9/11 was a Controlled Demolition - Richard Gage Exposes the Dark Truth

36:27Well, this agency who normally doesn't do analysis, but their leadership was changed when the Bush administration came in because they're under the Department of Commerce, which is an executive branch function. So we have entire levels of people here, including Shom Sunder, the NIST project leader, who gives us the reason for this building's collapse. But let's look at that collapse first. In fact, we can see in an isolated event, the East Penthouse comes down first on the upper left. And then, about six seconds later, the entire building does this. Straight down, uniformly, symmetrically, into its own footprint.

37:20And under six seconds. So what does that mean? We're going to talk about that in specifics. That means a lot of things. That means not one of those columns gave any resistance, first of all, because that's a freefall. And what did the main investigators say? What was their thoughts on it? What was their theories on it? Here's the theory from Shom Sunder of the NIST Report. What we found was that uncontrolled building fires caused an extraordinary event. The collapse of World Trade Center 7 was primarily due to fires. So, primarily due to fires. Well, we should probably stop and look at those fires and then break down in more detail that theory of NIST.

38:04These are the fires in this building. They are very few, very small, and very scattered throughout the building. So those are the fires NIST is talking about. And by the way, those fires are burnt out on the floor of the initiation of collapse where NIST requires those fires. The 12th floor is on the upper side there, right here. NIST requires fires burning on those floors at the time of the collapse because they've got a thermal expansion theory. They have to be expanding and causing the collapse in real time. How did the fires actually start? Well, NIST says they were started by the debris, which did impact the building on the south side from the north tower itself.

39:04Is that true? Most likely. Or it could be that they were set. We don't really know. There are some suspicious fires. What about, has there any buildings ever been as big as that, which has caught fire that's done the same? Nope, we're going to take a look at that in detail. But look at the fire simulation on the top here. We're talking about an entire area of this floor on fire claimed by NIST at about 4 p.m. Well, wait a minute. Is that true? No. Look at the 12th floor, which in the photograph below, The fires are completely burned out on that floor and having moved out to the west, for those looking on the right side of that photograph.

40:01And so how right away we see, OK, NIST is really trying to pull a fast one on us. They're claiming these fires because they require it for their initiation of collapse theory. But they don't have the fires. In fact, they admit in the report that the fires were burned out by 3.50 p.m. And here's 4 p.m. showing engulfed, the entire floor engulfed. And to answer your question, James, no. We have never lost a steel frame fire-protected structure ever due to fires. They don't burn them out. Why? Because they are fireproofed for that reason. So the steel never gets to that 1 ,200 degree Fahrenheit, 600 degree Celsius temperature where the steel members bend.

40:56It doesn't happen. Not even since 9-11, where we've had a dozen fully engulfed skyscrapers that have never come down. Uh, I'm not an architect, but obviously different buildings will use different steel and different metals and build it differently. They all use structural steel, which is essentially the same for all these buildings. Now the one on the left is the Grenfell tower in London. That's concrete. Mm-hmm. The others are structural steel. Most of the fully engulfed fires are structural steel. Either way, they do not collapse. there are some very unusual cases which are not applicable which we can talk about in more depth another time but not even hong kong where you have these fully engulfed fires very recently november of last year so what could explain the collapse of that building well we talked about the old hotels in las vegas but here's some office buildings that have been taken down on the left, compared to Building 7 on the right.

42:10Is there any similarity? Is there enough similarity to warrant an investigation into the possible use of explosives? Especially since fire, the official cause of this building's collapse, has never in history brought down a steel frame fire-protected structure. So it should have been the first hypothesis that NIST came up with, but no, It was relegated to a set of very frequently asked questions published, finally, on NIST's website. So we have to ask ourselves a key question. Does it have any of the features of controlled demolition? How many does it have? We know it has some. Let's look at the beginning.

42:51Is there a sudden onset of destruction, feature number one? Well, let's listen to Dan Rather. Describe for us what he's seeing here that evening. What you're seeing are high shots. Now here we're going to show you a videotape of the collapse itself. Now we go to videotape the collapse of this building.

43:19It'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. What? What was that, Dan? Deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down? Well, here he is using his common sense, right? He's seen the old hotels in Las Vegas. He knows what it looks like, but he's never used these words since 9-11. And with only two exceptions, we've never seen this building come down, which is why I wasn't aware of it for five years as an architect.

44:02Again, should have been mad. This episode is brought to you by ChatGPT. Hey, it's Bill Simmons from the Bill Simmons Podcast. Have you guys heard about ChatGPT work? It's the new way to use ChatGPT for bigger multi-step projects. And when you need more than just answers, give ChatGPT work access to your apps and files, and it can create real work documents like spreadsheets, slides, and structured reports. Get started at chatgpt.com by selecting work mode available on Plus and Pro Plans. Real value shows up in reliability. You don't have to second guess. Like a set of Firestone all-season tires.

44:42They're designed to deliver confidence-inspiring wet weather traction and a quieter ride, no matter the road, season after season. Firestone all-season tires. For For durability, you can count on. Just like people count on you. Firestone. Always dependable. Since 1900. And we're back. Streaming on Peacock. May I present to you the award-winning staff of the Toledo Truth Teller. Slap me. Let's draw something loose. Ay, yes! I like that. The Certified Fresh Series returns. Your boss. You always like this? Or is this just an act? Oh, no. This is mad. Oysters, everybody! There is a certain satisfaction when you work with someone.

45:26Maybe we could be a family. You sadistic pig! The Paper. New season streaming September 9th, only on Peacock. This show gives me a reason to laugh. Some bulletins that went out. Studies of this. No plane hit this building, after all. This is the largest structural failure ever in a building. Why would they take this building out? Why? I don't know. We can speculate on that later. but that's I got some ideas but let's come back to it just in case we forget right now? yeah it's possible that they this building was also out of date you know 20 years out of date almost and 15 years and it could be that Silverstein said, okay, but I'll do this, but I want my building built also, right?

46:27I want a new one. So they worked it out. You know, we're speculating here. So it could be that the entire operation was managed from the 23rd floor, which was the emergency operations center designed to to survive hurricanes and all blasts and all kinds of things, the EOC could have been the operations center for a very intense black operation. It's very secure. It could be that the third plane that went down in Shanksville somehow went down, Um, was headed for building seven. You know, we, we really don't know. So do you think a plane was heading for it and it was sort of, could it have been a timer to detonate it anyway?

47:29Well, yes, all three buildings clearly had timers to detonate them anyway, whether a plane hit or not. I don't know how they could have gotten away with that in the Twin Towers. they didn't get away with it in building seven not with the millions in the 9-11 truth movement who are aware and screaming and creating trying to create more public outrage because they say there was some sort of government offices as well and building seven building seven tenants is a another uh key question it had the irs the cia the department of defense the securities and Exchange Commission, which lost thousands of files related to hundreds of cases that they were actively pursuing against Wall Street companies like Enron and WorldCom.

48:16So it could be that they needed those cases, which were huge. Those are underestimated. The impact, those were still going on even as late as 9-11 and uh they say those cases were destroyed the legal cases were destroyed uh because the physical uh documentation was destroyed that's the claim how many floors are in the twin towers how high did it go how many levels 110 and for building seven how many levels would you need to put explosives in for it to do that? Would you need to go on every floor? You would start down low in the building and you would probably go most floors. Some structural engineers say you only need to go about 20 floors and then the rest of it would, through free fall and kinetic energy, could destroy itself after that.

49:23There's debate about that. um what there's no debate about is that there should have been no free fall which is coming right up and i'm just going to obviously jump into certain places just to give people an understanding but how long would it take to do a building with explosives to to get it to fall like that like we're talking months so if people are working in there they would have seen people setting things up or could you do it secretively could you be going through the sort of roof, the shafts, and hiding away to plant explosives. There are floors that are not occupied. Mm-hmm. In fact, through NIST's evacuation records, revealed to us that about half of these floors were not occupied either.

50:08So it could be that those were the floors that they had access to, and so were planted incendiaries, in the case of Building 7, in, as we'll see. Or people could have went in at nighttime and put the explosives in? Well, in those floors that are not occupied, certainly they could do it during the day because there are secure elevators with freight elevators and so forth that can bring up the equipment and supplies. How many in a team would you need to do such a job? We're talking dozens of people, months. This is a huge job. This is the biggest job other than the Twin Towers. Uh, and, and so we'll talk about access to the twin towers.

50:53Is that an easy job section? Is that an easy job to do? Like possibly getting someone from the army or someone who's secret service to do such a job? Not secret service. Uh, probably not the army. Uh, certainly well-trained individuals, probably a, an expert, uh, a company who has experts in the demolition of, uh, control demolition of buildings, such as a control demolition. Inc. is a suspect in many of our minds. Because obviously people will question if there's so many involved, because we're living in a world of whistleblowers. Everybody loves to tell now, everybody loves to whistleblow, but nobody's ever came forward to say, do you know what?

51:35I planted explosives in there. We don't know that they haven't come forward. You haven't heard about them on CNN. Maybe they tried to come forward and were taken care of. As you know, since 9-11, all of our texts, our emails, and our phone calls are systematically swept up and stored in the largest building in Utah for use against us. So they had listening ears to certainly every potential whistleblower that exists. So we don't know if they tried to come forward. We do know that these are black operations where they are compartmentalized. And so they often, many of the people don't even know what they're doing.

52:21For instance, in the Twin Towers, we're going to be asking if the fireproofing upgrades were really that, or were they liquid-applied nanothermite, as we'll see evidence for. And what was that? They gather all our information and store it. What is that? When you have phones or technology. What is that? I mean, what is that? How do they do so? What was that? Well, the Patriot Act enabled them to do it legally through an emergency. And that continues, that emergency continues to be renewed every other year or so, since 9-11. So, uh, for our security and our, keep our freedom. Yeah. And they're trying to keep us safe by taking all our information.

