Episode 63. A Discussion With Richard Gage, American Institute of Architects
CONTACT ME: Email: paranaughtica@gmail.com Twitter: @paranaughtica Facebook: The Paranaughtica Podcast Richard Gage, AIA, is an architect of 30 years from the San Francisco Bay Area, a member of the American Institute of Architects, and the founder and former CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (now independent). He, along with his courageous wife Gail, continues to lead the charge toward a real investigation into the destruction of all 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11 at RichardGage911.org .Mr. Gage became interested in researching the destruction of the WTC high-rises after hearing the startling conclusions of a reluctant 9/11 researcher, David Ray Griffin, on the radio in 2006, which launched his own unyielding quest for the truth about 9/11. The organization he founded, AE911Truth, now numbers more than 3,500 architects and engineers demanding a new investigation into the destruction of all three World Trade Center high-rise buildings on 9/11. As an architect he has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed steel framed buildings. Most recently he worked on the construction documents for a $400M mixed-use urban project with 1.2 million square feet of retail, parking structure, and mid-rise office space—altogether about with 1,200 tons of steel framing. ***If you’d like to help out with a donation and you’re currently listening on Spotify, you can simply scroll down on my page and you’ll see a button to help me out with either a one-time donation or you can set up a monthly recurring donation. You can also go to the Facebook page where I have a link to Ko-Fi and Pay-Pal if you'd like to help out the show. I would greatly appreciate it! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
It is a pleasure to have you all here today because today I have with me the one and only Richard Gage.
Unfortunately, Gail is not with us, but Richard, if you would, just say hello.
Well, hello, everybody.
Glad to connect with you and great to be here, Coop.
Thank you.
And for those who don't know, Richard Gage, AIA, is an architect of 30 years from the San Francisco Bay Area.
He's a member of the American Institute of Architects.
He, along with his courageous wife, Gail, continued to lead the charge toward a real investigation into the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9 /11 over at richardgage911.org.
Mr. Gage became interested in researching the destruction of the World Trade Center high-rises after hearing the startling conclusions of a reluctant 9-11 researcher, David Ray Griffin, on a radio program in 2006, which launched his own unyielding quest for the truth about 9-11.
The organization he founded, AE 9-11 Truth, now numbers more than 3,500 architects and engineers demanding a new investigation into the destruction.
of all three World Trade Center high-rise buildings on 9 /11.
As an architect, he has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed steel frame buildings.
And most recently, he worked on the construction documents for a 400 million mixed-use urban project with 1.2 million square feet of retail, parking structure, and mid-rise office space.
Altogether, about with 1,200 tons of steel framing.
So please welcome Richard Gage, AIA Architect.
It's unfortunate I couldn't say hello to Gail.
I wanted to say hello to Gail so bad.
Sorry, I had to sneeze.
She's a dear one.
And hi, everybody.
Awesome to be here.
Yeah, Gail does everything behind the scenes.
And you can see her in one of our 100 podcasts on our website, richardgage911.org.
Yep, and so what do we have for us today, Rich?
What are we going to be going over here?
Oh, man, the evidence for the explosive demolition of all three skyscrapers.
If you haven't seen it out there, you guys are in for a surprise.
Because the evidence, as you'll see, is overwhelming and irrefutable and has convinced now over 3,600 architects and engineers to demand a new investigation and millions of others in the 9-11 truth movement worldwide.
I'm excited.
Indeed, let's jump right into it.
I'll share my screen here, and I'm telling you, we have a lot of information to cover.
Great stuff.
I don't want your audience, Goop, to be the last to know.
I don't want anybody to be the last to know.
I felt like I was the last to know in 2006 when I heard that, God, there was a third skyscraper that came down.
Since then, we've done, what, five, six, 600 presentations in more than 24 countries and all around the world.
I carry a lot of important technical credibility with me.
30,000 years of it, in fact.
And you know, most of us didn't know, architects and engineers did not know that a third tower came down.
Which is insane.
It is.
This is a 47-story skyscraper.
Easily the largest building in most of our states.
Right. And I'm one of 90,000 members of the American Institute of Architects, and we didn't get one bulletin on this, the failure of this building.
Not one.
It should have been the most studied building failure ever.
This was the third high-rise, as you mentioned, to fall.
It was about 100 feet north of the North Tower.
100 yards, about a football length.
And it was a gigantic building.
Each floor is an acre in size.
And there were some of the beams, columns that came down from World Trade Center 1, the North Tower, and hit the building.
But this was according to NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who was tasked by Congress to explain these collapses to the American people.
They said this was not a significant factor in the building's collapse.
Well, let's see what happens to it here.
The East Penthouse on the upper left comes down seven seconds prior to the overall building, and it does this.
Now, you might say to yourself, I've seen that.
I know what that is.
Let's see what the official narrative tells us here from Shom Sunder of NIST.
Uncontrolled building fires caused an extraordinary event.
The collapse of World Trade Center 7 was primarily due to fires.
Well, fires.
Let's look at those fires.
These are the worst fires that we have any photographic or video evidence of in these buildings.
And as you can see, they're few.
They're small.
And they're scattered throughout the building.
So these fires are the cause of this building's collapse, according to our government.
Now you might begin to ask yourself, gosh, no wonder they didn't write a bulletin on this collapse.
Nobody would buy that, right?
These buildings had fires in them.
These are much larger, much hotter, and much more intense fires in these buildings.
Not one of them has collapsed.
And not even these, since 9-11, completely engulfing these buildings, not one of them has collapsed.
Steel frame, fireproofed, fire resistive, we call it, type 1 construction.
It does not collapse due to fires.
It never has before 9-11, it never has after.
But on 9-11, we have three such buildings.
But let's compare it side by side to a known controlled demolition.
Building 7 on the left, a series of controlled demolitions on the right.
We've seen these on the old hotels in Las Vegas when they bring them down.
Is there any similarity?
Is there enough similarity to warrant an investigation?
An exact similarity, more than enough to warrant a new investigation.
And to the possible use of explosives, especially since it looks exactly like a controlled demolition, especially since fire, the official cause of this building's collapse on the left, Building 7, has never in history...
Brought a steel frame, fire-protected building down.
So we've got to ask ourselves, is there any similarity to controlled demolitions?
Well, there's a lot, actually.
Let's go through them.
Feature number one of controlled demolition, sudden onset of destruction.
Is that the case here?
Let's listen to Dan Rather.
Now, here we're going to show you a videotape of the collapse itself.
Now we go to videotape the collapse of this building.
It's amazing.
Amazing, incredible, pick your word.
for the third time today.
It's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down.
Well, there's Dan using his intuition, right?
We should.
We've seen this on TV lots of times.
But he's never said that after 9-11.
We've never seen, with two exceptions, Building 7 coming down, the video of it on mainstream media.
It should have been the most studied collapse in history, especially given that no plane hit this building.
Right, just scattered office fires.
Yeah, I mean, that's very, very helpful to have Dan telling us what he believes went on that day.
Feature number two, is there a straight-down symmetrical collapse into the building's footprint?
Let's look from West Street.
Pretty straight down, pretty symmetrical.
Very, very...
How do you do that, by the way?
You have to remove all 24 core columns instantly within a fraction of a second of each other.
Any deviation in that pattern, the building will begin to tip over.
And then followed about a second later, the perimeter columns.
And floor by floor, that has to be repeated on.
This is not easy.
Controlled demolition companies fail a lot of times when they don't get it exactly right to the millisecond.
And these fires accomplished that level of precision on 9-11?
I think not.
I think not.
I don't think so.
I'm with you, Coop.
Can I make a point on that really quick?
So the NIST report states that the fire-induced damages to floors around Column 79. And was the penthouse below that column?
Or on top of that column?
We'll get to that column.
In fact, we might or might not.
Column 79 is this one here in the northeast corner.
NIST's theory claims that large office fires in that region of the building were burning for hours, which we've proven that they're not.
They were, in fact, burned out over an hour before the building came down.
And this caused expansion of large-span beams, which could not have expanded because they are fireproofed.
With two-hour fire protection to expand, pushing a girder off of its seat on this here column 79. And then they say that that caused the column to fall and the floor 13 to fall on 12 and 12 on 11 and so on for nine floors when this column finally gave way and buckled.
And then this eastern portion, Because if you look,
just a half a second prior to the overall collapse, the entire...
Penthouse, the remaining penthouse, the West penthouse and screen wall, collapse all at once, within a half a second of each other.
Watch that upper structure.
And it's gone.
And it's gone.
Meaning, all 24 core columns under it gave way at once, invalidating, yet again, NIST's multifaceted claim.
And we can go into that.
Again, in more detail later if you want.
But these fires are said to have accomplished that.
Well, could these fires have caused the freefall collapse of this building?
