Ian Punnett

[TeddyKGB]

Punnett is an absolutely awesome guy. His comments are generally very smart and sharp. He's a forward thinking host who doesn't just accept the status-quo and questions the "normal" way of thinking which doesn't go to palate of most people.

[valdez]

     I can't believe he made us wait 40 minutes to hear a replay of his "speaking in tongues" incident, and if he really hadn't heard it himself until he played it, well, then he's got balls.  I hope he's ok.  We need him.  Oh, yeah, the rest of the show...it was about paranormal stuff.  So there.

[TaoOfLuxLisbon]

I don't listen to Ian much because Saturday night is a movie night for me, but the only two C2C guests I've ever been compelled to buy the books of were both Ian interviews. Alicia West's "Dogtown" and Brian Touhy's "The Fix Is In".

One thing about Ian is he knows how to work a guest, if they've got something to bring to the table. His questions have depth and he can milk them for two hours and phone calls, unlike Georgie who's all about rushing to the next break and taking phone calls next hour. I like some of Ian's topics like serial killers and history.......but I avoid the terrorism and Jim Maars type shows. When he hits on the paranormal or Bigfoot, he also presents the skeptic side, which can make for interesting stuff like when called out that guy from Canada who claimed he had documents of a Bigfoot killing humans.

[valdez]

     I didn't get anything Duncan Laurie was talking about.  Radionics?  Whatever.  The Al Jardine interview was better.  I always found the Beachboys to be kind of corny, but they put out some good stuff.  There's something about the utter drunkenness of "Barbara Ann" that's way cool, and "Don't Worry, Baby" gets me everytime.

[MV/Liberace!]

I always found the Beachboys to be kind of corny, but they put out some good stuff.  There's something about the utter drunkenness of "Barbara Ann" that's way cool, and "Don't Worry, Baby" gets me everytime.

i always found the latter beach boys stuff (post brian wilson's direct involvement) to be the best.  however, that's no slam on brian wilson.  mike love was there cock-blocking wilson every step of the way.  the beach boys could have been so much more if love would have just stepped out of the way.

[EvB]

      There's something about the utter drunkenness of "Barbara Ann" that's way cool, and "Don't Worry, Baby" gets me everytime.

On Barbara Ann - absolutely!

On Don't Worry Baby, not so much.  Used to love it - still kinda do - but then, I had a kid - and from a Mom's point of view the message in that song is just GAWD AWFUL!  "It's okay darling, risk your life!  You know you are expected to by virtue of your y chromosome, and besides you make me go wet when you are on the brink of death!"

Geeeeeeeeeeeeeze

/momrant

[MV/Liberace!]

"It's okay darling, risk your life!  You know you are expected to by virtue of your y chromosome, and besides you make me go wet when you are on the brink of death!"

Geeeeeeeeeeeeeze

/momrant

HAHA!

[b_dubb]

i think Ian is my favorite host.  on a par with Art Bell.  i like Napp too.  Noory is fail.  his eFoods BS is ridiculous.

hey .... i paid $400 for an shopping bag filled with canned mashed potatoes.  i'm ready 2012.  i'm ready

[valdez]

     "Everyone is Willard in space."
                                       -Ian.
     An all Punnet weekend.  Just in time.  I couldn't take another minute of George.  Yesterday it was about freaks, last night it was about space, tomorrow it's about death.

     Yeah, baby.
     

[valdez]

     Something has been echoing in my head since Sunday.  Ian had on Pim Van Lommel who had written Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience.  Ian read a story from the book concerning a woman who had a brain tumor that everybody told her could not be removed, and she was doomed, but a hospital somewhere agreed to give it a try by removing all of her blood, and cooling her body down.  Her brain was dead during the operation, which is important because a lot of folks say that these near death experiences, and the infamous "light" that people see, are cause by flashing brain cells, or something, anyway, the brain is dead, the lady is hearing and seeing whats going on in the operating room, then she is met by her dead relatives and she sees the light.  She wants to go to it, but one of her relatives, her uncle, says no, its not her time, and he begins to lead her back to her body.  She turns towards the light and ask, "is the light God?"
     "No," said the uncle. "The light is what happens when God breathes."   

[MV/Liberace!]

     "No," said the uncle. "The light is what happens when God breathes."

wow.  goosebumps.  anybody have a copy of this show?