53:09Yeah, exactly. So, um, but what is that for people who don't know? What do they do with information? Where do they store it? It's stored in Utah in a data center, which is a massive building. I think it's the biggest one in Utah. and they take everybody's is that only in america or worldwide in america every phone call every email every text this is completely unconstitutional but because of the emergency emergencies are great for tyrants yeah so sometimes they can start these catastrophes to then do this and give more control over the people because surely that's against your human rights? Surely that's against your human rights?

53:55It's against the law, too. Yeah. Our human rights are secured through our Constitution, so they're just trampling over the Constitution to make this happen. So we look at the next feature of controlled demolition, feature number two. Is there a straight-down, symmetrical collapse into the building's footprint? Well, let's look from West Street and see. Pretty straight down, pretty symmetrical. Hey, how do you do that is the question, right? Well, we know from control demolition companies that you have to take out the core columns all at once, within a fraction of a second of each other, on each floor, synchronistically timed, but on a floor-by-floor basis about a second later, after the interior columns, you have to take out the exterior columns.

54:55Any deviation in that pattern, and you have real problems, can these fires cause that level of precision? Obviously not. See, a sixth grader can figure this out. If you have a, if one of those charges or some of them don't go off, you can have all kinds of serious problems like this, where instead of the building go down, going down, it goes over or it stops. Somebody's got to go back into that building and fix those charges. This is U.S. Bank's Cozy Cash Formations with your chief financial playmaker, Fernando Mendoza. You are worthy of financial security. Budgeting is not restriction. It's freedom.

55:45You are smart. You are capable. You are giving your money a purpose. You are learning the language of saving, of growing now streaming member FDIC copyright 2026 US Bank not gonna be me if a building is hit by a plane how should the building fall does it just stand or does it kind of go over that way there's no one answer to that question if the plane hits just right and it's bigger than the building it is possible for the building to collapse We know the plane was much smaller than the Twin Towers. Uh, the, the Twin Towers are 200 feet by 200 feet. Each floor is an acre in size. It absorbed the plane.

56:36See if the building actually went over, would it be more plausible that it was the airplanes? Well, yeah, because there was asymmetrical damage from the plane, uh, uh, damaging the columns. asymmetrical damage from the fire. So it should have followed the law of entropy, increasing chaos, and eventually just fallen over if it was going to collapse. Why would they not do that then? Surely they would have studied and had, they would have known that people would have investigated. Because if the buildings just fell over, would that have made more sense? No, we're talking about 15 stories above the point of plane impacts.

57:20If they had that fall, they would have been compelled to rebuild the tower. And that wasn't their goal. Their goal was to rebuild the whole site. So the whole building had to be destroyed. And it had to be easily cleaned up. Was there gold underneath the tower? The tower's north? Yes. There was a gold heist going on, according to some stories. I don't have proof of that. Yeah, no, I heard that. But again, I don't know. I've been asking for documentation. I haven't seen any. And with sort of explosions, was there any sort of evidence or like DNA that there was explosions on the Twin Towers? Evidence of DNA?

58:01Yeah, like from the explosions, like debris or anything? Explosions don't produce DNA. So you can't have, there's no evidence. Oh, you mean, uh, attacks. Yeah. Chemical attacks of explosions. Because what was it? Like, um, is it nanothermic particles found? Yes, there was. What is that nano, because I've got it written down, nano fermite particles found? What is that? We're going to say that. We're going to go into great detail on that. But if buildings like Building 7 were damaged on one side, one corner, in fact, the northeast corner, according to the official narrative, or the southwest corner, according to the damage pattern from the debris from World Trade Center 1.

58:52Either way, the building would have fallen toward that damaged side. We would expect that, like we see here in this building, which is damaged on one side. Again, a lot of this, most all of it, is very intuitive, as is the freefall acceleration measured by math teacher David, physics teacher David Chandler. So, he's also a math teacher. So, he demonstrated very clearly through high school tool, physics tools, that this building came down at freefall for at least a third of its seven-second fall. What does that mean? That means that not one of these columns gave any resistance. Well, where did they go?

59:52There's 80 columns in this building. NIST acknowledges that it came down by freefall after being publicly embarrassed in a conference, their own conference, with questions from members of AE911 Truth. We measured it. It's freefall. How can you, because they denied it at first for seven years, they denied that it came down at freefall. Because they knew, they even said publicly, Sean Sunders said, that would mean there'd be no structure under it. Right. So where did the structure go now that you acknowledge the freefall? freefall. There's 81 columns in this building. None of them gave any resistance to the collapse of this building during that time of freefall.

1:00:44A third of the building's seven-second freefall. Did these fires take out every column at once so that the building could fall that fast? A lot of people don't think so. Let's look at feature number five. Is there the total dismemberment of that steel structure? Well, look at the pile. It's standing six, well, three to six stories tall, depending on how you measure it. Wait a minute. We had a 47-story moment-resisting steel frame structure where the columns and beams are rigidly welded on the outside to each other. And it fell as... And to fall into this small of a pile, it's like a house of cards.

1:01:31You know, there's not enough height there to account for columns and beams still intact. This is a building under stress with steel. The columns, the connections don't fail. They are the strongest part of the assembly. the the the if there's a failure it's designed to be in the beam itself as you see depicted here so what that's not what we have or we'd see a pile 14 20 30 stories tall and again the building falling over if it was going to collapse no it falls like a house of cards look at buildings that fall due to natural causes. We have columns and beams that are not severed one from another.

1:02:23It doesn't fall, typically, like a house of cards. The concrete is not pulverized to a fine powder. This building is a very different animal. What caused that? Did these fires cause the failure of all those columns and beam connections? No. So what did? Well, we can take a clue. Feature number seven in controlled demolitions, you have explosions, which are accompanied, heard by witnesses, sounds of explosions heard, explosions seen. In this case, we have Daryl, a medical student, interviewed that evening. We were watching the building actually because it was on fire, the bottom floors of the building were on fire.

1:03:15And, 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 and we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground. You know, we were in shock. And then the worst part... What? A sound of a clap of thunder, a shockwave ripping through the building, the windows busting out, and then the building coming down.

1:03:57That does not sound like the collapse of a building. Like NIST says, there are no witnesses of explosions. Well, here's one. Here's another. Kevin McPadden, former Air Force medic.

1:04:35That's very helpful. How about Bill Rosati? What did he see? 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. A big flash, and then the building coming down. How about Captain Richard Patterson of the New York Fire Department? One-seven let go as well and was a series of concussive explosions. That's helpful. And Patrick Dillon, first responder. I remember feeling that like freight trains underneath the earth, shaking the earth, even shaking me. That's when we all saw Building 7 crumple in the middle, like way up at the top.

1:05:28It buckled. It buckled and then dropped. It buckled and then dropped after the rumbling in the ground. How about Richard Rotan, Deputy Director of New York's Office of Emergency Management? He had to examine the building about midday. Let's hear what his experiences are in the building. Then he had to go into that building to assess it. You could hear the building creak above us. You could hear things fall. You could hear the fire burning. You could see columns just hanging from the upper floors, gaping holes in the floors up above us. There was an elevator car that was blown out of its shaft and it was down the hall.

1:06:15An elevator car blown out of its shaft down the hall? How in the world do we get columns dangling from above, holes above his head in the floors, and an elevator hoistway that has been blown 30 feet out of the cab, out of the hoistway? That's obviously an explosion. And yet NIST denies all evidence and witnesses of explosions, including this one, by the way, Barry Jennings, who, along with Mayor Giuliani's attorney, Michael Hess, they were on their way to an emergency meeting because a plane had just hit the World Trade Center, not realizing that, hey, the building had been evacuated before they got there because they were late to this meeting.

1:07:11and this is their experience after reaching the 23rd floor of the Emergency Operations Center. They were on their way down and this is their experience on the way down. When we got to the 8th floor I started walking to one side of the building that side of the building was gone. The first explosion I heard when I was on the stairwell landing when we made it down to the 6th floor then we made it back to the 8th floor I heard some more explosions. What's on the sound? Like a boom. Like an explosion. More than one? Yes. We started walking down the stairs. We made it to the eighth floor. Big explosion.

1:07:50Blew us back into the eighth floor. When we get outside, the police officer comes to me and says, you have to run. We have more information of bombs, so you have to run. Information of bombs. Bombs like this heard in the late morning of 9-11. by these first responders? Yeah, here's one of the guys who can tell you I'm okay, all right? Here, hold on. You want to call your mother or something? No, I'm supposed to be right now. You've got to get back. You know that. You've got to get back. All right, it's moving. Don't worry about me. You need to make calls right now. All right, let's go. What else do you want?

1:08:29Here, I got it. Use this card, man. Well, they ignored all of these, obviously. And there's over 150 more that we're going to look at. 150 more witnesses of explosions in the Twin Towers, in the case of the Twin Towers. So we have to ask ourselves, well, wait a minute. If this were a controlled demolition, people would know about it in advance. And like you said, they'd talk about it. Well, here we have some people talking about exactly that, like Chief Nick Visconti. We're moving the command post over that way. This building's coming down. Wait a minute. How does he know the building is going to come down?

1:09:07Never before in history have we lost a steel frame fire-protected structure due to fires. Well, listen to Chief Pete Hayden. It gets more interesting. Well, we had our special operations people set up surveying instruments to monitor and see if there was any movement in the building. We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building. And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, And we asked him if we allowed it to burn. Could 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, you have about five hours.

1:09:44Wait a minute. In his current state, meaning on fire, you have about five hours before it comes down. How does he know this? Never before have we lost a steel frame fire-protected structure. and now he's saying not only that it's going to come down but in five hours and guess what it does come down in five hours so who was that then someone predicted that an anonymous engineer who they had put they said put a transit on a building to watch what they said was the the the side of it was bulging. So apparently he's a pretty good engineer

1:10:31because without examining the steel itself behind the windows and the cladding, he knows exactly when it's going to come down. Obviously, it could only have been made with foreknowledge of the buildings. And we don't know the name of that engineer. They won't tell us. He's anonymous. But listen to these mysterious construction workers walking away from Building 7, hearing an explosion over their shoulder, looking back at the CNN camera and saying this.

