Speaker 1: Welcome to six year agenda.
Speaker 2: I'm your host Andrew here again with my man Justin
Speaker 2: Ward on the courts yep, and we talked about what
Speaker 2: they want. We got a special special surprise for you today.
Speaker 2: We got a nice what may not be that much
Speaker 2: of a surprise if you saw the description on the episode,
Speaker 2: but we have.
Speaker 1: Our first specialists coming in, our first expert. We're gonna
Speaker 1: be getting into that.
Speaker 2: So that's excited and we're going to bring him on
Speaker 2: here in a second before we due. If you'd check
Speaker 2: out our description, go give us some love on socials,
Speaker 2: all the good stuff like follow share all that and yeah,
Speaker 2: give us some support.
Speaker 1: Without further ado, let's get into it.
Speaker 2: Please welcome San Francisco Bay architect Richard Gage. He's an
Speaker 2: AIA member. It's at the American Institute of Architects. He
Speaker 2: was a founder and former CEO of Architects and Engineers
Speaker 2: for nine to eleven Truth and now he leads the charge.
Speaker 1: Of a new World Trade Center investigation.
Speaker 2: And he's doing that with his courageous wife Gail, and
Speaker 2: they're both at the Richard's Gauges nine to eleven dot org.
Speaker 1: If you want to check that out. Welcome, on Richard.
Speaker 1: Very excited to talk to you here.
Speaker 3: Oh, thanks so much, Andrew. I really appreciate that and
Speaker 3: looking forward to sharing all this incredible information, mind blowing
Speaker 3: stuff for a lot of people who are unaware of it.
Speaker 1: Definitely, definitely.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is kind of a part two of a
Speaker 2: nine to eleven special we did. I listened to your work,
Speaker 2: kind of researched some other aspects that.
Speaker 1: You know, you don't hit quite as hard on, and
Speaker 1: brought it all together.
Speaker 2: I do want to kind of get a little bit
Speaker 2: more of the expert kind of structural anomalies that went
Speaker 2: on that day. And yeah, so I'm super excited to
Speaker 2: kind of hear hear your expertise right on.
Speaker 3: I'm honored to be here with you and thanks for
Speaker 3: the opportunity.
Speaker 1: Awesome. Well let's go going.
Speaker 2: So how did you get we could talk about seven
Speaker 2: or the Twin Towers?
Speaker 1: First?
Speaker 2: I kind of wanted to ask what you thought about
Speaker 2: the evaluation of Building seven, only because they're pushing for
Speaker 2: a new evaluation of the other buildings and I feel
Speaker 2: like it might be the same finding.
Speaker 3: Well, that's interesting. Yeah, I'll share with you all about
Speaker 3: building savon. It's the smoking gun and we've got a
Speaker 3: lot of information on it. In fact, throw up that
Speaker 3: screen and we'll jump right into it, and then we'll
Speaker 3: talk about the Twin Towers. This building was up on
Speaker 3: the upper right here, the third worst structural failure in
Speaker 3: modern history after the Twin Towers. Right. So it's going
Speaker 3: to be easy to convince everybody here that these buildings
Speaker 3: were brought down by explosive controlled demolition. That's what we're
Speaker 3: going to do, but it's going to leave an awful
Speaker 3: feeling in your gut. And that awful feeling has to
Speaker 3: do is what does this mean? What are the implications
Speaker 3: of the controlled demolitions? You know, is our society what
Speaker 3: I thought it was? Is our government what I thought
Speaker 3: it was? Who's really running things? Why are we relied
Speaker 3: to on such a massive scale? These questions are what
Speaker 3: we're left with, and it is very uncomfortable deal.
Speaker 1: With a lot of that here.
Speaker 2: I definitely want to get That's what That's what we
Speaker 2: hammer on the most is what does it all mean?
Speaker 2: What's coming and who's the control arms of what's kind
Speaker 2: of making it happen.
Speaker 1: But we want to get some of that kind of
Speaker 1: kind of that real.
Speaker 2: Kind of evidence from you just to back up our
Speaker 2: kind of spect you know, or whatever you would call it,
Speaker 2: just kind of look, you know, brain brainstorming right on.
Speaker 3: Well, most people don't even know about the collapse of
Speaker 3: a forty seven story building on the afternoon of nine
Speaker 3: to eleven in New York, part of the World Ride
Speaker 3: Center complex. I'm one of ninety thousand members of the
Speaker 3: American Institute of Architects. We didn't get one bulletin on this. Again,
Speaker 3: the third worst structural failure in modern history.
Speaker 1: This building didn't get one.
Speaker 3: No, this should have been the most studied structural failure
Speaker 3: ever all the universities. After all, there our hundreds of
Speaker 3: similarly designed high rises throughout the world and.
Speaker 1: To this day.
Speaker 2: I mean, they did have a reevaluation of who did
Speaker 2: the reevaluation? Was that architectural engineers with that new the
Speaker 2: one where they said that they can't really answer for
Speaker 2: how it fell.
Speaker 3: Well, we're gonna we're gonna get into the University of
Speaker 3: Alaska who did the the uh, the dynamic analysis of
Speaker 3: this building, proving that NIST lied to us. Essentially, they
Speaker 3: don't go into how it came down, but we do,
Speaker 3: and we're going to distinguish the difference between these two entities,
Speaker 3: though the architects and engineers for nine eleven Truth did
Speaker 3: fund that study. But this building is the it would
Speaker 3: be the tallest building in most of our states. It's
Speaker 3: it's half the height of the twin towers, but they
Speaker 3: were the tallest buildings in the world at the time
Speaker 3: mammoth buildings. As you can see, Building seven was about
Speaker 3: a football field north of the North tower, and it
Speaker 3: came down in the afternoon, but earlier in that morning
Speaker 3: the twin towers came down, caused a little bit of
Speaker 3: damage to the building, as you can see in the
Speaker 3: lower left here indicated by the red and some damage
Speaker 3: in the lower corner, but this was not a significant
Speaker 3: factor in the building's collapse. According to NIST, the National
Speaker 3: Institute of Standards and Technology, who was tasked by Congress
Speaker 3: to explain these collapses to the American people. Well, we'll
Speaker 3: find out what their story was about the cause of
Speaker 3: this collapse. But let's quickly look at the collapse. First,
Speaker 3: in the upper left we have the east penthouse that
Speaker 3: comes down initially in an isolated event, and then after
Speaker 3: six seconds this happens straight down uniformly symmetrically into its
Speaker 3: own footprint. We're going to break that down. But first
Speaker 3: here's NIST telling us what they think or they want
Speaker 3: us to think, and brought it.
Speaker 2: And this is the building that they announced was had
Speaker 2: fallen before it had fallen.
Speaker 1: Correct on the news where the lady look into that too.
Speaker 3: Off BBC announced the collapse of this building before it
Speaker 3: even before it ever came down, so to sean sunder
Speaker 3: of the.
Speaker 4: What we found was it uncontrolled building fires caused an
Speaker 4: extraordinary event. The collapse of Wall Trade Center seven was
Speaker 4: primarily due to fireires.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, let's look at those fires, shall we. These
Speaker 3: are the worst fires that we have a photo or
Speaker 3: video evidence of in the building. There are few, they're small,
Speaker 3: and they're scattered throughout the building, and they're burned out
Speaker 3: on the area of interest of NIST for the initiation
Speaker 3: of collapse theory that they came up with, and they
Speaker 3: tried to convince us that those fires were burning ravagely
Speaker 3: on that floor at that time. But as you can see,
Speaker 3: the fires are burnt out so already right off the bat,
Speaker 3: we can see that they're lying to us. It doesn't
Speaker 3: get too much more clear than this, but we've got
Speaker 3: a lot of evidence to show, like, for instance, the
Speaker 3: fact that there has never been a steel frame fire
Speaker 3: protected structure ever in history that's come down due to fire,
Speaker 3: not before nine to eleven, And there's dozens and dozens
Speaker 3: and dozens of them, and there's at least a dozen
Speaker 3: after nine to eleven, and we have so many examples.
Speaker 3: Not one of these fully engulfed buildings has come down.
Speaker 1: So what to this day? Huh? Yeah, that's crazy.
Speaker 3: No, steel frame fire protected structures are like incinerators. They're
Speaker 3: designed to burn everything in it, but not the structure itself.
Speaker 3: They're not designed to burn everything. They're designed to allow
Speaker 3: for everything to burn without coming down. What could it
Speaker 3: have been. Let's compare a known controlled demolition on the
Speaker 3: left with Building seven on the right. Is there any
Speaker 3: similarity and noting exactly? An investigation into the possible use
Speaker 3: of explosives, especially since that's the official especially since the
Speaker 3: official narrative has never happened before in history. It's an
Speaker 3: unprecedented event.
Speaker 1: And I've sen videos as well.
Speaker 2: I've seen videos of police officers that were saying it's
Speaker 2: gonna blow it, you know, trying to push people down
Speaker 2: the street.
Speaker 3: Bet. Yeah, that's that's an important one for knowledge. So
Speaker 3: we have to look at the features of controlled demolition
Speaker 3: and determined to Building seven have any of these. They'll
Speaker 3: start with feature number one. Is there a sudden onset
Speaker 3: of the building? Let's listen to Dan rather.
Speaker 1: One second.