David Chandler, physics teacher, identifies that it came down, in fact, three seconds in absolute freefall, meaning it came down as fast as a bowling ball falling out of the sky, meaning that not one of those columns gave any resistance.
For at least a third of this building's seven-second collapse, where did they go?
And this finally acknowledges this fact.
They call it two and a half seconds or two and a quarter seconds.
It was actually three seconds.
So finally they admit it in their final report, but they don't acknowledge the implications of that free fall.
Where did those columns go, in other words?
They were all gone at once.
What made them go away?
We'll see.
Because we have the total dismemberment of the steel frame structure, a 47-story moment-resisting steel frame structure, reduced to a house of cards, essentially, only four to six stories tall.
So, what can do that?
Moment resisting is where the columns and the beams are very rigidly welded one to another, most of them.
And so they don't just fall like a Jenga set.
That's not how buildings are designed or built.
So buildings that fall due to natural causes, as NIST claims, fire, natural cause.
In this case, earthquakes.
The buildings fall over to the path of least resistance, following the law of entropy or increasing chaos.
The columns and beams are not severed one from another.
The concrete is not pulverized to a fine powder.
Well, what could have done all that?
Are there witnesses that heard explosions?
Let's listen to Daryl.
We were watching the building, actually, because it was on fire, the bottom floors of the building were on fire, and, you know, we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder, turned around, we were shocked to see that the building was, well, it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building,
and the windows all busted out, and, you know, it was horrifying.
And then, you know, about a second later, the bottom floor caves out, and the building followed after that.
We saw the building crash down all the way to the ground.
Wow. A shockwave ripping through the building, the windows busting out, and then the building coming down.
How about Kevin McPadden, former Air Force medic, on hand?
You heard explosions, like baboom!
It's like a distinct sound.
It's not like when the compression, like boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, like floors that were dropping and collapsing.
This was like you felt a rumble in the ground, like almost like you wanted to grab onto something.
To me, I knew that was an explosion.
There was no doubt in my mind.
Or this gentleman, Bill Reza.
I was standing like two blocks away, and all of a sudden I just seen a big flash, and then I seen the building coming down, and I just seen people just running everywhere, chaotic-like.
So he's seeing a big flash.
What did this first responder, Captain Richard Patterson, experience?
One set and let go as well, and was also similar with, although not as loud because I was further away, a series of concussive...
That's before Building 7 came down.
And this gentleman, the first responder, who was actually in Building 7, had an incredible set of experiences there.
He was told to get out.
The battalion chiefs came in.
These guys were resting in Building 7's lobby.
They were told to get out because they're going to pull the building.
That's when...
We all saw Building 7 crumple in the middle, like way up at the top.
It buckled.
It buckled and then dropped.
I'm working my way back up toward the pile, and we all felt this rumbling underneath everything.
It felt like I was in Haiti after the...
The big earthquake in 2012 or 2010.
And there were aftershocks.
And I remember now that that's because the aftershocks were big.
And I remember like freight trains underneath the earth, shaking the earth, shaking the pile even, shaking me, right?
Well, that's pretty important testimony.
How many of these witnesses do you imagine that NIST, Included in their draft or final reports on Building 7. Witnesses of explosions before the building came down.
Probably zero.
Zero. Yeah, that's right, Coop.
None. And I believe there were like over 500 witnesses, weren't there?
At least 26 first responders and firefighters?
186 first responders and firefighters and many, many more witnesses.
Journalists reporting explosions that day.
We'll get to that.
But we have Chief Nick Viscondi announcing, we're moving the command post over this way.
That building's coming down.
And here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run.
So sure enough, they knew that it was going to come down.
They were told not to fight the fire.
They expected it to come down.
An anonymous engineer...
He predicts the collapse because Chief Hayden asks him, if we allow it to burn, could we anticipate a collapse?
Because they're not fighting the fire, right?
And it turns out he was pretty much right on the money.
In its current state, you have about five hours.
Well, no steel-framed fire-protected building has ever collapsed in history.
And now they're predicting an unprecedented event.
Well, guess what?
He was right on the money.
Because it did come down in about five hours indeed.
Do they know that?
At the time of this prediction, there were fires on many floors.
The only fires were on, well, that's the prediction, but all the fires were out prior to 520.
The prediction could only have been made with foreknowledge.
So Chief Hayden will not release the name of this engineer.
We can't interview him.
How about these mysterious construction workers walking away from Building 7, hearing an explosion over their shoulder, looking back at the building, and then looking straight into the CNN camera and saying...
Oh, boy.
Oh, boy.
You hear that?
Keep your eye on that building.
It'll be coming down.
The building is about to blow up.
Moving back.
All right, guys?
Sorry.
We are walking back.
There's a building about to blow up.
Flame and debris coming down.
What? The building is about to blow up?
Flame and debris coming down?
How do they know the building's going to blow up?
It had a few small scattered fires in it.
Let's go back to Patrick Dillon.
What did he say?
And he pointed to what turned out to be the entrance to Building 7's lobby.
He said, go in there, go in there, take a break, take a break.
There's other guys in there like that.
And that's what I did.
I finished coming down off the pile and climbed over the wreckage of Vesey and went into those revolving doors and just kind of fell on the floor.
There were other guys in there doing the same thing I was, just shaking their heads.
And spitting out poison and trying to get their lungs back together again, as I was.
And I was on the floor.
These battalion chiefs come in through the revolving doors.
There was three of them.
They had the white helmets.
I didn't get any IDs off them.
But as soon as they stepped inside, what stepped in behind them were these two people in black, with black ski masks on.
And Uzis.
And the Uzis were, you know, hanging off their necks.
And I don't know what they were or who they were, but the battalion chiefs started yelling at us, right, ordering us to get out, get out of this building, get out of this building.
They're going to pull the building, everybody out now.
And they ordered us back out.
That's a pretty startling testimony that will be appearing in our upcoming documentary, 9-11 Crime Scene to Courtroom.
Wow, I'd like to add to that.
I don't know if you've contacted this woman, I forget her name, but she said that she was trying to escape Building 6 or something and she was running along the street and she was either in front of Building 6 or in front of Building 7 and she said that she saw just like randomly placed people with like dressed in non...
It wasn't like police gear.
It almost looked like janitors, a bunch of janitors inside the buildings telling her she could not come in.
Telling her, you need to get out of here.
Well, Building 6 was on fire.
It had sustained another controlled demolition, which we don't have time to get into, so I can understand why they're telling her that.
Yeah, and she was saying that she was hearing explosions as she was running, and cars were blowing up as she was going by them.
Oh, is this the gal who was injured by a door that was blown out of a car?
Yes. Yeah, I need that.
I have to get her name.
That's important if you ever come across that again.
I have it somewhere saved.
I will find that and get it to you.
Yeah, I know I have it somewhere.
I don't know why.
And she may be the only witness that we have of seeing actual explosions in cars, which is an extraordinary phenomena in this false flag operation.
I don't know what would have been the motive for blowing up cars.
I'm not sure either.
I don't believe it's directed at energy weapons in the cars.
But it is most curious.
According to Judy Wood, there's no explosions at all, including in cars.
Go ahead.
I think she was also saying something about how she noticed the cars looked rusted.
Now, how could that happen?
Yes, we'll get to that.
We'll definitely get to that.
This is, again, Richard Patterson, back at the World Trade Center.
Ah, no, back at Building 7. Listen.
So he and I made our way over to...
He and I is with...
He's with Chief Fox, his acting chief.
So he and I made our way over to the entrance of the building.
Before we arrived there, There was a construction worker who happened to be...
He emerged from the dust cloud and walked past the chief and I, and he said he had overheard the chief's comment, and he paused and said, that'll be coming down around 5 o'clock.
We part ways, we arrive at 7, and there were two paramilitarily clad men Black rifles.
Sunglasses. And as we approached the entrance, they closed ranks and said, one of them said, this building has been secured.
Which is odd, because in my experience in the FDNY, anybody preventing access to the fire department in the event of a fire, that's a criminal act.
The Chief and I were not in a position to argue the point, given the inequality and weaponry present.
So there's another corroboration of the earlier witnesses that talked about men in black with ski masks and Uzis.
These are actually beige, as Captain Patterson clarified, and with long rifles, which are not Uzis, and they're in sunglasses, not ski masks.
So it's a different pair of thugs, apparently.
They're not New York officials.
Yeah. We don't know what accents they might have had.
What? The lady also said that they were in beige clothing, is what she was saying.
Oh, okay.
So she corroborates Captain Patterson's.
Did they have guns, according to her?
I can't remember if she said anything about guns.
She said they were unmarked.
They had no markings of what they belonged to, but they looked like they had flak jackets on, but all the clothing was beige.
Oh, flak jackets.
No markings.
Interesting. Yeah, those would be the same characters.
Building 6 is around the corner.
So, anyway, that is very interesting.
And here's Kevin McPadden.
We heard him as a witness of explosions earlier.