[guildnavigator]

Near Death Experiences
Sunday August 8, 2010
Ian Punnett welcomed cardiologist Dr. Pim van Lommel, who talked about how his research into near-death experiences concludes that these are authentic events that cannot be attributed to imagination.

A copy is attached.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[ArtBellFan]

     Something has been echoing in my head since Sunday.  Ian had on Pim Van Lommel who had written Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience.  Ian read a story from the book concerning a woman who had a brain tumor that everybody told her could not be removed, and she was doomed, but a hospital somewhere agreed to give it a try by removing all of her blood, and cooling her body down.  Her brain was dead during the operation, which is important because a lot of folks say that these near death experiences, and the infamous "light" that people see, are cause by flashing brain cells, or something, anyway, the brain is dead, the lady is hearing and seeing whats going on in the operating room, then she is met by her dead relatives and she sees the light.  She wants to go to it, but one of her relatives, her uncle, says no, its not her time, and he begins to lead her back to her body.  She turns towards the light and ask, "is the light God?"
     "No," said the uncle. "The light is what happens when God breathes."

That is the story of Pam, Art Bell interviewed her years ago, there was a speical on it on Discovery or one of those shows..
Pam Reynolds Lowery (1956 â€" May 22, 2010) from Atlanta, Georgia was an American singer-songwriter.[1] In 1991, at the age of 35, she had a near-death experience (NDE) during a brain operation. Her NDE is one of the most notable and best documented in NDE research because of the unusual circumstances under which it happened. Reynolds was under close medical monitoring during the entire operation. During part of the operation she had no brain-wave activity and no blood flowing in her brain, which left her clinically dead. She made several observations about the procedure which later were confirmed by medical personnel as surprisingly accurate.
This famous near-death experience is considered by many to be proof of the reality of the survival of consciousness after death, and of a life after death. However, critics have brought forward several points against this interpretation. See also the Critical Analysis section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds_(singer)

[b_dubb]

     "No," said the uncle. "The light is what happens when God breathes."

yeah. that is epic stuff.  i listened to this show too and thoroughly enjoyed it.  i'm skeptical about NDE's but this story was noteworthy IMHO

[MV/Liberace!]

Near Death Experiences
Sunday August 8, 2010
Ian Punnett welcomed cardiologist Dr. Pim van Lommel, who talked about how his research into near-death experiences concludes that these are authentic events that cannot be attributed to imagination.

A copy is attached.

sweeeeet.  thank you, sir.

[valdez]

     Good show with Ian moderating a debate between 911 truthers, Richard Cage and Niels Harrit, and sane people, Dave Thomas and Kim Johnson.  The truthers have a way of hypnotizing you with details and techno babble (I'm gonna have to read more about this nano thermite stuff...sounds dangerous) but ultimately its the the "who" in the equation that slows them down.  My problem with the whole thing is this:  You got these guys who have rigged the buildings to blow up, and on the very day that the plan is to be executed terrorist fly airplanes into the same buildings.  The word "coincidence" doesn't even begin to describe such a grand cosmic confluence of events and timelines.
     No way.

[The General]

     Good show with Ian moderating a debate between 911 truthers, Richard Cage and Niels Harrit, and sane people, Dave Thomas and Kim Johnson.  The truthers have a way of hypnotizing you with details and techno babble (I'm gonna have to read more about this nano thermite stuff...sounds dangerous) but ultimately its the the "who" in the equation that slows them down.  My problem with the whole thing is this:  You got these guys who have rigged the buildings to blow up, and on the very day that the plan is to be executed terrorist fly airplanes into the same buildings.  The word "coincidence" doesn't even begin to describe such a grand cosmic confluence of events and timelines.
     No way.

Yeah, when I first tuned in I thought it was a replay.  9/11 truthers?  Are they still around?  But it was a good show.
IF the buildings were rigged up to explode (and I don't believe they were), it was a coordinated effort on the terrorists behalf.  No way was it a coincidence. 

[KnyeGuy]

       Good show with Ian moderating a debate between 911 truthers, Richard Cage and Niels Harrit, and sane people, Dave Thomas and Kim Johnson.  The truthers have a way of hypnotizing you with details and techno babble (I'm gonna have to read more about this nano thermite   stuff...sounds dangerous) but ultimately its the the "who" in the   equation that slows them down.
 