1:11:17The building is about to blow up. The flame, debris coming down. Wait a minute. The building is about to blow up. Flame and debris coming down? How do they know the building is about to blow up? Uh, so not only is it coming down, it's going to blow up now. This is darn interesting. It gets more interesting, actually. Listen to, again, Patrick Dillon, first responder. 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.

1:12:12There 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?

1:12:56Ordering 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. Get out of the building, they're going to pull it. Pull it is a term used in the controlled demolition industry to bring down a building by explosives. so this is very very interesting and the guys with Uzis don't know who they were we can speculate that would be fun but that story he said there was gangs with Uzis not gangs but two paramilitary clad individuals with black ski masks meaning with the eye holes they didn't want to be identified so your guess is as good as mine but is corroborated by two others.

1:13:45Here's one. Sorry, before you start, did anybody die in Building 7? We're told that nobody died in Building 7. There's contradictory testimony from Barry Jennings, actually, that he was stepping over dead bodies. He's the only witness of that. So it's not corroborated, so we don't put much weight on that. But here's Captain Richard Patterson of the New York Fire Department again. 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.

1:14:38And he paused and said, that'll be coming down around five o 'clock. We part ways. We arrive at seven and there were two paramilitarily clad men with 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. A little comedy there, but... So that was, so you can't stop the fire brigade from entering a building?

1:15:39No, you're not supposed to do that. Not even if you own the building. So what authority did they actually have? Were people just scared because they had doozies, guns? Well, they were outmanned. They're in the middle of a catastrophic emergency with buildings on fire all around them. And buildings collapsed. Big buildings. So I have interviewed Captain Patterson for three hours, and that interview is on my website, richardgage911.org. And we don't get additional clarity from him because he basically just said, this is not a battle I'm going to fight right now. Not these guys with guns. the men in black.

1:16:30How many people have you interviewed, Richard? Eighty-three. So you've got men in balaclavas with guns saying, leave the building, we've got it then, make the phone call and say, they've got the building secure because no one's in it. And then the building collapses. Yeah. So someone who was clearly behind it didn't want any more lives lost. Could be that. Uh, so we can speculate all day, but that's a, That's an answer most of us could understand. But why would they even care, especially with losing lives? But then again, maybe that was the plan because like you say, it was under the radar. A lot of people don't know about it.

1:17:13But if you lose lives, then that's a different ballgame. They have to quell that story about stepping over dead bodies in that building by Barry Jennings. and they have to quell any other accounts, any other possibility of losing lives. But I think the use of long rifles is doing more damage to their narrative than not. But that's just my speculation. Could people have been in shock as well where they were seeing things? Well, these two stories are independently corroborated by each other as well as by Richard Rotans, I believe it is, who saw military-clad individuals in Building 7. Yes, weird.

1:18:13Yeah. So it falls into the very interesting category. But here's another account of foreknowledge from Kevin McPadden. We heard his testimony about explosions earlier. what he's what he's saying here he's listening to they're all pulled back about three blocks I think from World Trade Center 7 and because they were told it's got structural damage from the towers and it's going to come down so they're backing everybody away that's the story on the street but he's listening to a who he believed to be a Red Cross worker but he's listening to a radio held by that worker and this is what he hears at the last few seconds he took his hand off and you heard 3, 2, 1 what?

1:19:14do fires bring buildings down to countdowns? what's really going on here? who did the countdown? the Red Cross worker had a radio and that's what he heard from the radio So I doubt it was a Red Cross worker, first of all. You know, who knows? He's just got the uniform on. Yeah. So now the BBC, you're familiar with them. Yeah, this one is mad to me. You pay your fees. I don't fucking pay them.

1:19:49So this kind of news can be programmed into you and others. those who actually pay their fees. Let's listen to this story from Jane Stanley. 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 during this morning's attacks. We'll probably find out more now about that from our correspondent Jane Stanley.

1:20:31Jane, 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. We're on a live broadcast showing Building 7 right behind her, saying that it came down and this is 23 minutes before it actually comes down. They apologize for this grievous error citing the confusing events of the day. What does this make them psychic? What's really going on here? Same with CNN actually who announced the collapse at 1107 that morning. Let's listen to this newscaster. In New York, Alan Dobbs Frank joins us on the phone in lower Manhattan.

1:21:17Alan, Aaron, just 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 us estimated that 50 stories went down. The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon. And now, as I think Patty Sabga 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.

1:21:58Indeed, it was. Because had this building come down at that time, that's exactly what we would see, is, uh, 40, 50 stories of incredible amounts of powdered concrete and gypsum board spread throughout lower Manhattan. We wouldn't have any videos of Building 7. Maybe that was a plan. What was their excuse for calling the building before it collapsed 20 minutes before? Did they use maybe a green screen or anything? Did they give any excuses? No, they said the events of the day were so confusing. They had no timing excuse that solved the timing problem, the foreknowledge, the pre-announcement. They didn't have it.

1:22:51Obviously, they had a script, you know, given to them, which they say was Reuters. Blame it on Reuters. So, don't know. But again, had that building come down at that time, we'd have no videos of it. So maybe it was supposed to come down at that time. Maybe. Someone's had inside information. It's like there's a man, Ian Huntley. He killed two young girls in Manchester years ago, but he got beaten to death in prison. But I was told on the Thursday night or the Friday morning that he was dead, but the papers held onto it and then released it all on the Saturday morning that he was dead all at the same time, nine o 'clock Saturday morning for that weekend headling.

1:23:35you know like that he was already dead but they played on it he's in a life support machine i knew he was dead um but they all released the same story at 9am the next day it's um it's all headlines it's all money but with this though it's a different ball game you know to call that 20 minutes before it happens clearly someone was in the know for them to try and get there first Yeah. Well, how did they possibly get in the know without being told that it was going to happen? And they messed up the timing, obviously. So the question that many ask is, were those mysterious construction workers that heard Building 7 explosion and then said the building's going to come down, it's going to blow up?

1:24:26were they fixing a dud of a controlled demolition that didn't go off?

1:24:35So that's how they knew that it was going to come down. And then the first responders were told it was going to come down at 5 o 'clock, and then the BBC messes it up. So everybody knew it was going to come down because it had to come down, apparently according to their plan, because late or not. So maybe it's supposed to go down under the cover of this incredible mess, catastrophe of the Twin Towers. But what do the experts say? Well, here's one of the top European controlled demolition companies. Danny Jochenko is the expert on this in Europe. What did he say? This is controlled demolition.

1:25:30A team of experts did this, controlled them professional work without a doubt. How about one of the three dozen structural engineers signed on to the petition among the 3600 others, demanding a new investigation, like Kamal Obeid in the San Francisco Bay Area, 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 key columns, several of its columns at key locations within the building. That sounds like something that buyers are going to accomplish. No. And this caught the attention of Professor Leroy Halsey, one of the top European controlled demolition experts in the country.

1:26:18And he was tasked and accepted the job of analyzing this building, spent four years doing it, very professionally with two competing software systems that were designed to either corroborate or not each other's results. and they did both corroborate the results. So they found some very interesting things. One is that, hey, if column 79, the one in the northeast corner, did fail, then you would have a failure that looked something like this. In other words, intuitively, the building would fall over toward that corner. Again, this could be sixth grade physics, but no,$300 ,000. assembled to the finest forensic structural engineer in the country.

1:27:19So what did he find? He found in order to duplicate the damage that we see in the video in the center, he had to take out all the core columns within a fraction of a second of each other, followed about a second later by the perimeter columns. Then it behaves like the video in the middle. University of Alaska is on the left. NIST computer animation is on the right. They had seven years to put this computer animation together. They tried to back-engineer it so it would fall like the video. But in their model, they release 400 structural steel connections every second because that's the only way that you could get the building to fall at freefall, and yet it still does not.

1:28:10In fact, it begins to tip over. So they stop the animation about two seconds into the global collapse. And so it bears no resemblance to the video other than the initial collapse of the Twin Towers. But then it begins to fall apart rapidly. the skin begins to crunch in, which is what you would expect if thermal expansion had pushed a steel girder off of its seat on column 79 and caused the failure of floor 13 onto 12, 12 on 11, and so on for nine floors, according to the official narrative. And then this instability, they say travels from east to west, left to right in this model. And it's just a mess.

1:29:10It doesn't work whatsoever. It's proven six ways. So what are the essential findings of the University of Alaska's study, which lasted three, even four years? Fire did not cause the collapse of this building. Temperatures were not high enough to cause the weakening of the steel framing. Further, the thermal expansion didn't result in a loss of support for the beams and the girders, as NIST claimed otherwise, actually. Further,

1:29:50thermal expansion did not result in a loss of support for the beams in the girders. The collapse of this building was a total failure, involving what? The near simultaneous failure of every column in the building. Not a progressive collapse, as claimed by NIST. So they've completely pulled the rug out from underneath the NIST report here. And we've given this report to every member of Congress on a couple of occasions. So, the Halsey Report did not talk about what did bring the building down. Their aim was to find out what didn't bring it down. Now we're going to talk about what did bring it down, because the evidence is actually pretty clear, beginning with feature number nine, with persistent, and a very uncharacteristic feature, persistent extreme heat.

1:30:44What? What are we talking about? Who's providing this evidence? Not conspiracy theorists. James, it's FEMA. Appendix C, May of 2002, Building Performance Assessment Team Report. This is a metallurgical examination of the steel from Building 7 and the Twin Towers. So, what do they find in this metallurgy? Never before observed. Eutectic reactions involving what? Intergranular melting. capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese. Wait a minute. Fires don't do this to steel. This takes 3 ,000 degrees Fahrenheit, about half that, 1 ,500 Celsius. So this is the piece of steel found by mist, provided to FEMA.

