Ann Arbor Science & Skeptics Debate with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
On Saturday, December 17th, the Ann Arbor Science & Skeptics invited Stanley Beattie from the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to provide a presentation and participate in a follow-up Q & A, regarding their arguments on why they would like a new independent investigation on the events that happened on 9/11. You can find a compilation of their arguments here and skeptical counter-arguments here and here.
The group recorded the audio of the Q & A, and you can listen or download it on the Ann Arbor Science & Skeptic website, or through their iTunes podcast feed. 
AE911′s position primarily relies on material evidence and eyewitness accounts that suggest a controlled demolition of the World Trade Center buildings. In particular, many of their arguments are focused on the way that WTC7 fell (because it was not hit by a plane, and fell later in the day). The group does not make claims about which agency or group was behind the demolition, nor do they offer a motive. However, Stanley and other representatives of AE911 can give you their opinions when not serving in the capacity of the group.
I think discussion went fairly well. There were under 30 attendees and there were probably equal number of 9/11 Truthers and skeptics, with a sprinkling of people who’ve not made up their mind. Despite warnings from people that this kind of discussion can become emotional and contentious, there was very little acrimony.
Ultimately, what I took away from the experience is that I think AE911 representatives need to be better equipped in responding to the skeptic arguments. Stanley and the other 9/11 Truthers didn’t impress me with the merit of their rebuttals. Amongst the common replies, were “check this website out”, and “watch these youtube videos”, and a bit of hand-waving over legitimate questions such as what was the point of using thermite to bring down the buildings?
With that being said, Stanley and the 9/11 Truthers did impress me in one way. They were calm, composed, and not the often stereotypical description of conspiracy theorists. It reminds me that there is a spectrum of which one accepts aternative viewpoints. And sometimes I think skeptics are often treated to a caricature of what a ‘believer’ is - whereas the reality is that there can be sophistication in their position.
Comments are closed.
