9/11 Investigations: A Call for Answers

Speaker 1 (00:53.39)
you

Speaker 2 (03:25.838)
boy, that was an interesting tune that it rolled into. Hi, I hope everybody's doing well today. My goodness. All right. You know, I see Tom Carr, previous guest over in the chat there. I would love to know, he's on X. Okay, I think we're having a YouTube issue, but it's fine because Hero West is on the case. And my goodness, I cannot wait until tomorrow's live stream to tell you.

just the world. is such a small, small world. it's and I mean this. This isn't a Bill Burr, Billy Corgan thing. But Wes and I discovered yesterday that we are practically brothers. cannot wait to share that story. That's on tomorrow's Friday live stream. Brad Stacks and I going to take a field trip down to

down to Wes's studio in Dallas, second floor studios. And it's going to be fun. And if you are watching on X and you normally watch on YouTube, I know there's a community of you that exclusively watch over there. Just know that Wes is on the case trying to get that over there. But the majority of you tune in on X. So hopefully everything's OK there for you. I see everyone saying hello, and I appreciate that. But we are working on the YouTube stream now.

I'm so eager to talk to my guest, Richard Gage, in just a moment. I have so many questions about September 11th, 2001. I tell you, this is never stop asking questions, y'all, please. Because on the morning of September 11th, 2001, it was a defining moment in American history.

live on national TV, two passenger jets slam into the World Trade Center. Everybody knows where they were when that happened. When you were watching it on TV. Obviously the Pentagon, the field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. And America was under attack and we were all just glued to the TV. This was serious. This was, this was a

Speaker 2 (05:51.47)
This was going to be a sea change for the United States of America. And it sure as hell was. Because in the days, in the weeks, and the months, and the years, and now decades that have followed, our foreign policy, our domestic policy, it all ties back to the morning of September 11, 2001. The economy of the United States suffered that day.

Civil liberties were taken away from Americans on that day because of that day. Trillions of US tax dollars have been spent to fight this war on terror because of the events of that day. Thousands of young American lives were sent overseas to fight and die because of the events of September 11th, 2001.

And if there are any lingering questions because of that day, we need to have answers. We deserve to have answers as Americans. And as someone who at the age of 25, when that occurred, I went to bed on the night of September 11th, 2001, buying the government narrative hook line and sinker. And ever since then, over time,

I've had questions here and there. I've watched things just like you have different videos, different people who have different theories about what happened on that day. And the answers if we've gotten them have not been satisfying whatsoever. And that leads me to my guest, Richard Gage. He is a San Francisco Bay area architect, AIA member of the American Institute of Architects founder.

and former CEO of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth. He now leads the charge for a new World Trade Center investigation. Amen. He works along with his courageous wife, Gail, at richardgage911.org. Richard, thanks so much for making time. We appreciate you. And man, I am always underdressed, but now even more so. at that, a student attire on At the Mic deep dive.

Speaker 1 (08:12.45)
I look? I dressed up for you, Keith, just for you.

So thanks for making time, man. I have seen a lot of your stuff. And I was like, I have to talk to this guy. it just, I'm so glad that you're trying to find, you and other people trying to find these answers on what really happened on September 11th, 2001. I love the angle that you come from with your perspective. What got you interested in this whole investigation? What started the road for you, man?

I can tell you the date, man. I was shocked. I was listening to the radio in the San Francisco Bay area to Bonnie Faulkner's KPFA guns and butter program on the Pacifica radio. and she was interviewing David Ray Griffin and he is written now 14 books on this subject. I was, I know I, and I had not heard one, alternative theory as to how these towers came down. just.

like you hook, line and sinker man. It was, was bad. and I was just, I was rooting for Colin Powell, you know, as,

at the UN. Me too, bro.

Speaker 1 (09:29.614)
Yep. Issue for weapons of mass destruction. my God. I wanted to go in to get those guys who did this to us.

Pissed are you in retrospect. Just nevermind. Let's just say that 9-11 happened as the government said, but all of the things that have happened since, it's just that I feel so used and lied to, man.

I was deceived and, that made me angry. That's what got me going because you know, after hearing, I don't know, 45 minutes of this, uh, explosive testimony, he was actually talking about the, uh, 156 first responders who are on record of explosions before the twin towers ever collapsed. And many of them before, as many of them seeing flashes of light, we'll talk about that, but, uh, molten metal.

dripping off the beams expelled from the towers laterally, trailing thick white smoke clouds. I'm a third tower. Can you believe this? I'm an architect, one of 90,000 members of the American Institute of Architects. didn't hear one, I didn't get one bulletin on the third worst structural failure in modern history after the twin towers. you can just imagine, I had to find out,

I had to disprove these lies and I ended up proving them and I ended up taking it to my architecture firm in Walnut Creek, California. it turns out, cause they thought I was kind of nuts talking about this stuff up until this point, but I bought them pizza, made them come in and watch 45 minutes free pizza. Okay. Welcome. All of them agreed with me. Thanks.

Speaker 1 (11:17.166)
Yeah, right. Sure. Me too. And, uh, I'm, I'm, uh, I was just delighted that all of them raised their hands saying, yeah, my, my God, these, you're right. These are controlled demolitions. So that was my first 14 architects and engineers for nine 11 truth. Now there's 3,600 demanding a new investigation publicly signed onto the petition.

Wow, how many but was that number again?

1. That's 30,000 years of combined technical credibility.

my god

Speaker 2 (11:53.398)
That is OK. So I've obviously got a lot of questions that I want to ask you over the course of our conversation. But I know that you have an awesome presentation here. So I've got your other screen up here. I want to give the floor to you. But I'm probably going to interrupt you a lot with my questions, because it's just it's it's. And I'm completely honest with my audience is, like I said, in 2001,

I was, I believed the narrative a hundred percent in 2002, 2003. Let's go into, I believe that Iraq was, you know, involved with terrorism and, and quite possibly nine 11 itself, just like you, Colin Powell at, at the UN. Yeah. And, ever since then, just like it's, um, and I've talked about this before where I had trepidations going into Iraq, but I'm not going to lie. I was still, let's go into Iraq.

But boy, have my eyes been opened over the last 20 plus years. And it starts with, think, I really do think this, and you stop me if I'm wrong here, it's Building 7. I think that if you take somebody who has questions, or has an open mind, I should say, and you would just say, in fact, I've got this handy dandy chart, and then I promise to turn the floor over to you. I'll shut up. I will. I will. But it's like,

You start down here, you believe the government 100%. You move up to, you know what? World Trade Center 7 is a little interesting. I've got some questions about that. Then you get to the government knew it was an attack coming. The government allowed it to happen. 9-11 was an inside job. I'm not going to ask you to go down all of these roads, but I do want you to show us World Trade Center 7, why we should have questions about that.

We're going to do it. And guess what? We're going to also talk about the twin towers because it's even more clear what's going on there. Once you kind of shrug off the shock and awe that we were submitted to with the deaths of 3000 Americans and the destruction of our cultural icons and open our minds to what we're actually seeing. They told us it was an orange, right? But it's an apple.

Speaker 1 (14:16.332)
So, mean, I didn't come out of nowhere. These are three and $10 million gymnasiums among my most recent projects and the construction administration of this high school. And then a $400 million project near Las Vegas with six blocks of retail, mid-rise parking structure. I've mid-rise offices and

And lots and lots of parking structure for all of this. So we, I, I'm, I gave all this up in order to pursue this effort. so, because it was more important America, Americans had to wake up. And as I mentioned, those 14 architects all woke up as soon as they saw this information. So I knew what I had to do. And the buck stops here. Right? I mean, these are buildings and especially this one, the

Building seven, which most architects and engineers know nothing about because we've only been able to reach hundreds of, well, hundreds of them in these conferences that we go to at the American Institute of architects showing in our evidence booth, this building coming down, as you're going to see here in a second. And we asked them, well, what does that look like? that's a controlled demolition. Yeah. So then we say, well, did you know when that happened? no.

on 9-11. Yeah, this was the third tower to collapse.

