Online Shopping Can Change the World

Coast to Coast AM 911 debate with Richard Gage and Dave ThomasCoast to Coast AM 9/11 debate with Richard Gage and Dave Thomas

On Saturday August 21st, 2010, Richard Gage, AIA from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and Dave Thomas a physicist from New Mexicans for Science and Reason, joined Ian Punnett on Coast to Coast AM for the entire program of 4 hours to debate how the World Trade Center buildings collapsed on September 11, 2001.

Physicist Kim Johnson and chemist Niels Harrit joined the discussion in hour three.

Coast to Coast AM airs on more than 500 stations in the U.S., as well as Canada, Mexico and Guam, and is heard by nearly three million weekly listeners. With hosts George Noory, George Knapp (weekend) and Ian Punnett (weekend), it is the most listened to overnight radio program in North America.

Coast to Coast AM Debate

Note: this debate has been broken down into 11 YouTube videos. The video player posted here should play all videos in sequence, from video 1 to 11. See below for direct links to each video.

Part 1/11:

Part 2/11:

Part 3/11:

Part 4/11:

Part 5/11:

Part 6/11:

Part 7/11:

Part 8/11:

Part 9/11:

Part 10/11:

Part 11/11:

Your Comments


    I am a physicist (PhD). If we set theoretical initial conditions properly, a pancaking fall is possible. However, this fall is a slowing down process, not an accelerated one.
    To pancake down to the ground, the initial speed of the upper section must be many hundreds feet per second.
    It is most simple, the gravitational force available has to travel the same distance as the resisting forces over the descent height which can rise to something like 5 times greater than the weight. Then, the available gravitational energy is not capable of doing this work unless some energy is added in the equation in the form of kinetic energy from the upper chunk falling initially into the building, plus its gravitational potential. In any case, depending on the mass and the initial velocity of this upper section, the building could, in principle, make a pancake collapse of only one floor, or many floors, or to the ground, but from necessity, at a decelerating speed.
    For any parameter set in a simple energy balance calculation, an acceleration points to some kind of a help to lower the resisting forces by a very high amount. In the WTC, this help was finely distributed with a very clever design, both because the acceleration was smooth, and the path was the least probable one because of the most demanding in energy.
    So, using elementary principles of Newtonian mechanics that have been accepted for hundreds of years, the observed fall of the WTC was, from absolute necessity, a very well planed demolition.
    This is not an opinion, but a basic scientific fact: Any accelerated pancake style of collapse is a demolition.

  • Matrix

    Gage should have asked Dave Thomas how his piledriver hypothesis accounts for the bone fragments (most less than 1.5mm) that were found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank building.

  • Jim Frawley

    Dave Thomas is to ‘science and reason’
    Fox News is to ‘fair and balanced’

  • Jeppe Severin

    @ Michael: Mine is, if you’d rather not write your own in here…

  • Jeppe Severin

    Michael! I have a home studio with the programme Logic Pro 8 on my Mac. I can try to simply record the whole show on an audio track – letting it play from one computer connected to my MacBook’s input – and then bounce it as an mp3.

    If you give me your email adress, I will try to send it to you – if it works.

  • Michael

    Does anyone here has the time to convert the .FLV files to a single mp3 file?

    this free program for example can do that but I don’t have the time right now to use it

  • Farhad Gulemov

    Somebody needs to make an edited mp3 version of this debate and post it so we can circulate it. 11 YouTube vids are not an appropriate medium the spread the word!

  • Leo

    According to wikipedia:
    Dave Thomas is a physicist and mathematician, mostly known for his writings and research on the paranormal (such as UFO sightings in Roswell, New Mexico and Aztec, New Mexico, as well as finding codings in other texts that dispute the credibility of the Bible Code).
    Thomas is a graduate of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, with a bachelor’s degree in mathematics and physics and a masters degree in mathematics. He is known for his work debunking the Bible code.
    In other words he does not have a graduate degree in physics and no scientific publications in physics or engineering whatsoever. Nevertheless in the course of the debate he is referred to as a professor of physics. I haven’t heard him objecting to that. He is a charlatan to begin with, and debating clowns like him is a waist of time. In order to debate highly qualified people such as Richard Gage and Niels Harrit one should be a scientist not a quack.

