Richard Gage's Points in Order — Building 7 Did Not Kill Itself (DarkHorse)¶

From the DarkHorse podcast transcript with Bret Weinstein (Nov 24, 2025). Gage's statements are in order by appearance; quotes are from the transcript.

1. Opening and agreement¶

Thank you, Brad. Awesome to be here with you today.
Yes, I've been looking forward to this conversation for a long time.
Perfect. I'm looking forward to it. And challenge me, Brett.

2. Why he questioned the official narrative (background)¶

Well, let me give you a little bit of background. I was shocked to learn in actually, it was March 29th, I believe, of 2006. I heard David Ray Griffin on the radio. He was being interviewed by Bonnie Faulkner of KPFA's Guns and Butter program. And I was on my way back to the office from a construction site observation. And I'm listening to this elderly gentleman talking about the evidence that we're going to be talking, seeing today and hearing. And I'm going, what is this? This is like out of the blue completely. I never heard any alternative theory as to how these towers came down. Never really been a conspiracy theorist or an activist or anything. And I just had to know, is what he's saying completely false, made up?
It turns out he was speaking the next night at the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland. I just knew I had to be there. I had to find out if this was true. And I walked into that building and it was packed. There were 600 people there to hear David Ray Griffin talking about the evidence for the explosive destruction of the Twin Towers because he had read an essay that Professor Graham McQueen had done on the explosive testimony of these 118 witnesses at the time. All first responders, hearing explosions, we're going to talk about those. But I couldn't even get in because it was packed. I had to go home and listen on the live stream.
And lo and behold, I was putting these facts together feverishly because this is important. I mean, if what he's saying is true, then we've been lied to by the media. We've been lied to by our government. The whole world is deceived into a $6.5 trillion global war on terror. And all based on a lie. I mean, if these three buildings were brought down by explosive control demolition, then let's face it, we have very serious problems in our society. We are sleeping, asleep at the wheel. And they, whoever they are who planned and executed 9-11 and other false flag operations, as it turns out to have been performed starting every war that we've been in, just about, if not all of them.
My life just changed. It turned upside down because I confirmed that what he was saying was true. I did my research. I found out. And I brought this presentation that we're going to look at today to the architects and engineers that I worked for, 15 of them. And they thought I was nuts at first, but then when I bought them pizza, they had to come and listen, right? The captive audience. Only a couple of them were even aware of some of the things that I was aware of. The rest of them know. But after 45 minutes of that presentation, all the hands went up at the end. Oh, my God, you're right. These are controlled demolitions. We've got to have a real investigation of this. So those were my first 15 architects and engineers for 9-11 Truth. And now we have 3,600 signed on to the petition demanding a new investigation over at Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth. It's AE9-11Truth.org. And so we're continuing to get this evidence out.
And thank you again, Brett, for having the courage to bring this evidence out and support Senator Ron Johnson, who has promised hearings in the Senate on this issue, the truth of what really happened on 9-11, like Tucker began to with his five-part series. And this takes it, this drives it home, as you suggested. It's rigorous scientific forensic evidence.

3. Families and first responders deserve the truth¶

And guess what, Brett? The family members deserve the truth about the deaths of their loved ones, the mass murder of over 3,000 people at the World Trade Center on 9-11. They deserve that. They don't want to live in denial any more than any of us did or do. And so we owe it to them. And there's those first responders who were also sacrificed on 9-11. 343 of them were murdered. Their families deserve to know the truth too. And the whole, of course, the whole American people, the whole body of American people and the body of the world deserves to know the truth.

4. Amen to gaslighting point¶

Amen. That's the case. [In response to Bret on government gaslighting.]

5. Introducing the evidence — courage and implications¶

This is great. So it takes courage to look at this. As we've discussed, we've been lied to. We've been gaslit. So I just want to, for those of you who are unaware of this evidence, and I hope there are millions of you who fall into that category because we don't enjoy speaking into an echo chamber of those who are just already familiar. So gear it up. This is not easy. The information's easy, actually. A seventh grader can figure this stuff out. This is not deep scientific stuff like COVID, for instance. They can get really deep in the science, right? This is easy. It's the implications of this evidence that is so difficult that caused me. I felt like I got hit by a two by four for a couple of weeks after I was hearing this information, my whole world just turning upside down. Up is down and down is up, as Dorothy Lorig tells us. And Fran Schur, the psychology people who really try to help us come to grips with us coming to grips with this information. And you can hear their incredible analysis of the psychology of 9-11 on our website, richardgage911.org. In the last documentary, we did 9-11 explosive evidence experts speak out.

6. Building 7 — most people don't know; third tower¶

Yeah, well said, Brett. So let's start with a little bit easier of a task because Building 7 was the third tower that fell on 9-11. And most of us don't know anything about it. We go to conventions, conferences for architects and engineering, and we have an evidence booth. We have a screen. We show Building 7 coming down. We say to them, Do you know what this is? Oh, that's a controlled demolition. They say, did you know when this happened? No, it happened on 9-11. They go, well, what? What are you talking about? That's not one of the Twin Towers. No. So we take them through the process here.
More than half of them. [Architects don't know there was a third tower.] More than half. And it's just shocking. This should have been the most studied structural failure ever. All the universities. It's a huge, massive structural failure. No plane hit this building. This is a 47-story skyscraper, easily the tallest building in most of our states. It looks dwarfed here next to the Twin Towers, right? It's half the height of them. They were the tallest buildings in the world at the time that they were built. So Building 7 is about a football field in length away from the North Tower. It's part of the World Trade Center complex, just outside the superblock of the World Trade Center. It did get a little bit of damage. In fact, it was not just a little bit. But when the North Tower came down, some of these beams hit it, and there was some damage. But NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who was tasked by Congress to explain these collapses to the American people, they said this is not a significant factor in the initiation of the collapse of this building.

7. What NIST says is "not significant" and the collapse sequence¶

Well, what is not a significant factor? The damage that Building 7 did sustain in the southwest corner of the building and started the fires that we're going to see. So that was not a significant factor in this collapse, which begins with the East Penthouse on the upper left. You'll see it go down. And about six seconds, that's an isolated event, by the way. And then six seconds later, this happens. It was straight down uniformly, symmetrically into its own footprint. Now, we may have seen this before on TV, right? We'll take a look at what it looks like. But let's listen to the explanation from the official narrative of this building's collapse. [NIST clip: uncontrolled building fires; collapse primarily due to fire.] Okay, well, let's look at those fires, shall we? These are the worst fires that we have in the building. They are few, they are small, and they are scattered throughout the building. So these fires are those that are said to have brought this building down.