Right.

Speaker 2 (15:50.414)
That's the thing. Why would you, that's where I think the fabric starts to tuck. It's like, why would you have a controlled demolition of a building at ground zero on 9-11? And then when, they've been lying about that, clearly as you will demonstrate, but then that I think starts to unravel or at least it opens the door to so many questions.

Oh my God, it's huge. And we're going to talk about those questions. But let's look at the evidence first. You know, this, this is like looks dwarfed next to the twin towers, but it's easily the tallest building in most of our states, 47 stories tall, a football field in length away from the North tower, part of the World Trade Center complex. And guess what? It wasn't hit by a plane. There's only two planes in New York, right? The North and the South tower got hit.

by them. This building did not. In fact, it survived the destruction of the North and South towers, which we'll get into. But NIST did an investigation on this. This is the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who was tasked by Congress to explain these collapses to the American people. What did they say? Well, let's look at the building destruction first. Here it is, the East Penthouse.

collapses first in an isolated incident with no visible damage below it, hardly. And then six seconds later, the overall building does this. Now, again, have we ever seen this before? We all have a sense of what this looks like. In fact, we'll compare it to controlled demolition, but let's listen to Shom Sunder, the project leader of the NIST report.

What we found was that uncontrolled building fires caused an extraordinary event. The collapse of WC 7 was primarily due to fire.

Speaker 1 (17:51.256)
Fires. Okay. So fires brought that building down. Let's look at those fires, Keith. We have a few small scattered fires around the building and these fires were burned out in the area of NIST's interest in the initiation of collapse on the 12th floor where they said these fires are burning up until the time of the collapse.

They're burned out before 4 p.m. on that floor, according to the photos. But their fire simulation is fraudulent and they're trying to show us, these fires were so bad, you know, up to the time of the collapse. They show this raging fire. So, well, you know, we've had raging fires in buildings like this. Type one, fire protected structures, but not one of these fire protected

steel frame structures have ever collapsed in history, not before 9-11 nor after 9-11, even in these fully engulfed buildings around the world. Not one has collapsed. So we're talking about an unprecedented event, which NIST tries to pass off as being due to fires. You can begin to see the problem already here. Well, let's see what it does look like.

Yes.

known control demolitions on the left, a series of them and building seven on the right. Is there any similarity? Is there enough similarity to warrant an investigation into 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 has never in history brought down a steel frame fire protected structure. So we're going to look at the evidence here and the evidence is

Speaker 1 (19:47.466)
akin to the features of a typical control demolition. What are they? Let's start with feature number one. Is there a sudden onset of destruction? Let's listen to Dan Rather as we watch this view.

Speaker 1 (20:24.095)
for the third time.

Speaker 1 (20:35.116)
Whoa, what? Excuse me. Deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down. Well, Dan's using his intuition here, right? We've all seen these old hotels in Las Vegas, for instance, when they bring them down in implosion. But he's never discussed this after 9-11, nor have we seen, with two exceptions, this building on mainstream television coming down. Is this they want it to just be swept under the rug?

Well, let's look at feature number two. Is there a straight down symmetrical progression? Let's look from West street. Yeah. Pretty straight down, pretty symmetrical. You know, how do you do that, Keith? You've got to take out all the core columns in an instant, within an instant of each other, followed about a second later by the perimeter columns that pulls the perimeter columns in on top of the core columns resulting in

a symmetrical pile, which we'll look at. So can these fires do accomplish that level of precision? mean, I can answer this, right? This is not too difficult. If they don't all go off at the right time or some of them don't go off, you can get some pretty strange happenings like this and like that. Somebody's got to go back into that.

building where the exclusives didn't go off and fix that dud. And it's not going to be me. If a building is damaged on one side, then it will fall to that side. That is the physics of it. It's not too difficult. And this building, according to NIST, was damaged on one side by some beams that hit it. But NIST says this was not a significant factor.

in the building's collapse. And, and they suggest that it was the other corner of the building, the Northeast corner, not the Southwest corner, where this building, where those fires were. So if it was damaged over there, it would have fallen to that side. So they're really trying to have it both ways. We have a, how fast is the building coming down? Well, David Chandler, physics teacher, documents that it comes down at

Speaker 1 (22:59.798)
Freefall acceleration. He's not the only one this has been corroborated again and again NIST actually admitted the freefall acceleration of this building and They they suggest that in fact, well look at this building. What's it fall falling freely through? 40,000 tons of intact structural cold hard steel on floors that have no fire whatsoever on them

And yet not one of these beams, in this case, call these beams, but most importantly, the columns gave any resistance. NIST even acknowledges that it came down at free fall for a third of its seven second fall, which means that not one of these columns gave any resistance. Think about that. Did fire take out every one of these columns?

so that not one of them gave any resistance, these fires.

at the same exact time.

And the timing exactly. You think about it. know, freefall is as fast as a bowling ball falling out of the sky. And it can do that because it has no resistance underneath it. This building had 40,000 tons of structural steel. How could it fall at freefall unless all of them were removed instantly? So we have to look at the debris pile.

Speaker 2 (24:09.176)
Wow!

Speaker 1 (24:36.362)
see if there's a total dismemberment. indeed there is. We had a 47 story moment resisting steel framed skyscraper, which where the columns and beams are welded to one to another, in addition to the X braces that are on the building. But every one of them, it appears, have been severed one from another. Buildings that collapsed due to

natural causes. We don't have the columns and beams severed one from another. The concrete is not pulverized to a fine powder, as we'll see, and in building seven. building looks damaged certainly, but it doesn't fall like a house of cards. So it should have, if it was going to collapse at all, which has never happened due to fire.

It should look something like that. So these fires did that. Let's go to the next feature.

Can I just pause real quick if I could? Please. This is where my brain goes. Because you just demonstrated how the way it fell was clearly a controlled demolition. So then your brain as an American who wants to believe your government is telling you the truth about something this massive, this nation changing, you want to believe them.

And but then you, but then you see a presentation like this that you've just now just you're getting warmed up. I realized that, but, you, you go, okay. It was a controlled demolition. Well, then how did that happen? then obviously this was a plan. And, and so then you go, well, hell, how, how far out was this plan? Wait a minute. What? my gosh. They knew this was good. So my question to you is as someone who is.

Speaker 2 (26:33.216)
is watching your presentation going, no, no, no, no, no, I still want to believe my government is noble and everything is right in the world. My follow-up would be how long would it take to set these charges if it was a controlled demolition?

this is a job that takes dozens of operatives months. This does not happen in the afternoon. And by the way, it doesn't happen in a burning building.

Right. See, I don't like this answer as an American who wants to believe that my government is good. And that is where this little chart really starts to come into play.

Yeah, and let's go through that chart in detail when we get through the evidence. okay. I'm going to make it even more difficult for you, Keith, because NIST says, well, there's no witnesses of explosions. So how could it be a controlled demolition? Well, let's listen to a few of them. Here's Daryl, a medical student being interviewed on 1010 WINS Radio New York that evening.

Speaker 1 (28:14.776)
then the sound of a clap of thunder, the windows busting out and then the building coming down. How about Kevin McPadden, former Air Force medic who was on hand at building seven.

Speaker 1 (28:57.07)
Okay, and what a Bill Rossotti experience. 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. big flash and then the building coming down. Okay, how about Kevin, excuse me, Captain Richard Patterson of the New York Fire Department?

Speaker 1 (29:22.744)
series of.

Speaker 1 (29:28.332)
Very, very interesting. And first responder, Patrick Dillon.

trains underneath the earth, shaking the earth even, shaking me. That's when we all saw building seven crumple in the middle, way up at the top. It buckled. It buckled and then dropped. Okay. And Richard Rotanz, deputy director of the Emergency Management Center on the 23rd floor, he goes back into the building after it had been evacuated.

and sees evidence of explosions.