1:31:40And yet they deny the evidence of it. It's just too comical. Even the Twin Tower steel, thinned to razor sharpness from 5 eighths inch thick to razor sharpness. They don't know what could do this, but they document it very well. What else? Rapid oxidation, sulfidation, liquid iron. That's molten iron. That's 3 ,000 degrees iron. How did that happen? Fires are only half that hot at their worst. sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. Is there anything that could make fire burn that hot? Is there anything that could make it? Yeah, in a forge where you're fashioning steel with incredible quantities of oxygen and the right environment.

1:32:33But this is not that. This is completely remotely from that. Here we're talking about sulfur. Where'd the sulfur come from? They don't know. They actually speculate, NIST does, maybe the sulfur came from gypsum board. Well, wait a minute. Gypsum board's been used for a hundred years to protect steel from fire. What is that? It's gypsum board. It's what our houses are made out of. It has calcium sulfate in it, but it's inert. It doesn't come out and attack the steel that has been designed for a hundred years to protect never happened but so it's just incredible to hear nist come out with these kinds of statements what speculations what's his background uh john gross is a structural engineer at nist he's the lead project engineer and what so how long has he been doing that how did he get that job i don't know was he the lead investigator investigator.

1:33:34He was appointed as the lead investigator for the World Trade Center. Yeah. He had been at NIST in their fire safety division. Has he ever came forward and says, listen, I've got it wrong? No. No, he's doubled down. All of them at NIST have doubled down. More money? I suppose. Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation, says who? the New York Times. But it's all omitted from the NIST report. NIST doesn't cover all of this information. When they took over the investigation two years after 9-11, after the FEMA report came out, they took over and threw it out of the report. incredible.

1:34:19In fact, the FEMA author himself, Jonathan Barnett, says the steel members in the debris pile appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures. He's a fire protection engineer. Something should go off in his head. That takes 4 ,000 degrees to evaporate steel. more than two and three and four times the temperatures that most office fires ever get to. I saw melting of girders at the World Trade Center, says this structural engineer, who had a National Science Foundation grant to study the steel. Wait a minute. You saw melting of girders. Did you think that where those temperatures came from, 3 ,000 degrees?

1:35:08Here in this, the crab claw excavator is pouring molten material out of its jaws. What's the temperature of this? We can tell by the color of molten materials like this, steel and iron. We're exceeding 2 ,500 degrees Fahrenheit, over 1 ,370 degrees Celsius. Where are these temperatures coming from? not fire, not jet fuel. We discussed that. Jet fuel doesn't burn hotter than 600 degrees, according to this engineering firm, ME Petroleum, in open air. 600 degrees. Okay, we'll double that. Maybe it's 1 ,200 degrees. Maybe they're wrong. We're talking 3 ,000 degrees Fahrenheit. This trading company says, no, it burns at 600 degrees.

1:36:03That's what we're saying. In the worst case fires mathematically conservative for experimental purposes, we're talking 1830 degree fires. The absolute worst. But we have evidence of 3 ,000 and 4 ,000 degrees. Where could those be coming from? Maybe it's thermite. What the hell is thermite anyway? An incendiary used by the military, thermite is a compound of iron oxide and aluminum, which when ignited, sustains an extreme heat reaction, creating molten iron. In just two seconds, thermite can reach temperatures over 4 ,500 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.

1:37:05Appendix 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 would explain the 4 ,000 and 5 ,000 degree temperatures. How can they use thermite? What is that? It's an incendiary used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter.

1:37:50So how would they do that? Would they spray it on with the paint? Well, we'll look at that. I think that's a great question. and we will... Just before you go on again, just going off topic, see if there was explosions placed. See if an airplane hit the explosions. Would they blow? Would it not detonate all the explosions? Would it not? Do you know what I'm saying? You answer that question when we look at the explosions going off floor by floor, down below the point of plane impacts. And we'll take a look and see if that might be true. I don't think that... I'm guessing that the plane had explosions on it because some in the 9-11 truth and would suggest that these were not the original planes that took off from their destination, their origin points.

1:38:42Could the planes have had fair might in them? They certainly could. That's a possibility. But that wouldn't explain the evidence that we're seeing blowing out of all four sides, all the way down each of the towers, as you'll see. So let's take a look. So thermite would explain the incredible temperatures. It would explain the presence of sulfur, which NIST could not rationally explain, because sulfur is added to thermite to become thermate, much more effective at cutting through steel. It would also explain the presence of something else in the dust, the evidence of ignited incendiaries in the form of previously molten iron microspheres found by who?

1:39:33The U.S. Geological Survey, who's studying all of the World Trade Center dust, hundreds of samples. What do they find in all of them? Previously molten iron microspheres found in all the World trait-centered dust by this agency of the United States government. Billions of them! They don't know where they came from. They have no idea. Well, where could they have come from? Why are they spherical? Well, liquids form themselves into spheres when they're aerosolized or under explosive conditions, liquid iron, which was identified by FEMA, the Worcester Polytechnic University in particular, cool. Well, they form themselves into spheres by surface tension, and then they cool.

1:40:31These spheres, the EPA called them, these are a signature component of the World Trade Center dust. It's used to distinguish World Trade Center dust from common office building dust. It's not even World Trade Center dust unless it has all these previously molten iron microspheres. Well, the fact that they're previously molten means what? 3 ,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The fact that they're iron means what? Fe, elemental iron, not steel, not aluminum, iron. We haven't used iron in our skyscrapers for 100 years. Where's the iron coming from? This is the only logical source for the iron, which the USGS doesn't even speculate on.

1:41:20Up to 6 % of some of these dust samples are previously molten iron microspheres. This is up to four tons of this material by extrapolation. So where's all this coming from? Well, R.J. Lee, an independent international environmental consulting firm, they analyze the dust too, and they find the same thing. They don't know where they came from, but they said they're formed during the event, not before by the welders putting the building together, not afterward by the iron workers cutting the building apart, but during the event itself. Well, guess what? But if we want to know where they come from, we can do an experiment.

1:42:07We could light some thermite. Experiment is the arbiter of competing hypotheses. Let's do one. We light some thermite. We see what look like thousands of sparks. But they cool and they fall into the pan as previously molten iron microspheres, which is exactly what is found and documented in all the World Trade Center dust. So then there's a team that asks themselves a key question. What's in this dust? Are there any clues? Is there any evidence of unignited thermite? Because everything we just saw was evidence of ignited thermite. Well, yeah, a team of international scientists led by Niels Herrit, a nanoscientist from Copenhagen, and a nuclear physicist, Stephen Jones, from Brigham Young University, formerly, did analysis on the dust, and they found these curious red-gray chips.

1:43:13Red on one side, gray on the other. So they're obviously fluid applied, like paint. In fact, they thought it was paint. In fact, it looks like primer paint, right? So they do some analysis of They find, hey, unlike primer paint, this has a high ferromagnetic content. It is attracted to a magnet. So they do some more studies on the red layer. In fact, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy. And what do they find? Aluminum and iron. The ingredients of thermite. What's the ingredients of thermite doing in all of these paint chips? and manganese, which is added to thermite to become thermate. And they don't see sulfur in this particular...

1:44:01Oh, SI. I think that's sulfur.

1:44:06Let's find out. They do... They get a lot more interested at this point, and they zoom in 50 ,000 times with an electron microscope. And what do they find? iron oxide crystals and aluminum platelets that are a thousand times smaller than the diameter of a human hair. Nanoparticles of thermite. This is very interesting because they're set in an organic bed of oxygen, silica, and carbon. Organic material is what they add to TNT to expand rapidly as a gas and knock things over. That's how explosives work. Whereas incendiaries work by means of burning things up at 4 ,000 and 5 ,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

1:44:56But they do some peer-reviewed literature. What have we gotten into here? What is this stuff? Well, they found that Lawrence Livermore Lab created superthermite before 2001. Explosive composites based on thermite reactions whose fuel and oxidizer constituents are intimately mixed on the nanometer-sized scale. You see, when you get these particles so small, their surface volume increases exponentially. And you've engineered an incendiary to become more explosive, because you also have, because of the intimate mixing, a rapidly conducting chemical reaction. Well, that's what Lawrence Livermore put together.

1:45:43In fact, when Lawrence Livermore put their chips in a heater, a differential scanning calorimeter, to be exact, they measured the resultant heat that happens after the temperature is raised to 420 Celsius, about 850 Fahrenheit. They expand, they ignite, producing a lot more energy, proving that what? That this is an exothermic material. thermite, for instance. Well, this is exactly what all four chips did that they did the DSC scanning on. So they've proven that this is not paint. Paint doesn't do this. Paint doesn't have these exotic properties. But what do you think happened when they ignite?

1:46:33They produce what? Molten iron microspheres with the same chemical reaction as the molten iron microspheres found and documented in all of the World Trade Center dust by the U.S. Geological Survey and R.J. Lee, and they never knew where it came from. This is where it comes from. In fact, they're found attached to partially ignited red-gray chips, as you see here and here. So we know exactly where they came from, And this is a self-corroborating set of repeatable experimental data that could be brought to a court of law in a real criminal investigation to bring the real perpetrators of 9 -11 to justice.

1:47:25It's all right here. And this report has also been given to every member of Congress. So where is this then? Like I said, is it paint? How do they put it on the building? Is it on the steel? Is it on the roofs? Let's talk about that. Because I've got a theory, and I'm going to show you in a minute. But this is not made in a cave in Afghanistan. This is made only in the most advanced defense contracting laboratories. It's very sophisticated material. This is a peer-reviewed paper in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. And they've concluded that the red layer of these red-grade chips we've discovered is active, unreacted, thermitic material incorporating nanotechnology as highly energetic, pyrotechnic, or explosive material.

1:48:15Every member of Congress has this 25-page peer-reviewed paper. We've given it to them twice, in fact, and we've got no action. So what we've been looking at is the 10 key characteristic features of controlled demolition and some very uncharacteristic features, particularly with the use of these incendiaries. Fire doesn't explain any one of these features, let alone all ten of them. With additional circumstantial evidence, a corroborative testimony, this becomes proof of controlled demolition. And that's a body of proof that has convinced 3 ,600 architects and engineers to demand a new investigation.

