Shermer has already debated Ryan;

Audio:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/12441

Transcript:
http://911blogger.com/node/13005

"...I typed in to Google Video "building demolition", and there are no less than 2200 videos of buildings that collapsed due to intentional demolition. And every one of them – I haven't found one exception, yet – collapses from the bottom up." - Michael Shermer

Anything you say... "skeptic".

If someone does set up a debate, do it somewhere neutral, with someone with real debate moderation experience presiding, so some rules can be laid down and followed. These talk-show debates are rarely balanced, although Richard Gage held his own and "won" this debate v. demolition expert, Ron Craig; http://911blogger.com/node/12516

Plus talk radio always has commercials screwing up the momentum.

These are gatekeepers. They are not ignorant.

Gatekeepers.

Note " A New Investigation" by the likes of these would be just another coverup like the Kennedy Investigations.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

what can i say...

so good---so archetypical of a good youtube confrontation

when they make documentaries about this----theyll show this one as a good clip of when things really got cooking on the youtube level
0000000000000000000

the blond girl was excellent------the guy in the blue shirt really commands respect from that guy too

of course the guys in the beginning...

5 stars
------------------------------
the tactic of trying to act like it's "just not upper middle class " to discuss 911 truth
--is falling away

time to start to put this opposition to rest

This is from the Shermer website, includes video and comments:
http://www.michaelshermer.com/2008/01/911-truthers-harass-shermer/

I left him my 2 cents.

He said that truthers say the collapse has the appearance of a controlled demolition in so many words, so isn't that true?

The key thing to understand about Shermer and the magazine he edits, The Skeptical Inquirer, and the mysteriously funded organization -- CSICOPS -- that underwrites them all, is that they're absolutely selective as to what they pick to be skeptical about. They only ever express "skepticism" when it's something that the governmental/academic/MSM/medical establishments don't like.

Not that those establishments -- I'll call them the Secular Establishment (and I say that as an agnostic myself) -- are always wrong. (Hell, even a stopped clock . . . .) But the important thing to bear in mind is that Shermer et al. operate solely to uphold the Secular Establishment via the backdoor route of sniping at its critics.

Genuine skepticism is the opposite of upholding anything. Instead it's calling into doubt positive assertions where they're inherently weakest. Skepticism can be a valuable intellectual tool, but not when it's used as a trick to avoid a larger confrontation with the issues.

It's all a manipulation, most likely funded by Project Mockingbird and/or other interests seeking to mold public attitudes. It's certainly disingenuous. A real skeptical publicist and journal would be calling stuff like the official interpretation of 9/11, or the facts of the sinking of the USS Liberty, or Project Bluebook, into doubt. You won't find any of that coming from the mouth of Shermer or the pages of his magazine.