PBD Podcast - Explosive 9/11 Claims by Richard Gage | PBD Podcast | Ep. 183

Episode Date: September 14, 2022

In this episode, Patrick Bet-David is joined by Richard Gage and Adam Sosnick.   Richard Gage is an international speaker, 30-year architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, and the founder and former CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Check out RichardGage911.org: https://bit.ly/3S2JuxQSubscribe to Richard's Substack: https://bit.ly/3L8mpHD  Join the channel to get exclusive access to perks: https://bit.ly/3Q9rSQL  Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N  Text: PODCAST to 310.340.1132 to get added to the distribution list  Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal bestseller Your Next Five Moves (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/pbdpodcast/support

podcast episode number 183. It's a special podcast. We wanted to do it last week, but we were out of the country in Madrid shooting a special that's going to be launching later on today with Tate. Today's podcast is around 9 11 and what really happened to them are guests today, Dr. Richard gauge has done numerous interviews has done numerous work on this has done numerous talks on this speeches has done numerous talks on this, speeches all around the world. It doesn't matter where you say Australia, New Zealand, Japan, talking about the fact that 9-11, when it took place, it had to do with architectural where there was possible explosives. This was not something where building can vertically drop and just come down without it being intentional.

Now, obviously, there's been a lot of pushback. There's been a lot of different angles that people have taken and they've set a lot of different things, but he has his own argument that he's going to make today. He is the founder and CEO of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truths. Former CEO.

Former, I'm sorry, former founder and CEO of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 truths. Former CEO. Former, I'm sorry, former founder and CEO of architecture architects and engineers for 9-11 truths. And at the same time, this organization claims to represent more than 3,000 architects and engineers who want a real investigation into the 9-11 attacks. Does that introduce you properly with your background? I'm not a doctor. I'm sorry, they put doctor, but it's at my my apologies. Richard gauge. Let's take the doctor out. Okay

For for folks who don't know you, by the way, just so everybody knows you know, we Have a lot of different things we're gonna go through for some of you guys the topic of 9-11 We have one of our guys here Rob who I was just saying right before we got started he 9-11 we have one of our guys here Rob who I was just saying right before we got started he He has never worn a suit since he's been working here. Never. I'm convinced he never wore a suit and a tie on his wedding day Okay, yeah, I've never seen him in a suit and a tie. He's wearing a brand new suit and a tie just for you because He follows this so closely. I mean, we stood upon where I said, listen, why don't you conduct the interview instead of myself? But we have a lot of things, different things that we'll go through, so we appreciate you for coming on.

Before we get started, do you mind taking a quick moment and just kind of giving a little bit more about your background, you know, what gives you the moral authority and the credibility to be able to make the claims that you claim on what happened here? And then we'll go into some more questions. I don't know about the moral authority, but certainly I'm a 30-year architect. I'm a member of the American Institute of Architects.

I have worked on many fireproofed steel frame, not high rises, but various buildings, institutional, et cetera. So I've worked hard during my life to prepare myself for what came in 2006. When I heard on the radio, David Ray Griffin being interviewed on the radio station, Bonnie Faulkner's Guns and Butter, KPFA, I was shocked. I had never heard any alternative theory as to how these towers came down. Not one. I didn't know that there was a third skyscraper that collapsed on 9-11. In fact, I found out that nobody I knew knew about this third worst structural failure in modern history after the twin towers. So that was a shock to me. So I had to hear David

Ray Griffin come the next night. He was 600 people packed into the Grand Lake Theatre in Oakland, California. So I couldn't even get in. I had to go home and watch on the live stream. Then I saw this building coming down, which we'll talk about, building seven. I saw the evidence for the Twin Towers explosive evidence all over the place and I was just in shock I had to put together Some research over the next couple of months took it to the firm that I worked for 15 architects. They thought I was nuts actually until I Bride them. I bought them pizza and the conference room brought them in and then

All of them raise their hands. Oh my God, you're right. These are controlled demolitions. That was my first 15 architecture engineers sign on to the petition. Now we have 3,500 over at AE 911 Truth, where indeed I did bring that firm, that organization up for the last 17 years. And now I'm independent with Richard Gage 911.org. So you're no longer with that organization. Correct. And what happened there? Spike Lee got involved. He had heard that I was talking about the new

false flag operation going around in the last two years. Okay. Which is a great concern to me personally. And I think all people need to know about both of these planned events. So it's real important. So he was concerned about some comments that I had made. And he apparently had swallowed the official narrative of this pandemic hook line and sinker and was concerns. So he pulled the half hour segment from his September 11th, mini series, 9-11 epicenters. So later we learned on a radio interview or newspaper interview that he didn't have a choice, which means that it wasn't probably my comments that were the cause of this pulling but pressure from HBO and other media and other authorities that he bowed to

apparently. And that's how you were removed from it. This became quite a concern of our PR consultant who convinced our board that this was a PR crisis and the CEO had to go. So they unwittingly went along with that recommendation and there was quite a vigorous discussion on our board and we learned not a co-founder, you're a founder. I am the founder. And so they remove the founder and so forget CEO.

Yeah. They remove the founder. Yeah. It's kind of strange to do that time to remove the founder from a project like a time. Well that happens to Steve Jobs for instance. Yeah. And it turned out to Steve Jobs, for instance. Yeah. And it turned out to be quite a blessing for him.

And it's quite a blessing for my wife and I, Gail, who are running now strong in the last year since this happened with 75 podcasts of our own and four or five dozen interviews that we've reached millions and millions of people now with the truth about what happened at the World Trade Center. Okay, so let's go through a couple of things. One, before we even get into this, can you pull up the New York Times newspaper? Click on that real quick. This is a tweet I posted yesterday.

I want you to go back to my tweet, but zoom in a little bit. Just click on it and there you go. Click on a New York Times newspaper, on a newspaper. Yeah, and see if you can zoom in, yeah, you can zoom in on this one. Go a little closer, closer, closer, closer, closer. I want the audience to see this.

Go a little closer on exactly the date, exactly the date. Okay, folks, I don't know if you see this or not. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is a fact, okay. 9.11, New York Times, Sunday. This is a fact, okay. 9-11, New York Times. Sunday, this is 2022. This is two, three days ago, on 9-11. This is your city, okay? Let's look at the stories they have on the cover, on the day of 9-11, the most tragic event that ever took place in the city of New York, okay? Which wasn't 300 years ago, not 200 years ago,

not 100 years ago, it was just 21 years ago. So the top story to the right, you see what, Ukraine reclaims key Eastern city, reshaping battle, apparently that's more important than what happened 21 years ago. The main story headline, failing schools, public funds, okay, maybe that's more important than what happened to that city 21 years ago, go a little lower, go a little lower, go a little lower. Rose reversal changes ways, doctors work. Okay, so that's definitely more important than 9-11. Okay, the US Open Champion and the ruler of her sport. Okay, that's, of course, more important than 9-11. Trump's lawyer seek legal aid for themselves. Oh, yeah, absolutely. Inbiting farewell to Queen, resting peace, not saying she doesn't need to have the story

there. Of course, that's a massive story. And the heartbreak him for the people of that country who see her as a hero. And then look at the stories at the bottom. Go a little closer on the stories at the bottom, okay? Little stories. So Regent definitely made it. So Regent got their ad in there. Housing legacy in France. I don't see a reporter's violent end. Dominant but challenged a scandal 10 years brewing. Not a single story. On the biggest paper in America of 9-11,

in which that tragic event, which is single handedly the biggest tragic event that happened since John F. Kennedy assassination you don't put that story here maybe even the attempt assassination on Reagan, but didn't happen this story is not on the New York Times This makes me very uncomfortable what we talk about today with you. You're gonna get some pushback from us uncomfortable. What we talk about today with you, you're going to get some pushback from us. You're going to have some people here that support you what you're saying and they're on your side. But why they don't want to tell this story for some of the people out there, whether

you're conspiracy theorists or not, why are you not wanting to tell history, okay? And this isn't history like where everybody who works for New York Times now, where they born on 9, 12, 2001 that they forgot, is that what it is? Did everybody who works for New York Times now, were they born on 9, 12, 2001 that they forgot? Is that what it is? Did everybody who works there is only 21 years old? Is that kind of what the story is? Or was this, oh, we missed it, it's our fault. I don't buy that because typically a magazine,

newspaper as big as yours, is gonna go through 50 different approvals before somebody goes under, this is intentional. And it's an insult to the American history, firefighters, everybody that sacrificed their lives, the people who lost their kids, their husbands, their wives, their daughters, their sons, their peers, their best friends, their cousins, you don't tell that story. It's a disgrace and an insult to all of those families from the premier newspaper that

they call themselves the premier newspaper. You just lost a lot of credibility with me, but that's my rant, having said that, let's get right into it. So, question for you. Can I give you one, like, number one, I wholeheartedly agree with you. That's very weird.

I don't think you you can find that out. What the cover was on that. And did they do this every single year prior to this 21st year? There must be some justification to this. This isn't just oops, error omitted. I understand where you're going with this. I see zero justification.

There are certain things that's called ritual respect for your community, respect for your background. I'm a Syrian Armenian from Iran, okay? Those things matter to me. Assyrian Armenian, Iran, Christian, American. Those things are always gonna matter to me. You're a Jewish, you grew up in Miami. Events that happen in Miami, you tell me stories about what happened.

Those things matter to me. You were telling me a story about a guy named Jason the other day. I don't know the story You know the story, but people Miami know that story You cannot have a story like this With a newspaper like this and for you to say well, maybe they just don't cover it every day I have a heart no, no, I'm not justifying I'm just I'm I'm skeptical like you I'm appreciative of what you're saying like you they put the story 9-11 This was last okay, so this is last year.

What was it? Was it on the front page? Yeah, that's the front page. But it's not even that big of an article. That's weird. Yeah, well, there you have it. That's what New York Times is doing. But let's go into today's about Mr. Richard Gates, not Dr. Richard Gates' correction.

