













Thanks for Posting the Debate

AE911Truth now at 997


The big moment is coming...

The big moment is coming...

.. waiting for the big momnent..AE911

should met with this Harvard Physics Prof.

He holds the schools highest teaching award:

Delft University Building Collapse

I listened to the interview live last night. Ron Craig kept bringing up the Delft University building collapse and how it was remarkably similar to the collapse of WTC1 and 2. You can watch a video of it here. Of course, to compare the collapse of this building to the destruction of WTC 1 and 2 is ridiculous nonsense. But nonsense is what the "debunkers" traffic in.

- Aldous Huxley -

Delft University building collapse

You were supposed to take Ron Craig's word for it and not really take a look at it.

I did.


on Youtube

A data collection rapport

The "collapsed " university of Delft faculty of Architecture the

Well wadaya know it\s still there !!!!


Thanks, I think those pictures make the point effectively, by way of contrast with the WTC. I think Craig must have hoped that viewers might focus on certain aspects of this partial collapse--its apparent suddeness,and the outward billows of dust and the size of the dust cloud it produced--to the exclusion of other aspects that still mark it as different from the WTC.

I can never forget that image of the WTC tower first tipping forward above the impact zone--but then suddenly descending symmetrically the rest of the way. Craig, like other would-be debunkers, still can't account for that symmetry, so they resort to a variety of means of obfuscation.

Building 5 Also a False Comparison

Delft University and Building 5 are both red herrings that actually do a disservice to Ron Craig if one bothers to check them out. Both were partial collapses-- not global-- and in no way resembled the twin towers or Building 7.

Richard does a great job here. I liked that he referenced the MIT Technology Review article by Steven Son that mentioned how superthermite increases the energy potential by 1,000 times to counter Craig's claim that it was only a small difference. ( We posted that article here on blogger and Richard might have benefitted by it.) There are some very sharp people here who provide excellent research and support!

*I just chipped in $50 for the 1,000 milestone promo.


Quite shameless to compare those buildings. Bringing this up more than one time, in my opinion, says more than enough about the man's fairness and ability to shift facts from fairy tales.

I listened last night too.

First of all, Gage won hands down.

However, Mr. Craig proved himself to be very well versed in the art of spin, as anyone well informed will realize as they listen to the debate. A novice truth activist who certainly can see the obvious CD of the buildings but not so refined in the art of debate in addition to the thorough knowledge needed to counter someone like Craig, would have likely been defeated by Craig's exaggerations and falsehoods. Good for Richard Gage to call him out on each of these point by point.

Makes for a great 2 hour listening session.

"very well versed, indead"

Yes, Mr Craig was more than very well versed, he seemed almost rehearsed. Does anyone see an eerie similarity to Mark Roberts, or am I just smokin too much crack? There is something about his responses and the way he sets up his arguments that is, in a spooky way, similar to the rhetoric we used to hear from Mark Roberts. It's almost like they have the same coach and playbook. Craig seemed to pull out little gems of instantly relevant trivia that were far afield from his area of expertise. Why would he know this stuff? OK, I know it sounds wacked, but I'm a "conspiracy theorist," I'm allowed.

The good thing in ALL of this is that we are on the offensive and our detractors are on the defensive. Craig did a good job defending the official crap. But so has Sunder, Egar and others -- just not good enough. Gage is a step ahead of all these guys and we are very lucky to have him fighting for us. Thank you, Richard.

Here here!

I agree with your post.

The reality of it, of the actual occurance of destruction, speaks for itself but it's nice to have Richard there, as a representative of reason.

On the 11th day, of every month.

Not letting reputation serve as fact..

I think RG did a great job in NOT letting Craig use his experience and reputation serve as fact which he clearly tried to do when asked about the existence of exotic explosives. I don't care how long he has been in the business, unless he is a card carrying, high ranking member of the CIA or Military, he will not know about EVERY advanced explosive out there or coming "down the pike". The military classifies many research projects as Top Secret that he would not be privy too. I also can't believe he tried to point the thermite experiments of the Nat Geo hit piece and the so called "myth busters". These are obvious apples to oranges comparisons and he knows it.

There is going to be an upcoming television debate too, I would love to see that. In the television debate, the videos of the collapses should be scrutinized as well. This would give a big stage for David Chandler's work. Also, I think we all should write to Mr Craig, and suggest he publish his findings. Of course, none of his claims can be considered valid unless published for open scrutiny.

Peace all, together in truth.

- Douglas MacArthur


Amazing how that building fell straight down just like a CD.
All the columns on one floor failed, in a precise order, in about 2 seconds.
If you play-pause so as to walk thru the collapse and study every 2nd or 3rd frame, starting at 0:44, you will notice a very precise symmetry of collapse starting in the center where the fire had started and subsequently burned out. That's the same damned thing that happened in WTC 7. Note the roof line at 0:47. CD is a fine art and like WTC 7, pride of craftsmanship is the tell.