1:49:04And many of them appear with us in our presentation to the grand jury, a special sit-in grand jury, where we present this evidence, which will also be presented to a real grand jury when we complete this 12-episode series. We're only on episode five so far. Episode six is coming up, but here's just a taste. Two minute. No matter how improbable the conclusion may appear, when you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. 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.

1:50:02attorney 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 fields. They ignored any scenario involving incendiaries. demolition work you're gonna 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 I could make out what looked like from a science fiction movie molten lava okay and he paused and said That'll be coming down around 5 o 'clock.

1:50:55We'll be filming these evidence presentations, not only for filings with the grand jury, also as presentations to each of you. We're inviting you to serve as virtual grand jury during each episode.

1:51:12Indeed, and we're inviting you also to co-produce the remainder of this series because our editor, exceptional, as you've already seen, Stev in Australia, and I are working on the next six episodes in a rush to get them all done for the hearings that we anticipate will be happening before September 11th, the 25th anniversary of 9-11 this year, because Senator Ron Johnson, who came and spoke at our 9-11 Truth Conference in Washington, D.C. last year, has essentially promised a new investigation, a set of hearings like he did for COVID with 9-11. And he is the chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations.

1:52:08How many investigations has there been into 9-11? Well, we have the FEMA investigation, the first one, after some volunteers investigated, but they worked themselves into the FEMA team, who worked themselves into the NIST investigation, which we've been talking about, and then, of course, the 9-11 Commission, which was not an investigation, but a pre-prepared report headed by Philip Zelikow, who had his PhD in the creation and maintenance of public myth. he was in charge of the 9-11 commission report and he wrote it the commissioners did not write it they had many conflicts of interest themselves their leaders admitting that they were set up to fail inadequate funding and that the truth was not told their attorney john farmer wrote that in his book so the twin towers the planes go through you've got the fuel you've got the fire The fermite makes the fire stronger to burn the metal, but then the demolition happens.

1:53:21So do you believe the fermite was there to make it look as if it was a fire that done it? To make it look as if it was a natural collapse caused initially by failing steel structures as a result of the fires. That's the official narrative, yeah. So they try to make it look like a natural collapse, but now we're going to look at the Twin Towers collapse. itself, find out that it's not natural whatsoever. And to answer your earlier question, find out how they might have implanted nanothermite in the building. So it goes a lot deeper. Like you say, people just think as the plane crashed, the buildings come down.

1:54:00Yes, the sort of demolition you can see. Yep, definitely. But then again, going into this, is it thermite? Thermite and nanothermite. That's a different ballgame. That is so pre-planned. That is so much scheming behind that to create that scenario because it is smart, just not smart enough. A question there? I didn't hear. No, no, I was just thinking like people just think it's the plane crash, the buildings come down, but the Fairmate stuff and how it's there, which we'll get into, it's interesting if it makes things heat up even more from 600 to 3 ,000 Celsius. Like that is some powerful stuff, that.

1:54:39Yeah, it really is. And they're not smart enough. You're absolutely right. They've been caught red-handed here. But the power of the media is incredible in censoring truth. Most people get their information from CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc., and they will not touch this information with a 10-foot pole because they're owned by the people who generate the power, who are in power, who generate these false flag operations like World Trade Center, Building 7, and Twin Towers, in a manipulation to mess with the emotions of Americans to send their, our, and your, and everybody else's people in the coalition of the forced to a war in the Middle East to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

1:55:39And now Iran. So when did this come out about the fair mate? How long ago? 2009. This peer reviewed paper was published. So nearly 20 years ago as well. Yeah. Still a long time. And what evidence has it got for trying to get convictions? Because like you say, everything's swept under the carpet. Look at the Epstein files, for instance, not one arrest. You know, look at the information they've got. Look at the evidence they've got. Millions of files, not one arrest. Nothing. And I think that very fact is waking people up a lot more for whatever reason than 9-11 did. 9-11 woke me up. It's woken millions up.

1:56:21But now millions more as a result of Epstein and COVID, the scam with the pre-engineered disease and its pre-engineered solution with this vaccine. people are they've overplayed their hand and they're waking people up on their own finally but it's still scary because I always say I believe they're 50 years, 100 years ahead I think when we just catch up they've already made other steps and made moves in their game so I think they're already so advanced we think we're catching up but there's just more stuff, we've got mobile phones well they start a war to distract everybody from the Epstein file so this is Epstein Fury that's the operation Iran and Dubai, look at Dubai I says it last year on the podcast there's too many millionaires left the UK to go to Dubai now what it takes is a couple of drone strikes to get those millionaires straight back, you know there's not been much damage done in Dubai but it's enough to scare the shit out of people to realise do you know what, it's not safe here I would rather spend 40 % tax and I'm not getting missiles so everything is a game they do operate it to a high degree and I don't like people need to understand that they are being played daily everyone including me including you we think we know certain things and go down the rabbit hole but we're still involved in their game you know we're still involved and it's difficult to truly break free unless you become a total monk and live off grid but this stuff's still interesting well if we get Senator Johnson to cough up a real investigation of 9-11 like he did COVID.

1:58:09I mean, that was fearless. He said he's not running for Congress again. So he doesn't care what they call him, anti-Semitic, whatever, conspiracy theorist. He's ready for it. So he's asked us to produce a report, and we're doing just that. This could be a 2 ,000-page report that we're compiling all of this evidence in. We're asking everybody to hold his feet to the fire, because we're going to deliver this report in three months to him. And it's a lot of work. So we're asking people to support us in that effort, too. But if it did come to it, and they got a fresh investigation, and people were getting sent to prison to confirm that it was an inside job, I think there would be a revolution.

1:58:58There would need to be the levels that they have went to, to kill innocent people from their own, to then invade other countries with all the lies, all the deceit. You've got to then question every single thing on this planet. Everything that you've been taught is a lie. And that's a scary thought. That's scary because we're just talking about the things that we know, the conspiracies that we're aware of. What about the ones we're not aware of yet? There's probably more of them than these. That's sad. So this brings us to the Twin Towers, because if Building 7 was a controlled demolition, which proved that it was, irrefutably, we have to ask ourselves, is it possible that the Twin Towers could have suffered a similar fate?

1:59:46And, of course, the answer is yes, which is why we're talking about it here today. But we start with Building 7 because, according to the official narrative, nobody died, and so it's not laden with the emotional trauma that the Twin Towers are. Yeah, nobody cares so much. 3 ,000 people and cultural icons, you know, terrorizing certainly the people in New York, but really a lot of people, millions and millions around the world. Well, just look at the towers coming down on the left and the right. We have upward, outward, arching streamers, and they're shown simultaneously to show how identical they are, though they're 15 minutes apart in reality.

2:00:32a geometry of fireworks, freely flying structural steel sections weighing four and eight tons, laterally ejected out of the towers at 80 miles an hour, clocked by physicists landing up to 600 feet in every direction, trailed by thick white smoke clouds. Wait a minute. Why are structural steel sections trailing thick white smoke clouds? They're not flammable. Certainly in office fire and jet fuel conditions, they are not flammable. What are these thick white smoke clouds? Well, let's burn some thermite and we see in addition to molten iron, the main byproduct of thermite, we have thick white smoke clouds.

2:01:24Those are aluminum oxide ash, the other byproduct of thermite. Is that dangerous in itself, the fumes? I don't know. Could that have harmed people? I've never heard that it is.

2:01:40Because you see the police officers and the fire brigade all covered in ash and smoke. I don't know if maybe they get cancers. I'm just going off topic, but I don't know if it's maybe affected them. Yeah, the nanothermite could have been very, very dangerous. The asbestos in long term is extremely dangerous. The concrete that's powderized is extremely alkaline. And so the whole thing is a horrible toxic soup, which has killed more first responders after 9-11 than, or since 9-11, than on 9-11. And there were 343 murdered in that building. So we're going to ask ourselves the same set of questions.

2:02:26Is there a set of features of controlled demolition? Let's begin with feature number one. Is there a sudden onset of destruction? Let's watch the North Tower, and it's standing at rest, and all of a sudden it's in uniform downward acceleration. There's no jolt, no hesitation upon impact with the cold, hard steel below the point of plane impacts. And what about this black smoke? Is there any theories why it's black? Is that just normal? Um, that's a great question. The black smoke could indicate petroleum products. It could indicate petroleum itself in the form of jet fuel. It could also indicate an oxygen-starved fire.

2:03:13And then there's white smoke, too, which we'll see a lot more of, and we'll see why. There's a lot of white smoke that turns out to be concrete powder. But same with the South Tower. We have the building at rest, and all of a sudden it's in uniform downward motion. No resistance from the still intact structural steel below. Very little resistance. So we have NIST claiming, well, the upper block drove the rest of the building down to the ground and then destroyed itself. This is the theory. This theory was put forth by Zdenek Bazant from Chicago, in Chicago, Northwestern University. He calls it the crush down, crush up theory.

2:04:08He produced this incredibly obfuscated paper just two days after 9-11. He submitted it for peer review. In two days, while the rest of us, you, me, everybody, was in shock. When's the next plane coming? who's doing this to us? We're under attack. Everybody's emotionally traumatized. Not this guy. He's in his den working on what became the official theory and what remains as the official theory, the support for the official theory of NIST. Let's look at it in detail because it suffers from a number of problems. Number one, Newton's third law of motion. There's an equal and opposite destructive force when two bodies collide.

2:04:57Take a Mack truck. You call them lorries. Lorries. And run that into a Volkswagen. Does the Volkswagen win? No. Does it matter if we drop the Volkswagen onto the Mack truck from above? No. There's an equal and opposite destructive force. The lightest part cannot destroy the heavier, cold, hard steel below. The plane impacts in this case. In fact, look at the size of the steel gain in size as we go down the building until halfway down. We're 52 inches by 22 inches by two inch steel, thick steel. So it gets thicker steel the lower they go down the floors. Yep. It's almost thicker and it's bigger all the way down to the bottom.