Speaker 1 (30:25.505)
What? An elevator car blown out of its shaft that was down the hall? Clarifying later that it was 30 to 40 feet down the hall. Wait a minute. How can an elevator shaft be blown a car out of its shaft?

and be 30 to 40 feet down the hall. This does not happen by damage to the exterior of the building, which there was some on the Southwest, which is the lower left corner here. The elevator shafts are on the inside core of the building. So this is an incredible explosion inside the building documented by Barry Jennings and Michael Hess.

And they were being called to a meeting before, after the planes had hit the towers, but before the towers had come down, they had this experience.

Speaker 1 (31:54.094)
explosion. More than one. Yes. We started walking down the stairs. made it to the eighth floor. Big explosion. Fluids back into the eighth floor. When we get outside, police officer comes to me and says you have to run. We have more information of bombs, so you have to run. What information of bombs? Bombs like this heard in the late morning of 9-11 in the vicinity of building seven.

Speaker 1 (32:29.45)
And this says there's no witnesses of explosions at building seven. Well, we just looked at more than half a dozen of them. We don't have time to go infinitely into the rest of them, but we do have evidence of advanced knowledge of the destruction of this building. If this was engineered in advance, people would know about it, right? Like Chief Nick.

Visconti who says we're moving the command post over this way that building's coming down. What? He knows the building is going to come down and yet no building steel frame skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fires. They routinely go into skyscrapers without regard to the building coming down on them. Let's listen to Pete Hayden. Well, we had our special operations people set up.

Speaker 1 (33:40.206)
we anticipate a collapse and if so, how soon? And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money that he said in his current state about you have about five hours. Wait a minute. Not only is it going to collapse, but we know exactly when it's going to collapse. Indeed, it collapsed five hours later. Well, how can you make a prediction of a completely unprecedented event?

like that, he had to have foreknowledge of the building's collapse. Of course, they won't release the name of this engineer. We'd sure like to have that. and we also have witnesses of like these mysterious construction workers walking away from building seven toward the CNN camera, hearing an explosion over their shoulder, looking back at the building and then looking straight into the CNN camera and saying this.

Speaker 1 (35:00.406)
What the building is about to blow up flame and debris coming down. How do they now they not only know it's coming down, they know how it's coming down. It's going to blow up. How's it going to blow up? Let's listen to Kevin McPadden, who we heard as a witness before, talking about explosions immediately before that statement, he made this statement. He's held back about six blocks away from building seven.

and he and others listening to a radio held in the hands of who he believed to be a Red Cross worker. This is what he hears.

Speaker 1 (35:45.206)
What? To bring buildings down to countdowns these days? What's really going on here? It gets more and more clear. Well, listen to the advanced knowledge of the BBC who announced the collapse of this building 20 minutes before it happened.

Speaker 1 (36:29.752)
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, sketchy. Sketchy indeed. There's the building standing behind her while they're announcing it had collapsed 20 minutes earlier. They apologize for this grievous error. Keith calling out the confusing events of the day. Does that make them psychic?

What's really going on here? So, well, we can turn our attention to CNN who announced it at 1107 that morning.

Speaker 1 (37:44.078)
and others have told you all of Manhattan is covered downtown Manhattan is covered with thick white ash and building material. Thick white ash and building material of a 50 story building went down. No other 50 story building went down. No other building went down. There were buildings that were damaged when the towers hit them, but they're obviously talking about building seven here. Had this building come down?

at that time, we wouldn't have any video recording of it because it would have been completely obscured by the massive series of dust clouds released when the Twin Towers came down 15 minutes before that. Was it supposed to come down at that time? That's a good question. Maybe it was, and these mysterious construction workers that we just heard were going back in.

to fix a dud that didn't go off. And that's a possibility. So we can turn our attention to the developer of building seven, who just six weeks prior to 9-11, by the way, purchased the rest of the World Trade Center, one, two, transferring the twin towers and the other buildings, other six, six altogether.

from public hands into private hands. We'll get back to that. But here's his comments a year later on PBS about Building 7.

Speaker 1 (39:45.676)
They made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. So now they've made a decision to pull it. He says, well, I didn't mean pull it because everybody asked him what that, what were you talking about? I meant pull the firefighters out of the building. He says, well, wait a minute. Pull it is a term used in the controlled demolition industry to bring a building down by implosion. It's not, you wouldn't refer to

pull it when you're talking to firefighters who by the way were told not to fight the fire. They were told it's gonna come down on its own. So they were never allowed to fight the fire. FEMA and NIST both report extensively that there were no firefighting operations. They said there's no water in the building. Well, Chief Pete Hayden acknowledges that there was water in the building and we have

many other proofs that the water supply and the water pressure was just fine to the building. We can get into that another time. And that's on our website, which is richardgage911.org. So we got to say, well, what do the experts say? Well, here's one of them.

Speaker 1 (41:21.454)
A team of experts did this professional work without a doubt. Well, how about one of the dozens and dozens of structural engineers accompanying the 3,600 architects and engineers altogether? This one, Kamal Obeid, a localized failure in a steel frame building like World Trade Center seven cannot cause a catastrophic collapse like a house of cards without a simultaneous and patterned loss.

of several of its columns at key locations within the building. And this is exactly what is proved about three or four years ago from the University of Alaska, one of the top forensic structural engineers in the country, Professor Leroy Holsey, who spent a lot of time and dollars and put together two competing software programs.

to compare what would happen to the structure as a result of the fires in these buildings. And he found that, gosh, if column 79, 80, and 81 failed, the building would have tipped over like this. Now, this is NIST's theory, 79 first, and then 80, and then 81 failed, but somehow it came straight down instead of over. So we have the...

He says, well, what do I have to do to make this building in our computer model collapse? So on the left, the University of Alaska takes out all the columns in the building floor by floor synchronistically timed. And of course, sure enough, it mimics exactly what happened in the video, which is in the center. Whereas the US government in their computer modeling,

even takes out 400 structural steel connections every second, but they can't get their model to behave like the actual video of the collapse. In fact, they stop it two seconds into the global collapse, and it begins to tip over. Well, they don't want to see that, so they just stop it altogether, as it's also beginning to crumple up like a beer can, like a natural collapse wood. So they disprove their own theory. So we have a...

Speaker 1 (43:43.148)
set of conclusions. Fire did not cause the collapse of this building, says the University of Alaska, Professor Leroy Holsey. The temperature was not high enough to cause the weakening of the steel framing. Thermal expansion did not result in a loss of support for the beams and girders. The collapse of building seven was a global failure involving what? The near simultaneous failure of all the columns in the building.

not a progressive collapse as claimed by NIST. So they've disproven this. This is 135 page report that came out of the University of Alaska. You can download it at our website, again, richardgage911.org. So we have to ask ourselves, what could have brought this building down? Well, let's look at the evidence. First of all, provided to us by who? FEMA.

In their appendix C of their 2002 report before NIST took over this investigation, they had this great metallurgical examination of the steel. What did they find? Never before observed. Eutectic reactions causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese. Now guess what? Fires don't get this hot.

Fires are typically 500 degrees Fahrenheit, maybe a thousand degrees Fahrenheit. It takes 3000 degrees to melt steel. So what can do this? We're coming to that. Rapid oxidation though, they document. Sulfidation, where does sulfur come from? They don't know. Liquid iron, that's molten iron. That's 3000 degrees Fahrenheit formed.

during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. What? The New York Times says this is perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in their investigation. Yet it's completely ignored. In fact, pulled from the NIST report. Who speculates? Well, the sulfur must've come from gypsum board because gypsum board has sulfur in. Well, it doesn't. It has calcium sulfate, which has never turned around.

