0 votes

My Encounter with Richard Gage

The logical conclusion of any presentation from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth is that all three trade center towers were destroyed by explosives and that it is unreasonable to consider any other option. Controlled demolition is presented as a scientifically proven fact.

Perhaps the most convincing evidence presented is of actual unexploded nano-thermite in the dust samples. This seems to provide conclusive proof that insiders with advanced weapons access destroyed the buildings. I was contemplating how such seemingly overwhelming evidence could not lead to any significant action.

The ostensible answer is that no one outside of the truth movement believes the results are real. If you read debunking sites or opinions from ASCE editors they say they are paint chips or dislodged rusty fireproofing. They give no credence to the Bentham Open and find the reference to “peer reviewed” publications on nano-thermite as comical at best. This is the state of the debate when you move outside of narrow conspiracy circles.

If nano-thermite was used to destroy the towers and it is in all of the dust samples as claimed, one would think those interested in the truth would be very interested in definitively proving this. The way to resolve this dilemma and force the truth out would be to get the dust samples independently verified by labs not directly overseen by the people making the conspiratorial claims.

Richard Gage had an upcoming presentation in my city so I decided to bring this idea up to him during the question and answer session. I asked if he and his colleagues had in their possession the dust samples used to perform Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit’s analysis. He said that he did along with a number of others. I responded that it would be extremely helpful if these results could be independently verified. I offered to connect him with colleagues in the university who would be interested in performing these tests.

At this point I was excited because I thought we were going to make some exciting progress and I was expecting him to say, yes whatever we can do to get as many people to verify this as possible. He is always keen on referring to the scientific method and one of the hallmarks of scientific research is reproducibility of findings so I thought this would be an easy sell.

So I was quite surprised when Mr Gage became extremely upset. He began stammering for words and after a few moments quietly muttered “Its been verified” and tried to move on to the next question. As I still had the microphone I said that perhaps if he is uncomfortable having a state university doing the testing, with all the “chip-ins” and money being raised there could certainly be a fundraiser to pay an independent lab to analyze the samples and certify the results. He looked at me with intense disgust and continued repeating “its been verified, its been verified” as he forcefully moved on to the next questioner.

As someone who had contributed a lot of time and money to his effort I was very surprised by this response to such a reasonable question. Such hostility toward independent verification is a major red flag.

I am not an official story apologist by any means. 9/11 is one of the most important political events of the past 100 years and it is deserving of far more scrutiny than it has currently received. There are many questions that need to be answered.

However, people in the truth movement often say we need to “question everything.” I think it is time they do so. People are justifiably irate that NIST did not test for explosives. It is time these same voices stop giving a pass to AE911 and demand that the samples be independently verified.

I fear that continuing to donate money to put up large billboards without addressing this and other fundamental issues will only set up the truth movement, and indirectly the liberty movement, for failure.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Gage may be resistant

Gage may be resistant because, even if nanothermite chips were
found there, it lacks the explosive capacity to have blown the Twin
Towers apart, as T. Mark Hightower and Jim Fetzer have explained:
“Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?”


"Is '9/11 Truth' based upon a false theory?"


“Nanothermite: If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”


Moreover, mini or micro nukes provide a better explanation. See

“9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II”


“Mini Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle” with Don Fox, Clare Kuehn, Jeff Prager, Jim Viken, Dr. Ed Ward and Dennis Cimino


“Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11”


Gage knows about this research, so the question becomes, why
is he concealing it from the public? Why won't he even encourage
more research on the dust samples upon which he rests his case?

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

"Independent" as in the 9/11 Commission?

How do you guarantee your lab is independent? The 9/11 Commision was so-called "independent". The Warren Commission was so-called "independent". With the stakes so high, as they are in the coverup that 9/11 was an inside job, no expense will be spared by the guilty to corrupt their discovery.


or audio link, please.

I smell carp.

The arguments are alway the same on the WTC

It is hard to argue any points , how bout'
Please read the book"Where Did the Towers Go.
Peace and liberty to you all.........


OK , the WTC was bombed in 1993 , see what the FBI found.

