Investigate Earth Conspiracy Podcast - 9/11 Conspiracy: Architect Richard Gage Breaks Down What Really Happened

Episode Date: August 14, 2026

Tonight, we sit down with architect Richard Gage, AIA, for a deep dive into the questions surrounding 9/11 and the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.Gage has spent years challenging the official explanations and calling for a new investigation into what happened on September 11, 2001. In this episode, we discuss the collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7, NIST’s conclusions, reports of molten metal and sulfur, claims involving thermite and thermitic materials, structural failures, and the evidence Gage believes deserves another look.This conversation is about examining the claims, the evidence, and the unanswered questions that continue to fuel debate more than two decades later.Whether you agree with Richard Gage or not, this is a conversation worth hearing.Our Merch StoreClick below for the complete slideshow and tickets to the upcoming 9/11 conferenceRichardGage911.org

Hello and welcome back to Investigator Earth podcast. I'm your host chat alongside my beautiful wife, Sherry. Tonight we are been in the beginning of conversation that we have wanted to have for a long time. More than two decades after September 11th, there are still questions about what happened that day, especially when it comes to the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings and whether the official explanations fully account for everything we saw. Our guest tonight has spent years examining those questions from the perspective of an architect. we're going to talk about some of the things he believes does not add up. The evidence he says deserves another look and why he continues to push for a new investigation.

Please welcome San Francisco Bay Area Architect Richard Gage, AIA, member of the American Institute of Architects and Founder and Former CEO of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth. He now leads the charge for a new World Trade Center investigation along with his courageous wife, Gail, at Richard Gage 911.org. Mr. Gage became interested in researching the destruction of the World Trade Center high rises after hearing the startling conclusions of a reluctant 9-11 researcher David Gray Griffin on the radio in 2006, which launched his own unyielding quest for the truth about 9-11. The organization he founded A.E. 9-11 truth now numbers more than 3,600 architects and engineers demanding a new investigation into the explosive destruction of all three World Trade Center high-rise buildings on 9-11. please welcome Richard Gage to the show. Richard, we're really excited about this show.

We have wanted to talk about 9-11 for nine years. We've been doing this for quite some time. And so I actually had reached out to architects and engineers for 9-11 truth, probably about six months ago. And I was like, I don't want to do the 9-11 topic until we can actually bring someone on that really knows what they're talking about with all this. And so here we are. We have the Richard Gage.

Thanks for joining us. Thanks a lot, Chad. Thanks, thanks, Sherry. Great to be here with you guys. This is going to be exciting. They're exciting for me because I have a new group of people that are yet unaware, probably, other than what you've shared with them already. But most people are uninformed about, for instance, the third tower that came down on 9-11

and all the World Trade Center explosive evidence. So this is going to be good. Yeah, absolutely. We have talked a little bit about the 9-11, I guess you can say theories. And there was a lot that did not add up. And it was something that, as I said, we'd share, we just didn't want to do it until we 100% had someone on the show that really kind of knew what he was talking about. Richard, as you were talking or as I was talking, actually, in the intro, you had got interested in this in 2006, right? By listening to someone and you're like, hey, I kind of want to research this.

You were, I'm assuming an architect then as well. What did make you want to get into the investigation behind 9-11? Yeah, I was just shocked to try. turn on my radio in 2006, on my way back from a construction observation meeting. And I'm listening to this elderly gentleman being interviewed on Pacifica Radio, Guns and Butter program by Bonnie Faulkner. And they were, she was interviewing him. I had never heard any alternative theory as to how these three towers came down on 9-11.

And I was just shocked to hear that there was a third tower that came down even. I mean, I'm one of 90,000 members of the American Institute of Architects. We didn't get one bulletin. This, the third worst structural failure in modern history. And he's talking about the witnesses that just come out in 2005, you know, four years after 9-11, we've got 2506 first responders on record talking about many of them, sounds of explosions. flashes of light, all of them talking about this kind of stuff. And many of them before the towers came down. So we're going to share that with you.

But I'm literally shocked after hearing about this building that came down, I had to go see it. And at the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, David Ray Griffin, theologian, now written 14 books on the subject of 9-11 Truth. He was speaking there. And I went in there like the next night. and there were 600 people packed into this theater. And I was just, oh, something's going on here.

The energy was just a buzz. And I did my homework after hearing, they were sold out. I had to go home and watch live stream. But I'm just shocked at what I'm hearing and seeing. So I took this information to the architecture firm that I worked for at the time, 14 of them. They thought I was nuts. but then I showed them, I bought them pizzas and they had to come.

Yeah. Captured him for 45 minutes. Many of them thought I was nuts before they saw this information. But afterward, they were just like, oh my God, you're right. Blown away. These are controlled demolitions. We've got to have a real investigation. Yeah.

And I want to mention, too, for those listening, you most recently worked on construction documents for a $400 million mixed-use urban project with 1.2 million square feet of retail. park and structure, mid-rise office space, all together, about 1,200 tons of still framing. So you are, I guess, in the know of how buildings work, especially still framing. And I guess that is in particular what makes this situation so complex. Now, do all buildings, and this sounds like a probably a dumb question, I'm not an architect, but how many buildings are actually still framed, especially in somewhere like New York City? Almost all of them.

Okay. I guess you. There are concrete buildings here and there. but throughout the world, certainly the majority, the vast majority of them. And they're always fireproofed. And guess what? You'll see that we've never lost one of them. But on 9-11, we've lost three of them in very suspicious circumstances.

Wow. All right. Well, if you want to go ahead and get started on the slide you have here, and like I said, for our audio listeners, we'll try to explain it the best we can, and then we'll have a video version available as well. Oh, great. And so it takes courage to look at this because like me, if you haven't heard this information, it's easy to understand.

I mean, a seventh grader can figure this stuff out. We're not talking about high physics here, but it'll turn your world upside down. And if you're not ready for that, it can be quite disturbing and jolting because the implications of the demolitions are what the real story is here. I'm just bringing you the beginning of it, the introduction. And by the way, I'm going to be showing you that we're going to have a large conference in New York about this. I'll be speaking there, but there's 40 other speakers as well. Roger Waters will be there from Pink Floyd.

He's coming out about 9-11. Dennis Kucinich will be speaking out, former congressman. And Barry, Jimmy Doer. Yeah. He will be talking about he'll be there. And as will Brett Weinstein and, you know, 36 other incredible speakers, Phil Turney, talking about the USS Liberty, Derek Brose talking about the Oklahoma City bombing, many other false flag events.

The Charlie Kirk shooting will be covered. Gaza will be covered. So there's a lot. And so all of this happening, September 10th through the 13th, in New York, and you can get tickets now. They are going fast, but be sure to get them, especially if you can drive in. The website is Turning the Tide-911.org.

Turning the Tide-911.org. And we'll put that in our description as well, so everybody can get to it. Will any of this be virtual, or is it all going to be? just be in person? All in person except for one speaker, James Corbett, who is in Japan. So we'll bring him in virtually. But everybody else will be there.

It's kind of exciting, including maybe this guy here. You might know him. This is Larry Silverstein. Larry Silverstein is the developer of the World Trade Center Building 7. And six weeks before 9-11, he leased the Twin Towers. and he's been in trouble for a number of statements, revealing statements, that he made, this is just a two-minute promo for the conference here, but it's funny. Uh, Mr. Silverstein?

What is it? You might want to see this. There's a conference happening. A conference? Why the heck do I care? You said you wanted notified of anything about 9-11 after you saw that video, so I figured you'd want to know. Oh, brother, here we go again. It's called Turning the Tide.

It says, Four days of presentations, discussions, networking, and action marking the 25th anniversary of 9-11. I knew the anniversary wasn't going to be easy, but this? It's from September 10th through the 13th right here in New York. It seems like a collection of experts that don't believe the official story all in one place. A bunch of crackpot tinfoil hat people. Who cares what they have to say anyway, right? It doesn't seem like it.

They've got some pretty important speakers. Oh, yeah? Like who? Jimmy Dore. Dennis Kucinich, James Corbett, Brett Weinstein, and that's not even half of them. Oh. There's first responders, government whistleblowers, families of the victims. Ah, come on.

