Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 23-08-2010, 04:45 PM   #1
trev1
Senior Member
 
trev1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 932
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default 9-11 Debate on Coast To Coast AM last Saturday

DETAILS :::

Host:
Ian Punnett

Guests:
Richard Gage, Dave Thomas, Kim Johnson, Niels Harrit



Richard Gage, from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and Dave Thomas a physicist from New Mexicans for Science and Reason, joined Ian Punnett for the entire program to debate how the World Trade Center buildings collapsed on September 11, 2001.

Gage believes the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition involving thermite. "I think the dust of the World Trade Center reveals the secret of the cause that we're all looking for," he said. The dust contained billions of tiny spheres (about the diameter of a human hair) of previously molten iron, Gage revealed. This means the iron in the spheres sustained temperatures exceeding 2800 degrees, twice as high as what a jet fuel fire can produce, but within the range of a thermite reaction, he noted. In addition, Gage said the dust contained hundreds of small red-gray chips, which he identified as highly-advanced nano-thermite composite explosive material.

Thomas expressed his support for the gravitational collapse model. As the planes slammed into the twin towers, they cut through steel support structures and ignited immense fires across the floors of the building, he said. Heat from the fires further weakened the floor trusses, causing them to sag and pull in the perimeter walls, he continued. The additional weight, along with reduced support, sent the first section crashing down onto the floor beneath it with a force 30 times that of its static weight, Thomas explained. "The collapse was considered inevitable because every floor had even more dynamic force going at it," he added.

Responding to Gage's dust claims, Thomas pointed out that scientific analysis uncovered nothing unusual about the iron microspheres, and any ingredients taken to be thermite could just as easily be from the building's ordinary components (iron beams, paint, aluminum siding, etc). The two men argued about whether or not pools of molten steel had been found at the WTC site, if explosions and flashes of light were heard and seen that day, and what happened to all of the pancaked floors. They also shared their theories about what brought down Building 7 (the one not hit by a plane). Gage said it was a implosion produced by thermite; Thomas blamed damage caused by the north tower collapse, huge fires within, and a design flaw.

Physicist Kim Johnson and chemist Niels Harrit joined the discussion in hour three. Johnson observed that the WTC skyscrapers began falling precisely where they had been struck by the planes and the fires broke out, evidence he believes favors the gravitational collapse model. "A steel-framed high riser does not collapse due to fire," Harrit responded, citing an experiment by British Steel that showed an 8-story steel structure could repeatedly withstand attempts to burn it down. Harrit, like Gage, thinks the three buildings were brought down by controlled thermite explosions. Johnson called attention to the fact that none of the hundreds of dogs used to locate survivors, many of them cross-trained to find explosives, detected any trace of thermite at the 9/11 disaster site.


Website(s):
•ae911truth.org
•nmsr.org
trev1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2010, 06:50 PM   #2
bobbydiva
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 5,653
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

got the link to the show?
__________________
My Website:
http://wideshut.co.uk/ - alternative news and blogs

Latest Article:
Why the Virginia Shooting ISN'T a Hoax!
bobbydiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2010, 08:16 PM   #3
trev1
Senior Member
 
trev1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 932
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Here is the link, but you have to subscribe.....

in fairness its cheap enough and Coast has some really
interesting people on it

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2010/08/21
trev1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2010, 08:29 PM   #4
trev1
Senior Member
 
trev1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 932
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

i also found the complete show on you tube

trev1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2010, 09:15 PM   #5
noewhan
Senior Member
 
noewhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,036
Likes: 18 (14 Posts)
Default

I just found this one - (Not an interview, just many '' leading up to 9/11 in the media)


Quote:
Originally Posted by trev1 View Post
i also found the complete show on you tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzdSb...feature=search
I'm up to part 4... They are debating the explosion sounds... Why can't AE911 truth use the initial explosions as proof? What if there was a bomb on the plane? Why not use the official story against them?
__________________
Anything goes - Cole Porter

I'm no pro.

Last edited by noewhan; 23-08-2010 at 10:29 PM.
noewhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2010, 11:35 PM   #6
camreeno
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: California
Posts: 3,130
Likes: 6 (6 Posts)
Default

It's pretty amazing that we still have these supposed "scientists" who are still defending the pancake collapse theory. It's just getting so desperate for them now. It's all a matter of never "conceding" to the other side of the debate which might have a better explanation, but they will just not look at the evidence in fear of siding with the "conspiracy theorists". It's all just a ridiculous mess. Anyone who denies explosions and pools of molten metal in the light of all this evidence is a victim of cognitive dissonance, and there is really no other explanation.

What I find funny is how these people call themselves "skeptics". Calling yourself a skeptic means you're predisposing yourself to disbelieve whatever alternative views come to light and will be looking at things with a bias. Good grief.
camreeno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2010, 01:14 AM   #7
dan duchaine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,237
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Scientific research is a top down money essential activity. The elites control the flow of money downwards, and so control the scientists totally. People cant see that science is the most controlled aspects of our society. And most of it is half truth propaganda to fit with the current plan that the NWO is enacting.

I dont need some 'expert' giving me a theory as to how the trusses melted and the walls sagged, because I CAN SEE WITH MY OWN FUCKING EYES THAT THE BUILDINGS EXPLODED.