8. NIST's fire story vs. the facts¶

Now, these fires are exaggerated by NIST in their effort to convince the world seven years later, the final report on building seven came out, that this building came down by these fires. Well, these fires are actually burned out on the floor of the initiation of collapse that NIST is trying to convince us of, which is on the 12th floor. And so they show these fires burning at 4 p.m. and implying that they're burning up until the time of the collapse because their collapse initiation scenario requires these fires to be burning at the time of the collapse. And yet you can see that the fires are burnt out on that floor. So how could they be causing the thermal expansion of these long span beams and pushing this girder off of his seat on this column 79 if those fires are burned out? So that makes no sense.

9. No steel-frame fire-protected skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire¶

That's right. In fact, no steel frame skyscraper, steel frame fire protected skyscraper, of which most all of them are, type one buildings has ever collapsed due to a fire. And as you can see, we have much larger, longer lasting fires in these buildings, especially after 9-11. There's a dozen fires, skyscrapers that look like this, and they didn't come down either. So why? Why do we have an unprecedented event that NIST says is the cause of for the first time of the collapse of this building?

10. Comparing Building 7 to known controlled demolitions¶

Yeah, well, using logic, I mean, let's use some. Here's a series of known controlled demolitions on the left. Building seven on the right. Is there any similarity? Is there enough similarity to warrant an investigation into the possible use of explosives? Especially since fire, the official cause of this building's collapse, has never in history brought down a steel frame fire protected structure ever. It should have been the first hypothesis that NIST considered. But no, they never seriously considered it and only really addressed it years later in their frequently, very frequently asked questions from the public. So we have to ask ourselves, Brett, does it have any of the features of controlled demolition?

11. Feature 1 — sudden onset; Dan Rather¶

Well, let's start with feature number one. Is there a sudden onset of destruction? Well, let's listen to Dan rather as we as he gives his intuitive feeling about what's going on. [Dan Rather clip: "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down."] Well, he's using his intuition. He's not trying to gaslight us in this particular case. We should all use our frame of reference for understanding something like this that we've seen before on TV, for instance. But he's never repeated these words ever again. In fact, with only two exceptions, we have not seen on mainstream television this building coming down at all. It's like it's been swept under the rug.

12. Feature 2 — straight down, symmetrical; how that is achieved¶

So let's go to feature number two. Is there a straight down symmetrical progression? Let's look from West Street. Pretty straight down, pretty symmetrical. How do you achieve that? Well, there's only one way. You have to take out all the core columns first within a fraction of a second of each other, all of them, followed about a second later by the perimeter columns. And you have to do that on every floor. And if you don't get that just right, you have some real problems. And so can these fires cause that precision for that kind of damage? Unlikely.

13. NIST's initiation theory (northeast corner) vs. physics¶

Yeah, it would look something more like this. You don't get those charges, explosive charges going off just right. And, you know, somebody has to go back into this building and fix them. It's not going to be me. No. So what NIST is theorizing here is that in the northeast corner, which by the way is opposite the southwest corner where there was damage. So either way, if this building was going to fall due to the damage from the North Tower, it would fall in this case to the right and back away from us. But nor does it fall toward the damage that NIST claims in the northeast corner, where they have this elaborate theory of the initiation of collapse, which they're very sure of. They present it as the majority of their final report. So they have, in fact, a ludicrous series of explanations here.

14. Beams, fireproofing, shear studs, girder seat¶

These long span beams, 50 feet long, heated up during the fire, but they couldn't have done that because they are fireproofed. There's two hours of fireproofing on these beams, meaning that they can last two hours in a fire. Well, guess how long these fires last in a given area? 20 minutes. NIST even acknowledges this. This is universally understood. It's only about 20 minutes of fuel in a given area. These beams are protected for two hours. And so they pushed this girder off of its seat, they say, on this column. Well, that girder couldn't have been pushed off of its seat because there are steel studs attaching it to the concrete up above. So we call these shear studs. And it couldn't have been pushed sideways. But let's say they weren't there and it did get pushed off of this seat. Well, it would have had to been pushed off all 12 inches of this seat on this column, not just six inches, as NIST claims.

15. Local failure never causes total collapse; free fall¶

Well, yeah, it's in the northeast corner. It would have fallen to the left in this case. It would have slumped over. It might have collapsed, but actually, there's never been a locally local failure in a high-rise building that's caused the collapse of the building itself. It's never happened. These are very redundantly designed. I mean, buildings that are damaged on one side, like you said, they fall to that side. And this did not happen as you saw. It came down straight. And not only does it come down straight, it comes down at free fall acceleration. That's as fast as a bowling ball falling out of the sky. Physics teacher David Chandler and others, nuclear physicist Stephen Jones, have analyzed the collapse of this building. It's falling as fast as a bowling ball. Now, a bowling ball has no resistance under it. It can fall at free fall, but it can't do any work while it's falling at free fall. This building fell at free fall, meaning that what happened to the 80, excuse me, 40,000 tons of structural steel in this building, it just disappeared. … NISTEC actually denied that it came down at free fall until they were publicly embarrassed by David Chandler, Stephen Jones, and other members of AE 9-11 Truth. And so we have an admission as a result of them being embarrassed in their own technical conference in 2008. And they say, okay, you're right. It came down to free fall. But they don't acknowledge the implications of that freefall, meaning that all those columns on several floors disappeared all at once.

16. Severed columns/beams; pile height; natural collapses vs. WTC 7¶

Buildings that collapse due to natural causes, in this case, earthquakes, the building falls over to the path of least resistance. And the concrete is not pulverized to a fine powder. The columns and beams are not severed one from another. At building seven, you have a 47-story moment-resisting steel-frame building where the columns and beams are rigidly welded one to another, particularly at the perimeter of this building. They all have been somehow severed one from another so that it could fall to a pile only four or six stories tall. So it makes no sense. Can these fires accomplish that? No. This is, as I said, this is seventh grade physics.

