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.

to be clear..

John23 gave a link to another AE911 truth video that has compelling testimony. This is not what I asked for. What I am asking for is an active effort to get this testing done by either large well respected universities or reputable independent companies that can certify and testify to the results.

As things stand now all there is are testimony from people like Mark Basile who are doing this in their spare time. I take Mr Basile seriously. He seems like a nice and sincere guy. But this needs to be reproduced by people not associated with AE911 so that it cannot be casually written off as it has been for what, six years now.

Imagine for a moment that I had not made up this thread and tomorrow Richard Gage gave the following speech:

"I have used your generous donations to contract with the nations most respected analytical chemistry firm. They have analyzed the WTC dust and not only can they corroborate the findings of Neils Harrit they have, due to their access to highly sophisticated methods, been able to elucidate a great deal about the source of these materials. As part of our contract and given the serious nature of the findings they will be serving as co-plaintif in a suit against the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, demanding an account for the fraudulent coverup of this obvious and ubiquitous evidence of high energy explosives in all world trade center dust."

Now ask yourself this question? at that point would you be thinking, this gage is unreasonable. He already had the Harrit paper, why did he waste the time and money with all the independent confirmation? or would you be saying "heck yeah, its on man!"

You see what I am saying? This is not too much to ask. It should be expected. The fact that such a thing is not happening is a red flag to me.

It

was in a pier reviewed journal....and unless i'm misunderstanding something...until it is contended in another pier reviewed journal and proven false...i'm not sure what the argument is about. It's actually covered in great detail why they picked the journal that they did.

mark basile does not say "trust me".....not once. He actually says that people shouldn't trust him and should do the work themselves....encouraging those out there with the capabilities to follow in his footsteps.

When you say "give me a source"...do you mean provide you with another pier reviewed source? What would you do with the dust if you were able to obtain some? Would you take it to someone who would put their findings in a pier reviewed journal or would you just be testing it at a local university? You would just end up being another "researcher" who isn't backing up their findings in a pier reviewed journal.

Why settle for trying to obtain it from AE911 truth? Why not pursue it for yourself from the actual citizens who have samples of the dust? Basile notes that even museums have samples of the dust.

Heck i'm all for you getting ahold of some dust and doing some testing through a reputable lab. I'd love to see what you/they found.

But as it stands now...the only group who has gotten ahold of the dust and done the rigorous studies to be able to publish their findings in a pier reviewed journal is the group that concluded they found explosives.

Sure, there are a bunch of people talking at the sidelines...but you don't see any of them actually putting their reputations on the line and doing a real study.

You do realize that AE911truth is registered as a non-profit organization right? I'm not sure why anyone in their right mind would pursue this avenue....because trying to convince people of something like this destroys your life and friendships....and you're considered an outcast....perhaps they think the 3000 victims and their families deserve some real answers.

"If this is true there should be massive exposure. People need to be working all the major research universities."

I couldn't agree more.... How are you going to get exposure when you can't even get on the news to talk about it? Who's going to pay for all the major universities to do these studies? Who's going to give their time for "nutcase conspiracy" theories?

I actually agree with what you're saying....but maybe don't rely on AE911...get some samples by yourself...verify the findings of these other researchers. If I had the capabilities i'd do it in a heartbeat.

it seems we basically agree

we seem to agree that this is a real important issue and that it would be good to look into further if someone could find the access and money to do it.

These people are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for billboards and I am saying there is plenty of money, especially if this is as obvious as they claim, to contract with a reputable firm to really take away so much of the skepticism and put this on the map.

It is beyond me the more I think about it that this has not been done.

I mean I just did a little google search here and found this analytical group. I have no knowledge about them but just read these two pages and ask yourself why they dont find the best company like this and do the job right.

custom investigations:
http://www.chemir.com/customized-investigations.html

Materials Identification:
http://www.chemir.com/materials-identification.html

I think

they're under the impression that they have already done it. They did a study with very reputible scientists and then published the results in a pier reviewed journal.

They went to that journal for a few reasons...but the most important being they wanted one that everyone could see online...and the needed to find one that wouldn't shy away from the content.

I'm in agreeance though....the more independent groups we can get to verify the results the better off we'll be.

I do think you're zoning in on the right area....explosive residue with a signature of thermite....this needs to be brought to everyone's attention and needs to be put to the front of the evidence line...maybe that would spark the interest for other groups to follow in their footsteps with more independent published studies.