Authors, filmmakers. This is pretty serious. I think even the timeline junkie guy who made that video you hate. What? This is insane. At least they don't have like an iconic rock star speaking or something. Well, Roger Waters from Pink Floyd will be there as well. Shit.

This is not good, Debbie. Would you like me to buy some tickets on their website? Maybe you could talk to them and clear some things up. Oh, no, I can't. I have a dermatologist appointment to get to that I can't miss. Oh, so your dermatologist appointment lasts four days? What's with all the questions, Debbie? You're starting to sound like them.

That's funny. Well, that's a lot of fun. So we hope people can come and see that. We'll be talking much. about building seven. Chad and Sherry, and people don't know about it. It's the third worst structural failure, as I mentioned.

This is a 47-story building and easily the tallest building in most of our states. Yeah. And so we, are you seeing me okay? I think you yourself have disappeared. Yes, I did. There you are.

Sorry about that. So it's half the height of the Twin Towers. And it did sustain some damage when the towers went down that morning. And we have about a football field a length away from the towers. But NIST, the National Institute of Standards of Technology, who was tasked by Congress to explain those collapses. They said this damage was not a significant factor in the buildings collapse. So we should probably look at that collapse. So if you're at home, you can Google

building seven collapse. And you'll see this. There's a number of videos of it online. The East Penthouse drops first and six seconds later this happens. Right down uniformly, symmetrically into its own footprint in under six seconds. The exact manner of a classic controlled demolition. So they had a lot of explaining to do right off the bat. Well, first of all, they fumbled this football for six years, guys. They said, truthfully, we've had trouble getting a handle on Building 7. And here's what they came up with. This is Shom Sundar of NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

What we found was that uncontrolled building fires caused an extraordinary event. The collapse of World Trade Center 7 was primarily due to fire. Fires, well, we probably ought to look at those fires, right? these are the worst fires that we have any photographic or video evidence of in this building. They're relatively small, the few, they're scattered throughout the building. And so the question is, could those fires bring that building down? Well, NIST says, yeah, in fact, we have a theory that the fire is burning, raging on this floor, 12, in the northeast corner. weakened these long-spaned beams and pushed a girder off of his seat,

causing floor 13 to fall on 12 and 12 and 11 and so on for nine floors. But you can see that those fires, according to the photographs, are burned out in that whole area more than an hour before the tower came down. And so thermal expansion could not have resulted in the collapse of this building, just to put an exclamation mark on the flawed theory by NIST. In fact, we've never lost a steel frame fire protective structure ever due to fires. Wow. So not before 9-11, look at these much hotter, larger, longer-lasting fires in these buildings,

but now one of them came down, not afterwards either with these fully engulfed buildings. So, gosh, well, it just... Again and again, it just doesn't make sense until you look at what might have brought these buildings down. For instance, comparing it to a series of known controlled demolitions on the left, building seven on the right. Is there any similarity? Is there enough 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 of fire-protected structure? So we can do this quite easily, guys, this is not difficult.

We can compare Building 7 to the features of a controlled demolition, beginning with feature number one. Is there a sudden onset of destruction at the base of the building? Well, watch and listen also to Dan Rather give his narration of this video's collapse that evening. What you're seeing are high shots. Now, here we're going to show you a videotape. the collapse itself. Describe that.

Now we go to videotape the collapse of this building. It's amazing. Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down. What? Deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down?

Did he really say that? He did, and he's using his intuition because that's, you know, what we do. That's what everybody should do. We never seen him, heard him say those things before on national television. Again, after that, we never saw the building come down on TV, except for two occasions. This should have been the most studied structural failure in the world. After all, no plane hit this building, right? This is the third tower.

And so we'll see. Did it come straight down? Feature number two. Let's look from West Street. Yeah, pretty straight down, pretty symmetrical. How do you deal with that? How do you do that at all? You have to take out all the core columns at once,

followed about a second later by the perimeter columns, and then repeat that on every floor, synchronistically timed. So the question is, do these fires, view small, scattered, have that capability and precision to accomplish that? And the obvious answer is no, they clearly don't. If a building's damaged on one side, it's going to fall to that side. And these failed controlled demolitions, for instance, they either roll over or they stop. Somebody's got to go back into that building because the demolition charges didn't go off. fix that. And Richard,

with this part right here, what this is showing for the listeners is a failed demolition, the building is literally still standing up, just angled to the right. Does that mean that there were explosives that went off on one side of the building, but the other ones did not did not actually go off right?

They stopped at some point, you know, and they should have gone all the way up the building. The building should have been leveled like a house of cards. Yeah. But it didn't. And so, you know, so we have this theory by NIST that in the northeast corner, the fires were damaging this building. Well, if that were true, we would expect that building to fall toward its damaged side. And it doesn't do that at all.

The theory of NIST is that in the northeast corner here, these long span beams pushing this girder off of its this girder off of its seat on this column 79 and there's a failure because floor 13 progressively collapsed on 12, 12 and 11 and so on for nine floors

and then this instability travels eastward or to the right in this photograph all the way across this football field length building in just six seconds and then the overall building

falls down. So we, this is ludicrous and we go into great detail on this to to show just how ludicrous that is. But again, if a building's going to be damaged on one side, it's going to fall to that side or corner. And you don't want that to happen. And Richard, the previous slide there, not that one, but the heat map. Where did the heat map come from? And that basically shows that a lot of the heat was concentrated on that one side, correct? Yeah, NIST produced this map in an effort to justify their collapse initiation theory. So their theory was that these beams expanded pushing this girder off of its seat on this column 79. So they have to have major fires through here, as you can see.

But this is their 4 p.m. simulation. But the photographs completely betray that because on the 12th floor, which this is, there are no fires. They are burned out all the way to the west at that point. So they're caught with their pants down. And so once the fire is out, now does the steel, does it go back into its, I mean, not necessarily back into its exact form, but what happens to still after the fire's out once it cools?

Yes, it can expand, but this steel was fireproof, so it couldn't even have expanded in the first place. I guess so. But NIST ignores that. Okay. But yes, theoretically, the steel will contract when it cools, but that's not their collapse initiation theory. Yeah. The contraction failure is a result of contraction is not their theory. They don't even suggest that.

And here we have an hour's difference between these fires on this floor and the collapse. So the contraction would have happened well before this, the collapse as well. Okay. So they lose. And they also lose because they denied that this building came down at free fall acceleration until physicists and physics teachers like David Chandler point out through documenting that the building came down at free fall. That's as fast as a bowling ball falling out of the sky, gaining acceleration velocity with every second. The definition of acceleration is not so. slowing down because of the cold, hard steel that's supporting the building. It's speeding up

through all of it as if it weren't even there. The bowling ball has no resistance under it. This building had 40,000 tons of structural resistance under it. It should not have gone anywhere, but certainly not accelerated and certainly not freefall. Well, they finally were forced to admit this in their final report in 2008. And they admit, yeah, it came down at free fall for at least a third of its seven second fall. Well, they don't explain where the columns went so that it could come down at free fall.

They all had to disappear essentially at once, like I described. And not one of these columns gave any resistance in the building, not one. Okay, so that those fires take them all out so the building could fall at free fall? Not happening. So we say, well, okay, what else can we learn? Let's look at the pile. Oh, my God. We have a four to six story pile of building seven like a house of cards.

Now, this is what you do in control demolitions. You bring the exterior on to the interior by taking out the interior a second before the exterior. and that pulls the cladding and windows in on top. It's supposed to fall like a house of cars. But this was a moment resistant, in a controlled demolition. But in a natural collapse, no, you have, like these buildings and earthquakes,

they'll fall over to the path of least resistance. The columns and beams are not severed one from another. The concrete is not pulverized to a fine powder. And so the question is, Did these fires cause all that damage to bring it down symmetrically into its own footprint? Not going to happen. So what could do this? Well, we know explosives can do that, right?

That's explosives are used in control demolitions. This says, well, there were no witnesses of explosions. But here's half a dozen, starting with Daryl, a medical student on hand that evening. We were watching the building actually because of... Wait a minute. A sound of a clap of thunder, shockwave ripping through the building, the windows busting out, and then the building coming down. That's pretty darn specific.