Speaker 1 (46:06.316)
by the way, and attacked the steel that it has been designed to protect for the last hundred years or so. So they're just completely making stuff up. But even the FEMA author, Jonathan Barnett says, the steel members in the debris pile appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures. There's a problem with this. What does it take to evaporate steel? Four

thousand degrees, easily more than three times the temperature that these fires could ever have gotten to. And we have documentation of the evaporation of the steel from World Trade Center seven. In this case, Abelhaz and Astani Ozil structural engineer given a national science foundation grant to study the steel. Says, I don't know how this happened. Must've happened down in the pile. Well,

The pile reveals the temperatures by the color of the molten material pouring out of the crab claw excavators. We're exceeding 2500 degrees because the color of molten steel and iron tells us what its temperature is likely to be. So how do we get temperatures 2500 degrees? maybe it's jet fuel. Well, guess what? No plane hit building seven.

And ME Petroleum, the manufacturer of the jet fuel tells us that it in open air, their jet fuel only burns at 600 degrees. Besides, NIST tells us that most of the jet fuel burned up outside the building, like 90 % of it. The rest of it was gone in 10 minutes. So we don't have jet fuel available, even if it were burning hot, which it's not.

The worst fire temperatures that are used for modeling in tests is 1830 degrees. Absolute worst. And those fires are not that hot. As we've seen, they're few, they're small, they're scattered. So what can burn that hot? Well, maybe thermite can. What's thermite anyway?

Speaker 1 (48:37.102)
green heat reaction, creating

In just two seconds, thermite can reach temperatures over 4500 degrees Fahrenheit, quite enough to liquefy steel. We know that open air fires cannot burn hot enough to melt steel, but metal had melted at the base of the towers.

Appendix C of the FEMA report describes sulfur residues on the World Trade Center steel. The New York Times called this the deepest mystery of all. Sulfur slightly lowers the melting point of iron, and iron oxide and iron sulfide had formed on the surface of the structural steel. Sulfur used with thermite is called thermate, producing even faster results.

Well, maybe we're getting somewhere here because if thermite were used, it might explain the extreme heat. 4,000 degrees is what we get with the byproduct of thermite and in the form of what molten iron. So it would explain the abundance of molten iron and

previously molten iron that we're going to be looking at right now, but also explain the presence of sulfur because sulfur is added to thermite to become thermate, much more effective at cutting through steel. So is anybody investigating any of this? Only in the 9-11 Truth community. And we'll look at this. So what's in the dust? Is there any evidence of ignited incendiaries, i.e. thermite?

Speaker 1 (50:22.104)
Well, the US Geological Survey does studies of hundreds of samples in the world. Trade center dust, and what do they find? Billions of what? Previously molten iron microspheres. Wait a minute, let's unpack this. Previously molten, meaning over 3000 degrees, iron, the byproduct of thermite, one of the two byproducts, the other being

aluminum oxide ash, which we'll look at. then spherical, we'll talk about how they get spherical in a moment, but there's so many of these previously molten iron microspheres, billions, the EPA says this is a signature component of the World Trade Center dust. In other words, it's not even World Trade Center dust unless it has these previously molten iron microspheres in it. Well.

They comprise up to 6 % of some of these samples. Scientists estimate it's up to four tons of this material, which people don't know where they came from. Well, the R.J. Lee group, another environmental consulting firm doing independent studies on the dust says these are formed during the event, not before by the welders putting the building together, not afterward by the iron workers taking the building apart in pieces.

But during the event, well, okay. How do they form? Well, we could do an experiment and find out. Experiment is the arbiter of competing hypotheses. Really an important concept in the scientific method. Let's do one. Here's some thermite. What we see is what looks like thousands of sparks, but we...

clearly then find out that they are molten iron microspheres, which cool and fall into the pan. And how do they get spherical? Well, aerosolized liquids form themselves by surface tension into spheres. That's what raindrops are. And so under a lot more pressure, a lot smaller spheres. That's not all that's found though. By the U.S. Geological Survey, they find melted molybdenum.

Speaker 1 (52:46.274)
That's this element in the periodic table of the elements. It melts at 4,700 degrees. Well, wait a minute. How do we get temperatures of 4,700 degrees? Remember fires at the extreme hottest possible is only 1800 degrees. So they're saying extremely high melting temperatures cause

causing this. They've also found what? Evaporated lead. Lead doesn't evaporate until, I didn't know lead could even evaporate at all, but it's 3,200 degrees. Temperatures documented by the R.J. Lee group. The presence of lead oxide on the surface of the mineral wool indicates existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse, which caused metallic lead to volatilize

oxidize and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool. So there's so many, so much evidence of temperatures completely unaccountable for in the official narrative. We have the tops of these cars parked around the World Trade Center that are toasted. What can possibly account

for the toasting of the tops of these cars in a gravitational collapse. Surely the fires at the World Trade Center were put out by the mechanical action of the collapsing building. Nope. That's, well, that is likely, except we'll find out what really collapsed the towers and building seven in a moment. But these clouds were very hot. Then the dust cloud hits us. Then it got real hot. I felt like a...

was going to light up almost wave hot solid black wave of heat threw me down the block. When I was running some hot stuff went down my back because I didn't have time to put my coat on. had some well I guess it was first and second degree burns on my back. And then we're engulfed in the smoke which was horrendous. One thing I remember it was hot. The smoke was hot. And that scared me. I remember making it to into the tunnel and it was this incredible amount of

Speaker 1 (55:12.172)
wind, debris, heat, says that firefighter. A huge blast of hot wind, gusting and smoke and dust of all kinds and debris hit me. The super hot wind blew and it just got dark as night. You couldn't breathe. So how many of those witnesses are included in the official report by NIST, any of these three?

collapses. We always put that in quotes because we're going to find out that these weren't collapses at all. Well, is there evidence of unignited thermite? Because all of that was evidence of ignited thermite. Interesting. Let's look further. We have four dust samples tested by a team of eight international scientists led by Niels Heret in Copenhagen.

They do studies and they find these red gray chips. They thought they were paint because they look like paint. They're red on one side, gray on the other, obviously dual layered indicating they were fluidly applied, but they're attracted by a magnet. So they get real curious because primer paint is as well. It has iron in it is not attracted to a magnet. So they do X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy in the red layer and find

What? Aluminum and iron, the ingredients of unignited thermite. man, what's the ingredients of unignited thermite doing in all the World Trade Center dust samples? They zoom in 50,000 times with an electron microscope and they find what? Iron oxide particles.

and aluminum platelets, a thousand times smaller than the diameter of a human hair. This is nano size material. They're very high tech. They're set in a bed of oxygen, silica, carbon, which is organic material, which is put in high energy explosives to expand rapidly and knock things over. That's how explosives work.

Speaker 1 (57:36.6)
versus incendiaries which work by means of extreme heat for even 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit. So we've got a review of the literature put out by the Lawrence Livermore Lab by this team and they find that this has been created already. It's called superthermite, explosive composites based on thermite reactions whose fuel and oxidizer constituents are intimately mixed

on the nanometer size scale. This is developed prior to 2001. When you engineer this stuff to get so small, the surface volume increases exponentially for nano-sized materials. So you've engineered an incendiary to become more explosive, which is very interesting. And they review the literature and find out what else. When they put these chips in a differential scanning calorimeter,

fancy heater, which measures the resultant energy release, they find that their samples do the same thing that the Lawrence Livermore samples did. They ignite at about 750 degrees Fahrenheit. What do they produce when they ignite? First of all, the fact that they ignited means that we have thermitic materials.

So they produce molten iron microspheres with the same chemical signature as the molten iron microspheres found and produced and studied by the US Geological Survey and RJ Lee. So we know exactly where those 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.

