Wednesday, August 25, 2010
9/11 Debate on Coast to Coast with Ian Punnett
Architect Richard Gage [on behalf of 9-11 truth] and physicist Dave Thomas [on behalf of official story] go head-to-head on 9-11
by Larry Simons
August 25, 2010
This debate [from August 21, 2010] features 9-11 truth activist and architect Richard Gage [pictured, above left] going against physicist Dave Thomas who defends the official conspiracy theory of 9-11.
I thought the debate was civil, fair and respectful. Lasting just under 3 hours, I have to give the win to Richard Gage. I realize I am partial [being against the official story] but I try not to judge debates based on my personal bias, but rather the evidence that is presented in the debate as if it was the very first time I had ever heard these issues discussed [as was the case with Charles Goyette annihilating Popular Mechanics stooge Davin Coburn in 2006].
Thomas’ views and evaluations brought nothing new to the table as far as convincing me the official story is correct. In fact, I was quite disturbed that still, after nearly 9 years since 9-11, people [particularly physicists] like Thomas are still clinging to the old, tiresome, debunked issues, like: WTC 7 did not fall in freefall time; WTC 7’s collapse was not symmetrical [oh really?]; Larry Silverstein meant “pull the firefighters out of WTC 7” when he said “Pull it”; there were no explosions [or reports of explosions] on 9-11 [oh yes there were]; the lobbies of the twin towers were damaged due to fire shooting through the elevator shafts [there was no trace of soot on any of the walls in the lobbies, plus, it would have burnt up the actual firefighters that were in the lobbies]; WTC 7 did not fall in its own footprint; there were massive fires in WTC 7, and so on.
One glaring contradiction on Thomas’ part: He stated that he accepts Larry Silverstein’s statement that “pull it” meant to “pull the firefighting units out of WTC 7”, then later he acknowledged the fact that they couldn’t put out the fires in WTC 7 because the damage caused by the collapse of the twin towers took out the water system.
Well then, one has to ask: Why would the firefighters even be in WTC 7 to begin with if they had no water to fight fires? One might answer, “Well, they didn’t know they had no water until they was inside.” OK, that begs the question: Why did they have to be ordered out of the building if, when they attempted to spray water, none came out? If you have no water, don’t you get the hell out despite your fire commander ordering you out?
Plus, I have never understood why people, like Thomas, keep insisting on the fact that Silverstein was referring to "firefighters" when he said "pull it" anyway. Here is Silverstein's 2002 quote:
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
Someone please tell me why, if there was no water, the fire commander was "not sure" if they were going to be able to contain the fire? Wouldn't he be definately 100% positive they wouldn't, since there was no water? Also, why would the fire commander need the opinion of the leaseholder to pull his own men out of a burning building [we are told was fully ablaze] when they had no water to fight it? Why would the fire commander even bother calling the leaseholder BEFORE ordering his men out, when they could have died during the commanders' phone call? Why would the fire commander even give a two-cent shit about what happened to an already unsalvagable [so we're told] building?
Listen to the debate