That order of events is critical. NIST tells us, oh, well, if people heard explosions, what they're railing, hearing is one floor on top of another. But listen to Kevin McPadden, former Air Force medic. you heard explosions. It's like a distinct sound. It's not like when the compression, like boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, like floors that were dropping and collapsing. This was a boom.

And like you felt a rumble in the ground, like almost like you wanted to grab on to something. To me, I knew. And Bill Rosati, what did he see? Whoops. Where's Bill? Well, that's interesting. He saw a flash, flash of life. And then the building coming down.

He was being interviewed on, who is this? Looks like WB11. WB11. Okay, we'll fix that. And then we have Captain Richard Patterson of the New York Fire Department. One seven let go as well. And was a series of concussive. explosion.

Okay, that's helpful. How about the first responder, Patrick Dillon? I remember feeling that like, like freight trains underneath the earth, shaking the earth, even shaking me. That's when we all saw Building 7 crumple in the middle, like way up at the top. It buckled. It buckled and then drop. Okay. And Deputy Director of the New York Office of Emergency Management on the 23rd floor of this building. What did he experience in the building? Then he had to go into that building to assess it.

You could hear the building creak above us. You could hear things fall. You could hear the fire burning. You can see columns just hanging from the upper floors, keeping holes in the floors up above us. There was an elevator car that was blown out. of his shaft and it was down the hall gaping holes in the in the floors above us uh columns dangling of an elevator cab blown out of its shaft landing 40 feet down the hall fires don't do that fires the official narrative here explosions are denied wow so do you see the problem

this is obvious evidence what chat yeah i mean it's crazy so when this far firefighter went in. So were there elevator shafts blown out already before the building collapsed? No, well, yes. He was in there at noon or one o'clock. Okay. In the afternoon. The building didn't collapse for another five hours. So people were going in and inspecting and for various reasons. For instance, this gentleman, Barry Jennings, he was heading into the building because of a meeting that was called at the emergency center because of a plane had hit the tower. and he and Mayor Giuliani's attorney, Michael Hess, they didn't realize the whole building had been evacuated

and they're going up there. Oh, gosh. Apparently, they didn't, you know, block off the entry or something. And they get on the phone. Where is everybody? And they say, get out of that building. Get out of there. Yeah, no job.

And here's their experience on the way down. We got to the eighth floor. I started walking to one side of the building. That side of the building was gone. The first explosion I heard when I was on the stairwell landing. When we made it down to the sixth floor. Then we made it back to the eighth floor. I heard some more explosions.

What's on the sound? Like a boom. Like an explosion. And more than one? Yes. We started walking down the sand. We made it to the eighth floor. Big explosion.

It blew us back into the eighth floor. When we get outside, police officer comes to. means that you have to run. We have more information of bombs, so you have to run. What? Information of bombs. Bombs like this herd in the late morning of 9-11 in the vicinity of building 7? Yeah, here's one of the guys you can tell you I'm okay, all right?

Here, hold on. You want to call your mother or something? Wow. Does that sound like one floor falling on another? No. There's no building collapsing at this time. That's crazy. So NISTA denies every one of these.

Though they claim to have interviewed 116 first responders and many others, they neglected all of these. Apparently, I wonder why. And let's look at the experts. This is one of the top European controlled demolition firms. Danny Joenko is the expert on this in Europe. What did he say? This is controlled demolition. Sakerwit.

It's been imploded. It's a higher job done by a team of experts. Okay. That's clear. Well, guess what? There's three dozen structural engineers signed on to the petition at a.e. 911 Truth.org demanding a new investigation, like this one, Kamala obeyed. from the San Francisco Bay Area.

A localized failure in a steel frame building like World Trade Center 7 cannot cause a catastrophic collapse like a house of cards without a simultaneous and patterned loss of several of its columns at key locations within the building. That's very clear, very simple, easy, structural, intuitively understandable dynamics here. So this is what caused forensicians. structural engineer Leroy Halsey, the chair of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks,

physics, I mean, civil engineering department, to take this on, the study that NIST failed to do, and 20 years later, he had a lot more computing power

and software at his disposal. So he took two competing programs, Abacus and SAP 2000, and ran them against each other, and they corroborated. each other's results. What did they find? Well, that if the Northeast corner were damaged,

it would have fallen over. It took $100,000 to prove that. But when again, a seventh grader can figure this out. So they said, well, what do we have to do to get it to act like what the building actually did in reality? Well, they had to take out all the columns in the building, synchronistically timed. So their computer model on the left is identical to how the building actually came down, the video in the center, and no resistance,

free fall acceleration, straight down uniformly symmetrically into its footprint because they did what controlled demolitions do. In the computer model, the University of Alaska took out all the columns, floor by floor, synchronistically timed. NIST,

probably try to do that and pass it off as a natural collapse, but they couldn't. Their model begins to crumple up like a beer can and even tip over. So they can't produce the results that, well, they produce results that disproved their theory. This came down, but natural. I mean, they released 400 structural steel connections every second in their model, but they still fail to to show what the building did. So the findings of the University of Alaska, fire didn't bring this building down.

Temperatures were not high enough to cause a weakening of the steel framing. Thermal expansion did not result in the loss of support for the beams and the girders. The collapse of this building was a global failure involving what? The near simultaneous failure of all the columns in the building. not a progressive collapse, as claimed by NIST.

That's real clear, and that's convinced a lot of people. And he, along with these experts, appear in our ongoing film series 9-11 crime scene to courtroom. And that is an effort to bring the evidence to a special grand jury, and we got six episodes made out of 12, and you can see them. I'll show you how. Here is the taste of just a taste of that. No matter how improbable, the conclusion may appear. You've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains.

However, improbable must be the truth. We're bringing alive in the film, the 60 exhibit. of the 9-11 WTC evidence contained in the Lawyers Committee grand jury petition that have already been submitted to the U.S. attorney in Manhattan to present to a special criminal jury. This historic investigation is ongoing, and there's a role for you in it. Yes, you can help us bring the real perpetrators to justice.

Through this film series, we're bringing together two dozen experts in their fields. They ignored any scenario involving insurers. Sensendaries. Demolition work, you're going to set charges on each floor. In other words, all of the interior columns over eight stories came down, basically lost it once. I could make out what looked like from a science fiction movie Molten Lava, okay? And he paused and said, that would be coming down around 5 o'clock. We'll be filming these evidence presentations. not only for filing

with the grand jury, also the presentation to each of you. We're inviting you to serve as virtual grand jury during each episode. Looks interesting. Yeah, we encourage everybody to watch this series. Go to 9-1-1-c-2c.org. That's 911 letter C, number two,

let her see dot org and watch all six episodes and six more to come it's pretty exciting stuff that looks good I encourage that that looks very good Sherry you'll definitely love that

because she she loves trial anything so you're going to put her on a grand jury yeah Sherry this is right up your alley yes it is this is going to be fun I want to hear back from you because you're the expert in this genre

so in fact you're doing a podcast on this, we can bring this to your podcast. Oh, absolutely, yes. And Richard, I don't want to ask this question too soon. But, and you can tell me if you want to wait on it. But why building seven and or are we going to get to that? No, what we're going to get to now is since we've shown all of the evidence of typical features of control demolitions,

we're going to get to the uncharacteristic features in the examples of extreme heat. So why building seven? Some people think that plane that went down in Shanksville. So we're told. There's lots of questions about that, too, that it was supposed to hit Building 7, which is part of the World Trade Center Towers complex, the third highest building in the area. So that's one theory. The other theory is that this building, you know, on the 23rd floor,

had the emergency operation center. Some people speculate that that was used as the planning for this whole operation because they had perfect bird's eye view of the Twin Towers, the planes hitting a little higher than they were. And so others speculate that the securities and exchange commission, which had the worst fires in it in Building 7, which lost thousands of files related to hundreds of people. very active high-profile cases like Enron and WorldCom that were pursuing criminal

wrongdoing huge, huge cases. But they were rendered unfit for court after that. Yeah, I think the most credible theory, it sounds like there was supposed to be a plane that hit and like, how are you going to go back into this building and take out your explosives after the fact or or at the very least once it didn't fall and there were actual investigators that go into building seven and all of those explosives being in there you can't have that so they just probably went ahead and and uh and did the thing which i'm assuming they probably also did the other two and i was going to ask you a question like how many explosives would it take

to have this building fall down like if they were to plant these explosives there they have to be by the columns on each floor, or how does that work? Yeah, the columns and beams on just about every floor. Some people suggest every other floor. It's a lot of explosives, and you have to do it under the eyes of security. So you say, well, who's running a security in this building? Well, Securicom, Stratusack was run up to this time by... Mark Wirt Walker the third, the Bush cousin,

and another Bush brother, Marvin, Marvin Bush. So we wanted an investigation to them certainly. They had the security for the Twin Towers and Building 7. Wow. So you'd have to get under their eyes and bring in something, tons of something, incendiaries, and or explosives, more incendiaries in Building 7, as you'll see, more explosives in Twin Towers.

