Upcoming 9/11 team debate on Coast to Coast on July 31, which I'm consulting on

Some years ago the explosive "squibs" were the unimpeachable proof, the smoking gun, that 9/11 was an "inside job". Now that thermite is all the rage you don't hear so much about them.

One thing that didn't surprise me is that this thread is under close scrutiny. Seems like ATS doesn't like anyone questioning the official story. But what's new.

reply to post by kindred


They're all under close scrutiny.

Anyone would think you were paranoid...

I would ask Gage about the use of other explosives and techniques besides thermite. I would also like to find out if he's aware that Bin Laden comes from a wealthy family that has expertise in construction and demolition.

reply to post by Insolubrious


Ha!

Gage is a fool....or a liar, time will tell.

Someone needs to help him down, he's hoist with his own petard more than once.... and his contradictions...

I'd imagine by now he will try to weasel around and double-speak more, in this upcoming "debate"...but, this post below clearly shows his earlier problems with comprehension (and I assume, understanding of science...):

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Of course, his income now depends on the speaking circuit, so he has real incentive to put on the best "show" possible...we'll see if he's practiced and polished it to make it shiny.

The Mythbusters might be able to help him "polish" his...errmm...'stuff':

To answer your original question, being an Aussy that has listened to Coast To Coast for a couple of years now, Im not sure that it will be possible to properly cover all 10 points, the show just gets side tracked too much, plus they always spend too much time on callers when they have experts we actually have tuned in for (thats what Open Lines are for Mr Noory).

Id suggest being fully prepared with the most scientifically valid arguments on 6 or so topics, maybe each 'team member' be fully versed in 2 or 3 each, & have evidence for the remaining arguments at hand just in case there is time.

Try to anticipate the arguments the opposition will present & be ready with a quick, direct answer. Just like with politicians, people get sick of the circular arguments & if someone can provide a simple, quick answer they come across as the most sensible, usually because they are with the most logical conclusions.

Maybe also remember that C2C is listened to internationally, & I dont just mean Canada, support from the outside cant hurt, there were people from many nations that died in NY that day & our soldiers are also still getting killed in the 2 wars that followed, a very emotive subject. Im not sure how but generating greater interest in the truth outside of the USA may help, probably not, but it cant hurt to try enlisting outside voices.

Good luck, cant wait to listen to the show.

I think a focus on building seven would help the case, as it collapsed with no plane striking it. But you already know this.

Looking forward to the show!

reply to post by Pineal


Once again....soem disinfo....

...building seven would help the case, as it collapsed with no plane striking it.

Seriously, misdirection tactic.

DEBRIS from the collapsing of WTC Towers 1 & 2 DID strike WTC 7 building, and caused a great deal of damage.

WHY do you think it was on FIRE???

Many other buildings, in the perimeter area, ALSO sustained damage from falling debris. BUT (and this is important) ONLY WTC 7 had a design that was more vulnerable, because of the exterior damage sustained, to initiate a collapse.

THOSE buildings were so devasted that they had to be torn down.

THIS IS THE FALLACY OF THESE "conspiracy theorists"!!!!

Even IF WTC 7 had not collpased...IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TORN DOWN TOO!!!!!!!!


It has to do with so many details, yet the "conspiracy" people just sweep them aside, and 'hope' that no one notices??

Incredible!

When talking about WTC7 in conspiracy terms please ask him to highlight the news report given by BBC news that WTC7 had collapsed some 20 mins prior to it happening. For me this is highly indicative of shenanigans behind the scenes and a conspiracy.

Originally posted by spacedonk
When talking about WTC7 in conspiracy terms please ask him to highlight the news report given by BBC news that WTC7 had collapsed some 20 mins prior to it happening. For me this is highly indicative of shenanigans behind the scenes and a conspiracy.

It's been done to death, but why is that evidence of conspiracy? Just because it seems weird?

If you think about it for any length of time it becomes pretty obvious that no conspiracy would risk doing announcing its major crime on TV. And no one's ever given me a plausible explanation of how it could happen by mistake.

reply to post by weedwhacker


"Disinfo", huh? How is stating that building 7 collapsed without being struck by a plane spreading disinfo? Or were you indicating you were about to disseminate some of your own?

I wasn't trying to definitively prove it was brought down by controlled demolition or start a debate, just contribute to some topics I would like to hear covered in the upcoming C2C debate.

Sheesh.

"Even IF WTC 7 had not collpased...IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TORN DOWN TOO!!!!!!!!"

According to which crackpot? Since when has a building with isolated fires on three or four floors require being torn down? Building 7 was nothing near a total loss prior to the explosives taking it down.

Check out these lies by the Mayor of the Year about Building 7. He says it came down in stages.




[edit on 9-7-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

Check out 1:45 from the video below. You can notice only four floors of broken windows and fire coming from these floors in Building 7. The damage is pretty much straight across these four floors. Gee, I didn't know falling debris was so selective and caused such consistent non-random damage.

And the glorified used car salesmen want you to believe that this was a building heavily damaged by the WTC Towers collapse and was teetering on collapse all day long. Watch out!

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by WWu777

And don't forget:

1. George Bush's brother was in charge of security at the WTC.

2. There were mysterious power downs and evacuations in the WTC in the weeks prior to 9/11.

You can look these up.

