Michael Fullerton founder of Vernon 9/11 Truth and a signing member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth is looking for good scientists or prominent “skeptics” to debate him publicly on a very focused scientific problem of the September 11, 2001 event. That problem is determining which explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC 1 and WTC 2) on 9/11 is more scientific, the official US Government explanation or the controlled demolition explanation.
Any number of scientists can deliberate together to generate responses provided only one single spokesperson directly engages Fullerton. The debate need not be in person, it can be cheaply and conveniently conducted on the Internet by forum, YouTube or chat. The only rules are no fallacies of any kind including personal attacks and misdirection (red herrings).
Fullerton explains why he wants the debate: “In science, the prevailing explanation for a particular phenomena must be the simplest explanation available that has the most supporting evidence. The official story of how the towers fell on 9/11 does not have a single piece of valid supporting scientific evidence as far as I can see. The 9/11 Commission Report contains no technical data whatsoever. The NIST report on the Twin Tower collapses provides sketchy evidence only for the collapse initiations and not the falls of the Twin Towers themselves.
The rapid fall times and highly symmetric descents of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 currently are only explainable by the use of some form of controlled demolition. As such, this constitutes two pieces of evidence, among many, that support the controlled demolition explanation of the Twin Towers.
To me, this means the controlled demolition explanation is the most scientific explanation available for explaining the Twin Tower collapses. Those scientists who disagree with my conclusions must have a valid scientific reason and should therefore have no problem debating me. I encourage everyone to seek out scientists and ask them to either debate me or admit that they see no faults in my arguments.”
The skeptical podcasts and radio shows below have been contacted:
Sean Carroll’s Mindscape Podcast – no response
I Doubt It – no response
Waking Up – no response
Token Skeptic – no response
Point of Inquiry – no response
Rationally Speaking – no response
Skeptoid – refused stating they don’t do interviews. OK, yet they refuse to deal with the topic.
The Virtual Skeptics – no response
Skeptic Zone – politely refused claiming that nothing more could be added to Steven Novella’s responses. Since Novella completely ignored the main arguments and much of the evidence, I think this says a lot.
Skeptic Smash Talk – refused, threatening to ridicule Fullerton on the show. I guess “skeptics” can only ridicule what they can’t refute.
Dogma Debate – no response
The Reality Check – refused, claiming “It doesn’t work with our format”. Their website claims that ‘TRC cuts through the “nonsense” using science to examine dubious claims.’ So, discussing a simple purely science based argument that proves the official 9/11 story is an extremely dubious claim doesn’t work with their format?
The Pseudoscientists – no response
The Big Picture – no response
Oh No, Ross and Carrie! – refused
The people below have been contacted:
Sharon A. Hill (editor of Doubtful News) – refused, preferring to issue abuse in lieu of reason. Real scientifical.
Timothy Caulfield (author of Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything) – no response
Mark Fenster (author of Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture) – awaiting response
Dr. Alex B. Berezow (of RealClearScience) – no response
Dr. Michio Kaku (author of THE FUTURE OF THE MIND) – no response
Cameron English (writer at PolicyMic) – no response
Dr. Michael Shermer (Publisher of Skeptic magazine) – no response
Myles Power (of powerm1985) – politely refused citing lack of time. (Myles apparently has time to “debunk” weak 9/11 straw men arguments but doesn’t have time to deal with truly serious problems with the official story.)
Dr. Steve Dutch (professor of Natural and Applied Sciences at University of Wisconsin – Green Bay
and author of Nutty 9-11 Physics) – no response
Snopes (popular rumor debunking site) – no response
Bill Nye (host of Bill Nye The Science Guy TV show) – no response
Bob McDonald (host of Quirks & Quarks radio show) – no response
Tim Mendham (editor of The Skeptic magazine, Journal of Australian Skeptics) – no response
Doug L. Hoffman (author of The Resilient Earth) – no response
Yvette d’Entremont (The “Science Babe”) – no response
Dr. Robert Todd Carroll (The Skeptic’s Dictionary) – no response
Sam Harris (co-founder of Project Reason) – no response
Dr. Patrick Stokes (Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Deakin University) – refused claiming it was outside his area of expertise. (Apparently it’s inside Dr. Stokes’ area of expertise to imply that legitimate 9/11 skeptics harbour dangerous ideas but it is outside his expertise to address arguments that prove his position is irrational nonsense.)
Dr. Quassim Cassam (Professor of philosophy at the University of Warwick) – awaiting response
Dr. David Gorski (AKA Orac, author of Respectful Insolence blog) – no response
Trace Dominguez (TestTubePlus podhost) – no response
Neil deGrasse Tyson (Host of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey) – no response
Jim Lippard (author of The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah) – no response
Brian Dunning (host of the Skeptoid podcast) – refused unless given $1500 plus travel expenses for an online debate. Mr. Dunning also stated that he had no special interests or expertise in the subject despite making proclamations on his blog that 9/11 skeptics promote pseudoscience. Talk about presenting yourself as something you’re not.
Rebecca Watson – creator of the Skepchick Network. – refused, claiming not to want to legitimize “conspiracy mongering”. This despite the fact that the debate is supposed to be about basic science and nothing about a “conspiracy” in any way. A great example of “skeptics” “critical thinking” abilities.
All members of the Skepchick Network – refused (see above)
The following people have debated and failed spectacularly:
Dr. Steven Novella (New England Skeptical Society) – Debate on-line – Dr. Novella defended his position with logical fallacies and specious “evidence”. He refused to acknowledge the key observations which his position could not account for and thus proved that position to be 100% pseudo-science.
Dave Thomas (New Mexicans for Science and Reason) – Debate by YouTube – Like Novella, Thomas provided no valid scientific evidence to support his hypothesis and ignored all the disconfirming evidence he could not account for. Like Novella too, he frequently used logical fallacies in lieu of rational arguments.
The above is a list of scientists and science advocating “skeptics”. They all claim to support science and critical thinking. On certain topics however, like 9/11, science and critical thought is hastily thrown out the window. At best they simply ignore the blatantly obvious science. At worst they engage in the very pseudoscience and pseudo-logical thinking that they rail against.
9/11 is unarguably one of the most disturbing events of our era. The science against the official story of 9/11 is very clear though. Clear to anyone that can understand science at a fifth grade level. Clear that the official 9/11 story is unscientific nonsense.