Speaker 1 (59:46.386)
And as if we didn't know there, there, there, we have plenty of examples of just that. And so we have an engineered substance, that is, not made in a cave in Afghanistan. This is made only in the most advanced defense contracting laboratories. In fact, they produce this in peer reviewed paper and the Bentham open chemical physics journal.

As if, what are they, what do they find? The red layer is active, unreacted, thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material. Wow. this is, this was produced in 2009. A long time ago. We've been giving this information out to the media, elected representatives, cetera.

architects, engineers, scientists, physicists, chemists, ever since then. And this is one of the reasons we have 3,600 of them signed on to the petition demanding a new investigation. So yes, we have lots of evidence here and key characteristic features of controlled demolition. Let me just finish this one. Okay.

take this on, but not one of these features can be accounted for by fire. The official cause of this building's collapse, let alone all of them. With additional circumstantial evidence and corroboration testimony, we have proof of controlled demolition, a body of proof that's convinced 3,600 architects and engineers to demand a new investigation. ahead, Keith, sorry.

was just going to ask you what has the trajectory of pushback been in the community since when you first started to go down this road to today.

Speaker 1 (01:01:51.374)
90 % of it is they just call us conspiracy theorists, right? Can 3,600 architects and engineers all be conspiracy theorists staking their reputation on demanding a new investigation? I don't think so.

So clearly, clearly this is, well, first of all, it's disturbing. Okay. All right. So, I guess my, my follow-up question to that is to all of your presentation here would be, and I kind of asked it earlier, how much, how much advanced warning would you need to have, to, pull something like this off? And I believe you said you'd need months to pull this off.

I'm with you on that

Speaker 1 (01:02:36.708)
yeah, this is a huge job.

This is a huge job. many people, I mean, this might be speculation to this question, but how many people would have to be involved with something like this?

dozens.

Yeah. Yep.

Okay, so we got dozens of people would have to be involved months ahead of time. So you can see where this is. This is an issue, Richard. Okay, and we're. Yeah, but this is World Trade Center seven. This is an event that is on September 11th. So it's obviously married to.

Speaker 1 (01:03:03.904)
It's a small issue that's overlooked.

Speaker 2 (01:03:19.724)
the Twin Towers falling down. And that's where just the Pandora's box of concern, for lack of a better word, begins to open here.

yeah. It's huge. Cause if building seven was a controlled demolition, then we have to ask ourselves, what about the twin towers? I mean, is it possible that they could also have been a controlled demolition? Well, many of those architects and engineers appear and first responders appear in our

film series, 9-11 crime scene to courtroom, which includes the evidence of the Twin Towers brought together to a grand jury for a real investigation. The lawyers committee for 9-11 inquiry and myself and these experts are presenting in the boardroom in this series of a dozen.

Speaker 1 (01:04:24.398)
episodes in 9-11 crime scene to courtroom and unprecedented film series taking hard evidence that we've been looking at. We've only been looking at the evidence of building seven so far, we're going to dive straight into the twin towers, but this is evidence of the 9-11 crimes. We're bringing them to court. So Nick Harrison and myself, he's the litigation director for the lawyers committee. He doesn't

Excellent job at guiding the grand jurors what they can and can't do, should and shouldn't do, who, to get her during this real investigation, how they treat this evidence, who can they subpoena for more information? Well, here's just a short trailer of that film series.

No matter how improbable the conclusion may appear, when you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Speaker 1 (01:05:32.302)
We're bringing alive in the film the 60 exhibits of the 9-11 WTC evidence contained in the Lawyers Committee grand jury petition that have already been submitted to the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan to present to a special criminal jury. This historic investigation is ongoing and there's a role for you in it. Yes, you can help us bring the real perpetrators to justice. Through this film series, we're bringing

together two dozen experts in their field. Demolition work, you're going to set charges on each floor. The building could not have been brought down by office fires. In other words, all of the interior columns over eight stories came down, basically lost at once.

any scenario involving the

Speaker 1 (01:06:23.982)
I could make out what looked like from a science fiction movie, Moulton Lava, okay? And he paused and said, that'll be coming down around five o'clock. We'll be filming these evidence presentations, not only for filings with the grand jury, also presentations to each of you. We're inviting you to serve as virtual grand juror during each episode.

Speaker 1 (01:06:58.602)
And yes, that premiered and we've also released episode two and episode three is coming up later in February. And we will eventually in the episode series get to the twin towers because just look at them here. They are destroyed at once. That is to say simultaneously. So you can see the identicality between the North tower destruction and the South tower destruction. What are we looking at? We're looking at upward outward arching streamers, a geometry of fireworks.

freely flying structural steel sections weighing four and eight tons laterally ejected at 80 miles an hour landing 600 feet in every direction trailed by what? Thick white smoke clouds. Wait a minute. Steel is not flammable in office fire conditions. Why are these steel sections trailing thick white smoke clouds? Well, thermite.

which we've already looked at the evidence for issues, thick white smoke clouds of aluminum oxide ash. So let's dive in because we're going to see that the twin towers have evidence of controlled demolition. Also beginning with, is there a sudden onset? Yeah. The North tower is at rest and all of a sudden it's in uniform downward motion. No jolt, no hesitation upon impact of the cold hard intact steel

below, same with the South Tower. It's at rest and all of a sudden it's in uniform downward motion. This is not typical of any kind of a collapse. And we will be looking at what can and has produced this, but the official narrative tells us that the upper section above the point of plane impacts drives the rest of the building down to the ground, in this case the North Tower with 15 stories.

because NIST says it's just too heavy to be resisted by the below. And their key theoretical basis for that theory rests or has been provided by Zdenek Bizot in what he calls the crush down, crush up theory. He's from Northwestern University in Chicago. And he produced a piece of mathematical wizardry

Speaker 1 (01:09:25.132)
that took engineers 10 years to decode. And when did he produce it? Two days after 9-11. The rest of us are in shock, right? We're trying to figure out who's attacking us. Who did this? When's the next target coming? Are we going to war? We're freaked out. And so not this guy. He's busy in his den creating what became and what remains today as the key theoretical basis for NIST's

Column failure theory is what they eventually called it. But no matter what you call it, it suffers from Newton's third law of motion. Isn't there an equal and opposite destructive force when two bodies collide? Yeah, it's called Newton's third law. Run a Volkswagen into a Mack truck and you find out about Newton's third law. Does it matter if you drop the Volkswagen onto the Mack truck? No, the lightest part of the structure, which is...

the lightest columns and beams, because there's less load on the top, right? It can't destroy the cold, hard, heavier intact steel below. In fact, if we look at the steel as it gains girth and thickness and size, overall size, till its mid height, 16 inches by 22 inches,

And then 52 inches by 22 inches down at the bottom. So no, don't have, we have increasing size as we get down to the bottom until what I meant to say is 36 inches by 16 inches at mid height, two inches thick, and then heavier and heavier and heavier. So interesting. Let's just look though at this destruction mechanism

at the top, is the Volkswagen driving the rest of the building down to the ground and destroying it? Or did the Volkswagen get destroyed before in the first three seconds? Take a look at the lower red line here. The top part is telescoping in on itself. There's no, in the first two to three seconds,

Speaker 1 (01:11:50.616)
There's no driving down of this pile driver impacting the floor below. It's being destroyed. Question is what's destroying it and we'll get to that. But if it were there, we would see it. But none of the photos, none of the videos show an intact of any kind of upper body destroying the lower part. Something else is going on here and we'll look at that. But if it were there, it would have crushed this.

spire of core columns remaining 800 feet in the air for about six seconds. It would have been crushed by that massive block that we're told drove it down. But then something else happens, an explosion at the base of it, shaking the dust off of it and the concrete powder, which we'll get to also. What is going on here? Is this a...