17. Witnesses of explosions — NIST says none¶

But we would look for witnesses that heard explosions if there were explosions. NIST says there are no witnesses of explosions. Well, here's a few. [Witness accounts:] We were watching the building actually because it was on fire. The bottom floors of the building were on fire. And, you know, we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder. Turned around. We were shocked to see that the building was, well, it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out. … Then, you know, about a second later, the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that. About a second later, after explosions, the building follows. … Kevin McPadden (Air Force medic): You heard explosions, like ba-boom. There's like a distinct sound. It's not like when the compression, like boom, Like floors that were dropping and collapsing. This was ba-boom. … To me, I knew that was an explosion. There was no doubt in my mind. … Bill Rosati: I was standing like two blocks away, and all of a sudden I just seen a big flash, and then I seen the building coming down. … FDNY Captain Richard Patterson: One seven let go as well and was a series of concussive explosions. (Concussive explosions before the building fell.) … Patrick Dillon: I remember feeling that like freight trains underneath the earth … That's when we all saw Building 7 crumple in the middle, like way up at the top. It buckled. It buckled and then dropped. … Deputy director OEM: There was an elevated car that was blown out of its shaft that was down the hall. Richard Rotanz clarified later that that was blown way down the hall, 30 to 40 feet. Now, what can blow an elevator car out of its shaft and down the hall that far? We're not talking about fires here, right?

18. Barry Jennings — explosions inside Building 7; "information of bombs"¶

Well, this is Barry Jennings, who is part of the Office of New York Housing. And he and Mayor Giuliani's attorney, Michael Hess, were called to a meeting. They got there late after the first plane hit the first tower. And then before the second plane hit the tower, the building had been evacuated. And then these two arrived. They got up to the 23rd floor. And this is their experience on the way down because they were told to get out of that building. When we got to the eighth floor … The first explosion I heard when I was on the stairwell landing when we made it down to the sixth floor. … I heard some more explosions. … Like a boom. Like an explosion. More than one? Yes. … Big explosion. Blew us back into the eighth floor. When we get outside, police officer comes to me and says, you have to run. We have more information of bombs. So you have to run. Information of bombs. … Bombs like this heard in the late morning of 9-11 in the vicinity of building seven.
How many of these witnesses of explosions do you imagine ended up in the final report? Zero, not one. NIST denied every one of them.

19. Structural engineers — Kamal Obaid; University of Alaska (Leroy Hulsey)¶

So we have to ask, what about these three dozen structural engineers plus signed on to the petition demanding a new investigation? Here's one of them. Kamal Obaid, structural engineer. A localized failure in a steel-frame building like World Trade Center 7 cannot cause a catastrophic collapse like a house of cards without a simultaneous and patterned loss of several of its columns at key locations within the building. … So there are statements from 3,600 altogether, but more than three dozen structural engineers, including this one, Professor Leroy Halsey, one of the top forensic structural engineers in the country, who at the University of Alaska went into a four-year dynamic analysis of this building and using two competing software programs, much more sophisticated actually than NIST's LS Dynamic that they used back in 2002 to 2007. Here we have SAP 2000 and Abacus being used by their PhD candidates at the University of Alaska competing one against the other. And what did they find? Gosh, if this building were to be fail, if there was initiation of failure in the northeast corner of the building, it would have tipped over. That's, again, seventh grade physics. But they said, well, what do we have to do to get it to look like the video in the middle of this building's collapse? We have to, on the left side, we have to take out all the columns in the building at once to get it to fail and synchronistically timed floor by floor. On the right, you see NIST's computer model, which is their effort to prove their initiation of collapse theory, which it completely actually disproves because it looks nothing like the video in the center, except for the collapse of the penthouse. They're claiming that there's this from the 12th floor up to the top up to the roof, this failure on the left side, which is the northeast corner. And somehow all those columns are giving way at once and failing. That's 400 structural steel connections every second.

20. NIST model tips over; University of Alaska conclusions¶

And the experts aren't even aware that there's a thousand-page report, thousand pages on building seven produced seven years after the event. They were hoping everybody would just forget about it, right? And then this computer model actually begins to tip over to the right. So they stop it. They don't show us what happens after two seconds into the global collapse. They don't want us to see it tipping over. It completely disproves what they set out to prove. So what did the University of Alaska find? Fire did not cause the collapse of this building. The temperatures were not high enough to cause the weakening of the steel framing. Thermal expansion did not result in a loss of support for the beams and the girders. And the collapse of this building was a global failure involving what? The near simultaneous failure of all the columns in the building. Not a progressive collapse, as claimed by NIST. This completely pulled the rug out from underneath the NIST report. And we've given it to every member of Congress on two times since 2009 when it came out. And so we can't get action in Congress. And that's changing with Senator Ron Johnson.

21. Extreme heat — FEMA metallurgy; molten steel; evaporation¶

But let's look at what could have brought this building down if it wasn't fire. Let's look for evidence of extreme heat provided by who? FEMA, before NIST took over the investigation and threw this information out. They have a metallurgical examination of the steel from Building 7 and the Twin Towers. So this section applies to the Twin Towers as well. Never before observed is what they found. Intergranular melting, capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese, like you see in the end of this beam from Building 7 that's been cut off for examination. Silver dollar size holes. What can do this to steel? Can fires do this to steel? Office fires? Remember, no jet fuel at building seven. No plane hit building seven. We're talking normal office fires. No, it takes 3,000 degrees to melt steel. And we're not talking even half of those temperatures with these fires in building seven. In this piece of the end of the beam from the Twin Towers, we have thinned to razor sharpness this steel that was 5 eighths inch thick. The web of this white flange beam. What do they say? Rapid oxidation and sulfidation. Liquid iron. That's molten iron. We're talking 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This was a fairly honest effort at presenting this information from the Worcester Polytechnic University. And they said, the New York Times said that this is perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation. Yet it's completely ignored and omitted almost completely by NIST. They say the author of this report, Jonathan Barnett, Fire Protection Engineer, says steel members in the debris pile appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures. … It takes 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel. Where are we getting these temperatures from? There's nothing in the official narrative that explains this.

22. Molten metal in photos; fire temperatures vs. observed temperatures¶

Yeah. And we can see it just in the photographs of the molten metal pouring out of the Krabkala excavator here. We can tell the temperature of these materials by their emissivity, their color. We're exceeding 2,500 degrees here. There's nothing in the official narrative that can account for this either. So where is it coming from? Fires, in their worst case, mathematical worst case testing scenarios, we have 1,830 degrees Fahrenheit, you know, that fires are potentially capable of achieving. We're talking at twice those temperatures. We're talking jet fuel, even at the Twin Towers, only burns about 600 degrees Fahrenheit. Some say 1800 degrees. Either way, we're talking about twice the temperatures. Jet fuel is just kerosene, by the way. It can't possibly in open air burn hotter than 600 to 1800 degrees, depending on who you agree with. But we have three, four, and five thousand degree temperatures that are evident in the World Trade Center.

