View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

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

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 30 Aug 2010, 06:25

Just going to repost another reply to Stundie since Gage was flinging this stupid argument again in the debate:

stundie wrote:
Edx wrote:Lastly, these explosives are meant to be much more intense that a normal demolition, normal demolitions aren't trying to fling steel around. So that means they should be even louder.
Who said they were "more intense!" oh that's right I didn't.

You are fighting with the figments of your imagination again aren't you Edx?? lol :lol:


Once again, if the explosives are flinging heavy steel around then they are more intense than explosives used in a normal demolition. That's what people like Richard Gage and David Chandler believe happened.

The reason for this, as I have said over and over again, is that explosives in normal demolitions are not powerful enough or supposed to be powerful enough to propel building debris away from the collapsing building, they are powerful enough to cut columns and critical structural members.

Since you truthers believe that explosives were used to destroy the WTC and that these explosives were so intense that they flung heavy steel around then therefore they would be extraordinarily loud, much more so than any conventional demolition is. Yet, even though cameras recorded the collapse from all manor of angles no evidence of these massive explosive detonations can be found and no one suffered any blast injuries whatsoever. Saying they were so loud that all the microphones broke is such a great example of how pathetic truthers are.


-
Last edited by Edx on 01 Sep 2010, 04:43, edited 4 times in total.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21






Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 30 Aug 2010, 06:39

stundie wrote:No, debunkers want to portray it as a raging inferno by taking quotes out of context and applying them to their version of events, even though photographic and video evidence shows no sign of a raging inferno at any point. Just a few floor on fires and in some of those floors, the fire wasn't throughout the entire floors.


Not directing this to debate Stundie, (see previous post)... but of course he is lying about this too and just wanted to point that out again. Gage in the debates repeated the lie he has been telling for years that there were small fires, so figured I would quickly reply to this point again.

Truthers like Stundie can claim its "out of context" but they will never be able to show, or apparently have any desire to attempt to show, how they are out of context, neither will they be able to show any firefighter on 911 that will back up a single one of their contentions about Building 7 either on or after 911.

For example, absolutely none of them say there were small fires, absolutely none of them say there was minor damage, absolutely none of them disagreed with the idea that the building would collapse and I have never seen a single reason to think that any of them were even at all surprised with the idea that it would collapse or even in the manor of its collapse. In trutherland the firefighters have to be either delusional, lying or incompetent; there really is no other options. Of course none of them want to deal with these facts and come out specifically and pick one, they will just gloss over like Stundie and maybe talk about it being "out of context" and play down just how many firefighters said there were large, heavy uncontrollable fires in Building 7. I do find it interesting that they hold so tightly to any mention by firefighters of 'explosion' or 'bomb' specifically ignoring context, hyperbole, popular vernacular and what their thoughts were afterwards yet completely ignore every last one of their opinions about anything they dont agree with, such as to Building 7.
Last edited by Edx on 01 Sep 2010, 04:45, edited 3 times in total.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby really? » 30 Aug 2010, 22:06

Did the debate take place ?
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Chemist » 30 Aug 2010, 22:40

True, but you've got to have a good reason if you're going to asset that he's wrong. Just because he challenges the official story doesn't make him wrong, which is all you folks are saying. You aren't giving valid arguments. You are giving spin and disinfo. That's not what truth seekers do.


That's hilarious, considering that I've actually demonstrated a gradual collapse due to fire using high school physics, and explained to you what thermite is and why it can't be used as a demolition material (all documented in this thread).

I've also giving you eye witness testimony and oral histories about the WTC and the Pentagon and nothing supports the demolition theory.

I've pointed this out to you for over three years and you have yet to respond to even one point. And certainly, you should have advised Gates accordingly in the debate about this, but it's obvious from listening to it that you didn't.

So how does this make you a truth seeker? How does this make you anything else but Gate's mouthpiece?
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 31 Aug 2010, 02:41

really? wrote:Did the debate take place ?


Yes.

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

Gage and co. performed just as badly as I thought they would, not that these clueless truthers would notice. Even the host got frustrated with him at one point.

Here's a discussion on the JREF on the debate:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=183483
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 31 Aug 2010, 02:43

Chemist wrote:I've pointed this out to you for over three years and you have yet to respond to even one point. And certainly, you should have advised Gates accordingly in the debate about this, but it's obvious from listening to it that you didn't.

So how does this make you a truth seeker? How does this make you anything else but Gate's mouthpiece?


Since Gage just parroted exactly the same crap in the same way he has ever since he started I have to wonder what kind of "advice" Winston is meant to have given him.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 31 Aug 2010, 02:49

Scepcop wrote:True, but you've got to have a good reason if you're going to asset that he's wrong. Just because he challenges the official story doesn't make him wrong, which is all you folks are saying. You aren't giving valid arguments. You are giving spin and disinfo. That's not what truth seekers do.


Poppycock, this is a lie any way you try and spin it. No one says people like Gage are wrong just because he "challenges the official story" with no further argument. Detailed reasons have been given over and over and over again by a plethora of experts both directly and indirectly. Its amazing you cant even acknowledge this. I myself have given you many reasons over the year I posted at the ZGM forums and on this very thread explaining exactly why you guys are wrong. In the ZGM forums all you ended up doing is disappearing for a while then coming back later making the same claims you did before acting like I never said anything.

Funny how you claim that anyone can be wrong, yet you never say that about Randi or Shermer.