Now he's talking about what happened before.
Those explosions went off as he's listening to a radio held in the hands of a Red Cross worker.
At the last few seconds, he took his hand off and you heard three, two, one.
What? Do fires bring buildings down to countdowns?
What's going on here?
This is very curious.
And Red Cross workers are not building demolition.
We know that the Red Cross is highly infiltrated with intelligence agencies, so who knows what's going on there.
You had a comment?
No, no, no.
Okay. And then another example of foreknowledge is the BBC.
Let's listen.
Now, more on the latest building collapse in New York.
You might have heard a few moments ago it was talking about the Salomon Brothers building collapsing.
And indeed it has.
Apparently that's only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Center towers were.
And it seems that this was not a result of a new attack.
It was because the building had been weakened.
We'll probably find out more now about that from our correspondent, Jane Stanley.
Jane, what more can you tell us about the Salomon Brothers building and its collapse?
Well, only really what you already know.
Details are very, very sketchy.
Sketchy indeed.
The building's still standing behind her.
She just announced it's collapsed 20 minutes before it happened.
What does...
They apologize for this grievous error citing the confusing events of the day.
Does that make them psychic?
The confusion of the events made us predict a falling building.
Isn't that amazing?
Not to be outdone, CNN announces it at 11.07.
In New York, Alan Dodds-Frank joins us on the phone in Lower Manhattan, Alan.
Two or three minutes ago, there was yet another collapse or explosion.
I'm now out of sight.
A Good Samaritan has taken me in on Dwayne Street.
But at a quarter to 11, there was another collapse or explosion following the 1030 collapse of the second tower.
And a firefighter who rushed by estimated that 50 stories went down.
50 stories?
That's incredible.
Had that building, seven, gone down at that time?
1107? We wouldn't see any of it because it was completely covered by the massive dust cloud released when the Twin Towers came down.
So some researchers in the 9-11 truth movement believed that it was supposed to come down at that time and didn't.
So it was a dud.
And those construction workers walking back into it or walking away from it in the early afternoon were fixing the dud.
That's speculation.
Yeah, it does make sense.
You see, you don't see Building 7. Because that would have been the perfect time to bring it down.
When that dust cloud is there, no questions.
Yeah. But we have several questions for Larry Silverstein, who announced on public broadcasting service.
TV, America Rebuilds.
I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire.
I said, you know, we've had such a terrible loss of life.
Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.
And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse.
Well, firefighters don't.
Make the decision to pull a building, right?
And what does pull it mean?
It's obviously a term used in the controlled demolition industry.
They abandoned the building.
They were told not to fight the fires.
They were kept out of the building.
No manual firefighting operations were ever even taken up by the FDNY.
Because the fires weren't that bad, right?
They were told to just let it go.
Fires aren't that bad.
Well, they weren't that bad.
I don't know what they were told about the fires.
They were told there was no water to fight the fires.
Curiously, the sprinkler system, the fire alarm system, was put on test mode at 647 that morning.
So they may have been...
Kept from working.
A lot more investigation here.
In the film, calling out Bravo 7. And that stands for Building 7, Bravo 7, made by Paul Cayley in the UK.
He goes into the detail about the water availability.
Turns out it was available.
What do the experts say?
Here's... One of the top European controlled demolition experts.
Danny Jochenko is the expert on this in Europe.
What did he say?
Yeah, well, he knows.
And so does Kamal Obeid.
One of two, three dozen structural engineers signed on to the petition demanding a new investigation.
A localized failure in a steel frame building like World Trade Center 7 cannot cause a catastrophic collapse like a house of cards without a simultaneous and patterned loss of several of its columns at key locations.
That's very helpful.
And it inspired Professor Leroy Halsey of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks to do another study because they're, you know, concerned that if Building 7 can come down due to fires at freefall, then are there other buildings in the world,
around the world, that could also come down?
So he did the most extensive study of this building ever and found that NIST was untrue.
Their report, their claims, their animation is on the right.
And the east portion that falls is on the left.
It begins to tip over.
They stop it after two seconds.
They don't want us to see it tipping over.
What looks more like the actual video in the center?
The University of Alaska.
Yeah, so they did a very much in-depth job using two computer simulation programs that mutually corroborated one another to dismiss NIST's theory that fire caused
the collapse, but the temperatures were not hot enough to cause the weakening of the steel framing.
Thermal expansion did not result in a loss of support for this beam.
It was actually a global collapse caused by the near-simultaneous failure of...
All of its columns.
So, that's pretty darn extraordinary.
What? How can all columns fail simultaneously?
Yeah, exactly.
The only way to do that is to bring him down with controlled demolition.
And he doesn't go there.
That's not his expertise.
He just says it couldn't happen by fire.
Which is true.
Pulling the rug out from underneath the NIST report.
Well, what else is shown here with regard to Building 7?
Is there any evidence of ignited thermite?
Thermite is an incendiary used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter.
Well, we have an independent...
Well, it's not independent.
It's FEMA's metallurgical examination, independent of NIST.
Before NIST got their hands on this investigation and throughout this very important report that FEMA did in the Building Performance Assessment Team report, they had a metallurgical examination of the steel in Building 7 and the Twin Towers.
They reveal a phenomenon never before observed, eutectic reactions, causing intergranular melting, turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.
Which is exactly what we see in their report of this Building 7 steel.
Rapid oxidation.
Sulfidation. Liquid iron.
By the way, that's molten iron.
Which takes 2800 degrees to begin to melt iron or steel.
Sulfur formed.
Where do we get those temperatures?
2,800 degrees.
Office fires are only 500 or 600 degrees typically.
NIST claims much hotter fires, even up to 1,800 degrees in the Twin Towers, but there's no evidence to support that whatsoever.
It's extremely unusual, especially in office fires.
And so, still, that's 1,000 degrees shy.
Sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
So they're getting into it here.
They're giving this evidence to us, metallurgical evidence on a silver platter.
No wonder NIST threw out that report, whose author said steel members in the debris pile appear to have been partly evaporated.
It takes 4,000 degrees to evaporate steel.
Guess what thermite does?
It burns at 4,000 degrees.
Highly exceeding the 2,800 degree melting point of steel.
I saw a melting of girders at the World Trade Center.
It says...
This structural engineer, Abulhazan Astani Ozil, who had a National Science Foundation grant to study the steel.
He's completely flabbergasted at how this happened.
He doesn't know.
He doesn't speculate.
We see molten steel or iron pouring out of the debris held in the crab claw excavators.
We can tell by the color of molten steel and iron what its temperature is.
We're exceeding 2,500 degrees here.
There's nothing in the official narrative that can come close to accounting for this kind of heat.
It's extremely damning evidence to the official narrative.
And this molten steel was literally underneath the site for, what, up to three months?
Yeah. It sure was.
They couldn't put out these fires.
They put a lake of water down there, they described it as, and couldn't get out these fires.
Well, thermite has its own oxygen source, which is aluminum oxide.
And so it burns even underwater, actually.
So even jet fuel, according to ME Petroleum, has its only burns.
At 600 degrees Fahrenheit.
So it is like four to six times less than can account for this phenomena of extreme temperatures exceeding 2800 degrees Fahrenheit.
And jet fuel is more of a flash burn.
It doesn't like soak into steel and just burn for hours.
Well, nothing soaks into steel, and steel is fireproofed, so it's not going to burn.
Jet fuel is essentially kerosene, and as much as kerosene can flash, jet fuel can flash, but in a jet engine, which is designed to deliver a lot of oxygen, it does pretty well.
But is there other evidence of ignited incendiaries?
Because that's what incendiaries do.
They produce molten iron.
What other examples of molten iron do we have?
The U.S. Geological Survey in 2005 reported on the contents of the dust.
What did they find?
Billions of previously molten iron microspheres in all the World Trade Center dust.
It's incredible how much of this stuff there was.
to 6% of some of these dust samples are molten iron, previously molten iron microspheres, up to four tons throughout all the World Trade Center dust by extrapolation.
This is pretty incredible.
No. I don't think people understand the implications of that.
There are up to four tons of these tiny little iron spheres in the dust in the World Chase Center complex.
Well, they try to tell us that this came from the welders who were putting the building together.
But let's see what it does.
This is Therma.
A small example in a controlled...
Experiment producing thousands of what look like sparks, but which cool and fall in the dust.
These are spheres of molten iron, the byproduct of thermite.
How are they spherical?
Well, aerosolized liquids form themselves into spheres due to surface tension.
Could that be what's explaining your question about the toasting of the tops of these cars?
Liquid molten iron droplets falling on the cars.
Is there any other possible explanation in the official account of these buildings' collapses in this very high heat event?
And so, yes, this is one possibility.
Explosions in the cars may account for...
This as well.
But neither of those two scenarios are spoken of by the directed energy weapons theorists.