23. Thermite/thermate — military incendiary; explains heat, sulfur, molten iron¶

Yeah, that's well put, Brett. And nothing can explain this except possibly thermite. Well, let's find out what is thermite anyway. An incendiary used by the military. Thermite is a compound of iron oxide and aluminum, which when ignited sustains an extreme heat reaction, creating molten iron. In just two seconds, thermite can reach temperatures over 4,500 degrees Fahrenheit, quite enough to liquefy steel. We know that open-air fires cannot burn hot enough to melt steel, but metal had melted at the base of the towers. Appendix C of the FEMA report describes sulfur residues on the World Trade Center steel. The New York Times called this the deepest mystery of all. Sulfur slightly lowers the melting point of iron, and iron oxide and iron sulfide had formed on the surface of the structural steel. Sulfur used with thermite is called thermate, producing even faster results.

24. USGS/EPA — billions of previously molten iron microspheres; experiment¶

Well, maybe we're getting somewhere here, Brett, because if thermite were used, it would explain the incredible temperatures, 4 to 4,500 degrees and up to 5,000 in some circumstances. And it would explain the presence of sulfur, which is added to thermite to become thermate, much more effective at cutting through steel. It would also explain the presence of tons of molten iron, previously molten iron, found in all the World Trade Center dust throughout lower Manhattan. Now, this is given to us not by conspiracy theorists, but by the U.S. Geological Survey, who in their particle atlas of the World Trade Center dust in 2005 documented what? Billions of previously molten iron microspheres. These are about the diameter of a human hair. They're naked to the eye. You can see them with the naked eye. And yet there's billions of them. In fact, the EPA says, we don't know what these are or where they came from, and neither does the USGS, but they're a signature component of the World Trade Center dust. In other words, it's not even World Trade Center dust unless it has all these previously molten iron microspheres. Well, they comprise up to 6% of some of these samples, altogether, by extrapolation, up to about four tons throughout all the World Trade Center dust. RJ Lee … says these spheres are formed during the event, not before, by the iron workers welding the building together, not afterward by the iron workers cutting the building apart, but during the event. Well, where do they come from? Gosh, we could do an experiment. Experiment is the arbiter of competing hypotheses. Let's do one. Let's burn some thermite. What you see is what looks like sparks, thousands of them, but they cool and they fall into the pan as previously molten iron microspheres. How do they get spherical? Well, aerosolized liquids form themselves, the droplets, into spheres by surface tension. So under explosive conditions, molten iron, a liquid, would form itself into these spheres. So that explains the shape of them too.

25. NIST's gypsum/sulfur explanation — sophistry¶

No, so this, all the stuff gets swept under the rug. Some of it they have really mediocre explanations for. Where did the sulfur come from? NIST in their FAQ says, well, it may have come from the gypsum board. Gypsum board has calcium sulfate in it. Well, wait a minute. Gypsum board has been used for 100 years to protect steel from fire. It's never turned around and attacked the steel that's designed to protect. What's more, if they believed for five seconds that gypsum was doing this to steel, then it requires an investigation to figure out, you know, what other buildings we've built are in danger of falling down as a result of a fire. You would imagine that we would be, you know, that everybody would be interested in investigation of how that the gypsum had attacked the steel. And of course, there isn't because it's sophistry. It's just an attempt to make the question go away.

26. Red-gray chips — unignited thermite; Niels Harrit, Stephen Jones; nanoscale¶

Well, we could look and see if there's any evidence of unignited thermite in the World Trade Center dust. Is there? Well, yeah, a team of eight international scientists led by Niels Herrett and Stephen Jones have collected, sent to them, independently collected seven samples altogether. Here's some of them. And they are red-gray chips from these dust samples that they've extracted. They thought they were paint and they look like paint, you know, primer paint, innocent enough. These chips are the longest of them is actually only a 16th of an inch long. Unlike paint, though, they are very well attracted to a magnet. So they have a high iron content, one of the key ingredients, one of the two key ingredients of thermite. Well, they do analysis of the red layer and they do X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy and find that we're talking about aluminum, the other ingredient of thermite in addition to iron oxide powder. So we have, here we go, aluminum and iron. … Manganese, which is added to thermite to become thermate. Manganese, the key ingredient in thermate. So they go into the lab at Brigham Young University with an electron microscope 50,000 times. They zoom in. What do they find? Nano-sized particles of iron oxide crystals, rhomboidally shaped, and aluminum platelets, the ingredients, constituents of thermite. And these are at the nanoscale, a thousand times smaller than the diameter of a human hair. Now, wait a minute. We're talking about nanotechnology here. And this stuff is set in a matrix or a bed of oxygen, silica, carbon. And this is organic material. Organic material is what's added to TNT, for instance, to expand rapidly and knock things over. That's how explosives work. Whereas incendiaries, like what we're talking about, destroy things by burning them up at incredibly high temperatures. So here we have something that's been engineered and incendiary to become more explosive. They get real curious and say, what is this stuff? We don't know. Oh, the peer-reviewed literature shows that Lawrence Livermore Lab invented this stuff before 9-11 and published it. It's called superthermite, explosive composites based on thermite reactions whose fuel and oxidizer constituents are intimately mixed at the nanometer size scale. You see, when you get this stuff so small, the nanoscale, the surface volume increases exponentially, and you've engineered an incendiary to become more explosive. The chemical reaction is virtually instantaneous through this stuff.

27. DSC exotherm; chips produce same iron microspheres; NIST says "paint"¶

And guess what? When they put this stuff in a heater, a differential scanning calorimeter, which heats it up and analyzes the resultant energy, they have peak bursts of exothermic energy at 420 Celsius, about 850 Fahrenheit. Well, that's exactly what these samples did. Just like the peer-reviewed literature, these samples produce a lot of energy, an exothermic reaction. Paint doesn't do this. Paint doesn't have these exotic properties. So not only that, what do you imagine these chips, when they were heated, produced when they ignite? Molten iron microspheres with the same chemical signature as the molten iron microspheres found and discovered and analyzed by the U.S. Geological Survey and RJ Lee. So we know exactly where all of these unknown sources of previously molten iron microspheres came from, as if we didn't know. They're found attached to partially ignited red-gray chips, as you see here and here. So how does the official explanation explain away the red-gray chips? Oh, they just say they're paint. They're paint.

