WTC 7 Debate

Michael Fullerton founder of Vernon 9/11 Truth and a signing member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth is looking for at least one good scientist 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 7 World Trade Center (WTC 7) 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 theory for a particular phenomena must be the simplest theory available that best explains all the observed facts. The official theory of how Building 7 fell on 9/11 cannot explain a single fact as far as I can see. In particular, the official theory cannot explain the extraordinary fact that the building was in free fall for at least 2.25 seconds. If a building is in free fall there is nothing but air beneath it. For this free fall period to occur then, eight stories of lower structure had to be completely removed. There is no known way that fire can do this but explosives certainly can. Explosives are routinely used to quickly and precisely bring down buildings but fire isn't. The controlled demolition theory also explains many other facts including the eyewitness reports of molten metal seen under the building, the unique signature of iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust and the eutectic formations causing intergranular melting of some of the WTC 7 steel. To me, this means the explosive controlled demolition theory is the most scientific theory available for explaining the Building 7 collapse. Those scientists that 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 following people have debated and horribly lost: 

"Pyrrho" - Skeptic magazine forum administrator. [We don't really know who "Pyrrho" is but it shows what debaters will be up against.]

Jeffrey Shallit - professor of computer science at the University of Waterloo. [Shallit refused to engage in debate on any non-trivial points. Apparently his debating skills are limited to spouting ad hominems and other fallacious reasoning. See for yourself. Very illogical behavior coming from a computer science professor.]

The following people have been contacted:

James Randi (James Randi Educational Foundation) - refused

Dave Thomas (New Mexicans for Science and Reason) - refused

Michael Shermer (Publisher of Skeptic magazine) - no response

Richard Dawkins (Author of The God Delusion) - no response

Neil deGrasse Tyson (host of NOVA scienceNOW on PBS) - politely refused

Bill Nye (host of Bill Nye The Science Guy TV show) - no response

Adam Savage (co-host of Mythbusters TV show) - no response

David Suzuki (host of the Nature of Things TV show) - refused by assistant

Bob McDonald (host of Quirks & Quarks radio show) - no response

Susan Blackmore (expert on meme theory) - politely refused

Phil Plait (The Bad Astronomer) - no response

Steve Dutch (professor of Natural and Applied Sciences at University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
and author of Nutty 9-11 Physics) - no response but debated privately - do you want to see the embarrassing results of this debate? Ask professor Dutch to allow the debate's publication.

All physics professors at Okanagan College - no response


The following organizations have been contacted:

Committee for Skeptical Inquiry  - no response

Center For Inquiry - no response

Center For Inquiry Canada - no response

Center For Inquiry Okanagan - no interest




Why the lack of interest in a debate?


Some actual responses:

- Scientists don't waste their time debating with conspiracy theorists.

- The official theory of 9/11 where terrorists conspired to demolish buildings by ramming planes into them is a conspiracy theory. Therefore any scientist who supports that theory is also conspiracy theorist and should therefore have no problem debating another conspiracy theorist.

- The topic is silly. No scientists would waste their time with such a non-issue.

- 3000 people died on 9/11. Over a million people have died in the resulting wars over an event where the US government's version of what happened violates the laws of physics. That is not a silly non-issue. Scientists regularly debate theists and creationists. Both these issues are regularly regarded as silly yet dangerous issues that must be dealt with. The physicist Dave Thomas has debated with Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.



One thing we do know is that scientists never ever support an easily falsified theory. Perhaps this is why no scientist wants to debate Fullerton.