Introduction to the Debate 2

A. Logical Flaws. Let's start with some basics relevant to this entire debate. In a moderated debate, the moderator may identify certain debating techniques as unacceptable, and allow only reasoned arguments. Since this is an unmoderated debate, I (and the other side) can "call" each other on logically flawed rebuttals. Here is an explanation of logical issues that arise in this debate (on both sides) such as Innuendo leading to Falsehood, Reversal of Burden of Proof, Requiring Proving a Negative,  "Never Before" and "Strawman" arguments, Ad Hominem Attacks, Irrelevant Argument, False Global Claims, False Application of Common Sense, Argument From Authority, etc.:  I suggest that in the spirit of mutual respect, both sides do their best to avoid using logically flawed arguments.

Logically flawed arguments:

This statement implies that Gage is engaging in "reverse science".
Part 0 @5:46  Mohr: "MIT professor Thomas Eagar  remarked: 'These people use the reverse scientific method. They determine what happened, throw out all the debate data that doesn't fit their conclusion and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.' " 
Gage believed the natural collapse theory until he looked at the evidence.

This completely false comment subtly links Gage to ridiculous theories.
Part 0 @6:33 "He (NIST representative Michael Newman) also did not look for mini-nukes, post star wars energy rays, aliens, missiles, holograms or other alleged sources of the WTC collapses. To Richard Gage, this is the reverse scientific method."
When 9/11 truth activists use the term "reverse science", they are talking about NIST starting with a conclusion and trying to get the data to fit that conclusion while ignoring all the evidence that is in conflict with that conclusion. NIST hand waves all the reports of explosions and molten iron because it doesn't fit their pre conceived natural collapse theory.

This incorrect statement impugns Gage's credibility.
Part 1 @0:59  Mohr:  "They built in structural redundancies to hold 3 times the buildings static weight, but not 5 times as Richard Gage asserts." 
In Blueprint for Truth, Gage does not refer to structural redundancies.  In more recent presentations, he says "3 to 5 times" which is correct.

Part 1 @9:20  Mohr:  "Richard Gage says 'The fires were diminishing severely' when in fact they had grown from 4 floors to at least 14 floors in less than an hour."
Mohr takes Gage's quote out of context and accuses him of not being factual. Mohr is talking about the fire spread in the north tower but he used Gage's quote referring to the south tower where the fires were burning out.


In my link above I list several logical flaws and encourage us both to try to avoid them in this debate. There has been no response to this invitation.

I forgot to include one other logical flaw: ignoring what the other side is saying and talking about other things instead.

Briefly: I remember hearing Gage say 5x when I first heard him in 2008. He now says "3 to 5 times" and I happily withdraw what I said. I may have even misheard him, which at worst is an honest mistake.

I continue to hope that the logical flaws I listed be avoided in the spirit of fairness in this debate. All of us will make honest mistakes along the way.

This forum was originally provided to allow rebuttals of the DVD documentary “9/11: Blueprint for Truth” and rebuttals to your rebuttals.  Criticism is a 2-way street.

There has been a response. Listed above are some logical flaws in your videos.

I requested to see a complete list of articles and peer-reviewed papers that specifically support the natural collapse theory.


Thank you.


B. Who has credibility in a 9/11 debate? The highest credibility goes to the best-reasoned arguments, which trump this list, but since credibility and "authority" have some weight, here is my rough guide to how to judge the merits of the person making a claim:

Ryan Mackey has his own version of the same thing: Eric Conley --Ozeco41 -- has posted several colloquial discussions of logical issues on the same threads as well as contributing to my posts.

Judging the messenger rather than the message is not an acceptable debate technique.

Evaluating an expert opinion's credibility is not the same as judging the messenger.

My rough guide (linked above) is an opportunity for both of us to ask, what weight do we put on the source of our information and on the expertise of the person providing it? I say yes, a real expert's opinion, especially when peer-reviewed, carries relatively more weight than non-expert opinions or even the opinions of people with training in other fields talking about things outside their areas of expertise (people like Ryan Mackey, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan, and others). As another example, James Millette specializes in chemical analysis of dust particles and forensic analysis, so his pre-publication experiments on and conclusions about the red-gray chips--and his unambiguous determination in his preliminary report that there was no thermite in the chips--carries considerable weight.

This is the whole point of the AE911 Truth video, "Experts Speak Out:" that people with expertise disagree with the common 9/11 narrative!


From the response above right it appears you believe that any attempt to weigh an expert's credibility is a false exercise.

I submit that this is extremely damaging to 9/11 Truth's credibility, destroys the basic premise of your own "Experts Speak Out" video, and leaves us with a bizarre "playing field" where true experts can be dismissed while laypeople's opinions on blogs carry as much weight or more than a scientist with a lifetime of training and expertise.

We disagree on that point.

By that measure the thermite paper by Neils Harrit Ph.D, Steven Jones Ph.D and Jeffrey Farrer Ph.D, has more credibility than R. Mackey or any other scientist of lesser expertise. Their peer-reviewed paper has not been challenged in the scientific manner i.e. a published paper rebutting their findings.  Millette did not duplicate two key experiments nor has he published.  Until he duplicates those two key experiments and publishes his findings there is no scientifically accepted challenge to the thermite paper."