Nor is the unignited evidence of unignited thermite in the dust found by a team of eight international scientists led by Niels Herrod in Copenhagen.
Who examined seven independently collected samples, like this one from Jeanette McKinley's apartment, across the street from the South Tower.
All their windows blew in due to the incredible explosiveness that we're going to be looking at real quick here.
And in the dust, they find these dual-layered red-gray chips.
Red on one side, gray on the other.
Most of them.
They're attracted by a magnet so that they have a high iron content.
Well, that's pretty darn interesting.
Paint chips are not attracted by a magnet.
I'm going to verify that.
I've got to make some notes here as we go.
Coop, because that was brought up recently.
Well, the red layer is interesting.
They do studies on it and they find that it has a high iron and aluminum content.
Interesting. Iron and aluminum are the ingredients of thermite, powderized.
Three quarters iron, one quarter aluminum.
What's that doing in the red gray chips?
We don't put aluminum in our paint either.
In fact, I'll verify that.
And so we've got an amazing set of particles here because they zoom in 50,000 times.
And they find rhomboidal-shaped iron oxide crystals and aluminum platelets a thousand times smaller than the diameter of a human hair.
These are nanoparticles.
These are...
Highly engineered particles.
Or is set in a matrix of organic material, oxygen, silica, carbon.
Organic material is what gives TNT, the rapid gas expansion that knocks things over, which is how explosives work.
Whereas incendiaries work by means of extreme heat.
So here we have a cross between the two, a hybrid.
It's been developed by Lawrence Livermore Lab, dating back before 2000.
And they call it superthermite.
And they put it in a heater, a differential scanning calorimeter.
And when they ignite, they produce lots of energy and lots of heat.
And that's exactly what these red-gray chips did that were found in the World Trade Center dust.
Proving that that's an exothermic reaction, i.e.
thermite. So that's a very important test, and equally important is what they produce when they ignite.
They produce molten iron microspheres with the same chemical signature as the molten iron microspheres.
Found in all the World Trade Center dust samples by the U.S. Geological Survey and by R.J. Lee, an environmental consulting group.
So we know exactly where all those unknown molten iron microspheres came from.
They came from these red-gray chips, as if we didn't know.
They're found attached to partially ignited red-gray chips as well.
As you see in the lower left, upper left.
So this is extremely sophisticated material.
These are not made in a cave in Afghanistan.
No, no, definitely not.
And, I mean, people can buy thermite on, like, Amazon, whatever, but that is not military-grade thermite, which is what we're talking about right here.
Yes. You can't just get this stuff on eBay like you can regular thermite.
This is made only in the most advanced defense contracting laboratories.
In fact, they conclude in a 24-page peer-reviewed paper in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal.
The red layer of the red-gray chips...
We've discovered in the dust is active, unreacted thermitic material incorporating nanotechnology, a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.
So this is an incredible set of findings that has convinced a whole lot of people due to the alignment with the features of controlled demolition and some very uncharacteristic They normally use high-energy explosives like C4 or RDX.
And instead here was used incendiaries, which is not as characteristic in explosive demolitions, although it has been done.
So with additional circumstantial corroborative evidence and testimony, what's been proven here is proof.
Of controlled demolition.
And that has convinced more than 3,600 architects and engineers now to sign a petition demanding a new investigation.
So we're ready for exactly that.
Let me make a note here.
Can I add to the thermite part?
So, in the towers, it's really interesting because I've done a lot of research into the who and the why and the how.
And in the Twin Towers with the south and the north, there were multiple companies on multiple floors that also worked with nanothermite technologies.
I mean, the Department of Energy had offices in there.
The Triad International Maintenance Company, or TIMCO.
The Analytic Sciences Corp., or TASC, they had offices in the World Trade Center complex, and they were working on nanothermite as early as 1983.
In 1990, the Department of Energy actually developed what we know as nanothermite.
So we had nanothermite for 11, you know, 20, I don't doubt it.
But it would back up what we're suggesting here, or what we've proven.
And there's also the Logistics Management Institute and General Dynamics Halliburton and the Science Applications International Corporation, or SAIC, were also involved.
And SAIC is a defense contractor with a ton of expertise in thermite-related technologies.
They had an office there.
And one more, I think.
Oh, the Union Carbide...
Oh, Raytheon.
Obviously, we all know Raytheon.
Gosh. They had an office there, and they are the largest U.S. defense contractor who specializes in the manufacturing of weapons and military and commercial electronics, and they are the world's largest producer of guided missiles.
That's all important.
As far as their offices, if you can show me the locations and a report on that early thermite development, that would be very helpful to me, Coop.
Absolutely. I have the offices right here, the floor numbers and everything.
So we're making a film because we've already submitted 60 exhibits to the U.S. Attorney for a special grand jury investigation in Lower Manhattan.
And that was three years ago, four years ago now.
And so we're following up with the film, 9-11 Crime Scene to Courtroom.
We've filmed it in Washington, D.C. We are now in post-edit.
So I encourage people to support us in that effort with a donation to the film project.
And you can find us at richardgage911.org.
You can co-produce the film with a $500 donation.
Your name will be on the credits.
That's cool.
Yeah. We're very excited about the film.
I'm working on it right now as hard as I can.
And our editor, Stev, in Australia is banging away on the first episode, which we hope to release.
That'll be about 20 episodes.
We hope to release the first one in a couple of weeks.
So a very exciting opportunity.
In it will also be the evidence of the Twin Towers, because we have to ask ourselves, if Building 7...
Was, and we've shown that it could only be, a controlled demolition.
Then is it possible that, and therefore part of the conspiracy of that day, is it possible that we could have controlled demolition in the Twin Towers?
So we launched a detailed study, and we'll begin just by looking at both towers as they're being destroyed at the same time here.
They were actually 15 minutes apart, but look at this.
We have upward-outward arching streamers, a geometry of fireworks, freely flying solid objects trailed by thick white smoke clouds.
Well, what would the thick white smoke clouds be?
Steel is not flammable under office fire conditions, which is the official narrative here.
How are the ends of the steel beams on fire?
Well, with thermite cutter charges, which would create molten iron out of the ends of the steel beams.
That's the only rational explanation for this.
This is not directed energy weapons.
This is not steel turning to dust, as some have suggested.
This is molten iron, which we've proven.
And the aluminum oxide is the other byproduct of thermite.
Aluminum oxide ash trailing these molten iron, the molten ends of these steel columns.
Go ahead, Coop.
I believe, have you seen the video?
There's a video of a corner, I believe the South Tower, where it's...
You know, broken, whatever.
And you can see a stream of looks like thermite pouring off the corner of the building.
Well, we won't come to that because this is our one-hour version.
By the way, I have a five-hour version divided into three one-and-a-half-hour segments or so on our website in the webinar series.
RichardGage911.org, where we have three times this amount of evidence.
And you're absolutely right.
There's molten iron pouring out of the South Tower minutes prior to its collapse.
It is uncanny.
And when you're watching this footage, you can clearly see the corner.
You can clearly see the explosive parts are coming out and away from the corner, making a perfect square.
Of where the explosions are.
You see like a perfect angle.
We'll get a lot closer.
You bet.
Yeah. Stand by.
So we have to ask ourselves, is there any features of the controlled demolition?
Well, it turns out there's a lot.
And some uncharacteristic features again as well.
Which accounts for direct evidence.
Let's start with the first one.
Is there a sudden onset of destruction?
The building is standing still.
And all of a sudden, it's in downward uniform.
Motion. It's a smooth motion.
It's not hitting, stopping and hesitating as it hits the cold, hard, intact steel below.
Same with the South Tower.
It's standing still and all of a sudden it's in uniform downward motion.
We'll study that motion in a moment.
NIST tells us, well, the upper part of this building was so big and heavy that it drove the rest of the building down.
to the ground and then destroyed itself, the upper part above the plane impacts.
Well, does that make any sense?
It's called the Crush Down, Crush Up Theory by Zdenek-Bizant from Northwestern University in Chicago.
And so this is the official theory behind NIST's Column failure theory, or progressive collapse, or pancaking collapse.
They have a number of names for it.
But this paper, extremely complex.
It took engineers 10 years to decode it.
It was submitted just two days after 9-11 by Zdenek-Bizant, his crush-down, crush-up theory.
Submitted to the American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
The rest of us are in shock, right?
We're not knowing, you know, when the next plane is coming, when the next bomb is going to attack, what city is going to be next.
And this guy's in his den, cranking away on what became the official theoretical basis for NIST's collapse theory.
And it is absolutely full of holes.
First of all, it violates Newton's third law of motion.
Two bodies, when they collide, produce an equal and opposite destructive force.
Like when a Volkswagen runs into a Mack truck.
Does it matter if we drop the Volkswagen onto the Mack truck?
No. The lightest, weakest part of a structure cannot possibly destroy the cold, hard, heavy, intact steel below.