Crush down, crush up, Or is this a series of explosions? Compare it to a volcanic eruption. In fact, which one is the volcanic eruption? The one on the left or the one on the right? Most people can't tell the difference. I'll tell you guys though, building seven, excuse me, building one, the North Towers on the left and a volcanic eruption on the right with upward, outward arching streamers, a geometry of fireworks freely flying.

Molten objects trailing what? Thick white smoke clouds. We'll come back to that. But is this what's happening? A crush down, crush up theory, or is this what's happening? John Cole shows us that no, it's not crushed down, it's out and then down, leaving this spire of core columns in place.

for six seconds. So it's exploding around the spire. This completely disproves this theory, this diagram alone. And yet their theory goes, they were tasked by Congress to explain all three collapses to the American people. They had $20 million to do it. They had two years in this case, and they produced 10,000 pages.

Speaker 1 (01:14:16.526)
but they had their own objective hidden on footnote 13 on page 82 of their report. Our focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse. For brevity, referred, the sequence is referred to as a probable collapse sequence. Well, wait a minute, hold on a second.

They say it doesn't actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached. Wait a minute. You were tasked by Congress to explain the collapses. You're structural engineers. You can calculate the ability of the upper part to destroy the lower part. Well, they produced only one half of a page with no calculations.

on the actual collapse. Let's read it. The structural below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance. The large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through the energy of deformation. The building came down essentially in free fall. there's that word again, right? It came down fast. Well, why? Because the floors below were unable to arrest the moving mass. Wait a minute.

This isn't analysis. This is pure speculation. Where's the analysis? Structural engineers do this every day for a living. Calculate the ability of a portion of the structure below to resist the weight of a section above it. This is a pre-collapse report. It should have been titled the final report on the initiation of collapse.

Mmm.

Speaker 1 (01:16:15.054)
So we go on to the next subject and we find what could have brought this building down. We did that for building seven, we're going to do it for the Twin Towers. Turns out that hundreds of first responders were recorded orally within a month after 9-11. It's called the oral histories. The New York Times had to sue the city to get this information and they finally won the lawsuit on appeal and the city had to turn over.

the 12,000 pages of testimony. Why were they withholding it? Probably because 156 of them reported as witnesses of explosions. Graham McQueen read all 12,000 pages. He found the best quotes, 156 of them. I'm gonna read them all to you right now. No, but let's take a couple. We felt the ground shake. You could see the towers sway. And then...

It just came down again and again, you're going to hear this order of events. Very specific. We heard something, we saw something, we felt something before the towers collapsed. All of a sudden, the ground just started shaking. Felt like a train running under my feet. The next thing we know, we look up and the towers 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. And 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. He saw about six of these brief flashes accompanied by a crackling sound before the tower collapsed.

I saw low level flashes. saw flash, flash, flash. And then it looked like the building came down. An explosion appeared at the very top simultaneously from all four sides. Materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse. How specific does this fire chief need to be?

Speaker 1 (01:18:38.53)
to tell people what is really going on here and all the rest of them. There was an explosion in the South Tower when it hit about the fifth floor. figured it was a bomb before because it looked like a synchronized, deliberate kind of thing, says this firefighter. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings, seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions. The building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops, you know? You heard the pops at the building.

I thought the terrorist 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. Another loud earth shattering blast with a large fireball that blew out more debris. The lower level of the building, you know, like when they demolish a building, that's what I thought I saw. You see any flashes? said, yeah, thought it was just me.

He said, no, I saw them too. Everybody, I think at this 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. You mean when it fell down? No, when it exploded. Very clear what he saw. So with that evidence, we have to say, okay.

I didn't hear NIST or our government or the media talk about any of those witnesses of explosions. In fact, not one of them appear in the final or draft NIST report. Not one of them. It's they've been swept under the rug. The whole story changed. Let's see if the building's coming straight down. It actually starts to tip over in the south tower. So it's tipping over at 22 degrees in fact. So we have asymmetrical loading.

from this part that's falling off the building. have asymmetrical damage from the planes up above, asymmetrical damage from the fires up above. So how in the world do we have complete symmetrical destruction wrapping all the way around the building, just like those firefighters said, this corroborates them, all the way down the building. It makes no sense. It's a non sequitur.

Speaker 1 (01:21:02.06)
Something else is going on here. Let's look at the leading corner of those explosions. What are we seeing in this looped video? I'm seeing dozens, well, at least a dozen individual relatively small explosions in this leading corner of destruction.

This is not a nuclear weapon going off people. This is not directed energy weapons. These can only be preplaced explosion explosives, floor by floor or every third floor, difficult to tell. And with additional squibs, which we're going to look at in a moment in the lower left, right there. So

We got to wrap our mind around this. This is what the firefighters were talking about. And this is the corroboration of all of their testimony. 156 of them. Feature number four. Let's look at those isolated explosive ejections called squibs in the controlled demolition industry. Occurring 20 stories down below the zone of 40 stories down below the zone of destruction.

They even occur as far down the building as 60 stories down below. There's no accounting whatsoever for these explosions, isolated explosive ejections in the official narrative. And yet we have a dozen of them simultaneously on the left side of the South Tower in this looped video here. Essentially,

taking away the rigidity of the structure. It's being blown up even if it, as it starts to fall over, these are wireless explosions, not wired. So this is certainly a possibility in this day and age. And so the building doesn't maintain its rigidity and fall off, reacting off of the rigid structure below and tipping over and falling off onto the floor.

Speaker 1 (01:23:19.286)
the ground. So it just settles back in almost as if it's been turned into a liquid of sorts. So how fast is this building, top portion of this building coming down? Well, physicists like David Chandler, a physics teacher, actually tracks the top of this building. He finds that it comes down at almost freefall acceleration.

little bit slower, 64 % of freefall, meaning that 90 % of its structure has been removed. There's only a little bit of structure left for whatever reason. It's not exact freefall, but it's accelerating. It's getting faster and faster and faster with each second straight down through what? The path of greatest resistance, the 80,000 tons of structural steel beneath the point of plane impacts.

almost as if it's not even there. What can do that? We had 47 massive core columns. We had 240 or so steel perimeter columns. So this would have provided a whole lot more resistance. The building, if it was going to collapse in the first place, should have slowed down. Well, what is happening to those perimeter structural steel sections?

that make up that resistance they've been removed. How? Through an explosive energy that has hurled them four and eight ton structural steel sections laterally at 80 miles an hour, also clocked by physicists landing in the skyscrapers impaling themselves in these high rises all around the building, all around.

the World Trade Center, outside the World Trade Center, destroying the Winter Gardens 600 feet away, impaling themselves in the Deutsche Bank building. Also, these incredible vertical columns of the perimeter held together by spandrel panels that are ubiquitous throughout the World Trade Center site, reduced to their individual components.

Speaker 1 (01:25:45.368)
but they're ejected laterally landing so far away. They are freely flying. You can see them. This is not like a banana peeling. This is freely flying evidenced particularly by this one here, which is about to hit building seven. Wait a minute. How does gravity work down? What's going on here? Back to forward to back to forward to

out. It's going out. What force has ejected this piece of steel weighing four tons laterally into building seven? Trailed by what? Thick white smoke clouds. Wait a minute. We saw where they come from. Aluminum oxide ash is the other byproduct in addition to molten iron that is trailing

these steel columns. Steel is not flammable in office fire conditions. There's no explanation in the official narrative whatsoever for this and the energy that's required to produce it. It's enough energy to hurl a 200 pound cannonball three miles. We got a problem here. There's the, let's get to the bottom of it because this steel is hurled

outside the footprint of the entire World Trade Center complex in a 12 or 1400 foot diameter. Well, if that's the case, we have to ask ourselves a question. The 100,000 tons of steel distributed outside the footprint, what's crushing the building?

It's not available to crush the building. This is more than a third of the weight of the building. What's crushing the building.