28. Peer-reviewed paper; NIST reply (aluminum cladding + rust); not made in a cave¶

A real investigation, which would take a peer-reviewed paper like this, published in 2009 in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal, which concludes that the red layer of the red-grade chips is active, unreacted, thermitic material incorporating nanotechnology. It's a highly energetic, pyrotechnic, or explosive material. This stuff should not be in all the World Trade Center dust samples. And yet it is. It has to be explained. And that's why officials simply ignore it. And we've given this paper to every member of Congress on at least two occasions again since 2009 when it came out. And can't get any action. Jim Hines of Connecticut actually wrote NIST on our behalf because I presented this material to Jim. And NIST wrote back and said, oh, well, there's aluminum cladding on the outside of the building and there's rust on the steel inside, which is what iron oxide is, essentially. And they must have mixed. And don't worry, go back to sleep. This is nothing to get excited about. That's the kind of science we get from NIST, who we pay millions of dollars. … In fact, this stuff is not made in a cave in Afghanistan. This stuff is made only in the most advanced defense contracting laboratories.

29. Ten features of controlled demolition; film series; grand jury¶

And it turns out there's a lot of surprises with regard to the hijackers and the planes, which we won't have time to get into today and is not my area of specialty. But I encourage deeper research on that in the 9-11 truth movement. And we'll have lots to discover, as did the people who have looked at this evidence finding that, yeah, we have 10 key characteristic features of controlled demolition and some very uncharacteristic features. Fire does not explain any one of these, let alone all 10 of them. With additional circumstantial evidence and corroborative testimony, this becomes proof of controlled demolition, a body of proof that's convinced 3,600 architects and engineers to stake their reputations on the line for demanding a new investigation. And again, you can see those at richardgage911.org. And many of them appear in our ongoing film series. We're producing episode five coming up this month. And this is 9-11 crime scene to courtroom, an unprecedented film series taking the hard evidence of 9-11 crimes to court, where Mick Harrison of the Lawyers Committee FOR 9-11 Inquiry and I have assembled this evidence and brought it to a stand-in grand jury and presented it all with the intention of supplementing the existing 2018 grand Jury petition that the Lawyers Committee has Submitted. And this will be a supplementary series to that existing set of exhibits, 60 of them exhibits that have already been submitted. [Film clip quotes: demolition charges each floor; building could not have been brought down by office fires; molten lava; "that'll be coming down around five o'clock."] That's 911 letterc number two letterc.org. Encourage you to take a look at that and get involved. You can co-produce this series. We're in post-edit right now. So we do need the support to continue the film series.

30. Twin Towers — if Building 7 was controlled demolition, ask about the Twins¶

And we have 12 episodes altogether, including the Twin Towers, which, by the way, we have to stop and ask ourselves a question, Brett. If we've just proven that Building 7 was a controlled demolition, and I believe that we have, then we have to ask ourselves, the Twin Towers happened on the same day that morning. Is it possible that they have some of the evidence of explosive demolition in them as well? That's incumbent upon us to ask the question. And so we do on behalf of the 9-11 victims and their family members. And just looking at these simultaneously side by side here, though they were 15 minutes apart, we see something very unusual, very explosive, upward, outward, arching streamers, a geometry of fireworks, freely flying structural steel sections weighing four and eight tons each, laterally ejected at 85 miles an hour, clocked by physicists, landing 600 feet in every direction, trailed by thick white smoke clouds. Wait a minute, steel is not flammable in office fire conditions or with jet fuel, as we've seen. What are these thick white smoke clouds trailing all of these steel sections? … Let's look and see what happens when you burn thermite. You get not only molten iron, but thick white smoke clouds of aluminum oxide ash, the other byproduct of thermite.

31. Twin Towers — sudden onset; crush-down crush-up (Bazant); Volkswagen vs. Mack truck¶

Well, we have to ask ourselves then, do we have any of the features of controlled demolition in the Twin Towers? Let's start at the beginning, just like we do with Building 7. Is there a sudden onset? Well, yeah, the North Tower is standing at rest, and all of a sudden it's in uniform downward motion. No jolt, no hesitation upon impact of the cold, hard steel below. In the first two, three seconds, something very unusual is going on here, similar to a controlled demolition and similar to Building 7, actually. Same in the South Tower. It's at rest and all of a sudden it's not stopping when it meets this incredible resistance of this 80,000 tons of structural steel that's not on fire, not melting below it. We're told that the upper story drove the rest of the building down to the ground and then destroyed itself after the initial weakening of steel. Well, this is called the crushdown crush-up theory provided to us from Zdenek Bazant. And it suffers from a number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that he submitted this just two days after 9-11. The rest of us are freaked out, right? When's the next plane coming? When's the next attack? Who did this to us? But not this guy. He's busy in his den, apparently during immediately producing the most obscure paper ever produced in structural engineering. This gentleman is actually a mathematical wizard. It took engineers 10 years to decode this work. And when they did, well, they didn't have to wait 10 years. We see immediately that, gosh, if there's two bodies that are colliding with each other, there's going to be an equal and opposite destructive force, making that analogy a little easier. Look at a Volkswagen running into a Mac truck. Who's going to win, right? The Volkswagen? No. Does it matter if we drop the Volkswagen onto the MAC truck? No. The lightest part of the structure cannot possibly destroy the cold, hard, heavier, intact steel below. It makes no sense. Look at the size of the beams on the top. The columns. They are very light. And then they get bigger and heavier until at mid-height, they're 52 inches by 22 inches. And then they infill. So that's such that they're almost solid steel at the ground. And we're told that that solid steel was crushed by the upper. Well, let's look at it. Tell me if the upper part is destroying the lower part or is something else happening. I'll make it easier. Look at the lower red line, the point of plane impacts. The upper part is telescoping in on itself. It's not driving the rest of the building down to the ground at all. We've been lied to. We've been gaslit once again. If it were driving the rest of the building down to the ground, we would see it. But none of the photos, none of the videos show an upper part that's there. It would be where the red box is, driving the rest of the building down to the ground. If it were there, it would have destroyed these few remaining columns standing 900 feet in the air for about another dozen seconds before they fall of their own weight through the smoke that they are, that is the result of them burning. So are having been destroyed.

