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:
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.
firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, CoastProducer@aol.com
(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:
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.
A concerned fan