Yeah. And they identify incendiaries. FEMA does, not conspiracy theorists. In their Building Performance Assessment Team report came out in May of 2002, this metallurgical examination of the steel. What did they find? FEMA hired the Worcester Polytechnic University. They found never before observed eutectic reactions involving intergranular melting, capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

Like you see in this piece of Swiss cheese, no, that's a steel girder. That's from Building 7. Fires don't do that. They don't get that hot. Fires only get typically 500 degrees to 1,000 degrees. We're talking 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit minimum to melt steel. So right here you have the key evidence that in no way can the official narrative account for it. They can't account for any of this evidence.

But this is particularly damning and in the Twin Towers steel as well, by the way, 5 eighths inch thickness of steel beams thinned to razor sharpness. This doesn't happen by office fires. That's one of the reasons we never lost a steel frame skyscraper due to fires. rapid oxidation, sulfidation, where'd the sulfur come from? Liquid iron, that's molten iron, by the way. That's 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel,

but there's no resolution of where any of this came from. They just drop it like a hot potato. It's perhaps the deepest mystery and covered in the investigation, says the New York Times, but completely omitted from the NIST report when they took over the FEMA report in 2002. They just conveniently brushed all this aside. They have that power, I guess.

Steel members in the debris pile appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures. It takes 4,000 degrees to evaporate steel. And this reported by Jonathan Barnett, protection engineer, one of the authors of the FEMA report. So what about the photographs? We see photographs of molten iron or steel pouring out of the crab claw excavators. Its color tells us its temperature.

It's exceeding 2,500 degrees at bright yellow and even hotter with the white hot material pouring out of this crab claw excavator. So again, temperatures cannot be accounted for these in the official narrative. The worst case office fires mathematically possible, 1,130 degrees Fahrenheit. We're talking about twice those temperatures and more, as you'll see. Fires only, excuse me, a jet fuel only burns about 600 degrees Fahrenheit. Some say 1,800 degrees. Again, we're talking twice 1800 degrees.

So where could that come from? Well, it could come from thermite. If we wanted to look a little deeper into what's really going on here, we could look at thermite and learn something. An incendiary used by the military, thermite is a compound of iron oxide and aluminum, which, when ignited, sustains an extreme heat reaction, creating molten iron.

In just two seconds, thermite can reach temperatures over 4,500 degrees Fahrenheit, quite enough to liquefy steel. We know that open-air fires cannot burn hot enough to melt steel, but metal had melted at the base of the towers. Appendix C of the FEMA report describes sulfur residues on the World Trade Center steel. The New York Times called this the deepest, mystery of all. Sulfur slightly lowers the melting point of iron,

and iron oxide and iron sulfide had formed on the surface of the structural steel. Sulfur used with thermite is called thermate, producing even faster results. Interesting. Maybe we're getting here somewhere, Chad, because if thermite were used, it would explain the three, four, and five thousand degree temperatures. It's the only thing they can. It would explain the presence of previously molten iron microspheres, which you're going to see.

It would, and I'll explain that in a moment. It would also explain the presence of sulfur, which has no other explanation. Sulphers added to thermite to become thermate, much more effective at cutting through steel. So we're looking here at evidence of ignited, incendiaries, including from not a conspiracy theorist, but the U.S. Geological

Survey, who analyzed dust samples, hundreds of them, and they, in their particle Atlas, 2006 of the World Trade Center dust, they find what? Billions of previously molten, that means 3,000 degrees, Fahrenheit.

Iron, we haven't used iron in our skyscrapers for 100 years, where's this iron coming from iron again is the byproduct of thermite. That's also explained by the use of thermite. All of this iron here. And spheres, how do they get spherical? Well, when liquids are aerosolized, they become spherical because of the surface tension of the droplets.

Well, that's true with molten iron droplets do under explosive conditions. so they cool and they fall as spheres. In fact, the EPA says, hey, these are used as a signature component to distinguish World Trade Center dust from common office building dust. It's not even World Trade Center dust unless it has all of these previously molten iron

microspheres, which we don't know where they came from, but their signature element. This gets incredible, up to 6% of some of these dust samples. are previously molten iron macrospheres, amounting to up to four tons or more throughout all the World Trade Center dust. And they're found by another firm, environmental engineering firm, R.J. Lee Group.

They say, they're formed during the event, not before, by the iron workers welding the building together, not afterward, by the iron workers cutting the building apart. But during the event, Well, how would they be formed during the event? We could do an experiment. Experiment is the arbiter of competing hypotheses. Let's do one.

Let's light some thermite and see what happens. In a small controlled experiment like this, we see thousands of sparks coming from this molten material and they cool and they fall into the pan as previous. molten iron microspheres. So we know what creates them and nothing else

really does, not in these quantities. So all of that was evidence again of ignited thermite. We have to ask is there any evidence of unignited thermite in a World Trade Center dust?

And sure enough, a team is eight international scientists, led by Niels Herrett and Stephen Jones, scientists, nano experts, and physics, nuclear physicist, they are sent seven independently collected samples. And all of them have these curious red-gray chips, red on one side, gray and the other, dual-layered, meaning they were probably applied by paint. That's why they thought they were paint. But they're attracted to a magnet, unlike paint.

So they get real curious. The largest of these are the 16th of an inch long. They've been shattered, just tiny pieces. But the red layer is attracted to the magnet, so it has a high iron content. So they do X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, and they find, gosh, it's got high aluminum peaks and iron all.

also. So, and manganese, which is interesting. So aluminum and iron are the key ingredients of thermite. So this has the signature of thermite. What's that doing in the world trite-centered dust? The manganese is added to thermite to become thermate also along with sulfur. So that's important. So we have a real curiosity on these guys, and they zoom in 50,000 times. and with a nuclear microscope,

and they find iron oxide crystals and aluminum platelets that are a thousand times smaller than the diameter of human hair. Nanoparticles. So this is nano-engineered stuff that is set in a matrix, a bed of organic material,

oxygen, silica, carbon. You see, incendiaries are normally they work by means of heat. They burn things up with these incredible temperatures, three, four, five thousand degrees. Whereas explosives ignite because of the organic material, they expand rapidly and knock things over. That's how explosives work.

So here it appears that they have stumbled across something called superthermite, which is a hybrid between explosives and incendiaries, and it was invented prior to 2001 by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. Explosive composites based on thermite reactions whose fuel and oxidizer constituents are intimately mixed at the nanometer scale. When you get the particles that small, the surface volume increases exponentially. So you've engineered an incendiary to become more explosive

also because of the chemical reaction that occurs. and inside of a heater, a differential scanning calorimeter, the Lawrence Livermore Lab specimens ignite and at 423 degrees Celsius, about 850 Fahrenheit. Well, that's exactly what the chips found in the World Trade Center does do. They ignite at about 800 degrees. And what do they do? do you imagine when they ignite?

They produce molten iron microspheres with the same chemical signature as the molten iron microspheres found in all the World Trade Center dust samples is studied by R.J. Lee and the U.S. Geological Survey. So we know exactly where these molten iron microspheres came from that the EPA and that the U.S. Geological Survey,

wouldn't identify. As if we didn't know, they're found attached to partially ignited red-grate chips, as you see here and here. And so this is very sophisticated stuff. It's not made in a cave in Afghanistan. Right. This is made only in the most advanced defense contracting laboratories. Hey, Richard, how similar is nanothermite or just thermite in general to PETN?

