AE911Truth Debates Explosive Expert: Richard Gage, AIA vs. Ron Craig Print
News - News Releases By AE911Truth
Written by Editor   
Monday, 11 January 2010 00:00

originally on


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. 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 -

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.

read full article and see comments on >>