9/11 debate on C2C I consulted on for Richard Gage

[Winston]

Hi all,
Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org and a team of scientists are scheduled to debate a team of JREF debunkers on the Coast to Coast program. Gage has put me on the mailing list after reading my suggestions to him in how to debate the JREF crowd, as a consultant to his team.

Gage and his team of scientists, which include Kevin Ryan and Neils Harritt, will debate a team from the JREF. All we know is that Dave Thomas will be on the other side. We don't know who else they will have on their team.

The debate is scheduled on Coast to Coast for July 31 at this point. So mark that on your calendar. I think you can listen in either on your AM radio station or the coast to coast website. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

I talked to Gage for an hour on the phone and gave him some insights and key strategies for exposing the JREFers and their kind, which are outlined on my SCEPCOP site: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com

I've also announced this debate in my SCEPCOP forum, which I will post further updates to:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/ ... =12&t=1220

Anyhow, if any of you have any tips or suggestions for Mr. Gage and his team, feel free to post them here, and I will forward them to him.

Should he cover a few strong undebunkable arguments, or try to cover all ten of the features of controlled demolition of the WTC? Which arguments should be emphasized most?

The debate will be primarily about the WTC and Building 7 collapse, not about the other issues surrounding 9/11.

Thanks,
Winston

[Winston]

One new stunning argument I read from a researcher on my SCEPCOP forum where he debunked Dave Thomas' 6 points, which I hadn't thought of before, is this:

- If a few office fires burning for a few hours can bring down a whole steel skyscraper and pulverize it, why would control demolition companies need to spend MONTHS setting up rigged explosives around the core columns, when they could accomplish their task by burning jet fuel (ala WTC1+2) or gas (ala WTC7) for just a few hours? In other words, why spend months doing what you can accomplish in a few hours, which even a teenager could do? It doesn't make sense! The demolition companies would be out of business if that was true!

Likewise:

- If the failure of a single column can cause a 47 story building to implode and land mostly in it's own footprint, as NIST claims, then why do demolition companies rig and blow all the columns to accomplish the same thing?

[Winston]

The debate was rescheduled to August 21. Here it is on YouTube if you want to listen to it.

[NorthAmericanguy]

I love coast to coast! That radio show got me though a lot of hard times. Since I moved however to the east it comes on WAY to late for me now.

AHH I miss KFI640 AM

[Winston]

Hi all,
If you missed it, here is the 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast on August 21 between Richard Gage of AE911Truth and Dave Thomas, posted on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzdSbjTEFcs

I listened to it and was really disgusted and annoyed by Ian Punnett's performance. It was highly obstructive, ignorant and crossed the line several times. Therefore, I've sent this letter of complaint to Coast to Coast management, including to Ian himself. Please read it and forward it to them if you agree, to their public emails below.

I strongly believe these complaints are legitimate and Ian's negative obstructive behavior should be called attention to. He was NOT a good host during this debate at all, and showed a lot of ignorance which he falsely pinned onto Richard. I gave some examples below in the letter.

Here it is. If you agree with it, copy and paste it and send it to their emails below. Or send them your own complaint letter. If enough people complain, they might listen and do something about their host's bad behavior. I will also be posting this letter on various forums to ask others to write to them as well.

To:
george@coasttocoastam.com, artbell@mindspring.com, ian@coasttocoastam.com, georgeknapp@coasttocoastam.com, lisa@coasttocoastam.com, tom@coasttocoastam.com, lex@coasttocoastam.com, shawn@coasttocoastam.com, feedback@coasttocoastam.com, CoastProducer@aol.com

Re: Complaints from many re: Ian's behavior in the 9/11 debate Aug 2010

Dear Coast to Coast management,

On behalf of many 9/11 debate fans, I believe I speak for most of them in this letter below:

I would like to bring some legitimate complaints to you regarding the behavior of host Ian Punnett during the 9/11 debate on August 21.

If you look at all the comments in the 11 parts on YouTube of that debate, you will see that virtually everyone complained about Ian Punnett's performance as host. Here is the link to see them:

Part 1 of 11:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzdSbjTEFcs

If you read the comments on all 11 parts on YouTube, you will notice that everyone complained about Ian and the comments about his performance are all negative. And if you listen to the whole debate, you will understand why. Ian was obstructive in many ways, as well as very UNfair and UNreasonable toward Richard Gage. He was making very UNrealistic demands and putting Gage on the defensive for no valid reason. This became very annoying after a while and was highly obstructive and disruptive to the flow of the debate.