Speaker 5: Well, here, we're going to show you a videotape or
Speaker 5: the collapse itself described. That's how we go to videotape
Speaker 5: the collapse of this building. It's amazing, an amazing, incredible,
Speaker 5: pick your word for the third kind of It's reminiscent
Speaker 5: of those pictures we've all seen too much on television
Speaker 5: before when a building was deliberately destroyed and destroyed by
Speaker 5: well placed dynamite to knock it down.
Speaker 3: Oh what was that?
Speaker 5: Dan?
Speaker 3: Deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite.
Speaker 1: To knock Oh, I'm sure he had no idea.
Speaker 3: He's never said this on mainstream television before. In fact,
Speaker 3: with few exceptions, we've never seen Building seven come down
Speaker 3: with two exceptions only, and so it's like they wanted
Speaker 3: to go away. It's just being swept under the rug.
Speaker 3: Let's look at feature number two. Is there a straight down,
Speaker 3: symmetrical collapse from West Street? We can see, Yeah, it's
Speaker 3: pretty straight down, pretty symmetrical. How do you do that?
Speaker 3: You have to take out all the core columns at once,
Speaker 3: within a fraction of a second of each other, followed
Speaker 3: about a second later by the perimeter columns. Any deviation
Speaker 3: in that pattern and the building will begin to tip over.
Speaker 3: You have to repeat this on every floor too. By
Speaker 3: the way, are these fires going to have that level
Speaker 3: of precision not going to happen? Anything goes wrong, You
Speaker 3: get terrible things happening, like this if all those explosives
Speaker 3: don't go off just right, or this where somebody has
Speaker 3: to go back into that building and fix those duds
Speaker 3: of explosions that didn't go off again. If a building
Speaker 3: is damaged on one side, it's going to fall to
Speaker 3: that side. This is like common sense. If grader knows this.
Speaker 3: Soess says it was damaged on the northeast corner. As
Speaker 3: we saw it should have fallen to that side. And
Speaker 3: so we look and see how fast is this building
Speaker 3: coming down? Well, physicists have clocked it. It's coming down
Speaker 3: to free fall. That's as fast as a bowling ball
Speaker 3: falling out of the sky. The bowling ball could fall
Speaker 3: that fast as it has no structural resistance under it.
Speaker 3: This building had forty thousand tons of structural resistance to
Speaker 3: five times stronger than it needed to be to support
Speaker 3: this building. This finally admits this, but they don't acknowledge
Speaker 3: the implications of that free fall. They don't acknowledge that
Speaker 3: what happened to those columns, eighty of them on every floor,
Speaker 3: all at once, and then synchronistically time floor.
Speaker 1: Su per floor eighty per floor had to go at once.
Speaker 3: Eighty and then synchronistically timed floor.
Speaker 1: Would what would that suggest in your.
Speaker 3: Okay, okay, that's the whole point we're making with this,
Speaker 3: With this, I mean, that's evidence. Can your question the
Speaker 3: real question, the first question to ask us can these
Speaker 3: fires do that? Because that's the official narrative, and the
Speaker 3: obvious answer is no.
Speaker 1: That's yeah, logical is no.
Speaker 3: Then we look at the pile and we're saying, do
Speaker 3: we have the total dismemberment, which is feature number five
Speaker 3: of the building. Well, look, it falls like a house
Speaker 3: of cards, a forty seven story moment resisting steel frame
Speaker 3: building falling like a house of cards. The columns and
Speaker 3: beams have obviously been severed one from another four to
Speaker 3: six stories tall. The Buildings that like this are ductyal
Speaker 3: the connections are the strongest. They don't fail at their
Speaker 3: connections moment resisting frames. They fail in the beam if
Speaker 3: they're going to fail at all. So what can do this?
Speaker 3: Not natural collapses? Natural collapses like this in earthquakes. The
Speaker 3: buildings fall over to the path of least resistance. Their
Speaker 3: columns and beams are not severed one from another. The
Speaker 3: concrete is not pulverized to a fine powder. We recognize
Speaker 3: the building as a building, not a pile, like a
Speaker 3: house of guards. Again, these fires accomplish that. No, so
Speaker 3: what can Well, let's look for clues witnesses of explosions.
Speaker 3: N says there are none, but there are at least
Speaker 3: a dozen. Here's a few of them. This is Daryl,
Speaker 3: a medical student interviewed on the New York radio that evening.
Speaker 6: We were watching the building actually because it was pop fire.
Speaker 7: The bottom floors of.
Speaker 6: The building wash fire, and you know, we heard this
Speaker 6: this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder. Turned around,
Speaker 6: we were shocked to see that the building was well.
Speaker 1: It looked like there was a shock wave.
Speaker 6: Ripping to the building and the windows all bumped it
Speaker 6: out and you know, it was horrifying, and then you know,
Speaker 6: about a second later, the box four caves out and
Speaker 6: the building followed after that, and we saw the building
Speaker 6: crashed down all the way to the ground.
Speaker 3: Wow. The sound of a clap of thunder, a shockwave
Speaker 3: ripping through the building, the windows busting out, and then
Speaker 3: the building coming down. How about Kevin mcpatten, former Air
Speaker 3: Force medic, what did he experience?
Speaker 8: You heard explosions like boo boom. It's like a distinct sound.
Speaker 1: It's not like when the compression like boom boom, boom,
Speaker 1: boom boom, like.
Speaker 9: Floors that were dropping and collapsing.
Speaker 10: This was bo boom, and like you felt a rumble
Speaker 10: in the ground, like almost like you wanted to grab
Speaker 10: onto something.
Speaker 3: That to me, I knew that was an explosion. And
Speaker 3: Bill Rizzotti, what I was standing like two blocks away
Speaker 3: and all of a sudden, I just seen a big
Speaker 3: flash and then I seen the building coming down, and
Speaker 3: I just seen people just running everywhere. A big flash, okay,
Speaker 3: and then the building coming down. How about New York
Speaker 3: Fire Department Captain Richard Patterson one seven let go as well,
Speaker 3: and was a series of concussive explosions, and Patrick Dillon
Speaker 3: first responded.
Speaker 11: I remember feeling that like it was like like freight
Speaker 11: trains underneath the earth, shaking the earth even shaking me.
Speaker 11: That's when we all saw Building seven crumple in the
Speaker 11: middle like way up at the top. It buckled, it
Speaker 11: buckled and then dropped.
Speaker 3: Fascinating. And Richard Rotan's director of the New York Office
Speaker 3: of Emergency Management, what did he experience inspecting the building
Speaker 3: at about noon?
Speaker 1: And then he had to go into that building to
Speaker 1: assess it.
Speaker 3: You could hear the building creak above us, You could
Speaker 3: hear things fall, you could hear the fire burning.
Speaker 11: You could see columnsaying from the upper floors gaping holes
Speaker 11: in the floors above us.
Speaker 3: There was an elevator car that was blown out of
Speaker 3: his shaft that was.
Speaker 10: Down the hall.
Speaker 3: Wait a minute, an elevator car blown out of the
Speaker 3: shaft that was down the hall. The elevator car is
Speaker 3: here and what it was here, But it's been blown
Speaker 3: out of the hoist way way over here, thirty to
Speaker 3: forty feet away. As he clarified later, Wow, what can
Speaker 3: do that? We're talking about massive explosions inside the buildings,
Speaker 3: explosions that were experienced by these gentlemen Barry Jennings and
Speaker 3: Mayor Giuliani's attorney Michael Hess, who were called to a meeting,
Speaker 3: but they were late and they we didn't realize the
Speaker 3: whole building had been evacuated. They got up to the
Speaker 3: twenty third floor and they made a call and they're
Speaker 3: told to get out of that building. And they tried,
Speaker 3: and this is what happened to them on the way down.
Speaker 1: Well, we got to the eighth floor, I started walking
Speaker 1: to one side of the building.
Speaker 12: I decided Bill it was gone.
Speaker 3: The first explosion I heard when I was on the
Speaker 3: stairwheel landing.
Speaker 12: When we made it down to the sixth floor.
Speaker 7: Then we made it back to.
Speaker 8: The eighth floor.
Speaker 12: I heard some more explosions.
Speaker 1: Michael boom, like an explosion and more than one.
Speaker 8: Yes, we started walking down the sande you made to
Speaker 8: the eighth floor. Big explosion blew us back into the
Speaker 8: eighth floor.
Speaker 1: When we get outside, police officer comes to me and says,
Speaker 1: you have to run.
Speaker 8: Have more information of bombs, so.
Speaker 3: You have to run to run. Bombs like this heard
Speaker 3: in the late morning of nine to eleven in the
Speaker 3: vicinity of Building seven.
Speaker 13: Yeah, here's one of the guys.
Speaker 1: You can tell you I'm okay, all right, Yeah, I
Speaker 1: want to call you you want to call you mother
Speaker 1: to give it.
Speaker 3: We got some issues here, and speaking of foreign alage Andrew,
Speaker 3: we do have Nick, chief Nick Vescani, for instance, saying
Speaker 3: we're moving the command post over this way. That building's
Speaker 3: coming down. Well, wait a minute, how does he know
Speaker 3: what's going to come down? We've never lost a steel
Speaker 3: frame fire protect the structure effort in history. Well, listen
Speaker 3: to Chief Hayden.
Speaker 13: Well, we had our special operations people set up surveying
Speaker 13: instruments to monitor and see if there was any movement
Speaker 13: in the building. We concerned the possibility of collapse of
Speaker 13: the building, and we had a discussion with one particular
Speaker 13: engineer there and we asked him, if we allowed it
Speaker 13: to burn, could we anticipate a collapse, and if so,
Speaker 13: how soon? And it turned out that he was pretty
Speaker 13: much right on the money that he said in his
Speaker 13: comment state about you have about five.
