Nous sommes désolés, il n'existe pas de traduction de ce texte pour le moment.|
Intense But Cordial Debate Engages Locals
| Moderator Tom Kiely, Chris Mohr and Richard Gage, AIA, during the intense debate
AE911Truth has engaged several opponents in some productive educational debates in recent years, but last week hit a new high. Colorado911Visibility.org hosted journalist Chris Mohr and architect, Richard Gage, AIA, of AE911Truth in a polite but grueling debate on the campus of University of Colorado in Boulder Sunday evening, March 6. Tom Kiely of INN World Report proved to be a warm and professional moderator. The grueling debate lasted a total of 4-1/2 hours to a packed house of 225 students, faculty and interested citizens.
The debate centered on what caused the destruction of WTC Buildings 1, 2, and 7 on Sept. 11, 2001. Mohr advocated the “natural collapse” theory while Gage supported the “controlled demolition” theory. An audience poll before the debate revealed that 3/4 of the audience members were 9/11 truth supporters.
||Changes of Opinion
||Switched from Unsure to For Controlled Demolition
||Switched from Unsure to For Natural Collapse
||Switched from for Controlled Demolition to Unsure
||Switched from for Controlled Demolition to for Natural Collapse
Fourteen percent were “unsure” about the cause of the skyscrapers’ destruction, and 7% believed the official “natural collapse” theory. After the debate, 12% were unsure and 9% went with the official theory. Both before and after the debate 79% supported the controlled demolition theory. The results from the 96 questionnaires turned in showed some interesting changes of opinions as a result of the debate. Please listen to the audio recording and give us your feedback.
| Gage provided the proof of controlled demolition to this mostly 9/11 truth-aware audience
Mr. Gage said afterward that it was a “tough debate” and that “Chris is an accomplished, polished debater.” Mohr mentioned that the debate was “brutal” covering 18 different subjects but the audience was mostly “a friendly crowd.”
The debate began with Mohr’s opening remarks in which he encouraged the audience to keep an open mind, consider the evidence of both sides, and listen especially carefully to the person you most disagree with. He also noted that we both understand that “any government can commit atrocities. If you don’t believe this, you will not be able to hear this debate and you will be ignoring the painful lessons of Nazi Germany.” He proceeded to define the collapse of the Twin Towers from the perspective of the official account of a “natural collapse.”
| The grueling debate lasted a total of 4-1/2 hours to a packed house
Gage was a bit more aggressive with his opening statement and set a tougher tone:
“My opponent must resolve the symmetrical, free-fall collapse of WTC Building 7… or the debate is over.
The melting of steel girders… or the debate is over.
The documented finding of several tons of molten steel or iron in the debris pile of all three buildings … or the debate is over.
The billions of previously molten iron microspheres discovered by the USGS in the WTC dust… or the debate is over.
The red-gray chips of advanced energetic nanothermite composite material found in the WTC dust… or the debate is over.”
To prepare for the debate, Mohr spoke for four hours with four different individuals at NIST, the spokesperson at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) who provided him mostly with “emotional support.” Most of his questions were answered with standard statements that NIST has already released and which Mohr said “didn’t enlighten me.”
| Chris Mohr and Richard Gage, AIA, argue about the 100 missing pancaked floors at the base of each tower
Mohr supplied Gage with a copy of the information he had received from NIST. Gage noted that “there were no additional answers to the tough questions that NIST continues to avoid, particularly relative to the free-fall of WTC 7, the previously molten iron microspheres, the molten iron, and the red/gray chips of nanothermite found in the WTC dust”.
Mohr noted “I got a better sense of how they believed gravity would completely overwhelm the structural resistance of the buildings and the speed of the collapses was not a concern to them.” NIST told Mohr “there were good peer reviewed papers that explained the fast collapses that anyone can read, which is a reason why they considered it unnecessary to study the collapses themselves in depth.” Mohr seemed to have enough confidence in NIST to declare that “it doesn’t matter if there is free fall or very nearly free fall for any of the buildings.” (The 1,450 architects and engineers, and thousands of other scientifically inclined individuals prefer the laws of physics to faith in the authority of NIST.)
| "This is, after all, a deceptive, controlled demolition."
Further along in the debate, after Gage showed the WTC 7 collapse video adjacent to a known controlled demolition Chris Mohr, ignored the visual similarity and noted that “they sound completely different”.
Gage: Well, of course they do. One is using high-energy explosives, and the other thermate, an incendiary. This is, after all, a deceptive, controlled demolition.
