Notice: Use of undefined constant DISCLAIMER - assumed 'DISCLAIMER' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/includes/fair_social.php on line 3
Notice: Use of undefined constant FAIR_USE - assumed 'FAIR_USE' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/includes/fair_social.php on line 10
Wednesday, January 13 2010 - 9/11 A/V Galleries
AE911Truth Debates Explosive Expert: Richard Gage, AIA vs. Ron Craig
January 11, 2010
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN OPINION, BUT NOT YOUR OWN FACTS.
Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 truth, and Ron Craig, explosives and Hollywood special effects expert locked horns in their second live radio debate in two years. The exchange was hosted by Richard Syrett of The Conspiracy Show. LISTEN TO THE DEBATE NOW.
While no data is available yet for listenership numbers, we do know that the show could be heard from Thunderbay Ontario to the Carolinas....from Maine to Minnesota, NYC, Chicago, Washington and all points in between. Also, the program is offered as a podcast, so it will be available on iTunes as a download. It's the most downloaded show on the radio station – Zoomer Radio from Ontario. The show will also be broadcast on TV - www.theconspiracyshow.com
After brief introductory statements, the debate began right away with two very different views of reality on display. Gage's comments were based on observations that the three WTC towers did not suffer a natural collapse as a result of plane impacts and fires, but came down due to an engineered explosive destruction. Craig, on the other hand, asserted the belief that the plane strikes delivered three times the kinetic energy that the buildings were designed to withstand, that the construction was faulty, and that there was “no signature of explosions”.
Craig also mentioned that the plane strikes would account for much of the pulverization of the concrete - without additional explanation as to why up to 30% of the powder blanketing Lower Manhattan was composed of finely ground concrete.
The debate proceeded with Ron Craig's denial of what we consider to be observed facts of the building’s explosive destruction. He denied the existence of concrete dust as well as the iron spheres found in the dust samples by USGS and RJ Lee, and offered no explanation for the creation of the spheres. He denied that there were red/gray chips in the WTC dust – suggesting that they were planted by the scientists and somehow slipped past the peer-review process.
We believe that he is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own version of the facts.
Craig hinges his argument on the assertion that many tons of precisely placed explosives would hardly damage the stout columns or make a large enough signature blast to be heard for miles. He believes that, if it existed, he would be aware of any higher-tech explosive comprising nano-thermite. “No boogie man here.”
When the issue of “fire initiated collapse” was raised, Gage pointed to the fact that this type of collapse has never happened before or after 9/11, but only three times - on that one day. Craig countered with a video reference to the Delft building consumed in fire which sustained a partial collapse.
The discussion of fire opened up the evidence of moltn metal found weeks after 9/11 in the debris pile. Craig simply denied its existence, though photo, video, and eyewitness evidence suggests otherwise. Once again we feel that Mr. Craig is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own facts.
Please listen to the debate. The commercials have been cut out from this MP3 file, so the resulting length is about 1 ½ hours.
And please let us know what you think and how you feel our debating technique as well as our content can be improved. We have a few more debates coming up in the next months – at KBDI Denver PBS TV in March – tentatively with physicist/mathematician Dave Thomas from the New Mexico Tech Institute. And then, tentatively, in London at Oxford hosted by former Parliamentary George Galloway.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author, who is solely responsible for its content, and do not necessarily reflect those of 911Truth.org. 911Truth.org will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.