Debate Between Box Boy Gage and Chris Mohr

Audio here. It is unfortunate that a lot of the debate seems to revolve around video and photographs, which we will have to wait for, but Mohr (a former investigative journalist) does a good job in the part that I have heard so far. I especially appreciated him asking Gage why they apply fireproofing to steel in high-rise construction; Gage's response was that fireproofing made them indestructible (!) in fires.

Box Boy is the usual dope. He denies significant fires in the towers, especially the South Tower. He brings up Chief Orio Palmer. He brings up "set up to fail", Max Cleland and John Farmer; I thought the idea was to discuss the towers collapse and not the freaking commission.

I do love the way he tries to frame things so he's the winner; either Mohr must explain X, Y or Z, or the debate is over. JAQ-off Jon Gold has a similar idea of what a debate consists of:

Here's a good topic for debate... should there be real justice for what happened on 9/11, and have we been denied that? Yes. I win.

Justice has not yet been brought to Osama Bin Laden, but I doubt that's what Gold is nattering on about.

Answer to a Challenge

Here's a challenge from Jesse over at TV News Lies:

And so, there really is only one way to go right now: the 9/11 discussion either has to end immediately or it has to go public full force! I am personally calling out the people who continue to cling to the official story! Bring your experts, bring the 9/11 Commission, bring your debunkers and openly debate me and the team I put together. If you hear us out and answer our questions honestly in a public and open forum, we’ll go away! If not, we want mainstream televised coverage of the research we have done.

And I want to win the Powerball. Look, this is silly; we get this crap from Dylan and Jason virtually every weekend. "Why won't you guys call in and debate us on our show?" Answer: Because there's no point to it. Why would I want to go on Looser than Words Radio, which probably has about 20 people listening to it, all of whom are confirmed 9-11 Deniers? I am interesting in debating 9-11 Deniers, but only if the audience is on the fence. There is very little point to debating the crackpots at their own conference, which, of course is what Jesse has in mind:

I will arrange for a public conference, perhaps at a university, and perhaps one that spans several days. We will have hearings. Our researchers and witnesses will present a case, as if in a court of law. Our purpose will be to expose the lies contained within the official story. We will show how the 9/11 Commission changed, omitted or misrepresented much of the original evidence and testimony. We will make the case that the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelekow, refused testimony and evidence and did not allow any information that disputed the pre-approved official story. We will not go beyond what we know for certain although we will include all related information regarding means, motive, opportunity and suspicious behavior or coincidence. Then the representatives of the official story will address the issues as presented.

Such a deal! All I have to do is fly to some university, sit through hours (or days) of the same old regurgitated crap and then debate only those issues you presented. And by the way, you're not going to mention any theories, just ask questions and demonstrate evidence of "suspicious" behavior.

Here's my proposal. I will go on any TV or radio show that has a legitimate audience that is not entirely made up of nutbars and fruitcakes. That is, I'm not interested in Alex Jones, but I would go on with Charles Goyette, even though I think he sandbagged Popular Mechanics. The other condition I would add is that the focus of the debate has to be on the question, "Was 9-11 an Inside Job?", not "Are there problems with the 9-11 Commission Report?"