Mohr completed his points with the tough statement “Over the course of this debate I have given you over 100 reasons why the science supports natural collapse and not controlled demolition. What would it take to satisfy you if not this?”
| Attendees ponder carefully their upcoming audience poll. Were they swayed from their original positions?
Gage wrapped up with a few terse comments of his own and call for action, noting that not one of the “physical impossibilities” that were presented by AE911Truth were adequately addressed and called upon his opponent “and upon all Americans to join the 1450 architects and engineers for 9/11 truth in this historic cause, and I encourage you to review the evidence… and put a strong voice to your conscience by speaking out to your friends, colleagues, government and media representatives. Act with courage today.”
Questions from the audience after the debate brought lively responses from both Mohr and Gage. For example, in response to the question “Apparently structural steel suffered some severe heat and corrosion. Why can’t that happen as a result of office fires?”, Gage pointed out that office fires can only reach about 1400-1600°F, not hot enough to melt iron – and yet iron was melted – as documented by FEMA. Mohr acknowledged that the hot sulfur attack on steel mentioned in Appendix C of the FEMA report remains a mystery. He and Gage agreed that gypsum board is designed to protect steel framing and that there seems to be no cases of it attacking the steel, and, furthermore, it could not be the source of sulfur which FEMA cites as among the sources of the attack. Mohr noted that FEMA did have a report on sulfidized steel [in the WTC rubble], and that “it remains a mystery.”
| Gage and Mohr remain in polar opposition on the issues yet cordial in tone throughout the debate
Mohr said “the pockets of sulfidation were localized, not universal throughout and doesn’t [sic] explain a global process of any kind.” He also said, “Just because there is unexplained sulfidation doesn’t mean that it must be from nanothermite… that’s not a valid conclusion to jump to.” He said this is an example of “reverse scientific method”. Gage stated that nanothermite is a separate issue, that sulfidation is evidence of the use of thermate, which is thermite with added sulfur, which lowers the melting point of steel so that it cuts through it like a hot knife through butter. Gage noted that NIST performed their own cherry-picking of evidence in order to justify their theory of destruction by fire.
Mohr noted during a response to another question from the audience about debates with NIST that scientists debate among themselves. They don’t debate with non-scientists. Gage retorted "They are engineers and we are engineers. We would be happy to have a debate with the NIST engineers." (followed by applause)
When discussing whether or not we should have a new investigation, Mohr exclaimed: “Do we want to want to have an investigation of Galileo? They have a 1200-page book out there about Galileo being wrong about the Earth being the center of the universe. There are people who believe that the Titanic never sank. Where do we draw the line?”
Gage retorted: “What did NIST do with [the evidence of molten steel and iron]? They censored it from their final report. Why? Is there any excuse whatsoever? This is why we need a new investigation. This is real forensic evidence [– not conspiracy theory].”
Question from audience: “If you are going to drop something on a scale, why not have it reflect the actual relationships of the masses involved? For example, why didn’t you drop one scale on four scales?
Mohr: “It was a simple demonstration of the power of gravitational momentum and it would be impossible to replicate the actual conditions that existed on 9/11.”
Gage noted that the scale provided a significant “jolt” to the weight and slowed it down quite significantly as the weight met structural resistance – something that didn’t happen in the North or South towers since they accelerated down nearly at free-fall – without slowing at all – straight through the 80,000 tons of structural steel over designed by a factor of 5. (Gage also wondered why the scale didn’t pulverize to powder or issue patterned explosive ejections of pulverized pieces in a symmetrical arrangement sending 98% of the scale’s fragmented components outside of its perimeter.)
| Tom Kiely takes a break after moderating this powerpacked 9/11 debate on the evidence.
Mohr said afterward that he became friendly with Gage in the debate preparation process,” reflecting the cooperative nature of the event. Gage reciprocated and continued the frank discussion during dinner with Mohr and the local 9/11 truth activists – at which Mohr was outnumbered 25 to 1. We applaud his courage and sense of camaraderie – along with his accomplished debating skills. If only we could enlighten him and get him speaking in a more focused way about the evidence.
Fran Shure, debate organizer from Colorado911Visibility.org, praised Tom Kiely of INN World Report for a very professional performance in moderating the debate.
A DVD will be created in the coming months of the event from the high-definition video footage shot by a three-camera film crew led by Ken Jenkins, video director for the AE911Truth DVD’s and the 9/11: Blueprint for Truth and SF Press Conference. We hope to air the WTC 7 show on local PBS-TV stations. Stand by to order your copy from our online store in April or May.