Coast to Coast AM 9/11 debate with Richard Gage and Dave Thomas

On Saturday August 21st, 2010, Richard Gage, AIA from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and Dave Thomas a physicist from New Mexicans for Science and Reason, joined Ian Punnett on Coast to Coast AM for the entire program of 4 hours to debate how the World Trade Center buildings collapsed on September 11, 2001.

Physicist Kim Johnson and chemist Niels Harrit joined the discussion in hour three. Visit World for 911 Truth for links to the remainder of the interview.

, , , , ,

  • Your Mom

    I heard part of this debate, being a huge Ian Punnet fan (George Snoory makes my brain ache…)

    Gage came across as a scattered, argumentative scold. He did not support his position well, and consistently ignored or diverted from Thomas's counterpoints. Thomas won the debate, in my book.

    • Nano

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIsPBtT6r50&feat
      Much more dissection of Thomas' weak arguments and outright lies here.

    • Tuna Ghost

      I hate to say this, but I agree with you. I hate that the universe has put me in a position where we are on the same side, but it has happened.

  • Nano

    You may want to hear all of the debate. I noticed that Ian definitely had a bias and constantly harangued Gage for not following his leading questions. Incessant questions as to who was responsible,while avoiding the evidence that would support a new investigation, and thus allow prosecutors with subpoena powers to determine this in court. Gage merely supports a rational and independent investigation of the observable facts.

    I thought Gage answered truthfully and was well supported by the majority of callers who having seen the footage he referenced understood full and and well that Thomas was inventing facts to justify his own conclusions. One need only watch Building 7's implosion to understand that regardless if it is ~7 seconds in it's duration (as observable by all angles of film available) or 16 (As Thomas insists with what evidence I don't know) it still would require herculean forces to have been created from what NIST admits were asymetrical and scattered fires across that building's 47 stories.

    According to the “Official” conspiracy theory of the government and their,”best science,” that while jumbo jetliner crashes were not enough force of impact and explosion to take down 2 of the 3 steel-framed high-rises, the Twin Towers + Building 7, that the ensuing oxygen-poor office fires SOMEHOW DID, and as in the case of Building 7, CAUSED OVER 400 MASSIVELY-REDUNDANT STEEL FRAME CONNECTIONS TO FAIL PER SECOND, resulting in the symmetrical implosion and “House of Cards Collapse” of a 47-story building NOT HIT BY ANY PLANE at or near gravitational free fall ( -Just exactly the way a controlled demolition would look like)

    Most of Thomas presentation lies are easily refuted given multimedia support.
    I would ask that Coast to Coast make the next one available with this available and let the audience see what is being presented and who is being dismissive of the others evidence truly.

    Here is a quick breakdown that shows where Thomas is avoiding the evidence.

    According to Thomas there is no Molten Steel, there were no secondary explosions or sounds of demolitions as one would expect with a controlled demolition, and that Nano Thermite was not found conclusively in the dust all because he says so. But what does the evidence say? What do the people there that day say? What does the footage reveal?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lESol88wOi0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU

    I look forward to various dissections of what was presented.

    Your Mom, after watching the entire debate and then double checking both gentlemens pronouncements with the available evidence I would be curious if you would hold the same view?

    -Nano (The Nano Thermitic Pink Elephant)
    cargocollective.com/pinkelephantcollective

    • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

      No one…and I do mean no one…has adequately explained Building 7 to me. We've been building skyscrapers for over three generations…and fires have happened before…MANY times…even in older buildings with fewer redundancies. None of the fires throughout world history have EVER resulted in high speed implosion. If you took away the thermite traces…took away Larry Silverstein saying “Pull it”…took away even the ground crew announcing that there was a bomb inside and got rid of the BBC announcing the fall early…

      …you'd still have a building that went into free fall from a few office fires caused by debris that only penetrated a few offices on one side of the center of the building. It just isn't even slightly plausible. Throw all the rest of these small tidbits back into the mix…and its not just implausible…its clearly unsupportable and deserving of greater investigation.

      I don't have all the answers…but the answers that have been given are grossly inadequate…and thats the point. I adamantly refuse to fall into the camp of “Bush Did It” or “Israel Did It” or “Osama Did It” or any of the other camps. I don't have a pat answer…but I do have questions…and I'd like them investigated thoroughly…not ignored or fobbed off and treated with disdain. We could assess blame if we had better answers…which, to a great degree, is probably why appropriate questions will never get asked in any government led investigation.

      Even if the US had no part in the act itself…the information revealed as a consequence of admitting that explosives were used inside the buildings would shift our view of world politics in a way so drastic that it would not serve the status quo…the momentum against looking closely and dispassionately at 9/11 is so great that its hard to overcome. Passion easily intrudes. If we can push past that…we might start getting some answers…or at least force the situation to be spoken of calmly and in a way that cannot be dismissed.