As it gets down, like halfway, it's huge, 36 inches by 16 inches, 2 inches thick, halfway down and continuing to get bigger and heavier all the way down until it's almost solid steel, 52 inches by 22 inches at the bottom.
No, the Volkswagen at the top is not going to be destroying this steel.
It's completely, it makes no sense.
And guess what?
And the Volkswagen is not destroying it.
It's destroying itself.
Watch. In fact, I'll make it easier on you.
Watch the lower red line.
It doesn't move down until maybe now.
Two or three seconds.
So it's telescoping in on itself.
It's being destroyed.
The question is, what's destroying it?
And we're going to be taking a close look at that as well.
If it were there, by the way, we would see it in the photographs and videos driving down the rest of the building.
It's not there.
It's missing.
None of the photographs and videos show it.
So that's a dead giveaway.
What do they show?
They show, again, upward arching streamers, a geometry of fireworks, freely flying structural steel on the left, and rocks and molten rocks on the right, trailed.
By thick white smoke clouds.
So we can get a sense of what we're really seeing by comparing it to this volcanic eruption.
In fact, if that piece were there driving the rest of the building down, it would have driven these few remaining core columns that stand 1,000 feet in the air for seven seconds.
And then there's a charge underneath them which appears to shake the dust.
The concrete dust off of the irregularly spaced steel columns, which apparently have been cut by thermite.
It's pretty interesting how those literally just fell straight down as well, instead of just falling over like a normal column would have.
I would have expected it to fall over.
Apparently there's a charge at the bottom that cuts it, and that's the only way it wouldn't have fallen.
They just go straight down.
That's ridiculous.
And it's not turning to dust.
We can see the top part descending.
We can see the top of the column descending vertically through the dust which has been shaken off of it.
It is not turning to dust.
No, no, no, no.
Frame by frame, all the way down.
It's descending.
Yeah, I refute Judy Wood's idea of due weapons.
I mean, because if it was a direct energy weapon, yeah, the dust was dustified, but the steel would have been steelified, right?
It would have been dustified as well, but the steel was not.
Well, and in the study of the dust by the USGS and by RJ Lee Group, we do not have any steel dust in the dust.
We have molten iron microspheres, which is the byproduct of thermite.
So there's many refutations of that uncorroborated theory directed at energy weapons.
So here's an accurate model of what's really happening.
The destruction is blowing out, away from the core, leaving the core.
And then finally, of course, it comes down.
So that's in complete contradiction to the lives of Zdenek-Pasant.
So let's ask ourselves if there's witnesses of explosions here.
We have the oral histories of the first responders.
Graham McQueen has found not 118.
Not 156, but 186 now witnesses of explosions in these 12,000 pages of testimonies from the oral recordings of these first responders.
We felt the ground shake.
We could see the towers sway.
And then it just came down.
Again and again, you're going to hear a specific order of events from these first responders.
They're hearing, seeing, feeling explosions before the tower collapses.
All of a sudden, the ground just started shaking.
It felt like a train running under my feet.
The next thing we know, we look up and the tower is collapsing.
It shook my bones shortly before the first tower came down.
I remember feeling the ground shaking.
Heard a terrible noise.
And then debris just started flying everywhere.
I saw a flash, flash, flash at the lower level of the building.
You know, like when they demolish a building.
With each popping sound, initially an orange and then a red flash, came out of the building.
Then it would just go all around the building on both sides.
Saw a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15. We saw about six of these brief flashes accompanied by a crackling sound before the tower collapsed.
I saw low-level flashes.
I saw flash, flash, flash.
And then it looked like the building came down.
You ever see professional demolition when they set charges on certain floors and you hear the pop, pop, pop?
When I heard that friggin' noise, that's when I saw the building coming down.
An explosion appeared at the very top simultaneously from all four sides.
Material shot out horizontally, and then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.
How specific does it need to be here?
There was an explosion on the South Tower, in the South Tower.
One floor under another.
When it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized, deliberate kind of thing.
It seemed like on television when they blow up these buildings, it seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt.
All these explosions.
The building was blowing out on all four sides.
You actually heard the pops.
You know, you heard the pops of the building.
I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the building.
That's how loud it was.
A crackling explosive.
Another loud boom at the upper floors.
And then a series of smaller explosions.
Which appeared to go completely around the building at the upper floors.
And another loud earth-shattering blast, which, with a large fireball, which blew out more debris.
The lower level of the building, you know, like when they demolished the building?
That's what I thought I saw.
You see any flashes?
I said, yes, I thought it was just me.
He said, no, I saw them too.
Everybody, I think, at that point still thought these things were blown up.
So I was fully expecting anything else to blow up.
You were there when the planes hit?
No. I was there when the building exploded.
Oh, you mean when it fell down?
No. When it exploded.
Pretty darn clear what's going on here.
They're leading all these witnesses.
By the way, how many of those 186 first responders do you imagine were included in the report?
By NIST, who claims they interviewed 116 of these first responders.
I want to just say zero.
Zero. Not one.
No mention of explosions other than the airplane explosions.
And explosions in the lobby, which they say were due from the kerosene which came down the elevator shafts.
We don't think so.
Is the building coming straight down?
Well, let's look at the South Tower because it actually begins to tip over.
In fact, it's tipping over at 20 degrees, so it's falling off the building.
So we have asymmetrical loading on the building below from this section that's falling off.
We have asymmetrical damage from the airplanes.
We have asymmetrical damage from the fires.
So how in the world do we get complete symmetrical damage all the way around every side of this building?
How is it even?
Possible. Just perfectly around the building, floor to floor to floor.
Corroborating the witnesses of the first responders that said, wrapped all the way around the building like a belt, all these explosions.
Let's zoom in.
You see squibs.
Or quibs or squibs?
We'll come to those.
In fact, we see one here.
But most important here is the 12 or so explosions.
Individual explosions in this looped video almost floor by floor.
This is not a nuclear weapon going off as is claimed by some.
These are individually pre-placed explosions.
It's very clear what's going on here.
In fact, we can see them in these isolated explosive ejections called squibs, 20 stories down below the zone, 40 stories down below the zone of destruction.
In fact, even 60 stories down below, we have these isolated explosive ejections called squibs in the controlled demolition industry.
Well, we can see that.
Now, are those just, are those, they just went off, off timing?
Maybe. That would happen with those?
Probably. Yeah, there's no reason to have them go off so far below.
In this case, they're going off virtually all at once.
Yeah, right.
Which is essentially destroying the steel frame structure so that it can't act as a rigid body and react off the rigid body below and roll off the building.
So that's why it begins to settle back in on itself, because it's essentially been turned into a series of very small pieces, or a liquid almost.
So that's an important aspect of this as well.
In addition to how fast the building is coming down, feature number five, David Chandler, physics teacher, shows us that it comes down at...
64% of gravity.
That's two-thirds of free-fall acceleration.
It's not slowing down when it meets the cold, hard, intact steel below.
It's getting faster and faster straight down through it, proving that 90% of the structure has been removed.
Well... Violates all laws of physics.
Yeah. Absent controlled demolition.
Right, right.
Look what you have to remove.
And this is what those explosions were removing that we saw.
I was going to ask you, because there's far more steel than glass and anything else in those buildings.
Yeah. Yeah, these buildings were a latticework of...
Structural steel, 14-inch square steel tube columns marching all the way around the building.
And like 232 of them, I think, every three feet, four inches.
There's only a couple of feet of glass between them.
It's an incredible structure.
It's 20 times due to its design.
Intent to resist hurricanes up at the top of this structure.
It had to be so strong that it could handle 20 times the gravity load, according to the engineers, that were put upon it.
So we have a heat sink, essentially.
The heat would be dispersed throughout the 47 massive core columns.
And there we go, 240.
Steel perimeter columns, 287 columns altogether.
So what about that ejected steel impaled in the buildings all around him, up to 600 feet in every direction?
Perimeter structural steel columns destroying the Winter Gardens at the World Financial Center.
What could cause a lateral ejection of...
Ten-ton steel part of a building to impale another building.
Exactly. Well, there's hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of these individually freely flying structural steel sections weighing four and eight tons each, ejected laterally at 80 miles an hour laterally.
Watch. That's laterally.
Two. Back.
Two. Forward two.
So it starts out horizontal.
Wait a minute.
How does gravity work?
Down. Getting shot out.
What's happening here?
Out. And then after that, gravity begins to take over and we get a 45 degree before this piece actually hits Building 7, which again was not, according to NIST, a significant factor in the building's collapse.
So there's enough energy here to hurl a 200-pound cannonball three miles.
So we've got a lot of explosive energy accounting for 1,200-foot to 1,400-foot diameter around each of the towers, distributing the steel well outside the superblock of the World Trade Center,
impacting on the left the Winter Gardens and the World Financial Center.