2:05:46So what should have happened if it was a plane who hit it? What would the reaction, what should it have been? Just no movement whatsoever. Well, what we saw should have happened. The plane was absorbed by the building and the building stood there. The forces were routed around the opening and it did what it was supposed to do. In fact, the structural engineer, the boss of Leslie Robertson, who's credited with engineering the towers, but John Skilling actually said that it was designed to resist not one, but two Boeing aircraft 707s, which weren't quite as big as 757, but were faster, so they had the same kinetic energy.

2:06:31And he said the problem would be, the building would still be there, but the problem would be that the fuel would dump into the building, but the building would still be there. So that's a fascinating thing. So nothing should have happened in terms of a collapse. And NIST, therefore, says that, but they blame it on the fires. Well, the fires, they say most of the fuel burned up outside the building. The rest of it, 10%, started the fires, but even it burned up. Should the plane have actually went through this deal? Because you see planes with big dents at the front if they hit a bird, for instance.

2:07:13Yeah, I'm going to show you the plane, the damage to the impact opening and why the plane made that. We'll make a point of doing that. But first, let's see if the upper part is, in fact, driving the rest of the building down to the ground. We can look a little more carefully if we insert some lines here to help us visualize what's really going on here. Is the upper part destroying the lower part? Watch the lower red line at the point of plane impacts. No. This upper part is telescoping in on itself. It's being destroyed in the first three seconds. What do you mean? It's telescoping. There's no movement of the upper part, meaning the lower red line, down upon the structure below.

2:08:06It's the upper part of the upper part that's being destroyed. It's that bit under the red line. What? You see it under the red line, the bottom bit? Yeah. You see the explosion now? We're going to look at a lot of those. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But for the purposes of this point, that lower red line is not moving down. That's the point. The upper part is telescoping in on itself. So it couldn't have done that pancaking thing? So it can't crush the building below. It's not available to crush the building below. If it were, we'd see it riding the rest of the building down to the ground. But none of the videos, none of the photos show an upper part destroying the lower part.

2:08:47It's gone in three seconds. If it were there, it would have destroyed these few remaining core columns standing 900 feet in the air for 12 seconds. But no, they're destroyed not by an upper part, which wasn't, it's not there. they're taken out by yet another explosion below, and they fall frame by frame through the smoke that is upon them from the destruction here. In fact, what does it look more like? I'll tell you this. Which one, I'll ask you this, which one is a volcanic eruption, and which one is the World Trade Center? Yeah, the right one's a volcanic volcano. This is the analogy, though, right?

2:09:33Upward, outward, arching streamers, a geometry of fireworks, freely flying solid, molten objects trailed by thick white smoke clouds. Yes, it's the volcanic eruption on the right. A lot of people are amazed at the similarity, though. it's not the upper part crushing the lower part, as Zdenik Bazant said, and then destroying itself. It's more like the upper part has been destroyed, and then the lower part, floor by floor, is blowing outward, as we'll see in a moment, leaving intact the core columns for 900 feet, and then they go down. John Cole has revealed this is a very, very different form of destruction.

2:10:29So we look at feature number two. Would there be witnesses of explosions? You'd expect so. And yes, there are. The oral histories of the first responders commissioned by Thomas von Eschen within a month after 9-11 produced 12 ,000 pages of testimony. and they were read by Professor Graham McQueen. And he found 156 witnesses of explosions like this. We felt the ground shake. You could see the tower sway. And then it just came down. Again and again, you're going to hear this specific order of events. They're hearing something. They're seeing something. They're feeling something. Before the tower collapses.

2:11:16That's not the official narrative. Official Narrative said, oh, the tower's collapsing and causing then these sounds. 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. I shook my bones shortly before the first tower came down. I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise. And then debris just started flying everywhere. These witnesses are very specific. 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 in orange, and then a red flash came out of the building, and then it would just go all around the building on both sides.

2:12:05Saw 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 a low-level flash. I saw a 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. There was an explosion 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.

2:12:53Seemed 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. We actually heard the pops. You know, you heard the pops of the building. I thought the terrorists planted an explosive 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 with a large fireball, which blew out more debris.

2:13:31The lower level of the building, you know, like when they demolish a building, that's what I thought I saw. Did you see any flashes? I said, yes. Well, I thought it was just me. He said, no, I saw them too. Everybody 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. Listen to these first responders. We started running. Floor by floor, it started popping out. It was as if they had detonated. Yeah, detonated.

2:14:09It was as if they were planning to take down a building. Boom, boom, boom, boom. All the way down. NIST claims to have interviewed 116 first responders, and they say there are no witnesses of explosions. Well, here's 156. How did they miss these 156? Because they didn't want to hear from them, apparently. So let's look at the next feature of controlled demolition. Is there a straight-down symmetrical progression? Well, looking at the South Tower collapse, it's actually leaning over. In fact, it's leaning 22 degrees off-center. So we have asymmetrical loading on the structure below. Asymmetrical damage from the fires.

2:14:54Asymmetrical damage to the columns from the planes. How in the world then do we get complete symmetrical damage, just like the firefighters described, all the way around the building and all the way down. It makes no sense. It's a complete incongruity. We can make sense out of it, though, by zooming in on the leading corner. Let's do that. In this looped video, count the individual explosions. I see about a dozen individual explosions floor by floor racing down the building. This is not a nuclear weapon going off. This has been hypothesized by some. This is obviously pre-placed explosions in the exterior structure of the building.

2:15:55This is not directed energy weapons dustifying the steel. These are obviously individual pre-placed explosions, because that theory has been proposed by others. So let's look at, James, the other feature that you asked about and noticed earlier, these individual explosive ejections isolated from the zone up above, called squibs in the controlled demolition industry, occurring 20 stories below, 40 stories below the zone of destruction up above. There's no accounting for these in the official narrative. They're even occurring 60 stories down below. How can they possibly explain these away? They don't.

2:16:45They offer no explanation. Actually, they do. They suggest that these are air pressure being produced by that 15-story section at the top acting as a piston pushing down the air through the elevator hoistways, and then they got to come out somewhere, right? Well, no, that section had been destroyed in the first three seconds. So there's no piston or pile driver driving the rest of the building down to the ground. It's gone, as you see right here. So these squibs are also not air. They are building components that are being blown out of the building as well. So lots of evidence for that. And we see a dozen of them here in the South Tower.

2:17:39As it begins to lean to the right, on the left side, we see at least a dozen individual isolated explosions going off. So obviously these are not, these must be wireless explosively detonated explosives. Because the whole building's got to be detaching, breaking wires. if they were there. We have the... We would expect this section of building to maintain its rigidity and thus its angular momentum and fall off the building, as you suggested before. But what's happening here, obviously, is the internal destruction of the column-to-beam connections, so it doesn't act as a rigid body anymore. It acts as isolated structural components that are severed one from another, more like sand that's not in a bag, but has been let loose, as an analogy, for instance.

2:18:54So then we ask ourselves, how fast is this building coming down? Feature number five, is there a freefall acceleration? Well, darn near freefall. It's It's two-thirds of free fall acceleration. It's not slowing down at all as it meets the cold, hard steel below it. There's 47 massive core columns, 287 altogether, including 240 perimeter columns, which line as an exoskeleton the entire exterior here. We talked about that barren deal truss earlier. There's more steel than glass. on the exterior of this building. What happens to all of these sections? Note that these are individual sections, three columns, 37 feet tall, and three spandrel panels welded in the factory, brought out, erected on site with cranes.

2:19:58So does the plane cut through those? No. Well, the plane pushes them out. But we'll come back to that. Right now we're talking about how they are laterally ejected out of the towers during the actual explosively driven collapse sequence, with four and eight-ton structural steel sections thrusted 600 feet away, destroying the winter gardens that far away, impaling themselves in skyscrapers all around the World Trade Center, in that case, 500 feet away, and destroying the Deutsche Bank building nearby. These are those sections. You can see how big they are. This guy's climbing up the spandrel panel that ties them together.

2:20:51So you can see the four bolt holes that was connecting the next section on top of this one. So four bolts is all the plane had to shear as it hit this section and drove it inward. And in the damaged pattern in the openings for the north and the south tower, you see the bent steel and cladding inward, indicating this was an inward impact from a real plane. And we'll come back to that. So we have the lateral ejection of these isolated steel sections. This is not like a banana peeling, as has been suggested by some. No, these are freely flying structural steel sections, four and eight tons, laterally ejected like this, laterally.

2:21:54Back, two, forward, two, back, two. What are we seeing here? How does gravity work? Down. What's going on here? Complete horizontal ejection, taking a lot of force for a four-ton structural steel section. Trailed by what? Thick white smoke clouds. Does fire do that to steel? No. Steel's not flammable in office fire or jet fuel conditions. Again, this one's about to hit Building 7. In fact, there's enough force here to drive a 200-pound cannonball three miles. And there are hundreds of these. What do you mean, the cannonball? Well, there's a lot of explosive power to drive a 200-pound cannonball three miles.

2:22:45And that is the same explosive power used to eject four-ton structural steel sections up to 600 feet away. So we're not talking about a gravity-driven collapse. We're not talking about a collapse at all. we're dropping out an incredibly explosive event in the Twin Towers, as opposed to World Trade Center saying. Yeah, so something's blowing up inside to push something 600 feet away. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And well outside the perimeter of the towers. Since that's what's happening, we're looking for an answer to the question, well, if 100 ,000 tons of steel framing is distributed well outside the footprint, Is it available to crush the building also?

2:23:35No, it's not there. It's way out here. So what's crushing the building? The steel is a third of the weight of this building. And it's not available to crush it. So what's crushing it? Maybe it's the concrete. Let's see. Because we're missing a lot of concrete. Apparently it's been pulverized. We're looking for 110 floors of concrete. We're talking about floor systems made up of 4-8-inch thick concrete poured on metal decking supported by lightweight steel trusses spanning 35 feet and spanning 60 feet. We're looking for 110 of these assemblies, each an acre in size. We don't find 50 of them. We don't find 10 of them.