Correct. These experts, with decades of experience in their fields, have credibility.  So do the people at MIT and other institutions.  It's up to the reader to decide who is making sense based on their arguments, not your criteria of how and why we should judge the messenger.

Mohr incorrectly assumes what I believe. -
A demonstrable case of a conflict of interests is reason to question someone's credibility.

Misrepresenting your opponent and criticizing him for the resulting false premise is an unacceptable debate tactic.

Mohr interprets "These experts ... have credibility" as meaning "experts can be dismissed".

C. I invite my opponents on the 9/11 Truth side to offer their hierarchy of credibility for comparison. Here is a Bibliography of Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers etc. explaining the natural collapse of the towers and a list of top researchers who have investigated the 9/11 catastrophe. These are my accepted sources of information, many of which I have read or scanned:


The claim that all of these people are either ignorant of the basic laws of physics or in on a conspiracy has no credibility with me.


Here is a list of people and organizations who have credibility. Some of these articles are about fire safety, etc and relate more peripherally to 9/11 but all have varying degrees of high credibility in my mind, and I have studied their work extensively. The following individuals and groups have collectively met the burden of proof for the natural-collapse theory by participating  in the 911 investigations, cleanup and research.

I have also gotten answers to many questions from people in the JREF Forums, from those who agree with the basic principles established by these scientists.

The burden of proof has been met by NIST because it has been repeatedly peer-reviewed by individuals, civil/structural  engineering societies and peer-reviewed articles.

Most of these papers are not "peer reviewed". In fact, many have nothing to do with the collapse itself. Mohr's implication that they all support the NIST collapse theory is incorrect.

From the first entry on the link list Mohr refers to – WTC 7:
2002/05 - Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE) - World Trade Center Building Performance Study -

FEMA Chapter 5 pg 30: "If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded."

The word “implode” carries intrinsic meaning relevant to this discussion:
“To cause to collapse inward violently”
“To demolish (a building) by causing to collapse inward”

Fire Engineering Magazine had this to say about the FEMA report:
“Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members - described by one close source as a "tourist trip"- no one's checking the evidence for anything.”

2002/05 - Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) - The Towers Lost and Beyond - link 
This is a collection of essays written in the first few months after 9/11. The MIT authors started with their foregone conclusion that the airplane impacts and fires brought the Twin Towers down – with little or no supporting evidence – before the FEMA report was released, and long before NIST started on their investigation.  These are not peer-reviewed articles.

2002/09 - John D. Osteraas - World Trade Center: Assessment of Structural and Architectural Damage;
There is no link in the list for this and a Google search turns up only some references to it - but not the paper itself.   

I said these sources were "Peer-Reviewed etc." because I am aware that these scientific articles were not all peer-reviewed. While I list some of the sources that have credibility for me based on their qualifications, the writer above right has not responded to my invitation to offer his own hierarchy of credibility.


Briefly, reports of the building implosion from the FEMA Report is not "evidence" that FEMA believes Building 7 was imploded from controlled demolition. They never said that. What FEMA did say in their report is that it appeared that "the collapse was due primarily to fire." This section is not about FEMA however; it's a general invitation to explore what kinds of sources we consider credible.

Which of these articles opposes some kind of  9/11 natural collapse theory? Do any of them propose CD as the cause of the buildings' destruction?

I spent another hour reviewing these links after the comment above right, and
most of them either directly explain "natural collapse" or must assume "natural collapse" as the premise behind the specific topic they are writing about (such as fire safety in major fires or why one tower's collapse did not cause the collapse of the other, which would not be relevant if the authors believed bombs brought the buildings down). A few don't relate directly to natural collapse, like an article explaining the fireballs immediately following the plane crashes. But all contribute to the common narrative of the collapse itself, the prelude to the collapse, or proposals regarding how to prevent further collapses of large buildings if they are attacked again.

But generally these articles directly or indirectly support natural collapse and carry high credibility.

My extensive list of primary sources supporting natural collapse does
not require further breakdown. Generally, the articles in the Journal Articles section are peer reviewed. There are others submitted to journals, such as those in the section Some Progressive Collapse Studies & Recommendations that are also peer reviewed.

My bad. I should have included this in my response:
More than 1,700 Architects and Engineers, along with nearly 15,000 others have gone on record stating that they doubt the Official Collapse Theory and want a truly independent investigation.


A straw man, known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
I just noted that FEMA acknowledged the obvious - "the building imploded" and that implode is a demolition term.

Which of these articles supports the natural collapse theory? Many don't have anything to do with the collapses.




That is not true. The list is a grab bag of articles and papers about the WTC. Implying that it represents a wide breadth of support for the natural collapse theory is innuendo leading to falsehood.

