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

Originally posted by WWu777
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.

Do you think that "Ian" is in on the conspiracy? He seems keen to suppress the truth...

I looked at Coast to Coast's website. But it doesn't mention that the debate aired. Instead, another program was on on July 31.

I honestly don't know what happened. I'll email Richard Gage about it.

If it was rescheduled or canceled, he should have at least let us know. It was obviously inconsiderate and rude that he didn't, when so many were waiting for it. I hope he has a good excuse.

Originally posted by WWu777
I looked at Coast to Coast's website. But it doesn't mention that the debate aired. Instead, another program was on on July 31.

I honestly don't know what happened. I'll email Richard Gage about it.

If it was rescheduled or canceled, he should have at least let us know. It was obviously inconsiderate and rude that he didn't, when so many were waiting for it. I hope he has a good excuse.

It was postponed till August 21st. It's been on his Website for several days, I heard weeks ago from Dave:

ae911truth.org...

Coast to Coast Radio- On August 21st Mr. Gage will be putting forth AE911Truth’s evidence to up to 3 million mainstream viewers across the country while debating debunker, Dave Thomas, mathematician, physicist, and magician, who is founder of New Mexicans for Science and Reason. This debate follows a series of other debates that AE911Truth has engaged in with supporters of the official conspiracy theory.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by Six Sigma]

Here is the AE911Truth debate on C2C on YouTube that took place on August 21.

www.youtube.com...

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:

www.youtube.com...

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.

To:
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

(Note: The above emails are public on their contact page: www.coasttocoastam.com...)

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

Dear Coast to Coast management,

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:
www.youtube.com...

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. 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 the 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