2:24:30We don't find one of them. No concrete. We don't find the concrete, and we don't find the floor assembly, in this case, steel. And we don't find a half-acre size assembly, not an eighth of an acre or a sixteenth of an acre. We don't find it. Look at the pile. We don't find a stack of what should be there is pancakes, right? This is a pancake and collapse on the right due to the earthquake in Myanmar affecting in Thailand. This building, which was under construction, it fell. The point is that it fell in a seven-story tall pile. And it's only 33 stories. It was. Well, the Twin Towers were 110 stories.

2:25:30They should have made a pile three times this size, but they made a pile only less than half of this size. So where is the concrete itself? We don't find those huge chunks of concrete. Oh, there it is. the concrete's been pulverized in midair. 90 ,000 tons of concrete in each building pulverized in midair before it could develop its kinetic energy and crash on the ground. That's what's happening. Now, what can pulverize 90 ,000 tons of concrete? Well, heat can pulverize concrete according to American Society of Testing and Materials, ASTM C-856, says that concrete is powderized at about 1 ,500 degrees Fahrenheit, about half that Celsius.

2:26:34So, very interesting. This is supported by the Fire Safety Journal, who also says concrete specimens subjected to temperatures of 2 ,200 degrees, in this case Fahrenheit, were completely decomposed. So if you can get the concrete hot enough, it can decompose. You can also put explosives under the concrete. But there's a method. What heat would it need to be? Could it melt just like anything? Could it burn? Well, there's some evidence that concrete can melt at high temperatures too. But what we're showing here is that at 1500 degrees Fahrenheit, it turns to white powder, which is what we see in all the photographs and the videos.

2:27:26This is the white powder as opposed to the dark smoke of the clouds created by the fires. So is the thermite getting put into the concrete? The thermite can get to temperatures of 4 ,000 and 5 ,000 degrees. Could that have been laid over the concrete? That is a key question. And that's the next one we're going to try to answer. But this one is, if 90 ,000 tons of concrete is not stacked up on the bottom, it couldn't have contributed to the collapse. It's evaporating. because it is spread out over lower Manhattan in three square miles. From river to river across lower Manhattan in a blanket just three inches thick.

2:28:19That's where the concrete is. Wait a minute. If the concrete is spread out that far, could it have contributed to the collapse? Obviously not. So what's crushing the building? It wasn't the steel. That was a third of the weight of the building. It's not the concrete. That's another third of the weight of each of these towers. So there's two-thirds of the weight of this building that's not available to crush it. And yet, Zdenek-Bazan, in his obfuscated paper that took engineers 10 years to decode, used all of that weight. Not only that. Did he use all of that weight? He doubled it fraudulently.

2:29:05the mass up above the point of plane impacts. He decreased the column strength below by a factor of three. This fraudulent paper was rigged in favor of a collapse, and yet it remains as the key theoretical basis to support NIST's collapse initiation theory. This is complete fraud that's been scamming us. Finally, engineers decoded it. Tony Zambotti, Richard Johns, Gregory Zambotti. And that can be proved. They've proven it in the papers. And nothing's happened? And they've submitted it to the American Society of Testing and Materials. And they won't publish it. Why? They said, it's out of scope.

2:29:46Wait a minute. How can it be out of scope to publish a paper, a challenge to a previously published paper in that journal? That's what we do in peer-reviewed science. So there are lawsuits and ethics violations that have been filed without success so far. So you ask the question, wait a minute, how could they get these materials into this building? Well, we talked before about how NIST's own evacuation figures from the Twin Towers and Building 7 showed that both of these towers must have only been half-occupied. In addition, there were fireproofing upgrades in the months and years before 9-11.

2:30:297. Is it possible that they had an undercover operation that instead of fireproofing the building, they applied liquid applied because they're dual-layered chips, paint, they look like paint, could they apply nanothermic on the underside of the floors, which could have heated up those floors to those 1500 degree temperatures and 4000 degree temperatures, given that thermite and nanothermite get to those temperatures, well above what would powderize concrete. It's possible. Look at the plane impact locations. They coincide with the locations of several of these fireproofing upgrades. That's very interesting.

2:31:18Were those the unoccupied floors? Were those where they applied all of this material? How could they get into the building to do this? Well, they would need access through security. Well, we certainly want an investigation of Securicom, Stratosec, who had the security contracts up to the day of 9-11, interestingly, and not further. And so we want an investigation of those companies. We certainly want an investigation of the elevator modernization, because if they had access to the elevator hoistways, they'd have access to the core columns and beams immediately adjacent to those hoistways. But they'd have to cut through a lot of gypsum board, and if you've ever done work with wallboard, it is very dusty.

2:32:09Interestingly, the senior database administrator for fiduciary trust, I think in the South Tower,

2:32:19he notes something very interesting here. It was probably the week leading up to 9-11. Every morning I'd come in around 7 a.m., and the dust was incredible. It was filthy. It was like the cleaners weren't cleaning. Right where the windows were, there was a sill which enclosed radiators. I was sick to death of the dust which was appearing on the windowsills. It was dirty gray and very, very noticeable in that week leading up to 9-11. Very interesting. So maybe they did cut through the elevator hoist ways to get to those beams through this gypsum wallboard. And maybe that's the cause of the dust.

2:33:02Certainly need an investigation there as well. And into this elevator modernization program, which gave access in the nine months prior to 9-11 during the largest elevator modernization in the world. Ace Elevator got this contract. Why would the Port Authority have given the largest elevator modernization in the world to a company that had only one client, the Port Authority, and Otis Elevator had installed and had been maintaining these elevators up to the time of this contract? So we certainly want an investigation of Ace Elevator. Where were they on the day of 9-11? Oh, there was a labor dispute that day.

2:33:48And the members of that company, 50 of them, were pulled out to a union meeting to discuss business. Very interesting, very convenient, kind of like Larry Silverstein. He had a dermatology appointment, and his brother, his sons, and his brother, no, no, not his brother. Anyway, his sons weren't there at work either, interestingly. So, yeah, we've got to have an investigation. Not only that, but the disposition of the steel. In easily the largest and most perplexing structural failures in history, we have 400 truckloads a day lined up, even the day after 9-11, but especially two weeks after 9-11, taking this steel, shipping it to the landfill, and putting it on these barges, and shipping it to China for recycling, before investigators could get their hands on it and do a proper forensic investigation.

2:34:47This is the illegal destruction of evidence in a crime scene, prompting Bill Manning, editor-chief of Fire Engineering Magazine, to cry out crucial evidence that can 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. But it didn't. And there was congressional investigations about that as well. So we already discussed the molten steel and iron and the persistence extreme heat associated with that. And the thermite incendiary evidence.

2:35:31altogether we're talking about 10 key characteristic features and some very uncharacteristic features of destruction of evidence of um of this building with explosives and incendiaries fire doesn't account for any one of these features what is their defense to the controlled demolition of the front you're saying here have they tried to defend this or that not went that far yet? They defend their official narrative by ignoring all of this evidence and making really stupid comments about, for instance, sulfur coming from gypsum wallboard. So they're just ignoring that? They're just ignoring the claims and the evidence?

2:36:20They ignore the witnesses of explosions. They ignore the evidence of nanothermite. They never looked at the paper 2009 peer-reviewed paper proving irrefutably the presence of nanothermite. They ignore all of this, which is proof of controlled demolition. A body of proof that's convinced 3 ,600 architects and engineers publicly signed on to a petition. How many architects and engineers are signed on to the NIST project? About two dozen. That's it. Here we have 3 ,000 staking their reputations on this public petition here. And so we mentioned Senator Ron Johnson appearing at our 9-11 Truth Conference in September and publicly saying, I have a platform, Senate hearings, I'm the chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I can use us, put your evidence together, we're doing that right now.

2:37:26But we have done this in pieces with the 9-11 explosive evidence experts speak out. One of the top viewed documentaries on the subject produced 10 years ago now, but with 40 high-rise architects, structural engineers, metallurgists, chemists, physicists, controlled demolition experts, all laying out this evidence cleanly. And it's been viewed millions of times. So we're getting out there, especially with this professionally produced PBS publication, I mean, documentary, 15 Minutes, just on Building 7. Highly recommended. You can see all these at our website, RichardGage911. And the story about Leroy Halsey, a top forensic structural engineer in the country, I think, and his effort to document with a dynamic analysis Building 7.

2:38:20He and these engineers worked very hard on this. The story was produced by Dylan Avery, filmmaker of 9-11, of Loose Change 9-11. He and his team made that film. But all of this is nicely outlined in our brochure. You can download this for free on our website, in the store, and print it, and give it to every architect and engineer. you can find everybody else that you know. And why? Because we're talking about a very dark, dark subject here. The implications of the controlled demolition of these buildings is a whole other set of topics that must be somehow digested by those of us who have had the courage to look and analyze the evidence that we've just presented.

2:39:14And when you do, you're going to get sick, like I did, and hopefully angry, like I did, to promote our viewers to take action, to take this podcast and share it with everybody you know, because where are we going to draw our line in the sand? After all, are we going to wait for the next 9-11? Well, guess what? It's happened three times at least already with Gaza, a false flag operation. COVID, a false flag operation. Iran, an operation that didn't see a false flag as we were all expecting to start the Iran war. But it started nevertheless. And it's time now to speak the truth about 9-11. It's not too late.

2:40:08We can do it. But we need everybody's help, right? James, how many people are watching this video, this podcast? What access do they have that we do not? How many people, in other words, do they know out there? Do you guys know that need to hear this, that are expecting you to have the courage to tell them and not be afraid of being called a conspiracy theorist? Well, use us, the 3 ,600 architects and engineers who are willing to stake our reputations on the line publicly. Use us. We're not all conspiracy theorists. And the Fermi, how did that get on? Where was it? Is there any evidence where it's been painted on the floor then?