32. First responders — 156 witnesses (Graham McQueen); NIST says zero¶

And anybody who did ask legitimate questions found themselves derided in public, ruined. A certain number of people seem to have died early. … But we do have time to look at how many witnesses of explosions does NIST say there was none. Zero witnesses of explosions except for the plane hitting the towers and maybe down in the lobby. But listen to what Professor Graham McQueen found in reading 12,000 pages of transcripts released finally by the New York City because the New York Times was suing them in a FOIA request and they finally got them. All 12,000 pages are put on their website and Professor Graham McQueen read them. Look what he found. [Reads first responder quotes: ground shake, tower sway, then it came down; train under my feet; flash flash flash; like when they demolish a building; explosion at the very top simultaneously from all four sides; explosion one floor under another; figured it was a bomb; synchronized, deliberate.] And here is 156 of them.

33. South Tower tilt vs. symmetrical destruction; squibs; pre-placed charges¶

Well, let's look at feature number three. Is there a straight down symmetrical progression? Well, the South Tower actually begins to tip over. So you'd expect it to continue tipping and falling on the ground below. It's actually 22 degrees. So we have asymmetrical loading on the structure below by this section of the South Tower that's falling off. We have asymmetrical damage from the fires, asymmetrical damage from the planes. How in the world then do we get complete symmetrical destruction all the way around each face of the building, just like the firefighters described, like a belt all around the building? It makes no sense. What's really going on here? Well, we can get a clue by zooming in on the leading corner of these explosions. I see about 12 of them in this looped video, in addition to what we call a squib, isolated explosive ejection down below, which we'll come back to. … This is not a nuclear weapon going off, as some have erroneously hypothesized. This is not a directed energy weapon somehow aimed floor by floor, weakening steel. No, these must could only be pre-placed charges in the exterior frame rapidly advancing floor by floor, easily understood and intuited to be individual explosions. So that is a dead giveaway for us as well. But let's look and see if there's any isolated explosive ejections. They call these squibs in the control demolition industry. They occur as far down, starting 20 stories below, 40 stories below the zone of destruction. There's no accounting for these isolated explosive ejections anywhere in the official narrative, even 60 stories down below the zone of destruction. How are these possibly counter for? They can only be, in all likelihood, mistimed explosions with solid objects expelled out. This is not air being propelled out from the piston that's driving this building down to the ground.

34. Top section destroyed in first seconds; free fall ~2/3; 90% strength gone¶

We saw that piston was destroyed, the hammer up at the top, the top section of this building. It was destroyed in the first three seconds. Well, on the left side of the south tower, we see a number of isolated explosive ejections all at once, essentially reducing the structure to sand instead of a rigid body. So it doesn't maintain its rigidity and fall off the structure below and maintain its angular momentum and land on the ground somewhere. … So we're going to ask another question. How fast is the building coming down? Well, physics teacher David Chandler and others have analyzed this. It's almost two-thirds of free fall, which means what? It is accelerating, getting faster and faster and faster. It's not slowing down as it meets cold, hard steel below. This is what a lot of these beams look like. They're solid steel at the very base, but there's 47 massive core columns here at mid-height, 52 inches by 16 inches, and 240 massive perimeter columns. And yet, the math of the free fall tells us what percentage of the strength has somehow been gone. It's 90% of the strength of the steel is gone such that it can fall at almost two-thirds of free fall.

35. John Skilling — two jetliners; building still there 90 minutes; lateral ejection¶

They sure did. Two of them, as a matter of fact, the structural engineer John Skilling said it could take the impact of two jetliners. He said the problem would be that the fuel would dump into the building, but the building would still be there. And indeed, it was still there for 90 minutes until somebody pressed the button and started all of these explosions. We wouldn't have had any kind of a collapse based on the impact of the airplanes and the damage to the columns as a result. But what happened to these exterior structural steel sections? We've got to take a look at that. Feature number seven, very unusual feature of controlled demolition. Well, they're found impaled in the skyscrapers all around the building. They're found destroying the winter gardens 600 feet away. They're found destroying the Deutsche Bank building such that it actually had to be dismantled floor by floor. These are four. This is a four-ton structural steel section. The columns are 37 feet long. They're only attached to each other by four bolts at this height in the building, five eighths inch bolts. And so all the plane actually had to do with 10,000 gallons of fuel going 500 miles an hour was impact these exterior sections and drive them in, shearing off those four 5-8 inch bolts. They didn't slice through the steel like is claimed by those who want to suggest that there were no actual planes in the building. So that's an important revelation. And we have six ways from Sunday to prove that planes did actually strike these buildings. … These columns are the exterior structural steel sections, and they are these columns. That's what's holding the exterior of the building up. And it was an exoskeleton. It's a very unusual design structurally, but they were very nervous. The tallest buildings in the world, going 1,400 feet tall, had to resist hurricane force winds up there. So this is what they ended up with. And since then, they've gotten more sophisticated with their structural design. But yeah, look at them. They are ejected laterally, again, trailing thick white smoke clouds. Four and eight ton structural steel sections ejected laterally at 80 miles an hour, clocked by physicists, landing up to 600 feet. This one's about to hit building seven. … How does gravity work, Brett? Usually pulls down towards the center of mass. Something else is going on here, right? All of these sections have a force that has to be identified to drive them laterally that far and trailing thick white smoke clouds. Again, aluminum oxide ash. Steel is not flammable in office fire conditions or with jet fuel. That's what this is. There's enough energy here to hurl a 200-pound cannonball three miles. And there's hundreds of them in a 1,200-foot diameter and more outside each of the towers beyond the perimeter of World Trade Center of the World Trade Center itself.