Speaker 1 (01:27:52.91)
Maybe it's the concrete. Let's look for it. Because we have 110 floors of four and eight inch thick concrete in each of these buildings. Each of them are an acre in size. So we're looking for floor assemblies. The concrete's poured on metal decking supported by lightweight steel trusses. The assembly's three feet thick. 110 of these would be

Speaker 1 (01:28:26.83)
30 feet thick, just with the floors alone. Let's look for them. We don't find them. We don't find 50 acre size floors. We don't find 10. We don't find one acre size floor. We don't find a half acre size floor, a quarter or a 16th acre size floor. In a real pancake and collapse, have pancakes, floors stacked up.

They're just not visible. Where did 110 floors of concrete go? there it is. Pulverized in midair. All the photos, all the videos show exactly this. 90,000 tons of concrete pulverized in midair. We know from ASTM 6856,

American Society of Testing Materials that concrete can be powderized above 1500 degrees. So maybe that's part of it. Maybe nanothermite sprayed on the underside of these concrete floors caused it to powderize. That's 4,000 degrees, right? We proved that already. Whatever, whether it's that or explosive, high energy explosives, we are missing almost all of the concrete.

At the base it's been spread where over lower Manhattan in a three square, in a three square mile area in a blanket about three inches thick. Wait a minute. If the concrete is spread over three square miles, was it available to crush the building? Hey, there's another third of the weight of this building that's not available to crush it.

together with the steel, that's two thirds of the weight of the building that's not available to crush the part of the building below the point of plane impacts. But that's the whole theory of Zdenek Bazan from Chicago Northwestern University. He not only used all of that weight,

Speaker 1 (01:30:48.916)
in his extremely complex calculation.

But he doubled the mass up above. told you that took engineers 10 years to decode. This is what they found when they did. And he reduced the column energy absorption capacity below the point of plane impacts by more than three times, totally rigged in favor of a collapse. And so this was challenged.

with submission of a paper by Tony Zambotti, Richard Johns, Gregory Zudalinski to the Association of American Society of Civil Engineers, but they wouldn't publish it. Why? They said, it's out of scope. Wait a minute. How can it be out of scope to publish a challenge to a previously published peer reviewed paper in that journal?

It's not, they're just covering it up. The American society of civil engineers, the American Institute of architects are complicit in covering up the crime of the century, which is why we have to get to the bottom of it. Kevin Ryan gave us an important article in getting to the bottom of just that in his blog, dig within dot net in which he documents fireproofing

upgrades in the years and months prior to 9-11, which just so happened to be occurring at the point of the plane impacts. Very interesting. Could this be nanothermite, which is liquid applied also in the form of a liquid applied fireproofing upgrade, intumescent paint, in other words? Well, that needs more research.

Speaker 1 (01:32:51.512)
but there's a great place to start. Here's another one, ACE elevator. If we had access to the elevator cabs, we'd have access to the core columns and beams in the building to set these explosives and incendiaries. Well, you'd need, because there's two or more inches of gypsum wallboard lining the hoist way of these

elevator shafts. And that would create a lot of dust. If you've ever done any gypsum board work, the dust is amazing. But listen, listen to Scott Forbes of fiduciary trust.

Speaker 1 (01:33:55.628)
on the window sill. It was dirty gray.

Speaker 1 (01:34:03.95)
Well, there's another piece of investigation that needs to happen, huh? Well, who would have had access to the elevators, maybe ACE elevator who came and was chosen to perform the largest elevator modernization in the world, the nine months prior to 9-11. Now, why would the port authority have given one of the

largest, most sophisticated elevator modernization programs in the industry's history to a small maintenance company contractor with basically only one customer, the World Trade Center. March 2001 was documenting this effort. Did they really perform this effort knowing that we're going to blow this building up or was this an undercover operation giving access to other types of operatives?

to the elevator shafts. Where were the ACE elevator employees? Well, they're all safe and accounted for. They were pulled out, interestingly, to a labor dispute meeting, a union meeting to discuss this business, 50 of them. Yeah, we need an investigation of this possibility as well as the destruction of evidence. I mean, 180,000 tons of steel, what happened to it?

and easily the largest and most perplexing structural failures in history. 400 truckloads a day removed, lined up starting just two weeks after 9-11 to take this steel, where? To China for recycling, before investigators could get their hands on it and do a real forensic investigation. This is the illegal destruction of evidence in a crime scene.

prompting Bill Manning, editor in chief of Fire Engineering Magazine to cry out crucial evidence that could answer many questions as 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, but it didn't. And so we have to ask ourselves, why do we have all 10 key characteristic and some very uncharacteristic?

Speaker 1 (01:36:24.002)
features of what can only be controlled demolition with explosives and incendiaries. Fire doesn't account for any one of these, let alone all 10 of them with additional circumstantial evidence and corroborative testimony. That becomes proof once again at the Twin Towers, like we had at Building 7. Proof that's compelled 3,600 architects and engineers to demand a new investigation, many of whom

appear in our ongoing film series, 9-11, Crime Scene to Courtroom. Many of whom appear in our previous documentary, 9-11, Explosive Evidence, where we bring 40 high-rise architects, structural engineers, metallurgists, chemists, physicists, controlled demolition experts to bear giving their testimony. It's extraordinary. You can get this again at richardgage911.org, the DVD. You can watch it also for free there.

and along with the 15 minute documentary just on building seven, 15 minutes. Anybody will be convinced about building seven in just 15 minutes. Narrated by actor Ed Asner. I made these documentaries early on and the evidence has not changed at all. With addition of Professor Leroy Hulsey from the University of Alaska, Dylan Avery who made the film, original film that...

had awakened many people to this issue called loose change. He made the bill, the film called seven, which features these engineers working together to expose the truth about nine 11. The evidence that we've been talking about today is all outlined right here, free on our website. All you have to do is download it, print it, give it to everybody for free, or you can buy them pre printed. Also, we got to get to the bottom of it. Cause what do we got?

A $14 trillion global war on terror with the longest war in US history in Afghanistan, 8 trillion on the post 9-11 wars. We've lost, we've murdered over well over a million people in the Middle East, reshaped the Middle East for the worst, many would argue. And we have lost 7,000 US soldiers, 30.

Speaker 1 (01:38:47.0)
thousand taking their own lives. These crimes are absolutely unimaginable. And that's just the beginning because we also have the loss of our civil liberties through the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, in which any of us can be arrested without a right to a lawyer, a trial, a jury, a jury. We can be tortured and even assassinated American citizens without due process for being

accused of terrorism, which is what? Defined as using force, which is not defined. So yeah, we got huge problems. We're now a country that tortures. We've thrown away the Geneva Convention. We have a police state. We have the illegal spying on us. All of our emails, our texts, our phone calls are systematically recorded.

completely unconstitutionally. But because of the constant renewal of the Patriot Act under this emergency created by this false flag operation known as 9-11, we now are under a police state. And we'll see what Trump is capable of accomplishing about that. Many have their doubts. Many are pleasantly surprised with progress so far. We'll see.

what really remains here. But either way, the truth about 9-11 must be exposed because it is a dark one. I mean, where do we draw our line in the sand? Do we wait for the next one? I have news for you. The next one already happened. It happened in 2020, 21, 22 with the plandemic that we were treated to. Yes, we have a whole

presentation on that subject at Richard Gage, 9 11. While many of us were sleeping, they did it again with a false disease and the false solution to that engineered problem, which is harming far more people than it ever helped.

Speaker 2 (01:41:00.95)
Yeah, I think you and I would have a lot of agreement on that as well. Boy, that might have to be another topic sometime for discussion. Let me ask you this, because I really appreciate the way you've laid out these facts. But there's still so many questions. And I want to ask you, do you want to play the hypothetical game with me a little bit here?

Okay, let's do it.

So let me ask you this. Do you, after all of this research, have you come to any kind of conclusion in your mind who was behind this? Why this would happen? Have you gone down that road or do you try to stick just to the physical nature of this?