Speaker 3: Out Wait a minute, in his current state, you have
Speaker 3: about five hours. How does this engineer know that a
Speaker 3: building that's on fire is going to come down at all?
Speaker 3: That's a good engineer, Yeah, a really good engineer. Or
Speaker 3: a lying one who knew when it was supposed to
Speaker 3: come down. Because it did come down in almost exactly
Speaker 3: five hours, the prediction can only have been made with
Speaker 3: four and alle. Of course, they won't release the name
Speaker 3: of that engineer. But listen to these mysterious construction workers
Speaker 3: walking away from Building seven, hearing an explosion over their shoulder,
Speaker 3: looking back at the building and then looking straight into
Speaker 3: the CNN camera and saying this, if.
Speaker 6: You're a filter, it coming out, blow up. Run back,
Speaker 6: all right, guys.
Speaker 8: We are looking back.
Speaker 2: He's a building.
Speaker 1: Were about to blow up.
Speaker 12: The free coming down.
Speaker 3: The building is about to blow up, flame and debris
Speaker 3: coming down. How do they know that the building's about
Speaker 3: to blow up? Well, that's fascinating. What did Kevin mcpatten
Speaker 3: hear before he heard those explosions. He's listening to a
Speaker 3: radio held in the hands of a Red Cross worker
Speaker 3: about six blocks away because they were told the building
Speaker 3: is going to come down, so they're moving everybody back,
Speaker 3: and this is what he's hearing. Hearing on that radio.
Speaker 6: The last few seconds he took his hand off and
Speaker 6: you heard three two.
Speaker 3: One, Wait a minute, the buildings come down by fires
Speaker 3: to countdowns. I have a problem with this and the
Speaker 3: BBC that you mentioned, Andrew, that has announced the collapse
Speaker 3: this building twenty minutes before it happened.
Speaker 10: A more on the latest building collapse in New York.
Speaker 10: You might have heard a few moments ago was talking
Speaker 10: about the Salomon Brothers building collapsing, and indeed it has.
Speaker 10: Apparently that's only a few hundred yards away from where
Speaker 10: the World Trade Center towers were. And it seems that
Speaker 10: this was not a result of a new attack. It
Speaker 10: was because the building had been weakened during this morning's attacks.
Speaker 10: We'll probably find out more now about that from our
Speaker 10: correspondent Jane Stanley. Jane, what more can you tell us
Speaker 10: about the Salomon Brothers building and its collapse?
Speaker 14: Well, only really what you already know.
Speaker 9: Details are very very.
Speaker 1: Sketchy, sketchy.
Speaker 3: Indeed, the building still standing behind her. How did she
Speaker 3: know that a building that only had a few fires
Speaker 3: in it is going to collapse? Unprecedented. They apologize for
Speaker 3: this grievous error, citing the confusing events of the day.
Speaker 3: Does that make them psychic? What's really going on here?
Speaker 3: We can get a clue from CNN. They announced the
Speaker 3: collapse that morning at eleven oh seven in New York.
Speaker 1: Ellen Frank joins us on the phone in Lower Manhattan, Alan.
Speaker 9: Alan, Just two or three minutes ago, there was yet
Speaker 9: another collapse or explosion. I'm now out of sight. A
Speaker 9: good Samaritan has taken me in on Dwayne Street. But
Speaker 9: at a quarter to eleven there was another collapse or
Speaker 9: explosion following the ten thirty collapse of the second tower,
Speaker 9: and a firefighter who rushed by estimated that fifty stories
Speaker 9: went down. The street filled with smoke. It was like
Speaker 9: a fire forest fire roaring down a canyon. Now is
Speaker 9: I think Patty Save and others have.
Speaker 3: Told you, wait a minute, there's a problem here. A
Speaker 3: fifty story building went down. No, no other fifty story
Speaker 3: building went down. No other building totally collapsed. There were
Speaker 3: buildings that were damaged. But they're talking about Building seven here,
Speaker 3: and they're talking about it about seven hours early. So
Speaker 3: that's very interesting. Ten forty five, how'd that building come down?
Speaker 3: At that time? We would not have any videos of
Speaker 3: it because it would have been completely obscured by the
Speaker 3: massive dust cloud at least when the twin towers went down.
Speaker 3: So yeah, we got to think about this a little
Speaker 3: more critically. Maybe some people speculate that those mysterious construction
Speaker 3: workers who were walking out of Building seven announcing that
Speaker 3: it's going to blow up, flame and debris coming down,
Speaker 3: that they were fixing a dud and that didn't go
Speaker 3: off at ten forty five.
Speaker 1: And that, Yeah, definitely, I did hear that. And I
Speaker 1: do think that they almost had, you know.
Speaker 2: Times they were supposed to announce the thing, and then
Speaker 2: you know, things don't go as plan. They didn't get
Speaker 2: the you know, the memo, they still announced it. I mean,
Speaker 2: otherwise it's like what, it doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, no, it really doesn't. And that's
Speaker 3: what the experts say. This this this guy is a
Speaker 3: controlled demolition expert. Let's see what he says.
Speaker 5: Danny Jowenko is the expert on this in Europe.
Speaker 8: What did he say? It is controlled emolitioncurator. There's not
Speaker 8: a score. Is there a team for the APT express.
Speaker 3: Higher job done by a team of experts. Kamal Obeyed
Speaker 3: is a little more conservative. A localized failure in a
Speaker 3: steel framed building like World Trade Center seven cannot cause
Speaker 3: a catastrophic collapse like a house of cards without a
Speaker 3: simultaneous and patterned loss of several of its columns at
Speaker 3: key locations within the building. He is one of three
Speaker 3: dozen structural engineers signed on to the petition demanding a
Speaker 3: new investigation, and so the University of Alaska got wind
Speaker 3: of this. Professor Leroy Halsey, one of the top FRIENDSIC
Speaker 3: structural engineers in the country, performed a four year, three
Speaker 3: hundred thousand dollars study of how this building would have
Speaker 3: responded to fire. ISNs correct? Is if they are? There
Speaker 3: are again hundreds of buildings similarly designed. We should be
Speaker 3: really concerned about that. So they put two competing softwares
Speaker 3: together and they corroborated each other's results. One was SAP
Speaker 3: two thousand and the other Abacus. They found that, gosh,
Speaker 3: if column seventy nine failed, according to the theory of NIST,
Speaker 3: it would have fallen over. That makes sense, right, it's
Speaker 3: in the northeast corner on the right side over here.
Speaker 3: And so you can compare the actual video of the
Speaker 3: collapse in the center with the University of Alaska on
Speaker 3: the left, and they are the same identically. And you
Speaker 3: can compare that with the US government NIST model on
Speaker 3: the right where they stopped the whole thing after two
Speaker 3: seconds into the global failure because it actually begins to
Speaker 3: tip over after crumpling up like a beer can. So
Speaker 3: even though they released four thousand structural steel connections every set,
Speaker 3: excuse me, four hundred structural steel connections every second, they
Speaker 3: could still couldn't get their building to fall at free
Speaker 3: fall straight down like the video says. And yet they
Speaker 3: tell us that it matches remarkably well with the video
Speaker 3: of the collapse. No it doesn't, So what are the
Speaker 3: findings of Professor Lee Royhilsey. Fire didn't cause the collapse
Speaker 3: of this building. Temperatures were not high enough to cause
Speaker 3: the weakening of the steel framing. Thermal expansion did not
Speaker 3: result in a loss of support for the beams and
Speaker 3: the girders. The collapse of this building was a global
Speaker 3: failure involving what the near simultaneous failure of all the
Speaker 3: columns in the building, not a progressive collapse as claimed
Speaker 3: by NIST. So they completely pulled the rug out from
Speaker 3: underneath the NIS report, leaving us to wonder, well, what
Speaker 3: did bring the building down? We saw some witnesses of explosions,
Speaker 3: but we also have evidence of extreme heat given to
Speaker 3: us by who FEMA in the building performance Assessment Team
Speaker 3: report that came out in May of two thousand and two.
Speaker 3: What do they say in their metallurgical examination of the steel?
Speaker 3: Never before observed you tectic reactions in intragranular melting. It's
Speaker 3: capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese,
Speaker 3: like we see in this piece of the end of
Speaker 3: the beam at Building seven and the Twin towers. All
Speaker 3: this evidence of extreme heat applies to the Twin Towers
Speaker 3: as well. Rapid oxidation sulfidation liquid iron. That's molten iron,
Speaker 3: by the way, that's three thousand degrees to melt iron,
Speaker 3: three thousand fahrenheit, So fires don't get to be those temperatures.
Speaker 3: As you'll see sulfur during this hot corrosion attack on
Speaker 3: the steel. Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,
Speaker 3: says in New York Times, but NIS completely omitted this
Speaker 3: vital information from their report, as they did the witnesses
Speaker 3: of explosions. They even speculated the sulfur might have come
Speaker 3: from gypsum board. Well, gypsum board has been used for
Speaker 3: one hundred, one hundred years to protect steel from fire.
Speaker 3: It's never turned around and attacked the steel that it's
Speaker 3: designed to protect.
Speaker 4: So no.