36. If steel is ejected and concrete pulverized, what's crushing the building?¶

And by the way, let's ask another tough question. If 100,000 tons of steel framing is distributed outside, well outside the footprint, what's crushing the building? It can't crush the building. This is a third of the weight of the building. It can't crush the building if it's distributed outside the footprint of the building, particularly this far. So let's look at the concrete because maybe it was the concrete floors because that's heavy stuff, right? Another third of the weight of the building. We're looking for 110 concrete floors, each an acre in size. We're looking for 110 of these floor assemblies. Four and eight inch thick concrete poured on metal decking supported by lightweight steel trusses. We don't find a hundred of them. We don't find 50 of them. We don't find 10 of them. We don't find one acre-size floor. We don't find a half acre, a quarter acre, a 16th of an acre-size floor. At the bottom, just a pile of miscellaneous metal, a few core columns. And in a real gravitational collapse, we have pancakes. That's what we're looking for here. Pancakes like this earthquake in Mexico caused. In a real gravitational class, like this earthquake in Bangkok, we have pancakes. This was only a 33-story building, Brett, and yet its pile is three times the pile of the 110-floor twin towers. … Look at the height of this pile. We're probably seven stories tall here and compare that to what we see at the bottom of the twin towers. We're missing 90,000 tons of concrete. Oh, that's where it is. It's pulverized to powder in midair. It didn't land on the ground after developing its kinetic energy and pulverize down there. No, that's why we have all of this powdered concrete. What could pulverize 90,000 tons of concrete? Well, massive heat could. That's one possibility. Explosives are another. But in terms of the heat, we have a report from the American Society of Testing and Materials C856, which says what? White powdered decomposed hydration products at 1500 degrees Fahrenheit. … The fire safety journal says at 2,200 degrees, you have completely decomposed concrete. We have twice those temperatures available to us and documented what we found. That's what could pulverize 90,000 tons of concrete. And by the way, it's not only pulverized, it spreads laterally throughout lower Manhattan. Again, lateral distribution of 90,000 tons in each tower, three-inch thick blanket. Well, if that's the case, what's crushing the building? This is another third of the weight of this building. That's two-thirds of the mass of this building that's not available to crush the building if it's way out and distributed outside and pulverized in mid-air. The building which is increasingly structurally robust the lower you go.

37. Bazant paper — doubled mass, reduced column capacity; "complete fraud"; ASCE wouldn't publish challenge¶

And all that steel and all that concrete were not there to crush the building. And yet this is the key theoretical basis that NIST's NIST uses today to support their column failure theory, which is essentially this crushdown crush-up theory. This guy, Zdenek Bazant of Northwestern University in Chicago, created this paper and used all of that weight. This is what engineers found 10 years later when they decoded it. Not only did he use all that weight that wasn't there, concrete and steel, he doubled it fraudulently and he decreased the column absorption capacity below by more than three times, completely rigged in favor of a collapse, complete fraud. And this is why you have engineers filing their own peer-reviewed paper, Greg Grey, Zudolinsky, Tony Zambodi, Richard Johns. These guys submitted their peer-reviewed paper for peer review in the American Society of Civil Engineering Journal of Engineering Mechanics, and yet they would not publish it. Why? Well, they said it's out of scope. Wait a minute. How is it out of scope to publish a challenge to a previously published paper in that journal? That's what we do in science. That's what the peer-reviewed process is. And yet they wouldn't do it. So there are ethical violations that have been submitted, and there's lawsuits that have been submitted.

38. No design changes after 9/11; NIST recommendations not in code; building officials¶

No. There has not. [Substantial revision to design requirements.] … Building 7 was the big test, interestingly, because no plane hit that building. … Except in the Freedom Tower. They designed the core out of concrete to make the stair egress system more likely to be intact upon an airplane attack. But the rest of the skyscrapers are built the same way. We learned no lesson from three towers falling on the same day within a block of each other in unforeseen ways. We learned nothing that could be taught in architecture school to prevent it from ever happening again. There were recommendations by NIST at the end of the Building 7 report in particular that suggested that people ought to design their skyscrapers to account for a thermal expansion of long span beams pushing girders off of their seat. But none of those recommendations were deployed in the international building code. … No, no, nothing like that has even come. So, yeah, those are good questions. And there's no good answers other than the fact that the International Conference of Building Officials has reason to believe that their skyscrapers are adequately designed as they are. But you can't keep people from bringing explosives and incendiaries into these buildings, especially when they run the security.

39. Securicom/Stratasec — last day 9/11; Marvin Bush, Wirt Walker III; Kevin Ryan fireproofing¶

Securicom Stratasec was the security company. This was their last day, curiously, 9-11. 9-11 was their last day. Yeah, the contract ended. And they had a security contract up until then. And interestingly, George Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin Walker III were on the board of that security company. So we certainly want an investigation there. But under their noses would have had to have been brought tons of incendiaries, nanothermite, thermite, and high-energy explosives. So not only that, but curiously, we have a research project by Kevin Ryan, which finds that the locations that were hit by the planes were the same locations that were primarily upgraded with fireproofing. So was that really fireproofing or was this a dark operation that was bringing in maybe liquid applied fireproofing called intumescent paint? And that was actually nanothermite sprayed on the underside of the slabs, which was capable of heating those slabs up to well beyond 2,200 degrees, evaporating not only the metal decking and the floor trusses, but pulverizing to decomposed hydration products, sand, gravel, concrete, and cement powder. So that's a possibility. Certainly need more another, a real investigation into this.

40. Igniting thermite — magnesium strip; ignition temp; chain reaction unknown¶

Well, a magnesium strip like fireworks can do it. They're very hot. So heat is enough. … Heat sets the stuff off. Yeah. It generates heat. A lot of heat. … Fair question. And we don't know the answer. The fires were probably only 500 to 600 degrees in the World Trade Center Tower and Building 7. It would take more heat than that to ignite nanothermite now. And to set it off. … And so nanothermite can be adjusted and tuned for very specific uses that it is deployed for. So we don't know exactly what the capabilities or the ignition point. … Well, we do know the ignition point. This thermite was ignited at 850 degrees Fahrenheit. … I don't know. I mean, that is an important question. And if the answer to that question is it might, that doesn't put on those who are bringing all of this various evidence to the table, one little debunking, if you will, of one of our points is not the way to debunk the thermite and explosives analysis here. Every one of these points of evidence has to be answered by NIST, by debunkers, by whoever. It's a really important scientific point. We showed 10 key characteristic features of controlled demolition and some very uncharacteristic features, and all of them have to be answered. But I don't have an answer to that specific one. Neither does the team that analyzed the red-gray chips and produced the peer-reviewed paper.

41. Elevators — access to core; Scott Forbes dust; ACE Elevator; union meeting¶

So then we have to ask, is there any other way to get into this building? Yeah. Well, look at the elevators. They access every floor, of course, and they are immediately adjacent to all of the core columns and beams in the building. So if you had access to the elevator shafts, you'd have access to all of those core columns and beams. The elevator shafts have two inches of gypsum board, though. So you'd have to cut a hole in it. But that would produce a lot of dust. And interestingly, we have this testimony from the senior database administrator Scott Forbes of the Fiduciary Trust. Listen to this. It was probably the week leading up to 9-11. Every morning I'd come in around 7 a.m. and the dust was incredible. It was filthy. It was like the cleaners weren't cleaning. Right where the windows were, there was a cell which enclosed radiators. I was sick to death of the dust which was appearing on the windowsills. It was dirty gray and very, very noticeable in that week leading up to 9-11. Well, that's an interesting factoid also that we got to keep in mind. But who was operating the elevator shafts? It turns out ACE Elevator had this contract to modernize the elevators in the nine months prior to 9-11. Why would the Port Authority have given one of the largest, most sophisticated elevator modernization programs in the industry's history to Ace Elevator, who came out of nowhere to get this contract? Otis Elevator had installed and been maintaining these elevators up to this time. And what happened to these ACE Elevator employees? They're all accounted for and safe. Why? They were pulled out that morning to a, well, they didn't come to work that morning because they had a union meeting, about 50 of them. So they were discussing business. I wonder what they were discussing. There's a lot more information that we've got to get to the bottom of on 9-11, not the least of which is the disposition of 180,000 tons of structural steel because these are easily the largest and most perplexing structural failures in history.

42. Steel shipped to China; Bill Manning; sculptures and thermite signature¶

But up to 400 truckloads a day were calling the steel away from the site starting just two weeks after 9-11. It was shipped to China for recycling immediately. This is the illegal destruction of evidence in a crime scene, prompting people like Bill Manning, editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering magazine, to cry out, crucial evidence. It can answer many questions is on the slowboat to China, showing an astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough scientific investigation. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately. But it didn't. And that's just one of the many components of evidence, of controlled demolition. … And it turns out that there are several sculptures around the country, the sculptors of which, many of them, have sent the slag from the ends of these beams to people like Professor Stephen Jones, who analyzed them and found the, once again, the signature of thermite on those sculptures. So the evidence is not completely destroyed, thank goodness. Despite their attempt.

43. Resources; why this still matters — Patriot Act, NDAA, surveillance, COVID¶

Yes, a large attempt to do just that. But this evidence becomes yet again, in the case of the Twin Towers, proof of controlled demolition, a body of proof that's convinced this many, 3,600 architects and engineers demanding a new investigation, many of whom appear in our film series, and many of whom appear in our landmark documentary, 9-11 Explosive Evidence Experts Speak Out with 40 high-rise architects, structural engineers, metallurgists, chemists, physicists, controlled demolition experts, all laying out the evidence. The 15-minute documentary just on building 7, narrated by actor Ed Asner, extraordinary piece built for PBS that will convince anybody about Building 7 in just 15 minutes. And the more extensive study of the University of Alaska by Professor Leroy Hulsey has been made by Dylan Avery, the filmmaker of Loose Change 9-11. Now, all this evidence is laid out for people. If you want to just download it for free, you can print it, hand it to every architect and engineer you can find. Everybody that you know, it's available at richardgage9-11.org. Just print it and get it out because we got to get to the bottom of this, Brett. The reason we're talking about this is because it changed the world on 9-11. And we were lied to on a massive scale about it. After all, what happened as a result of 9-11? If we're going to have a discussion about why this is still important 24 years later, we might start with the fact that the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 allows our government to arrest any of us without a right to a lawyer, a trial, a jury. We can be tortured and even assassinated. And it has been done, U.S. citizens, without due process. And in fact, all of our emails, our phone calls, our texts are systematically swept up and stored in the largest building in Utah for use against us later. Completely unconstitutional. Yet, because of the emergency that's created by this false flag operation known as 9-11, they can get away with it. Well, they did the same thing, of course, with COVID. They created an emergency. So now we can be contact traced, right? We can be told that we have to have a medical procedure, genetic modification in order to access certain buildings. And they tried to mandate this while calling it voluntary. So we got to ask ourselves at some point, you know, where do we draw our line in the sand? For me, it was 20 years ago, five years too late for the 9-11 truth movement who was waiting for the architects and engineers to show up. But many, most in this country prefer to put their heads in the sand. That's not acceptable anymore. We're heading straight into a totalitarian nightmare. And if you don't stand up and speak the truth like Brett is and get this podcast out to everybody, we're going to be just there. But it's not too late. I'm asking everybody to stand up and take your stand to avoid what's coming. What are you going to do when your grandchild asks you, what did you do to stop the deep state, daddy or mommy? We want you to have done something and you can do it sitting on your chair these days with your computer and get this podcast out to everybody. That's what we're asking, right, Brett?

44. Ron Johnson — Senate hearings; 2026; volumes for Congress¶

Yes, thank you. It is essential and it's unprecedented in the 9-11 truth movement to have a sitting senator address our three-day conference in Washington, D.C. on September 11th. And not only that, but offer the platform of Senate hearings because he's the chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and actually offer this and encourage us to collect all of our work over the last 20 years and plus and condense it into one set of volumes that we can hand to them and basically say, here's your hearing on a silver platter, Senator. And he's encouraged us to do that. And we're working with them right now to make that happen in 2026. So this is very exciting for us who have been searching and working hard for disclosure to the public of what really happened to the three World Trade Centers towers on 9-11. And it will go broader into the hijackers, the phone calls that were made by the victims, the planes, etc.

45. Danny Jowenko — controlled demolition; death day before NIST report¶

Yes, he's Dutch. [Demolition expert.] … I actually usually play that, but we needed to shorten today's presentation. Believe it or not, out there, this is half the length of what we provide or can provide. Danny Juenko is handed a laptop some weeks or months after 9-11, like you say. And it is startling because he's the top European controlled demolition expert or was. And he's watching this building coming down. He says, that's a controlled demolition. Without a doubt, a team of experts did this. Professional work. And so, like you say, he upheld that belief. And it was the day before the final report came out by NIST that his car was speeding and wrapped around a tree. And he was killed. So like Barry Jennings, a very mysterious death. Barry Jennings was easily murdered. It's just hard to prove, but it's obvious.

46. Closing¶

Yeah. Yeah. God bless him and God bless you and your audience. Thank you all for getting this podcast out to everybody you know. Yep. Get it out to everybody you know. All right.

Source: Full transcript in docs/transcript-building7-darkhorse-richard-gage.txt (from https://fight.fudgie.org/search/show/dh/episode/20251124_Mon.txt).

Keys	Action
`?`	Open this help
`n`	Next page
`p`	Previous page
`s`	Search