Have you heard of P.E.10? Is that an explosive? Yeah. It's an explosive that was, well, it's actually the explosive that Israel used in the pager attacks, for example. Oh, it is. Yeah. Okay. I don't know the similarity.

I'm guessing they would not have used an incendiary for that purpose because they would have burned people instead of blown off their hips. Makes sense. Or their ears. Okay. Yeah. So this is all documented in a 25-page peer-reviewed paper in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. And what do they say? The red layer is active, unreacted, thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology.

It's a highly energetic, pyrotechnic, or explosive material. This has not been contested. It's been out since 2009. This peer-reviewed paper has been given to every member of Congress on a couple of occasions. And to the academic community, physicists and others, chemists, It's provided to the media, mainstream media, and we just can't get a bite on it. I've presented this material personally to Senator Ron Johnson, and he has offered to have hearings on the subject of 9-11, because you saw Tucker Carlson's four-part series on 9-11, which was really good, which included some of this evidence. So, yeah, this is, we're getting it out there.

And what we've got is all 10 key characteristic features and some very uncharacteristic features of controlled demolition. Fire doesn't create any one of these features, let alone all 10 of them with additional circumstantial evidence, corroborative testimony. That becomes proof of controlled demolition, a body of proof that has convinced a whole lot of architects and engineers, the 3,600, publicly signed on, staking their reputations, demanding a new investigation. And yes, they appear in the film crime-seemed courtroom that we just talked about. And we also have to ask ourselves a very serious questions, guys. Do you think we have a problem at Building 7?

I do too. And everybody I talk to who's, you know, willing to look squarely at this information agrees. And then the other question, well, not the Twin Towers. No, those couldn't have been blown up. I saw the planes hit the towers. Yeah. My cousin died in the towers. Yeah, I hear that.

It's a big problem. 3,000 people almost died. in these towers and and we they need our prayers and what they need most though is truth and justice I mean just look at what's happening here with upward outward arching streamers showing the destruction identically at once each of these towers so that we can see how how much the same they are despite different damage from the planes different damage from the fires upward outward arching streamers a geometry of fireworks, freely flying structural steel sections, weighing four and eight tons, laterally ejected at 85 miles an hour, clocked by physicists landing up to 600 feet in

every direction. What are they trailing? Thick white smoke clouds. Wait a minute. Steel, structural steel is not flammable in office fire conditions. That's why steel brain buildings don't come down. Yeah. They, why are they trailing thick white smoke clouds? Well, let's look at thermite once again. Molten iron. Lots of it.

But thick white smoke clouds of what? Aluminum oxide ash. That's the other byproduct of thermo. might. That's the only possible accounting for these thick white smoke clouds trailing all of these

laterally ejected elements which we'll look at. So we have a set of features again. Gosh, let's look at a couple of them at least. Do we have a sudden onset? Well, the north of destruction, of descent, the north tower is sitting still and all of a sudden

it's in uniform downward motion. No jolt. No hesitation upon impact of the cold, hard steel below the point of plane impacts. It doesn't slow down, as you'll see. Same in the South Tower. It's standing at rest, and all of a sudden it's in uniform, downward motion. No resistance when it meets the columns that are ready to receive and distribute that load. We're told that the upper section actually drove the rest of the building down to the ground

and then destroyed itself. This is called the crush-down crush-ups theory. It has a number of problems, but the biggest problem is that no engineers could decipher it. It was extremely complex, and it took engineers 10 years to decode it, and I'll show you what happens when they did. But he submitted this sedentic basalt of Northwestern University in Chicago just two days after 9-11. the rest of us are freaked out. When's the next plane coming? Who did this to us?

Right. You know, not this guy. He's busy in his den cranking on the mathematically obscure set of equations that became the key theoretical basis for NIST's column failure theory. And it suffers from all kinds of other problems. First of all, Newton's third law motion, there's an equal and opposite destructive force when two bodies collide. Take a Mack truck, run it into a Volkswagen. Who wins? The Mack truck, not the Volkswagen.

Doesn't matter if we drop the Volkswagen onto the Mack truck. No, the lightest part of its structure, because these are virtual pyramids, cannot possibly destroy the heavier cold intact steel below. Just take a look at the size of these columns. columns increase as they go down the building halfway. They're 36 inches by 22 inches. And then they start to get bigger, 52 inches by 22 inches. And then they infill. So they're solid steel, 52 inches by 22 inches, these core columns in the building

by the time you get down to the bottom. Another problem, we're told the upper part drove the rest of the building down to the ground. But is it? Look at the upper part. It's going down, but I'll make it easier. Take a look at the lower red line at the point of plane impacts. That upper part is not driving the building down to the ground. It is destroying itself.

It's telescoping in on itself in the first couple of seconds. It's not doing any work to the structure below. So, yes, the Volkswagen is being destroyed and it's getting some help. And you'll see that help in a minute. But if it were destroying the rest of the building below it, you'd see it in the photographs or videos. But none of the photos, none of the videos show such an intact upper part after three seconds. And Richard, I have a question here real quick. So what you're showing for the listeners is that the top part of the building in what a 15, 20-story section basically starts coming down all at once and then basically collapses the bottom second.

but in controlled demolitions, how do they usually set off the explosives? Do they set it off from the bottom, middle, or is it all at the same time? How does that usually look? Well, first things first, there is no top part that's destroying the part below it. It's destroyed in the first three seconds.

Yeah. What we're seeing here is a diagram of where it should have been, were it to have survived the first three seconds and then driving the rest of the building down to the ground. So it's gone. And what we see in the case of building seven, what is a series of charges going off? Well, we see the results of them because the building's dropping, but they're not visible because of the surrounding buildings. We don't see those charges actually going off.

Others heard them. You heard the witnesses of them. But in the towers, it's a top-down control demolition. What you're seeing here is explosions going off, and I'm going to show you those up close and personal. But here's the result of them. The top part didn't destroy these few remaining columns standing 900 feet in the air for a dozen seconds. No. So if there was a top part, it would have destroyed them.

But what we're seeing is something else entirely. You can see it in this analogy here. On the left, we have, well, which one's which? One of these is a volcano. One of them is building seven. I'll give you a clue. The volcano is on the right, and building seven was on the left.

But what we're seeing is not a collapsing building. We're seeing, again, upward, outward, arching streamers, a geometry of fireworks, freely flying, solid, molten objects trailed by thick, white smoke clouds. That is not a collapse. That is complete destruction by a series of explosions.

The real model is this. Excuse me, this is what we're told. The crush down, crush up. But the real model is this. We're seeing explosions blowing floor by floor out and away from that core that remains for a dozen seconds and then it finally comes down.

So we see, if that were true, wouldn't we have heard people that have explosions? Again, Nista said they interviewed 116 witnesses. Well, they must have missed 200, excuse me, 156 first responders that did hear explosions, saw explosions, felt explosions. Many of them before the towers came down. These weren't released until August of 2005. As I mentioned earlier, the city of New York was holding this, but they were sued. by the New York Times, and they won.

And the New York court state of appeals forced the city to release these oral histories, 12,000 pages of testimony, every page read by Professor Graham McQueen. And that's when he found 156 of them, but nobody else was talking about, and missed apparently missed all of these witnesses. We felt the ground shake. You could see the tower's sway, and then it just came down. It's a very specific order of events. again, like building seven.

They're seeing something. They're feeling something. They're hearing something before the tower comes down. All of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train running under my feet. The next thing we know, we look up in the tower, it's collapsing. I shook my bones.

Shortly before the first tower came down. I remember feeling the ground shaking. He heard a terrible noise. And then it just kept, it started flying. Debris just started flying everywhere. I saw flash, flash, flash at the lower level of the building. 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.

He saw about six of these brief flash functions accompanied by a crackling sound before the tower collapsed. You think this is important? These witnesses, what they're saying here. I saw a flash, excuse me, I saw a low-level flashes. I saw flash, flash, flash, flash. and then it looked like the building came down. An explosion appeared at the very top simultaneously from all four sides. Materials shot out horizontally.