So before we ask you all these questions, I have some questions for you to see where you stand. Okay. Some people your critics call you conspiracy theorist. Okay, that's what they say. So, you know, why don't we cover some of the you know biggest conspiracy theories of all time and let's see what you say about them. Okay, where you stand with them. Alright. Flat earth theory. What do you think about it? I don't know. I haven't looked at that. I've heard about it. Okay, but you think earth is round or flat. Well, I don't know. I haven't looked at that, I've heard about it. Okay, but you think Earth is round or flat? Well, I don't know.

I haven't seen it other than what's been shown to us on the television, so what do I know? So that's a, that's a, that's a, that answer is still not a certain answer. We know plenty to know that the Earth is round, but we can find, look, Well, that's what we learned in school and that's what I accept. So you accept that the Earth is round. Why not? Sorry, sir. You're...

I don't know. You don't know that the earth is round. That's what I've learned. That's what I've been educated. But when you learn the truth about what happened at the World Trade Center and at the government and the media have been lying about it, I don't trust anything I've learned in my history books. That's right.

Because I've looked at some of the things that are lies in our history and I'm questioning everything at this point. Fine. Let's go to the next. Got it. Okay. The death of Princess Diana was in an inside job. What do you think? I don't know. Okay. Also don't know. Okay. Apollo moon landing. Did it happen? I don't know about that either. Okay. Do you like what percentage skeptical are you with that one? I'm skeptical about everything we've been taught by the media and our government and our education. You seem like the type of guy that would be curious to do a lot of investigations, research,

due diligence. For me, I was fascinated with the JFK assassination. I wonder what happened. So I've interviewed God knows how many people on that topic. What do you think happened with JFK assassination? I have serious reservations about the truth, about what we've been told about the JFK SaaS nation too. I mean, I've seen lots of videos on that one.

So I'm highly skeptical. Highly skeptical of what they set up. Yeah, the official narrative. Okay, cool. So sounds good. So now that we know where you stand with other theories here, in regards to this right here, with what happened on your argument you're making in this topic specifically on what happened on 9-11.

Can you just take a moment and present what your argument is and how you came to this conclusion? Yeah. Well, when I was confronted with this elderly gentleman in 2006, he talked about a third tower that came down. I mean, I'm an architect. I would know if there was a skyscraper that came down on 9-11 that wasn't hit by a plane. I mean, this is a 47 story skyscraper, easily the tallest building in most of our states. But at 520 in the afternoon, after witnesses here explosions, this building drops like a rock

straight down uniformly, symmetrically into its own footprint in under seven seconds. That's at free fall acceleration. That's as fast as a bowling ball falling out of the sky. And we didn't know about it. Most architects and engineers don't know about it. We, I'm one of 90,000 members of the American Institute of Architects. There wasn't one bulletin issued on this major structural collapse and no plane hit it. So it had a few small fires. And according to NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who was tasked by Congress to explain these collapses to the American people, they say these fires brought

the building down. Wait a minute. Normal office fires have never brought down a steel frame, fire protected skyscraper ever in history. And there's been dozens and dozens and dozens of much hotter, larger and longer lasting fires in these buildings. And we haven't lost one. So this is an unprecedented event. It should have been the most studied building failure ever. And sure enough, NIST produces 1,000 pages of obfuscation. And this elaborate fairy tale of the initiation of collapse in this building, none of the components of which could actually have happened. They

had to eliminate key structural components in the building in order to try to fabricate a plausible collapse initiation theory. For instance, they say that the beams heated up in an extraordinary fashion, 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit. Well, that couldn't have happened because they're fireproofed. And in this case, there's no plane to knock off the fireproofing like they claimed at the twin towers. Well, okay, let's just say that those beams could have expanded because they said this is thermal expansion, which caused a girder to be pushed off of its seat on this column

79 in the building. Well, the girder couldn't have slid sideways because there are sheer studs tying it very carefully. And these are in the shop drawing. So NIST, it just says they weren't there. So the girder, let's say, it could have slid off of its seat. And then it would have had to have slid 12 inches off of its seat, because that's the size of the seat.

NIST says, no, it only had to slide halfway off, and then the flange folded, and then it came down. Well, the flange couldn't have folded because there are structural stiffeners welded on to keep that flange from folding and the web from crippling. But they ignored those three quarter inch thick welded steel stiffeners, completely ignored them. Said they weren't needed in the analysis. So, but let's say that girder could have fallen off of its seat on column 79. You wouldn't have had the 13th floor falling on the 12th because the 13th

floor didn't have enough, well, there's two other major girders framing into that particular column. So, you couldn't have had it falling at all, but let's say it could have, it didn't have enough force, though, a dynamic force to break the connections of the girder on the 12th floor below. So, but let's say that did happen. And like NIST claims that there's this cascading collapse on the east side of the building. But then they say this lateral instability traveled across this building, which is as long as a football field, in just six, seven seconds. It's absolutely ridiculous because that would mean 400 structural steel connections would have had to have failed all within every second and along that way. But let's say that could have happened.

They're saying the interior collapsed and then followed six seconds later by or so by the exterior. Well, that couldn't have happened either because we can all see that the penthouse structures, the West penthouse and screenwall, fall just a half a second prior to the overall collapse. Well, those structures sit on the remaining core columns, 20 of them, after the East penthouse collapses, which is an isolated event. So those 20 columns had to have given way all at once a half a second prior to the overall collapse of this building completely also disproving their theory. So we know that as Professor Lee Roy Hullsey found out, one of the top friends

of structural engineers in the country at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, took on the job, a four-year study of this incredible collapse. He says, we got to know if this is true, no playing and hit this building, no skyscrapers ever come down due to fire before, steel frame fire protected skyscrapers. And so we got to find out what happened here. So he did, and guess what he concluded? But this building did not come down by fire. It could not have collapsed, even if the three columns that it claims were in turn buckling, the building would have tipped over, which is intuitive for all of us. So he also found out and concluded that the building came down because all of its columns were removed and removed within a second of each other. The interior followed by the exterior,

completely confirming what the video analysis shows us. So this is an incredible corroboration of what we already know about building 7, just looking at the videos, but also hearing the witnesses who heard explosions. This is all on our website, RichardGaid911.org. Witnesses, a half a dozen of them heard and are testifying to explosions before the building comes down. And then we look in the dust, the concrete powder that's throughout World Trade Center, and we find lots of evidence additionally confirming the use of incendiaries in this building. We'll get into that.

So, okay, so when you hear about different people making their claims about 9-11, you hear that say, you know, jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams. And I'm sure you've seen the clips on YouTube where different guys are like, yes, it does. And I know if you've seen people reacting to

what many say jet fuel 1500 degree Fahrenheit, steel melts at 2500, but then they show that steel does lose strength out around 600 is what they say. What's your argument to that? Let's get into this, because the official narrative says, and both the twin towers and building seven,

that the steel, in the case of building seven, expanded in the case of the twin towers weakened. And they build a whole narrative based on that. And certainly, steel weakens at 1200 degrees Fahrenheit, loses half of its strength that could begin to sag. We don't challenge that. But what we have in both cases is the evidence of molten iron. And that is incredible. It is found by the US Geological Survey

in all of their dust samples, previously molten iron, microspheres, about the diameter of a human hair. Four tons of them by extrapolation. Well, they don't tell us where those came from. Where did they come from? This is incredible.

Iron doesn't melt until 2800 degrees. So yes, steel weakens earlier, but NIST denies the evidence of extreme temperatures, which are available where published in a metallurgical examination in the appendix C by FEMA in 2002 before NIST took over the investigation and throughout that metallurgical examination. Why? Well, what did it say? It said that there's a hot temperature corrosion attack on the steel, liquid molten iron

invading the grain boundaries of the steel. Well, wait, what's liquid molten iron? We haven't used iron in our skyscrapers for 100 years. Where does it come from? Well, molten iron is the byproduct of thermite. Thermite is an incendiary used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. So maybe we're getting somewhere, right?

We have a plausible, the only plausible explanation of how the liquid molten iron got there, and there are hundreds of, well, there's dozens of studies showing and witnesses of liquid molten iron, including the World Trade Center's structural engineer himself, Leslie Robertson, who said, a river of steel flowing. Wow. Well, we've got to get to the bottom of all of these witnesses. We show dozens of them on our documentary, 9-11 Explosive Evidence Experts Speak Out. That's on the website too and it's free on YouTube. Everybody can see it. There are agencies FEMA, in addition to FEMA, there's the OSHA and Bechtel and others and Giuliani and in his commission report, Testimony. He talks about temperatures exceeding 2800 degrees.

He talks about temperatures exceeding 2800 degrees. Well fires don't produce those temperatures. There may be 500 or 1400 degrees, NIST claims without any evidence, 1800 degree fires. But that's a thousand degrees short of what the evidence shows in the World Trade Center, molten iron, the first responders say, flowing like lava, that down the channel rails, you know, underneath, it's an incredible number of witnesses of this molten iron. In fact, it's pouring out of the

South Tower minutes prior to its collapse. This is clearly exceeding temperatures of 2500 degrees we can tell by the color of molten metals what their temperature is. So how do we get those temperatures? This is what's revealed also in the study by Neal's Herit and eight other international scientists, which is peer reviewed and published in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal, because they studied seven independently collected samples of the powdered concrete. And we have the documentation in there of unignited thermite. In fact, nano thermite. They have these red grade chips.