By the way, if 100,000 tons of structural steel framing is distributed outside the footprint, what's crushing the building?
This is more than half the weight of the building, the steel.
If it's 600 feet outside, and here's the perimeter of the towers, right?
of the north?
Of the north?
Can't get my mouse over there.
There we are.
The North Tower and the South Tower.
There's only a few pieces of steel down there.
Well, maybe it's the concrete.
I mean, after all, there are 110 floors, each an acre in size.
So, we'd expect to find them at the bottom here.
They're massive.
Floors with four and eight inch thick concrete over metal decking supported by lightweight steel trusses.
Well, we don't see them at the bottom, do we?
On the left.
On the right, we see a real gravitational collapse, which has real pancakes.
Yeah, that's what you would expect to see.
And it'd be all stacked up, right?
This is a pancake collapse.
Three of these buildings and not one of them shows a classic pancake.
Right. Well, we don't see 50. But the official report says.
Uh-huh.
Yeah. We don't see 50 of these floors.
We don't see 10. We don't even see one of these acre-sized floors.
We don't even see concrete.
We don't see any chunk.
Where's the chunks of concrete?
They are missing.
So, oh.
Wait a minute.
There's the concrete.
It's pulverized and sent out in midair.
And all the photos, all the videos show exactly that.
90,000 tons of concrete missing from each building sent laterally across this three square mile area from river to river in 100 micron particles.
Creating a blanket about three inches thick.
That's where the concrete is.
Well, if the concrete was there, what's crushing the building?
It wasn't the steel.
That's half the weight of the building.
It's not the concrete.
That's another third of the weight of the building.
Think about it.
Zdenek-Bizant, in his theory, used all of that weight, and a lot more, as we'll see, fraudulently, to crush the building below.
His paper doubles the mass up above, in fact, fraudulently, and decreased the column strength below.
By a factor of three.
It's absolutely fraudulent.
And none of that was there.
There was nothing.
Hardly anything to crush that building below.
All throughout the official narrative, the official investigation, they literally manipulated their facts in order to fit it into their narrative.
It's insane.
Yeah, all the way through, from beginning to end.
And in an hour, that's all we can show, or a little more than an hour in this case.
So, in fact, we've got to ask ourselves, is there any evidence to show that something was done in this building?
Well, Kevin Ryan documents in digwithin.net the fireproofing upgrades that happened in the year or two before.
And more.
Before 9-11.
Well, where the planes hit, there were fireproofing upgrades.
Is this a coincidence?
Not at all.
The impact was from 93 to 99 in the North Tower floors.
The upgrade was floors 92 to 100.
And in the South Tower, the impact...
Was it floors 77 to 85?
What was upgraded?
77 to 78. Pretty darn coincidental.
Very, very much.
Question mark.
So no wonder they had to destroy this evidence.
I mean, easily the largest and most perplexing structural failures in history.
We have 400 truckloads a day carting this steel out of the site, starting just two weeks.
After 9-11.
Put on barges sent to China for recycling.
This is the illegal destruction of evidence in a crime scene.
But no, they weren't caught.
Prompting Bill Manning, editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering Magazine, to cry out, crucial evidence that could answer many questions is on the slow boat to China.
Showing an astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough scientific investigation.
The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.
Did it?
No. It sure did not.
And so we have the ten characteristic features and some very uncharacteristic features of controlled demolition.
Direct evidence of destruction with explosives.
Not one of these can be accounted for by fire, let alone all of them.
With additional circumstantial corroborative evidence and testimony, we find this to be proof of controlled demolition, a body of proof that's convinced, again, 3,500 architects and engineers to demand a new investigation.
That petition, you can see it on our website, richardgage911.org.
And now 3,600 architects and engineers.
So, what are we going to do?
We're going to make the film, put all the evidence in it.
This is about 20 hours of evidence, by the way.
We've just seen a little over an hour of it.
You can see the hour and a half documentary 9-11 Explosive Evidence Experts Speak Out.
The DVD is on our website.
And on YouTube there is a...
A version of it, a one-hour version.
The Holsey study of the University of Alaska, completely pulling the rug out from underneath NIST and their flawed theory of destruction by fire in Building 7, that's available also to see.
And the 15-minute documentary just on Building 7, narrated by actor Ed Asner, is also available to see for free on YouTube.
As is free, our documentary, excuse me, our brochure, which you can print, download and print for free and just hand them out to every architect and engineer.
You can find everybody you know, especially elected representatives.
This is really, really important stuff.
Yeah. I mean, after all, we have two wars that...
Have been studied by Brown University.
What did they find in these post-9-11 wars?
A million deaths.
I think it's more like 2 million.
But 38 million refugees and displaced persons.
7,000 U.S. soldiers killed.
30,000 suicides since they came home.
What did they see?
What did they experience?
What? What?
What lack of care are they citing and complaining, rightfully so, about to the Veterans Administration?
$2 trillion of their cost.
$14 trillion for the 20-year Afghan war, the longest war in our history, which we lost, apparently.
We just pulled out of there.
And $8 trillion.
I've talked to quite a few soldiers gone to Iraq and Afghanistan.
They're broken.
They're broken people.
I've had a couple on the show and they talk about their experiences and I've asked them about their opinion on 9 /11 and they're like, no, that's definitely, they know.
They know it wasn't the official story.
They're angry.
I haven't met one soldier who was there and experienced any of it that's like, yeah, hoorah, we did a great job.
Not one.
I have a friend, a close friend of mine, he was in the military for 25 years, went over there at least three or four different tours.
But he is very blue-pilled.
He's a military man.
In his head, he believes what he's been propagandized for 25 years in the military.
Slowly, I try to give him these facts slowly and letting them just sit in there and plant the seeds.
And he's coming around.
He's starting to see some things.
And recently he thanked me for opening his eyes because he's starting to see some things.
How about that?
Yeah, he's starting to wake up.
Well, God bless him.
It'll take time.
And show him this podcast.
Because this is what needs to be known and we honor him and his service.
And it's not easy when you commit yourself to the defense of this great country to come around and see some of these startling facts which turn your world upside down as it did mine.
Man, I was lucky because I was in probably...
Junior or senior year in high school when this happened, and I was...
From the immediacy of it, I was like, this is not right.
Something is not right here, and I've never trusted the government to begin with, so I was already on that uphill slope, and I was like, something's not right here.
This is going to be a very long war.
My smart classmate of mine, he's like, nah, this isn't going to be a long war, and I didn't know anything about politics or any stuff like that.
I was like, no way, this is going to be the longest war.
I can guarantee it.
Oh. For some reason.
I don't know why I knew that.
Because everything was so shady.
Everything just seemed so shady to me.
There was something going on.
I could see it.
With the Pentagon, there's no plane there.
I mean, it's just crazy.
Shanksville. Shanksville.
Yep. Where the black box is.
And you can see.
Yep. But this evidence that we've been looking at today is...
Irrefutable. Overwhelming.
Scientific forensic evidence.
Nobody has easy answers for any of it.
And most of it there's no answers for, which is why NIST doesn't touch any of this with a 10-foot pole.
It proves that the truth about 9-11 is a dark, dark reality.
And we should all be...
Ashamed that we were complicit in it to some extent.
By paying our taxes to this system, we paid for all this.
By not voicing our concerns earlier.
But now we can wake up.
Now you've seen the evidence.
You can't sit on your hands anymore, you guys.
This has to be...
Disseminated. It has to be known by every American and everybody else because where do you draw your line in the sand?
Do you wait for the next 9-11?
Because guess what?
It just happened.
And were you the one with your head in the sand in the last three years when we were brought down by a false disease and the false deadly solution to it?
All this, and there's plenty of evidence for that.
I'm sure you've covered some of that, Coop.
There's one after the other.
One after the other.
They have to continue assaulting us with false flag events to keep us constantly in fear.
And now, with Gaza, we've got yet another false flag event, which I've finished my first of 20 articles on.
Oh, man.
The astounding parallels with 9-11.
It's the geostrategic value that they place on another foreign adversary and then create the invasion, whether it's 9-11 or COVID or Gaza,
to justify, in the case of Gaza, a genocide as well as the...
Depopulation and relocation and seizing of the territory, which is what you're going to be seeing.
Yeah. So it's pretty bad.
So you've got to speak the truth.
I think 9-11 is the key, Coop.
I think so.
You know, for me, 9-11 gave me some leverage.
Look at the kind of leverage we peons can find.
Boom.
Boom. That was 13 dominoes.
If I had 29 dominoes, the last domino would be as tall as the Empire State Building.
And that's the deep state that we're after.
Because they have the power, they have the guns, they have the money, they have the media.
You know, what do we have?
Well, we have 7 billion of us who, if we wake up...
We can turn this around.
We can throw out every member of Congress and bring in those who will demand a new investigation.
So that's what I'm about.
How about you, Coop?