And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse. How specific does this fire chief, this expert witness, need to be? There was an explosion in the South Tower. One floor under another went ahead about the fifth floor. I figure it was a bomb because it looked like a synchronized, deliberate kind of thing. Well, let's look and see if feature number three applies. Is there a straight-down symmetrical progression? Well, actually the South Tower, the South Tower begins to tip over to the left.

It's tipping over at 22 degrees. So we have asymmetrical loading on the structure below. How in the world then do we get complete symmetrical destruction all the way around all four sides, just like the firefighter described? That's a great point. I've never heard of that. It makes no sense. Yeah.

This is the shot. Well, the next one, as we zoom in on the corner, the leading corner of these explosions, you can count them. I see about a dozen in this loop to video. these can only be pre-placed explosives in the exterior structural steel system. Because you see it, floor by floor, or every other floor, it's hard to tell. But, you know, this is not a nuclear weapon going off, as some have described, believe happened, or directed energy weapons somehow taking out the columns floor by floor all the way around.

all four sides of the buildings. That just makes no sense. What would you expect to see if the plane went into the building like we see happen or a lot of people think happen? What would you typically see? Would you see just that top part kind of get demolished and the rest of the building would be standing? Well, you wouldn't even see that if the explosions didn't start. The building would just stood there with a big hole in it. And it would just stood there with the...

playing that went through. Like it did for an hour. You know, it was fine. And then NIST says the fire caused the floors to sag, which pulled in the perimeter columns in their narrative. And then that caused the upper part then to overcome the lower part and crush the rest of the building down to the ground. But you saw that didn't happen either.

It's all a complete fabrication on the part of NIST. especially when you look at isolated explosive ejections, feature number four of controlled demolition, where you see 20 stories down below the zone of destruction and 40 stories down below these squibs or isolated explosive ejections have no official accounting in the narrative and 60 stories down below the zone of destruction. It makes no sense except for mistime.

explosions, perhaps. And you can see those mistimed explosion. Well, these look properly timed, in my guess, on the left side of the South Tower. As it begins to lean right, you see a dozen explosive ejections occurring, essentially disintegrating the rigidity of the structural steel frame up above so that it doesn't continue its angular momentum and fall off the. rigid body below and onto the ground in some semi-intact damaged structure. It just kind of settles back into itself more like a liquid than a solid, if you will.

So then we have to ask, okay, how fast did this thing come down? I've got to understand this. Well, again, physicists and physics teachers like David Chandler analyzed it. What did they find? that it falls at two-thirds the rate of freefall, meaning it is accelerating, getting faster and faster, every second, not slowing down when it meets the cold, hard, intact steel below. But that steel has lost 90% of its capacity because that's how you get 64% of the rate of gravity.

they're related of those two. So somebody took out 90% of the strength of these columns only allowing leaving only 10% of the columns to do work but even that wasn't

enough to slow it down. That just kept it from falling at freefall like Building 7 did. There's 47 massive core columns 287 columns altogether 240 perimeter columns that were weighing, again, four and eight tons each bolted together in this exoskeleton. There's more steel than glass on the exterior of this building. These are massive columns, three columns high, tied together by spandrel panels wide with bolts.

And let's see what happens to them because we have another feature of controlled demolition and that is lateral ejection. This is one that typically they don't want in control demolitions. But these four-and-eighthound structural steel sections are delivered, expelled laterally, crushing the Winter Gardens 600 feet away, impaling themselves on skyscrapers all around the World Trade Center. This is not a collapse. How does gravity work again? Down.

Yeah. What's going on here? very much out. And these systems are huge. You can see the gentleman crawling on them. He's like an ant crawling on these things. So all the plane had to do was not slice the columns. It didn't do that.

With the fuel that was in it at 500 miles an hour, that's a hell of a kinetic energy load that pushed these columns in, severing the four five-eighths-inch round, bolts tying each of the columns at the top and the bottom to the one above and below them. So those bolts were sheared and that's what the damage shows in the photos that we have of the damaged buildings. And the NIST analysis of that is actually fairly accurate.

So we, yes, it's very clear that planes hit the buildings. These were damaged inward. They were pushed inward. There were not explosions in time with holograms, as we're told, that were used to fake the planes. No, we have evidence of the planes hitting the buildings. And the impact damage. So we have a lateral ejection of the steel.

Again, outward, not down. How does gravity work? Down. Finally, gravity takes over at a building, and these freely flying structural steel sections go down, but they start out like this one to, wait a minute, that's about to hit building seven, back to forward to, what's it trailing?

Thick white smoke clouds. Again, why is steel? Yeah, it looks like a rocket. Yeah. It does. It's incredible. It's almost like it's propelled by that. But whether it's propelled or whether it's thermite, molten iron with aluminum oxide, ash, the other byproduct of thermite, that's what can account for this phenomena and gravity-driven collapse does not.

There's enough energy here to hurl a fire at 200. pound cannonball three miles. And there's like hundreds and hundreds of these sections delivered out past a 1,200 to 1,400 foot diameter beyond the

boundary of ground zero. So that raises a serious question, Chad and Sherry. We've got 100,000 tons of structural steel framing distributed well outside the footprint, well, what's crushing the building?

If all of that mass, which is 100,000 tons, a third of the weight of this building, is not available to crush the building. And yet that engineer, Zedentik Bazan of Northwestern University, used all of that weight in his calculation and I'll show that to you. Maybe it's a concrete. Because there were concrete floors, right? They're heavy. There was 110 of them, in fact.

We're looking for them. We have four and eight inch thick concrete poured on metal decking supported by lightweight steel trusses. We're looking each an acre in size, by the way. An acre in size. Every floor. That's crazy. That's 110.

That's 110 acres of floors that we're looking for down at the bottom. How many acres do you find? Zero. I don't. We don't find 50 floors. We don't find 10 floors. We don't find one acre size floor. We don't find a half acre, a quarter acre, or a 16th acre floor.

Most all of them have been pulverized. Yeah. I mean, disintegrated. I mean, it's insane to look at that little pile in comparison to what you just referred to. It's insane. Well, compare it to a real earthquake, a progressive collapse. You see pancakes, right? Or in Myanmar, you see a lot of pancakes.

Compare this. We have a 33-story building that collapsed. So you have 33 pancakes there, each about the size that they were when they were intact, right? And you can see by the size of those guys in the lower corner. right corner it's huge it's a third it's 10 stories it's about a third

of the height of what the building was which is what we're looking for over in the north tower there's 110 floors it should be 30 stories tall it should be three times

the height of the pile on the right but it's only about a a third of that pile there's a huge problem here with all this missing concrete that's what we should be seeing three times that height

that's crazy that's not what we're seeing so where's the concrete Chad Sherry oh there it is it's pulverized in mid-air

all the photos all the videos show that the concrete is pulverized in midair before it ever hits the ground and develops its kinetic energy to break up. What can do that? Well, explosives can do that. That's one of the things they do. Turns out heat can do that too.

ASTM report C-856, American Society of Testing Materials, documents that concrete can be powderized at only 1,500 degrees. What can happen at 3 and 4 and 5,000 degrees? This is backed up by the Fire Safety Journal that says concrete specimens subjected to temperatures of 2,200 degrees were completely decomposed. We have twice those temperatures. So that's another possibility. 90,000 tons of concrete. Another third of the wind. weight of this building distributed laterally, as you see in the photos. I went from river to river in a blanket, three inches thick. All of this powdered concrete, 30% of this.

That's where it is. All that smoke and everything we saw. Well, people were covered in white. You remember that. Yeah, that was the concrete floors. It's very poisonous alkali stuff to breathe. That's why we've lost, I don't know how many times, three times, four times, five times, more first responders since 9-11 that we did on 9-11, more than 1,000. That raises a question, too, right?

If 90,000 tons of concrete in each building is pulverized and spread from river to river, what's crushing the building? It wasn't the steel? it's distributed laterally. It's not the concrete. This is two-thirds the weight of this building that's not available to crush it. Well, wait a minute. We're told that the upper part drove the rest of the building down to the ground. Well, it's missing two-thirds of its mass. How can it do that? Well, Zedinich Bazant, his obscure mathematical work got decoded. And when they did, they found that he not only used all of that weight, but he doubled it, fraudulent. Oh, my gosh.