They thought they were paint. It's amazing. They said, well, let's do some tests on them. They're attracted by a magnet. They have a high iron content, one of the key ingredients of thermite. So they do x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, x-EDS, and they find iron and aluminum, the two ingredients of thermite. Wow, this is getting interesting. They do, they zoom in 50,000 times with an electron microscope. And what do they find? Nanosize particles of iron oxide and aluminum powder,

a thousand times smaller in the diameter of a human hair. These are very carefully documented. They're in a matrix, a bed of oxygen silica carbon, organic material, which is used in TNT to expand rapidly, knocking things over. That's what high energy explosives do. But they find that then this is a very sophisticated form of incendiary of thermite, which is called nanothermite. It was pure reviewed by Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore Lab,

and guess what? Happens when they put these chips in a differential scanning calirimeter, a heater. They ignite at 758 degrees Fahrenheit, producing just like the, by the way, the peer-reviewed literature that came before. So this is clearly the super thermite. But what do these chips produce when they ignite? Molten iron microspheres with the same chemical signature as the molten iron microspheres that the USGS finds in RJ Lee group and environmental consulting firm and all the world trade center dust. So you see we know where these molten iron microscopyers came from that the USGS couldn't and wouldn't or wouldn't explain that we know that this is a self corroborating repeatable set of experimental data that shows us what brought down the towers when you consider it

in concert with all the rest of the evidence that we have yet to cover the me ask you question means so okay so let's just play the game let's say you know it was explosive let's say this was you know planned let's say a group of people come to you and say hey hey, Richard, we would like to figure out a way how to get a World Trade Center to come down vertically all the way down. What supplies do we need? How much preparation do we need? How much manpower do we need?

How do we need to get past the security, to get in there, to set them up exactly in the corners that they need to be set up? how much money do we need to invest? And out of all this crew that work together, can we find these few hundred people that can get this job done to keep a secret for the rest of their lives that this never happened? What does it take for us to do something like this? What would you say to them? Fair question.

And we have to start with how we want the twin towers to come down. And we have, I want it to come down the way it came down. Yeah. And we're looking at building seven here. But in the case of the twin towers, the official narrative tells us that the top part drove the rest of the building down to the ground and then destroyed itself. Well, how do you do that? First of all, that's not what happened. The

top part is destroying itself in the first four seconds. You can see it in the videos. It's very clear. The top part is the structural steel is actually being liquefied, if you will. And so what happens after that? By the way, 156 first responders are hearing explosions. This is in the oral histories produced by Thomas Van Esch and the Fire Commissioner. They're hearing explosions before the tower ever collapses. This is researched by Professor Graham McQueen. It's incredible. And you wouldn't want that to be a part of your story, but there's certain things you can't get away with when you're planning this event. But after that first four seconds in each of these towers, we have, literally, ejected, freely flying structural steel sections weighing four and eight tons, 80 miles an hour out of the tower, literally landing 600 feet in every direction,

destroying many buildings around them. That's incredible. This is not like a banana peeling, like the debunkers like to say. So we're getting at how you bring the building down, but we have to look at how it actually came down. First, we have squibs or isolated explosive ejections occurring 20, 40, 60 stories down below this destruction zone. So how can that be accounted for also in the official narrative? It cannot. And then we have the complete shattering of the

structure, something that the National Fire Protection Association Guide 921 says, look for in your investigation of explosions and fires. Look for the shattering of the structure, debris thrown, great distances. That's exactly what we find and down at the bottom, what do we see? Because everything, the structural steelels ejected so far. Laterally, we have at the bottom of the pile, only a two-story pile of miscellaneous twisted metal. Well, where did the steel, what crushed the building if the steel is 600 foot diameter all around each of the perimeter of these towers during the course of

its destruction in the air? these towers during the course of its destruction in the air. That's 90, not 100,000 tons of structural steel in each tower, not contributing to the collapse of this building. Maybe it's the concrete floors. Each of them were four and eight inches thick on various floors and an acre in size. But we look again at the videos and we see the complete pole Verization of this concrete which is across Laura Manhattan in a three square mile area

Wait a minute if the concrete is in a blanket three inches thick across from River to River across Laura Manhattan What's crushing the building? from River to River across Loura Manhattan. What's crushing the building? This is happening during, not afterward, during the course of the building's serious, series of explosions, which are also visible on the videos. So we have two thirds the way to the building

that's not even available to crush the building. And Zedennic Bessant of Chicago Northwestern University came out two days after 9-11 with his theory, which was so obfuscated that it took engineers almost a decade to crack. And when they did, they find that not only did he use all the steel and all the concrete in the weight, but he multiplied it times three. It's a complete, fraudulent attempt to try to explain mathematically, because he's it times three. It's a complete fraudulent attempt to try to explain mathematically, because he's a mathematical wizard, how this building was destroyed and it remains

the key theoretical basis for NIST's column failure theory. I get all of that. What I'm asking you is the following. Here's what I'm asking you. If I hired you as a consultant, I'm a bad guy. Okay. And I want to take down World Trade Center. I come, I hire you, and I say listen Richard, here's a million bucks. I want you to be my project manager. I'll give you 10 million bucks. Tell me how many people we need, okay? How long it'll take us to prepare this,

to bring the World Trade Center down. You need dozens of operatives. You can access to the core columns in the buildings. It would take months. It would take months. Interestingly, we had a elevator modernization, the largest in the world ever, going on the nine months prior to 9.11,

who had that contract, Ace Elevator, who should have had it, Otis Elevator, who installed these elevators and maintained them up until the time Ace Elev elevator had 85 employees in the building at the time the towers were hit and they fled. It was a scandal documented in USA Today and these are the experts who could help rescue the firefighters. That's a plausible undercover operation.

But that's just a point. So the elevator that's been managing it for a while was what was it called? No, before eight. Oh, odys. Oh, okay. So odys, ace takes it over 85 guys, nine months prior to that that are working on the elevator perfect.

So now they let's just. Wait, that's not all. You had the transfer from public authority, the port authority, to private company, Larry Silverstein. It's just six weeks prior to 9-11, this deal went through, and he invested only 125 million of his own money, leveraged that to 3.2 billion, and bought all the rest of the buildings.

He had previously developed building seven but he placed massive terrorist insurance that had never been placed on these buildings before and when did he buy the terrorist insurance? After he secured ownership of these six weeks prior to 9.11. Okay so now you're talking this the kind of stuff now gets people thinking. Okay, so six weeks prior, a guy comes in with $125 million of his own money, leverages up to $3 billion, buys terrorist insurance, you said.

Yep, and he had no reason to buy these buildings. They were half empty according to many researchers. So they weren't desirable. They required a five billion to 10 billion in upgraded electrical, mechanical, and communications. researchers so they weren't desirable they required five billion to ten billion in upgraded electrical mechanical and communications which buildings and they were full of asbestos which buildings that he bought well he bought the six buildings wtc complex wc-1 2 3 4 5 and 6 that's right he

bought that and other people who enjoy conspiracies talk about Neil Bush and the insurance connection. But let's set that aside. Let me ask you, Tom, you can't say that without people in that know what you're saying. Neil Bush and the insurance can deal with that at 20 seconds. Well, there are people that say that there is a massive, massive insurance payout that was here. And it goes right to this... 5.68 billion. Correct are and it goes right to five point six eight

billion for it. And it goes to this exactly the point he's making here. It is been. Perfect. So five point six eight billion dollars. Can you find out who which insurance companies pay that? Do you know who it is or no? No, not of him. But I Swiss re Swiss re pays out five point six eight billion dollars. That's a reinsurance company. That's not an insurance company. Right. That's a reinsurance.urance company. That's not an insurance company. That's a re-insurance company. They're changing money like mad in this scheme. Because no company's gonna take on that much risk, right?

I mean, you're in the... No, that's not what I'm saying, though. That's not what I'm saying. Listen, one of my clients bought a $250,000 insurance policy. Okay. But he died within the two years in contestability. Contestability, yeah. The insurance company spent nearly $25,000

on higher investigators, okay? They investigated this thing and realized it's suicide. Guess what, they never paid out the quarter million dollars. Insurance companies don't just pay out $5.68 billion without hiring the best investigators to prevent them from paying that money. These guys' job is to hire to prove that, nope, this doesn't, like accidental insurance

is the most waste of money insurance you'll ever buy, because insurance companies can always make the argument. So, to pay, for somebody to pay $5.68 billion or Swiss free, you know. You'd have to have that coming out of another pocket. And the 9-11 commission even identified as true, the put options where billions, not billions, millions were made on betting that the airliners

and other corporations inside the towers would go down and value dramatically the next day. And they said, oh, this is true, but it wasn't inside or trading because it didn't lead to the footsteps of Osama bin Laden or Al-Qaeda. Let's stay at the bank. Where did it lead?

It led right to the Deutsche Bank, Alan Dulles. I want you to finish your thought. You had a question for her. So, let's stay at the tree that we're on right now. So, Silverstein buys the WTC complex. 125 million levers it up, not unusual in commercial real estate. But certainly unusual, basically on the size of this. And then he goes and gets the terrorist insurance. Do you, do you have that?

Yeah, I have something close to it. The WTC leaseholder by terrorism insurance just before. This is by a fact checker. Just note that up at the top. Can you zoom out so I can read it? This is just fact check. Yeah, just make it, that's fine. Make it zoom in a little bit. I'll start the other way. Zoom in a little bit. Okay. So long standing Erdman legend hold that World Trust and the leaseholder Larry Lipsman for you, or just took out terrorism insurance just months before 9-11 attacks. Okay, go a little lower so we can read the rest.

World Trade Center mixture. Okay, so the fact that they say mixture, that by itself by snopes in its little disturbing. Okay, go a little lower, go a little lower. Some of the most persistent contemporary elections by nine element attacks involved people, supposedly benefiting fornall jump event. Whether it's a group of world trade and workers or

fortunately called in sick and escaped certain debts that day or investors who purchase bought put options on the United American Airlines stock immediately before the tax does profiting when the prices of the stock fell afterwards American business member so famously signed a 99 year lease on the world trade center complex in June of 2000 and one two months before the tax okay this is disturbing so let me be sure there's the insurance underwriting member the underwriters are called in on the claim exactly that's the

underwriters underwrite the policy but then the underwriters with muscle are called in on the big claims so there is silverstein to ensure is policy that for uh... for to it is a pretty that for fortuitously, fortuitously, fortuitously, cover terrorism. After 9-11, Silverstein took the insurance company to court claim he didn't want to pay. He should be paid double because there were two attacks. He won. There it is. Wildest story.

Obviously contains elements of fact. It's also partly fiction most notably the implication made via the use of scare quotes around the world okay that part you don't have credibility with that one because that's just a mean that does will keep going keep going keep going keep going well you have Larry Silverstein's face up there note that he was on pbs america rebuildss program saying that Regarding building sevens collapse. He says well there there's been such terrible loss of life

Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it And so they pulled the building and we watched excuse me and so No, they have that recording multiple people have that recording off of all the fire radios They gave the order and we and and and the building came down yet pull it so uh... he says why didn't mean pull the building i meant pull the fireman out of the building will guess what the fireman were told not to go into that building and fight that fire they were told it was going to come down on its own

so they they they were held back along with news reporters uh... and and people first responders like Kevin McPatt and who says, like a train running under my feet, the explosions going on before Building Seven came down. Sir, how convinced are you that this was an inside job? I don't want to use the inside. Go along, I'm reading this. Okay, I can talk.

Go ahead. I want to know how convinced you are. We know that the twin towers and building seven were blown up. Okay. We, and that the official narrative is a lot explosive demolition, shaped cutter charges in the case of each of the buildings. How can you start you? I'm 9 or 11 was an inside job.

I just want to be very clear. The question we have to ask to answer that is, did Alkaida have access to three of the most highly secure buildings outside the Pentagon? Probably not. That leaves most of us very convinced that this was an inside job with security like Securecom's Stratisec involved up until the day of 9-11.

So you're 100%, you're 90%, you're 80%. How can 100%? You're 100%, you're 90%, you're 80%. How can 100%? You're 100%. There is no doubt. So you could not be convinced that this was not an inside job. No amount of evidence. You'd have to show me an explanation for all the evidence

that we just went through and a whole lot more that we don't have time to get into on this short set. Oh, you're dug in on this. No amount of evidence will say. No, I got it. This is not, well, you just said 100%, sir. Yeah. But you're saying I'm dug in. I'm amount of evidence i got a lot of this is not more you just had a hundred percent sir yet but you're saying i'm dug in i'm saying no you just said a hundred percent

no but using your words nobody has showed me any respond any uh... evidence to suggest that the evidence that we've been showing by millions in the nine eleven truth movement now that's censored on the mainstream media that the government won't talk about that the congressman won't investigate

that there's no rittry there's no rebuttal they just attack straw man arguments entities like popular mechanics for instance snopes et cetera it's it's a pack of lies we've been fed a false narrative and we've swallowed it. Hooked line in sinker, but there are 3,500 architecture and engineers.

That's 30,000 years of technical credibility, staking their reputation, saying, I saw the evidence. I looked at it. People who take the time to review the evidence in the documentary, 9-11 Explosive Evidence, experts speak out out all come away agreeing i've given uh... uh... seven hundred presentations around the world twenty four countries a hundred american cities i always do a show of hands those who come in skeptical

leave convinced that's what it shows and so yes i'm a hundred percent can be but that makes me uncomfortable and hear me out all right if you set up ninety nine% convinced I'd say all right cool But when you're a hundred percent convinced of something you generally just don't know you have a theory This is not a fact evidence. No, no, no, no, no, you don't have full on a hundred percent evidence I do you do You have not seen the documentaries. I don't care You have to do the research. I have as much of.

Or you're only ever be 50% convinced. Once you look at the, I came in here completely open-minded. Okay, I want to hear what you have to say. And you've been very technical and I appreciate that. And BizDog's probably following you. I'm a caveman with a suit on. I'm trying to keep up with you buddy. But when you say you're 100% convinced of this,

that means no counter argument could convince you of that. Let's, let's, let's, no. I could be reduced to 99 if you give me a counter argument. Do you have one? I'm not. This is not my ex. Well, maybe the question would be what's been one that you have been asked that you've been startled. Has anything been asked where you've been startled or you took you from 100 to 99?

Because I got one for you. Oh, okay. Here's a question for you. How many people, if this was an inside job, or this was a setup? By the way, this stuff that you just said right now, very disturbing, okay. Commentary here, everybody is saying the same exact thing is well, very disturbing with the fact

that we're talking about the insurance. And if you go a little bit more deeper into this, by the way, on what happened to 1994 attack, where the guy got $900 million with this is kind of a business model. And that was the Ramsey attack. Yeah, so and then you go into a world trade center which is estimated the cost of rebuilding

a world trade center which is in 2004 was estimated $9 billion made Silverstein's court strategy of virtual necessity and this keeps going. So we can take this insurance side. This by itself is disturbing and concerning. Let's set this aside. I think the audience watching this, you ought to go take a look at this.

Please text me the article right now. I just asked you for it. Here's the one part I have a little bit of skepticism and I would like your help with this here. So how many people, I asked a question for you. If I came up to, I give you $10 million. Tell me how you would go about doing this and you were about to get into it And you're going to tell me all this other stuff, right?

Let's stick to that question, okay? if I wanted to do this Inside job the 85-battle elevator workers nine months prior to that They took it away from oldest I went to ace fine it went from public to private fine Silverstein buys it in June, fine. He buys terrorist insurance in June, great. This is very, very concerning all these things adding up. How many people who are doing the job

to set up the explosive in the corner would be sitting there saying, what the hell am I doing? Okay, what am I really doing? Why am I doing this? Okay, and how much would I do that for knowing I'm setting up the place to come down? How many total people, if they really wanted to do this,

this is my number one question. How many total people who really wanted to do, who are totally open to doing this? How many would need to know? When they're sitting because the people that actually were involved with these elevator workers, they're sitting there watching the saying, holy shit, I'm a part of that.

I contributed to that. How many total people would that need to be to accomplish this mission impossible? Mission that we have here. How many? Fair question. This is not my area of expertise. I'm an architect. Give me a high low. It would take dozens of 400. Can we say 100? I don't know, probably not. But it would,

that they had nine months to work on it undercover. They were moving tenants in and around the World Trade Center tower. Black operations like this are highly compartmentalized. The vice president didn't even know about the Manhattan Project. People didn't know that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were planning a false flag operation against Cuba where they were going to blow up a plane full of college students. They brought that to Kennedy. He said, no.

This was only declassified much, much later. There are things we don't know about our government. I'm not a British in Northwood, we can get into that. You're talking about their conscience. These people, these are some of our Muslims. No, no, no, no, it's not what I'm asking. I don't even want it to go into conscience yet.

I'm asking you very technical question. If you, this is your world you're in, you're an architect, 30 plus years. You started an organization that's not got 30, the 3000 plus architects and engineers, you're the founder and CEO that later on you were fired because of Spike Lee, who, you know, the PR came in and said we can have a guy like this, they removed you from the documentary, they cut you out, et cetera, et cetera, fine.

So this is your world, okay. My world is a different world, you can ask me, my world, I'll give you my expertise council to you, right? But I'm here having you, because you're the expert. I'm not the expert on this topic, right? Realistically, if we had nine months, we got six months, how many total people? You said dozens. Can we say 50? Okay. Okay. Let's just say let's play with that. 50 people. So these 50 people wherever they were, when they saw it go down, they're gonna be sitting there guilty. They're gonna read the stories of kids

who are now fatherless on the cover of People magazine. They're gonna see wives crying, mothers crying, fathers crying, co-workers crying, seeing the country that gave them all their freedoms in shambles. We look like idiots, we look like morons. You can't be that evil. You have to now go to fight this.

The only way we can fight yourself, your conscious with some like this is probably drinking. You're probably going to be doing drugs. You're probably going to be smoking weed. You're probably going to be doing some things on the site. I'm actually not being funny. I'm actually being very serious. That's how it works. You would be full on suicide.

No, no, what I'm saying too, when your conscience are, you're trying to escape. Most people drink alcohol because they feel guilty. They did something. They want to escape a pain that they're so. So now when you drink, what happens? You're sitting at the bar. One of the 50 is sitting at a bar.

He's like, man, is everything okay, bro? Maybe you should stop drinking, bro. The bartender says, Johnny, is everything okay, bro? Maybe we should stop drinking, bro. The bartender says, Johnny, that's enough. Maybe you gotta go home today, bro, that's enough. What's up, what's going on with you? I can't tell you, bro, I can't tell you. Okay, all right, so he goes home. Out of the 50 men who were involved in some like this,

most men are naive and anything they know, they'll come home and they'll tell no wives. And wives are gonna sit there and say, babe, what are you talking about? Babe, I feel guilty, babe, I don't know what to do. I don't know who to tell. Out of those 50 people, let's assume half of them were married. Out of those half that were married 25, they told their wives something that happened. Say half of them got a divorce. The wife who left them or got a divorce, she has no loyalty to the secrets. She then tells her friends why you got a divorce,

and she says, listen, this is what I found out about him. Eventually, this thing's gonna leak to the world because the 50 who know really, it's really 5,000 people to 50,000 people that have been told this story, that know that Johnny told Larry, told Mary, told Jackie, told Billy, that the reason why Johnny and Mary didn't work out is because he didn't,

he was working on world, we don't know any of those stories. So do we kill all these people? Who would they go to? CNN? I mean, CNN and every major media, it's not CNN, podcasts, shows, articles, magazines, writers, so I'm in a shooster. A publisher's gonna take it.

We're talking about the crime of the century Which has been covered up from one end to the other have a hard time with that and you're also assuming that these people Who planted these explosives are like you and me with a conscience no everybody else can these are cold-hearted The elevator workers are cold-hearted, but it's not the pop-up readers But but I've met who knows who was in there. We don't even know if they're Americans. Yeah. They may be foreign agents.