I'll be willing to bet no one ever suggested Randi or Shermer could never be wrong, of course they can, anyone can. But holding stubbornly to a belief in the face of all reason is delusion or dishonesty.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Chemist » 31 Aug 2010, 22:48

Edx wrote:
Chemist wrote:I've pointed this out to you for over three years and you have yet to respond to even one point. And certainly, you should have advised Gates accordingly in the debate about this, but it's obvious from listening to it that you didn't.

So how does this make you a truth seeker? How does this make you anything else but Gate's mouthpiece?


Since Gage just parroted exactly the same crap in the same way he has ever since he started I have to wonder what kind of "advice" Winston is meant to have given him.


I advised Winston over email that he should advise Gates NOT to participate in the debate and I advised Winston to actually read the NIST report and the Report of the 9/11 Commission, since it would help Gates to know what evidence was available and the conclusions drawn from it. I remember him whining that it was over 10,000 pages. I don't want anybody like this advising me on how to make coffee not to mention advising Gates on the debate he was participating in.
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 01 Sep 2010, 04:42

Chemist wrote:I advised Winston over email that he should advise Gates NOT to participate in the debate and I advised Winston to actually read the NIST report and the Report of the 9/11 Commission, since it would help Gates to know what evidence was available and the conclusions drawn from it. I remember him whining that it was over 10,000 pages. I don't want anybody like this advising me on how to make coffee not to mention advising Gates on the debate he was participating in.


Its scary to think people like Gage are actually involved in designing buildings, I wonder if he advises his clients not to bother with fire protection since he thinks steel frame buildings don't collapse from fire.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Chemist » 02 Sep 2010, 22:14

Edx wrote:Its scary to think people like Gage are actually involved in designing buildings, I wonder if he advises his clients not to bother with fire protection since he thinks steel frame buildings don't collapse from fire.


Actually, I wonder how careers of Gates and others have been effected. I wonder if they can find work.

I know of a few experts who strongly wish they can take back what they said, knowing that it has been twisted by truthers to say something that they never meant and had to do some damage control.
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13

Complaints to Coast to Coast about Ian Punnett during the de

Postby Scepcop » 05 Sep 2010, 22:17

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
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Chemist » 08 Sep 2010, 08:16

Actually, Ian did an excellent job moderating the debate. I was suprised considering the venue. You should be thankful to him, otherwise Gage would have hung himself. Ian had to try and make Gage look like a normal skeptic which is difficult to do. Nobody can say that Gage didn't get and fair shake on that program.

I know it bothers you when a moderator expects a participant to answer questions (which doesn't suprise me that Gage couldn't) but this is how debates are suppose to be conducted. And what Gage presented was what we've all heard before so it wasn't like Ian was trying to supress any new information that Gage might have wanted to present. And when Gage keep replying, "check my website" or "that why we need a new investigation", we can be pretty sure that he has nothing else to say.

Were you expecting Ian to keep letting Gage plug his website for the entire 3-4 hours???
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Chemist » 08 Sep 2010, 08:43

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.


It wasn't Ian's job to come up with ideas of who planned the attacks or planted the thermite. It's Gage's responsibility if he is challenging the official claims to come up with a list of suspects at least and do some interviews. Heck, supporters of the official story have been asking Gage to tell us who he thinks planned it for years. Ian's request was appropriate.

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.


Gage misrepresents the data at best. The collapses were NOT symetrical as he claims. The collapses DID NOT occure at free fall speeds like he claims. WTC 7 didn't recieve minor damage and the fires were NOT small fires. etc

Nobody expects Gage to be omnipotent. We simply expect him to get simple facts right.

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


Why? The official story goes through the trouble of naming every hijacker along with their affiliations, their motives and their methods. Expecting Gage to name his suspects isn't unreasonable. Especially since he accusing somebody of the mass murder of thousands of innocent lives and conspiracy to commit same.

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.


Gage only needed to answer the question and that would have been it. Simple, right? It's not crossing the line to expect a participant in a debate to answer questions that are crucial for the audience to understand the 9/11 conspiracy.


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.


Ian wasn't participating in the debate. He was moderating. And trying to keep Gage on point was a full time job.

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.


More deflection. Perhaps Alex Jones would have been a better consultant for Gage instead of you, Winston.

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.


Gage "refused to speculate"???? I'll let the irony sink in!

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 a lot of crazy stuff coming from Coast to Coast these days. The 9/11 debate was pretty tame in comparison. Don't worry, their reputation is secure.

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.


Ian just didn't let the nuts run the nuthouse. That was all. There are certain positions that don't do well in a debate format because of their obsurdity. Gage's 9/11 conspiracy theory is one of those positions.

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).


This was a debate, Winston. Not an interview. It doesn't seem like you know the difference.


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.


Science isn't a popularity contest. Scientific truth is decided by evidence. It's perfectly reasonable to ask someone to provide it. Connecting with the guests are a nonissue.
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 12 Sep 2010, 09:07

I dont expect Gage to come up with a complete list of suspects but I, and apparently the host, expect him to have the balls to not just insinuate and tip toe around straight out accusing Larry Silverstein of participating in the murder of thousands of people. If he is worried about libel and slander I dont see how much he has to worry about seeing as how Alex Jones and his Alex idiotic followers haven't been sued even though they go so far as to bullhorn "murderer" outside his offices. If Gage wants to say Silverstein is "in on it" just bloody say it you coward.
Last edited by Edx on 13 Sep 2010, 20:54, edited 2 times in total.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby really? » 12 Sep 2010, 11:05

I don't know if scepcop lives in the USA, but if he does today would have been the day to watch the History Channel. Today aired documentaries and firsthand accounts all about 9/11
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests