Latest / DarkHorse Podcast / Building 7 Did Not Kill Itself: Richard Gage, AIA on DarkHorse

Transcript

Building 7 Did Not Kill Itself: Richard Gage, AIA on DarkHorse · DarkHorse Podcast

• 0:00
  Hey folks, welcome to the DarkHorse podcast Inside Rail.
• 0:05
  I have the true honor and pleasure of sitting this morning with Richard Gage.
• 0:10
  Richard Gage is an AIA, that's a member of the American Institute of Architects.
• 0:16
  He's also the founder and former CEO of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.
• 0:22
  He now leads the charge for a new World Trade Center investigation, along with his greatest wife, Gail, at richardgage911.org.
• 0:32
  Richard, welcome to DarkHorse.
• 0:34
  Thank you, Brad.
• 0:35
  Awesome to be here with you today.
• 0:37
  Yes, I've been looking forward to this conversation for a long time.
• 0:42
  I've been following your work, jeez, I don't even know how long.
• 0:46
  I will say that I sometimes talk in the modern era, let's say the post COVID era, of the question of conspiracy theorists.
• 0:57
  And my point is always when somebody is accused of being a conspiracy theorist, my only question is, are they any good at it?
• 1:04
  And I must say, you set the standard.
• 1:07
  You are an extremely diligent person when it comes to exploring alternatives to the mainstream narrative with respect to 9-11.
• 1:20
  And I have really appreciated the rigor that you bring to that puzzle.
• 1:24
  Thank you.
• 1:28
  So this is going to be an unusual episode of DarkHorse.
• 1:33
  I am largely going to turn the mic over to you and you're going to go through a presentation that provides evidence for those who have very little familiarity with this topic.
• 1:46
  It will all be new for people who have some.
• 1:48
  Some of it will be new and some of it won't.
• 1:50
  And I'm going to try to play a facilitating role, asking questions that will elucidate how what you're presenting fits in with a larger framework of science and rigorous logic.
• 2:06
  How does that sound to you?
• 2:08
  Perfect.
• 2:09
  I'm looking forward to it and challenge me, Bret.
• 2:12
  All right.
• 2:13
  Our first sponsor for this episode of the DarkHorse Inside Rail is Prima, which makes remarkable ancestral protein bars.
• 2:20
  We've been eating for hundreds of millions of years.
• 2:23
  Our diets have changed a lot since those early days for better and recently for worse.
• 2:28
  Real food, food that your grandmother would recognize as food, food that she would have served you from her own kitchen is best.
• 2:33
  But often our lives and lifestyles mean that we need something faster, something packaged, something that will nourish us and keep us going until the next time we sit down to another one of grandma's home cooked meals.
• 2:44
  The problem is the available options are mostly garbage.
• 2:47
  Most of the protein bars on the market are made with seed oils, refined sugars and artificial flavors and colors.
• 2:52
  Not so with Prima, the first ancestral protein bar, which has been crafted with many of nature's finest ingredients.
• 2:58
  Prima is all about transparency.
• 3:00
  Not only do their products contain no seed oils, refined sugars or artificial flavors and colors, Prima works hard to source the highest quality, most nutrient dense ingredients, which we've been eating for a very long time.
• 3:11
  Prima bars have raw honey, sea salt and organic cacao, coffee, coconut, agave and vanilla ingredients.
• 3:19
  Some of your ancestors would actually recognize and the grass fed beef tallow in Prima bars contains fatty acids that regulate insulin sensitivity and are a healthy alternative to the industrial seed oils used by other companies.
• 3:30
  Prima bars come in four flavors, mocha, salted caramel, cocoa and now cookie dough.
• 3:35
  And here's the really surprising thing.
• 3:37
  There are 16 grams of protein in every bar from a special blend of grass fed collagen peptides and grass fed whey protein concentrate.
• 3:45
  Toby, our spectacular and sometimes ridiculous 19 year old son, worked long days on several farms this summer, often leaving the house well before 6am and not returning until after 9 at night.
• 3:56
  Farming is hard work and he needed to keep his energy up.
• 3:58
  When our box of Prima bars arrived, he took to them and he told us, "I found Prima bars very useful while working on the farm because I often didn't have an appetite but knew I needed to eat.
• 4:08
  I like these bars, especially the cacao flavor, as they're high in protein, relatively high calorie and easy to eat.
• 4:14
  If you know that you're going to want food on the go and need something easy and transportable but highly nutritious and delicious as well, try Prima bars." And now for our DarkHorse audience, Prima is offering 20% off their fantastic bars.
• 4:27
  Go to eatprima.com slash DarkHorse to get 20% off.
• 4:31
  That's E-A-T-P-R-I-M-A.com slash dark horse to get 20% off.
• 4:37
  Try Prima ancestral protein bars today.
• 4:41
  Very good.
• 4:42
  Is there anything to say before we launch into the presentation about how you found yourself in this work or is that included in there?
• 4:51
  Well, let me give you a little bit of background.
• 4:53
  I was shocked to learn in actually, it was March 29th, I believe, 2006.
• 5:01
  I heard David Ray Griffin on the radio.
• 5:04
  He was being interviewed by Bonnie Faulkner of KPFA's Guns and Butter Program.
• 5:10
  And I was on my way back to the office from a construction site observation.
• 5:17
  And I'm listening to this elderly gentleman talking about the evidence that we're going to be seeing today and hearing.
• 5:27
  And I'm going, "What is this?
• 5:29
  This is like out of the blue completely.
• 5:31
  I've never heard any alternative theory as to how these towers came down.
• 5:37
  Never really been a conspiracy theorist or an activist or anything.
• 5:42
  And I just had to know is what he's saying completely false, made up.
• 5:50
  Turns out he was speaking the next night at the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland.
• 5:53
  And I just knew I had to be there.
• 5:55
  I had to find out if this was true.
• 5:57
  And I walked into that building and it was packed.
• 5:59
  There were 600 people there to hear David Ray Griffin talking about the evidence for the explosive destruction of the twin towers, because he had read an essay that Professor Graham McQueen had done on the explosive, the testimony of these 118 witnesses at the time.
• 6:22
  All first responders, hearing explosions, we're going to talk about those.
• 6:26
  But I couldn't even get in because it was packed.
• 6:29
  I had to go home and listen on the live stream.
• 6:31
  And lo and behold, I was putting these facts together feverishly because this is important.
• 6:39
  I mean, if what he's saying is true, then we've been lied to by the media.
• 6:43
  We've been lied to by our government.
• 6:45
  The whole world is deceived into a $6.5 trillion global war on terror and all based on a lie.
• 6:55
  I mean, if these three buildings were brought down by explosive control demolition, then let's face it.
• 7:02
  We have very serious problems in our society.
• 7:06
  We are sleeping asleep at the wheel and they, whoever they are, who planned and executed 9-11 and other false flag operations, as it turns out to have been performed starting every war that we've been in just about, if not all of them.
• 7:28
  My life just changed.
• 7:32
  It turned upside down because I confirmed that what he was saying was true.
• 7:35
  I did my research.
• 7:36
  I found out.
• 7:38
  And I brought this presentation that we're going to look at today to the architects and engineers that I worked for, 15 of them.
• 7:47
  And they thought I was nuts at first, but then when I got, I bought them pizza, they had to come and listen, right?
• 7:54
  The captive audience.
• 7:57
  Only a couple of them were even aware of some of the things that I was aware of.
• 8:04
  The rest of them know, but after 45 minutes of that presentation, all the hands went up at the end.
• 8:10
  Oh my God, you're right.
• 8:11
  These are controlled demolitions.
• 8:14
  We've got to have a real investigation of this.
• 8:17
  So those were my first 15 architects and engineers for 9-11 Truth.
• 8:22
  And now we have 3600 signed onto the petition demanding a new investigation over at Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, it's ae911truth.org.
• 8:39
  And so we're continuing to to get this evidence out.
• 8:45
  And thank you again, Bret, for having the courage to bring this evidence out and support Senator Ron Johnson, who has promised hearings in the Senate on this issue, the truth of what really happened on 9-11, like Tucker began to with his five-part series.
• 9:05
  And this, this takes it, this drives it home, as you suggested, it's rigorous scientific forensic evidence.
• 9:13
  Well, I would also just point out that this is the unusual case where the argument that something is a conspiracy theory is dead on arrival because the official version is a conspiracy theory too, right?
• 9:28
  To the extent that one is of a mindset to dismiss conspiracy theories, that's that just places this in neutral territory.
• 9:38
  What's more, we know that the 9-11 commission was set up to fail.
• 9:45
  We know that because people who were on that commission have said so.
• 9:49
  So we know that there was a cover-up.
• 9:53
  We don't know what it was a cover-up of, but at some level, you can see that the official story is nonsense.
• 10:01
  As soon as you understand the details of Building 7, you know that this is more than the cover-up of an embarrassing failure of intelligence, that there's something structurally odd about what's going on here.
• 10:20
  And I will tell you my own experience.
• 10:22
  I did, like you, believe the official narrative to begin with.
• 10:27
  I have one friend who has worked in restoration architecture who actually witnessed the towers fall himself on the morning of 9-11.
• 10:37
  He says he knew right away that what he was watching couldn't possibly be explained by airplanes.
• 10:45
  Took me a while to get there.
• 10:46
  Sounds like it took you a while to get there.
• 10:48
  But in any case, I would just ask the audience to recognize that I think it's fair to say that both you and I and Senator Johnson are reluctant to be in the spot we're in.
• 11:07
  We can't turn away from evidence that says that what we've been told isn't true.
• 11:12
  We are duty-bound to point out what's wrong with that story.
• 11:18
  But I'm not happy about it.
• 11:20
  You're not happy about it.
• 11:22
  But we are far better off becoming enlightened about this topic and getting to the bottom of it and fixing whatever happened, rather than allowing whatever it is to continue spinning tall tales and, you know, possibly talking us into future wars that make no sense and spend a huge amount of treasure and spill a tremendous amount of blood.
• 11:47
  We can't allow that to happen again.
• 11:49
  And guess what, Bret?
• 11:50
  The family members deserve the truth about the deaths of their loved ones, the mass murder of over 3,000 people at the World Trade Center on 9-11.
• 12:06
  They deserve that.
• 12:07
  They don't want to live in denial any more than any of us did or do.
• 12:14
  And so we owe it to them.
• 12:16
  And those first responders who were also sacrificed on 9-11, 343 of them were murdered.
• 12:28
  Their families deserve to know the truth, too.
• 12:31
  And the whole, of course, the whole American people, the whole body of American people in the body of the world deserves to know the truth.
• 12:39
  So, we're getting there.
• 12:40
  Yeah, actually, I wonder if the way to think of it is this, having been schooled by the fiasco surrounding COVID and watching the vaccine injured be gaslit by the medical establishment and the government over their injuries.
• 13:01
  My feeling is there is no right for the government ever to gaslight anybody, especially people who have been injured or lost loved ones.
• 13:11
  That's a completely inexcusable right that these people have taken.
• 13:15
  It is not written into any document that they have that right.
• 13:19
  And my feeling is any place that I see gaslighting, that's a place to dig.
• 13:23
  That's a place where there's something very important to know.
• 13:26
  And as you're about to discover, the gaslighting surrounding what took place on 9-11 was absolutely industrial strength.
• 13:38
  Amen.
• 13:40
  That's the case.
• 13:42
  Our second sponsor for this episode is brand new to us, but we've been using their products for years.
• 13:47
  They are uplift standing desks.
• 13:49
  By now, everyone knows that one of the problems with modern life is all the sitting that we do.
• 13:53
  Our bodies need motion.
• 13:55
  And when we're not in motion, we need variation in position.
• 13:58
  Standing, sitting, squatting.
• 13:59
  Sitting, especially in the positions that so many desks and chairs push us into, does our bodies no favors at all.
• 14:05
  And when our bodies suffer, our brains do too.
• 14:08
  Change up your workspace and your ability to position yourself in it and see if you don't see an improvement in your work as well.
• 14:14
  Six years ago, we were in need of a new desk, but knew that we wanted something adjustable.
• 14:18
  Something that could be a standing desk or a sitting desk and be further variable in height depending on if the laptop was on a stand or not.
• 14:26
  I found uplift desk and we got one and it has been outstanding.
• 14:29
  I stand more than I sit at the uplift desk, but when I do want to sit, I can do that.
• 14:33
  If I want the desk higher when I'm on a Zoom, for instance, that's easy too.
• 14:37
  Sometimes Heather stands on a Bosu ball at the desk to give herself a little balance challenge.
• 14:42
  It's simple to adjust the height of the desk no matter where you want it set.
• 14:45
  Moving frequently keeps you alert, healthy, and creative.
• 14:48
  There are so many styles and configurations of uplift standing desks, you are sure to find one that will precisely fit what you're looking for regardless of your space, your style, or your workflow.
• 14:58
  They're beautiful and there are endless accessories to choose from as well.
• 15:02
  File cabinets and desk drawers, flexible arms that hold anything from one to six monitors, rocker boards to stand on, privacy panels if you work in a cubicle, and on and on.
• 15:12
  We have been productive and happy with our uplift desk for years now and have just placed an order for their newest product, the uplift v3 standing desk, which brings all the best of uplift's v2 and v2 commercial into one stronger smarter frame.
• 15:25
  We can't wait to try it out and we'll let you know how it is once we've done it.
• 15:29
  I'm sure it's going to be fantastic.
• 15:31
  Your workday doesn't have to leave you feeling worn out.
• 15:34
  Go to upliftdesk.com slash darkhorse and use our code darkhorse to get four free accessories, free same-day shipping, free returns, and an industry-leading 15-year warranty that covers your entire desk, plus an extra discount off your entire order.
• 15:50
  That's an amazing offer.
• 15:51
  Once again, that's u-p-l-i-f-t-d-e-s-k.com slash darkhorse for this exclusive offer.
• 15:59
  It's only available through our link.
• 16:01
  Get yourself an uplift desk.
• 16:03
  You won't be sorry.
• 16:04
  Our final sponsor on this episode is Crowd Health.
• 16:08
  Crowd Health isn't health insurance.
• 16:09
  It's better.
• 16:10
  It's nearly open enrollment.
• 16:11
  The season when health insurance companies hope you will once again blindly sign up for overpriced premiums and confusing fine print.
• 16:18
  We used to do that, but not anymore.
• 16:20
  Not since finding Crowd Health.
• 16:22
  Crowd Health is a community of people funding each other's medical bills directly.
• 16:26
  No middlemen, no networks, no nonsense.
• 16:28
  After we left our salary jobs as college professors, we spent years buying health insurance in the open marketplace.
• 16:35
  It was confusing, irritating, and very expensive.
• 16:38
  As a family of four who had health insurance for emergencies only, we were paying more than $1,500 a month for a policy with a $17,000 annual deductible to a company that never answered their phones and had a website that didn't work.
• 16:51
  Tens of thousands of dollars paid out for no benefit whatsoever.
• 16:55
  Heather went looking for alternatives and found Crowd Health.
• 16:58
  We have now had two sets of great experiences with Crowd Health until we broke his foot in the summer of 2024.
• 17:04
  And when Heather slipped on wet concrete and split open her scalp this summer, we went to the ER and got good but expensive treatment from the medical staff there.
• 17:13
  In both cases, Crowd Health paid our bills with no hassle.
• 17:16
  Their app was simple and straightforward to use, and the real people who work at Crowd Health were easy to reach, clear, and communicative.
• 17:22
  With Crowd Health, you can get health care for under $100 a month.
• 17:26
  You get access to a team of health bill negotiators, low-cost prescriptions, and lab testing tools, and a database of low-cost, high-quality doctors vetted by Crowd Health.
• 17:35
  With Crowd Health, you pay for little stuff out of pocket, but for any event that costs more than $500, a diagnosis that requires ongoing treatment, a pregnancy, or an accident, you pay the first $500, and they pay the rest.
• 17:47
  The system is betting you'll stay stuck in the same overpriced, overcomplicated mess.
• 17:52
  And this year, it's even more complicated because most of the Affordable Care Act subsidies expire, which means your prices are going to be even higher.
• 18:01
  So far, Crowd Health members have saved over $40 million in health care expenses because they refuse to overpay for health care.
• 18:08
  This open enrollment, take your power back, join Crowd Health, and get started today for $99 for your first three months using the code "DARKHORSE" at joincrowdhealth.com.
• 18:20
  That's joincrowdhealth.com, code "DARKHORSE." Important reminder, Crowd Health is not insurance.
• 18:27
  Opt out, take your power back.
• 18:29
  This is how we win, joincrowdhealth.com.
• 18:32
  All right, so maybe without further ado, we should get to that evidence, and I will ask questions as they arise.
• 18:40
  This is great.
• 18:42
  So it takes courage to look at this.
• 18:45
  As we've discussed, we've been lied to, we've been gosled.
• 18:48
  So I just want to, for those of you who are unaware of this evidence, and I hope there are millions of you who fall into that category because we don't enjoy speaking into an echo chamber of those who are just already familiar.
• 19:05
  So gear it up.
• 19:08
  This is not easy.
• 19:10
  The information's easy, actually.
• 19:12
  A seventh grader can figure this stuff out.
• 19:15
  This is not deep scientific stuff, like COVID, for instance.
• 19:25
  They can get really deep in the science, right?
• 19:27
  This is easy.
• 19:28
  It's the implications of this evidence that is so difficult, that caused me, just, I felt like I got hit by a two by four for a couple of weeks after I was hearing this information, my whole world, just turning upside down.
• 19:42
  Up is down, and down is up, as Dorothy Laurie tells us.
• 19:49
  And Fran Schur, the psychology people who really try to help us come to grips with us, coming to grips with this information.
• 20:00
  And you can hear their incredible analysis of the psychology of 9-11 on our website, richardgauge911.org.
• 20:11
  In the last documentary, we did 9-11 explosive evidence experts speak out.
• 20:21
  So hold on.
• 20:22
  I want to jump in there and just say one thing that I know well is that people who do not think very carefully about the way logic and evidence work often find themselves faced with evidence that has terrifying implications, and they go back and downgrade the quality of the evidence in their mind in order not to face the logical consequences.
• 20:51
  You and I know that is not a legal move.
• 20:54
  The evidence is what it is.
• 20:56
  And if the implications are terrifying, it has no implication for the quality of evidence at all.
• 21:03
  The evidence is what it is.
• 21:04
  You have to follow it where it leads.
• 21:06
  And if the implications are terrifying, it's all the more important that you do so.
• 21:10
  Yeah, well said, Bret.
• 21:12
  So let's start with a little bit easier of a task because building seven was the third tower that fell on 9-11.
• 21:23
  And most of us don't know anything about it.
• 21:25
  We go to conventions, conferences for architects and engineering, and we have an evidence booth.
• 21:33
  We have a screen.
• 21:34
  We show building seven coming down.
• 21:37
  We say to them, "Do you know what this is?
• 21:39
  Oh, that's a controlled demolition.""Do you know when this happened?""No, it happened on 9-11." They go, "Well, what?
• 21:49
  What are you talking about?
• 21:50
  That's not one of the twin towers.""No." So we take them through the process here.
• 21:55
  So that's still true that there are architects out there who don't know that there was a third tower.
• 21:59
  More than half of them.
• 22:00
  More than half.
• 22:02
  Wild.
• 22:03
  And it's just shocking.
• 22:06
  This should have been the most studied structural failure ever.
• 22:09
  All the universities.
• 22:11
  It's a huge, massive structural failure.
• 22:14
  No plane hit this building.
• 22:16
  This is a 47 story skyscraper.
• 22:18
  Easily the tallest building in most of our states.
• 22:20
  It looks dwarfed here next to the twin towers, right?
• 22:24
  Half the height of them.
• 22:25
  They were the tallest buildings in the world at the time that they were built.
• 22:30
  So building seven is about a football field in length away from the North Tower.
• 22:33
  It's part of the World Trade Center complex, just outside the super block of the World Trade Center.
• 22:39
  It did get a little bit of damage.
• 22:42
  In fact, it was not just a little bit, but when the North Tower came down, some of these beams hit it and there was some damage.
• 22:52
  But NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who was tasked by Congress to explain these collapses to the American people, they said, "This is not a significant factor in the initiation of the collapse of this building." Well, Wait, wait, what is not a significant factor?
• 23:11
  The damage that building seven did sustain in the southwest corner of the building and started the fires that we're going to see.
• 23:25
  So that was not a significant factor in this collapse, which begins with the East Penthouse on the upper left.
• 23:32
  You'll see it go down.
• 23:33
  And about six seconds, that's an isolated event, by the way.
• 23:37
  And then six seconds later, this happens.
• 23:40
  It was straight down uniformly, symmetrically into its own footprint.
• 23:46
  Now, we may have seen this before on TV, right?
• 23:50
  We'll take a look at what it looks like.
• 23:52
  But let's listen to the explanation from the official narrative of this building's collapse.
• 23:58
  What we found was that uncontrolled building fires caused an extraordinary event.
• 24:04
  The collapse of World Trade Center seven was primarily due to fire.
• 24:08
  Primarily due to fires.
• 24:11
  Okay, well, let's look at those fires, shall we?
• 24:13
  These are the worst fires that we have in the building.
• 24:18
  They are few, they are small, and they are scattered throughout the building.
• 24:23
  So these fires are those that are said to have brought this building down.
• 24:29
  Now, these fires are exaggerated by NIST in their effort to convince the world seven years later, the final report on Building 7 came out, that this building came down by these fires.
• 24:45
  Well, these fires are actually burned out on the floor of the initiation of collapse that NIST is trying to convince us of, which is on the 12th floor.
• 25:00
  And so they show these fires burning at 4pm and implying that they're burning up until the time of the collapse because their collapse initiation scenario requires these fires to be burning at the time of the collapse.
• 25:15
  And yet you can see that the fires are burnt out on that floor.
• 25:20
  So how could they be causing the thermal expansion of these long span beams and pushing this girder off of its seat on this column 79 if those fires are burned out?
• 25:37
  So that makes no sense.
• 25:39
  All right, hold on.
• 25:40
  I want to just call attention to the gaslighting in this particular part of the explanation.
• 25:50
  And you hinted at it before.
• 25:51
  If it was true that fire had brought down this building and not raging fires, but sporadic fires of a very mundane kind, then it reveals a flaw in the design of the building that is so profound, a vulnerability in which other buildings that are built like this could be brought down by mundane office fires also.
• 26:22
  Hundreds of them.
• 26:23
  And so it would, it should, if this was actually the explanation, have caused an extensive exploration of the vulnerability and a revision of the way such buildings are designed within architecture.
• 26:44
  And yet you tell me that more than half of architects are still unaware that this collapse ever happened.
• 26:51
  And more than half of firefighters who are continuing to go into high rises like this with much hotter, larger and longer lasting fires in these buildings and try to put them out.
• 27:04
  In fact, telling the public to stay in place because we don't want to fight you as you're evacuating the building and we're trying to get up the stairs to the fire.
• 27:12
  So stay defend in place is what the strategy is.
• 27:16
  None of that strategy has changed as a result of building seven or nine 11.
• 27:21
  So somebody is lying about something.
• 27:24
  This should be the most famous building collapse because of its implications, having not been hit by an airplane falling down as a result of fire alone.
• 27:33
  There should be an extremely famous collapse and instead it is the opposite.
• 27:38
  That is nature's way of telling you something about the story is not behaving normally.
• 27:43
  It's been swept under the rug.
• 27:45
  That's right.
• 27:46
  In fact, no steel frame, skyscraper, steel frame, fire protected skyscraper of which most all of them are a type one buildings has ever collapsed due to a fire.
• 27:59
  And as you can see that we have much larger, longer lasting fires in these buildings, especially after nine 11, there's a dozen fires, skyscrapers that look like this and they didn't come down either.
• 28:12
  So why, why do we have an unprecedented event that's that NIST says is the cause of for the first time of the collapse of this building?
• 28:25
  There's, there's some more gas lighting right there for you.
• 28:28
  Well, and I will add one more.
• 28:30
  I know you're certain to come back to it, but just the logical conspicuousness of not only one completely unprecedented collapse occurring, but three of them occurring on the same day within a block of each other.
• 28:46
  That tells you that something suspended the laws of architecture and logic for a one block radius temporarily on nine 11.
• 28:57
  That's at least very interesting.
• 28:59
  And you know, it'd be wonderful if you pursued that and just low and behold, it turned out you had a bunch of flukes, but when you pursue it, the opposite happens.
• 29:07
  You run into inexplicable anomaly after inexplicable anomaly.
• 29:12
  Yeah.
• 29:13
  Well, using logic, I mean, let's use some, here's a series of known controlled demolitions on the left building seven on the right.
• 29:21
  Is there any similarity?
• 29:23
  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 ever.
• 29:37
  It should have been the first hypothesis that NIST considered, but no, they never seriously considered it and only really addressed it years later in their frequently, very frequently asked questions from the public.
• 29:51
  So we have to ask ourselves, Bret, does it have any of the features of controlled demolition?
• 29:57
  Well, let's start with feature number one.
• 29:58
  Is there a sudden onset of destruction?
• 30:01
  Well, let's listen to Dan rather as we, as he gives his intuitive feeling about what's going on.
• 30:10
  Now here, we're going to show you a videotape of the collapse itself.
• 30:15
  Now we go to videotape the collapse of this building.
• 30:25
  It's amazing.
• 30:26
  Amazing, incredible.
• 30:28
  Pick your word for the third time today.
• 30:32
  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.
• 30:41
  Wait a minute.
• 30:42
  What was that Dan deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down?
• 30:47
  Well, he's using his intuition.
• 30:49
  He's not trying to gaslight us in this particular case.
• 30:54
  We should all use our frame of reference for understanding something like this that we've seen before on TV, for instance, but he's never repeated these words ever again.
• 31:05
  In fact, with only two exceptions, we have not seen on mainstream television this building coming down at all.
• 31:14
  It's like it's been swept under the rug.
• 31:17
  So let's go to feature number two.
• 31:19
  Is there a straight down symmetrical progression?
• 31:21
  Let's look from West Street.
• 31:25
  Pretty straight down, pretty symmetrical.
• 31:27
  How do you achieve that?
• 31:29
  Well, there's only one way.
• 31:31
  You have to take out all the core columns first within a fraction of a second of each other, all of them, followed about a second later by the perimeter columns.
• 31:43
  And you have to do that on every floor.
• 31:47
  And if you don't get that just right, you have some real problems.
• 31:54
  And so can these fires cause that precision for that kind of damage?
• 32:03
  Unlikely.
• 32:03
  I mean, let's, let's go back to the high school level of physics, because I must tell you, one of the things that woke me up on this topic was that no matter how many things I grant to the official narrative, I can't make this collapse sensible, right?
• 32:22
  If I say like just at the level of preposterous things that could actually be true.
• 32:29
  Let's say that there was stuff stored in that building that's never been acknowledged that was caused the fires to be hot enough to melt steel, something like that.
• 32:41
  Well, if I run that experiment in my mind, the building fails somewhere first.
• 32:48
  And having failed somewhere first, it collapses towards that thing.
• 32:54
  And the parts that are untouched by whatever fires are raging remain intact.
• 32:59
  And so it slumps, it leans, it groans, something is left standing.
• 33:08
  Right.
• 33:09
  So anyway, I guess my point is even if you grant that fires brought that building down, it wouldn't look like that.
• 33:16
  I mean, am I right?
• 33:18
  It wouldn't look like a straight down symmetrically like this.
• 33:22
  Yeah, it would look something more like this.
• 33:24
  You don't get those charges, explosive charges going off just right.
• 33:29
  And you know, somebody has to go back into this building and fix them.
• 33:32
  It's not going to be me.
• 33:34
  No.
• 33:35
  So what's NIST, NIST is theorizing here is that in the northeast corner, which by the way, is opposite the southwest corner where there was damage.
• 33:46
  So either way, if this building was going to fall due to the damage from the north tower, it would fall in this case to the right and back away from us.
• 33:56
  But nor does it fall toward the damage that NIST claims in northeast corner, where they have this elaborate theory of the initiation of collapse, which they're very sure of.
• 34:08
  They present it, you know, as a majority of their final report.
• 34:12
  So they have in fact, a ludicrous series of explanations here.
• 34:18
  This is these long span beams, 50 feet long, heated up during the fire, but they couldn't have done that because they are fireproofed.
• 34:29
  There's two hours of fireproofing on these beams, meaning that they can last two hours in fire.
• 34:35
  Well, guess how long these fires last in in a given area?
• 34:39
  20 minutes.
• 34:40
  NIST even acknowledges this.
• 34:41
  This is universally understood.
• 34:43
  There's only about 20 minutes of fuel in a given area.
• 34:46
  These beams are protected for two hours.
• 34:49
  And so they pushed this girder off of its seat.
• 34:53
  They say on this column, well, that girder couldn't have been pushed off of its seat because there are steel studs attaching it to the concrete up above.
• 35:05
  So we call these shear studs and it couldn't have been pushed sideways.
• 35:09
  But let's say they weren't there and it it did get pushed off of the seat.
• 35:15
  Well, it would have had to been pushed off all 12 inches of the seat on this column, not just six inches as NIST claims.
• 35:24
  Well, correct me if I'm wrong.
• 35:26
  Even if you used just hypothetically, you had an identical building and used an explosive to push that beam off that post.
• 35:38
  The building doesn't fall symmetrically as a result of that.
• 35:42
  Well, yeah, it's in the northeast corner.
• 35:44
  It would have fallen to the left.
• 35:46
  In this case, it would have slumped over.
• 35:49
  Yeah, it might have collapsed.
• 35:51
  But actually, there's never been a locally, a local failure in a high rise building that's caused the collapse of the building itself.
• 36:03
  It's never happened.
• 36:04
  These are very redundantly designed.
• 36:07
  I mean, buildings that are damaged on one side, like you said, they fall to that side.
• 36:14
  This is the end.
• 36:16
  This did not happen as you saw it came down straight.
• 36:19
  And not only does it come down straight, it comes down at freefall acceleration.
• 36:25
  That's as fast as a bowling ball falling out of the sky.
• 36:29
  Physics teacher David Chandler and others, nuclear physicist Stephen Jones have analyzed the collapse of this building.
• 36:36
  It's falling as fast as a bowling ball.
• 36:39
  Now, a bowling ball has no resistance under it.
• 36:41
  It can fall at freefall.
• 36:44
  But it can't do any work while it's falling at freefall.
• 36:48
  This building fell at freefall, meaning that what happened to the 80, excuse me, 40,000 tons of structural steel in this building.
• 37:02
  This is, it just disappeared.
• 37:06
  Are you kidding me?
• 37:07
  What happened to this?
• 37:09
  NIST actually denied that it came down at freefall until they were publicly embarrassed by David Chandler, Stephen Jones, and other members of AE 911 truth.
• 37:18
  And so we have an admission as a result of them being embarrassed in their own technical conference in 2008.
• 37:27
  And they said, okay, you're right.
• 37:29
  It came down to freefall, but they don't acknowledge the implications of that freefall, meaning that all those columns on several floors disappeared all at once.
• 37:46
  What happened to all those columns?
• 37:48
  So this is a, these fires take them out.
• 37:51
  This is a type of lie that one has to get good at spotting because it's increasingly common where any, anyone with domain expertise knows that the model they've presented of the collapse where there you've got a localized failure in a corner that is inconsistent with what they're saying in their acknowledgement that it fell at freefall speed, right?
• 38:18
  Either something else explains what brought it down and it fell at freefall speed, or it didn't fall at freefall speed and it collapsed starting in the corner.
• 38:26
  But all the places where the collapse didn't start should be falling much slower than that.
• 38:31
  And the problem is the public doesn't understand the certainty of that statement, but everybody who has studied physics or architecture or engineering ought to easily be able to deduce that it has to be one or the other.
• 38:46
  It can't be both.
• 38:47
  Exactly.
• 38:48
  And would it have fallen centered, a haystack shaped pile centered three, four, or five stories tall, depending on how you measured centered in the footprint of the building, buildings that collapse due to natural causes, in this case, earthquakes, the building falls over to the path of least resistance and the concrete is not pulverized to a fine powder.
• 39:14
  The columns and beams are not severed one from another.
• 39:19
  At building seven, you have a 47 story moment resisting steel frame building where the columns and beams are rigidly welded one to another, particularly at the perimeter of this building.
• 39:35
  They all have been somehow severed one from another so that it could fall to a pile only four, six stories tall.
• 39:45
  So it makes no sense.
• 39:47
  Can these fires accomplish that?
• 39:49
  No, this is, as I said, this is seventh grade physics, but we would look for witnesses that heard explosions.
• 39:57
  If there were explosions, NIST says there are no witnesses of explosions.
• 40:04
  Well, here's a few.
• 40:05
  You were watching the building actually, because it was on fire, the bottom floors of the building were on fire.
• 40:11
  And, you know, we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder turned around.
• 40:16
  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.
• 40:26
  Then, you know, it was horrifying.
• 40:28
  Then, you know, about a second later, the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that.
• 40:34
  And we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground.
• 40:37
  But a second later after explosions, the building follows a sound of a clap of thunder, shockwave ripping through the building, the windows busting out.
• 40:45
  And then the building coming down.
• 40:48
  What did that was, Daryl, a medical student interviewed that evening.
• 40:51
  What did Daryl, what did Kevin McPadden, who, Air Force medic on hand to do triage in that building, actually, but they were held back.
• 41:03
  And here's what he hears.
• 41:05
  You heard explosions like boom, it's like a distinct sound.
• 41:11
  It's not like when the compression like boom, boom, boom, boom, like floors that were dropping and collapsing.
• 41:18
  This was like you felt a rumble in the ground, like almost like you wanted to grab onto something.
• 41:25
  To me, I knew that was an explosion.
• 41:26
  There was no doubt in my mind.
• 41:30
  Wow.
• 41:32
  No doubt in his mind at all.
• 41:35
  He's a good witness, too, because he's showing you that he's discriminating.
• 41:42
  He's telling you, look, I get it that you could have some loud noises as a building falls apart.
• 41:47
  But this didn't sound like that.
• 41:48
  This preceded the collapse.
• 41:50
  It didn't sound like floors hitting each other.
• 41:52
  So that's obvious.
• 41:54
  And, you know, that's a high quality witness is what that is.
• 41:58
  Yeah.
• 41:58
  And so is this one.
• 41:59
  What did he see?
• 42:00
  This is Bill Rizzotti.
• 42:02
  I was standing like two blocks away and all of a sudden I just seen a big flash.
• 42:07
  And then I seen the building coming down and I just seen people just running everywhere.
• 42:10
  Chaotic like a big flash.
• 42:13
  Okay.
• 42:13
  That's very helpful.
• 42:15
  What did first respond or captain of the FDNY Richard Patterson experience?
• 42:20
  One seven let go as well.
• 42:22
  And was a series of concussive.
• 42:27
  Explosion.
• 42:28
  Okay.
• 42:29
  And yes, the concussive explosions he clarified later were before the building fell down.
• 42:36
  And Patrick Dylan, first responder, I remember feeling that like it was like, like freight trains underneath the earth, shaking the earth, even shaking me.
• 42:45
  That's when we all saw building seven crumple in the middle, like way up at the top.
• 42:53
  It buckled.
• 42:54
  It buckled and then dropped.
• 42:57
  Okay.
• 42:58
  That's helpful.
• 42:59
  And the deputy director of New York's Office of Emergency Management, he went into the building around noon and this is his experience.
• 43:09
  Then he had to go into that building to assess it.
• 43:13
  You can hear the building creak above us.
• 43:17
  You can hear things fall.
• 43:18
  You can hear the fire burning.
• 43:20
  You can see columns just hanging from the upper floors, gaping holes in the floors up above us.
• 43:26
  There was an elevator car that was blown out of his shaft and it was down the hall.
• 43:30
  Wait a minute.
• 43:31
  An elevator car blown out of its shaft down the hall.
• 43:36
  Well, we have the elevator car here.
• 43:38
  Richard Rotans clarified later in an interview with us that that was blown way down the hall, 30 to 40 feet.
• 43:47
  Now what can boil an elevator car out of its shaft and down the hall that far?
• 43:54
  We're not talking about fires here, right?
• 43:57
  Nor are we talking about damage down here to the southwest corner where NIST says 90% of the damage was localized too.
• 44:08
  And we have pictures of that damage and there was some damage way down there.
• 44:13
  But this is Barry Jennings who is part of the Office of New York Housing and Mayor Giuliani's attorney, Michael Hess, were called to a meeting.
• 44:24
  They got there late after the first plane hit the first tower.
• 44:30
  And then before the second plane hit the tower, the building had been evacuated and then these two arrived.
• 44:36
  They got up to the 23rd floor and this is their experience on the way down because they were told to get out of that building.
• 44:54
  We made it down to the sixth floor.
• 44:56
  Then we made it back to the eighth floor.
• 44:58
  I heard some more explosions.
• 45:00
  Like a boom, like an explosion.
• 45:05
  More than one?
• 45:06
  Yes.
• 45:07
  We started walking down the stairs and made it to the eighth floor.
• 45:10
  Big explosion.
• 45:11
  Blew us back into the eighth floor.
• 45:13
  When we get outside, police officer comes to me and says you have to run.
• 45:17
  We have more information of bombs, so you have to run.
• 45:21
  Information of bombs.
• 45:22
  That's very interesting.
• 45:24
  Bombs like this heard in the late morning of 9-11 in the vicinity of building seven.
• 45:29
  Yeah, here's one of the guys.
• 45:30
  He can tell you I'm okay.
• 45:31
  All right.
• 45:32
  Here, hold on.
• 45:34
  You want to call your mother or something?
• 45:35
  How many of these witnesses of explosions do you imagine ended up in the final report?
• 45:51
  Zero, not one.
• 45:52
  This denied every one of them and that was very clearly an explosion.
• 45:58
  Are these credible witnesses?
• 45:59
  Was that a credible audio recording of a nearby explosion to building seven?
• 46:06
  After the tower, both towers had come down in that case.
• 46:11
  So, no.
• 46:12
  So, we have to ask, what about these three dozen structural engineers plus signed on to the petition demanding a new investigation?
• 46:21
  Here's one of them.
• 46:24
  Kamal obeyed structural engineer.
• 46:26
  A localized failure in a steel frame building like World Trade Center 7 cannot cause a catastrophic collapse like a house of cards without a simultaneous and patterned loss of several of its columns at key locations within the building.
• 46:41
  Well, that's a very conservative statement from a structural engineer.
• 46:44
  Can we imagine fire being able to accomplish that?
• 46:48
  Not even.
• 46:49
  So, there are statements from 3600 altogether, but more than three dozen structural engineers, including this one, Professor Leroy Hulsey, one of the top forensic structural engineers in the country, who at the University of Alaska went into a four-year dynamic analysis of this building and using two competing software programs, much more sophisticated actually than NIST's LS Dyna machine that they used back in 2002 to 2007.
• 47:26
  Here we have SAP 2000 and Abacus being used by their PhD candidates at the University of Alaska competing one against the other.
• 47:37
  And what did they find?
• 47:38
  Gosh, if this building were to be fail, if there was initiation of failure in the northeast corner, the building would have tipped over.
• 47:48
  That's again seventh grade physics.
• 47:51
  But they said, well, what do we have to do to get it to look like the video in the middle of this building's collapse?
• 47:59
  On the left side, we have to take out all the columns in the building at once to get it to fail and synchronistically timed floor by floor.
• 48:13
  On the right, you see NIST's computer model, which is their effort to prove their initiation of collapse theory, which it completely actually disproves because it looks nothing like the video in the center, except for the collapse of the penthouse.
• 48:34
  They're claiming that there's this, from the 12th floor up to the roof, this failure on the left side, which is the northeast corner, and somehow all those columns are giving way at once and failing.
• 48:50
  That's 400 structural steel connections every second.
• 48:53
  I want to go back to the question of gaslighting, because the NIST model represented there visually is like this was a structure built out of sugar glass or something, where something gives way and it tears the building apart from the inside, which is of course the exact inverse of how these structures are built.
• 49:19
  They are built so that unanticipated things can't pull them down in this way.
• 49:25
  What does a building do?
• 49:26
  It stands up.
• 49:27
  It's very hard to get it to fall down.
• 49:28
  That's why controlled demolition is the specialty that it is.
• 49:32
  But I also want to point this out, something that you wouldn't know if you hadn't spent time inside of a science where modeling is a component.
• 49:43
  There's a rule when it comes to computer models, which is that if you build a model with enough parameters in it, you can get it to do anything you want.
• 49:54
  In fact, NIST has a very easy job, which it botches, but it has an easy job creating a model that will tell us nothing interesting happened in that building because mundane stuff could have triggered it just by virtue of the number of factors in the model.
• 50:10
  You can see how nonsensical it is when you look at their animation of what it would look like.
• 50:16
  The building falls apart like it's made of entirely brittle materials, which steel isn't.
• 50:24
  So effectively, in biology, we used to say when somebody pulled a stunt like this, we would call it proof by animation.
• 50:35
  The idea being that if you could generate an animation that made it look like something happened, a lot of people would accept it as true.
• 50:41
  But if you understood how those animations were generated, it tells you exactly the inverse.
• 50:45
  And again, the point is, this is designed to fool the public.
• 50:49
  It's not going to fool an expert.
• 50:51
  No.
• 50:52
  And the experts aren't even aware that there's a thousand page report, thousand pages on building seven produced seven years after the event.
• 51:03
  They were hoping that everybody would just forget about it, right?
• 51:06
  And then this computer model actually begins to tip over to the right.
• 51:10
  So they stop it.
• 51:12
  They don't show us what happens after two seconds into the global collapse.
• 51:16
  They don't want us to see it tipping over or completely disprove what they set out to prove.
• 51:22
  So what did the University of Alaska find?
• 51:25
  A fire did not cause the collapse of this building.
• 51:27
  The temperatures were not high enough to cause the weakening of the steel framing.
• 51:31
  Thermal expansion did not result in a loss of support for the beams in the girders.
• 51:36
  And the collapse of this building was a global failure involving what?
• 51:40
  The near simultaneous failure of all the columns in the building, not a progressive collapse as claimed by NIST.
• 51:51
  This completely pulled the rug out from underneath the NIST report.
• 51:56
  And we've given it to every member of Congress on two, two times since 2009 when it came out.
• 52:02
  And so we can't get action in Congress.
• 52:08
  And that's changing with Senator Ron Johnson.
• 52:10
  We'll go into that.
• 52:10
  But let's look at what could have brought this building down if it wasn't fire.
• 52:16
  Let's look for evidence of extreme heat provided by who FEMA before NIST took over the investigation and threw this information out.
• 52:25
  They have limited a medical or a metallurgical examination of the steel from building seven and the twin towers.
• 52:32
  So this section applies to the twin towers as well.
• 52:36
  Never before observed is what they found.
• 52:39
  Intergranular melting, capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.
• 52:47
  Like you see in the end of this beam from building seven that's been cut off for examination.
• 52:54
  Silver dollar size holes.
• 52:56
  What can do this steel?
• 52:58
  Can fires do this to steel office fires?
• 53:02
  Remember no jet fuel at building seven.
• 53:05
  No plane hit building seven.
• 53:07
  We're talking normal office fires.
• 53:09
  No, it takes 3000 degrees to melt steel.
• 53:14
  And we're not talking even half of those temperatures with these fires in building seven.
• 53:20
  In this piece of the end of the beam from the twin towers, we have a thinned to razor sharpness.
• 53:27
  This steel that was five eighths inch thick.
• 53:30
  The web of this white flange beam.
• 53:37
  What do they say?
• 53:38
  Rapid oxidation and sulfidation, liquid iron.
• 53:42
  That's molten iron.
• 53:43
  We're talking 3000 degrees Fahrenheit.
• 53:47
  Sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
• 53:53
  This was a fairly honest effort at presenting this information from the Worcester Polytechnic University.
• 54:02
  And they said the New York Times said this is perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.
• 54:07
  Yet it's completely ignored and omitted almost completely by NIST.
• 54:14
  They say the author of this report, Jonathan Barnett, fire protection engineer says steel members in the debris pile appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.
• 54:27
  Wait a minute.
• 54:28
  It takes 4000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel.
• 54:33
  Where are we getting these temperatures from?
• 54:36
  There's nothing in the official narrative that explains this.
• 54:41
  So let me just point out that what you are effectively suggesting is that not only do you have inexplicable anomalies at the structural level, but we're now down at the level of the chemistry, right?
• 54:54
  Something completely unprecedented is taking place at the level of the interaction of the molecules with each other.
• 55:02
  Yeah.
• 55:03
  And we can see it just in the photographs of the molten metal pouring out of the Crab Cola excavator here.
• 55:11
  We can tell the temperature of these materials by their emissivity, their color.
• 55:17
  We're exceeding 2500 degrees here.
• 55:22
  There's nothing in the official narrative that can account for this either.
• 55:27
  So where's it coming from?
• 55:29
  Fires and their worst case, mathematical worst case testing scenarios.
• 55:33
  We have 1830 degrees Fahrenheit, you know, that fires are potentially capable of achieving.
• 55:40
  We're talking at twice those temperatures.
• 55:44
  We're talking jet fuel, even at the twin towers, only burns about 600 degrees Fahrenheit.
• 55:50
  Some say 1800 degrees.
• 55:52
  Either way, we're talking about twice the temperatures.
• 55:56
  Jet fuel is just kerosene, by the way.
• 55:59
  It can't possibly in open air burn hotter than 600 to 1800 degrees, depending on who you agree with.
• 56:10
  But we have three, four and 5000 degree temperatures that are evident in the World Trade Center.
• 56:22
  So wait, before you get to what can explain that, again, I want to just point out how the nonsense is compounding.
• 56:30
  Because again, let's just grant in a hypothetical scenario, somewhere in Building 7, you have something that burns at the right temperature to turn steel into Swiss cheese.
• 56:45
  You don't have it all over the building.
• 56:47
  Most of the building was offices in which people worked.
• 56:50
  It wasn't full of, you know, dangerous materials that burn at incredibly high temperatures.
• 56:58
  So again, if it was true that you had temperatures high enough to melt steel in this way, it wouldn't melt all the steel simultaneously and bring the building down symmetrically.
• 57:09
  It would cause an asymmetrical collapse.
• 57:11
  So again, they're telling us multiple stories at once, and they want to dodge between them depending upon which thing they're trying to explain at any given moment.
• 57:20
  Yeah, that's well put, Bret.
• 57:23
  And nothing can explain this except possibly thermite.
• 57:29
  Well, let's find out what is thermite anyway.
• 57:32
  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.
• 57:45
  In just two seconds, thermite can reach temperatures over 4,500 degrees Fahrenheit, quite enough to liquefy steel.
• 57:55
  We know that open air fires cannot burn hot enough to melt steel, but metal had melted at the base of the towers.
• 58:03
  Appendix C of the FEMA report describes sulfur residues on the World Trade Center steel.
• 58:11
  The New York Times called this the deepest mystery of all.
• 58:16
  Sulfur slightly lowers the melting point of iron, and iron oxide and iron sulfide had formed on the surface of the structural steel.
• 58:26
  Sulfur used with thermite is called thermate, producing even faster results.
• 58:31
  Well, maybe we're getting somewhere here, Bret, because if thermite were used, it would explain the incredible temperatures, 4 to 4,500 degrees and up to 5,000 in some circumstances.
• 58:46
  And it would explain the presence of sulfur, which is added to thermite to become thermate, much more effective at cutting through steel.
• 58:57
  It would also explain the presence of tons of molten iron, previously molten iron, found in all the World Trade Center dust throughout lower Manhattan.
• 59:10
  Now, this is given to us not by conspiracy theorists, but by the U.S.
• 59:16
  Geological Survey, who in their Particle Atlas of the World Trade Center dust in 2005, documented what billions of previously molten iron microspheres.
• 59:30
  These are about the diameter of a human hair.
• 59:33
  They're naked to the eye.
• 59:37
  You can see them with a naked eye.
• 59:39
  And yet there's billions of them.
• 59:42
  In fact, the EPA says, "We don't know what these are or where they came from," and neither does the USGS.
• 59:48
  But they're a signature component of the World Trade Center dust.
• 59:52
  In other words, it's not even World Trade Center dust unless it has all these previously molten iron microspheres.
• 59:59
  Well, they comprise up to 6% of some of these samples altogether by extrapolation up to about four tons throughout all the World Trade Center dust.
• 1:00:09
  RJ Lee, a group, an environmental consulting firm doing independent analysis on this dust, says these spheres are formed during the event, not before, by the ironworkers welding the building together, not afterward by the ironworkers cutting the building apart, but during the event.
• 1:00:30
  Well, where do they come from?
• 1:00:32
  Gosh, we could do an experiment.
• 1:00:36
  Experiment is the arbiter of competing hypotheses.
• 1:00:40
  Let's do one.
• 1:00:42
  Let's burn some thermite.
• 1:00:43
  What you see is what looks like sparks, thousands of them, but they cool and they fall into the pan as previously molten iron microspheres.
• 1:00:58
  How do they get spherical?
• 1:00:59
  Well, aerosolized liquids form themselves, the droplets into spheres by surface tension.
• 1:01:07
  So under explosive conditions, molten iron, a liquid would form itself into these spheres.
• 1:01:14
  So that explains the shape of them too.
• 1:01:17
  So gosh, is there any evidence of unignited thermite?
• 1:01:22
  Because all of that that we've seen so far is evidence of ignited thermite and it can only be that.
• 1:01:30
  So yeah, let me just say, logically speaking, what you've got is a material, these tiny spheres of formerly molten iron.
• 1:01:43
  You've got a mechanism which demonstrably generates them.
• 1:01:47
  And that puts the burden of proof on somebody who says that what brought these towers down was fire.
• 1:01:54
  And in the case of the twin towers, some structural damage, it puts the onus on them to generate a competing explanation for those anomalous, readily observed phenomena.
• 1:02:10
  So they don't, they don't, the burden, the burden of proof logically falls on them.
• 1:02:15
  And the question then is not, you know, for those of us who are suspicious here, well, what are you saying?
• 1:02:22
  The question is, well, come up with anything that is as plausible.
• 1:02:26
  Let's, let's see you demonstrate it.
• 1:02:28
  Oh, so, so this, all this stuff gets swept under the rug.
• 1:02:32
  Some of it, they have really mediocre explanations for where did the sulfur come from NIST in their FAQ says, well, it may have come from the gypsum board gypsum board has calcium sulfate in it.
• 1:02:45
  Wait a minute.
• 1:02:46
  Gypsum board has been used for a hundred years to protect steel from fire.
• 1:02:50
  It's never turned around and attack the steel that has designed to protect.
• 1:02:55
  What's more, if they believed for five seconds that gypsum was doing this to steal, then it requires an investigation to figure out, you know, what other buildings we've built are in danger of falling down as a result of a fire.
• 1:03:11
  You would imagine that we would be, you know, that everybody would be interested in investigation of how that, uh, the gypsum had attacked the steel.
• 1:03:20
  And of course there isn't because it's sophistry.
• 1:03:23
  It's just an attempt to make the question go away.
• 1:03:26
  Yeah.
• 1:03:26
  So where does all that evidence come from?
• 1:03:29
  Well, we could look and see if there's any evidence of unignited thermite in the world trade center dust is there.
• 1:03:37
  Well, yeah, a team of eight international scientists led by Neils Harrott and Steven Jones have collected, uh, sent to them independent Lee independently collected seven samples all together.
• 1:03:50
  Here's some of them and they are red, gray chips, uh, from these dust samples that they've extracted.
• 1:03:59
  They thought they were paint and they look like paint, you know, primer paint, innocent enough.
• 1:04:04
  These chips are longest of them is actually only a 16th of an inch long.
• 1:04:09
  Unlike paint though, they are, uh, very well attracted to a magnet.
• 1:04:15
  So they have a high iron content.
• 1:04:18
  One of the key ingredients, one of the two key ingredients of thermite.
• 1:04:23
  Interesting.
• 1:04:23
  Well, they do analysis of the red layer and they do X-ray energy, dispersive spectroscopy and find that what we're talking about, uh, aluminum, uh, the other ingredient of thermite in addition to iron oxide powder.
• 1:04:43
  So we have, um, here we go, uh, aluminum and iron.
• 1:04:49
  Uh, this, this is very interesting to manganese, which is added to thermite to become thermate.
• 1:04:55
  Manganese, the key ingredient in thermate.
• 1:04:57
  So they're, they're, they're very interested now that you've got my attention.
• 1:05:02
  So they go into the lab at Brigham Young university with, uh, a electron microscope, 50,000 times they zoom in.
• 1:05:12
  What do they find?
• 1:05:14
  Nano sized particles of iron oxide crystals, rhomboidally shaped and aluminum platelets.
• 1:05:21
  The ingredients are constituents of thermite.
• 1:05:26
  And these are at the nano scale a thousand times smaller than the diameter of a human hair.
• 1:05:33
  Now, wait a minute.
• 1:05:34
  We're talking about nano technology here.
• 1:05:37
  And this stuff is set in, in a matrix or a bed of oxygen, silica, carbon.
• 1:05:47
  And this is organic material, organic materials, what's added to TNT, for instance, to expand rapidly and knock things over.
• 1:05:55
  That's how explosives work.
• 1:05:57
  Whereas in Cindy areas, like what we're talking about, destroy things by burning them up at incredibly high temperatures.
• 1:06:06
  So here we have something that's been engineered and incendiary to become more explosive.
• 1:06:13
  They get real curious and say, what is this stuff?
• 1:06:15
  We don't know.
• 1:06:16
  Um, oh, the peer-reviewed literature shows that Lawrence Livermore lab invented this stuff, uh, before, uh, to that, before nine 11 and, and, and published it.
• 1:06:28
  It's called super thermite explosive composites based on thermite reactions whose fuel and oxidizer constituents are intimately mixed at the nanometer size scale.
• 1:06:39
  You see, when you get this stuff, so small, the nano scale, the surface volume increases exponentially and you've engineered an incendiary to become more explosive.
• 1:06:50
  The chemical reaction is virtually instantaneous through this stuff.
• 1:06:53
  Oh, wait.
• 1:06:54
  I don't think I understood this before.
• 1:06:57
  The significance of the nano scale is that the ratio of the surface to the volume of a sphere goes up as the sphere gets smaller.
• 1:07:09
  And so it's the purpose is to increase the surface area in order to get something to happen very fast.
• 1:07:16
  You would want tiny spheres.
• 1:07:18
  Yeah.
• 1:07:20
  Interesting.
• 1:07:21
  That's, that's it.
• 1:07:23
  And it's very expensive.
• 1:07:25
  Uh, the, and guess what, uh, when they put this stuff in a heater, a differential scanning colorimeter, which, uh, which heats it up and analyzes the resultant energy, they have peak bursts of exothermic energy at 420 Celsius, about eight 50 Fahrenheit.
• 1:07:44
  Well, that's exactly what these samples did.
• 1:07:48
  Just like the peer reviewed literature, these samples produce a lot of energy and exothermic reaction.
• 1:07:55
  The paint doesn't do this paint doesn't have these exotic properties.
• 1:08:02
  So not only that, what do you imagine these chips when they were heated produced when they ignite molten iron microspheres with the same chemical signature as the molten iron microspheres found and discovered and analyzed by the U S geological survey and RJ Lee.
• 1:08:25
  So we know exactly where all of these unknown sources of previously molten iron microspheres came from, as if we didn't know, they're found attached to partially ignited red gray chips, as you see here and here.
• 1:08:45
  So how does the official explanation explain away the red gray chips?
• 1:08:48
  Oh, they, they, they just say they're paint.
• 1:08:52
  They're paint.
• 1:08:52
  So again, that's all they say.
• 1:08:54
  Another gas lighting alert.
• 1:08:56
  If they were paint, then there should be an investigation to figure out why paint with these properties is being used in these buildings and what threat it might pose elsewhere.
• 1:09:10
  Again, it's like, it's like the gypsum explanation.
• 1:09:12
  It's nonsense, but if it isn't nonsense, it should be causing alarm.
• 1:09:16
  Oh, lots and lots of alarm.
• 1:09:18
  In fact, this stuff is not made in a cave in Afghanistan.
• 1:09:21
  This stuff is made only in the most advanced defense contracting laboratories.
• 1:09:26
  So yeah, we've got to get to the bottom of this.
• 1:09:29
  This a real investigation, which would take a peer reviewed paper like this published in 2009 in the Bentham open chemical physics journal, which concludes that the red layer of the red grade ships is active, unreacted, thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology.
• 1:09:50
  It's a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.
• 1:09:55
  This stuff should not be in all the world trade center dust samples.
• 1:09:59
  And yet it is, it has to be explained.
• 1:10:03
  And that's why officials simply ignore it.
• 1:10:06
  And we've given this paper to every member of Congress on at least two occasions again.
• 1:10:12
  Since 2009, when it came out and can't get any action.
• 1:10:16
  Jim Hines of Connecticut actually wrote NIST on our behalf because I presented this material to Jim and NIST wrote back and said, Oh, well, there's aluminum cladding on the outside of the building.
• 1:10:29
  And there's rust on the steel inside, which is what iron oxide is essentially.
• 1:10:36
  And, and they make it must have mixed and don't worry, go back to sleep.
• 1:10:40
  This is nothing to get excited about.
• 1:10:42
  That's the kind of science we get from NIST who we pay millions of dollars.
• 1:10:48
  And I would just point out again, the story that they're telling is utter nonsense because the existence of thermitic material in those buildings, if you honestly believed that what happened to those buildings was that they fell down as a result of consequences of the aircraft hitting them, then it would be alarming to discover that they also had material capable of compromising the steel structure.
• 1:11:20
  And maybe you would assume that it was the same people who had done both things, but there shouldn't be a lack of interest in it.
• 1:11:27
  Because if you had people in this country who were in a position to introduce thermitic material on behalf of the same folks who crashed the planes into the towers, then that would be an important thing to discover.
• 1:11:41
  You wouldn't want to let those people get away because who knows what building they're going to do it to next.
• 1:11:46
  That's a very good point.
• 1:11:48
  And it turns out there's a lot of surprises with regard to the hijackers and the planes, which we won't have time to get into today.
• 1:11:54
  And it's not my area of specialty.
• 1:11:57
  But I encourage deeper research on that in the 9-11 Truth Movement.
• 1:12:02
  And we'll have lots to discover as did the people who've looked at this evidence finding that, yeah, we have 10 key characteristic features of controlled demolition and some very uncharacteristic features.
• 1:12:16
  Fire does not explain any one of these, let alone all 10 of them with additional circumstantial evidence and corroborative testimony.
• 1:12:27
  This becomes proof of controlled demolition, a body of proof that's convinced 3,600 architects and engineers to stake their reputations on the line for demanding a new investigation.
• 1:12:42
  And again, you can see those at richardgauge911.org.
• 1:12:49
  And many of them appear in our ongoing film series.
• 1:12:52
  We're producing episode five coming up this month.
• 1:12:57
  And this is 9-11 crime scene to courtroom and unprecedented film series taking the hard evidence of 9-11 crimes to court, where Mick Harrison of the Lawyers Committee for 9-11 Inquiry and I have assembled this evidence and brought it to a stand-in grand jury and presented it all with the intention of supplementing the existing 2018 grand jury petition that the Lawyers Committee has submitted.
• 1:13:30
  And this will be a supplementary series to that existing set of exhibits, 60 of them exhibits that have already been submitted.
• 1:13:42
  And so here's just a taste of that film series.
• 1:13:46
  No matter how improbable, the conclusion may appear.
• 1:13:52
  And you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains.
• 1:13:56
  However improbable must be the truth.
• 1:14:01
  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.
• 1:14:13
  Attorney in Manhattan to present to a special criminal jury.
• 1:14:17
  This historic investigation is ongoing and there's a role for you in it.
• 1:14:23
  Yes, you can help us bring the real perpetrators to justice.
• 1:14:27
  Through this film series, we're bringing together two dozen experts in their field.
• 1:14:32
  They ignored any scenario involving incendiaries.
• 1:14:35
  Demolition work, you're going to set charges on each floor.
• 1:14:40
  The building could not have been brought down by offers fires.
• 1:14:44
  In other words, all of the interior columns over eight stories came down, basically lost at once.
• 1:14:54
  I could make out what looked like from a science fiction movie, Molt and Lava, okay.
• 1:15:01
  And he paused and said that'll be coming down around five o'clock.
• 1:15:06
  We'll be filming these evidence presentations, not only for our filing with the grand jury, also as presentations to each of you.
• 1:15:14
  We're inviting you to serve as virtual grand jury during each episode.
• 1:15:27
  Yes, and you can also see the first four episodes in this series at 911c2c.org.
• 1:15:36
  That's 911 letter C number two, letter c.org.
• 1:15:41
  I encourage you to take a look at that and get involved.
• 1:15:44
  You can co-produce the series.
• 1:15:46
  We're in post edit right now.
• 1:15:48
  So we do need the support to continue the film series.
• 1:15:52
  And we have 12 episodes altogether, including the Twin Towers, which by the way, we have to stop and ask ourselves a question, Bret.
• 1:16:00
  If we'd just proven that building seven was a controlled demolition, and I believe that we have, then we have to ask ourselves, the Twin Towers happened on the same day that morning.
• 1:16:11
  Is it possible that they have some of the evidence of explosive demolition in them as well?
• 1:16:17
  That's incumbent upon us to ask the question.
• 1:16:20
  And so we do on behalf of the 911 victims and their family members.
• 1:16:25
  And just looking at these simultaneously side by side here, though they were 15 minutes apart, we see something very unusual, very explosive, upward, outward, arching streamers, a geometry of fireworks, freely flying structural steel sections, weighing four and eight tons each, laterally ejected at 85 miles an hour, clocked by physicists landing 600 feet in every direction, trailed by thick white smoke clouds.
• 1:17:01
  Wait a minute.
• 1:17:02
  Steel is not flammable in office fire conditions or with jet fuel, as we've seen.
• 1:17:08
  What are these thick white smoke clouds trailing all of these steel sections?
• 1:17:15
  Fair question, right?
• 1:17:17
  Let's look and see what happens when you burn thermite.
• 1:17:21
  You get not only molten iron, but thick white smoke clouds of aluminum oxide ash, the other byproduct of thermite.
• 1:17:33
  Right.
• 1:17:34
  Fascinating.
• 1:17:36
  Well, we have to ask ourselves then, do we have any of the features of controlled demolition in the Twin Towers?
• 1:17:42
  Let's start at the beginning, just like we do with building seven.
• 1:17:45
  Is there a sudden onset?
• 1:17:47
  Well, yeah, the North Tower is standing at rest, and all of a sudden it's in uniform downward motion, no jolt, no hesitation upon impact of the cold, hard steel below.
• 1:18:00
  In the first two, three seconds, something very unusual is going on here, similar to a controlled demolition and similar to building seven.
• 1:18:09
  Actually, same in the South Tower, it's at rest and all of a sudden it's not stopping when it meets this incredible resistance of this 80,000 tons of structural steel that's not on fire and not melting below it.
• 1:18:25
  We're told that the upper story drove the rest of the building down to the ground and then destroyed itself after the initial weakening of steel.
• 1:18:36
  Well, this is called the Crush Down, Crush Up Theory provided to us from Zdenic Bizant, and it suffers from a number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that he submitted this just two days after 9-11.
• 1:18:51
  The rest of us are freaked out, right?
• 1:18:52
  When's the next plane coming?
• 1:18:54
  When's the next attack?
• 1:18:57
  Who did this to us?
• 1:18:59
  But not this guy.
• 1:19:00
  He's busy in his den apparently during, immediately producing the most obscure paper ever produced in structural engineering.
• 1:19:12
  This gentleman is actually a mathematical wizard.
• 1:19:15
  It took the engineers 10 years to decode this work.
• 1:19:20
  And when they did, well, they didn't have to wait 10 years.
• 1:19:23
  We see immediately that, gosh, if there's two bodies that are colliding with each other, there's going to be an equal and opposite destructive force, making that analogy a little easier.
• 1:19:36
  Look at a Volkswagen running into a Mack truck.
• 1:19:38
  Who's going to win, right?
• 1:19:40
  The Volkswagen?
• 1:19:41
  No.
• 1:19:41
  Does it matter if we drop the Volkswagen onto the Mack truck?
• 1:19:44
  No.
• 1:19:45
  The lightest part of the structure cannot possibly destroy the cold, hard, heavier, intact steel below.
• 1:19:52
  It makes no sense.
• 1:19:53
  Look at the size of the beams on the top, the columns.
• 1:19:57
  They are very light, and then they get bigger and heavier until at mid height, they're 52 inches by 22 inches, and then they infill so that such that they're almost solid steel at the ground.
• 1:20:09
  And we're told that that solid steel was crushed by the upper.
• 1:20:13
  Well, let's look at it.
• 1:20:15
  Tell me if the upper part is destroying the lower part or is something else happening.
• 1:20:19
  I'll make it easier.
• 1:20:20
  Look at the lower red line, the point of plane impacts.
• 1:20:23
  The upper part is telescoping in on itself.
• 1:20:31
  It's not driving the rest of the building down to the ground at all.
• 1:20:35
  We've been lied to.
• 1:20:36
  We've been gas lit once again.
• 1:20:39
  If it were driving the rest of the building down to the ground, we would see it, but none of the photos, none of the videos show an upper part that's there.
• 1:20:48
  It would be where the red box is driving the rest of the building down to the ground.
• 1:20:52
  If it were there, it would have destroyed these few remaining columns standing 900 feet in the air for about another dozen seconds before they fall of their own weight through the smoke that is the result of them burning.
• 1:21:14
  So having been destroyed.
• 1:21:17
  That's fascinating.
• 1:21:18
  I also did not know.
• 1:21:19
  I mean, it's obvious in retrospect that you would build a building in this way, but that the columns are getting bigger and more robust.
• 1:21:26
  The lower down you go and should be offering greater and greater resistance.
• 1:21:31
  Yeah.
• 1:21:32
  Again, this is a place where the explanation we've been given is probably good enough for the public because it doesn't know what it saw, but a little bit of domain.
• 1:21:43
  The public was terrorized.
• 1:21:44
  Don't forget.
• 1:21:45
  We just want answers.
• 1:21:46
  We don't want, we're not going to think about them critically.
• 1:21:49
  We've been reduced to almost infantile state on on that day.
• 1:21:54
  Yeah.
• 1:21:55
  And anybody who did ask legitimate questions found themselves derided in public, ruined a certain number of people seem to have died early.
• 1:22:08
  I know Barry Jennings, who was one of the two people inside World Trade Center seven, and who spoke openly about the explosions that he experienced is no longer with us.
• 1:22:21
  And the other gentleman is at Michael Hess, who was in the building, has not been speaking about this and he's very much alive.
• 1:22:30
  At first he talked about explosions, but he said, Oh no, that was the, uh, building coming down on us, the North tower.
• 1:22:37
  And that's been proven wrong and a very detailed set of analysis done by others, that we don't have time to go into.
• 1:22:44
  But we do have time to look at how many witnesses of explosions does NIST say there was none, zero witnesses of explosions, except for the plane hitting the towers and maybe down in the lobby.
• 1:23:00
  But listen to what professor Graham McQueen found in reading 12,000 pages of transcripts released finally by the New York city, because the New York times was suing them in a FOIA request and they finally got them.
• 1:23:16
  All 12,000 pages are put on their website and professor Graham McQueen read them.
• 1:23:23
  Look what he found.
• 1:23:24
  We felt the ground shake.
• 1:23:25
  You could see the towers sway and then it just came down again and again.
• 1:23:30
  You're going to hear this specific order of events from these witnesses of which NIST says there are none.
• 1:23:37
  And here is 156 of them.
• 1:23:39
  I'll just read a few of them.
• 1:23:41
  Uh, they're hearing something.
• 1:23:42
  They're seeing something.
• 1:23:43
  They're feeling something.
• 1:23:45
  And then the building comes down.
• 1:23:48
  All of a sudden the ground just started shaking.
• 1:23:50
  I felt like a train running under my feet.
• 1:23:52
  The next thing we know, we look up in the towers collapsing, shook my bones shortly before the first tower came down.
• 1:24:01
  I remember feeling the ground shaking, heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying everywhere.
• 1:24:08
  Saw flash, flash, flash at the lower level of the building.
• 1:24:10
  You know, like when they demolish a building, saw a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15.
• 1:24:17
  He saw about six of these brief flashes accompanied by crackling sound before the tower collapsed.
• 1:24:24
  I saw low level flashes.
• 1:24:26
  I saw flash, flash, flash.
• 1:24:27
  And then it looked like the building came down.
• 1:24:32
  An explosion appeared at the very top simultaneously from all four sides.
• 1:24:35
  Materials shot out horizontally.
• 1:24:37
  And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.
• 1:24:47
  You talk about good witnesses.
• 1:24:50
  This fire chief is a very good one.
• 1:24:52
  And all of these are expert witnesses, these first responders.
• 1:24:56
  There was an explosion in the south tower.
• 1:24:59
  One floor under another hit about the fifth floor.
• 1:25:01
  I figured it was a bomb because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing.
• 1:25:06
  Well, let's look at feature number three.
• 1:25:10
  Is there a straight down symmetrical progression?
• 1:25:12
  Well, the south tower actually begins to tip over.
• 1:25:15
  So you'd expect it to continue tipping and falling on the ground below.
• 1:25:19
  It's actually 22 degrees.
• 1:25:22
  So we have asymmetrical loading on the structure below by this section of the south tower that's falling off.
• 1:25:29
  We have asymmetrical damage from the fires, asymmetrical damage from the planes.
• 1:25:35
  How in the world then do we get complete symmetrical destruction all the way around each face of the building?
• 1:25:44
  Just like the firefighters described, like a belt all around the building.
• 1:25:49
  It makes no sense.
• 1:25:51
  What's really going on here?
• 1:25:52
  Well, we can get a clue by zooming in on the leading corner of these explosions.
• 1:26:00
  I see about 12 of them in this looped video, in addition to what we call a squib, isolated explosive ejection down below, which we'll come back to.
• 1:26:10
  So wait a minute.
• 1:26:12
  This is not a nuclear weapon going off as some have erroneously hypothesized.
• 1:26:19
  This is not a directed energy weapon somehow aimed floor by floor, weakening steel.
• 1:26:26
  No, these must could only be pre-placed charges in the exterior frame rapidly advancing floor by floor, easily understood and intuited to be individual explosions.
• 1:26:43
  So that is a dead giveaway for us as well.
• 1:26:47
  But let's look and see if there's any isolated explosive ejections.
• 1:26:51
  They call these squibs in the controlled demolition industry.
• 1:26:54
  They occur as far down, starting 20 stories below, 40 stories below the zone of destruction.
• 1:27:01
  There's no accounting for these isolated explosive ejections anywhere in the official narrative, even 60 stories down below the zone of destruction.
• 1:27:11
  How are these a possibly counter for?
• 1:27:14
  They can only be in all likelihood mistimed explosions with solid objects expelled out.
• 1:27:22
  This is not air being propelled out from the piston that's driving this building down to the ground.
• 1:27:32
  We saw that piston was destroyed, the hammer up at the top, the top section of this building.
• 1:27:38
  It was destroyed in the first three seconds.
• 1:27:41
  Well, on the left side of the south tower, we see a number of isolated explosive ejections all at once, essentially reducing the structure to sand instead of a rigid body.
• 1:27:57
  So it doesn't maintain its rigidity and fall off the structure below and maintain its angular momentum and land on the ground somewhere.
• 1:28:07
  So that's another another piece I don't think I understood.
• 1:28:11
  That image of the top of is at the south tower tilting before it disintegrates, that should have put much greater pressure on the side to which it was tilting and reduced the pressure on the side that it was tilting away from.
• 1:28:32
  So you would not expect the structure underneath to disintegrate symmetrically.
• 1:28:37
  You would expect it to disintegrate progressively on the side that was experiencing more weight collapsing onto it.
• 1:28:47
  And yet the whole thing is reduced to dust.
• 1:28:50
  And yeah, instead this is what you get.
• 1:28:52
  Symmetrical destruction all the way down to the ground.
• 1:28:57
  Doesn't make any sense, does it?
• 1:28:58
  No.
• 1:28:58
  Given what we just saw here.
• 1:29:03
  So we can ask another question.
• 1:29:06
  How fast is the building coming down?
• 1:29:07
  Well, physics teacher David Chandler and others have analyzed this.
• 1:29:11
  It's it's almost two thirds of free fall, which means what it is accelerating, getting faster and faster and faster.
• 1:29:21
  It's not slowing down as it meets cold, hard steel below.
• 1:29:29
  This is what a lot of these beams look like.
• 1:29:31
  They're solid steel at the very base, but there's 47 massive core columns here at mid height, 52 inches by 16 inches and four and 240 massive perimeter columns.
• 1:29:46
  And yet the the math of the free fall tells us what percentage of the strength has somehow been gone.
• 1:29:57
  It's 90% of the strength of the steel is gone such that it can fall at almost two thirds of free fall.
• 1:30:05
  I would just add again, this is exactly what buildings are designed not to do.
• 1:30:11
  And although something unusual happened to the two twin towers, it was not something that the designers had not contemplated.
• 1:30:21
  They designed them to withstand the impact of a jetliner.
• 1:30:24
  They sure did.
• 1:30:25
  Two of them.
• 1:30:26
  As a matter of fact, the structural engineer, John Skilling, said it could take the impact of two jetliners.
• 1:30:31
  He said the problem would be that the fuel would dump into the building, but the building would still be there.
• 1:30:36
  And indeed, it was still there for 90 minutes until somebody pressed the button and started all of these explosions.
• 1:30:44
  We wouldn't have had any kind of a collapse based on the impact of the airlines and the damage to the columns as a result.
• 1:30:52
  But what happened to these exterior structural steel sections?
• 1:30:56
  We've got to take a look at that feature number seven, very unusual feature of controlled demolition.
• 1:31:01
  Well, they're found impaled in the skyscrapers all around the building.
• 1:31:06
  They're found destroying the winter garden 600 feet away.
• 1:31:10
  They're found destroying the Deutsche Bank building such that it actually had to be dismantled floor by floor.
• 1:31:18
  These are four.
• 1:31:19
  This is a four ton structural steel section.
• 1:31:22
  The columns are 37 feet long.
• 1:31:26
  They're only attached to each other by four bolts at this height in the building, five eighths inch bolts.
• 1:31:35
  And so all the plane actually had to do with 10,000 gallons of fuel going 500 miles an hour was impact these exterior sections and drive them in shearing off those four five eighths inch bolts.
• 1:31:51
  They didn't slice through the steel like is claimed by those who want to suggest that there were no actual planes in the building.
• 1:31:59
  So that's an important revelation.
• 1:32:02
  And we have six ways from Sunday to prove that planes did actually strike these buildings.
• 1:32:08
  That was part of the facade hanging there.
• 1:32:10
  Is that right?
• 1:32:11
  Yeah.
• 1:32:12
  Yeah.
• 1:32:12
  This, this, this was, that's not what's holding the building up.
• 1:32:15
  Well, it is.
• 1:32:16
  These, these columns are the exterior structural steel sections and they are these columns.
• 1:32:23
  That's what's holding the exterior of the building up.
• 1:32:26
  And it was an exoskeleton.
• 1:32:29
  It's a very unusual design structurally, but they were very nervous.
• 1:32:33
  The tallest buildings in the world, going 1400 feet tall, had to resist hurricane force winds up there.
• 1:32:41
  So these, this is what they ended up with.
• 1:32:44
  And since then they've gotten more sophisticated with their structural design, but yeah, look at them.
• 1:32:49
  They are ejected laterally again, trailing thick white smoke clouds, four and eight ton structural steel sections ejected laterally at 80 miles an hour clocked by physicists landing up to 600 feet.
• 1:33:06
  This one's about to hit building seven.
• 1:33:08
  Wait a minute.
• 1:33:09
  Back to forward to back to, we're talking laterally ejected.
• 1:33:16
  How does gravity work, Bret?
• 1:33:18
  You, you, you, you see pulls down towards the center of something else is going on here, right?
• 1:33:25
  All of these sections are, have a, have a force that has to be identified to drive them laterally that far and trailing thick white smoke clouds.
• 1:33:36
  Again, aluminum oxide ash, steel is not flammable in office fire conditions or with jet fuel.
• 1:33:43
  That's what this is.
• 1:33:45
  There's enough energy here to hurl a 200 pound cannonball three miles and there's hundreds of them in a 1200 foot diameter and more outside each of the towers beyond the perimeter of world trade center, of the world trade center itself.
• 1:34:05
  And by the way, let's ask another tough question.
• 1:34:09
  If a hundred thousand tons of steel framing is distributed outside well outside the footprint, what's crushing the building?
• 1:34:20
  It can't crush the building.
• 1:34:23
  This is a third of the weight of the building.
• 1:34:25
  It can't crush the building if it's distributed outside the footprint of the building, particularly this far.
• 1:34:34
  So let's, let's look at the concrete because maybe it was a concrete floor.
• 1:34:38
  Because that's heavy stuff, right?
• 1:34:40
  Another third of the weight of the building.
• 1:34:43
  We're looking for 110 concrete floors, each an acre in size.
• 1:34:48
  We're looking for 110 of these floor assemblies for an eight inch thick concrete poured on metal decking supported by lightweight steel trusses.
• 1:34:58
  We don't find a hundred of them.
• 1:35:00
  We don't find 50 of them.
• 1:35:03
  We don't find 10 of them.
• 1:35:06
  We don't find one acre size floor.
• 1:35:08
  We don't find a half acre, a quarter acre, a 16th of an acre size floor at the bottom, just a pile of miscellaneous metal, a few core columns.
• 1:35:19
  And in a real gravitational collapse, we have pancakes.
• 1:35:24
  That's what we're looking for here.
• 1:35:26
  Pancakes like this earthquake in Mexico caused in a real gravitational collapse like this earthquake in Bangkok.
• 1:35:33
  We have pancakes.
• 1:35:36
  This was only a 33 story building, Bret.
• 1:35:39
  And yet its pile is three times the pile of the 110 floor twin towers.
• 1:35:47
  Yeah.
• 1:35:48
  So this is another interesting point.
• 1:35:50
  You would expect a certain number of, I mean, the floors have integrity to them and you would expect them in some cases, you know, yeah, some of them might be torn apart, but you would expect others to actually maybe even be preserved by being crushed together.
• 1:36:06
  And by the time they get to ground level, we don't see them.
• 1:36:11
  No.
• 1:36:13
  Look at the height of this pile.
• 1:36:15
  We're, we're, we're probably seven stories tall here and compare that to what we see at the bottom of the twin towers.
• 1:36:25
  We're missing 90,000 tons of concrete.
• 1:36:29
  Oh, that's where it is.
• 1:36:32
  It's pulverized to powder in mid air.
• 1:36:40
  It didn't land on the ground after developing its kinetic energy and pulverize down there.
• 1:36:45
  No, that's why we have all of this powdered concrete.
• 1:36:49
  What could pulverize 90,000 tons of concrete?
• 1:36:52
  Well, massive heat could, that's one possibility, explosives are another.
• 1:36:57
  But in terms of the heat, we have a report from the American society of testing and materials C856, which says what?
• 1:37:04
  White powder decomposed hydration products at 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.
• 1:37:13
  So we have four and 5,000 degrees.
• 1:37:18
  What could that do?
• 1:37:19
  The fire safety journal says at 2,200 degrees you have completely decomposed concrete.
• 1:37:25
  We have twice those temperatures available to us and documented what we've found.
• 1:37:32
  That's what could pulverize 90,000 tons of concrete.
• 1:37:37
  And by the way, it's not only pulverized, it spreads laterally throughout lower Manhattan.
• 1:37:46
  Again, lateral distribution of 90,000 tons in each tower, three inch thick blanket.
• 1:37:53
  Well, if that's the case, what's crushing the building?
• 1:37:59
  This is another third of the weight of this building.
• 1:38:03
  That's two thirds of the mass of this building that's not available to crush the building.
• 1:38:10
  If it's way out and distributed outside and pulverized in midair.
• 1:38:17
  The building, which is increasingly structurally robust, the lower you go.
• 1:38:22
  Exactly.
• 1:38:23
  And all that steel and all that concrete, we're not there to crush the building.
• 1:38:28
  And yet this is the key theoretical basis that NIST uses today to support their column failure theory, which is essentially this crush down, crush up theory.
• 1:38:43
  They, this guy, Susan Zdenek-Bazant of Northwestern University in Chicago, created this paper and used all of that weight.
• 1:38:57
  This is what engineers found 10 years later when they decoded it.
• 1:39:01
  Not only did he use all that weight that wasn't there concrete and steel, he doubled it fraudulently and he decreased the column absorption capacity below by more than three times, completely rigged in favor of a collapse, complete fraud.
• 1:39:20
  And this is why you have engineers filing their own peer reviewed paper, Gregory Zudalinsky, Tony Zambodi, Richard Johns.
• 1:39:30
  These guys put, submitted their peer reviewed paper for peer review in the American Society of Civil Engineering, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, and yet they would not publish it.
• 1:39:43
  Why?
• 1:39:44
  Well, they said it's out of scope.
• 1:39:47
  Wait a minute.
• 1:39:48
  How is it out of scope to publish a challenge to a previously published paper in that journal?
• 1:39:55
  That's what we do in science.
• 1:39:58
  That's what the peer reviewed process is.
• 1:40:01
  And yet they wouldn't do it.
• 1:40:03
  So there are ethical violations that have been submitted and there's lawsuits that have been submitted.
• 1:40:09
  Question.
• 1:40:11
  Has there been a substantial revision to the design requirements for steel frame skyscrapers in the aftermath of 9-11?
• 1:40:29
  No, no.
• 1:40:31
  Building salmon was the big test, interestingly, because no plane hit that building.
• 1:40:36
  And so, you know, people can blame all kinds of things on broken columns from planes and jet fuel, which are ludicrous.
• 1:40:45
  They don't explain any of the explosive evidence we're looking at here.
• 1:40:48
  But I don't even buy that.
• 1:40:50
  I mean, I get what you're saying.
• 1:40:52
  Once you've got planes hitting it, it seems like that's not something we have to design around.
• 1:40:56
  Obviously, the designers of the Twin Towers didn't think so.
• 1:40:59
  They did design them to withstand impact from jetliners.
• 1:41:03
  But it seems to me that if we were all on the same team trying to prevent disasters like this from happening, then we should have said, well, we're getting an education about the fact that these buildings that are built to withstand all sorts of unforeseen things actually pulverize themselves to dust as a result of impacts that were foreseeable.
• 1:41:35
  Therefore, there's a problem with the whole model for what's holding them up.
• 1:41:43
  They're way more vulnerable than we thought.
• 1:41:46
  And that should have caused a wholesale rethinking of skyscrapers, unless the answer is actually what you think brought them down didn't.
• 1:41:55
  And therefore, there's no reason to redesign anything because they are as robust as we think, but not with a certain degree of stagecraft.
• 1:42:04
  Except in the Freedom Tower, they designed the core out of concrete to make the stair egress system more likely to be intact upon an airplane attack.
• 1:42:21
  But the rest of the skyscrapers are built the same way.
• 1:42:24
  We learned a new lesson from three towers falling on the same day within a block of each other in unforeseen ways.
• 1:42:33
  We learned nothing that could be taught in architecture school to prevent it from ever happening again.
• 1:42:39
  There were recommendations by NIST at the end of the Building 7 report in particular that suggested that people ought to design their skyscrapers to account for a thermal expansion of long span beams pushing girders off of their seat.
• 1:42:58
  But none of those recommendations were deployed in the International Building Code.
• 1:43:03
  Nor has there been a massive retrofit of all of the vulnerable towers that have been built in various cities around the world, right?
• 1:43:11
  No, no, nothing like that has even come.
• 1:43:16
  So yeah, those are good questions and there's no good answers, other than the fact that the International Conference of Building Officials has reason to believe that their skyscrapers are adequately designed as they are.
• 1:43:32
  But you can't keep people from bringing explosives and incendiaries into these buildings, especially when they run the security.
• 1:43:42
  Securicom Stratosec was the security company.
• 1:43:45
  This was their last day, curiously, 9-11.
• 1:43:49
  9-11 was their last day.
• 1:43:51
  Yeah, the contract ended.
• 1:43:53
  And they had a security contract up until then.
• 1:43:59
  And interestingly, George Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin, Wirt Walker III were on the board of that security company.
• 1:44:11
  So certainly wanted an investigation there.
• 1:44:14
  But under their noses would have had to have been brought tons of incendiaries, nanothermite, thermite, and high energy explosives.
• 1:44:28
  So not only that, but curiously, we have a research project by Kevin Ryan, which finds that the locations that were hit by the planes were the same locations that were primarily upgraded with fireproofing.
• 1:44:49
  So was that really fireproofing?
• 1:44:51
  Or was this a dark operation that was bringing in maybe liquid-applied fireproofing called intumescent paint?
• 1:44:59
  And that was actually nanothermite sprayed on the underside of the slabs, which was capable of heating those slabs up to well beyond 2,200 degrees, evaporating not only the metal decking and the floor trusses, but pulverizing to decomposed hydration products, sand, gravel, concrete, and cement powder.
• 1:45:27
  So that's a possibility.
• 1:45:28
  Certainly need more, another, a real investigation into this.
• 1:45:32
  So what is necessary to ignite the, is it thermate?
• 1:45:39
  Say again?
• 1:45:40
  What is necessary to set off the thermite or the thermate?
• 1:45:44
  Yeah.
• 1:45:44
  Well, a magnesium strip, like fireworks can do it.
• 1:45:47
  They're very hot.
• 1:45:49
  So heat is enough.
• 1:45:50
  Yeah.
• 1:45:53
  Yeah.
• 1:45:53
  So the question is when were these put in here where they put in the months and years prior to 9-11 when we had this fireproofing upgrade?
• 1:45:59
  Well, I'm trying to, I'm trying to sort through what may have happened here.
• 1:46:03
  Heat sets the stuff off.
• 1:46:06
  Yeah.
• 1:46:08
  It generates heat.
• 1:46:10
  A lot of heat.
• 1:46:12
  So if you set it, if, if just hypothetically speaking, let's say that somebody sprayed it on the beams as part of the upgrade and then sets it off somewhere or who knows what?
• 1:46:30
  I mean, I guess the fires that aren't capable of bringing down the buildings might be capable of igniting the thermite.
• 1:46:39
  Would it then progress through wherever it had been sprayed because as the heat is released by it, it triggers the next unignited thermite?
• 1:46:51
  Fair question.
• 1:46:52
  And we don't know the answer.
• 1:46:54
  The fires were probably only five to 600 degrees in the World Trade Center tower and building seven.
• 1:47:00
  It would take more heat than that to ignite nanothermite.
• 1:47:05
  You're going to set it off.
• 1:47:07
  Yeah.
• 1:47:08
  Okay.
• 1:47:08
  Ignite it, set it off.
• 1:47:10
  And, and so nanothermite can be adjusted and tuned for very specific uses that it is deployed for.
• 1:47:20
  So we don't know exactly what, what the capabilities are.
• 1:47:27
  The ignition point.
• 1:47:28
  Well, we do know the ignition point.
• 1:47:30
  This thermite was ignited at, at 850 degrees Fahrenheit.
• 1:47:35
  So would that only locally set, set that off?
• 1:47:41
  I don't know.
• 1:47:42
  I mean, that, that is an important question.
• 1:47:43
  And if the answer to that question is it might, that doesn't put on those who are bringing all of this various evidence to the table.
• 1:47:57
  One little debunking, if you will, of one of our points is not the way to debunk the thermite and explosives analysis here.
• 1:48:10
  Every, every one of these points of evidence has to be answered by NIST, by debunkers, by whoever.
• 1:48:20
  It is a really important scientific point.
• 1:48:24
  We showed 10 key characteristic features of controlled demolition and some very uncharacteristic features and all of them have to be answered.
• 1:48:33
  But I don't have an answer to that specific one.
• 1:48:36
  Okay.
• 1:48:37
  And neither does the team that analyzed the the red gray chips and, and produced the peer reviewed paper.
• 1:48:46
  So then we have to ask, is there any other way to get into this building?
• 1:48:49
  Yeah.
• 1:48:50
  Well, look at the elevators.
• 1:48:51
  They access every floor, of course, and they are immediately adjacent to all of the core columns and beams in the building.
• 1:49:02
  So if you had access to the elevator shafts, you'd have access to all of those core columns and beams.
• 1:49:10
  The elevator shafts have two inches of gypsum board, though.
• 1:49:16
  So you'd have to cut a hole.
• 1:49:18
  And then that would produce a lot of dust.
• 1:49:21
  And interestingly, we have this testimony from the senior database administrator, Scott Forbes, of the fiduciary trust.
• 1:49:32
  Listen to this.
• 1:49:33
  It was probably the week leading up to 9-11.
• 1:49:34
  Every morning had coming around 7am and the dust was incredible.
• 1:49:40
  It was filthy.
• 1:49:41
  It was like the cleaners weren't cleaning right where the windows were.
• 1:49:45
  There was a cell which enclosed radiators and was sick to death of the dust, which were appearing on the window.
• 1:49:53
  So it was dirty gray and very, very noticeable in that week cleaning up to 9-11.
• 1:49:59
  Well, that's an interesting factoid also that we got to keep in mind.
• 1:50:06
  But who was operating the elevator shafts?
• 1:50:10
  It turns out ACE Elevator had this contract to modernize the elevators in the nine months prior to 9-11.
• 1:50:18
  Why were the port authority have given one of the largest, most sophisticated elevator modernization programs in the industry's history to ACE Elevator, who came out of nowhere to get this contract?
• 1:50:30
  And Otis Elevator had installed and been maintaining these elevators up to this time.
• 1:50:36
  And what happened to these ACE Elevator employees?
• 1:50:39
  They're all accounted for and safe.
• 1:50:41
  Why?
• 1:50:42
  They were pulled out that morning to a, well, they didn't come to work that morning because they had a union meeting, about 50 of them.
• 1:50:50
  So they were discussing business.
• 1:50:52
  I wonder what they were discussing.
• 1:50:52
  There's a lot more information that we've got to get to the bottom of on 9-11, not the least of which is the disposition of 180,000 tons of structural steel, because these are easily the largest and most perplexing structural failures in history.
• 1:51:11
  But up to 400 truckloads a day were calling the steel away from the site starting just two weeks after 9-11.
• 1:51:19
  It was shipped to China for recycling immediately.
• 1:51:25
  This is the illegal destruction of evidence in a crime scene, prompting people like Bill Manning, editor in 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.
• 1:51:45
  The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.
• 1:51:50
  But it didn't.
• 1:51:51
  And that's just one of the many components of evidence of controlled demolition.
• 1:51:58
  And it's not just another anomaly.
• 1:52:03
  What it really is, is the prevention of obvious science.
• 1:52:10
  In other words, if even a small fraction of the steel had been preserved, right, a randomly selected set of pieces of steel, we could run all kinds of experiments on them and discover what the chemical environment that they had been exposed to had been like at the moment of their destruction.
• 1:52:32
  And this is really like, you know, it's like the cremation of a body that prevents you from running a talk screen, right?
• 1:52:45
  The body is gone.
• 1:52:46
  We can speculate on what might have happened to it.
• 1:52:48
  Maybe there's CCTV video of the person staggering down the street and we can ask ourselves if, you know, somebody slept on a Mickey, but if you had the body, you could answer the question without the body.
• 1:53:01
  All you can do is speculate.
• 1:53:03
  And so at some level, the if you're frustrated by the existence of hypotheses of conspiracy surrounding the World Trade Center, blame the people who decided to make it impossible to settle some of these questions by doing away with the evidence.
• 1:53:21
  And it turns out that there are several sculptures around the country, the sculptors of which many of them have sent the slag from the ends of these beams to people like Professor Stephen Jones, who analyzed them and found the once again, the signature of thermite on those sculptures.
• 1:53:40
  So the evidence is not completely destroyed.
• 1:53:44
  Thank goodness, despite their attempt.
• 1:53:47
  Yes, a large attempt to do just that.
• 1:53:50
  But this evidence becomes yet again, in the case of the Twin Towers, proof of controlled demolition, a body of proof that's convinced this many 3600 architects and engineers demanding a new investigation, many of whom appear in our film series and many of whom appear in our landmark documentary, 9-11 explosive evidence experts speak out with 40 high rise architects, structural engineers, metallurgists, chemists, physicists, controlled demolition experts, all laying out the evidence.
• 1:54:21
  The 15 minute documentary just on building seven narrated by actor Ed Asner, extraordinary piece built for PBS that will convince anybody about building seven in just 15 minutes.
• 1:54:35
  And the more extensive study of the University of Alaska by Professor Leroy Halsey is has been made by Dylan Avery, the filmmaker of loose change 9-11.
• 1:54:49
  Now, all this evidence is laid out for people.
• 1:54:53
  If you want to just download it for free, you can print it and it to every architect and engineer you can find everybody that you know, it's available at Richard gauge 9-11.org.
• 1:55:03
  Just print it and get it out because we got to get to the bottom of this spread.
• 1:55:07
  The reason we're talking about this is because it changed the world on 9-11 and we were lied to on a massive scale about it.
• 1:55:17
  After all, what happened as a result of 9-11?
• 1:55:20
  If we're going to have a discussion about why this is still important 24 years later, we might start with the fact that the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 allows our government to arrest any of us without a right to a lawyer, a trial, a jury.
• 1:55:39
  We can be tortured and even assassinated.
• 1:55:41
  And it has been done.
• 1:55:43
  US citizens without due process.
• 1:55:45
  And in fact, all of our emails, our phone calls, our texts are systematically swept up and stored in the largest building in Utah for use against us later, completely unconstitutional.
• 1:55:59
  And yet, because of the emergency that's created by this false flag operation known as 9-11, they can get away with it.
• 1:56:07
  Well, they did the same thing, of course, with COVID.
• 1:56:10
  They created an emergency.
• 1:56:12
  So now all we can be contact traced, right?
• 1:56:16
  We can be told that we have to have a medical procedure, genetic modification in order to access certain buildings.
• 1:56:30
  And they tried to mandate this while calling it voluntary.
• 1:56:35
  So we got to ask ourselves at some point, where do we draw our line in the sand?
• 1:56:39
  For me, it was 20 years ago, five years too late for the 9-11 Truth Movement, who was waiting for the architects and engineers to show up.
• 1:56:47
  But many, most in this country prefer to put their heads in the sand.
• 1:56:53
  That's not acceptable anymore.
• 1:56:55
  We're heading straight into a totalitarian nightmare.
• 1:56:59
  And if you don't stand up and speak the truth, like Bret is, and get this podcast out to everybody, we're going to be just there.
• 1:57:06
  But it's not too late.
• 1:57:07
  I'm asking everybody to stand up and take your stand to avoid what's coming.
• 1:57:18
  What are you going to do when your grandchild asks you, what did you do to stop the Deep State Daddy or Mommy?
• 1:57:28
  We want you to have done something and you can do it sitting on your chair these days with your computer and get this podcast out to everybody.
• 1:57:39
  That's what we're asking, right, Bret?
• 1:57:42
  Yeah.
• 1:57:42
  I mean, let's put it this way.
• 1:57:45
  It's been very perilous to speak out about this topic and you've been doing it for a very long time, but it's getting less perilous by virtue of the fact that lots of people with various different kinds of expertise and various different positions in the world have been coming out of the shadows and admitting their doubts and concerns.
• 1:58:09
  And I mean, really all you have to do is confront the evidence and you can see very well that the story that you've been told can't possibly be right.
• 1:58:18
  It doesn't tell us what did happen, but we can be pretty sure what didn't happen, you know, and the evidence is all over the place, as I've been trying to point out during this podcast.
• 1:58:28
  If it was true that two planes brought down three buildings in a completely unprecedented way, acting through fire, then that should have caused us to rethink the way we build these buildings.
• 1:58:43
  It didn't.
• 1:58:45
  Why not?
• 1:58:47
  Surely there was information there.
• 1:58:49
  If we were caught off guard by the structural failure of these buildings, the primary job of which is to continue standing and just simply in three cases failed to do so on one morning within a block of each other, then if it was an honest design failure, it should have caused a rethinking of the way the buildings are designed.
• 1:59:08
  The fact that it didn't tells you nobody's really worried that that's going to all of a sudden happen again because there's a deeper explanation.
• 1:59:17
  And, you know, the fact that that deeper explanation is consistent with anomalies in what is seen, you know, melted beams that shouldn't be melted, iron spheres that are distributed through the dust.
• 1:59:33
  It's consistent with a pattern of behavior where the steel that would allow us to settle these questions was immediately recycled, right?
• 1:59:43
  All of these things are pointing in the same direction.
• 1:59:45
  And, you know, the obvious answer is an honest new investigation in which this evidence is put to the test.
• 1:59:54
  And frankly, I got to tell you, I would be tremendously relieved if it turned out that the official story was basically right.
• 2:00:05
  I don't expect that to happen given all the evidence that it is that exists.
• 2:00:10
  But, you know, if the if a preponderance of the evidence pointed in that direction with an honest investigation, boy, I would be I would be a much happier person because as you point out, Richard, the number of terrifying things, transformations of our own country, the loss of our most fundamental rights, our going to war twice in the Middle East as a result of this set of apparent attacks, all of those things were very costly to us.
• 2:00:46
  And the idea that they may have been triggered by a story we don't yet know is nothing short of terrifying.
• 2:00:55
  So the evidence is what it is.
• 2:00:57
  It certainly justifies a proper investigation.
• 2:01:02
  And I hope that you and Ron Johnson and the other courageous people calling for that are successful in making it happen.
• 2:01:11
  And I hope everybody watching this podcast will add their voice to that chorus.
• 2:01:16
  Yes, thank you.
• 2:01:17
  It is essential and it's unprecedented in the 9-11 Truth movement to have a sitting senator address our three day conference in Washington, D.C. on September 11th.
• 2:01:29
  And and not only that, but offer the platform of Senate hearings because he's the chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and actually offer this and encourage us to put collect all of our our work over the last 20 years and plus and in condense it into one set of volumes that we can hand to them and basically say, here's your hearing on a on a silver platter senator.
• 2:01:59
  And he's encouraged us to do that.
• 2:02:01
  And we're working with them right now to make that happen in 2026.
• 2:02:06
  So this is very exciting for those who have been searching and working hard for disclosure to the public of what really happened to the three World Trade Center's towers on 9-11.
• 2:02:20
  And it will go broader into the hijackers, the phone calls that were made by the victims, the planes, etc.
• 2:02:28
  Yes, I will say, as most of the people watching this probably know, Ron Johnson and I had a chance meeting in a forest.
• 2:02:38
  We were both hiking and ran into each other.
• 2:02:42
  And anyway, it resulted in a podcast in which we discussed this very set of questions.
• 2:02:48
  People should go take a look at that if you want to get a sense for where Ron Johnson, where his mind is is that on these questions, it's a great place to do it.
• 2:02:58
  You can also see very clearly that this is a a patriot who is just simply interested in getting to the bottom of this for the same reason that you and I are that it's essential for the country to function for us to know what happened to us on 9-11.
• 2:03:14
  And in any case, I hope people will check that out after they've watched this podcast.
• 2:03:21
  As we close out, I want to ask you one other thing.
• 2:03:24
  There's one piece of this puzzle that has strangely haunted me more than any other.
• 2:03:32
  It is the video of the demolition expert, Danny Joenko, who was I believe he was Dutch.
• 2:03:48
  Is that correct?
• 2:03:49
  Dutch?
• 2:03:49
  Yes, he's Dutch.
• 2:03:51
  Demolition expert who did not know that World Trade Center 7 had fallen and was ambushed more or less by a film crew that showed him video of World Trade Center 7 collapsing and asked him for his professional opinion on what had happened.
• 2:04:09
  And so this is all captured.
• 2:04:11
  And what he says very clearly is, oh, that's obviously a controlled demolition.
• 2:04:16
  And they say, are you sure?
• 2:04:17
  And he says, yes.
• 2:04:19
  And they say, well, that is the third tower that fell on 9-11.
• 2:04:25
  And he is clearly unaware that a third tower had fallen.
• 2:04:28
  And he becomes very perplexed because obviously it raises important questions.
• 2:04:34
  If a tower that was a block away from the World Trade Center towers fell on 9-11 clearly from controlled demolition, then what does that say about the rest of the story?
• 2:04:46
  And in any case, the reason that this haunts me so is that it seemed like a window into reality, somebody who had the correct domain expertise.
• 2:05:03
  And you actually just watch his reaction in real time to the discovery that this element of the story existed.
• 2:05:10
  And then he over time does not recant his conclusion.
• 2:05:17
  In fact, he's asked about it.
• 2:05:18
  Somebody calls him on the phone and says, do you still believe that?
• 2:05:21
  He says, absolutely.
• 2:05:23
  And then he mysteriously dies in a one car accident.
• 2:05:29
  He wrapped his Volvo apparently around a tree while he and his dog were, I think, coming home from church on a Saturday, a story that makes no sense to me.
• 2:05:41
  He did not appear, you know, this is a career person with technical expertise.
• 2:05:46
  It doesn't sound likely that he's going to be speeding in his Volvo to the point that hitting a tree is going to be instantly fatal to him.
• 2:05:54
  So I have to wonder about his death.
• 2:05:59
  It's one of a number of anomalies surrounding World Trade Center 7.
• 2:06:05
  The death of Barry Jenkins is, of course, the guy could have just simply died of a heart attack.
• 2:06:13
  But the fact is his testimony about what he experienced inside building 7 was unique.
• 2:06:20
  And it is now just simply frozen in time as a, you know, a series of statements on video.
• 2:06:25
  We can't interview him any longer.
• 2:06:31
  Is there anything you've seen, presumably the video of Danny Duenco responding to the building 7?
• 2:06:38
  I actually usually play that, but we had, we needed to shorten today's presentation, believe it or not out there, this is half the length of what we provide or can provide.
• 2:06:48
  Danny Duenco is handed a laptop some weeks or months after 9-11, like you say, and it is startling because he's the top European controlled demolition expert there was.
• 2:07:05
  And he's watching this building coming down.
• 2:07:09
  He says, that's a controlled demolition without a doubt.
• 2:07:12
  A team of experts did this professional work.
• 2:07:15
  And so, like you say, he upheld that belief.
• 2:07:21
  And it was the day before the final report came out by NIST that his car was speeding and wrapped around a tree.
• 2:07:32
  And he was killed.
• 2:07:39
  So, like Barry Jennings, a very mysterious death, Barry Jennings was easily murdered.
• 2:07:51
  It's just hard to prove, but it's obvious.
• 2:07:53
  Well, I would also point out that, you know, one of the challenges that is often leveled at people like you is if this had been a conspiracy, it would have involved a huge number of people who would not have remained silent.
• 2:08:09
  And I've never found this argument very compelling because if one is willing to murder, then it doesn't take very long for the people who know something to realize that they had best not share it.
• 2:08:24
  And obviously, whoever it is that orchestrated 9-11 was more than willing to murder.
• 2:08:30
  You know, 3,000 people died regardless of whose explanation you accept.
• 2:08:37
  So, were it the case that this was not the result of terrorists in caves who, you know, were clever enough and lucky enough to hit some buildings with some airplanes, if it's more than that, then whoever is involved in the more than that is obviously perfectly comfortable with the murder of innocent people.
• 2:09:02
  And in that light, some of the people who have died with, you know, and took to their graves some kind of insight here, it's very troubling.
• 2:09:14
  And I should, I guess it's also worth saying as long as we're there, if something should happen to you or your wife or me, that people should think very carefully about why, about whether or not that's about something.
• 2:09:30
  And the obvious answer is to get to the bottom of it no matter what, because our children and grandchildren are depending on us.
• 2:09:39
  And I'm not suicidal, by the way.
• 2:09:41
  Yeah, me either.
• 2:09:42
  Never had a suicidal thought.
• 2:09:44
  So, don't let them get away with a couple of shots to the back of the head or anything like that.
• 2:09:51
  Whatever it is.
• 2:09:52
  I mean, frankly, I don't know about you.
• 2:09:54
  I know I'm in very good health.
• 2:09:56
  If I suddenly start, you know, succumbing to some sort of tumor, I'm going to wonder about that also, because I've been very careful and there's no evidence of such a thing.
• 2:10:06
  So, anyway, it's been great having you on the program.
• 2:10:11
  I'm sure it's going to cause lots of discussion.
• 2:10:13
  I hope it causes people who have not been thinking about 9-11 to rethink it.
• 2:10:20
  And maybe with Ron Johnson's help, we can get to that new investigation.
• 2:10:26
  Yeah, yeah.
• 2:10:27
  Thank you.
• 2:10:27
  God bless him.
• 2:10:28
  And God bless you and your audience.
• 2:10:30
  Thank you all for getting this podcast out to everybody, you know.
• 2:10:36
  Yep.
• 2:10:37
  Get it out to everybody, you know.
• 2:10:38
  All right.
• 2:10:39
  Richard Gage, thanks so much for joining me on The DarkHorse Inside Rail.