  • david

    looks like we have a few boys with box cutters conspiracy theory skeptics in here. i can’t imagine why

  • James Richardi

    Dave Thomas:

    I have heard these same unsupported unscientific 911 lies by other government plants.

    I had even heard the lie about the Windsor Hotel collapsing from fire in Madrid by other liars. As you well know, the WINDSOR HOTEL DID NOT COLLAPSE! You quickly switched off this when you knew that Richard Gage was about to call you out on this! Suddenly you could not remember the name! Are you guys trained to use the same lying rhetoric? You also create a lot of fantasy to support your inside job cover-up!

    I had to laugh about WTC 7 magically falling down on the inside first! This is as bad as a 757 flying into the Pentagon and disappearing in a 14′ hole!

    You call yourselves scientists – but who are you really?

    Who pays you for such lies?

    James Richardi

  • Clay Shaw

    Dave Thomas, after listening to your side of the debate, I have to say I frankly find your arguments not believable.

    Some of the highlights that I found most outrageous:

    1. Richard Gage cites that there is documented proof of molten metal at the scene as reported by first responders and witnesses at the scene. FEMA also includes this in their reports.

    Dave Thomas simply responds that they did not find molten steel at the scene, and he has a “go to” guy who says there was no evidence of molten steel – despite what firemen, witnesses and FEMA initially report.

    2. Dave Thomas claims no explosive sounds were recorded at the scene – and later says that any explosive sounds heard and reported by witnesses were simply the sounds of the towers starting to collapse.

    Dave Thomas cannot explain video evidence of people at the scene talking about hearing explosions, nor can he explain video evidence of shattered glass in the lobbies of the towers after the planes hit, after explosions were reported, but BEFORE the towers fell.

    3. Dave Thomas thinks that building 7 came down not by controlled demolition, but because it was hit by a flying building that somehow was able to start “really hot fires” that caused the building 7 to start “creaking” and ultimately made it come down.

    But wait, then he explains that it came down due to design and structural flaw. And then again he goes back to collapse from fire.

    This is a great example of how inept he is at explaining anything put forth in the debate – when he gets stuck, he simply resorts to a generic dismissal of a debate point or fact and saying that it isn’t true or it did not happen as Richard Gage claims.

    Finally his response to Gage’s claim that all columns failed in building 7 due to demolition is met with the UNBELIEVABLE response that a design flaw was exacerbated by fires and that brought the building down – then he quickly changes the focus to “the building was creaking” and we don’t need building 7 included in this conspiracy theory anyway – we have enough to worry about with twin towers.

    Dave Thomas you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to whitewash everything here and not, at minimum, support the call for further investigation of the evidence and the observed events and evidence.

  • Bob Allen

    Dave Thomas you should be ashamed of yourself. You are lying and making things up. What they don’t mention is who funds New Mexicans for Science and Reason. He uses “I don’t think” and “could”. No real physicist would humiliate himself like this. Richard Gage’s facts VS Dave Thomas’s assumptions.

  • Jerm

    +1 for Clint Fuller!

  • Clint Fuller

    I can’t believe that guys like Dave Thomas still have the balls to basically look at us in the eye with a straight face and tell us Building 7 was NOT a controlled demolition. I been in construction all my life and living here in Las Vegas I’ve been exposed to many controlled demolitions (the Aladdin for one) and I don’t take lightly guys like Dave Thomas helping covering up the murder of 3.000 of our fellow citizens. Especially since the collapse of these buildings violates very basic laws of physics – like Newtons Law of falling bodies. I KNOW HE’S LYING – HE KNOWS HE’S LYING – AND IT’S STARTING TO PISS ME OFF!!!

    Richard, I think you did a hell of a job in the debate.And look forward to seeing you in Las Vegas in November.

Donate any amount to support our work
911 Video of the week
See all recent news »


ArabicChinese (Simplified)DanishEnglishFinnishFrenchGermanGreekIrishItalianJapaneseNorwegianPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkish

9-11 Truth Movement

Professional Organizations

9-11 Truth News Website and Activist Organizations or Individuals

9-11 First Responders Support

Worldwide 9-11 Groups

United States










New Zealand



United Kingdom