Speaker 3: The author of the female report, Jonathan Barnett, fire protection engineer,
Speaker 3: says steel members in the debris pile appear to have
Speaker 3: been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures. But it takes
Speaker 3: four thousand degrees fahrenheit to evaporate steel. Where are we
Speaker 3: getting these temperatures? Office fires typically don't get a quarter
Speaker 3: of these temperatures. And yet the evaporation of steel is
Speaker 3: documented by Abelhazannistani, OSL structural engineer with a Science Foundation
Speaker 3: grant to study the steel. He saw the melting of
Speaker 3: girders and we can tell by the molten material dripping
Speaker 3: out of the crab claw excavator what its temperature is.
Speaker 3: We're exceeding twenty five hundred degrees just right here.
Speaker 2: Well, there's no way that a kerosene could cause it
Speaker 2: to get this. I mean, we're talking about Building seven
Speaker 2: right now.
Speaker 1: So just to clarify, like this.
Speaker 3: Is, yeah, there's no plane that Building seven. I didn't
Speaker 3: even mention that, Andrew, thank you for bringing that up. Yeah,
Speaker 3: no plane, But in the twin towers there was of
Speaker 3: course planes, and we have jet fuel, which is like
Speaker 3: you said, essentially kerosene. It burns only six hundred degrees
Speaker 3: according to this engineer. Some say much hotter. There's a
Speaker 3: lot of corroboration for these temperatures, but it will never
Speaker 3: burn hotter than hydrocarbons, which is what it is. So
Speaker 3: office fires, they're extreme hottest. Mathematical experimental conservative data for
Speaker 3: the worst case scenarios is eighteen hundred and thirty degrees
Speaker 3: or twice these temperatures. Yeah, so what can do that? Well,
Speaker 3: thermite can do that. What is thermite anyway?
Speaker 7: Oh, that is my fault reaction creating molten iron in
Speaker 7: just two seconds. Ther Mite can reach temperatures over forty
Speaker 7: five hundred degrees fahrenheit, quite enough to liquefy steel. We
Speaker 7: know that open air fires cannot burn hot enough to
Speaker 7: melt steel, but metal had melted at the base.
Speaker 1: Of the towers.
Speaker 7: Appendix C of the Fee report described sulfur residues on
Speaker 7: the World Trade Center steel. The New York Times called
Speaker 7: this the deepest mystery of all Sulfur slightly lowers the
Speaker 7: melting point of iron and iron oxide and iron sulfide
Speaker 7: had formed on the surface of the structural steel. Sulfur
Speaker 7: used with thermite is called thermite producing even faster results.
Speaker 3: Fascinating because maybe we're getting somewhere here now. If thermite
Speaker 3: were used, it would explain the extreme heat four to
Speaker 3: five thousand degrees fahrenheit. It would explain the presence of sulfur.
Speaker 3: Sulfur's added the thermite to become thermite much more effective
Speaker 3: at cutting through steel. Would also explain the presence of
Speaker 3: other forms of ignited incendiaries in the World Trade Center.
Speaker 3: Does previously molten iron microspheres found by who? The US
Speaker 3: Geological Survey and their particle Atlas came out in two
Speaker 3: thousand and five. They studied all the dust. They find
Speaker 3: billions of what previously molten that's three thousand degrees iron,
Speaker 3: the byproduct of thermite microspheres. How do they get spherical, Well,
Speaker 3: that's what aerosolized liquids do due to surface tension. And
Speaker 3: so this is fascinating. The EPA even calls it the
Speaker 3: signature component of the World Trade Center dust. In other words,
Speaker 3: is not even World Trade Center dust unless it has
Speaker 3: all these previously molten iron microspheres in it. They're up
Speaker 3: to six percent of many of these samples by extrapolation,
Speaker 3: about four tons of this material throughout all the World
Speaker 3: Trade Center dust? Wow, Where's it coming from? R? Jay
Speaker 3: Lee says, it's formed during the event, not before by
Speaker 3: the iron workers welding the building together, not afterward by
Speaker 3: the iron workers cutting the building apart, but during the event.
Speaker 3: This is an independent study of the dust by the
Speaker 3: Rjle group. Well, where are they coming from? We could
Speaker 3: do an experiment and find out. Experiment is the arbiter
Speaker 3: of competing hypotheses. Let's do one. Let's light some thermite.
Speaker 3: What we see are what looked like thousands of sparks,
Speaker 3: but they cool, They fall into the pan as previously
Speaker 3: molten iron microspheres. Wow, this is fascinating evidence of ignited thermite.
Speaker 3: All of this has been so far. Now we ask ourselves,
Speaker 3: is there any evidence of unignited thermite in the World
Speaker 3: Trade Center dust? Yeah. A team of eight international scientists
Speaker 3: led by this gentleman, Nil's Harrett and Stephen Jones. They
Speaker 3: analyze the dust throughout the World Trade Center that are
Speaker 3: independently collected samples that are sent to them by people,
Speaker 3: and they find in all of them these red gray
Speaker 3: chips right on one side, gray on the other. Thought
Speaker 3: they were paint, but unlike paint, they are attracted by
Speaker 3: a magnet. They have a high pheraomagnetic attraction. This is
Speaker 3: interesting because faint doesn't do this. And the even iron
Speaker 3: oxide paint, which is what's used to protect steel from
Speaker 3: rust from rusting out. And so they get real curious.
Speaker 3: They analyze the red layer and they find high levels
Speaker 3: of aluminum and iron and manganese which is added to
Speaker 3: thermite to become thermite. What is the signature of thermite
Speaker 3: doing in our therm and or thermate doing in all
Speaker 3: the World Trade Center dust samples? That is curious, and
Speaker 3: they zoom in fifty thousand times with an electron microscope.
Speaker 3: What do they find? Iron oxide crystals that are a
Speaker 3: thousand times smaller than the diameter of a human hair
Speaker 3: at the nanoscale. They also find aluminum platelets. Iron oxide
Speaker 3: and aluminum are the key ingredients of thermite. What are
Speaker 3: we talking about here? What's going on? These are set
Speaker 3: in an organic matrix of or meganic material, oxygen, silica,
Speaker 3: and carbon. That's what's used in tn T high energy
Speaker 3: explosives to spanned rapidly like a gas and knock things over.
Speaker 3: That's how explosives work. Whereas incendiaries typically worked by extreme temperatures.
Speaker 3: They burn things up four to five thousand degrees. Well,
Speaker 3: they don't know what the stuff is. They did peer
Speaker 3: reviewed literature. They found out this is called super thermite.
Speaker 3: It's already been published before two thousand and one by
Speaker 3: Lawrence Livermore Lab. Explosive composites based on thermite reactions whose
Speaker 3: fuel and oxidizer constituents are intimately mixed at the nanometer
Speaker 3: sized scale. See when you get this stuff so small
Speaker 3: the nanoscale, the chemical reaction is virtually instantaneous. You've engineered
Speaker 3: an incendiary to become more explosive.
Speaker 12: And like the.
Speaker 3: Red chips at Lawrence Livermore Lab, which ignited at about
Speaker 3: eight hundred and fifty degrees fahrenheit, They these chips did
Speaker 3: the same thing and produced an exothermic reaction, proving that
Speaker 3: it's not paint. So paint doesn't have these exotic properties.
Speaker 3: So they found nanothermite in all of the samples that
Speaker 3: they studied.
Speaker 2: So they found unignited thermite that they then took and
Speaker 2: lit or used, you know, made it work, essentially lit
Speaker 2: it and here it was. And there's nothing you would
Speaker 2: find inside of any building that maybe has this composition
Speaker 2: in it for any reason, you said no to paint,
Speaker 2: there's nothing else.
Speaker 3: Well, these elemental components iron oxide is essentially rust that's
Speaker 3: in buildings. Aluminum is in the buildings, but at the
Speaker 3: nanoscale intimately mixed three quarter to one quarter formed into
Speaker 3: red gray chips that are obviously flue and applied. No nothing,
Speaker 3: not paint, no paint, no, nothing that would do this.
Speaker 3: And and for fear of burning up. You know if
Speaker 3: there was and there was a fire, it would it
Speaker 3: would light all light all that stuff up like like uh,
Speaker 3: these did at eight hundred degrees fahrenheit. So what do
Speaker 3: you suppose happened when those chips ignited in the heater?
Speaker 3: The differential scanning calorimeter, they produce molten iron microspheres with
Speaker 3: the same chemical signature as the molten iron microspheres found
Speaker 3: and produced and analyzed by the USGS and R. J.
Speaker 3: Lee and all their samples. So we know exactly where
Speaker 3: those previously molten iron microspheres came from. They came from
Speaker 3: these red grade chips. As if we didn't know, they're
Speaker 3: found attached to partially ignite it red gray chips as
Speaker 3: you see here and here this is a very sophisticated
Speaker 3: material found not in a cave in Afghanistan, but in
Speaker 3: the most advanced defense contracting laboratories. So we know where
Speaker 3: to go for a real investigation, right, And this is all.
Speaker 3: This is a twenty four page peer reviewed paper in
Speaker 3: the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. The red layer that
Speaker 3: we found is unreacted thermitic material incorporating nanotechnology. It's a
Speaker 3: highly energetic, pyrotechnic or explosive material. So yeah, and we've
Speaker 3: given this peer report to every member of Congress at
Speaker 3: least two times over the last twenty years. Can't get
Speaker 3: any response. Got some response from Connecticut Congressman Jim Hines.
