Author Topic: AE911 Truth vs JREF 9/11 Debunker  (Read 6366 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kevin82

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
AE911 Truth vs JREF 9/11 Debunker
« on: September 24, 2009, 10:33:29 pm »
The head of AE911 truth (Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth) Richard Gage debates the debunking director of the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) website. Things didn't quite the debunkers way.

Offline mr anderson

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: AE911 Truth vs JREF 9/11 Debunker
« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2009, 12:31:25 am »
Ya, debunker was owned.  ::)
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Mike Philbin

  • Guest
JREF'r references MAINSTREAM media ALL THE TIME - sucker.
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2009, 12:35:07 am »
oh, dear, Jref'r totally defeated - good.  Richard dealt with Kevin VERY WELL.

Offline VulpesVafrae

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
  • el-CIA(duh!)
Re: AE911 Truth vs JREF 9/11 Debunker
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2009, 12:39:49 am »
Lol he starts out saying "The largest building at the time, falling on it!" Yeah well look at The gov't website, scroll down till you see the damage the falling 1 and 2 did. Riggghhht, so if thats the case why didn't Blgd. 3, 4, 5, 6 collapse? WTC 7 had the least ammount of debris then any of the other WTCs...
America is doubleplusgood today. It has always been doubleplusgood.

Offline Futurist

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
    • Blog
Re: AE911 Truth vs JREF 9/11 Debunker
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2009, 06:38:21 am »
I felt that Richard was perhaps a little too nice, this guy is dedicated to discrediting everything he says.

Check out his version of events at

As a practitioner of skepticism (only believing where the evidence points to eg. no UFO's, Bigfoot, psychic powers etc.) I still cannot believe how dedicated they are to the official story, I thought these guys would be scratching their chins and saying "on balance, the alternative story of 9/11 does have some merit". Although maybe the skeptics for 9/11 truth back away from the site leaving only the hardcore debunkers.

I only started getting into skepticism because they cover scientific topics, overall I think there's a lot bigger fish to fry than "snake oil" and pseudoscience.