      • Tuna Ghost

        I was quite of the same mind until I read the article I link to, which provides lucid and very detailed explanations and responses to many claims made by the “controlled demolition” crowd. Thus far I have not heard anything that comes close to challenging their explanations.

        http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

        • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

          One: the guys tone is insulting and violently partisan…down to insults at points. Not exactly Mr Cool Neutrality on the subject.

          Two: he spends a lot of time on the meaning of the word Pull…and none on the meaning of the word 'it'. 'It' doesn't sound like 'them'…or 'us'…or 'out'…or anything else. Saying “pull it” with regard to a building when cables aren't in place is infinitely more likely to mean 'bring it down' than it is to mean “ok…get the firemen out”.

          Three: even if you move the total elapsed time for collapse to 17 seconds and point out that parts of it didn't land in its shadow…it still means that debris hit one face of the building, started fires, and the fires severed a key support column that brought the entire building down in a matter of seconds either way…a feat of coincidence that no fire has ever managed to accomplish.

          Last: the only harm in pushing for more answers is that the answers would be very upsetting…otherwise, considering the gravity of the situation, we'd expect a total willingness on the part of authorities to put time and effort into answering questions thoroughly and well…which they have not. We got confiscated videos and records that never returned and slapdash answers within a few days…the rest emerging after a ridiculously short commission study that left more out than it included…and we still want more answers.

          More answers, more investigation, greater clarity…what would it harm? Who can object rationally to a less hasty study of the events of that day? The only objection I can imagine would echo a sense of “I don't want to know more…it's too scary to think of anymore.” And that isn't good enough for me…and apparently not for a lot of other people either.

          You can object to each of the hundreds of little questions…but that they exist at all and why is a greater issue and a bigger question. It could be dealt with…but only when enough people push to get a more thorough examination and a public release of more of the data.

          • Tuna Ghost

            One: I will happily concede that point (and have in the past, actually) if you concede that the tone is very similar on the other end of the spectrum. It is a very contentious issue, with people on both sides contending that to believe the opposite of their view is the height of idiocy.

            Two: I'm not sure what you mean by this. Building six was pulled, as in pulled by cables, which is what demolition experts use to word to mean. There are pictures of building six being pulled with cables. If Silverstein was using the word “pull” in a demolitions sense, even though he is not a demolitions guy nor was the man he was speaking to, why would this suggest someone had planned a controlled demolition using explosives?

            Three: You're underestimating the damage by debris, and the extent of the fires. According to Captain Chris Boyle (as noted in the article):

            “So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.”

            He goes on to describe the orders to pull out of Building 7 and it's eventual collapse. As far as I've heard, it was debris that severed the support column, not the fire (which weakened everything else).

            Boyle: “There was a huge gaping hole and it (the fire) was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.”

            Right where the support column was.

            Four: There's no harm in pushing for more answers. I want answers too, but not about the physics of the collapse. Those have been answered with clarity. I want the investigation to point toward who may have known about the planned attack in advance and allowed it to happen, which is, for a number of reasons, and infinitely more likely scenario.

        • Dan Mac

          I’ve read all this debunking stuff. They only skirt the hard questions and debunk the most fringe and silly conspiracy theories that aren’t even worth debunking. It’s so obvious, it’s ridiculous. It only makes intelligent, open minded skeptics more skeptical.

          Unfortunately, all you need is a headline to get most Americans to go back to their football.

    • Tuna Ghost

      Regarding “molten steel”, pouring out of the WTC:

      http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

      Regarding the reported “explosions”:

      http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm

      Regarding thermite:

      http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

      • IhateIdiots

        Sorry, but your debunking site has already been debunked… If you haven't figured that out yet… I'm sorry…. Start by googling “eutectic steel 9/11″ if its not too much trouble lol. That should help.

  • IhateIdiots

    Sorry, but your debunking site has already been debunked… If you haven’t figured that out yet… I’m sorry…. Start by googling “eutectic steel 9/11″ if its not too much trouble lol. That should help.

  • Dan Mac

    I’ve read all this debunking stuff. They only skirt the hard questions and debunk the most fringe and silly conspiracy theories that aren’t even worth debunking. It’s so obvious, it’s ridiculous. It only makes intelligent, open minded skeptics more skeptical.

    Unfortunately, all you need is a headline to get most Americans to go back to their football.

  • Dan Mac

    Why would anyone waste a single breath on the meaning of “pull it” when there is so much real evidence. Only Silverstein will ever know what he actually meant. Leave the diversion.

  • Dan Mac

    Why would anyone waste a single breath on the meaning of “pull it” when there is so much real evidence. Only Silverstein will ever know what he actually meant. Leave the diversion.

  • Dan Mac

    Why would anyone waste a single breath on the meaning of “pull it” when there is so much real evidence. Only Silverstein will ever know what he actually meant. Leave the diversion.

  • Dan Mac

    Why would anyone waste a single breath on the meaning of “pull it” when there is so much real evidence. Only Silverstein will ever know what he actually meant. Leave the diversion.