Even more amazing is the fact that it had a reinforced concrete frame, They are virtually impervious to fires.
For instance:

Image Hosted by
Image Hosted by

The light weight steel exterior box columns failed but the reinforced concrete inner columns did not.

Funny but I don't recall

WTC 7 lit up like the picture above with fires burning in every window and on so many floors prior to it's collapse. Rest in peace Barry Jennings.

That's the Windsor Tower

It clearly demonstrates that reinforced concrete columns do not fail in fires.

The Delft building had a reinforced concrete frame. The fires had all but burned out when the section of the building "collapsed".
Collapse at 0:44

The reference to WTC 7 was not clear. My bad.
The fires had burned out in WTC 7 on floor 12 before the collapse.
It was the fire on floor 12 that supposedly started the collapse.

Having just listened

to this so-called debate, I can only say this about Mr Craig ... his arguments are goofy, incongruous, nonsensical, illogical and just plain stupid. And please rest assured, I'm not trying to be personally offensive ... Mr Craig sounds like a perfectly nice chap, but I just wonder where he's coming from.

Good pictures of the Delft

Good pictures of the Delft University building before and after the partial collapse of this reinforced concrete structure can be found in the article, "Collection of Data on Fire and Collapse, Faculty of Architecture Building, Delft University of Technology" by Meacham, Engelhardt and Kodur. Just google the title and you'll find it. Although the video of the partial collapse is intriguing (and we should study it and make use of it) a quick look at the building after this partial collapse pretty much ruins Mr. Craig's comparison. It's still very much standing!

Rather than shy away from this partial collapse, I think we should study it carefully. I've downloaded it and am studying it frame by frame. Note, for example, the dust and pulverized material being ejected from the building. (Too bad most of it's coming toward the video camera so we can't measure its velocity--maybe there are video shots from other angles). See how these ejections come exactly where we would expect them to, at the point where the downward moving mass impacts the stationary mass (in other words we don't find them in many floors simultaneously); notice also that we do not find the kind of highly focussed ejections that we find in the Towers.

The problem with Mr. Craig's approach is that although he may score points in the short term with examples such as this, in the long term the weakness becomes apparent.

Did you read my post?

I studied the video frame by frame.

The building fell straight down.

All the columns on a single floor failed in a precise pattern within 2 seconds.

Reinforced concrete columns do not fail in fires.

The fire had burned out on most of the floor where the columns "failed".

Delft was a CD.


What video are you watching? At the 0:44/5 second mark, there is a very noticeable deformation and buckling starting in the center of the building and slowly bows downward. By the :48 second mark, the front of facade (facing the camera at least) falls and the back corner and wall are still clearly visible for a brief second and then crumbles inward. It looks very natural. The onset is very gradual. No ejecting squibs running up the side of the building, its very uneven, and doesn't come down in one piece. Unless I am missing some air of sarcasm in your post, this is FAR from a CD. IMHO

together in truth



The fires had burned out except for one small area.
Using play/pause, walk from 0:44 to 0:48 [full screen]

At 0:45, observe smoke suddenly puffing out from the center of the collapse floor. Note that this area has already burned out and is not smoking prior to 0:45
The collapse then begins in the middle of the burned out floor, and only on that floor.
It spreads out to the ends in less than 2 seconds. You can call this 2 second onset of collapse "gradual" if you want but the collapse took seconds as opposed to hours in the Windsor Tower.

Midway in 0:47 the roof line is a perfect curve confirming a collapse beginning in the middle and spreading to the ends symmetrically.
CD's don't fall perfectly straight down but for all intents and purposes they fall straight down.

Note that the floors below the collapsed floor do not start collapsing until they are obscured by falling debris [at about 0:50] just like the Trade Towers. By this time, the upper portion has self destructed, just like the Trade Towers.

The Windsor Tower clearly demonstrates that reinforced concrete columns do NOT fail in fires. They are virtually impervious to fire. That is the nature of concrete.

So we have all the columns on a burned out floor "failing" in 2 seconds but no other columns collapsing on any other floors.

Fires are random and could not cause all the columns to fail in a symmetrical manner within 2 seconds as observed.

Fires do not cause reinforced concrete columns to fail at all.

The fires had burned out except for one small area.

Seems to be something strange here ...

I've viewed the video repeatedly, in slow-mo and frame-by-frame ... at precisely 44 seconds, just as (or slightly before) collapse commences, three puffs of smoke appear, evenly spaced along the building facade facing camera, on the same floor level as the fire which is visibly flaming near left-hand corner, ie the lowest of the burnt floors. What causes these simultaneous puffs of smoke? At the 50 second mark, a small white coloured object is ejected from dust cloud with a trajectory toward left of screen then reverses direction, as more small white dots appear from dust cloud. What are these white objects? Why is there suddenly so much more smoke and dust billowing from what remains of the partially collapsed building, from which moments before there was only a thin haze of smoke emanating?