Do a search for the name " Frederic Whitehurst" .

I`ll believe Gage and Dr. Jones before any government test results.

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people that pay no price for being wrong.
Thomas Sowell

Peer-Reviewed, Independently Verified by labs around the world

Scientists from around the world published (with tremendous personal courage) in 2009 irrefutable proof, verified by several independant scientific labs, that thermitic material was present in two seperate dust samples from lower Manhattan on September 11th, 2001

read for yourself:


A Permanent Record of Mankind's ever increasing scientific knowledge - for all of History and Prosterity to better judge each of us -

now move along, back to your evening dinner... continue right on pretending everything's A-OK...

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

This is exactly my point

I think this paper is impressive and worthy of much investigation. However it is the only paper of its kind. The whole point of my post is that one of the hallmarks of science is reproducibility and simply falling back on this one paper is not going to get people anywhere. This is the paper I was referring to in the post.

If this information is in fact true and "irrefutable" as you state then it really needs to be put through its paces. This needs to be verified by third parties not involved in the truth movement. That would mean not Steven Jones or Neils Harrit or others working with them. If more labs start corroborating this and other scientists who are willing to document these claims and testify in court... that is going to dramatically change things.

As it stands now, this paper was published in 2009, and where has it gotten us? Perhaps you are satisfied with what the truth movement has accomplished?

That video looks like a perfect

demolition job!

Thanks for the link

Thank you for providing this link. People obviously did not take well to that article but perhaps they will look at it in a different context after reading this article. I would encourage everyone to go take a second (or first) look.

After the encounter I describe above I started really looking into everything about AE911 and found that they are not honestly presenting their information. They present videos out of context and paint a picture of the situation that does not reflect reality in ordered to make a more compelling presentation.

How anyone who cares about can find this acceptable is beyond me. Down votes from people defending the truth movement from people trying to help guide it to be more truthful. Ironic!

Richard Gage seems sincere; but

his associations with Steven Jones and the "demo" wing of the truth movement are in question. Have these factions ever actually got past the presentation business and filed a law suit or anything concrete? Someone else did.
The study of only the building collapses is not the only issues that come up. Many other issues need explaining. Someone else did.
The 911 truth movement is designed from within to prevent going further and is a run-around.
How did 14 firefighters walk out of WTC 1 (stairwell B) after the dust cleared? How did explosives not damage the "bathtub".
Any how I trust Steven Jones even less than Gage, because of his involvement with Directed energy technology , which he never mentions.
Wouldn't we like to know where the towers have gone?


fireant's picture

Gage is not trustworthy.

He had me fooled until one year ago, when I finally responded to my desire to see the other side of the building. He only shows the upwind side, where the fires look small, then claims "small office fires". He also claims minimal damage, and can't even accurately describe how the building fell, based on nothing but readily available video. Anyone claiming "truth" on a topic of such import, then using deceptive techniques to disseminate that "truth", is not credible imho. And if it seems I have a burr under my saddle, I do. I resent being misled.

Undo what Wilson did

So He is Only

one of two thousand professionally trained men and women looking at this scenario. Do you think they have all been duped; mislead; hoodwinked by Richard Gage? Wake Up! Some lock step agreement is understandable. But 2000 duped? Come on.

logical fallacy

This is a weak appeal to authority.

One could counter by saying that ASCE has 140,000 members who dont support gage. But that would be just another appeal to authority.

Lets stick to the issues. The organization does not present information in context, and as I illustrate in this post, has some serious work to do in verifying their claims. If they are able to do this they will take the truth movement mainstream. If they cannot, people should steer clear.

fireant's picture

Maybe those 2000, a very small percentage of those

professions, have an agenda? Wouldn't be the first time. But if they are all telling me small fires, minimal damage, a kink, and straight down, I have to question their veracity. Bottom line, don't come at me with "truth", then lie.

Undo what Wilson did

An agenda?

How about they have all put their reputation on the line by signing that petition. My agenda for signing it was to try and convince skeptics to take a serious look at the evidence that points to controlled demo.

