I don't often root for the skeptics at the James Randi Educational Foundation, but an email I just received from Winston Wu of SCEPCOP has, for once, put me squarely in the skeptics' corner.
Here's the complete, unedited email:
Upcoming 9/11 team debate on Coast to Coast on July 31, which I'm consulting on
Hi all,
Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org and a team of scientists are scheduled to debate a team of JREF debunkers on the Coast to Coast program. Gage has put me on the mailing list after reading my suggestions to him in how to debate the JREF crowd, as a consultant to his team.
Gage and his team of scientists, which include Kevin Ryan and Neils Harritt, will debate a team from the JREF. All we know is that Dave Thomas will be on the other side. We don't know who else they will have on their team.
The debate is scheduled on Coast to Coast for July 31 at this point. So mark that on your calendar. I think you can listen in either on your AM radio station or the coast to coast website. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/
I talked to Gage for an hour on the phone and gave him some insights and key strategies for exposing the JREFers and their kind, which are outlined on my SCEPCOP site: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com
I've also announced this debate in my SCEPCOP forum, which I will post further updates to:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1220
Anyhow, if any of you have any tips or suggestions for Mr. Gage and his team, feel free to post them here, and I will forward them to him.
Should he cover a few strong undebunkable arguments, or try to cover all ten of the features of controlled demolition of the WTC? Which arguments should be emphasized most?
The debate will be primarily about the WTC and Building 7 collapse, not about the other issues surrounding 9/11.
Thanks,
Winston
For the record, I think the 9-11 "Truth" movement is literally insane. Tying this lunacy to the defense of serious parapsychological studies does infinitely more harm than good.
I'm sure the JREF people will make mincemeat of the clueless conspiracy clowns who peddle this bilge. All of the supposedly "undebunkable" arguments for "controlled demolition" have been dismantled countless times. The best one-stop source for reasoned responses to these arrant claims is the now-famous Popular Mechanics article from 2005.
Whatever value SCEPCOP might have had as a vehicle for informed criticism of skeptical positions has been nullified by the decision to side publicly with the "Truthers."
Good grief! When is "our side" ever going to stop shooting itself in the foot?