I did look it up, and you're quoting your facts poorly-

A) Marvin Bush 1) was on the board of directors of the company that owned the company in charge if security, which does NOT make him "in charge of security", and 2) he left almost a full year before 9/11 so he wasn't even on the board of directors at the time

B) the "mysterious power downs" were upgrades to the cabling. How "mysterious" could they be when the port authority told everyone they were going to happen in advance, and we know they told everyone in advance becuase it's the entire reason you know about them. Even then, it was only 1/2 of ONE building. There were probably going to be followup upgrades, but they never got the chance.

Now, this is exactly why I mentioned that Gage has to rely 100% on his audience being uninformed of the information he's telling them. It's the only way he can convince anyone of his improbable claims, and misrepresentations exactly like this are a sterling case in point. If you're going to be the consultant of Gage as you say, and this is an example of the material that Gage is goign to present, then Gage has lost the debate before he even began.


[edit on 28-6-2010 by GoodOlDave]

Um - you are accusing people of lying - and yet here you are offering blatant lies yourself - credibility 101.

How is it possible that he left a year before this happened - when George - the Pres - handed him the contracts when he took office ? Um - you are wrong - he absolutely WAS in charge, along with Dulles air force base - which is a terrifying coincidence when you consider his role there AND WTC !

Dulles was responsible for the war games which many consider part of the conspiracy AND was responsible for deploying fighters which never left.

Even if he left a year before - which he did not - that still leaves vast questions unanswered. And that is what people are seeking - answers to very, very pertinent questions. Merely dismissing what are truly worrying issues out of hand - and lying - is exceptionally disingenuous.

Finally explosives can easily be planted, detonated and sequenced using remote controls. This is not the 18thC. Even I could create compact detonators which are timed and detonated using a computer all carried out remotely. It really would be the easiest thing to do.

I have not doubt that planes crashed into the WTC - it is my position that they were remotely flown and controlled from building 7 - hence no contact from the planes. Explosives were planted in all buildings in order to ensure they came down. Not a very hard scenario to plan and carry out with minimal personnel - and certainly something no one is ever likely to admit to. And even EASIER to carry out from a position of authority - the CIA has its hands all over this.

Originally posted by Aristophrenia
How is it possible that he left a year before this happened - when George - the Pres - handed him the contracts when he took office ? Um - you are wrong - he absolutely WAS in charge, along with Dulles air force base - which is a terrifying coincidence when you consider his role there AND WTC !

Securacom (now Stratesec) took over part of the security handling at the WTC in 1996 (as per their SEC filings: www.sec.gov... - search for "Revenues from the World Trade Center") and ended their part in 1998 (www.sec.gov... - search for "closeout of the World Trade Center").

Dulles was responsible for the war games which many consider part of the conspiracy AND was responsible for deploying fighters which never left.

Rubbish.

1) Dulles is a civilian airport, they have no military presence, so staging a wargame there would be a failure of epic proportions. That's like suggesting staging the Indy 500 at Churchill Downs.

2) Fighters WERE deployed from the bases that had fighters ready to launch at moments notice, Otis AFB and Langley AFB respectively. More fighters were deployed during the day, as fighters returned from training missions etc.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

a building with isolated fires on three or four floors

And here we have it.

Yet another truther calling the FDNY a pack of liars.

This is why everyone despises you....

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?

See image below

An update on this debate:

The host of the Coast to Coast program, Ian, has decided not to make this a team debate, because he feels that the listeners would get confused if too many different people talk about who is who, and might turn off the radio. So it will basically be a one on one debate between Richard Gage and Dave Thomas, with people calling in during the third hour.

So much for teams. We actually had an experienced structural engineer on our team too, with a lot of credentials.

Originally posted by Aristophrenia
Um - you are accusing people of lying - and yet here you are offering blatant lies yourself - credibility 101.

How is it possible that he left a year before this happened - when George - the Pres - handed him the contracts when he took office ? Um - you are wrong - he absolutely WAS in charge, along with Dulles air force base - which is a terrifying coincidence when you consider his role there AND WTC !

Dulles was responsible for the war games which many consider part of the conspiracy AND was responsible for deploying fighters which never left.

A) Marvin Bush was on the board of directors of Securacom from 1993 to 2000.

Marvin Bush biography

B) Dulles is a public airport that services international flights for the Washingon D.C. area. It's not an air force base there and it has no military aircraft stationed there, so he could hardly be "in charge" of something that doesn't exist.

Washington Dulles International Airport

If you're going to lie, then at least come up with a lie that can't be discovered in a 30 second Google search.

Finally explosives can easily be planted, detonated and sequenced using remote controls. This is not the 18thC. Even I could create compact detonators which are timed and detonated using a computer all carried out remotely. It really would be the easiest thing to do.

The towers were *occupied* buildings, and they would have been spotted by manintenance, technicians, engineers, security, etc regardles of whatever super duper invisible hyper explosives you invent in your mind. It's like saying that someone can put an elephant in your living room and you'd never notice it. IF you can't get past that, then your conspiracy stories fail before they get out of the gate.

Originally posted by WWu777


So much for teams. We actually had an experienced structural engineer on our team too, with a lot of credentials.

Then why not put him/her on? We've already heard from Gage enough to know what his position is. I guess it really doesn't matter though, the debate will end in the same place it began.

There is no defense to the inconsistencies and lies affiliated with the Commission Report. There are only excuses and assumptions. It's all right here www.historycommons.org... Until there is more information, no one will PROVE demolition, pentagon inconsistencies, or Flight 93 inconsistencies. There is, however, a large amount of information that PROVES the "official story" we were told isn't true. Good Luck with your debate though .. I hope you win.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by RomanMaroni]

[edit on 13-7-2010 by RomanMaroni]