We don't know what their ideological dedication and devotion is or what their mission is. It's obviously not to help the Markovs. I've interviewed 15 CIA agents on the podcast, okay? And you know, one of the best things that the former chief of the Skies officer, Jonah Mendez said, I said, what are the qualities of being a great CIA agent? Charming charismatic, great sales for some persuasive attractor, da da da da da da da da da, competitive pop-up,

only one thing, I said, what's that? When you do save the free world, you don't brag about it to anybody, okay? Well, every one of the CIA agents that I sit on and talk to, they can't help themselves. Not that they don't say everything. We've had the director of CIA at our office before, 11 years ago. We've had a lot of interesting things

that have former director of CIA. We've interviewed former director of CIA's. We've interviewed the former director of Mossad. We've interviewed a lot of interesting people, right? Man can't keep a secret for too long. Man cannot. We don't have that ability long term. We somehow, some way eventually,

want to vary, vary, vary, vary, vary, a few people know how to do that. And that very, very, is not 1%. It's 1% of 1% of 1% of 1% of 1%. That's not a lot of people, okay? Somehow, some way you're gonna be feeling guilty about the fact that you're carrying something this heavy and you don't wanna go to bed,

you don't wanna go to your death bed with that. Now, you're speculating, and I appreciate it. I am speculating. I am speculating. And it's a good speculation, and I don't disagree with anything that you have said. But what you, but I wasn't speculating. I was giving cold hard evidence from US agencies, from video evidence on our documentary, eyewitness testimony, which irrefutably and overwhelmingly proves the explosive demolition of these

towers. None of that is impacted by your speculation and your correct speculation that somebody would have talked. I don't know about that. I do know that I've given you evidence that in a court of law would bring the perpetrators to justice for the crime of the century. So and it's not just me. This evidence has been assembled from the 9-11 truth movement, research, millions of them all together, screaming from the rooftops not getting a word in except on C span mainstream media where Washington Journal interviewed me for 45 minutes.

Guess what? That video became the most watched video ever on their program, more than Obama and others, which were setting records. And yet they haven't invited me back. So you see, there must be an arm of control over the media that you and i can't even comprehend and i don't think we can comprehend the control that they can exert over individuals who who are told that they're that their children will be murdered if they open their mouth at all. say 70% of that 50 but the other 15% is probably single and they don't have kids.

i understand what you're saying i've been interviewed mobsters, every living mobster that was a power player that they've sat down right in front of me from San Mita Bullgarano to Michael, to Philly and Eddie who will mask his face because he had done surgery and the only person he agreed to do an interview was with me. As long as I distorted his face so people couldn't see it, we did the interview, we conducted the interview, we did a lot of different people. I know some people who live some dark lives, okay, dark lives. It's just a matter of time until conscious, there's only so much you can do with money.

But I've got an idea. Okay, tell me. This is important. For those of you out there who know something, contact Patrick, bet David at value attainment and blow the whistle. This is your single opportunity, that best opportunity that I've ever heard,

because he will err at. Patrick at valuetaiman.com. Patrick at valuetaiman.com. If you're true whistleblower and you were one of the people that you worked there, okay? If you're saying that person exists and you were one of the people that you worked there, okay? If you're saying that person exists, I want to talk to you. I want to talk to you. If you're working, you got proof all of that, let's talk about it.

Because for me, here's what I asked yesterday. So we're doing a podcast prep meeting. And I asked the question, I said, how important is it for us to know this? What do you mean? How important is it as an American to know? Listen, what the hell happened with 9-11? I'm asking an open ended question from everybody in the room. You know what everybody said? We have to know what happened. We're Americans, we owe the truth. You know, we deserve the truth. Okay, I agree. So, you know, I can more and more and more,

you get deeper into this. The more and more you say, okay, this is pretty dark on what happened here. However, why haven't many whistleblowers come out? Why? You know, we lead the world in whistleblowers. Americans, I can think to be a whistleblower. Come out. Oh, you're a whistleblower. As long as the right political side is going to defend you. So the only reason why somebody wouldn't come out on this is why. I can't think of any. It goes back to motive and why. I can't think of any. It goes back to motive and why. I can't think of any. You know, you're red sparrow. You're familiar with red sparrow, right?

Okay. What's red sparrow? Russian, you know, beautiful women who would go and it was their, you know, secret intelligence where they would work and get powerful men to flip. How do you flip men? Historically. It's the easiest way to flip men. How do you get information out of men? It's very simple, okay?

You got women, compromising and threatening. You got threatening about some information about them they can release and do something to the people they love the most. It's that simple. This is why a lot of times if you really want to recruit somebody that's going to be an agent or we're here in the movies, you recruit somebody that's got no kids, no nothing.

This is why people who go front lines that maybe work high, high, high level jobs, delta, things like that, they would like you to be single with no kids. And preferably not a lot of people you love. It makes it a lot easier because you're a little colder, you know, you're less easier to be compromised I'm not convinced all those 50 people that worked or you know dozens of people that worked on that were not Uncompromisable. I don't know about that again purely odds speculation and then how much to how much would it take to buy you How much would it take to buy your conscious a million dollars dollars, 10 million dollars? Because for me and Patrick is dead on here. Dead on, there's the human element

and then there's the technical element. You are all about the technical element, respect. The human element is telling me this don't add up because there's the before and there's the after, hey, how would you like to make a million dollars? Dude, sign me up. I'm struggling, what can I do? Okay, great, we're gonna need you to do this. All of you can act in unison. You're gonna put the explosives

All right, this building that building. All right great. We're gonna do this. All right cool Then this happens these image of this happens. I'm sorry I don't care how cold-hearted and alone you are when you see the people that die that people are jumping off the buildings that America is under attack, that like your conscious is going to eat it you, no amount of money is gonna make it easy for you to go to sleep at night. We'd hear stories of people committing suicide,

just basically not wanting to live anymore because they sold themselves for a million dollars. That to me is the part that's like, I don't get it. I know that you're kind of dismissing the human element and you're more focusing on the technical element. To me, that is the biggest story here is, how would you possibly keep a secret and live with yourself if you were one of those purposes?

Just so you know, just so I make myself very clear. I don't at all want to get to a point where people think I'm 100% either. I'm not. I'm not. All I'm doing is speculating. Well, that is all I'm doing. And I'm totally cool with someone saying, I'm not 100% and he's 100%.

A jury does my problem. Okay, but a jury does not speculate. They look at evidence and our 60 exhibits of the evidence has been given to the US attorney in Manhattan to be given to a special grand jury. And the Lawyers Committee for 9-11 Inquiry has done this work. And we're making a film 9-11 crime scene to courtroom to be introduced as a supplement. And that film along with those 60 exhibits of evidence are evidence.

Now, put yourself in the place of the grand jurors who are asked by the prosecuting attorney to evaluate and issue indictments if you can. Based on what? Speculation or evidence. They're going to do it based on evidence. They're going to appreciate your speculation. They're going to have some of their own, but it's the evidence, which we should be spending the last half hour talking about, not speculation. That's what's on the table here. That's what's going to convince a grand jury to indict people at top levels of government who planned and executed in

industry, who planned and executed the murder of 3,000 people. We've got to get to the bottom, not just 3,000, but 2 million in Afghanistan and Iraq. This started a 6.5 trillion dollar global war on terror. We've got to get to the bottom of it our civil liberties have been stripped with a patriot act the military commissions act the national defense authorization act of twenty twelve we can be arrested without a right to a lawyer a trial a jury we can be assassinated we can that that's legal now tortured uh... so uh... there's lots of reasons uh... compelling us to look deeper at this evidence instead of trying to dismiss it.

Can we talk about your motive? Yeah, we'll get into that here in a minute. I wrote something here that just topped us off, finished us off, and in time I'm going to go to you. So we're having dinner with a friend last week. Maybe you remember this and The conversation came up about Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton, okay? On who Bill Clinton is who Hillary Clinton is, you know, how were they etc. etc. I Went to a funeral my father-in-law passed away and we went to a funeral in Hope, Arkansas

Which is where Bill Clinton grew up. You went to you know junior high school etc. etc. And he you know baby of the year all these awards that he won, and you go see the house. Very interesting. So then we go to, you know, this place, funeral home. And you owner this funeral home, I go up to him as a soul. Let me ask you a question. Bill Clinton, how do you feel about it? I like him.

Brilliant. Yeah. Do you like him or do you love him? We love him. How about the town? There's a town love him. The town loves him. Like loves him loves him. Oh, we love him. Is he them. How do I have a town? There's a town love them. The town loves them. Like loves them loves Oh, we love them. Is your womanizer? Absolutely. Wait, he is 100% you're serious. Yeah, so let me get to straight You like him. You love him and you're saying absolutely. He's a womanizer. This is yeah. Do you know who he's married to?

It says if you were married to Hillary, you would also be a womanizer. I said, okay, fair enough I said so go a little bit deeper for this. He says look Here's what most of you guys haven't seen. This is what I've seen. I've seen him do a lot of funerals here for his family, because his family was here. His uncle one time, he's doing a eulogy, betnitlers here, all this stuff.

And he says, Hilary was on the side. She didn't talk to one of us. She didn't greet one of us. She was in pleasant one of us. She dropped F-bonds left and right. And at the end, when he was done reading the eulogy and they're gonna go to the plot, he said, don't expect me to be here. I'm going to go back and you can do this. Okay, no problem. Now,

I don't know the story. The story that's being told by somebody else to me says, man, she was the biggest. I've never seen anybody like this before. Fine, no problem. The story last week is a different story than this one. So the last day or two of Clintons being president, I think Bill pardoned 300 people. Some number like that is how many he pardoned. They said the pardon what they were charging that you had to go through a person that person's name is Hillary was $50,000 a pardon. Okay. You paid Hillary $50,000. You got pardoned. And that's how the number was. And the way they did it, they did through charity and all this other stuff where pardoned was $50,000 through charity.

Now, do I know for a fact this is a true story? No. But when you hear five of these stories, being told by five different people, you hear 50 of them, a hundred of, five hundred and five thousand of them? Yes, what? It's probably she is who they say she is, right?

