‘Coast to Coast AM’ 9/11 debate 8/21/10: Ian Punnett spits in the face of 9/11 truth. Is this seminarian a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

To me, Saturday night’s 9/11 Debate on Coast to Coast AM was disgusting. It was a stacked deck.

Coast to Coast Am’s Saturday host, Ian Punnett sided with the official-9/11-story physicist, Dave Thomas, ganging up on Richard Gage, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. And this continued throughout the four hour supposed debate.

I should have known better than to think that Ian Punnett would give Richard Gage a fair shot, for it was Ian who previously took Coast to Coast to what I’ve so far considered its lowest low, especially in that he’s a seminary graduate. Ian is proving more and more to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and that’s what corporate media wants:

‘Coast to Coast AM’ Plunges to New Low? Callers Talk to ‘Michael Jackson’ Through Medium

‘Theologian’*-host, Ian Punnett leads the world astray

From: Coast to Coast AM

medium Christian von Lähr channeled the King of Pop, who delivered his final message from beyond and answered callers’ questions.

* Punnett has a Masters of Divinity degree from Columbia Theological Seminary in Atlanta, and has been ordained a Deacon in the Episcopal Church.

In this debate, Punnett/Thomas verses Gage, Ian played the Devil’s advocate throughout with Gage, while accepting everything Thomas said, no matter how absurd, including this:

For example, in the second tower that was hit, the WTC tower that collapsed first, most of the jet fuel burned in a mushroom cloud outside of the building. Dave Thomas then admitted that the jet fuel burned in the building for only about 10 minutes. But he said it had ignited paper, filing cabinet and office items which then heated the steel sufficiently to bring the entire tower down; though, this was the first steel building to collapse from fire in history!

Ian just let this go, staying in his Devil’s advocate shoes.

His recap appears more balanced (hopefully, Ian felt badly after the debate, having played his part in betraying America):

Gage believes the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition involving thermite. “I think the dust of the World Trade Center reveals the secret of the cause that we’re all looking for,” he said. The dust contained billions of tiny spheres (about the diameter of a human hair) of previously molten iron, Gage revealed. This means the iron in the spheres sustained temperatures exceeding 2800 degrees, twice as high as what a jet fuel fire can produce, but within the range of a thermite reaction, he noted. In addition, Gage said the dust contained hundreds of small red-gray chips, which he identified as highly-refined nano-thermite composite explosive material.

Thomas expressed his support for the gravitational collapse model. As the planes slammed into the twin towers, they cut through steel support structures and ignited immense fires across the floors of the building, he said. Heat from the fires further weakened the floor trusses, causing them to sag and pull in the perimeter walls, he continued.

Since when are police rescue dogs trained to sniff for thermite (what the super-duper guest stated and Ian just let it go)? I can’t find it: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22police+dogs%22+thermite+-termite+-termites. Nano, United-States-Department-of-Defense-grade thermite isn’t probably even on the terrorist watch list.

Ian even brings this up in his recap:

Johnson called attention to the fact that none of the hundreds of dogs used to locate survivors, many of them cross-trained to find explosives, detected any trace of thermite at the 9/11 disaster site.

So I’m disappointed with Ian. This could have been a great moment in US history, considering that fair treatment of the subject is almost entirely missing in mainstream media.

I’m sorry that I steered anyone wrongly in encouraging them to spend their time listening. I had my hopes up because George Noory’s ‘Coast to Coast’ interview was excellent. It’s linked below, and I highly suggest listening to it.

It would be interesting to know what Ian’s agenda is, and even maybe what his marching orders are.


Architect Richard Gage on Coast To Coast AM June 9, 2009 — ‘Elevator World’ March 2001 documents the largest elevator modernization project in the world going on nine months prior to 9/11.

Audio of this debate: Coast to Coast AM 9/11 debate with Richard Gage and Dave Thomas

Top architect explains why 9/11 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition and Al Qaeda didn’t have the technology or access to do it. Who did? Two months before the ELEVATOR MODERNIZATION PROJECT, Nick ROCKEFELLER predicted a 9/11-like event to trigger war!

All 125 of my 9/11 TRUTH posts

3 thoughts on “‘Coast to Coast AM’ 9/11 debate 8/21/10: Ian Punnett spits in the face of 9/11 truth. Is this seminarian a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

  1. Razz

    WOWW i listened to the broadcast, and the first caller got a great point in, about EXPLOSIONS, and videos of EXPLOSIONS, with people Gasping and commenting on them. They screened calls and seemed to be stalling while they looked for brainwashed idiots who wouldnt bring up “alternative theories”

  2. EyesWideOpen

    I just want to make a comment about the absurdity of the “…dogs used to locate survivors, many of them cross-trained to find explosives” issue. As a (ret.) k9 trainer of over 30 years, one thing that is pretty much a given in the world of working k9’s, especially “bomb” or “explosive” detection trained dogs: unless you want to play with fire, it’s not a popular idea to “cross-train” a k9 for both search and rescue (SAR) work mixed with explosives detection work. FIrst of all the dog’s personalities are typically different. The way they are trained to alert on their “finds” are also quite different: a bomb dog, upon finding an explosive chemical or device will passively and quietly alert, since barking or pawing at the ground could cause the device to explode. Whereas a SAR dog is typically trained to paw at the ground and/or bark when a human scent is discovered since many work off-leash ahead of their handler. Some SAR dogs also passively alert but I am talking generalities here.

    These guys spoke as if some miraculous thing would happen with their super-duper “cross-trained” SAR x “bomb” dogs, as if they’d be searching the rubble for survivors and explosives all at once, while also locating body parts and/or dead bodies. A SAR dog often will be cross-trained to find live as well as deceased humans, especially in searches through rubble caused by earthquakes or other disasters like the WTC buildings disaster. Some just do it naturally.

    Because I’m no expert in nano-thermites, I can’t be 100% positive, but because I’d be safe in saying that there must be other substances besides common metallic ingredients contained in nano-thermites, dogs could detect that type of explosive, therefore there must be no reason a dog can’t be trained to find nano-thermites. I’ve been wrong before but that really isn’t the important part of the argument because the rest of it is so off the mark. One more thing is that in 2001, nano-thermite was secret-military-grade and wasn’t a common substance so training a dog specifically on that scent wouldn’t have been practical. However, since there are so many different mixtures of explosive chemicals, dogs are trained on those scents differently than they are trained to detect narcotics, for example.

    Even if bomb dogs were brought to the site for some crazy reason- the whole story was about planes and fires, not bombs- (why would the powers-that-be want some bomb dogs alerting on their secret explosive substances and blowing their story?) unexploded chips that were mixed into the dust that was 4-12″ thick blanketed the city, with as much as something like 12%(?) of the dust comprised of these chips. The dog would literally have been surrounded by a sea of this stuff, so it would be like training a dog to smell out and alert on the scent of sea water, then putting him into a boat in the ocean and asking him to find some sea water.

    That was a ridiculous part of their argument and just added more credibility to Gage and seemed like another lame tactic to try and obscure the facts.

  3. I have read a few excellent stuff here. Definitely value bookmarking for revisiting. I wonder how much attempt you set to create such a fantastic informative web site.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.