And this, and this guy's over Northwestern, right? In Chicago. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Look him up. Talk to him.

He doesn't talk much these days. And he also reduced the column strength below the point of plane impacts by three times to get this thing to fail mathematically. Wow. And this remains. the key theoretical basis for NIST's column failure theory today. And we've just pulled the rug out from underneath it again. In fact, there were challenges to this peer-reviewed paper submitted to the same journal by Gregory Zootelinsky, Richard Tony Zamboe, and Richard Johns, and the American Society

of Civil Engineers won't publish the challenge. Why? They said it's out of scope. That's all they said. How can it be out of scope to publish a challenge to a paper that's been previously published in that journal? That is what you do in peer-reviewed science. That's what they call. It's a big club, and you're not in it. And if you want to challenge it, no, you're not going to.

And by the way, we saw a lot of that stuff during COVID as well. Peer-reviewed studies, challenge of those studies never was allowed in. I mean, all very similar things. Yep, same thing with COVID. Another false flag operation with a huge cover-up with ready-to-go scientists who prefer money over their own internal sense of guidance. So that's what money does.

Kevin Ryan did some research final. How would they get these materials into the towers? Well, it turns out that there were fireproofing upgrades in the months and years prior to 9-11. Turns out that those upgrades occurred on the floors that the planes ended up hitting. Yeah. So could they have been doing an undercover operation with liquid-applied nanothermite? Because you do have liquid-applied fireproofing, intubescent paint. So we certainly want more investigation.

DigWithin. is where you can learn more about Kevin Ryan's research here. Dig within.net. You will. So if you had access to the elevator shafts, you'd have access to the core columns and beams in the building because they're right next to each other. But you'd have to cut through a lot of gypsom board.

And if you've ever done any gypsum board work in your house, you know how dusty it can be. Oh, yeah. Listen to the testimony, though, yeah, of Scott Forbes. fiduciary trust senior database administrator. It was probably the week leading up to 9-11. Every morning I'd come in around 7 a.m. And the dust was incredible.

It was filthy. It was like the cleaners weren't cleaning. Right where the windows were, there was a sill which enclosed radiators. I was sick to death of the dust which were appearing on the window cells. It was dirty gray and very, very noticeable in that week cleaning up to 9-11. Wow. Well, that's helpful. You start connecting the dots here, right? Yeah. We don't have a whole lot of proof. Well, we do have proof that there was an elevator modernization going on the nine months prior to 9-11, which gave 50 to 85 employees of ACE elevator access to all of these hoistways, unlimited access.

We certainly want to find out more about this modernization. organization. Otis Elevator had been, had installed and had been maintaining these elevators up to the time of this contract. And Ace Elevator came out of nowhere to win this contract from them. They had no previous, they had one client, and it was a World Trade Center. Oh, my gosh. And so, yeah, where were they on the day of 9-11? Well, there was a labor dispute that day. Dan Boyle says. the members of that company, about 50 of them, were pulled out to a union meeting to discuss some business. Sorry, I'm recalling a video in my head that we had played on the podcast a couple weeks ago about this certain group of people that said that they can basically do anything they want and through any company and you'll never know it's them. Anyways, continue. Three-letter agency, maybe.

Yeah, potentially. Or five. So we've got a question about what happened to the steel. I mean, we have 180,000 tons of steel. Do they save it? No, this is easily the largest and most perplexing structural failure in history, all three of them. Up to 400 truckloads a day were deployed, though, starting the day of 9-11 and shipping this steel to China for recycling, before investigators could get their hands on it and do a proper forensic investigation.

This is the illegal destruction of evidence in a crime scene. Bill Manning, editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering Magazine to cry out crucial evidence that can answer many questions is on the slowboat to China, showing an astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough

scientific investigation. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately. But it didn't. And that's why so many architects and engineers are demanding an investigation of the 10 key characteristic features of controlled demolition and some very uncharacteristic features

with the explosiveness of the demolition of building of the Twin Towers. Fire can't account for any one of these features, let alone all 10 of them. With additional circumstantial evidence of corroborative testimony, this becomes proof of control demolition and body of proof that's convinced the thousands of architects and engineers to stake their reputations once again. So we are all banding together. You'll see some of these eyewitnesses that we've talked about. We'll see some of these experts at Turning the Time in New York on September 10th through

the 13th. The tickets are $125 for the whole four days. You can get a VIP ticket and have a brunch with Jimmy Dorr, Roger Waters, Brett Weinstein. Dennis Kucinich and the other 30 speakers. And so we encourage you to go that route. It's a $911 ticket. And it's a donation to help us make this all come true as well.

So we do want everybody who's in the area or who can fly there and make the four days to come really, really important. Go ahead, Chad. No, I was going to tell you or ask you actually. So you started the architects and engineers. You're now doing your own thing. But what was kind of your, did you reach out to architects and engineers in the beginning of this? Did you have had you already talked to some others in your, I guess, field?

And what's kind of been your, I guess what I'm asking too is like obviously 3,600 plus are now involved. but did you get any pushback from any of them that just didn't want to be involved because it was connected to 9-11 and asking questions? Sure. Yeah. And as a result of that prejudice, that worldview that can't contain a conspiracy theory of this magnitude, they won't look at the evidence. I have friends that are engineers, that are architects that won't look at the evidence.

But those who do and who are willing or who are forced to, like the 14 members of the firm I worked for, they end up opening their eyes. Oh, my God. Nobody disagrees with this evidence after they see it all the way through like you've done today. So I hope that helps answer that question. As far as the airplane going into the building, you said, you know, obviously people have conspiracy theories that it was. that didn't happen. What evidence shows us that those airplanes went into the building? Well, there's some videos that people point out, like,

oh, it looks like the airplane didn't even hit the building from different angles. Right. I'm aware of some videos that have been messed with. They call them CGI, computer graphics. But that is a, there are also many videos. that haven't been missed with. There's 43 videos, private and mainstream media. And many of them are not messed with at all.

And they do show the planes hitting the towers. We have witnesses that heard the planes come in and hit the towers. We have witnesses that saw the plane hit the towers. One was Ricky DeSantis, who had his hand on the door going into the tower when the plane came in above him. There's great videos too of that. I said there's some good videos of that as well when people were being interviewed. Yeah.

Yeah. So it's clear that there were planes and it's clear that there's a question of what planes because most 9-11 researchers suggest that these planes were swapped out with planes that could have better performance to make sure that they hit their targets, to make sure that they could go 500 miles an hour at essentially sea level,

which is very difficult in and of itself. You know, when a plane comes down to land, it slows way down. Yeah. And you can't take planes at those speeds, normal planes, airliners, civilian aircraft. Yeah. And Richard, I do have a question.

So I know that you're, obviously in the details of all of this and you want to report facts as factual as possible. And I think you've done an amazing job on this podcast doing so. And I think you have for many years now. And by the way, we appreciate you doing that. And I think, you know, when something so huge like this happens is kind of like COVID, but this was bigger. You know, 9-11 was one of the biggest things that's ever happened for sure, probably the biggest thing ever happened in my lifetime. do you have a why and do you have a who i mean obviously you've had to have thought about that and has any of your research or investigative work as far as the facts go led you to anyone

well there are all kinds of researchers that have been led by these facts and other facts which we don't get into like intelligence failures uh plain i mean i mean the 19 fundamentalist Arabs and Osama bin Laden didn't cause NORAD to stand down to allow these aircraft to hit their targets in the case of the Pentagon an hour after 45 minutes after the towers were hit. We're talking about a conspiracy that leads inevitably to the leadership of NORAD, the leadership of the Pentagon, the leadership of the White House, and the leadership of. the Congress who put together the 9-11 had a hand in putting together the 9-11 Commission. So you certainly have top government leaders involved. Then I'm talking about George Bush, but Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Chertoff, all the individuals at the top who assigned their key players at key positions to pull off the cover up,

which is even more, perhaps more difficult than the execution or planning of this operation. So, yeah, clearly the Israelis seem to be involved as well. Yeah. Just look at the art students or the dancing. Dance in Israelis. Yeah. On top of the New Jersey building, holding a lighter up in front of the burning building. taking photographs and doing high fives and arrested later as they were reported because they were reported.

