Since the destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, over a dozen technical professionals from various fields have publicly defended the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) used to explain the three building collapses. These OCT advocates have promulgated NIST’s fire-induced, gravitational collapse hypothesis through the mainstream media or in public debates with AE911Truth, and have delivered a wide range of arguments that haven’t been collectively refuted – until now. On September 9, 2010, a few of their public statements were put to the test in a live mock debate with AE911Truth at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel moderated the debate. Representing AE911Truth were architect Richard Gage, AIA, structural engineer Steve Dusterwald, mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti, and technical writer Gregg Roberts, co-author of the scientific paper detailing the active thermitic material discovered in the WTC dust.

The engineers, scientists and other technical experts who were chosen due to their support of the official story included:

Abdolhassan Astaneh-Asl, civil and environmental engineering professor; Zdenek Bazant, Materials Engineer; Brent Blanchard, demolition photographer; Hyman Brown, Vice President, Tishman Realty and Construction; Gene Corley, ASCE & FEMA Structural engineer; Thomas Eagar, MIT materials engineer; John Gross, NIST WTC Co-Project Leader; Ronald Hamburger, FEMA Structural Engineer; Jon Magnusson, CEO of WTC design firm Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc.; James Meigs, Editor in Chief of Popular Mechanics; Leslie Robertson, WTC structural engineer; Van Romero, Vice President, New Mexico Tech; Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine; Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, NIST WTC lead investigator; Dave Thomas, Physicist and President of New Mexicans for Science and Reason.

All but one of these OCT defenders declined our invitation to debate us in person.  Ron Craig, explosives expert, did wish to come to Washington DC to debate us, as he did twice on the Richard Syrett Radio Show, but he couldn’t make his schedule work out. So we took some of their most pervasive arguments and played them on-screen. The statements that did not have a video or audio recording were recited by Senator Gravel.

The virtual debate began with the argument by James Meigs in favor of NIST’s fraudulent WTC Building 7 analysis. He told the History Channel that the collapse of Building 7 “is what buildings look like when they fall down.” Gage responded to this irrational statement by showing images of buildings that have fallen due to natural unplanned events, such as earthquakes, which appear nothing like the collapse of WTC 7.  He then compared WTC 7 side by side with a known engineered demolition, which appear identical to each other.  Steve Dusterwald assisted in the rebuttal by eloquently explaining the structural differences between natural failures and the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers. “The original design [of a building] encompasses a structural system that’s completely integrated with all of the components,” said Dusterwald. “The total destruction of the buildings [on 9/11] is inconsistent with buildings that are just falling over in a gravitational collapse.”

The turnabout on “free-fall” made by the NIST Building 7 team became one of the early centerpieces of the simulated dialogue. During the Draft NIST Report Update, Dr. Sunder acknowledged that “a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it,” and went on to deny the fact that WTC Building 7 came down at free-fall acceleration. Gage pointed out that the scientific analysis done by physics teacher David Chandler proved that free fall did in fact occur, and he described how eventually NIST reversed its course, conceding that Building 7 experienced “a free-fall descent over approximately 8 stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 seconds.”  He explained that this remarkable admission is a tacit acknowledgment of explosive controlled demolition. “Normal office fires,” which NIST cites as the cause of the building’s failure, cannot possibly have removed the 80 columns per floor, over 8 floors, precisely at the same time, which is required for the symmetrical free-fall collapse.

Those who listened to the August Coast to Coast AM radio debate can recall the dubious claim by Dave Thomas that the rapid discharges that occurred 20, 40, and 60 stories below the “crush zone” of the Twin Towers were just puffs of air. “As this big air column was pushed,” he said, “it came down through elevators and popped open windows.” Gage deftly refuted this argument, pointing out that pulverized building materials are being ejected from the windows. He continued by noting that these highly focalized, geometrically precise, violent ejections occurred at 160 to 200 feet per second, speeds achieved only by explosives.

Jon Magnusson’s “pancake theory” was also put under scrutiny. According to Magnusson, “Several of the upper floors fell onto the next lower floor that was still intact, and once that happens, there’s going to be an instant overload situation, and then it will fail.” Yet, this theory contradicts the evidence. “Where are the floors?” Gage asked. “The floors have been completely pulverized and ejected laterally. This bears no resemblance to a classic pancake collapse.”

Several of the OCT defenders, including WTC architect Leslie Robertson, insisted that the vertical dynamic load of the floors above the jet impact area exerted immense pressure on the underlying structure of the Twin Towers, creating a “pile driver” effect that made complete collapse inevitable, but the AE911Truth panel countered that explanation. Tony Szamboti reminded the audience that this concept defies the laws of physics, because an object cannot fall with an acceleration near that of free fall while it is destroying its supporting structure. Szamboti explained that an object striking another object must slow down. But the North and South Tower masses above the point of jet plane impacts actually speed up continuously – without any jolt. “This fellow wants to have his cake and eat it too, and it doesn’t work that way,” Szamboti added. Gregg Roberts commented on this topic as well, noting that the immense pressure never existed because “most of the material, even early in the collapse, is falling outside of the footprint of the building.”

The documented discoveries of explosive materials in the WTC dust were also challenged by the supporters of the official story. Thomas Eager discounted the findings of physicist Dr. Steven Jones, stating that “paint is an excellent explanation” for the red-gray chips of un-ignited nano-thermite. Roberts put this theory to rest by describing the tests that were done to determine the properties of the chips, which are documented in the peer-reviewed Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. “When we heated these chips… up to 430° C, the chips ‘went off’ and emitted a lot of heat quickly,” said Roberts, “and this doesn’t happen with dried paint.”

By the end of the presentation of the technical information it became obvious to most that the destruction of these skyscrapers on 9/11 was explosive and pre-planned.  Questions regarding conspiracies were in the air, and thickly so.

Dr. Lance Dehaven-Smith, renowned professor at Florida State University, was invited to address some of these issues.  He summed up the debate by discussing what he describes as State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs), and the problem that high crimes represent. “We are expected to not believe our own eyes,” he said. “That’s what the media asks when they tell us ’Don’t be speculating about conspiracies.’ You watched that film of the collapse of the buildings over and over. You can see [the controlled demolition] with your own eyes... So I encourage you as vigilant citizens to follow up on this. This is the kind of evidence that we need to reopen this issue.”

By the end of the mock debate, it was apparent why all of the OCT supporters declined to attend. More than 1,300 verified architects and engineers, as well as scientists and other technical professionals around the globe, have exposed so much evidence confirming the controlled demolition hypothesis that any live opponent would be overwhelmed. Even though these scientific authorities will still maintain that they know best, this mock debate was a clear reminder that their popularity and prestige cannot stand up to facts and reason.