I'll have to download that show about 911, sounds great. I have no idea why C2C hasn't done something like this before. I know Art had the guys from Popular Mechanics on a few years ago, and Noory had one or two guests regarding the 'other side' of the argument, but this show sounds like an awesome idea.
And (obviously) it's a good thing Punnet headed this one up. I don't like him as a host for C2C, but Noory couldn't pull off an interesting debate if his job depended on it.

There are alot of bullshit theories out there when it comes to 9/11, but alot of credible people have pointed out many flaws in the official theories and/or many questions that don't seem to have been fully answered.

I do agree that the whole nano-thermite issue seems dicey, but there are alot of other points that raise some serious questions.

[TaoOfLuxLisbon]

     Good show with Ian moderating a debate between 911 truthers, Richard Cage and Niels Harrit, and sane people, Dave Thomas and Kim Johnson.  The truthers have a way of hypnotizing you with details and techno babble (I'm gonna have to read more about this nano thermite stuff...sounds dangerous) but ultimately its the the "who" in the equation that slows them down.  My problem with the whole thing is this:  You got these guys who have rigged the buildings to blow up, and on the very day that the plan is to be executed terrorist fly airplanes into the same buildings.  The word "coincidence" doesn't even begin to describe such a grand cosmic confluence of events and timelines.
     No way.

Do truthers actually say it was a coincidence? Or do they state that whomever rigged the building knew the plane attack was coming or even organized it? Never listend to one so I don't know. I can't imagine a truther would go so far as to say it was a controlled demolition on the part of the government and not connect the final dots and say Washington knew the planes were going to hit either that day or someday in the future and they had the place rigged to go when they needed it.

I don't believe any of it. To me, two planes loaded with jet fuel hit a building real bleeping hard. You can't tell me that physics had that equation all figured out.

I didn't hear the show, but when Noory previewed it on Friday with Ian, you could tell he'd have no idea how to handle it.

[b_dubb]

i thought the 'truthers' were idiots until i watched In Plane Sight ... flipping blew my mind.  there looks like there's a 'pod' on the bottom of the second plane.  and there's light flashes within the buildings seconds before the plane hits the building.  and then there's the pentagon.  no way that impact was made by a jumbo jet filled with fuel.  definitely a missile strike.  there is NO plane debris at the pentagon crash site.  NONE

b

[MV/Liberace!]

i thought the 'truthers' were idiots until i watched In Plane Sight ... flipping blew my mind.  there looks like there's a 'pod' on the bottom of the second plane.  and there's light flashes within the buildings seconds before the plane hits the building. 

i also saw this grainy, low-resolution video a few years ago.  to me, it simply looked like there was a flash of some sort as the plane struck the building.  i would expect to see such an event as a plane of that size makes contact with such a structure.  furthermore, the coincidence angle needs to be injected here:  what would be the likelihood of some sort of flash protruding from the exterior of the building exactly one or two seconds prior to the plane hitting, and in the exact spot?  i recently finished two college level math classes, but i have no idea how to calculate the likelihood of these two events coinciding like that.  it would have to be on the order of winning the lottery two times in a year when you consider the size of that building.  i don't buy it.

and then there's the pentagon.  no way that impact was made by a jumbo jet filled with fuel.  definitely a missile strike.  there is NO plane debris at the pentagon crash site.  NONE

every one of the above contentions is wrong, and easily provable to be so.  i submit to you the following, which i genuinely offer in hopes you will watch with an open mind:


9/11 Pentagon Attack Eyewitness Mike Walter




a forensic and photographic examination of the scene:
911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77


i'm not some "anti conspiracy theorist."  in fact, in order to say all conspiracies are bullshit, you must be willing to completely follow that logic and agree to conclude that throughout human history, there has never been an instance of two or more people conspiring with one another to achieve an end of any kind.  obviously, no thinking man can agree to such a "brick wall" position. 


