9/11 Controversy Strikes Again at UC Boulder Face-Off

[Stanchetalarooni]

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/471-face-off.html

Intense But Cordial Debate Engages Locals

AE911Truth has engaged several opponents in some productive educational debates in recent years, but last week hit a new high. Colorado911Visibility.org hosted journalist Chris Mohr and architect, Richard Gage, AIA, of AE911Truth in a polite but grueling debate on the campus of University of Colorado in Boulder Sunday evening, March 6. Tom Kiely of INN World Report proved to be a warm and professional moderator. The grueling debate lasted a total of 4-1/2 hours to a packed house of 225 students, faculty and interested citizens.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/471-face-off.html

[OnTheOtherHand]

1. some fascinating survey results here

An audience poll before the debate revealed that 3/4 of the audience members were 9/11 truth supporters. Fourteen percent were “unsure” about the cause of the skyscrapers’ destruction, and 7% believed the official “natural collapse” theory. After the debate, 12% were unsure and 9% went with the official theory. Both before and after the debate 79% supported the controlled demolition theory. The results from the 96 questionnaires turned in showed some interesting changes of opinions as a result of the debate....

People	Changes of Opinion
3 	Switched from Unsure to For Controlled Demolition
2 	Switched from Unsure to For Natural Collapse
3 	Switched from for Controlled Demolition to Unsure
1 	Switched from for Controlled Demolition to for Natural Collapse

I'm having a bit of trouble making their arithmetic work -- perhaps something to do with people who filled out questionnaires before the debate but not after it -- but it seems that (1) the debate changed very few minds and (2) Mohr had more impact than Gage did.

We applaud his (Mohr's) courage and sense of camaraderie –- along with his accomplished debating skills. If only we could enlighten him and get him speaking in a more focused way about the evidence.

IOW: if only we could win the debate!