Are you sure you didn't come off as accusatory?

I agree with the other commenter that something doesn't seem right. Its an odd reaction to have, because your question is valid. I'm wondering if he interpreted your question as accusatory, and thought you were just a provocateur and didn't feel like dealing with it.

I don't know, but I would like to see the independent results too.

I dont believe that I came

I dont believe that I came across as accusatory. I was actually working to set up audio for the event and we had briefly chatted before the presentation so I think it was clear I was not just some provocateur.

In any event it does not matter because I and many others involved with this group have requested that this be done and it is never done. If you start pushing for this the group will stop working with you. This is why I dont participate any longer and why I have questions.

Let's hear the recording of

Let's hear the recording of the exchange.

you dont have to believe me.

I am not asking anyone to believe me. I am just stating my honest experience. What I am asking is that people who care about 9/11 Truth and controlled demolition in particular due some due diligence and get these results independently verified before investing time and money to the cause. I have tried to get this done and have received no positive action from the group. Perhaps others will be more successful.

If you dont believe me, go have a chat with RG/AE911 yourself and see how it goes. Then come back and share your opinion. If you get them to do this I will be very happy as will many others.

please post audio of the exchange


dont know where I would.

I have no audio of the event.

If you dont believe my account thats fine. Just ask yourself the following questions. Have these results been independently verified outside of the few aforementioned individuals connected to AE911? Why not? its not like it would be hard to do.

check out this for examples:
custom investigations:

Materials Identification:

Still dont think my questions are valid, why not get in touch with AE911 and ask them why such a simple and basic step to avoid criticism and verify their claims has not been taken. www.ae911truth.org


thot you had a recording of it, as you indicated in a comment that you helped set up the audio


audio setup as in his mic for the event and the speakers etc.

I agree

The scientific method is about getting repeatable results.



not saying you're lying....but I've watched Mr. Gauge in a number of appearances in which he was asked much more in-your-face questions and I've never seen him act the way you're talking about in this post.

Not saying you're lying...but I would like to see a video as opinions on peoples reactions can vary greatly from person to person.

FYI, the dust has been independently investigated by others.

Can you provide a reference to this?

who has independently investigated this? Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit have made these claims. I am aware of no other investigation.


Mark Basile. Here is the video:


The video was made by AE911....but he did the testing and sample collection independently wchih he explains in the video.

Exactly my point

Thank you. This is exactly what I am talking about. Another interview from AE911’s feature presentation from someone who says “trust me its true” without providing any documentation or analysis. The claims are sensational and certainly worth looking into. The gentleman seems credible and sincere. But this is not proof.

This makes my point perfectly. There is one published article on this in a pay for access journal. I am tired of “trust me.”

He states specifically:

“Anybody out there who has these types of capabilities, there is no reason why I should be looking at these things alone. The more people who can confirm, as I have done, the work of others, the more confidence we all have in the legitimacy of those results and I’d really like to stress that we need a lot more people involved in this work than just the few of us that are involved with it now.

He states “this really demands a new investigation” and “anyone can replicate this.”

This is my point. If it is so easy and obvious people need to take him up on his statements. Call it calling his bluff or whatever you want but this needs to be settled.

Its 2013. There is no investigation on the way that I can see. All this dust held by these individuals is doing no good. If this is true there should be massive exposure. People need to be working all the major research universities. It wouldn’t be that hard to do. Meet with the researchers and prove it. Start generating local coverage.

If it is true they need to run with it. From my experience there are no efforts being made to get researchers at Stanford or MIT to examine this. No efforts to contract with large reputable labs to actually document these facts, outside of people directly involved with this organization, and provide affidavits for use in legal proceedings.

However there are efforts being made to shy away from these activities, produce compelling documentaries and billboards and seemingly make sure this whole charade continues another decade.

You make a thread like this to cast suspicion on someone...

...based soley on your word, and YOU have the audacity to complain about lack of "proof" and that you're tired of "trust me" when John23 gave you exactly what you asked for with regard to independent investigation of the dust by others?