I'm all about that, and I don't understand why more people aren't waking up sooner.
And my parents, that's what I don't get about the older generations that still are stuck in the lie.
We've all been lied to since day one.
You would think the older people would have more of a cognizance that they're being lied to and be a little more on edge about everything, but they're not.
They just continue on with their cognitive dissonance and trying to explain things to my own parents is virtually impossible because they're just like, don't want to hear it.
Don't want to hear it.
But investigations need to happen.
And I was going to ask you, what happened to...
Because you filed some lawsuits in the past, right, with I don't know who.
Oh, many lawsuits have been filed.
FOIA requests with jurisdictions in the East and through the Lawyers Committee for 9-11 Inquiry, of which I'm on the board also.
We have filed a lawsuit for suing the FBI because they were required to give All the new evidence they've had since the 9-11 commission report in 2015,
Congress required them to provide all the evidence they had.
Well, we had given them lots of evidence.
They didn't show any of that in their 9-11 commission review hearings of 2015.
Wouldn't there be some law against them doing that?
Wouldn't that be kind of illegal?
To omit?
Yes, that's why we sued him.
And guess what?
We were told we didn't have standing by the court.
And we appealed and we lost.
The courts are not the easiest place of justice, a place to get justice these days.
They are indeed corrupt.
And that's why we're going around the U.S. attorney now, going to a federal judge directly with this film and the resubmission of this petition with 60 exhibits on.
We've also sued the U.S. Attorney, and we've lost that case.
It went all the way to the Supreme Court, and they just declined to hear it.
Well, the reason we lost is because they said we didn't have standing.
Also, how does a group of architects and engineers not have standing?
To, in a building, specifically Building 7, that came down, that we need to understand how these buildings came down.
We're showing evidence of explosive demolition.
How do family members who lost loved ones in the towers not have standing?
Bobby McElveen, in particular, who was in the North Tower and was killed with explosions.
So, yeah, we're not giving up.
Rodriguez, the janitor.
Yep. He's witness of explosions in the basement seven seconds before.
Barry Jennings.
I guess he's dead now.
He's witnesses of explosions in Building 7. And he died the day before the final report was to be issued.
Well, it was issued.
And he was saying that he was walking over dead bodies trying to get out of Building 7. That's right.
And he was saying that the lobby was blown and un...
To bits and unrecognizable in Building 7. This is all before, well, let me say it this way.
He was coming down from the 23rd floor with Michael Hess, Mayor Giuliani's attorney, and they got to the 6th floor and they had a big explosion in the stairwell they were in.
And that was definitely before either tower had collapsed.
And he has testimony to that effect.
Michael Hess gave the same testimony.
He retracted it.
And it's surprising because Barry Jennings' death was extremely mysterious.
Not only did he die three days before the official or the day before or whatever, but nobody saw him.
There isn't a death.
There's no autopsy.
There's no death record or any of that stuff with Barry Jennings.
And his family boarded up their house and moved, like, that week.
It was, like, really...
Strange. Strange.
Yeah, so I've gone into how the thermite would get there.
Even the, I think it was not FEMA, maybe NIST, they even explained that if thermite could have been placed...
This is what they would have done to do it.
And they said it would take up to 10 pounds of a liquid thermite to be painted over each beam.
They literally said that in one of their reports.
Have you seen that?
I saw what they said.
NIST, Shamsunder particularly.
Oh, you're talking about National Geographic?
They did a hit piece on the truth movement, and they didn't use shaped cutter charges.
Shaped cutter charges direct the force into the beam, just like they use in controlled demolitions, but they didn't do that in National Geographic.
And Shamsunder himself said that enough explosives capable of destroying...
Column 79 would have been heard throughout Lower Manhattan.
Well, no, not if they were shaped cutter charges and certainly not if they were thermite, which you can hear it, but it is not a huge crack like explosive controlled demolition.
Yeah, I have to get into who are the tenants of the buildings?
Who are the tenants?
And they're all into either their banks or construction and demolition firms, which is strange, right?
Or companies that specialize in producing nanothermites.
And they're all on those upper floors.
Oh, you're talking about the trade center towers?
Yeah. I mean the twin towers.
Yeah. Yeah.
I am not familiar with the tenants in those buildings.
I am familiar with the curious tenants in Building 7. The IRS, the CIA, the Department of Defense had offices in there.
The Securities and Exchange Commission on the 12th and 13th floor, where the fires were the worst, lost thousands of...
Files related to hundreds of very high-profile cases like Enron and World Comp.
So those cases were fatally compromised.
Kind of like the $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld said the day prior to 9-11?
Yeah. He was giving a speech.
A press conference, and he was announcing how bad off their finances were.
Yeah, they couldn't account for $2.3 trillion.
Well, guess what offices were hit by whatever hit the Pentagon?
Which offices?
The Office of Naval Intelligence, who was assigned the task of finding an accounting for that money and was holding the Pentagon accountable for it.
So, those lives were lost, in addition to others.
And then who, I think something that's really interesting, the security at both the World Trade Center and the airports where the airplanes were allegedly hijacked was done by, was it Securicom?
Stratasek? Yeah, up to the day of 9-11, we have that company.
Having the security contract.
And so we certainly want an investigation of them and who's on that board of directors, members of the Bush family.
Interesting. Marvin Bush.
Wirt Dexter Walker III.
Yep. They've literally had dogs, sniffing dogs on the locations, decided to take them out the week before.
Like, they lowered the security standards the week before 9-11 happened.
Yeah. Purposely.
Yeah, there's several witnesses to that.
It's very interesting.
And then what about the, okay, the plane that hit the Pentagon, right?
Why weren't there any remnants of a plane?
Well, that's a good question.
And the 9-11 truth movement is divided on that evidence.
What we all agree on is that nothing should have hit the most highly defended.
And you've got this plane coming into the Pentagon, piloted by who?
Hani Honger, who failed Cessna Flying School, who performed a maneuver more associated with a fighter jet descending 3,000 feet per minute in a 270-degree spiral and then hitting where?
Again, the effort to audit the $2.3 trillion, not flying straight down into Donald Rumsfeld's office.
No, that would have been easy, the vulnerable roof structure, right?
And a huge target at that.
But that allegedly, was it a 767?
And allegedly it was flying 500 miles per hour, just about 700 feet above the ground.
They say the plane would have just disintegrated.
Right. Yeah, there's all kinds of serious questions about that.
I haven't researched that in detail.
But we do have a 12-hour conference on this subject with four presentations by the four major supporters of the four major theories.
David Chandler, Barbara Honiger, Craig McKee and actually the French journalist.
I didn't forget his name.
Thierry Maison.
So, it's on our website.
RichardGage911.org Just search Pentagon.
Twelve hours of testimony.
And did the...
I was looking into a lot of your stuff.
I get so deep into it.
I love everything you guys do.
I don't know if I was listening to a podcast or one of your things, but someone made a comment that the plane in Shanksville, the FBI initially said that the plane literally went 25 feet under the ground,
and that is why we saw the marking in the ground.
Well, that's what they say.
Is that true?
Not very many people believe it.
That's nearly three feet, or three stories underground.
Yeah, and finally, I mean, if you're going to have the remains of people, you know, in a plane that far underground, you're going to dig it up and identify them.
Find bodies.
Yeah, and since there was no plane in the ground.
They decided to leave it there and came up with a Bin Laden cover story.
Well, we didn't want to upset him, so we gave him a burial at sea, which is more in tune with Islamic law, but it wasn't.
No, I mean, he was a CIA asset since the 70s, wasn't he?
Yeah. 80s.
Late 80s.
Okay, here's a great question.
Out of all the construction companies that took part in the construction of all three buildings at World Trade Center, has there been any investigation into any of them, any of those companies that built the structures?
Or has any company been sued by anyone?
Because these are the only three steel structure buildings who have ever collapsed due to office fires before and after 9-11.
So it would seem reasonable.
The only steel frame fire protected structures, yes.
Right. So it would seem reasonable to question all of the people responsible for those buildings' construction, right?
Considering that all of their structural integrity failed miserably and beyond comprehension.
Have any of those companies, like, been investigated?
Well, the structural engineer was interviewed by Shamsunder of NIST.
I don't know what they came up with because he's touting the official story before he died anyway.
Leslie Robertson.
Because if these other buildings are still existing that these people have built, people will be living in them.
They're office buildings, I'm sure.
So have these other buildings been looked over for their structural integrity?
Well, they found that they were structurally sound.
They were built according to the codes.
So that's been determined by NIST, and that's sort of irrelevant because what we have is evidence of explosive demolition, which most buildings cannot possibly survive.
I'm talking about the other buildings outside of the World Trade Center that these other companies had built.
Like, other office buildings or other apartment buildings that these companies built.
Like, I would feel like, okay, you guys built World Trade Centers and it fell on itself, so you built this apartment building over here.