Well, I'm, it's clear that people would have to have access to policymaking to pull this off. They'd have to be running the mainstream media to pull this off and brainwash the people and censor the truth tellers. those of us who've been speaking for more than a decade or two or more, they would have to,

have access to the air drills that were going on the up to the day of 9-11, confusing the radar techs. They'd have to access to the remotely controlled planes, are, which most 9-11, those in the 9-11 truth movement agree must have been substituted in order to

Speaker 1 (01:42:51.758)
control the plane's destination into the towers. After all, if the towers were laced with explosives, you wouldn't trust hijackers who failed Cessna Flying School to target those planes into these towers.

So let's stop right there because I wasn't aware that you had that thought. So are the terrorists on these planes as well thinking that they're a part of this or are you saying that they weren't even... What's your take?

Most in the 9-11 truth movement don't think, who have done some research on this area and I have not, but the consensus I would say is that the terrorists, there's no evidence that they were actually on. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that they were remotely guided and that they may not have even been the civilian aircraft that took off from their original locations, but that they were.

Really?

Speaker 2 (01:43:49.39)
think we have our next topic. Wow.

Well, there are people who like Dan, Captain Dan Hanley, who have pilot will whistleblowers.org who, who talk about the uninterruptible autopilot mechanisms that were available well before nine 11 and, were designed theoretically to keep the terrorists from hijacking planes.

What is your hunch on what President George W. Bush knew and when did he know it? Was he in on this as well?

I doubt they even brought him aboard. He's kind of a bumbling, I think the whole thing was, it's clear that Cheney had a whole lot of information about this, Rumsfeld also. Again, this is not research that I've done. are dozens of books on these subjects. David Ray Griffin has done a great job. 9-11 New Pearl Harbor, 9-11 New Pearl Harbor revisited, 9-11 omissions and distortions.

Excuse me, 911 Commission, omissions and distortions.

Speaker 2 (01:45:00.462)
And what would be the reason to do this? Just to what you just laid out with your chart there of what followed afterwards?

Well, we go before 9-11 and we look at people who have laid out their goals very visibly to us. The Project for a New American Century, for instance, a Neocon think tank established their goals in a paper called Rebuilding America's Defenses. And they published this on that pnac.org and in it they identified goals of regional hegemony in the Middle East, a vast increase in the military budget.

capability of fighting multiple simultaneous wars. so this is these people, but they said in this paper, absent a catalyzing and catastrophic event, the process of change is likely to be a long one. Well, Bush writes in his diary that night, today we had our new Pearl Harbor and these individuals

about half of them were brought in with Cheney to the Bush administration when he won the election. So who are these individuals? We find that they're dual citizens, Israeli and American citizens, many of them. Is that not a conflict of interest? The Philip Zellickal fact who wrote the 9-11 Commission Report, it wasn't written by the commissioners. It was written by

a Bush insider, Philip Zellickow, who wrote his PhD thesis on what? The creation and maintenance of public myth. You can't even make this stuff up. That was his specialty.

Speaker 2 (01:46:56.782)
OK, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I thought you were done.

Well, we need to look at also the revelation by General Wesley Clark, who was interviewed by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, who said, told her a story, his experience of walking into the Pentagon, seeing an old friend who was a high official in the Pentagon. said, well, General, come in here. got to tell you something. We're going to war in Iraq.

This is two weeks after 9-11. We're going to war in Iraq. And then later on, he went and saw him again. said, no, it's, it's, it's not just Iraq now. We're going to take down seven countries in five years. General Wesley Clark is telling the public this in a public interview. And well, he even names the countries.

Iraq?

Speaker 1 (01:48:02.24)
Libya, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

These are the countries that are as much as named in the official goals of Israel given in 1982 by the Oded Yinnon plan that every prime minister and leader of Israel almost has espoused for the greater Israel.

to Balkanize surrounding Arab nations and to expand their geographical territory, which they take advantage of every few years with war and deception. The Mas'ad's operative motto is, thou shalt make war by deception. So we can put some of those.

goals together, including the goals in Gaza right now, yet another false flag operation, which we have a whole presentation on talking about those geostrategic goals. First of all, you know, in a long line of them, including the acquisition of the $1.2 trillion worth of gas and oil deposits immediately outside of Gaza. So

You have a false flag operation, the false invasion of Hamas into Israel, which is almost completely fabricated.

Speaker 2 (01:49:50.444)
Wow, wow, this is breaking news for me.

Well, I have a two hour presentation on this subject at richardgage911.org and I hope you and our other viewers will listen to it. We can present it live on X at your will. It goes deep into the finding of these geostrategic resources that Israel did not own. The Palestinians own them. They're immediately offshore of Gaza. And so,

That's important because if you, and Israel has laid claim to them and it's been tied up for almost 20 years in illegal battles, but if you can found Hamas in 2006 and before, which the Likud party did and funded them to the tune of $1.4 billion distribution in cash, that Hamas all of a sudden they knew

Their goals, their goals are terrorism and the elimination of the state of Israel. But out of this chaos can come order, problem, reaction, solution. So we have the chaos created in Gaza, which then they bombed 90 % of the housing since then, which is genocide by definition, killed more than 50,000 people, made the place completely uninhabitable. Till today you have...

Jared Kushner, runs the Trump as his main advisor, his policy in Gaza, which they're now saying, let's move the Gaza people out of Israel. Well, this is a goal since the beginning. I mean, before the invasion of Hamas. And why else would it's not just the 1.2 trillion in gas deposits worth one, by the way, one

Speaker 1 (01:51:47.192)
point two trillion cubic feet of gas amounts to $500 billion worth of gas altogether, right? This is absolutely huge. Makes Israel, if they can steal it, independent energy-wise, not only that, but an exporter of gas and oil, which they never knew they had before 20 years ago. Now they can export it through the East Mediterranean pipeline, which starts where? Immediately offshore of Gaza.

and goes to where Cyprus, Turkey, and Europe and on up into Europe, a $50 billion project that's underway. But not only that, you have the Ben Gurion canal and alternative to the Suez Canal, which would be another $50 billion project designed to get the oil tankers coming up, not through the Suez Canal, which has been, had been nationalized by, by Egypt.

and only allows one way traffic and it's not deep enough for aircraft carriers, but they want to run it all the way up through Gaza three times as long as the Suez Canal, twice as wide, two way traffic. And where would that end? Right at the mouth of this new East Mediterranean pipeline. So the oil tankers can dump their oil into the East Mediterranean pipeline and turn around and go straight back to the Persian Gulf without going on up.

into and throughout Europe.

Yeah, these three mega projects all work together to show us why they're trying to destroy Gaza and relocate that population to tent cities in the Sinai. And that's what Trump is talking about.

Speaker 2 (01:53:31.832)
Well, I've got some reading to do. didn't think that when this conversation started, we would end up here, but I've obviously got to catch up to you on your knowledge on this. I really appreciate this. RichardGage911.org for all of your stuff. It's been a fascinating discussion. just, boy, finding answers is tough, but I appreciate your presentation. And where was that?

documentary that you were playing clips from, what was the website for that again?

I played a lot of clips.

I was the one. It's like a series. think it was a I didn't

9-11 crime scene to courtroom. And that's available on our website also, richardgage911.org. can watch episodes one and two. Episode two starts into the evidence that we looked at today in World Trade Center seven.

Speaker 2 (01:54:15.928)
Got it.

Speaker 2 (01:54:28.864)
Excellent. Thank you so much, Richard Gage. It's been a pleasure. I appreciate everything in the time that you took today. Thank you so much. And thank you to everybody as well. We will see you tomorrow at 3 PM Eastern for the Friday live stream. We're to do a little field trip. So be sure to check that out as well. Thank you so much, Richard.

Thank you, everybody.