Where have we seen this before?

"What causes these simultaneous puffs of smoke?"
The fire has burned out in that area. Hmmmmm
They appear rather suddenly too.

And btw, why did the columns collapse if there was no fire around them?
The closer we look, the more this looks like the Trade Towers demolition.

A fraud to prove a fraud. How terribly inventive. ;-)

ETA: White object at 0:50 is a piece of paper caught in violent air movement IMO.

Not a CD ...

obviously, in fact maybe a little bit too obvious ... this is clearly a case of fire-induced collapse, or is it...

Now clearly this event in no way helps to support the official explanation of fire-induced collapse of the WTC, it is simply not comparable... for instance, it is only partial collapse, it does not fall symmetrically, or with constant acceleration ... but consider this; there is no known example of fire causing steel frame hi-rise buildings to collapse, zilch, zero, none. The proponents of the official theory (and we know who they are) desperately need to *grow* a database of evidence to help support the official 'fire-induced gravity-driven collapse' theory.

We should bear this in mind when examining evidence that is claimed to lend credence to the official story, and guard against too readily accepting such evidence at face value.

Where to get copy of Shermer vs Gage debate of 2008?

Glad to hear that the debate went so well.

I am afraid I won't be volunteering, because it would take me six months, but if that debate were to be fully transcribed it would be fantastic resource.

Does anyone know where an archived copy of that radio debate between Richard Gage and Michael Shermer that occurred roughly in September 2008 or, maybe, not too long before then? It was on for a few months. (I think I have my own copy somewhere, but it would be nice to be able to give a link to others.)

At the time my head was in turmoil. I had thought that worked out 9/11 and agreed with the Truth Movement. Then I learnt that Michael Shermer and James Randi -- two people I had admired and respected -- were 9/11 'debunkers'. At the time I was receiving Shermer's e-skeptic newsletter.

When I found that a debate between Gage and Shermer had occurred not long before then, I found it and listened to it, not knowing who to expect to win the debate. At the end it was clear to me that either Richard Gage was right or that Shermer was an unbelievably abysmal debater.

On another topic, I have made use of the "Cutter charges" video by David and Carolyn Chandler, Tony Szamboti and Graeme MacQueen in the story "Why Prime Minister Kevin Rudd should take another look at the 'image of the twin towers coming down'" in case it may be of interest.

Craig makes a serious mistake!

At about 0:35 Craig told us that the welds of the collumns are the strongest part of them.
Gage counters that it is no coincidence that after the collapse the collumns were in parts 30 ft in length.
Craig counters that this is logical because the collumn parts were 30ft long original!

See how stupid this remark is? It means that fire cut all the collumns at the strongest part, at the welds, and not randomly as would be the case in a real fire!
(Though that would not happen also since we are already assuming that fire can do what it has never done before)

Sleazy tactics by Ron Craig, all he's got

I noticed that when t he conversation started leaning more so in favor of Richard Gage, on subjects that would easily leave Craig with no counter point,, Craig started speaking faster and louder, making sure Richard did not have the opportunity to intercede, which would result in Craig being called out for the lies he was spewing.

I wish that there was a rule that when false statements were made, the opposing view could be allowed to ring a bell and explain why the statement by the opponent is false. Time and time again, Craig said "There was no evidence of explosives". When, there are ALL characteristics of explosives, not to mention ACTUAL EXPLOSIVES materials FOUND. That is MORE than evidence.

That is like going to a murder, with a knife stuck in the victim, and the coroner saying that that he or she was beaten to death.


Hats off to a true patriot!


I realized that Richard may very well be wise NOT to use air travel. Staying in California for the debates was smart..

What a magnificent and honorable individual Richard Gage is. He doesn't let the assault on reality, he's challenged with, ruffle him. He continues to explain with calm and clarity, specificity as the subject would require. There are insufficient words for the fine people that represent us, like Richard and Steven Jones and the rest. They are to be respected and our hats go off to them.


Craig also said that

the Delft University was in Denmark.
It is not, it is in the Netherlands.
Minor issue but still.

Delft demolition video

This shows a small part of the demolition:

The debate would have been much better if the participants didn't repeat themselves so much. I think RG should not have tried to speak over RC, but let him finish, then rebut his points one by one. RG certainly has the knowledge to do this, but he always stays on message, so his replies sound like extracts from his standard talks. When he does occasionally go off message, there is usually some fascinating detail that is not well known.