I think we should go check that out and see if it's structural.
Like, it has integrity still.
Has that happened?
No, they didn't do that because they know these buildings have integrity.
They're so redundantly checked and designed and engineered and inspected that there's just no reason to do that.
You would think that they would if they really did fall down due to fire, but they have no motive to send anybody in that direction.
They just wanted to sweep it under the rug.
Sweep it under the rug there.
Why do you think that, like, out of all the buildings in the World Trade Center vicinity, which sustained far greater damage than Building 7, yet Building 7 was the only building that the authorities and media focused on.
So why was 7 such a hot topic and not, say, 6 or 5 or 4?
Well, they only focused on it because we forced them to.
They wanted it to.
I didn't get one bulletin, and neither did any of the other 90,000 members of the American Institute of Architects on Building 7's historic collapse.
Unprecedented. So, it should have been the most studied building failure ever.
So, yeah, there's a huge effort to sweep it under the rug.
So, when they did produce a final report, it was seven years.
Later, they wanted us to all forget about it.
And they didn't bring out their study with any fanfare either.
They didn't want that many people knowing about it because their report is so very fraudulent.
As people of the United States do about any of this, like, can we file suit with the U.S. government for any number of failures that day?
I mean, they've lied to our faces.
They've given us false information time and again.
They've deceived us every step of the way.
There has got to be something we, as the American people, can do to get something happening.
Like a petition?
Would a petition for a new investigation be helpful?
There's plenty of petitions, including ours, signed by 3,600 architects.
But what stopped the Vietnam War?
What stopped it?
People got angry.
I mean...
Yeah, exactly.
Now, who's getting angry about 9-11?
The government.
For that matter, who's getting angry about JFK?
We are.
He was murdered.
You are.
And guess what?
Maybe 70% of Americans are aware that that was a conspiracy by the CIA.
And even RFK is telling everybody the same thing.
Although I don't see a whole lot of evidence coming from his campaign about that.
Or about the murder of his father, for that matter.
So, people have been put to sleep, unfortunately.
You and I have been at this for quite a while.
I will never give up until, you know, I'm reaching millions of people every day and they're doing something en masse.
I think COVID woke a lot of people up.
Yeah, that was a huge thing.
Yeah, and 9-11 is being brought to the health freedom movement, truth movement, by myself as well, because I'm showing the parallels between 9-11 and COVID.
We can go over those another time when you have availability.
It's an extraordinarily astounding set of parallels.
I would love to set up an interview for that because I did want to talk about that.
I know that was a huge issue of contention for your past group.
Oh, yes.
In fact, it's why I'm independent now from AE911Truth with RichardGage911.org with my wife.
And we are able to expand our wings to take on COVID, to take on the lies of Gaza, and none of that could we do while at AE911 Truth.
So it's a blessing in disguise because it was a very painful ejection from the organization I founded 18 years ago.
But I'm looking forward and busy as ever.
Why did they feel you needed to leave?
Well, to be fair, we have 3,500 architects and engineers at the time who signed a petition to expose the truth about the demolition on 9-11.
Right. All three towers and not COVID.
Right. And so for me to be talking about that would have been unfair to them.
That makes sense.
I get that.
It's unfortunate.
I was doing it anyway.
And so I was getting in trouble.
Are any of them, though?
I'm sure many of them are still on your side with this, right?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, I think most people, including most people on the board now, are fully aware of what they were not aware of two and a half years ago.
Yeah, that's good.
There's been enough evidence.
Proving the false flag of the disease and the false solution.
I know the people were at Mount Sinai Hospital.
Doctors are finding these nanomaterials in people's lungs.
Yes, there are carbon nanotubes found in the lungs of the first responders.
And this is...
It takes something special to...
To produce that.
And Kevin Ryan, who's reported on this, and Niels Herrett, have determined that this is, in all likelihood, the result of the nanothermite that we've shown today brought down the towers.
From my research, that was a Solgel paint-on application nanothermite.
Well, a lot of it was.
Obviously, there were a lot of different explosive materials used.
It wasn't just one thing.
But in 2019, the Organization of New York Firefighters requested a new inquiry based on overwhelming evidence that they were pre-planted explosives.
Wait, what organization are you referring to specifically?
The Organization of New York Firefighters.
It might be the...
I'm unaware of that.
Franklin Square and Munson firefighters.
Oh, okay.
So this is a volunteer fire district in the New York area in a city called Franklin Square and Munson Fire District.
And they voted overwhelmingly, their fire commissioners, to support the petition demanding a new investigation that I was talking about earlier that has gone to the U.S. Attorney.
And that's a historic show of support for the Lawyers Committee for 9-11 Inquiry and that petition.
And I know just recently, one of the fire stations down there had a memorial to the 9-11 incident.
And just recently, the city came along and forced them to tear it down.
They said they didn't want it up.
The fire station, they were forced to tear down their memorial to their fallen firefighters.
I was unaware of that.
Yeah, it just happened like a week ago.
Oh, a week ago.
Gosh. In the past two weeks, I just got in a Twitter feed.
So I saw that.
I was like, why?
Why would the city...
Well, the cities have all kinds of reasons for tearing stuff down.
But I'm wondering what the real reason was also.
But we've got to talk to the firefighters.
Yeah. I'm sure the memorial wasn't...
Knowing that the firefighters really have to toe the official line these days, except the rogue ones, who we have interviewed several, and you saw some of them today on this podcast.
I'm sure that they did not have a conspiratorial reason for erecting that memorial, whatever it was.
No, it was literally just for the fallen firefighters.
It was like a flag.
I think it was just a flag they hung up on the outside of the wall.
And the city came over and said, take that down.
I guess they have that right.
I don't know the story.
Yeah, I don't get it.
I don't get it, man.
I do feel, though, that we need to dissolve the federal government.
It does say in our Declaration of Independence, it asserts that not only do we have the right, but we also have the duty.
To alter or abolish any government that fails to secure our unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, this principle is rooted in the idea that governments exist to serve the people, not the other way around.
The Declaration famously states, End quote.
It is our duty to do that.
Well, it's about time.
Furthermore, it emphasizes that this right should be exercised judiciously, especially when a government has engaged in a long train of abuses and usurpations.
Obviously, they've been running that train a long time.
Yeah. And we are still on it.
When are we going to get off?
When are we going to get off and do something?
Like, destroy those tracks because we need to do something.
When people start using the tools that people like you and me and thousands of others have been providing with all of this evidence for all of these false flag operations and they get angry enough.
To be out in the street with this evidence and in the faces of public officials, then we can have some hope that change, real change, will be coming.
We can't make America great again without exposing the dark underbelly of those who are doing this to us.
The deep state, the global elite, and those Foreign influences that attack us from within.
Yeah, I mean, they have infiltrated our government.
And that's clear.
Clear as day.
We've been infiltrated.
Sad. Oh, I do want to say this.
I do have a very close connection to a U.S. state senator.
What can I do?
Oh. Fantastic.
So, let's talk about that.
Offline, and I will give you a list of important resources that he can start with, just starting with the 15-minute Ed Asner narrative on Building 7. If he really likes you,
show him this podcast.
We have got a good friendship going on.
He's a Republican.
So if you want to send me the list of these things, I'll definitely give them to him and talk to him about this.
Yeah, it's included in the list that Gail gave.
Oh, is it?
Okay. All those links with videos?
Yeah. Okay.
Great stuff.
That's our best stuff right there.
So I feel, man, I need to do something.
And now I have very close connection to a U.S. government official who might do something.
I don't know.
But it's worth a shot.
You want to name names over the air or not?
His name?
I don't know if I should.
Well, he's a U.S. Senator, so it's Mark Nolan.
U.S. Senator Mark Nolan.
All right.
Well, we'll have to talk to him.
I'll be happy to get on the phone with him any time, day or night.
That would be even better if you talked to him, for sure.
Right. Well, we can get him warmed up.
And then maybe inspire him to watch some of this visual evidence.
Maybe I can get him on one of these shows with you.
We just go over the facts.
Sure. I don't want to embarrass him.
Maybe we do want to put him on the spot.
Let's see how he does.
He needs to be put on the spot.
These politicians need to be put on the spot.
I hear that, and I'm willing to participate in that.
If I can set that up, would you be willing?
Yeah. Okay.
Cool. We'll give him this presentation in front of God and everybody.
Yeah. Let's do it.
Good luck.
That would be fantastic.
Well, Richard, there's two ways to skin a cat.
Yeah. One is publicly and one is privately.
And he's your friend, so I'll let you decide.
It's going to be public.
All right.
It was awesome to be here with you too, Coop.
It's been great, man.
It's been great.
Thank you for coming on and taking the time.
Say hi to Gail for me.
Wish you could be here.
Yeah. And if you just want to stay online, why don't you close us off for a little bit because you know how this works, this Riverside.
