I've read some nasty things about Richard Gage already, and I have been in extensive contact with Ryan Mackey, whose white paper on David Ray Griffin was an incredible resource for me. Please tell the Randi folks to come out for the debate. I could use your support. And the skeptics of all stripes. They are requesting a $10 donation but no one will be turned away.
I have been a lifelong friend of someone who got into the 911 Truth
movement and now is a major organizer. She asked me to watch the videos and attend the meetings, and at first I was completely unimpressed. But like many people, I was upset with the Bush administration's rush to war in Iraq, and resented their methodology of "proving" WMDs against Saddam. I am no scientist, but science has been a lifelong hobby of mine. When I first saw
Richard Gage's 911 Blueprint for Truth video, I was initially impressed and
went back to give the whole theory a second look. He is the most compelling, articulate speaker the 911 Truth Movement has. But I quickly realized the
science just isn't there to support his claims and eventually challenged him to a debate. Initially my Truther friend resisted the idea, so I had to convince her to host this debate. I was surprised that Gage accepted.
Don't be too quick to dismiss me personally because I make my living running
a wedding chapel. I studied journalism with a crack investigative journalist
from the St Louis Post Dispatch who helped break the Mafia's stranglehold on City Hall. I am well versed in the techniques and goals of investigative
journalism. I have cultivated very strong speaking skills and am familiar
with rhetorical devices etc. I will make sure people know that a real
scientific debate would be scientist-to-scientist and that this is not that.
Instead, I am a journalist investigating and exposing as false the claims of
the controlled demolition theory. The job of a journalist is to look at both
sides and then share with his audience what he has found, in a simple,
direct way that is understandable to the average reader or listener. I
report the facts and the audience evaluates them. In the debate format
that's changed a bit, because I am advocating for Natural Collapse. So put me on the editorial page.
I will also treat my audience and my opponent with complete respect. I will
make a "unifying statement" to set a tone that will help those who disagree with me let down their defenses and be open to what I have to say. It will help a lot that I was initially impressed with Gage's presentation. That's
why I took him on. His rhetorical style is formidable and convincing. And
NIST has promised to email me responses to some tough questions about their reports (this will be arriving very soon). I've talked with Kevin Ryan, with
Ryan Mackey, and others. That's what investigative journalists do. Before
running this chapel, I published a classical music magazine and wrote music articles which sometimes were investigative in nature. Not as tough as my mentor having guns pointed at him by members of the St Louis Mafia, but
several times I had to dig pretty deep to reveal things that musical
organizations didn't want the public to know. I bring that experience to
bear on this debate.
A lot of people have told me that this debate will only strengthen the Truth Movement by granting legitimacy to Richard Gage. I don't have the
qualifications to legitimize him in that way (as you pointed out on a recent post: thanks for the free publicity for my wedding chapel).
I have put on my journalist hat and this has journalistic value because a segment of thje population is interesterd in it. I felt that having a compelling, affable, unthreatening, respectful person who will take on Gage's claims and have that information actually available within the Truth movement may help people who are looking at the issue get the other side. A depressing tendency I've seen is that people who don't know how to do independent research will tend to "research" by getting more videos and books from the Truth movement or the debunkers' websites only. This will be a rare inside resource for potential new Truthers. I can honestly present myself as a guy who was intrigued and interested but on further reflection decided that there is no science behind Gage's assertions. That's less threatening, frankly, than the Randi position that anyone who agrees with the Truthers is an idiot.
My journalism teacher taught me to trust my audience, and not get caught up in who will believe you and who won't. Just report the facts, which I promise I will do to the best of my ability. I really hope some Randi people
come out to see it and let me know how I did!
Best regards,Chris Mohr
