9/11 Truth Debate - Richard Gage vs. Ron Craig

Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 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. AM740 Zoomer Radio Toronto, Canada. Saturday January 10th 2010.
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/143

Right click and save:
http://www.ae911truth.org/media/100110-Richard_Gage_v_Ron_Craig-2of2.mp3

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 - http://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.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Active Thermitic Material Discovered
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7T...

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• 9/11
• Truth
• Debate
• Richard
• Gage
• vs.
• Ron
• Craig
• AE911Truth
• Steeper33

[KevinMerck]

In the real world, any collapse of building 7 would have been a partial collapse in the direction of the damaged area.

The worst case scenario for 1 and 2 would have been a partial collapse at the point of impact leaving the rest of the building standing.

There is no way on God's green earth that they could have collapsed at near free-fall speed through the path of greatest resistance without the use of controlled demolition.

That would be *strictly impossible*.

[5147848amp]

A new fact I heard from RT: According to even the US government, the jet fuel burned off within 15 minutes.

My dad always brings that one up to me, trying to argue that the fuel had something to do with 'structural integrity' and so on.

Also: Steel, being a conductor, would have spread the heat throughout the columns, making it unlikely that the columns would have failed in particular places. No?

[keggerous]

@KevinMerck no, it wouldnt be impossible. saying so doesnt make it true. i love how ppl that no shit about physics seem to always think they're experts. sad really .. .

[occision]

@quedorf even nist says there was NO EVIDENCE of pancaking .

[5147848amp]

@quedorf

So why, if the fires in building 7 were localised in the lower part of the building (floor 12, right?), did the Penthouse fall first? Why should the heat have been conducted well enough by the steel to reach the top of the building before it failed in the most heated area? Steel must have been a pretty good conductor there.

Nothing is what it seems - you've noticed that, right? - Nothing political, nothing social, nothing physical or biological or spiritual, is what it seems.

[quedorf]

@5147848amp My point is that steel does not conduct heat well enough that it would spread throughout the entire 1100 feet before localized heating caused enough weakening of the steel. And the columns did not all fail at the same time. Watch the collapse. it begins where the planes hit (first proof of natural collapse), and it begins to fall over till the remaining beams are supporting too much, which when the building then begins to pancake due to excessive force from the upper floors.

[5147848amp]

@quedorf

I don't know. Were rogue blow-torches at work on 11/09? I'm saying, why did all the columns fail at the same areas at the same time. It looks neat, it doesn't look chaotic, is what I'm saying. Demolition, is what I'm saying. And no planes hit building seven, yet NIST explain 1 and 2 by planestrike. I have never known a government, or its minion spokespeople, to tell the truth, is what I'm saying. Yeah? Yeah.

[quedorf]

@5147848amp So what you are saying is that cutting torches could never work, or flames impinging on steel, in a boiler combustion chamber for example, is impossible, because steel will evenly conduct the heat?

[ajahni]

where can i find the rest of this debate?

[helicopterraids]

@KevinMerck I enjoyed reading your analysis of reality and facts. You are certainly a scientist , a fact seeker and a patriot, or at least a superhero trying to warn us sheep.