh! Not the best info at all!

A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.

The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.

Call-in number

1 hour long call-in segment begins now (8 pm EST/ 5 pm PT)


Links to audio at KPFA

For the 3pm debate with Tod Fletcher & Kevin Ryan:

For the 4pm debate with Richard Gage:


Thanks Abby for your work on the program! I think it was extremely successful overall.

Thank you!

I so wanted to counter the debunkers, it was hard to keep quiet haha :P

I don't have time

I don't have time to listen to this right now although I'm very interested. But I don't really need to. I believe the willingness to face another human directly in this situation, to put what you've got on the line, and to fight for what you believe in is always a victory. That's all it will take for the truth to win. Congratulations all.



äh, äh - Todd makes too many äh!

The bending straw analogy

I wish that some time was spent on debunking the "straw analogy" that one of the "official story" guests used repeatedly. Basically, the idea that he presented is this: take a simple sipping straw and stand it up on its end. Put pressure on the top of it, and continue until the straw buckles. The structure of the straw gives way virtually instantaneously.

This is how he tried to explain away the collapses of the twin towers. It's a good visual, but even the simplest challenge will put the argument to rest. Even if it can be argued that the core steel beams at the point of impact gave way and buckled under heat and pressure, in no way can this explain how subsequent floors disintegrated in instantaneous fashion. In the "buckling straw" scenario, the top structures would still be met with the intact resistance of the structure below. The top floors would have either toppled over the side of the remaining structure, or they would have met with the resistance of the structure below, and the collapse would have either stopped, or slowed down considerably.

Straws. HA

Someone said that? Really? Wow, what are these debunkers smoking?

We did not see a bent straw on 9/11.

We did not see anything that came close to resembling a bent straw on 9/11.

Now, if you "put some pressure" on a straw and it suddenly turns into thousands of small and micrscopic shreds covering more surface area than the McDonalds table your eating at causing you to inhale straw and rootbeer particluates.....that would be closer to what we saw on 9/11.

I would say that the bent straw is horrible analogy and I prey some "debunker" play it on me one day.

I would also say don't eat at McDonalds.

If it's any help, Dave Thomas

If it's any help, Dave Thomas (assuming this is who we're talking about) also uses rubber ball analogies to demonstrate why steel beams and other chunks of office building could be propelled laterally.

Talk about a 'straw' -man argument!

'We did not see a bent straw on 9/11.'

No, we didn't. Nor have I ever consumed a beverage through a straw with dozens of steel columns inside, or that was segmented into over a hundred 'floors' (nor do I ever plan to).

Why can't these 'debunkers' just stick to analogies to similar types of structures, namely steel-framed skyscrapers? Why can't they just make comparisons to similar types of destructions that occurred in such structures as a result of fire?

Unless, of course...there simply aren't any examples available of similar types of destructions that occurred in such structures as a result of fire