Here's the breakdown of the JREF "Support natural collapse theory" list:
Journal papers - 23 authors
FEMA and NIST reports - 16 authors
Articles - 9 authors
Total - 48 authors

The issue of peer-review is secondary to the approach a researcher takes.


The credibility issue with the 9/11 Truth movement and Richard Gage is not only the paucity of peer-reviewed papers, it is the whole approach:


1. he presents his/her case on YouTube or the internet or on radio talk shows.

2. He just asks questions, and draws no conclusions.

3. He asks the public to decide for themselves.

Mohr has shifted from determining the credibility of the authors of a research paper to the credibility of Gage.

This is supposed to be a discussion of the evidence, 
not your opinion of Gage's credibility. You question Gage's credibility because of his "approach" - which is presenting the evidence in a manner that can be understood by the public as well as architects and engineers. That is a self fulfilling criteria.

1. As well as on TV, at architect conventions, to congressional representatives staff and over 100 venues around the world.

2. That is the proper way to present the evidence to the public.

3. What a novel idea!

What the researchers whose credibility I respect more do is:

1. prepare their arguments very, very carefully, consult with experts in the pertinent fields & then submit them to peer-reviewed or reputable publications. They also bring their results to panels of experts within the field. 


Gage has not presented to the MOST prestigious panel of structural engineers that he can find.  Instead he visits college campuses and speaks at public meetings.

2. Serious researchers draw conclusions. As many as they can. If they have no conclusions to present, they keep quiet until they can present conclusions.

3.Serious researchers don't ask amateurs (the public) what they think. Would they bring discussions of high energy physics or cutting edge medical treatments to the public & ask what they think? Or would he/she bring them to the American Physical Society & JAMA?

1.  Gage is a presenter, not a researcher. He gathers together and presents the research that others have done. Photos and videos are a critical part of his presentation. Careful examination of the videos reveals that the towers were demolished with explosives.  This kind of presentation is not amiable for submittal to journals. The thermite paper is the type of research that can be submitted to a scientific journal.

He has already presented to numerous groups of architects and engineers.

2.  Serious researchers have drawn the conclusion that the Trade Towers and building 7 were controlled demolitions.

3.  This shows disrespect for the public. You call them "amateurs" as if they are not capable of critical thinking.
"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." -- Benjamin Franklin


D. The following individuals and groups participated in the 911 investigations, cleanup and research. All had specialized training in whatever aspect of the work they did. Not one has come forward to support the 9/11 Truth version of events: 7,000+ FBI Agents who conducted a three-year 911 investigation; 1,500 people who worked the flight 93 crash scene; 40,000 people who worked the piles at Ground Zero; 55 FBI Evidence Response Teams at Fresh Kills in New York; 8,000+ people who worked the scene at the Pentagon.


There are at least five peer-reviewed journal articles in ASCE publications that conclude the buildings came down by fire and those Journal articles have been cited in other articles and used to redesign fire codes in tall buildings (meaning that the articles have peer respect).



NIST was peer-reviewed by four independent civil engineering firms and concluded fire brought the buildings down.


These are enormous lists of people, articles etc in support of the natural collapse theory. Anyone who thinks NIST's investigations are terrible science or fraud must deal with the collective consensus of thousands of qualified scientists, engineers and others who have researched 9/11 and come to very similar conclusions to those found in the NIST Report.  

Mohr is stating that all these people support the Natural Collapse Theory.  However no survey has been conducted to verify this incredible claim. This is a "False Global Claim" - one of the items listed as an unacceptable debate tactic.

Indeed FBI Agents have come forward to question the official story.  Read the statements of 41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans at:

List the specific names and URL's so they can be verified.

None of the code changes have anything to do with the collapse. They are NOT "peer respect" of the natural collapse theory.

List the specific names and URL's so they can be verified.



False Global Claim

It is true that I made a "false global claim" when I said that of the participants in the 911 investigations, "Not one has come forward to support the 9/11 Truth version of events." Generally I say that the overwhelming scientific consensus is in support of the natural collapse theory. The excellent link above right proves me wrong and I retract what I said.

There are multiple dimensions to the investigations. Many intelligence people have come out in opposition to what they consider a politicized investigation, and I sympathize with their complaints (though I have not studied them carefully). Richard Gage and I focused on the other dimension of the investigations: whether the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition or as a natural outcome of the plane crashes, ensuing fires, the Towers crashing and setting unfought fires in other buildings, etc. This is the focus of my journalistic investigation.

If I am not mistaken, however:

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), there are 8,865 civil engineering firms in the US.
According to, there are 675 University physics departments in the US.
According to the National Demolition Association, there are over 1000 demolition companies in the US. and Canada that offer standard demolition services.
There is some support for the 9/11 controlled demolition theory among some individual engineers, firemen, etc. But to date, not one civil engineering firm, not one University physics department and not one US demolition company is willing to certify that the claims made by 911 Truth organizations are plausible or even possible.


Thank you for your willingness to admit that you were wrong.










Mohr continues to imply that all these people support the natural collapse theory.
This is yet another one of his listed logical fallacies: 
"Innuendo leading to Falsehood".