2:40:57Underneath the floors. Underneath it? On the underside of the concrete floors is metal decking, which supports and forms and supports that concrete. Well, it's, I believe that, because it's fireproof and the fireproofing was upgraded. So people can get under the floors? Yeah. You'd have to take off the ceiling tiles. And above that is the floors. Are you just talking? I believe they were sprayed. Somewhat there. I was just about to say, you can either roll it on or spray it on. Yeah, it's sprayed on. Fireproofing is sprayed on. Any smell from it? There is liquid applied fireproofing called intumescent paint, which can be applied in layers also.

2:41:45What that means is it's paint that expands into an insulating layer to protect the steel from fire. So what's your opinion on what actually happened? And obviously we've went through the long form and evidence, but for a short version, what do you actually think happened? We have planes that hit the Twin Towers. We have a fire that's been started. We have an official narrative that says broken columns and fire caused the collapse of this building due to the weakening of steel. But what we've seen instead is the evidence of explosive demolition working its way all down each side of the building after destroying the top part in a telescoping manner.

2:42:39So the towers were obviously destroyed by a combination of high energy explosives and nanothermite and thermite and thermate. Why do you think it happened? Why do you think 9-11 happened? Well, we need to look at what happened afterward, because these false flag events are achieved, are executed, planned and executed in order to achieve a set of results. What do we have? A run-up to war, which enriched the war industry, including Dick Cheney, who's the owner of a good percentage of that, and the global elites who not only own the war industry, but the banking industry, which profits from financing all sides of wars, the oil industry, and the media industry, which profited enormously from all of their media consumed.

2:43:48So we have an enrichment of these people, but we also have the invasion of Afghanistan, which was an obstacle to the oil and gas industry's plans to run a pipeline from the north of Afghanistan through the south to bring the oil and gas from the Stan's countries down into Pakistan and on into India. The Taliban was threatened by Richard Armitraaj in a meeting in Germany that if they didn't sign up with Unocal, they would be met with a carpet of bombs. If they did sign up, they would be met with a carpet of gold, because they were working with a Brazilian company as opposed to Unical, which would have not benefited the global elite.

2:44:52And so apparently they made the wrong choice, because they got the carpet of bombs. They also have the production, 90 % of the world's production of opium comes from Afghanistan, which is another very interesting set of figures produced by the UN. What I mean is, before we invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban had shut down the opium cultivation from 2 ,600 metric tons down to 185 metric tons. After we invaded and kicked them out of power, the production shot up past its pre-Taliban levels, even to 3 ,500 metric tons. And four years later, to 6 ,500 metric tons. So, why were we in Afghanistan? understand.

2:45:58The CIA has been… If you read The Politics of Heroin, a book by Africa, the author's name, you understand that the CIA has been involved in the distribution and production of heroin for a long, long time. And then we have Iraq. Why were we in Iraq? Was it because weapons of mass destruction? No. Because of ties to al-Qaeda with Saddam was saying no. The oil is now, what was it, the second largest oil fields or reserves or capability in the Middle East, is now not privately held by the government of Iraq, but publicly, publicly, internationally held by particularly the British Petroleum. Who do you think was behind 9-11?

2:46:57Well, the people who had benefited from all of that clearly are the planners of it, the executors, clearly elements within the Bush administration, who was primarily made up of neocons from a neocon think tank, Project for a New American Century, who hatched plans for regional hegemony in the Middle East and publicly promoted those plans on their website, pnac.org. And in it, they called for a vast increase in the military budget and dominance, capability to fight multiple wars and hegemony in the Middle East, which they succeeded in surrounding Iran on the north with Afghanistan on the south.

2:48:01I got my geography a little bit wrong, but on each side, Iraq and Afghanistan, with 100 military bases installed in those countries. And Iran, curiously, was the seventh country to be dominated and taken down, according to Wesley Clark, who heard from a general who used to work for him. He was the NATO commander. But he came into the Pentagon to visit this general, or said hi to him, and the general said, sir, you've got to come down and see this. I just got this paper from upstairs, meaning Rumsfeld. And it says we're going to take down seven countries in five years. And that includes what? Lebanon, Assyria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen.

2:48:58I'm missing one. And then Iran. Well, most of those countries have been taken down, according to that plan, which we learned about on an interview, that he had with amy goodman of democracy now so was that the plan and uh and who's behind that well certainly those countries are obstacles to the greater israel which is a goal of israel which many of these project for a new american century neocon neocons are dual citizens of that country So it appears that we're carrying out the policy of a foreign government with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and the surrounding of Iran, which we're now invading, again, doing apparently the fulfilling the foreign policy goals of the greater Israel.

2:49:58None of this is an America first strategic set of objectives. Has any experts changed their mind with the evidence that you have? Have any experts changed any? I mean, are they concerned for their life? No, have they ever changed their mind with, obviously, if they've got told what I say and believe what they say is true, but then your evidence proves them wrong, has anyone ever says, okay, yeah, I've got it wrong? Are they, like you say, doubling down? Yeah, they're doubling down with their stories. those who are not invested in the official narrative are clearly open to this evidence, like firefighters who are emotionally traumatized en masse, and most of them, because they lost so many of their own brothers, it's very difficult for them to hear this story.

2:51:02So some of them double down for reasons of emotional equilibrium maintenance. This is the story. The implications of this evidence are deeply disturbing to them more than others. And it messes with all of us, with our psychological equilibrium. 9-11 put us into a state of shock and awe. And in that state, we reduce to almost an infantile posture inside of our subconscious. It's not safe. We retreat. We entrench emotionally. And so some people have stepped out of that. Firefighters, I'm referring to, like Captain Richard Patterson, like Captain Raul Angulo, who's speaking along with Kurt Weldon, who was a former fire chief, who is now speaking out about the truth about 9-11 and wants a presidential 9-11 commission.

2:52:08And we've created a paper for him with that title to take President Trump, which he did. We're waiting for results, probably waiting a long time. how do you think people would react if they found out that 9-11 was an inside job because a lot of people are oblivious a lot of people believe what they see in the media a lot of people don't really care but how would it be if the evidence was this was all controlled demolition the planes were set up people lost their lives for the greed and power of those in the governments but how do you think the world would react because this is one of the biggest things to be an inside job like the 20 was obviously we've got wars and we lose soldiers but the innocent people just go into their work that day who'd never come back like it's heartbreaking like what do you think the world would react like if it all came out that everything that you're saying was legit and it was an inside job and they realized that i i think well first of all in this country every member of congress would be thrown out um it'd be outrage it's kind of like the epstein files have been released and implicated dozens if not hundreds of very rich people with very outrageous crimes and not one arrest not one arrest much less a conviction uh so uh

2:53:42I think people are waking up to that, and when they realize that 9-11 was an inside operation, they'll just rebel en masse, finally. It's the last vestige of stability that they have in their lives, perhaps, and when it goes over, it'll tip over all the rest. That's my personal belief, and they will revolt. And what about the Pentagon? What about the Pentagon? What about it? When they say it was hit by a plane? Yeah. Was it hit by a plane? Is that what you're asking? Yeah, what was that one? What was the Pentagon when they say it was a plane that hit that? Some people say it was a missile. Yeah.

2:54:25There's a lot of disagreement in the 9-11 truth movement about what did or didn't hit the Pentagon. All of us agree that we've been lied to about it, and we want a real investigation. We want the release of those tapes, recordings, videos that would show what did or didn't hit the Pentagon. Dozens of videos withheld. We've had, we've submitted FOIA requests for that information, Freedom of Information Act, where we can get this information because we live in a free country, supposedly, but they come up with excuses not to give us this information. They want to charge$24 ,000 in the case of one FOIA request where the judge forced them in a lawsuit to release it.

2:55:16And they said, okay, we'll release it. Give us$24 ,000 and we need 72 months to release the film footage in and around the Pentagon. What do you want people to take away from this interview today, Richard? I hope people are as agitated about the scam, the lies, the outrageous planning and execution of the largest crime of the century here that everyone will share it with everybody that they know. Every architect and engineer you can find. every elected representative, every media person, personality, en masse, if millions of people do this, and we expect that a million people will see this podcast and that they will do something, not just see it and get educated.

2:56:23Yes, we want that to happen. But we've got to have a multiplication factor of exposure, of awareness of this material. And when we do that, we'll get our investigation. We'll get public exposure. We will reveal who's really behind 9-11. And justice will happen on behalf of the 9-11 victims and their family members. How are you feeling today? I feel better now getting some of this off my chest and onto the backs of our viewers. But it's a brave thing to do, to speak out against the evil, because it comes at a cost. You know, they tarnish, they can discriminate, they can do many things, bankrupt you.

2:57:16Yeah, but fair play for standing up and again, doing amazing work. and I hope people really enjoy this and understand what really went on and there's so much more madness to this world and if you're living in your little bubble then good luck to you because it's okay to be but for us and other people who want to know more and ask the questions it does come at a cost but listen Richard, you're doing amazing work I wish you nothing but the best for the future would you like to finish up on anything else like anybody who's maybe got, want to ask you questions, maybe wants to get involved? How do they get involved?

2:57:54Yeah, join us on our website. There are interviews that are shorter than this one, but not better. And there are documentaries and there are other people, books and DVDs that we've produced. Get them at richardgage911.org. This is U.S. Bank's Cozy Cash Formations with your chief financial playmaker, Fernando Mendoza. You are worthy of financial security. Budgeting is not restriction. It's freedom. You are smart. You are capable. You are giving your money a purpose. You are learning the language of saving, of growing now streaming. Member FDIC, Copyright 2026, U.S. Bank. And watch 9-11 Crime Scene to Courtroom.

2:58:50We produced five episodes. They're interactive. You can click and look and check into the exhibits of evidence that we have linked to actively on those five episodes so far. It's really quite a unique, interactive video experience. and take part in that and become a we're asking people to become a virtual grandeur themselves so take part in that too at 9-1-1-c2c.org letter c number two letter c.org 9-1-1-c2c.org that should again thanks for your time and i wish you nothing but the best of the future So God bless and stay lucky. Thanks so much.