Last edited by dan duchaine; 24-08-2010 at 01:17 AM.
dan duchaine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2010, 11:23 AM   #8
trev1
Senior Member
 
trev1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 932
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I have listened to the whole debate and here are a few observations:

1. Ian Punnett was completely biased towards the official version
of events. He was the fcuking moderator of the debate and should
have been nutral, lets either side do the talking. Too often he came
in with his own stupid comments and asking stupid questions like:
'So Richard, why do you think building 7 is so important? Jesus your
thinking figure it out yourself you moron!! And he kept asking maybe
4 or 5 times: 'So Richard, who really done it and why'? - even though
Gage stated over and over that thats why they are calling for a new
investigation to look into it. Yet punnet like the annoying prick he is
just kept asking the same question ! It was also so annoying when he
dismissed all the witnesses who heard explosions nad said that he only
heard 'pops'

2. The guys sticking to the official story are not skeptics but they
are just defending their position. They are never going to agree on anything
as they have extreme bias and just deny all the evidence put before
them.

3. The truth will never come out about this as long as you have the type
of pricks that were involved in this debate. It makes me very sad but that
is the reality !
trev1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2010, 11:54 PM   #9
Dude111
Senior Member
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 19,746
Likes: 1,130 (717 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trev1
i also found the complete show on you tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzdSb...feature=search
Thank you!!!!

ITS GOOD SEEING THIS END UP ON A SHOW LIKE COAST TO COAST!!
Dude111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-08-2010, 03:22 AM   #10
Dude111
Senior Member
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 19,746
Likes: 1,130 (717 Posts)
Default

Here is the whole debate in MP3

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4115570/C2C.911.08-21-10.all.mp3

Last edited by Dude111; 27-08-2010 at 03:23 AM.
Dude111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-08-2010, 09:02 AM   #11
keithm
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: bournemouth
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

very poor defense by richard gage.

when asked the reason as to why building 7 was brought down,he responded,i have no idea,this is why we need a new investigation.

he should have said that building 7 was the command center for the whole attack and that all the offices in the building belonged to the FBI,homeland security,fema etc and all evidence had to be destroyed.
and no mention of barry jennings.
as for ian punnet,what a prick,not interested at all in getting to the truth,

another stooge more interested in keeping his job.
obviously not interested in doing any real research into the subject.
keithm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2010, 03:19 AM   #12
tabea_blumenschein
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 984
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
when asked the reason as to why building 7 was brought down,he responded,i have no idea,this is why we need a new investigation.

he should have said that building 7 was the command center for the whole attack and that all the offices in the building belonged to the FBI,homeland security,fema etc and all evidence had to be destroyed.

This has never made sense to me. Who the hell would be looking for a "command center" in WTC 7 anyway? Nobody would've cared about WTC 7 if it hadn't collapsed, and "they" could have removed/destroyed any incriminating evidence they wanted to at their leisure. Same goes with any paperwork you'd want to get rid of. A shredder costs you a few hundred dollars; a few metal drums and a box of matches costs you practically nothing. And there's no demo to prep or coverup to manufacture.

Suppose you did have concerns about people nosing around? Just declare the whole WTC complex a crime scene (didn't they do that anyway?) and don't allow anyone "from the outside" on the premises.

Silverstein wants to collect on his insurance? Just declare the building a total loss from the fires and damage, and he collects his money.

Honestly, out of all the silly hypotheses the truthers have put forth over the years, the "they HAD to demo WTC 7" idea is one of the nuttiest.

~

By the way, about Barry Jennings. There was a triage set up in WTC 7, and that explains the bodies that Mr. Jennings was stepping over.
__________________
De mortuis nil nisi bonum; of the living speak nothing but evil.

- Heinrich Heine
tabea_blumenschein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2010, 03:25 AM   #13
tabea_blumenschein
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 984
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Has anybody tried to refute Dave Thomas's physics, as found on NMSR's website?
__________________
De mortuis nil nisi bonum; of the living speak nothing but evil.

- Heinrich Heine

Last edited by tabea_blumenschein; 29-08-2010 at 03:26 AM. Reason: extraneous word
tabea_blumenschein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2010, 09:10 AM   #14
bryan
Senior Member
 
bryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,045
Likes: 76 (45 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keithm View Post
very poor defense by richard gage.

when asked the reason as to why building 7 was brought down,he responded,i have no idea,this is why we need a new investigation.
The question is a red herring.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tabea_blumenschein View Post
Has anybody tried to refute Dave Thomas's physics, as found on NMSR's website?
Dave Thomas's website is a collection of red herrings.
__________________
“I refuse to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo, because that would not be politically correct. Instead I will only call her a lightweight reporter!” - Donald Trump
bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-08-2010, 09:18 AM   #15
Dude111
Senior Member
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 19,746
Likes: 1,130 (717 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keithm
he should have said that building 7 was the command center for the whole attack and that all the offices in the building belonged to the FBI,homeland security,fema etc and all evidence had to be destroyed.
Maybe he was afraid to admit all that ON OPEN RADIO!!

This is obviously why that bldg was demolished as i have said before..........
Dude111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-08-2010, 10:16 AM   #16
fanoftruth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 444
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude111 View Post
Maybe he was afraid to admit all that ON OPEN RADIO!!

This is obviously why that bldg was demolished as i have said before..........
I'd safely say this would have been the case. Building 7 was of course demolished - this is as clear as day - but to start speculating as to why, and start stating the occupants and their potential motives is to start digging a hole for yourself as there's a lot of speculation involved.

Gage was right not to answer those questions. Reason-minded listeners will have (should have) understood that.
fanoftruth is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:20 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.