I eventually felt a headache and stomach ache coming on while listening to him. His voice became a disruptive presence to the debate that did not really even belong in it. It did not add anything to the debate, but was obstructive to the flow of it. Ian does not carry the flow of it well like George Noory does. Moreover, his behavior crossed the line numerous times in several ways (see examples below).

Therefore, it was a very poor choice and blunder on the part of Coast to Coast to have him moderate this debate.

Here are some key examples of Ian's obstructive behavior during this debate:

For instance, Ian kept insinuating that Gage was copping out because he would not name exactly WHO planned the 9/11 attacks and planted the thermite in the WTC. Yet any listener could tell that it was IAN who didn't know what he was talking about. Use common sense here.

Richard Gage does not claim to be an omnipotent mind reader with all the answers. He never claimed that. His position all along, which is clear from ALL his interviews and lectures, is that the hypothesis of the official story does NOT FIT the data, facts and evidence. He has made that very very clear and unambiguous.

Therefore, for Ian to demand that Gage name all the names of those guilty and responsible is unreasonable, unrealistic and ignorant as well.

Now, if Ian had asked Gage to do this just once, it would have been a normal thing. But where he crossed the line is when he constantly hounded Gage about it over and over again throughout the debate, after Gage made his position very CLEAR and explained why he could not name names. That was definitely CROSSING THE LINE! For sure.

If you listen to the whole debate at the link above or through your own site, you'll see exactly what I mean. Ian lacked simple common sense and courtesy. He did not make sense and was pushing his opinions onto it which obstructed it, becoming a bad influence himself. People could see that Ian didn't know what he was talking about (which is evident from all the YouTube comments) yet Ian wouldn't go away and kept meddling, thus becoming a hindrance to the debate. No host should be like that.

If you want someone to name names and speculate on who did it, you should bring Alex Jones on the show instead. He is the type of person who would do that. But not Gage.

Another example was when Ian demanded that Gage declare whether Larry Silverstein was guilty and "in on it" or not. When Gage refused to speculate on reasonable grounds, Ian acted like there was something wrong with Gage, and insinuated that he was being evasive, when in fact it was IAN who had the problem and was in the wrong, not Gage. That was so obvious to everyone. (except to Ian of course) Gage was making sense but Ian failed to understand this for some reason, and thus falsely accused Gage in the wrong way.

Overall, Ian's performance was an embarassment to Coast to Coast, and an obstruction to the debate. I don't know why you even hired him. There are plenty of people out there who would have done a better job. Ian's behavior was ignorant, annoying and lacking in common sense. He does NOT add to the show like Noory does. Noory, on the other hand, ADDS energy to the FLOW of his interviews and contributes to them. That makes him a great interviewer. But Ian OBSTRUCTS the interviews and the flow of them. That's a big difference.

Look, we all know that a good host is able to connect with others and bring out the best in them (like George Noory does). He can put himself on the same wavelength as his guests. But Ian was clearly in his own wavelength that was disconnected from others. It's a big mistake to hire a host who is on another wavelength that cannot relate or understand to others. BIG mistake. Ian is simply a bad fit, even he means well.

Think about it. Listen to the debate yourself and you will see what I mean. His presence was highly obstructive to the flow of the interview.

Thanks for your attention.

Sincerely,
A concerned fan

[Mr S]

You're commenting on something that took place in Aug of 2010? I think you're a little late, the producers of the show have better things to worry about then what happened two years ago. Ian Punnett is actually only on the show once a month now because of medical reasons and has been replaced so you complaining about him now is almost a mute point to them. Actually, a lot can happen and change in two years about show topics and guests. If you are going to comment about something to a show like that you should do it within a 3 month time period at the most.

[Winston]

Oh I wrote that complaint letter long ago, right after the debate. But I just never got around to posting it here for some reason.

[Winston]

Here are some other debates that Richard Gage has participated in about 9/11 besides the Dave Thomas debate I consulted on in 2010, both before and after.

Virtual debate at the National Press Club in Washington DC



vs Mark Roberts



vs JREF punk on the street



vs Ron Craig



vs Chris Mohr