Coast to Coast Sat 8-21 Richard Gage Debates Dave Thomas

Originally posted by bekod
were did that gold go? There is no mention of it after wtc7's demise.

What do you mean no mention of it? It has been mentioned here many times, and a quick google search would have found "http://www.rediff.com/money/2001/nov/17wtc.htm" All of the silver, gold, platinum, and palladium stored in its vaults at 4 World Trade Center have been successfully relocated by an Exchange-approved carrier to a newly Exchange-licensed Brink's Inc depository in Brooklyn," they said.

reply to post by dereks


well that would explain it . When was it moved if moved to wtc4,and not wtc7, for there is to many "what if's" and "unknowns". for the last i knew the gold was at wtc7 this is found in the new york times.1993 and 2001.

I just listened to the whole show. You can find links on 9/11 Blogger.


I don't agree with the earlier poster who said the host favored Dave Thomas. I thought he did a pretty good job of remaining impartial.

I also don't agree that Richard hung up on purpose. It was at literally the closing moments of the show and they also lost a caller to some technical difficulty immediately afterward. Then they said goodnight and it was over.


Over-all I think it was a great show and a great demonstration of the issues being debated today, that have no doubt now been exposed to thousands of new people in greater detail.

Gage was easily able to hold his own and stumped Mr. Thomas on a few questions in particular, where Thomas responded very hesitantly and frankly with more than a couple repetitive and blatantly idiotic answers. Basically the mantras that "debunkers" use here, except when they deflect to another issue in their posts to dodge something they can't resolve (and you all KNOW you do this), Mr. Thomas was forced into moments of awkward silence instead. Refreshing amount of humanity inherent to radio that just isn't there on the internet.

On the other hand, the host fairly pointed out that Gage had a habit of making suggestions and then backing away from concrete statements to say that we need further investigation. In each case I 100% agree that further investigation is needed and Gage was right for refusing to speculate on issues like who would have been involved or what exactly was placed exactly where, but he did make a few claims too concretely where the data available presently may be plenty suggestive but nonetheless is wanting of further resolution. For example he states as his opinion that thermite was the main cause of collapse for WTC7. I don't agree with that but it's a trivial disagreement.


When Dr. Harrit arrived to the show he took Thomas back to school. I love the way Dr. Harrit presents his arguments. He also absolutely refused to speculate on any issue that was not a technical one within his expertise, much to my own satisfaction. The speculation is good for nothing and it manipulates the burden of proof onto us, the individuals demanding further investigation into these issues, instead of the people who are actually responsible for the criminal investigation.

One thing I remember, Dr. Harrit made mention of the fact that out of 400-500 documented skyscraper fires, not a single one had resulted in collapse except allegedly for WTC7. Thomas later would claim that an oil rig completely collapsed from fire alone, but he must have missed the "skyscraper" part of what Harrit had actually said. Harrit didn't get a chance to respond to that.

Harrit also informed both "debunkers" that their excuses of WTC7 being especially liable to collapse because of the impacting debris from WTC1, was in direct contradiction to NIST's official report, that those impact damages were insignificant to their final hypothetical mechanism.



Over-all, like I said, it was a good show. Could have been better, could have been worse, but it was a good presentation for the public.

they keep saying that there were no recordings of explosions, which is false



:11 you clearly hear an explosion.

I almost shut the debate off after they said over and over again that there were no recordings of an explosion.

Originally posted by filosophia
I almost shut the debate off after they said over and over again that there were no recordings of an explosion.

I know what you mean. I felt like kicking someone in the leg myself.

Even when someone finally called in and informed them all that there are videos of recorded explosions, there was no way to convey to the audience how loud they were, where the recordings were made, all of that.

Even NIST said to demolish WTC7 would require a blast of 130dB, or about the loudness of a jackhammer. There was a clear explosion recorded a couple blocks from WTC7 that was obviously loud as hell even from there. And if it went off inside the building, you can imagine how muffled it would have been by the time it got there, in comparison to its decibel level at the source. Easily louder than a jackhammer at the source by any reasonable estimation. The evidence of explosions is so down-played and denied and covered up that it should constitute a criminal act in itself. Almost 10 years later and still most people have no idea.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


I have wondered before if any audio of the 93 blast was captured(accidentally or whatever). Or even eye witness statements regarding how loud it actually was(in regards to where they were located).

I would think that any explosions coming from with in a fully furnished intact building would be heavily muffled. In the case of the 93 blast, this being a gigantic bomb, it would be interesting to know exactly how loud it was on the outside of the buildings. This would at least give us a better way to help gauge how loud some of the explosions would have to be, to be heard where they were.