Avoid the answer

Notice how Mr. Craig avoids explaining why, if it was a collapse, the floors are not stacked on top of each other. Please Mr. Craig explain why. Please answer the question. I will remind him that the steel columns were 60% stronger at the first 30 floors than the top 30 floors. Also Mr. Craig please explain why massive steel assemblies were imbedded into the buildings across the street and what about all the reports of explosions heard at the scene. What destroyed the lobby in both buildings. If you critically listen to what he says, he makes many assumptions as if they are facts. One more thing Mr. Craig, explain how 20% of the building crushed 80% of the building into dust.

It's interesting that both buildings came down in exactly the same way. Now that is mind boggling!

Mr. Gage did an awesome job.

Bottom line is Mr. Craig's assumptions stretch the imagination to the breaking point.


Neither Thermite nor Thermate are classified as explosives, they are "incendiary pyrotechnic compositions"..
(that doesn't mean they can't be used to "blow things up)
Maybe that's why this pseudo-expert never heard about either ?
Or maybe it's because he never was in the Army ? Maybe he thinks Dr.Jones planted this ??
Did I just prove he doesn't know what the H*ll he's talking about ? I think so ...

" Justice for Barry Jennings "

While you are technically correct about thermite and thermate,

it appears that certain formulations of nanothermite are, in fact, very explosive.


Craig said

there was no evidence of the use of explosives in the collapses of the WTC towers. I would have wished for him to clarify exactly what he considers evidence of the use of explosives. He seems to take the same position as NIST, which is, why test for it, because it won't be there. His argument would collapse more quickly if he was coaxed to clarify it.

Funny, how hearing explosions, feeling explosions, seeing them, is evidence for their nonexistence. If there were explosions, it would have been natural for people to hear and see them, and that is exactly what we find from eyewitness testimonies.

And accoording to Craig

- CD at the towers and 7 are impossible because it would have knocked out almost all windows in Manhatten .....?/!...???..!! eh, right.

- The people who heard explosions (never mind the accompanying flashes!) are stupid and cannot tell the difference.

- Other surveys didn't find metal spheres in the dust so he doesn't believe the samples of for example Dr Jones are accurate. Why? Because Jones believes in CD?
The other surveyers believe NOT in fire? Jones' results are not questionable, especially since they have been published in a peer review journal.

- Explosions cannot account for dustification of concrete "because the trade center bomb in the nineties destroyed 3 floors but left chunks of concrete, no dust" ..SLIGHTLY different scenario?


Gravity could pulverize concrete, but explosives couldn't???

Perhaps the most ridiculous statement, alluded to by one poster above, is Mr. Craig's assertion that explosives could not have produced energy sufficient to pulverize most of the concrete into microscopic particles.

When Mr. Syrett then asked him what could cause this pulverization, Mr. Craig replied simply, a building collapse. Huh???

So if I understand him correctly, energy generated by explosives couldn't pulverize the concrete, but gravitational energy--nay, only gravitational energy could have done so.

This is downright comical. It seems the True Believers are reduced to grasping at straws.


Great comments, and what a great point above, I was thinking that the whole time Ron was explaining all the copious amounts of explosives that would be required to bring about the collapse. Required? How could that much be required if simple fire and gravity can do it on it's own?
Ron's points and arguments were so ridiculous to an informed listener. I could only listen to Ron's points for short durations of time then I would have to pause and come back or I would get too ill feeling from the deliberate deceit.
What a commendable job by RG, he is truly becoming a master at defusing the absurd official story debunking attempts.

Another two logical fallacies from Mr Craig...

Quite early in the debate, Mr Craig made quite a deal out of how many explosives would be required to demolish the buildings. He mentioned 47 core columns requiring a cutter charge each per floor.... Hold on a minute, Mr Craig, I thought you believed that ZERO explosives were required! How can someone who claims to come from the position that no explosives were used, then claim hundreds would be needed?

He is also guilty of the other oft used "argument" against demolition - the one that goes something like "it could not have been a demolition because the glass was not removed and the columns not prepared etc" i.e. it was not identical to a commercial demolition, therefore it was not a demolition. Obviously, these demolitions were covert and could not possibly be prepared like a normal demolition!

Craig didn't even read the final report on WTC7

If he had read it, he wouldn't have trotted out the "40% slower than free fall," PRELIMINARY time which was shown to be false and admitted by NIST to be incorrect in their final report.

Anyone who pretends to be an expert and doesn't even read the final report, but bases their arguments on PRELIMINARY reports which are written BEFORE THE PUBLIC GETS TO COMMENT AND ASK QUESTIONS - has ZERO CREDIBILITY.

as one caller said

very poorly to fix the whole thing on just one point, he's aware of how stuff works and that it didn't fix to his conclusions.

I wonder If Ron Graig ever heard of this US patent and his advantages regarding overpressure: