9-11 Debate on Coast To Coast AM

Dude111

Its good seeing this end up on a show like Coast to Coast!!

http://www.youtube.com/v/zzdSbjTEFcs

11 parts -- VERY GOOD!!

TalkieWalkie

Thanks, I'll have a listen. But don't C2C always have these kinda interviews ?

Edit : I think this is the DVD he's talking about if ur interested

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032#

IrelandSpirit

Thanks also. Will listen to that tonight. I read somewhere CTC was the most listened to show in North America, it's gonna be interesting to see how they deal with it and all that.

911 Vid TW recommends is excellent BTW.

RGDATA!

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Thanks also. Will listen to that tonight. I read somewhere CTC was the most listened to show in North America, it's gonna be interesting to see how they deal with it and all that.

911 Vid TW recommends is excellent BTW.

coast to coast has a decent listenership but still wouldn't be anywhere near the most listened to show in North America. also, it regularly deals with conspiracies and stuff, so it's not like it's the first time they've dealt with the idea of a 9/11 conspiracy. i would have listened to it regularly for a while years ago.

IrelandSpirit

RGDATA! wrote: »

coast to coast has a decent listenership but still wouldn't be anywhere near the most listened to show in North America. also, it regularly deals with conspiracies and stuff, so it's not like it's the first time they've dealt with the idea of a 9/11 conspiracy. i would have listened to it regularly for a while years ago.

Ah, right, maybe it's the most listened to night time show?

TalkieWalkie

Same guy from the C2C show.

This video by architects and engineers truth, is absolute 100% unequivocal proof that the twin towers and building 7, were brought down using explosives (thermite/thermate).

No skeptic can watch this and still be skeptical about it.

It's 2 hours in length, I don't expect a skeptic to watch it, but hey, I'm still going to talk about it even now. 2,740+ murders keep me talking.

Full video here on google..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032#

Parts here on youtube..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv9tko0n5LA

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

This video by architects and engineers truth, is absolute 100% unequivocal proof that the twin towers and building 7, were brought down using explosives (thermite/thermate).

No skeptic can watch this and still be skeptical about it.

No it's not, and yes they can.

The debate as a mp3

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=183483&page=3

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I'm still going to talk about it even now. 2,740+ murders keep me talking.

I thought you were blaming the secret technology ball and non-existent planes for the building's collapse - not boring old controlled explosions? So maybe the 'supposed' plane passengers were more of your 'actors' and aren't dead at all?

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

I thought you were blaming the secret technology ball and non-existent planes for the building's collapse - not boring old controlled explosions? So maybe the 'supposed' plane passengers were more of your 'actors' and aren't dead at all?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055996051

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055996051

Yep - that's be the invisible planes and mystery tech ball/missile 'theory' with lots of actors involved in the conspiracy (and the laughing at the 'faked shock' of onlookers at the 'plane' hitting the building).

TalkieWalkie

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Same guy from the C2C show.

This video by architects and engineers truth, is absolute 100% unequivocal proof that the twin towers and building 7, were brought down using explosives (thermite/thermate).

No skeptic can watch this and still be skeptical about it.

It's 2 hours in length, I don't expect a skeptic to watch it, but hey, I'm still going to talk about it even now. 2,740+ murders keep me talking.

Full video here on google..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032#

Parts here on youtube..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv9tko0n5LA

alastair wrote: »

I thought you were blaming the secret technology ball and non-existent planes for the building's collapse - not boring old controlled explosions? So maybe the 'supposed' plane passengers were more of your 'actors' and aren't dead at all?

Nice derail effort. I never blamed the "ball" on the collapse, I have always maintained that was due to thermate.

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Nice derail effort. I never blamed the "ball" on the collapse, I have always maintained that was due to thermate.

What was the supposed role of the ball then? And where were those passengers if there weren't any planes?

On evidence of thermate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWpC_1WP8do

TalkieWalkie

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Full video here on google..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032#

Parts here on youtube..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv9tko0n5LA

alastair wrote: »

What was the supposed role of the ball then? And where were those passengers if there weren't any planes?

On evidence of thermate:



I am not sure about that. But you're going to have to do a lot better than a 4 minute clip to debunk this 2 hour video of evidence after avidence.
Why dont you watch when you have some time, see for yourself instead of constantly reaching for the debunk video's, when your not exactly sure what your trying to debunk.

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

when your not exactly sure what your trying to debunk.

I've read Gage's claims before - unless he's got something new to offer, I don't really need to waste my time again.

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

you're going to have to do a lot better than a 4 minute clip to debunk this 2 hour video of evidence after avidence.

The 2 minute video is sufficient to illustrate the lack of any residual evidence of thermate use. The figures on each element are clearly laid out.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

Yep - that's be the invisible planes and mystery tech ball/missile 'theory' with lots of actors involved in the conspiracy (and the laughing at the 'faked shock' of onlookers at the 'plane' hitting the building).

OK, this is clearly something you've covered already at length in that thread, so why are you going over it again?

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

OK, this is clearly something you've covered already at length in that thread, so why are you going over it again?

Just trying to hammer down which particular 9/11 theory is on today's menu. Gage accepts the stated passenger planes hit the WTC, which doesn't really tally with the previous TW 9/11 story which seemingly involved mystery flying balls, the transportation of corpses and aircraft debris from Boston on super-fast helicopters, and the planting of fake witnesses all over NYC.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

Just trying to hammer down which particular 9/11 theory is on today's menu. Gage accepts the stated passenger planes hit the WTC, which doesn't really tally with the previous TW 9/11 story which seemingly involved mystery flying balls, the transportation of corpses and aircraft debris from Boston on super-fast helicopters, and the planting of fake witnesses all over NYC.

It's hammered down already.
You didn't need to raise old topics from old threads.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

It's hammered down already.
You didn't need to raise old topics from old threads.

It is?

Care to explain how you can advocate a no-plane and a plane theory at the same time? Seems far from hammered down to me.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

It is?

Care to explain how you can advocate a no-plane and a plane theory at the same time? Seems far from hammered down to me.

The no plane theory arguments go in the old thread. The "plane" theory stays here.
You're the one raising the spectre of that thread.

IrelandSpirit

alastair wrote: »

Just trying to hammer down which particular 9/11 theory is on today's menu. Gage accepts the stated passenger planes hit the WTC, which doesn't really tally with the previous TW 9/11 story which seemingly involved mystery flying balls, the transportation of corpses and aircraft debris from Boston on super-fast helicopters, and the planting of fake witnesses all over NYC.

Oh alastair, oh dear, at it again so it seems ... tut-tut.

alastair

Yeah - kinda akward to explain how you believe a plane isn't there, and yet... it is. It's as if you buy into any claim that's made without any attempt to consistency of logic. For the sake of clarity maybe eveyone should reveal precisely what they believe - I'll go first - the truth of what happened on 9/11 is as presented in the 9/11 Commission report.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

Yeah - kinda akward to explain how you believe a plane isn't there, and yet... it is. It's as if you buy into any claim that's made without any attempt to consistency of logic. For the sake of clarity maybe eveyone should reveal precisely what they believe - I'll go first - the truth of what happened on 9/11 is as presented in the 9/11 Commission report.

You're not discussing the topic.
If you want to discuss the two topics start a thread for that.
What you're doing is taking pot shots at other users, something which would seem to be a nasty habit of yours.

alastair

nullzero wrote: »

You're not discussing the topic.
If you want to discuss the two topics start a thread for that.
What you're doing is taking pot shots at other users, something which would seem to be a nasty habit of yours.

Pot shots? Not at all - you can't advocate contradictory 'truths' - it logically implies that you don't believe in what you claim to advocate in at least one of those cases. Again - I'll go first - the truth of what happened on 9/11 is as presented in the 9/11 Commission report.

nullzero

Pot shots? Not at all - you can't advocate contradictory 'truths' - it logically implies that you don't believe in what you claim to advocate in at least one of those cases. Again - I'll go first - the truth of what happened on 9/11 is as presented in the 9/11 Commission report.

Care to explain how you can advocate a no-plane and a plane theory at the same time? Seems far from hammered down to me.

I for one never entertained that argument. It also has nothing to do with this thread.

As I said, if you're really interested in discussing two differing theories start a new thread.

IrelandSpirit

alastair wrote: »

Pot shots? Not at all - you can't advocate contradictory 'truths' - it logically implies that you don't believe in what you claim to advocate in at least one of those cases. Again - I'll go first - the truth of what happened on 9/11 is as presented in the 9/11 Commission report.

Well, I think that's obvious, what you believe, but good anyway to see you've nailed your colours to the mast. Did you listen to that CTC debate?

It was fair and balanced, I thought.

nullzero

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Well, I think that's obvious, what you believe, but good anyway to see you've nailed your colours to the mast. Did you listen to that CTC debate?

It was fair and balanced, I thought.

Very good point there IrelandSpirit.

RGDATA!

alastair wrote: »

Yeah - kinda akward to explain how you believe a plane isn't there, and yet... it is. It's as if you buy into any claim that's made without any attempt to consistency of logic. For the sake of clarity maybe eveyone should reveal precisely what they believe - I'll go first - the truth of what happened on 9/11 is as presented in the 9/11 Commission report.

Now I'm more often a skeptic than CTer on these boards, but I completely disagree that the truth of what happened on 9/11 is as presented in the Commission's report. Unless you have read the whole report (maybe you have) and unless you have no problems with how the commission was conducted it's kind of a cop out to say that.

The main reason for me being: Bush and Cheney testified jointly, in private, not under oath, so exactly what they said and what they might have equivocated on is not known. I don't accept that they somehow gave the whole truth and nothing but, yet had to do it together and in private, and off the record as such. Exactly what they knew and when they knew it is kind of crucial to the story of the day, and I don't think the 9/11 commission can be said to have got to the truth of that.

I know I am dodging the question of what I believe precisely. Paragraph deleted because it's a tough one and I'm out of here at 7pm, I will try to get back later, not because my answer will be profound or interesting, but so as not to dodge the question because it's a good one I'd be interested to see others answer too.

IrelandSpirit

It was very well done, the only reservation I had (personally) was the presenter's insistence on trying to get Richard to commit himself to the CT, 'shadow gov', etc, when he'd already said he'd rather leave all that to a proper investigation, which is what A&E for 911 Truth are about. All he wanted was to focus on the actual science behind the collapse.

Nothing against the CT side of things myself (obviously!) but it kinda took away a bit from the debate at the end. All in all though, very informative I thought, and great to hear the counter arguments.

alastair

RGDATA! wrote: »

The main reason for me being: Bush and Cheney testified jointly, in private, not under oath, so exactly what they said and what they might have equivocated on is not known.

Given that the horse had already left the stable by the time Bush or Cheney started making decisions , it's not really important what they witheld or didn't. The timeline, events, and physical evidence presented in the report makes absolute sense. Not one of the proposed alternative 'truths' does.

I find it amusing that there's such reticence to commit to an alternative theory given all the loud claims for 'unequivocal proof' (without actual evidence of course) that are made for those theories.

IrelandSpirit

alastair wrote: »

Given that the horse had already left the stable by the time Bush or Cheney started making decisions , it's not really important what they witheld or didn't. The timeline, events, and physical evidence presented in the report makes absolute sense. Not one of the proposed alternative 'truths' does.

I find it amusing that there's such reticence to commit to an alternative theory given all the loud claims for 'unequivocal proof' (without actual evidence of course) that are made for those theories.

Did you listen to the CTC debate?