Okay. So what I'm trying to say with my example here Some people are commenting say because they killed all the people if you kill those people the surviving family It's gonna go and say what happened? How did it get killed so sad all this that there's gonna be a lot of things to look into That's where I kind of look at this and I say well I think more people would be talking about this but Tom for you This is a topic you've done a lot of due diligence on. You're hearing Richard speak here.

How are you processing all of this stuff? Well, I have no, I have no lack of respect for the architects and people that are out here. What I get to is WTC, I have seven. I've always, it's always been hard for me to believe, WTC7, and what you've described there. I mean, the British broadcast at a half hour early

before it actually went down, there's all these things around WTC7 that causes a fair-minded person just to sit back and go, wow, wait a minute. And so that's always there, and I appreciate your evidence. I'd like to ask you something. Architects get consulted, not just to design, you know, I am paid to design the

most amazing buildings out there, but also to get rid of them. And they say, hey, we're going to take down this ancient sports stadium. And they, they talked to the structural engineers to find the key, good columns, but beams in the building to, yes, target. This is your world, and I'm not, I'm not testifying against that. But the structural engineers and architects go hand in hand because the architect brings you these beautiful designs. The structure engineer tells you if it can come true with all the stuff that we have to work with these days, right?

And the permits and the code and everything you have to go through. So wouldn't you ask, you get to a point, it's like when the police see massive frauds or massive thefts, the first thing the police always say is, where's the crew? Who could have pulled this off? And they have a feeling about what organizations or people have the kind of brains, clout, intelligence, access, and that's good police work to figure out, okay, who could have robbed the museum this is? Who's the the crew this wasn't rookies and they start asking themselves these questions did you and these and these other architects

who know structural engineers and I know the structural engineers are part of these there a thousand signatures over a hundred of didn't you ever get to the point and this isn't the speculation to say wow what kind of a crew this would take in? And wouldn't some of you said, hey, I was part of the kingdom being torn down in Seattle. Boy, the crew was like that, that, that, that, that does. It doesn't matter, fact that one of the technical explosive loaders who brought down the kingdom is in our documentary, 9-11 explosive evidence.

It's just that it looks exactly like a controlled demolition. Because that was a flawed building, by the way, And it had to come down in a very special way because it was actually a dangerous building. I read a little bit about that. So it's interesting that one of those people was there. Didn't you guys get to a point and say, wow, where's the crew? You know, who knows enough about this to do it? Not really foreign agents that worked

with an elevator company inside. Wasn't there a thinking about this? Oh, yeah, in fact, Kevin. And how do you get rid of them? Because remember, I was all about that. Well, I don't know that, but Kevin Ryan documents in his book, Another 19 Suspects. He lays them out for you and their connections to NIST,

who has connections to Nanothermite. It's pretty incredible. Kevin Ryan is one of the major researchers in the country on this. David ray griffin's written fourteen books on the subject which it's been worth working for the gentleman and thoughts about who's responsible certain ruptured but you made a point there and i want to dig into it so okay that's a possible crew where did those those where did that crew come

from that was you're talking about the explosives loaders no no the first you said and r, another 19 suspects. Correct. Where did those 19 come from? These are top individuals, including CEOs of corporations in the World Trade Center, whose many of whose people were moved out of the World Trade Center prior to 9-11, interestingly. So others were sacrificed.

So in fact... Can't her fits your old up there? And... Full company. And in the floors that were hit by the airplanes, he documents that five floors above and below, roughly, in the north and south towers were retrofitted with fireproofing upgrades in the year or so before 9-11. So was that an opportunity to place fluid-applied nanothermite? Because we know it's fluid because it's dual-layered, red and gray.

And there are these tiny chips that we talked about being peer-reviewed in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal called Active Thermitic Materials in the World Trade Center Dust. So, he invites us to look at some of these characters, who, in fact, the the warden if you will of Iraq Did I didn't forget his name? He Paul Bremer was brought on with the CEO of one of these corporations in the in the World Trade Center brought on the day after 9-11 to finger Osama bin Laden and then he's made the the Iraq Osama bin Laden. And then he's made the Iraq leader, if you will, than the there's a word for that.

So he's in charge of the reconstruction and after we invade Iraq. So anyway, he's a very suspicious individual. They're numerous. Mayor Giuliani has his fingers all over this. Cheney was put in charge of the tripod to exercise, which brought hundreds and hundreds of state, local and government officials to Pier 92 in New York and in a drill the day before 9-11. And guess what, when Building 7 went down, all of the responsibility was transferred over to that. Set of operatives and agency leaders who took over the follow-up, if you will, to the attacks.

Mr. Gage, did you just say, did you just say Giuliani had his finger all over this as well as Cheney? did you just say, do you just say Giuliani had his finger all over this as well as Cheney? Did you just say that? Many people have fingered them specifically as what? As involved in the planning and execution and the cover-up of these attacks.

Are you one of the people that believe Rudy Giuliani and even Dick Cheney were involved in it? Sure, I believe that. Really? Because I have heard enough about it. For instance, so you believe Rudy Giuliani played a part in 9-11. America's mayor on 9-11 was the person, the culprit. He had to be. Oh, really? Yeah. Please explain. So, and there are people

who have researched his complicity. For one, he had four knowledge of the buildings, the twin towers coming down and said, we got noticed that they're going to come down. Well, wait a minute. What about the 343 firefighters? They didn't get noticed that the building was coming down so they could get out of there. Only he had it. This is on. So what are the chances that Rudy Giuliani had a major part

in 9-11? That's very high. Very high. Yeah. Richard, can I ask? I don't know. I don't know how you, because I was asked to do the research. It's going to help you out of it.

I'm going to. I'm going to go. So I was going from the technical research where you've got, you know, the chemical analysis of the dust and all the things are there, that you're referring to and was commonly referred to. Okay, here's evidence. We put it under microscope with spectrocope, whatever you do, and we test it, we find it.

Okay. But where you just went, I was just asking, hey, where do you think, where's a crew that would know how to do this? And I think we've kind of jumped over to something, and I want to ask you how you make that mental jump. Because if you back end every conspiracy theory, then I could tell you that JFK was killed by Castro of the CIA, albeit Jay, the free Mason's and Sam Giacana because Kennedy humped his girlfriend, right?

And it becomes ridiculous. And suddenly you back into it, well, naturally, that means that Kennedy must have been shot 64 times from 32 angles because all these people are upset. No, it's impossible. So how do you jump mentally from a dignified group of people that understand structural engineering and architecture to say, okay, where's the people that would know how to do this?

Where's the crew and jump all the way over to people like Giuliani and Cheney and everyone else? It seems to go from technical stuff that's pretty tight to all the way over there to almost like the Kennedy conspiracy list, respectfully. Do you see what I'm asking? How do you mentally make that jump? Well, you research David Ray Griffin, you research another. Which is the spark that Kevin and the gentleman

in the first group that sparked you. That was your triggering moment, correct? Yeah, in 2006. And then, you know, there's the evidence, which is overwhelming, irrefutable, dispositive body of evidence for the explosive demolition of the towers. That's what we specialize in because we're technical people. But we, as Pat said, you can't help, but do peripheral research done by others, read it, and come to the

conclusions that high-level individuals, specifically Cheney, who's put in charge of this tripod to biochemical attack drill on Pier 92, the day before 9-11, and you can't avoid this type of peripheral, circumstantial evidence and come to the conclusion that, A, this was an inside job, B, a top levels of government had to be involved because C, among the becausees, the 9-11 Commission report, fingered the Bush administration, the, uh, Norad, the Air Force, the CIA, and the FBI as lying to them. This is the top leaders, Thomas Keane and the other, uh, leader of the 9-11 commission. Uh, uh, so, so when they say that in their book, publicly, uh, Max Cleelan, resigning from

the 9-11 Commission, saying, this is a national scandal. This was set up. It's the most partisan commission ever assembled. So we have whistleblowers who were leaders of the 9-11 Commission and who wrote the report, not them, Phil Abzelecow. Phil Abzelecow is a Bush insider who wrote his PhD thesis on the creation and maintenance of public myth.

You start to look at all this stuff and you begin to form opinions which are based on facts, can you prove all of the complexities? No, I don't even try to. But I can prove that these towers were blown up by incendiaries and explosives, and that's all we need to prove. I want to I want to do a couple things here. One, I want to show those two clips on how with WTC seven comes down to, I want to play a clip from Donald Rumsfeld. But before we do so, let me let me read a couple of superchats of people involved here, what they said,

just so you know what the audience is thinking. So once Scott Rodriguez 50 bucks you demand Scott He's an insider with us the jet fuel completely burned off right when the plane hit and exploded on impact throw gas or jet fuel on an Open flame and see if there's any residual fuel left there won't be the claim that the fuel ran down the elevator shaft as false Okay, so that's got well even this technology is that 90% of the jet fuel burned up outside the building the rest was gone in 10 minutes all it did was light fires according to nist so that's the official and that's according to nist yeah so if there's anybody that wouldn't you know claim that would be them but yeah and so fuel is just kerosene burns according to its manufacturer 600 degrees Fahrenheit that's that's

The fuel is just kerosene. It burns according to its manufacturer 600 degrees Fahrenheit. That's nothing compared to hot fires. All the fuels and all the fuels that end with een, right? Kerosene, everything, all those things, they atomize very quickly and they make. And that's why you saw the big fireball outside the tower. Adonization, yes.

Smell, Smetley Butler, the third, anyone with demolition background or training can spot nano thermite from aley Butler, the third, anyone with demolition background or training can spot nano thermite from a mile away, the thickness, power, and speed people in the streets running for their lives were running from nano thermite. What do you say to that? Well, they're running from the major dust clouds, which were extremely hot. The heat was incredible.

In the, 2800 degree temperatures, documented by Bechtel and others after the towers came down. Now when the towers came down, the mechanical action of the collapse would surely put out the fires that were there. And yet we have these 2800 degree temperatures. They put a lake of fire. They couldn't get it off. They're pulling up in the crab claw excavators, beams that are dripping with molten metal. There's no official, and there's photographs of this.