however (yes, here comes the "however" paragraph), i think we have to be careful in choosing where we plant our conspiracy advocacy flags.  there are plenty of cases where the aforementioned flag-planting would be more than warranted and credible, but i draw the line at 911.  in order to subscribe to and agree with 911 "truther" claims, one must completely dispense with any consideration of the most likely explanations for what happened that day.  one must trade an entirely probable and highly understandable chain of events for what amounts to frenzied speculation and the irresponsible presentation of hypothesis as fact.  for instance:  suddenly, everyone is now an expert on the temperature at which steel beams melt or weaken.  truck drivers are telling me about ballistics and seismic wave analysis.  bus boys are telling me about the altitude at which a cell phone call can be successfully placed.  my construction contractor is informing me of NORAD's ineptitude in "telling the air force to 'stand down.'"  but for a couple of DVDs or youtube clips, neither of the above acquaintances would ever have even been APPRISED of such information.  problem is, they were also apprised of what they were supposed to think while watching said DVDs and clips.


we're human.  we like to be in control.  when foreigners fly our own planes into our own buildings, it indicates we're far from being in control.  that's a scary position to be in, particularly for fat, spoiled, entitled americans who have been raised to believe that their greatest obstacle in life should be carpet-burn.  it's more comforting to believe we did it to ourselves, or we allowed others to do it to us.  both scenarios place us at the helm, where we like to be.  there is a psychology behind all of this.  i'm simply asking people to analyze and interpret all of the information available to them for the purpose of learning what happened.   we reach a poisonous crescendo when people are analyzing evidence for the purpose of determining if it fits into their predetermined idea of what happened.  when the tail wags the dog, as is happening in the "truther" movement's pursuit of answers, it discredits those who are attempting to shine light on other cases throughout our history where conspiracy and wrongdoing genuinely did or could have occurred... and that, my friends, helps nobody but the bad guys.

[b_dubb]

You make a lot of good points. I thought people who believed in the 9/11 conspiracies were fools. Until I watched the In Plane Sight doc.  Total reversal of opinion. 

[MV/Liberace!]

You make a lot of good points. I thought people who believed in the 9/11 conspiracies were fools. Until I watched the In Plane Sight doc.  Total reversal of opinion.

i'm going to check it out.  i'll let u know my impressions.

[KnyeGuy]

You make a lot of good points. I thought people who believed in the 9/11 conspiracies were fools. Until I watched the In Plane Sight doc.  Total reversal of opinion.

The In Plane Sight video really does a disservice to the whole so-called 'truth' movement ( I hate that label, 'truth movement').
If there is such a thing as campaigns of disinformation used to discredit conspiracy theories (and most likely there are when something needs to be covered up), then 'In Plane Site' fits the mold perfectly.
It is a perfect example of chasing far fetched theories while 'neglecting' legitimate evidence that is in question. It mixes some good info with a lot of dubious speculation, thereby tainting the more credible aspects of the 9/11 movement.

I am not sure if this video was made just purely to cash in on the 9/11 conspiracy, or as a purposeful source of disinformation. Alex Jones is another aspect of the general conspiracy ensemble that begs the same question.

[MV/Liberace!]

You make a lot of good points. I thought people who believed in the 9/11 conspiracies were fools. Until I watched the In Plane Sight doc.  Total reversal of opinion.

i just watched the in plane sight video.  i was not impressed.


first off, the video begins with the host suggesting that if someone is purportedly involved, be it directly or indirectly, with any aspect of a conspiracy surrounding 911, then we must assume this someone must be involved across the board.  i applied this same logic to his presentation, as well.  in other words, if he lied to me about anything, i would consider the remainder of his presentation to be suspect.  it didn't take long.


toward the very beginning of the video, the host plays the CNN mike walter video where his "missile" quote is taken out of context.  the host never bothers to play the full quote or explain walter's words.  instead, he uses the out of context mike walter quote as a vehicle to support the building of his documentary's case.  this was a big problem, and i almost stopped watching the video when i saw this.  however, i said i'd consider the documentary, and that's what i did.


the host then goes on to focus on a series of grainy pictures of the pentagon that, in my view, provided little scientific information.  beyond that, the quality of the pictures was atrocious.  they're not conclusive.  furthermore, his selection of pictures was just that:  selective.  why didn't he show the lamp posts knocked down?  why didn't he show the giant chunk taken out of the concrete by the plane's engine?  or the generator that had a chunk cut out by the plane's engine on the opposite side?  why didn't he play mike walter's full "missile" quote?  he also repeatedly states that there was no plane debris found at the pentagon, and that's just not true.  i again submit the above video. 


he mentions larry silverstein's building 7 quote multiple times.  here's silverstein's quote:

WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein


did you know that in firefighter culture, the term "pull it" refers to the removal of fire personnel from a building?  the host never tells you this. instead, he only informs you that the term "pull it" refers to the demolition of a building.  it takes weeks or months to rig a building for controlled detonation, and the host mentions this.  he then goes on to ask, "how is it possible that silverstein could decide to 'pull it' only 8 hours after the attack?"  the host is leading you to believe that this must indicate the buildings were rigged long in advance.  listen to silverstein's quote, and listen to it in the context of how firefighters would use the term "pull it."  silverstein's quote then makes total sense.  the fire was out of control, there had already been a great loss of life, and they decided to "pull it."  this was perhaps the most glaring example of deception by omission in this documentary, and it frustrates me that people have pointed to this quote as evidence of something sinister.


and then, there's the flash at the tip of the planes as they hit the building.  the host says the flash occurs BEFORE the plane hits.  i again ask you, what is the mathematical likelihood, if the building was rigged with something, of a flash occurring at exactly the spot on the building where both planes are going to strike, a microsecond before each plane makes contact?  it's not possible.  it would be a coincidence beyond all comprehension.  furthermore, he's wrong in suggesting that the flash occurs before the plane makes contact.  measure it for yourself.  i did.  measure the distance on the still shots from the leading edge of the wing to the tip of the fuselage.  keep that measurement.  then measure the distance between that leading edge of the wing and the precise spot where the flash occurs.  if you do this, you'll clearly see that the plane HAD made contact with the building at the moment of the flash!  the fact that the host says the plane hadn't yet made contact with the building doesn't necessarily make it so.  this is really simple to debunk.


regarding the black anomaly on the bottom of the fuselage or the few terrified, traumatized witnesses who said the plane was not a commercial airliner, i don't have enough information available to me at the moment to address those issues.  i will say this, though:  many an innocent man has been sent to prison based on eyewitness testimony... particularly the testimony of witnesses who were traumatized during the event in question.


the bottom line is this:  i would hardly hinge my perception of what happened on 911 on this video.  it clearly is agenda driven, it omits crucial information for the purpose of guiding the viewer toward a predetermined conclusion, and it is poorly produced.  b_dubb... please reconsider your conclusions here!!  it's not too late to come out of the darkness!!!   you can be saved, brother!!! 

[MV/Liberace!]

one thing i'd like to add...
the government needs to release all of the video footage showing the attack on the pentagon.  all of it.  the confiscation of pentagon attack video (there must be tons of it) has done nothing but fuel speculation and lend credibility to the notion that something is being kept from us. 


there is a video that was filmed from a hotel, but was confiscated by the FBI.  the video was released after a lawsuit, but shows only the explosion.  the plane is blocked from view by numerous obstructions.  that's why the video is interesting.  it indicates that the purpose behind the confiscation of pentagon attack videos wasn't to prevent the revelation of no plane hitting the building that day, because this video couldn't be used to make that case and wouldn't need to be confiscated if that were the reason for doing so.  that said, i just don't get why the government doesn't release all of the video.  it would hurt nothing.  on the contrary, it would put the cork in a shitty debate that won't go away.


it's toward the end of this clip:


Rare Pentagon 9-11 Surveillance Camera Video of Impact

[b_dubb]

Maybe I need to return to In Plane Sight.  I just remember a WTF moment when I saw the pod on the bottom of the second

I still believe the pentagon hit is sketchy.

[MV/Liberace!]

i'm a bit surprised this 911 discussion has fizzled out.  i was hoping it would turn into a conspiracy discussion extravaganza.

[valdez]

i'm a bit surprised this 911 discussion has fizzled out.  i was hoping it would turn into a conspiracy discussion extravaganza.

Your stunning defense of common sense and pragmatism has put an end to all this silly conspiracy talk.  That, in and of itself, is an extravaganza mucho bueno.

[valdez]

     George has Richard C. to kick around, and Ian has Harry Shearer, talking about New Orleans and Katrina, and his upcoming film, The Big Uneasy.  Shearer did a killer impersonation of Ross Mitchell that had me rolling.
     Huh?  What?  A founding member of Blondie is on talking about Carl Jung?  How did Gary Lachman get inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame if he left the band before they became famous?  Is Pete Best in the Hall of Fame?  Anyway, I was recently reading about Carl Jung , and then Ian does this show, which is kind of like syncronicity.  Sort of.