The only other area of evidence that really convinces me is free fall acceleration. I graduated with a civil engineering degree in structures....conservation of energy tells us this is impossible unless all beams are cut at the exact same time. That is very troubling to me.

Hell if i had the time i'd try to raise money and get some of the dust sent to a lab like you suggested.

fireant's picture

"The only other area of evidence that really convinces me..."

There are other possibilities other than all beams (columns, actually) cut at the same time. This is the crucial mistake in thinking I hear repeated over and over. When the "impossible" label is applied, it is thus easy to assume only CD could have brought the building down.
Understanding that the visible descent of the building was primarily only the outer walls, since the interior had already collapsed, folding and breaking of the grid-like structure of the perimeter walls could also produce free fall speed for the distance from the ground to the point of folding, or buckling. Ignoring this possibility is a glaring gap in truthful thinking. Ignoring evidence which supports this possibility is sloppy at best, and evidence suggests this indeed, may be what created rapid descent for 8 stories.
The structure did not drop straight down, as if it's underpinnings were suddenly removed. It teetered, with a visible shift to the east as first move prior to descent, which actually was the east half of the structure falling over towards the north. The west half fell to the south. This shift continued for the first roughly third of total descent, indicating lower support indeed was folding. Structural remains show very large sections of lower perimeter wall broken at it's connection points.
Sudden removal of support columns would indeed cause the structure to drop straight down, but that did not occur with 7WTC.

Undo what Wilson did

I'm

going to respectfully disagree.

There is confirmed free-fall for over 2 seconds of the buildings descent. Even if what you say is true (that all the interior columns were damaged...which in no way shape or form would I ever buy happening from office fires...ever) you would not see any free fall from the outer structure as there are support columns that line the building:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/images/wtc08210...

I really don't think people who don't design these things understand the factor of safety that is put into these structures. These structures are incredibly strong and do not under any circumstances collapse like a house of cards unless they're dropped via controlled demolition or some other similar method of cutting all core columns at the same time....not office fires.

"folding and breaking of the grid-like structure of the perimeter walls could also produce free fall speed for the distance from the ground to the point of folding, or buckling"

Definitely going to disagree with this...absolutely not would you experience free fall acceleration. Free fall acceleration is achieved only when the object in question has no resistance upon it...none...zero. A folding or buckling of all exterior columns would not cause free fall....there is still resistance when a beam folds or buckles. With free fall we're talking no resistance. Knowing what I do about structures....no resistance does not happen......you've designed for 3 dimensional force distributions and moment forces...there is resistance no matter what direction you press on a building....unless all support columns are cut...buckling still carries resistance and free fall would thus be impossible. And this is all IF your theory of all exterior columns buckling at the same time is possible....which I don't believe it to be in a building designed like this.

It was interesting as I was right next to the IRS building when the suicide attacker flew his plane into it in Austin Texas. The fires burned for hours without a hint of weakening of the frames of the structure...exactly what you would expect in a steel structure.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Damage_to...

Even if there is weakening of the frames of a structure from fire....in steel structures the onset of collapse (which has never happened in a steel structure from office fires) is gradual....a slow shift of the building. This is one of the primary safety factors of steel structures you're taught in school in structures class. A gradual deformation that allows occupants ample time to leave the structure.

To get an idea of just how rigid buildings are look at some controlled demolition gone wrong....these are buildings set to be demolished properly by cutting support columns...even with a proper rigging of the buildings these structures can sometimes withstand it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf243Pj0S-Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CARLAvm9T0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c

Even properly done controlled demolition can have a tilt to the building when it is descending....something you were mentioning about WTC7.

For most people I think free fall isn't something they would care about. It isn't a piece of evidence that would "jump out" at them. You ask any structural engineer though...I can almost guarantee that the vast majority will tell you free fall is next to impossible in a steel framed structure from office fires. It absolutely does not happen.

So putting that aside.....thermitic material in the dust is probably the thing that would catch everyone's attention. Squibs blowing dust out the windows, rocks being projected out, and a bunch of the other evidence I don't find very convincing for most people...you could talk around that stuff and it definitely wouldn't hole up in court......but thermitic material in the dust...that's convincing.

So if you ever find a way to do your independent studies....please let me know...I would be incredibly interested in the results.

Another side note....just becuase i think these buildings were brought down via demolition doesn't mean i think the government had anything to do with this. I have no idea. What i see is evidence that should be thoroughly followed up on....which is pretty much what you're suggesting.

I recall reading about a foreign lab that tested the samples.

I don`t recall if it was a German or French lab.

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