There's no official accounting for this in the narrative at all. They can't, so they deny it. They put it down. John Gross, the pub, NIST Co-Project Leader says, oh, there's pools of molten iron. And then we show in our documentary dozens of first responders talking of molten iron, and then we show in our documentary dozens of first responders

talking about molten iron and the incredible documentation by, do we have a mute on these buttons? I don't want to clear them. Push it aside. Okay, sorry about that, folks. Anyway, the documentation is incredible. And so we can speculate about the motives and the availability of these people to continue lying and wrestle with their conscience, but you can't deny any of the evidence that's there from these official agencies in particular and scientists like Worcester Polytechnic University that says silver dollar holes in the beams of Jonathan Barnett fire protection engineer who became one of the leaders of the FEMA report

saying that the ends of the beams were partly evaporated guess what it takes 4,000 degree temperatures to evaporate steel so even he is is is is there admitting unwittingly About the existence of these extreme temperatures. That was an insightful chat. What is the rest of the audience saying? Yeah, so the next one is what about the trillions that went missing the day before 9-11 That no one investigated after the towers went down. Yeah, this is Donald Rumsfeld who announced to the world that they still can't find $2.3 trillion. And the day later, where does the attack on the Pentagon occur in the investigative body of those researchers who were outing the Pentagon looking for that $2.3 trillion. Okay, so the next one is YouTube has many videos where people have this.

I think Paul, KOV, 12x, 12x is an insider as well, where people have taken the lives of their own innocent family members. A human element argument loses credibility when people can and have taken the lives of within their family. That may be right, but I don't know about 50 people to be able to do that. Okay, so let's go ahead and look at this clip here from WTC7. If you want to just press play so we can take a look at this and Richard, you can narrate this well. You'll notice the East Penthouse falls first.

It's an isolated explosion, independent of the controlled demolition. There's no evidence under it that's carrying through all the way to the bottom as NIST claims. If you can show it again, you can see the upper part, right? Loop that. The upper part falls just a half a second prior to the overall. That completely wipes out the NIST theory that this instability traveled from the left to the right east to west. And so what we see is the West Penthouse in screen while falling a half a second prior indicating that the twenty core columns beneath it all gave way at once, which also betrays NIST's lie about how it came down.

And then the overall building comes down smoothly, symmetrically, at free fall acceleration, at least a third of its seven second fall even admitted by NIST, free fall. They admit that. They denied it at first saying that, gosh, freefall, if it came down at freefall, that would mean there be no structure underneath Shampson's Sunday of NIST says. Well, wait a minute. They admit later, being embarrassed in a public conference, that it did in fact come down by freefall. So they admit that in their final report, but they don't admit the implications of that. Where did the 80 columns in this building go

so that this building could fall as fast as a bowling ball falling out of the sky? They must have been removed. They could only have been removed by explosives. And... How should it have fallen? If it's not a how should... We never ever in history lost a skyscraper due

to fires the steel frame fireproof skyscraper never never has never happened this is completely unprecedented and this even admits that. I want to keep hearing them Tom please continue. I asked the question how should it have fallen. You're saying never in history has a skyscraper. Yeah, so now we're speculating. So if column 79 failed, it's in the northeast corner of the building. Can you imagine how it should have fallen if it were to fall?

It would have fallen over because somebody kicks you in the knee. You fall toward the injury. So that's how it could have fallen, were it to fall, which is completely unprecedented. The age you are, no offense, and what you come from, certainly you know about the first interstate fire in Los Angeles, like 88. Very hot, very large and very long-lasting fire in that building, no collapse. And the building is still here. It's no longer the first interstate building, but it's still here. There's over 50 buildings that have suffered major fires.

But this was one that was particularly hot. I remember reading about this, that this was so... 1400 degrees Fahrenheit probably. How high is this? How many 62 stores? Can you show the picture of it so people can see it while... 88. Take a look at that. Just one of many, many, many examples. And after 9.11 we have the Grenville Tower in London, which was completely engulfed from top to bottom. And Dubai, we have. How about a take a look right there? The sprinkler system was 90% installed, but mostly in operative. So there is no internal water, there is no sprinkler systems, there is no way for the fire department to get left. And still

it has passed 21 floors. And so they went through this and the building still standing still there in LA and that was one of the hottest, uncontained, unsprinkled, in other words internal systems. How long was the far last? Trying to find it now. I'm just curious in how long the far last it so you would assume the when was when was World Trade Center one and two the one when were they built? Can you can you can you go to it? They topped out in 73 hmm and they were the tallest buildings in the world. I thought there was a big bicentennial thing and they were stuff going on in 76er. 73?

Well 73 is one, but I remember a big bicentennial thing it was in, you know, 1776, 200 years. Richard, have there been any other case examples of planes crashing into major towers? Well, the Empire State Building got hit by a B25 bomber. All the fuel went into the building, no collapse. Well, the Empire State Building got hit by a B25 bomber. All the fuel went into the building, no collapse. You're saying the Empire State?

That was before sprinklers. The Empire State Building was hit by a B25 bomber. And it's 1945. I'm not sprinklers in the building either. I'm not laughing because it's funny. I'm laughing because, okay, I'm a. There's no sprinklers in the building either. I'm not laughing because it's funny. I'm laughing because, okay, I'm a math guy. Your insurance guy would actuary. Life-setter means all about math and actuary, right?

A freaking bomber hits the Empire State Building. That's a military plane. That's a military massive. I've seen hits the Empire State Building and it still doesn't collapse In a building that was built the structure was not When was the Empire State Building built? They were there any video of that Well, this was 1945 there was video in 40 it's honest to grab back in the days when they were used to grab the structural engineers designed those buildings much stronger actually than they do today.

You can go to the left. Sure, they're not sure. They're not sure. There's a million bricks in the foundation. And go to the right. Anything in recent memory in the last 20, 30, 40 years, not 1945, anything where a plane has hit a building, anything recent?

There's small planes that have hit building. But massive planes, nothing. Let's take a look at this. It's a big plane, man. That ain't a big plane dog That's a small plane. Well compare to let's let's be super clear here That ain't a fucking big plane now. Let's talk about the small plane the 760s. How many people fit in that plane? You could probably fit. Okay, John's killing the structural plane plane

Yeah, not a success Build it to built on old standards. The impersonal. Yes, that's not a very line building. As in jar. Let me tell you about the plane that tower. John scaling was the structural engineer of the World Trade

Center, Leslie Robertson worked under him. He designed he said, quote, he designed the building. The buildings to take a hit from not one, but two 707s, the largest at the time, which designed the building, the buildings to take a hit from not one, but two, seven oh sevens, the largest at the time, which carries the same kinetic force as seven, 67, because they travel faster.

Anyway, he said the problem would be that the fuel would dump into the building, but the building would still be there. So their intent was to protect it from such occurrences. How much bigger is the commercial airline planes than this B-52 bomber? They're bigger. Massively bigger. Yeah, not even close. Yeah.

Okay. But they're not, one of the same parts they're building buildings. They may not be a five or something. Yeah, but Adam, they're still two, okay, so if you think to say, to say in the history of mankind, no building collapsed you want.

That's collapsed because of fire. No, no, no, steel framed fireproofed building. That is an important distinction. We fireproof our buildings as insurance to keep fire from becoming an issue. And then we sprinkler them to keep it from becoming an issue. So that dual reason is the primary. Yeah, you can see it. If you watch a building being built,

you drive by every day and they're building a building, all of a sudden you notice the steel is covered with looks like foam. It's not foam, it's cement essentially. Right, but take care of your eye as you drive by and not being an informed person about these sorts of things. It's like, wow, looks like these steel is being covered with foam and other building it.

And so you see it every day, but you don't know you're seeing it, that's my point. And you're saying that's the fireproofing that goes on modern buildings. Yeah. By the way, I'm sure you're familiar with the story. A little over a year ago, here in Miami, right around the block from where I grew up, the Champlain towers came down

in Miami, right? There was no fire, there was no plane, it just frickin' collapse. I did research that one. Okay. Would you would you break that down? Yeah, what we have is Residence of the building looking down at the pool area Which is over on a deck which is over the garage and they start seeing sinkholes in in the Around the pool so and then and then what what's clear from the photographs is that the deck, the pool deck,

falls and is skewered by these remaining columns. There's a sheer failure. And then that transfers over to the building. So yes, it's clear that in that case we have a structural failure due to incredible lack of maintenance and be poor design because the steel didn't go across the deck and down into the column in both ways to decrease the probability of a sheer failure. I have to rediscover this because the comment of the day, uh, John Hernandez, Adam, the chief structural engineer of Tim Buck too. John Hernandez, you're the man. Yeah. Funny stuff. You're by the way, September 17, 2001, a statement issued on Al Jazeera by Ben Laden, saying the US government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion

It's enemy's attack. I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks Which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons And you said you also said in that quote. Oh, so I'm a bit like a lot of he next said I did not plan the reason attacks No, and he said if you want to assure the world that I did not plan the reason attacks. No. And he said, if you want, I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the reason attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. And then he says, if you want to know who's responsible, look to the government inside of your own country

who wants to make this century, a century of war between Christian and Islam. That's the rest of that quote. So if you could put people, actual, actual names at the top of the list, motives, not agencies, not, you know, smoky shadow characters, actual names. What names would you put at the top of the list for the culprits of 9-11? I gave you two. Go ahead. And the two you said, you said I haven't recalled the truth. Yeah.

You're saying the evidence shows which I am not the researcher of but I have looked that. That Chinese involved in this up to his neck. Okay. I doubt Bush is. He's not bright enough to be trusted with information like that. So Dick Cheney top of the list and then Giuliani. Giuliani is involved. I don't know what the level of involvement in. He's the mayor of New York. He was responsible for setting up this tripod to biochemical attack drill the day before 9-11, where all the responsibilities of the follow-up of the aftermath of the attack were trained.