Speaker 3: He wrote NIST and they wrote him back and said,
Speaker 3: oh yeah, there's an aluminum in the building and iron
Speaker 3: in the building, and don't worry about this. You know,
Speaker 3: it was absolutely ridiculous. So we've got some plans I'll
Speaker 3: tell you about how to get a real investigation here.
Speaker 3: But for Building seven, we have ten key characteristic features
Speaker 3: and some very uncharacteristic features here, which is direct evidence
Speaker 3: of destruction with explosives and particularly incendiaries here. And fire
Speaker 3: doesn't create any one of these features, let alone all
Speaker 3: ten of them with additional circumstantial evidence of corroborative testimony
Speaker 3: that becomes proof of controlled demolition, a body of proof
Speaker 3: that's convinced three thousand, six hundred architects and engineers to
Speaker 3: sign a petition demanding a new investigation. And many of
Speaker 3: them appear in our film series nine to eleven Crime
Speaker 3: Scene to Courtroom, which we're working on feverishly and we've
Speaker 3: released four episodes already. Here's it's an introduction to them.
Speaker 15: No matter how improbable the conclusion may appear, and you've
Speaker 15: eliminated the impossible one, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
Speaker 15: the truth.
Speaker 3: We're bringing alive in the film the sixty exhibits of
Speaker 3: the nine to eleven WTC evidence contained in the Lawyer's
Speaker 3: Committee Grand Jury petition that have already been submitted to
Speaker 3: the US Attorney in Manhattan to present to a special
Speaker 3: criminal jury.
Speaker 15: This historic investigation is ongoing, and there's a role for
Speaker 15: you in it.
Speaker 3: Yes, you can help us bring the real perpetrators to justice.
Speaker 3: Through this film series. We're bringing together two dozen experts
Speaker 3: in their fields ignored any scenario involving in semiaries demolition work.
Speaker 3: You're going to set charges on each four the building
Speaker 3: could not have been down by offers fires.
Speaker 15: In other words, all of the interior columns over eight
Speaker 15: stories came down were basically lost.
Speaker 13: At once.
Speaker 11: I could make out what looked like from a science
Speaker 11: fiction movie, both in lava.
Speaker 12: Okay, And he paused and said, that'll be coming down
Speaker 12: around five o'clock.
Speaker 15: He will be filming these evidence presentations not only for
Speaker 15: filings with the grand jury, also as presentations to each
Speaker 15: of view.
Speaker 3: We're inviting you to serve as virtual grand jury during
Speaker 3: each episode.
Speaker 1: Three thousand people.
Speaker 2: That is a lot of people to be coming together,
Speaker 2: I mean, just to start, you know, and they're all
Speaker 2: did you see firefighters, experts all all together right, yeah,
Speaker 2: high architectural.
Speaker 3: Structural engineers, metal or just chemists, physicists, controlled demolition experts.
Speaker 1: So does this have anything to do with.
Speaker 2: You know, because I mean Trump kind of hinted at
Speaker 2: it a little bit in his previous presidency and then
Speaker 2: he kind of hasn't said a word since he mentioned
Speaker 2: the bombs in the buildings. But then now you see
Speaker 2: kind of this resurgence of kind of a lot of
Speaker 2: files and redoing, you know, investigations in general. Not to
Speaker 2: give him necessarily credit for it, but there is this
Speaker 2: push for it from somewhere, it seems. So do you
Speaker 2: think that maybe that's kind of helping your case a
Speaker 2: little bit?
Speaker 3: Maybe there's some Oh yeah, we have top podcasters Clayton
Speaker 3: Morris and Jimmy Dore and Tucker Carlson talking about nine
Speaker 3: to eleven. Tucker just released for five episodes of nine
Speaker 3: to eleven files. He calls it and this evidence some
Speaker 3: of it appears in there. The whole Zy report appeared
Speaker 3: in there, The active ther medical Materials report appeared in there.
Speaker 3: So yeah, he's ship the Overton window. And you mentioned
Speaker 3: Trump and saying there must have been bombs. Well, look
Speaker 3: at what we're looking at upward outwards marking streamers, a
Speaker 3: geometry of fireworks freely flying structural steel sections weighing four
Speaker 3: and eight tons laterally ejected at eighty miles an hour
Speaker 3: clocked by physicists.
Speaker 2: Between that debris and those buildings. And this is way
Speaker 2: after the plane hit.
Speaker 3: They're landing up to six hundred feet in every direction.
Speaker 3: So what can do that? And what's trailing them? Thick
Speaker 3: white smoke clouds? Where do those thick white smoke clouds
Speaker 3: come from? Steel is not flammable in office fire conditions. Well,
Speaker 3: let's see what happens with thermite. We see the molten metal,
Speaker 3: but we also see thick white smoke clouds of aluminum
Speaker 3: oxide ash, the other byproduct of thermite. So now we're
Speaker 3: starting to piece together. But let's step through it, just
Speaker 3: step by step here, beginning with feature number one. Is
Speaker 3: there a sudden onset of destruction? Well, yeah, the North
Speaker 3: tower standing at rest and all of a sudden, it's
Speaker 3: in uniform downward motion, no jolt, no hesitation upon impact
Speaker 3: with a cold hard steel below. Same with the South tower.
Speaker 3: It's at rest and all of a sudden, uniform downward motion,
Speaker 3: no stoppage when it meets the incredible resistance below. We're
Speaker 3: told that the upper part drove the rest of the
Speaker 3: building down to the ground and then destroyed itself. And
Speaker 3: is that what we see? This is called the crushed
Speaker 3: down crush up theory, produced by Zidenic Bizant of Northwestern
Speaker 3: University in Chicago. He produced this paper, which is a
Speaker 3: piece of mathematical wizardry which confused structural engineers until they
Speaker 3: decoded it ten years later. He produced this in two
Speaker 3: days and he submitted it for peer review within two
Speaker 3: days after n The rest of us are freaked out, right,
Speaker 3: We're wondering, what when's the next plane coming? Who's attacking
Speaker 3: us here? We didn't know the answers to these questions,
Speaker 3: and so this this guy did. But his theory, which
Speaker 3: we'll talk a little bit more about in a second,
Speaker 3: but he suffers from Newton's third law of motion. There's
Speaker 3: an equal in opposite destructive force when two bodies collide.
Speaker 3: Run a mack truck into a Volkswagen. Who wins the
Speaker 3: mack truck?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 3: Does it matter if we drop the Volkswagen onto the
Speaker 3: mack truck. No, the upper part is the lightest part.
Speaker 3: Look at the steal in the upper part and it
Speaker 3: gets it's only three quarter inch thick at the top,
Speaker 3: but then it starts to get heavier and heavier down below,
Speaker 3: till you're fifty two inches by twenty two inches in
Speaker 3: the core columns and the two inch thick steel. But
Speaker 3: that's steel infills and becomes almost solid steel at the bottom.
Speaker 3: So let's look and examine if the upper part, the
Speaker 3: Volkswagen is destroying the lower part the mac truck. I'll
Speaker 3: make it easier. Look at the lower red line is
Speaker 3: the upper part destroying the lower part. No, it's destroying itself.
Speaker 3: It's being destroyed. It's telescoping in on itself. What's happening
Speaker 3: to it? Well, we're we can see that it's blowing up.
Speaker 3: We're going to see a lot more evidence of it.
Speaker 3: If it were there destroying the lower part, we would
Speaker 3: see it. There's none of the photos of videos after
Speaker 3: two or three seconds shows any upper section. It's been destroyed.
Speaker 3: If it were there, it would have destroyed these few
Speaker 3: remaining core columns standing nine hundred feet in the air
Speaker 3: for a dozen seconds after the towers came down. So, no,
Speaker 3: it's not.
Speaker 2: It's not the art I never saw. I never saw
Speaker 2: those core columns like that. Yeah, like melting and it
Speaker 2: almost looked melted a little bit.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's yes, they they have been taken apart and
Speaker 3: stripped with explosives and incendiaries as well as we've been
Speaker 3: seeing and we will see more of Listen, what's really
Speaker 3: going on here? It looks more like the volcanic eruption
Speaker 3: in the Tongue and Sea, which one's the volcanic eruption,
Speaker 3: by the way, which one's World Trade Center one.
Speaker 1: Hard to tell.
Speaker 3: It is hard to tell. Yeah, and good guess. But
Speaker 3: what we have is again upward, outward arching streamers, a
Speaker 3: geometry of fireworks, freely flying structure, solid molten objects trailed
Speaker 3: by thick white smoke clouds. That's the analogy that we're
Speaker 3: looking at up to six hundred feet again in every direction.
Speaker 3: Wait a minute, so this is a lie, this crush down,
Speaker 3: crush up theory. What we're really seeing is this outward
Speaker 3: explosive event out and away from those few remaining core columns,
Speaker 3: which then eventually go down by themselves. And so we
Speaker 3: have to look and see what could be bringing this
Speaker 3: take tearing this building apart. Is there evidence of explosions
Speaker 3: if they're witnesses? Nists says no. Once again, no witnesses
Speaker 3: of explosions in the twin towers either to save those
Speaker 3: explosions when the planes hit, and some explosions in the lobby. Well,
Speaker 3: here's one hundred and fifty six first responders who are
Speaker 3: witnesses of explosions recorded early within a month after nine
Speaker 3: to eleven, twelve thousand pages of testimony finally available on
Speaker 3: the New York Times website because they sued the City
Speaker 3: of New York to get them released. And we didn't
Speaker 3: have access to these until August of two thousand and five,
Speaker 3: and Graham McQueen read all twelve thousand pages. He found
Speaker 3: one hundred and fifty six witnesses like this. We felt
Speaker 3: the ground shake, you could see the towers sway, and
Speaker 3: then it just came down. All of a sudden, The
Speaker 3: ground just started shaking. Felt like a train running under
Speaker 3: my feet. The next thing we know, we look up
Speaker 3: and the towers collapsing again and again. You're gonna hear
Speaker 3: this specific order of events. They're hearing something, they're seeing something,
Speaker 3: they're feeling something before the towers come down. Shook my bones.
Speaker 3: Shortly before the first tower came down, I remember feeling
Speaker 3: the ground shaking, heard a terrible noise, and then debris
Speaker 3: just started flying everywhere. I saw fly flas flash at
Speaker 3: the lower level of the building, you know, like when
Speaker 3: they demolish a building with each popping sound. Initially an
Speaker 3: orange and then a red flash came out of the building,
Speaker 3: and then we just go all around the building on
Speaker 3: both sides. Saw a number of brief light sources being
Speaker 3: emitted from inside the building. Between floors ten and fifteen,
Speaker 3: about six of these brief flashes accompanied by a crackling
Speaker 3: sound before the tower collapsed. I saw low level flashes.
Speaker 3: I saw flash, flash, flash, and then it looked like
Speaker 3: the building came down. An explosion appeared at the very
Speaker 3: top simultaneously from all four sides. Materials shot out horizontally,
Speaker 3: and then there seemed to be a momentary delay before
Speaker 3: you could see the beginning of the collapse. How specific
Speaker 3: does this fire chief, this expert witness need to be.
Speaker 3: There was an explosion in the South Tower when it
Speaker 3: hit about the fifth floor. I figured it was a
Speaker 3: bomb because it looked like a synchronized, deliberate kind of thing.
Speaker 3: Seemed like on television when they blow up these buildings.
Speaker 3: Seemed like it was going all the way around like
Speaker 3: a belt. All these explosions. The building is blowing out
Speaker 3: on all four sides. We actually heard the pops, you know,
Speaker 3: you heard the pops of the building. I thought the
Speaker 3: terrors planeted a explosive somewhere in the building. That's how loud.
Speaker 3: It was, a crackling explosive. Another loud boom at the
Speaker 3: upper floors, and there series of smaller explosions which appeared
Speaker 3: to go completely around the building. At the upper floors,
Speaker 3: another loud, earth shattering blast with a large fireball that
Speaker 3: blew out more debris.
Speaker 2: And by the way, like the crackling and the fireball,
Speaker 2: that's like incendiary evidence, isn't it. I Mean when you
Speaker 2: think of like thermite, it like kind of cracks and like,
Speaker 2: you know, almost like a explosive crack.
Speaker 3: Thermite gives a big fizzle.
Speaker 1: I see. Yeah, I guess I was imagining that my
Speaker 1: head when I said crack. But yeah, definitely.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that kind of like when you light a stick
Speaker 2: of a like a for a little piece of dynamite
Speaker 2: or firework. That sound that the actual wick has if
Speaker 2: you were to Matt, you know, make that mad run out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what I was imagining. That kind of goes off.
Speaker 3: That's an explosion.
Speaker 1: That's the actual crack. Yeah, the explosion.
Speaker 3: And this guy says, at the lower level of the building,
Speaker 3: you know, like one thing demolish a building. That's what
Speaker 3: I thought. I saw you see any flashes? I said, yes,
Speaker 3: I thought it was just me. He said no, I
Speaker 3: saw them too. Everybody. I think it's still at that point,
Speaker 3: still thought these things were blown up, So I was
Speaker 3: fully expecting anything else to blow up. You were there
Speaker 3: when the planes hit. No, I was there when the
Speaker 3: building exploded. You mean when it fell down. No, when
Speaker 3: it exploded. It's very clear what he saw. How about
Speaker 3: these guys, Oh, take down a building.
Speaker 6: All the way down?
Speaker 3: Interesting? Well, how about feature number three? Is there a
Speaker 3: straight down symmetrical progression? Well, the south tower actually begins
Speaker 3: to lean over, So there's a symmetrical damage from this
Speaker 3: part that's leaning over twenty to twenty degrees. There's a
Speaker 3: symmetrical damage from the fires, there's asymmetrical damage from the
Speaker 3: broken columns from the planes. How in the world, then,
Speaker 3: do we get complete symmetrical destruction, just like the firefighter said,
Speaker 3: all the way around the building, all four sides and
Speaker 3: down to the ground. How does that happen? It makes
Speaker 3: no sense. It doesn't. One doesn't follow from the other.
Speaker 3: Let's see what's going on with a close up. Do
Speaker 3: we have in this looped video visual evidence of about
Speaker 3: a dozen independent explosions? I think so. And those explosions
Speaker 3: are can only be pre placed explosives in the outer wall,
Speaker 3: floor by floor. You can see them quite easily. What's
Speaker 3: going on here? This is not a nuclear weapon going off,
Speaker 3: by the way, These are independent all rapidly placed, synchronistically
Speaker 3: timed explosions, and that is not directed energy weapons weakening
Speaker 3: the steel somehow so this building can fall.
Speaker 1: This all you can see is very uniform as well.
Speaker 2: And it's insane to think that somebody had to go
Speaker 2: Florida floor corner to corner and you know, put this.
Speaker 2: I would imagine it's almost like a paint of some
Speaker 2: sort that they kind of rub it somewhere so it
Speaker 2: could ignite.
Speaker 1: Later, which is that's a huge feat just in itself.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, these look more like explosives than incendiaries, so
Speaker 3: we think both were used.
Speaker 1: Oh both, okay, and.
Speaker 3: That's responsible for what we're about to see. Isolated explosive
Speaker 3: ejections occurring. How far down below the zone of destruction,
Speaker 3: twenty stories down, even forty stories down below the zone
Speaker 3: of destruction, we have these isolated explosives called squibs in
Speaker 3: the controlled demolition industry, even sixty stories down below. There's
Speaker 3: no explanation for these whatsoever either in the official narrative.
Speaker 3: It makes no sense. And we see a dozen of
Speaker 3: them on the left side of the South Tower minutes
Speaker 3: well as it's coming down, uniformly a dozen of them
Speaker 3: isolated explosive ejections, even destroying the internal rigidity of the
Speaker 3: upper section above. The point of plane impacts here so
Speaker 3: that it doesn't develop as a rigid structure, roll off
Speaker 3: the part below, the massive building below, and maintain its
Speaker 3: angular momentum fall onto the ground as a rigid body. No,
Speaker 3: it's it actually settles back down into itself as a
Speaker 3: group of isolated structural elements, more like sand falling. But
Speaker 3: how fast is it coming down? Well, it's been clocked
Speaker 3: by physicists also, and it's almost free fall acceleration. It's
Speaker 3: not slowing down. Even ninety percent of the resistance of
Speaker 3: the columns has given way in order for it to
Speaker 3: fall at sixty four percent two thirds of freefall.
Speaker 2: And there's no It's funny because there's no buildings that
Speaker 2: have fallen from fire to use as a reference to say,
Speaker 2: is anything else fallen at this speed except for demolition.
Speaker 2: It seems the demolition is the only explanation that we
Speaker 2: can kind of use as a reference point.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's an excellent point. And this is what is
Speaker 3: falling through the solid steel almost at the bottom fifty
Speaker 3: two inches wide by twenty two inches high, and up
Speaker 3: above they get smaller, of course, about half that at
Speaker 3: half height, and we're talking forty seven massive core columns,
Speaker 3: two hundred and forty perimeter columns that look like this.
Speaker 3: There's more steel than glass outside of these mammoth buildings.
Speaker 3: They had to use a ar and deel trust to
Speaker 3: keep it from tipping over in high winds and hurricanes,
Speaker 3: which they can have in New York. So what happened
Speaker 3: to these exterior structural steel sections. Well, let's look at
Speaker 3: them with the evidence of the lateral ejection, because they're landing,
Speaker 3: impaling themselves in skyscrapers all around the building. They've destroyed
Speaker 3: the winter gardens six hundred feet away of the World
Speaker 3: Financial Center, They've destroyed the Deutsche Bank building. These sections
Speaker 3: are held together at the top and bottom by four bolts,
Speaker 3: so all the plane had to do is punch in
Speaker 3: these sections and that would shear off the five eight
Speaker 3: inch round bolts at the top and the bottom for
Speaker 3: per column, and the bolts on the horizontal spandle panel
Speaker 3: which this gentleman is working on. But what happens to them?
Speaker 3: They are ejected freely, flying structural steel sections weighing four
Speaker 3: and eight tons ejected Laterally, look at this one, it's
Speaker 3: about to hit Building seven. Back to forward to what
Speaker 3: do we notice here? It's gone out? How does gravity work?
Speaker 3: Andrew Good? Something else is happening here. It's gone straight
Speaker 3: out incredible explosive force. But what's a trailing thick white
Speaker 3: smoke clouds? We found out what that was aluminum oxide ash.
Speaker 3: That's the only thing it can be. Steel is not
Speaker 3: flammable in off spire conditions.
Speaker 1: Huh, it's a lot of it too.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's one hundreds of these. In fact, there's enough
Speaker 3: energy to hurl a two hundred pound cannonball three miles
Speaker 3: for each one of them, and they are hurled. There
Speaker 3: are hundreds of them, twelve hundred foot diameter, even greater
Speaker 3: outside the footprint of these buildings, outside the boundary of
Speaker 3: World Trade Center. In fact, and by the way, if
Speaker 3: one hundred thousand tons of steel framing is distributed outside
Speaker 3: well outside the footprint of each tower, what's crushing the building?
Speaker 3: This is two thirds of the mass of that building.
Speaker 3: What's crushing the building? It's not the steel. This is
Speaker 3: ninety ninety two one hundred thousand tons of steel that's
Speaker 3: not available to crush the building. Maybe it's a concrete.
Speaker 3: Let's look at feature number eight. What happens to the concrete? Oh,
Speaker 3: it's missing down at the bottom. We're expecting one hundred
Speaker 3: and ten floors each an acre in size four inch
Speaker 3: thick and eight inch thick concrete poured on metal deckings
Speaker 3: supported by lightweight steel trusses. And we don't find fifty
Speaker 3: of them. We don't find twenty ten, not even one
Speaker 3: acre sized floor, not a half acre, a quarter acre,
Speaker 3: or a sixteenth of an acre.
Speaker 1: All it's gone.
Speaker 3: It's all gone. Where did it go? We're going to
Speaker 3: find out. But compare that to this building in Bangkok,
Speaker 3: which was only a third of the height of the
Speaker 3: twin towers, but has a pile that's seven times well
Speaker 3: three times the hype. Look at the guys down in
Speaker 3: the lower corner. We're talking eight, nine, ten stories of
Speaker 3: pancakes here. That is a pancake and collapse. That is
Speaker 3: a natural collapse. Something very different happened at the World
Speaker 3: Trade Center. So where is the concrete. Oh there it
Speaker 3: is pulverized in mid air. All of the photos, all
Speaker 3: of the videos show ninety thousand tons of concrete pulverized
Speaker 3: in mid air. Wow, So what can do that. Well,
Speaker 3: here's one thing that can do Explosives can do that.
Speaker 3: That's one possibility. Here's another possibility. Did you know concrete
Speaker 3: is powderized at temperatures above fifteen hundred degrees fahrenheit.
Speaker 1: That's crazy.
Speaker 3: What do we have with thermite, nano thermite four and
Speaker 3: five thousand degrees to fahrenheit, white powder decomposed hydration products
Speaker 3: at fifteen hundred degrees fahrenheit. Wow? Well, the Fire Safety
Speaker 3: Journal says twenty two hundred degrees fahrenheit completely decomposed. We
Speaker 3: have twice these temperatures available. So could it be the
Speaker 3: thermite was placed on the bottom of these floor slabs
Speaker 3: which would evaporate not only the metal decking the trusses
Speaker 3: that were supporting them, but perhaps the concrete too.
Speaker 1: Wow, man, that is outrageous.
Speaker 3: I think so too. And where is that concrete going.
Speaker 3: It's being distributed laterally throughout Lower Manhattan and a three
Speaker 3: square mile area than a blanket three inches thick. Well
Speaker 3: wait a minute. If the concrete, which was another third
Speaker 3: of the weight of this building, is distributed from Murder
Speaker 3: to River across Lower Manhattan, what's crushing the building? It
Speaker 3: wasn't the steel. The steel was a third of the
Speaker 3: way to building together. This is two thirds the weight
Speaker 3: of the building is not even available to crush that building.
Speaker 3: And yet NISS theory provided by Zidenic Bizant, in this
Speaker 3: mathematical wizardry of a paper submitted two days after nine
Speaker 3: to eleven, used all of the weight of that steel
Speaker 3: in concrete to crush it. Not only that he fraudulently
Speaker 3: doubled it, and below he decreased the column strength by
Speaker 3: a factor of three. Complete fraud. Make his numbers work, yep,
Speaker 3: And that is what NISS uses today as their key
Speaker 3: theoretical basis for this building's failure. And it's all fraud.
Speaker 3: It's rigged in favor of a collapse, and it's been
Speaker 3: refuted by engineers. Ten years later, Richard John's Gregory Zudeleinski
Speaker 3: Tony Zambodi submitted papers to the American Society of Civil Engineer,
Speaker 3: But they won't publish him, even though they're in the
Speaker 3: same journal of Engineering Mechanics that Zidanic Bazont published. Why
Speaker 3: won't they publish these challenges to these peer reviewed papers
Speaker 3: are out of scope? Wait a minute, how is that
Speaker 3: out of scope to publish a challenge to a previously
Speaker 3: published paper in that journal.
Speaker 1: That's what we do inside. Can't even challenge it. Huh,
Speaker 1: that's pretty insane.
Speaker 3: So there's ethical violation suits that have been filed and
Speaker 3: that remains in play. Well, how would they have gotten
Speaker 3: such materials into the towers? Well, here's one possibility. There
Speaker 3: was a fireproofing upgrade in the months and years before
Speaker 3: nine to eleven. Coincidentally, some of those floors were coincident
Speaker 3: with the airplane impacts. That is a fascinating coincidence and
Speaker 3: this needs more study. It could it be possible that
Speaker 3: they were applying liquid applied nanothermite under the guise of
Speaker 3: a fireproofing upgrade, because there are liquid applied fireproofings called
Speaker 3: intermiscent paint. So maybe that's what they were applying, and
Speaker 3: this is when they applied it, after all, the buildings
Speaker 3: were only half occupied and will provide more information about Yeah,
Speaker 3: they were money losers. Well, Silverstein bought it just six
Speaker 3: weeks prior.
Speaker 1: To nine to eleven, and then Terry's insurance on it.
Speaker 3: Much more terrorist insurance than they ever had, and he
Speaker 3: the city was requiring New York Port Authority to abate
Speaker 3: the asbestos. That was a five billion dollar job asbesticipatement,
Speaker 3: And so why would you buy a building that's half
Speaker 3: occupied and needed asbestos with fifteen million dollars of his
Speaker 3: own money. Silverstein acquired these for a total three point.
Speaker 1: Two billion, and he owned Building seven correct, he.
Speaker 3: Had already he had developed Building seven and eighty six,
Speaker 3: and he acquired these buildings just six weeks these other
Speaker 3: six buildings just six weeks after before nine to eleven.
Speaker 1: So not suspect at all. No, no, awesome, that is crazy.
Speaker 2: What's your take on ACE Elevator being such a small
Speaker 2: company compared to the company that put the elevators into
Speaker 2: the buildings and the first.
Speaker 3: ACE elevator, Because if you had access to those elevators,
Speaker 3: you'd have access to the core columns and beams in
Speaker 3: the building also, So yes, ACE Elevator had this contract
Speaker 3: and in order to do anything with the beams, they
Speaker 3: would have had to cut through this four inch two
Speaker 3: inch thick gypsum board on every floor on most of
Speaker 3: the HEIH wasteways. So that would have created a lot
Speaker 3: of dust. But listen to the testimony of Scott Forbes,
Speaker 3: senior database administrator at Fiduciary Trust.
Speaker 14: It was probably the week cleaning up to nine eleven.
Speaker 14: Every morning I'd come in around seven am and the
Speaker 14: dust was incredible. It was selfate. It was like the
Speaker 14: cleaner's right cleaning right where the windows were. There was
Speaker 14: a cell which enclosed radiators. I would sick to death
Speaker 14: of the dust which were clearing on the window sill.
Speaker 14: It was dirty, gray and very very noticeable in that
Speaker 14: week cleaning up to nine eleven.
Speaker 3: Wow, so that ties to and two together. Yeah. Ace
Speaker 3: Elevator had the largest elevator modernization in history, and they
Speaker 3: came from nowhere to get this contract from Otis Elevator,
Speaker 3: who had installed and had been maintaining the elevators up
Speaker 3: to this contract.
Speaker 2: And Otis to this day is a major elevation company,
Speaker 2: and Eace Elevator is very very small.
Speaker 3: Oh, they went out of business. This was their only time.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So were there these fifty operators that were pulled out
Speaker 3: by the way the morning of nine to eleven, Well,
Speaker 3: they didn't come to work on nine to eleven, fifty
Speaker 3: of them to a union meeting to discuss business. Well,
Speaker 3: the coincidence has just start piling up here. Yeah, so
Speaker 3: they did just fine, they just weren't there. Well, how
Speaker 3: about the steal. There was one hundred and eighty thousand
Speaker 3: of it. What happened to it and easily the largest
Speaker 3: and most perplexing structural failures in history. Up to four
Speaker 3: hundred truckloads a day were brought in and within two
Speaker 3: weeks after nine to eleven, the steel was carted away
Speaker 3: to the landfill and then shipped to China for recycling
Speaker 3: before investigators could get their hands on it and do
Speaker 3: a proper forensic examination. This is the illegal destruction of
Speaker 3: evidence in a crime scene, prompting Bill Manning, editor in
Speaker 3: chief of Fire Engineering Magazine, the cry out crucial evidence
Speaker 3: gott to answer many questions is on the slow boat
Speaker 3: to China, showing an astounding ignorance of government officials to
Speaker 3: the value of a thorough scientific investigation. The destruction and
Speaker 3: removal of evidence must stop immediately, but it didn't, and
Speaker 3: so together with the additional molten steel and iron evidence,
Speaker 3: the thermite and sindiaries that we talked about ten key
Speaker 3: characteristic features of controlled demolition, and that has convinced three thousand,
Speaker 3: four hunt three thousand, six hundred architecture engineers to sign
Speaker 3: on to the petition demanding a new investigation based on
Speaker 3: this proof of controlled demolition. And again they appear in
Speaker 3: the film series nine to eleven Crime Scene to Court
Speaker 3: and you can watch them. The first four episodes are out.
Speaker 3: They're incredible. I highly recommend it go to one C
Speaker 3: two C dot org. That's nine one one letter C
Speaker 3: number two letter C dot org. And you mentioned are
Speaker 3: we or earlier? What are the opportunities We're getting some
Speaker 3: movement out there in the nine to eleven truth movement
Speaker 3: And yes, I senator for former Congressman Dennis Cacinach and
Speaker 3: Kurt Weldon and Senator Ron Johnson are making a circuit
Speaker 3: about nine to eleven. Just yesterday we had Brett Weinstein
Speaker 3: of dark Horse interview Senator Ron Johnson. They spent the
Speaker 3: whole time talking about nine to eleven. They mentioned our
Speaker 3: work about three or four times. So this is happening. Man.
Speaker 3: Senator Johnson gave the keynote address at this three day
Speaker 3: conference in Washington, d C. And we were honored to
Speaker 3: have him there. We met with him in his office
Speaker 3: that morning several of us and discussed the having Senate hearings,
Speaker 3: and he encouraged us to work with his staff come
Speaker 3: up with compile our evidence. All together in one cohesive whole,
Speaker 3: which is a big project, and we're going to be
Speaker 3: doing that over the next few months, and we expect
Speaker 3: to have Senate hearings in the Senate like he did
Speaker 3: sponsor the COVID hearings. So that's pretty exciting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and we look at that.
Speaker 2: I really hope that that turns out. I'd love to
Speaker 2: in our lifetime and not towards the end, you know
Speaker 2: what I mean, like real shortly, you know, kind of
Speaker 2: get that the answers to what happened twenty five years ago,
Speaker 2: twenty four years ago.
Speaker 3: I agree, and even ten years ago we had nine
Speaker 3: to eleven explosive evidence experts speak out with forty high
Speaker 3: rise architects, structural engineers, metal urgers, chemists, physicists, controlled demolition
Speaker 3: experts all laying out this evidence. We have the fifteen
Speaker 3: minute documentary just on Building seven Solving the Mystery with
Speaker 3: actor ed Asner and narrating. And we have the story
Speaker 3: made by filmmaker Dylan Avery of the Holsey Report in
Speaker 3: this one hour documentary about the University of Alaska's study.
Speaker 3: So all that's available to you at Richard Gage nine
Speaker 3: one one dot org as is the brochure that outlines
Speaker 3: all this evidence for you. You can print it. You
Speaker 3: can download it for free from our website at the
Speaker 3: store and print it and give it to every architect
Speaker 3: and engineer you can find everybody else that you know.
Speaker 3: After all, we've got to get to the truth about
Speaker 3: nine to eleven and make the public aware of it
Speaker 3: because it's been censored, as you can imagine, by the
Speaker 3: mainstream media. We've got to draw our line in the
Speaker 3: sand somewhere. I drew it in two thousand and six.
Speaker 3: I hope everybody else will draw your line and get
Speaker 3: this podcast six G out to everybody and the other
Speaker 3: work of Andrew and Justin. It's really important. Don't stick
Speaker 3: your head in the sand. It's time to speak the
Speaker 3: truth about nine to eleven. And that's why we're here,
Speaker 3: and we hope you'll join us, right Andrew.
Speaker 1: Oh of course I'm with you. I'm with you, Richard.
Speaker 2: That was a beautiful deep dive, very informative. Richard Gage
Speaker 2: nine to eleven out or definitely go check out the
Speaker 2: rest of his work. He's out here fighting the good fight.
Speaker 2: I really hope that you get a massive amount of
Speaker 2: more people. So you guys, can you know, kind of
Speaker 2: do the same thing. What did Trump's that you know,
Speaker 2: too big to rig? You know what I mean, you
Speaker 2: gotta get enough people that are uh, they can't they
Speaker 2: can't mess with you, you know what I mean. They
Speaker 2: just have to just up the evidence. But I really,
Speaker 2: I really hope for the best for that, definitely. I
Speaker 2: hope to keep you keep me posted on that. I'll
Speaker 2: have to bring back on you know, afterwards, and you know,
Speaker 2: see how it went and go over you know anything,
Speaker 2: the new findings of anything that may have came out later.
Speaker 3: Oh, right on exactly. We'll do it. We're not gonna stop.
Speaker 3: And thank you for getting the word out there.
Speaker 2: Of course, not my pleasure, Richard. Yeah, thank you for
Speaker 2: coming on, and I look forward to speaking with you anytime.
Speaker 1: Yeah, beautiful deep dive. I really enjoyed it, all right.
Speaker 3: I'm glad. Thanks Andrew, Thanks.
Speaker 1: Justin of course. Yeah, come back see us again soon, sir,
Speaker 1: Thank you, Thank you. All right. That was another episode
Speaker 1: of six g Agenda. I hope you all enjoyed that.
Speaker 1: That was a That was man, he got down that detail,
Speaker 1: super informative.
Speaker 3: That was dope.
Speaker 1: Definitely.
Speaker 2: I didn't even want to step in out like do
Speaker 2: your thing, man, killed it. Do your thing right, don't
Speaker 2: let me stop the work. He was he's got it
Speaker 2: down to a science. But he's got the line in
Speaker 2: the sand slide like he's ready to go.
Speaker 1: That's like I was like, y'all, y'all gotta get the
Speaker 1: line and put.
Speaker 2: It in the sand, like come on, when's your like
Speaker 2: like hey, and I'm saying that about everything, like when
Speaker 2: when y'all gotta like, you know, wake up, you know,
Speaker 2: Bill Cooper, wake up people, not that people listening to
Speaker 2: this podcast.
Speaker 1: Of course, everybody on here knows what the fuck goes on.
Speaker 1: This was a good one, man. I hope you guys enjoyed.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Whenever I first heard his stuff, it was, yeah,
Speaker 1: it was. It blew my mind.
Speaker 2: I definitely was convinced after the first time I heard
Speaker 2: his presentation that that is one percent what happened, justin
Speaker 2: what's your take?
Speaker 1: I mean, I didn't disagree with anything that he said.
Speaker 12: There was ship that he was saying that I had
Speaker 12: never heard of, and like the side by sides that
Speaker 12: he was showing, he had every visual aid that he needed.
Speaker 12: He was fucking he dotted every ie, he crossed every
Speaker 12: t he was fucking on it.
Speaker 1: What I say. I said, we brought up first expert.
Speaker 2: Dude, that's expert work, right, the bro that's the expert
Speaker 2: at work right there, A one as fuck. Definitely, Hopefully
Speaker 2: we'll get it back on, you know, after we see
Speaker 2: what happens with the new nine to eleven commission report.
Speaker 2: I would love to see the new findings on that.
Speaker 2: I would imagine it might be a little bit out
Speaker 2: of his spec spectrum. As far as the speculating on
Speaker 2: the players involved, that will probably be more of the
Speaker 2: information we kind of get. But hey, that's our wheelhouse.
Speaker 2: We're gonna get all deep into that. It's gonna be
Speaker 2: a good time. Uh yeah, no, definitely. Uh it was awesome. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I hope you guys enjoyed that we are. We talked
Speaker 2: about putting it on Patreon. Throughout the course of listening
Speaker 2: to this, I decided we're gonna leave it.
Speaker 3: Man, this was a good one.
Speaker 1: Leave on the free feed. Man, I'm leaving on the
Speaker 1: free feed.
Speaker 2: Just go give us some love, Go support the show,
Speaker 2: and uh, you know you, if you value us, go
Speaker 2: support it. You know, I'd hate to I'd hate to,
Speaker 2: uh have the right person notice us before we're able
Speaker 2: to buy the security we.
Speaker 1: Need and whatnot, you know what I mean. And hey,
Speaker 1: have the wrong person who approached my house. There's that guy.
Speaker 2: So you know, yeah, donate, donate to the security of
Speaker 2: six g We're out here to do it. I'm just kidding,
Speaker 2: but yeah, you know, I just heard that story about
Speaker 2: Nick Fans having somebody like try to come kill him.
Speaker 2: I just thought, obviously nowhere to You know, I'm not
Speaker 2: worried about that because we aren't that political.
Speaker 14: No.
Speaker 2: I feel like, if you're really political, then that happens.
Speaker 2: We're not political. We're just like talking about what's.
Speaker 1: Going on day. We gotta worry more about the FEDS
Speaker 1: than fucking some crazy liberal. Yeah, we gotta worry about
Speaker 1: the Feds.
Speaker 2: If we're too right about some shit, that's a fact.
Speaker 2: Or if we're the first to talk about it. I
Speaker 2: feel like, hey, sometimes that happens. But yeah, the worried episode,
Speaker 2: great episode.
Speaker 1: We will uh man.
Speaker 2: The next one is gonna be another banger. We got
Speaker 2: a little whistleblow an episode coming out.
Speaker 1: You guys, stay tuned. I think you will love it.
Speaker 2: So all right, probably drop a bonus episode in this
Speaker 2: next two weeks for you guys.
Speaker 1: Enjoy it all right, we'll see you next time.
Speaker 2: Peace,