And they were held for 75 days and then shipped back to Israel where they went on TV and said they were there to document the event. Yeah. Wait a minute. How hard. You must have known about the event in advance. Oh, of course. Yeah. Of course. How hard or easy would it be to conceal these explosives that took down the buildings?

Because obviously you have just proved that's what happened. How did people not see these explosives? Because they were in the elevator shafts? Well, maybe they did see them and didn't know they were explosives. clearly access through the elevator shafts is key. The investigation of Ace Elevator and the security company is going to be extremely important. So they locked off the elevator shafts one at a time with armed guards. We have witnesses of that from Tom Kiley, a broadcaster, a news anchor. and we have tons of materials that would have had to been brought,

but not through the regular elevators, right, through the freight elevators. So all of this could be, and by the way, the buildings were probably only half occupied. NIST's evacuation records show that in their report. and we know that tenants were moved around quite a bit in the months and years prior to 9-11. So work could be done even in the tenant areas under those conditions. Wow. Well, Richard, how is it if, so once you, I guess you said, 2006 is really when you started to, you know, I guess intensely think about this and then start researching.

How has this affected your worldview, like just in general, whether it's, political, whether it's just everything. I mean, how has it affected you, especially as a very successful architect, very knowledgeable architect, but how has it affected your mind learning this, investigating it, going through years of this? And I mean, I can't imagine this is a big one. It's probably the mother of all conspiracies or, you know, over anything we've ever talked about.

I don't think there's much worse that you can get. Well, COVID killed a whole lot more people. COVID. I'm not talking about the disease. I'm talking about the solution to the disease that they engineered, also engineered. Yeah. But they, I took a tangent there and I got lost. I'll just say, yeah.

How was it, how has it affected your mind just through your research and all this, just politically and worldview and everything? Yeah. If you've ever seen The Matrix movie, you take the red pill. and things that happened to you in May, March of 2006, in my case, that was my red pill. I was a flag-waving Reagan Republican, you know? I wanted to go and support our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq because they did this to us, right? Even Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Somehow that means he was tied to 9-11.

and in Afghanistan. But I was turned upside down. I felt betrayed when I became secure that the information that I was researching was accurate. And it led to this path of this massive conspiracy. And I felt like I've been born into a new world. I couldn't trust. Up was down and down was up. I couldn't trust my own government.

government. I couldn't trust the media to tell us the truth because they covered it all up, because I'm the one who was censored when I tried to bring, among many thousands of others. And so this was a very difficult personal awakening for me. Yeah. I lost my marriage at the time. Oh, wow. And she couldn't handle being around this dark of a subject. And I was on a mission.

This has been dropped on my shoulders. I'm an architect. These are buildings. This is falling on me. Where am I going to go? I can't pretend I didn't see this. Right. And so we went from 14 architects to 3,600.

And as we gain more, I gain more confidence that, A, I'm not going to be killed because I hadn't been killed yet. So I just stopped worrying about it because we are. I imagine, I hope, threatening their system, which relies on triggers like 9-11 to trigger wars. Yeah, absolutely. And what we're doing is pulling the rug out from underneath that system and publicizing the crime of the century. So it's a lot to have on your shoulders. Yeah, for sure. But I don't work for myself anymore, you know.

Even my wife now, Gail, we work together at Richard Gage 9-11. We're busier than we've ever been. We've done a thousand interviews. And we're driving force is justice for the 9-11 family members of those who were murdered almost 3,000 on that day. And we just can't stop. We can't let this system run us over. like a steamroller and gaslight us. Tell us that's an apple when it's an orange.

Yeah. And just pretend that everything's okay. That just doesn't work. Yeah, I think it's sadly getting worse, you know? I mean, you know, I was decently young during 9-11. And, you know, I was definitely as I grew up, I was patriotic. I believed in my country. I loved the military.

I love the fact that we went over to defend our honor, you know, after 9-11. And especially since we've got an initiative. podcast and things happened previously and even Trump. I mean, I've said it like I voted for Trump and then look, you know, it's like he is completely doing the exact opposite of what he had campaigned on since, you know, since 2016, really. And so it's just, it's very frustrating. It's, like you said, you kind of feel like your world is turned upside down. I think so many listeners of ours feel the same way right now and especially after Trump because there was a lot of people was like, hey, maybe Trump's going to save us from all this shit we've been in.

for this long and and and then they're like oh maybe not maybe he's actually not going to do that so it's um it's a sad thing but i am i'm i'm very thankful that we have people like you that are putting your neck on the line your reputation your everything your relationships i we are thankful for people like you that have the experience have the expertise that's in my opinion that's bravery for someone that knows the subject and is going to speak up and stand out uh for not only the families, but just for truth, for for Americans to see like, hey, maybe everything you see on mainstream media is not true, even though I don't know how you don't know that by now, but I think this 9-11 thing is extremely important. And I think that your work is extremely

important. And I commend you for your bravery and your expertise and keep going. And we're going to wish you the absolute best in your endeavors. And by the way, we know it. We kind of know a couple people on your speaking speaking list. We've had Dr. McCola on the show a couple of times, Robert Malone,

and then one of my good friends, Nathan, he's friends with Brett Weinstein and actually my friend Nathan owns clear nasal spray company. They got sued by the FTC during COVID because he actually

has multiple studies that prove that it killed COVID. And so the FTC came and killed him, killed him. I mean, yeah, so it's been, it's been nuts.

So he's been in and out of Congress and all that. So he's been fighting. in the fight against the government as well since COVID. And there's just, there's a lot of truth tellers out there. But there's also, there's more BSers online now than ever. There is more people that are getting paid to lie to you now because mainstream media is not as important. So we're glad that someone on here is telling the truth.

And we do appreciate it. Oh, God. You're so welcome. I'm just delighted to be here with you guys and help your audience, you know, come to conclusions. if there's more research or looking into this that you want to do or you want to share something. There's some great videos right here at Richard Gage 911.org and the great crime scene to courtroom project, six episodes out of 12 now. It's really exciting.

Sherry, we've got to talk about how to format that for your podcast. Yes, that'll be amazing. You can take advantage. Yeah, we'll definitely watch. effort. Absolutely sure. Well, Richard, thank you so very much for coming on the show. We are eternally grateful and maybe we'll have to reconvene because I think you know a lot more than just about 9-11, even though I would actually like to pick your brain on some other stuff sometime. Well, I have actually done extended presentations, two hour and a half

presentations on the parallels between 9-11 and COVID. And that's what lost me my YouTube channel. And then the parallels between 9-11 and Gaza, another false flag operation. So there's lots of material to choose from. Oh, by the way, we actually, speaking of the Gaza thing, so my wife, she's, her family, part of her family is kind of Jewish, but. Kind of they are Jewish. Well, they are Jewish. But we, we, they got her on the leading attorney for the IDF. Or isn't she IDF's attorney?

Yeah, she's the main attorney over in Israel. And Sherry interviewed her. I didn't, I was not there that day. but it was interesting. I'll have to send you that. I can imagine. Yeah, it was pretty interesting, especially when, you know, you got to ask, like, hey, didn't you guys know about the attack beforehand, like, you know, a year?

As they did. Yeah. That foreknowledge is all over the place. Absolutely. With the soldiers themselves. Yeah. Yeah. And there was, I mean, there was even, you know, they've literally been in front of the, in front

of their government. And they have been interviewed. They said, yeah, we had to stand down orders. We had all this. It was nuts. But we'll have to talk. about that another time Richard but thank you so very much for coming on the show we we really do appreciate it you're so welcome chan thanks sherry thank you so much richard yeah absolutely uh everybody's

got to go and check their event out we will put the links in the description for you all to find um i'm pretty excited to watch his six episodes as well yes i think we're gonna watch one tonight yeah absolutely but guys that's going to do it for us we do appreciate richard to coming on the show all the links will be in the description until next time we love you guys peace out peace out