Any other major figures that you would put on that list other than Cheney and Giuliani? Well, certainly Paul Bremer is involved. Okay. But see, now when you ask me that, all of a sudden now I am subject to you asking me about evidence. So I'd have to say that what I'm doing is speculating based on looking at other people's research that I encourage you to look at, if in fact you're really interested in getting to the bottom of what happened on 9-11 as you say you are, you will read another 19 by Kevin Ryan. You will read a new, 9-11, new Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin, 9-11 omissions and distortion by David Ray Griffin, 9-11 unmasked

by David Ray Griffin and the other nine books that he- Now go motive with Cheney with- So you're asking me to speculate- Look, yeah, well, I think this entire thing is a lot of speculation. I mean, there's no evidence isn't speculation. But I will say this, if you want to know the motive in a crime and you're a criminal investigator or an investigative journalist doing your work, what you do, a, first and foremost, perhaps, follow the money.

Correct. Excellent documentary by James Corbett at the Corbettreport.com 9-11 trillion follow the money. He uncovers the financial crimes which make the murders pay by comparison that are going on. The bonds that were all of a sudden irrelevant billions in bonds that were due on 9-11 didn't have to be paid. Those bonds, I understand, were used to bring down the Soviet Union and they didn't have to be paid for. So those were debts that didn't have to be followed up. There's a gold heist in the basement of the Twin Towers that's discussed.

There are many, many financial crimes. And then, so where does the money lead? And it's difficult and secuitous route, according to those who have followed that. But- Many of you say you got siphoned off to all the big defense contractors, right? Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Rtheon, all these groups, right? The Neocons were brought into the Bush administration on mass, a dozen of them. They developed a think tank called the Project for a New American Century, Pnec.org. In that key website where they put forth their goals.

They said, we've got to have regional hegemony in the Middle East. We've got to have a vast increase in the military budget. But absent a catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor, these goals will take a long, long time to realize. And Bush writes in his diary the next day, today we had our new Pearl Harbor. Can you do me a favor and play that, Donald Brumsville video, and then I got a question before we wrap up? Feel to adapt.

And the fact that they can fail and die is what provides the incentive to survive. But governments can't die. So we need to find other incentives for bureaucracy to adapt and improve. The technology revolution is transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old.

According to some estimates, we cannot track 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building, because it's stored on dozens of different technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible. This is the day before 9-11. Yeah. September 10, 2001. You're missing $2.3 trillion.

And those people who were looking at it got killed because the plane or whatever it was that attacked the Pentagon went right into that office. The technical stuff here Pat scares the hell out of me, right? The technical stuff. Going through this and listening to fair-minded scientists, architects, structural engineers talking about the stuff they found, the thing there, either it's there, it's not, you know, you know what I mean? And finding all this and finding the thermite, and then seeing the pictures and then hearing the workers directly say, we don't walk over there.

Why? My boot melted. It stuck to that and underneath was like a turtle shell of molten stuff. These are workers that were cleaning it up with the claws. And every now and then they said they would get to this turtle shell. And you never stepped on those. You had to be careful because your boot would melt to it,

because what was under it was still thermite that was just sitting there like lava under a volcano. So, okay, so you look at all that. But all the rest of the stuff here on this and follow the money, this and that, it still takes me back to, where's the real crew? And so, I see the technical evidence, I see WTC that was hard for me to swallow, but it's really tough for me to find the crew. And that's why I was asking you about your guys thinking about the crew.

And it's let us down multiple paths. Yeah, I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, do you have one angle? I wanna say, because we've hit that all the day three or four times, okay? And, but what I wanna do, I wanna ask this, this question. What other credible, just eventurers with you,

obviously with what he said, okay? So I've seen some of his stuff, but who else out there that's credible, just eventors with you, obviously with what he sent. Okay, so I've seen some of his stuff. But who else out there that's credible, that has a name that's got influence, agrees with your ideas of what happened here with 9-11? Cynthia McKinney, grilled Donald Rumsfeld, who, by the way, is obviously implicated in the planning and execution of of 9-11. She grilled him. She talked to him about the 2.3 trillion. She talked to him and asked him about the air drills that were happening.

Twenty of them on the day of 9-11 that took our fighter jets north to Canada and Alaska. Vigilant guardian for to name one of them. And then there were hijacking drills that also put blips of hijacking hijacked planes on the radars of the air traffic controllers, confusing them. Their public record saying, is this real world or is this the drill? Turn off the drill, stop these sins. And guess what? They didn't, those exercises didn't get stopped until after the Pentagon was hit. And by the way, it was hit, whatever hit it. It was an hour, we're told it was a plane. It may be a plane. I don't know. The question is, why was it flying unmoleasted in our skies for an hour after both towers were hit? So yes, Donald Rumsfeld, who's out on the lawn,

picking up pieces of airplanes, for some reason, and doing photo ops, was not in his office managing the attacks that day for some interesting reason we can speculate on. But who else? Who else? You just gave one name so far. Who else agrees with you? That's a leader of what? I'm sorry. Donald Rumsfeld certainly doesn't agree with me. He said the lady that questioned him. That's Kenny McKinney. Yeah. There are many actors for instance? Charlie Sheen, you know, some of those names, Ruffalo. Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, these are all people, Alex Baldwin, who have made positive comments, raised serious questions about the official narrative, have pointed to our work as being really important, but who have, well Ed Asner is a key.

God rest his soul, he narrated our documentary, the mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7, where we document all of the seven, it's in just 15 minutes, right on my website, RichardGaes911.org. He narrates this documentary that exposes all of the key points of evidence there in the 70s. Who do you think's the best president of all time? JFK.

Second best. I'm not gonna have a second best because I think there's been so much corruption since then. I think that was a coup in our country. Try a little bit. Who else would you say has been a great president we've had? No one's a president.

How about George Washington? That's a safe one you say. I know what you're doing. Now you're being political. Okay, give me Andrew Jackson. How about in the last few years? Andrew Jackson challenged the banking cartel since six of the day, since 1960, outside of Kennedy. There, there's none. There's not. There's no

uncorrupted. You vote. Yeah, you do vote. Yeah. Okay. Um, do you, do you typically vote with democratic policies or Republican policies? It depends on who's telling the truth lately nobody's been telling the truth but you still vote yeah well i think trump told more truth then uh... then others so uh... i did vote for him but did he instigate uh... eight nine eleven investigation like he said he was

going to do which is why i voted for him but no we got nothing about 9-11 truth after that. I asked for a different reason. Don't listen to me asking is because I'm trying to see where your motives are, to have a bone here, to go. When you're saying Giuliani, Rumsfield, Cheney, all that stuff, I mean, obviously, up, you know, Michael Moore, what he, his argument, he took a complete different argument there. This is what? This is a video from Trump recently.

To be, to freezing and to play that. How was that? There was a live golf tournament when he caught a lot of flag from what I've gone. Huh? It's not working? No, I had other audio in the background. Okay, go ahead, try it, go back a little bit. Let's see what he has to say about this. You're so closely associated with the city of New York. You of all people understand the passion surrounding 9-11. What do you say to those family members who protested earlier this week and we'll be doing so again on Friday? Well, nobody's gotten to the bottom of 9-11 unfortunately.

They should have as to the maniacs that did that horrible thing to our city, to our country, to the world. So nobody's really been there, but I can tell you that there are a lot of really great people that are out here today and we're going to have a lot of fun and we're going to celebrate and money's going to charity, a lot of money's going to charity. He just skates the issue. Yeah, this was July 28th of this year. Yeah, I mean, that was his opportunity to say, yeah, we should really have an investigation. And if you

elect me, President, I will get to the bottom of what really happened on 911, which he was saying in the campaign leading up to his election victory. Well, you know, we'll come into the end of it here. I got to tell you, I've, I've sincerely enjoyed this, having you on. And I've learned a lot, I've gone smarter, it's the argument folks, if you're listening to this, if you yourself, I'm looking at some of the commentary, people saying, I feel disturbed, I feel uncomfortable,

I feel, you know, if any of this stuff is true, this is disturbing to me, on the topic that we're discussing with 9-11. But look, the reality of why we do what we do, we bring guests, some that we agree with, some that we don't agree with, some to get smarter, some to get a little bit more educated, and nothing is more revealing of the truth than a good debate back and forth, and some of it that's willing to sit there and rebuttal whatever questions that we come up with. I appreciate you for doing that. So for the audience that wants to find you, what you've given your website multiple times, where what should people go to find you? Yep, it is Richard Gage 911.org. Lots of evidence

there, 75 podcasts with people in and around the 91111 truth movement. My wife, Gail Gage, and I are hosting these podcasts to bring in these kinds of experts who will finger who done it. I mean, there are people such as... So a lot of people, you know that finger people. I mean, you're saying so they will point them out is what you're saying. Oh, yeah. People like Christopher Bel like Christopher Berlin for instance has an alternative view about who's responsible in his book solving 9-11. That's interesting but I don't know I haven't read it. I'm open minded. Well and by the way what you said open to this while anybody that is

willing to share what you if you were on the inside if you know anything about the stuff that maybe you've not been comfortable to come out and talk about it, I would love to talk to you. Senmini, Patrick, Advaita, Timon.com, once again, Patrick, Advaita, Timon.com. Would love to speak with you one on one. Okay, having said that for some of you guys that are still watching live, the other interview, Tate goes one o'clock,

it'll be in the next two hours when it goes live. Have a wonderful day everybody. If you enjoyed this podcast, give it a subscribe, and a thumbs up. God bless to USA and freedom of speech. Oh, we're back tomorrow. Who wanted tomorrow? Big Pappa. Papa John, I believe. No way. Papa John. Papa John that was asked to. Wow. Okay. So the final Papa John will be in the house. Billionaire Papa John in the house to talk about a bunch of controversy with them branding marketing storytelling. I will see you guys tomorrow. Take care everybody. Bye bye. Bye bye. billionaire Papa John in the house to talk about a bunch of controversy with them branding marketing storytelling

I will see you guys tomorrow take care everybody bye bye bye bye bye