9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out

See video
Richard Gage
September 10, 2012
2:19:03

Description

9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out
by grtv

Join 23-year architect Richard Gage, AIA, in this feature length documentary with cutting-edge 9/11 evidence from more than 50 top experts in their fields -- high-rise architects, structural engineers, physicists, chemical engineers, firefighters, metallurgists, explosives experts, controlled demolition technicians, and more. Each is highly qualified in his/her respective fields. Several have Ph.D's -- including National Medal of Science awardee Lynn Margulis. She, along with the other experts, exposes the fraud of NIST and discusses how the scientific method should have been applied and acknowledges the "overwhelming" evidence of high temperature incendiaries in all dust samples of the WTC. High-rise architects and structural engineers layout the evidence in the features of the destruction of these three high-rises that point inevitably to explosive controlled demolition.

9/11 family members and psychologists ground the technical information with heart centered support for a new investigation and a close look at the psychology of 9/11in this milestone production of AE911Truth: http://911ExpertsSpeakOut.org

America's War on Terrorism

Comments

 
2012 / 09 / 10
Mike Corbeil says:

When speaking of Obama questioning or criticizing the "scientific integrrity" at around 3:00 or a little more after that, I would be more careful than Richard Gage was. We have to know exactly what Obama was talking about and while the phraseology might seem okay, he might've meant something very different from what 9/11 activists might naively think he meant. He's not a respectable, honorable President, so be very careful. Believing the Repubs or Dems is to be naive. They can't be trusted.

2012 / 09 / 11
Albury Smith says:

I think it's time to investigate some of the bizarre and absurd claims made by Richard Gage, not the three WTC hi-rise collapses on 9/11, since they've already been thoroughly investigated by much more qualified, competent, and honest people. The NIST scientists and engineers were only able to time the top 18 stories, or 242', of the collapse of WTC 7's facade, and determined that it took 5.4 seconds, yet Gage and others in the 9/11 "truth movement" claim that the entire 610' collapse only took ~6.5 seconds. Did the other 368' fall in just over 1 second? How is he even able to give us a time to the nearest 1/10 of a second for the entire collapse when NIST couldn't because buildings in the foreground blocked the view of video cameras?
How can he claim that the towers nearly free fell, when the loose, airborne debris from their upper stories was obviously falling much faster than the collapse zones, and began hitting the ground while at least 40 stories in each one were still intact? The North Tower was only down to the height of WTC 7 when debris from the upper stories first hit the ground. Was g miraculously increased on 9/11? They fell in ~15 and ~22 seconds respectively, nowhere near the ~9.25 seconds that free fall would have taken:

http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/40/qLShZOvxVe4

yet he begins every presentation with his near free-fall claim. He's also claimed that the dust clouds from the collapses were "pyroclastic," but there are no reports of anyone's skin being instantly peeled off, and he's claimed that the fires in WTC 7 were minor, totally contradicting these NYC eyewitnesses:

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalf...

How could his claim that 400,000 yards of concrete were turned to fine powder be true, when there was less than 100,000 yards of concrete above grade in both towers combined? Does he know how to turn 400,000 yards of concrete to fine powder with explosives without leveling NYC?
Has he ever seen a controlled demolition that left molten metal in the debris for months? Has he ever seen one that didn't leave even one explosively-cut column in the debris? Since he claims that explosives were planted in the core columns to start the collapses, and that it was done from elevator shafts, has he even looked a floor plan of the cores above the 78th floor sky lobby? There were only 6 regular elevators above there, plus a freight and 2 express elevators, and they were only near 6 of the 47 core columns. Several of those were in the paths of the planes, and the perimeter columns collapsed first, so he's not even making sense, especially considering the fact that 30 or more stories of core framing stood 15-25 seconds after each tower's main collapse was over.
We should investigate the nonsense coming from Richard Gage, as well as his "engineers."

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3834688&postcount=12

2012 / 09 / 11
John Potash says:

Excellent documentary by Richard Gage and Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. Go to the Colorado Public Television website and show it to someone there to support CPT's boldness in presenting it.

2012 / 09 / 11
neodsa says:

Albury Smith all you needed to say was " I disagree " , by attacking Gage and the engineers you give yourself away as a shill .

2012 / 09 / 11
Albury Smith says:

I obviously disagree with junk science and lies, and mentioned some of the many reasons why.

2012 / 09 / 12
David Allen says:

What is most telling from the small, and uninformed choir of doubters is that they cannot refute the proof that all three buildings came down in a controlled demolition. Furthermore, nothing struck building seven, nor was building seven burning out of control. Junk science??? What is also quite obvious is that those who are demeaning AE Truth are incapable of understanding the advanced technical protocols that have taken place in order to prove the fraud of the official story. Those who stand by NIST, are supporting the sheer mendacity that is the official "story". Period!

2012 / 09 / 12
David Allen says:

One look at the links provided by Albury Smith tells it all. Just a bunch of nonsensical hysteria meant to back the government fraud. Too bad that those shilling government hasbara cannot refute what was proven in Richard Gages documentry, nor do they bother trying. The weak will always try to crush dissent, especially dissent that exposes imperial crimes. 911, Iraq, and Afghanistan are prime examples of criminal intent meant to further a war agenda, destroy civil liberties ( Patriot Act ), and pursue perpetual war. 911 happened, because the government wanted it, and needed it for its nefarious agenda's of the last eleven years. Shame on those who defend such premeditated criminal intent.

2012 / 09 / 12
Albury Smith says:

The only thing proven by Richard Gage is that empty cardboard boxes don't crush each other when one is dropped on another. He and his "800 engineers" (or whatever) can't even do their own ANSYS and LS-DYNA modeling, despite having had FOUR YEARS with all of the data spoon-fed to them in NCSTAR 1A and 1-9.
Get back to me when they decide to demonstrate (on video with sound) the secret explosive cutting of even one W14 X 730 column:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY

There were 24 of them in the core of WTC 7, and 57 W14 X 500s on the perimeter.

2012 / 09 / 12
eric says:

no evidence of core cut columns?

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=87932

once you debunk even one of your theories you have MUCH more explaining to do. Albury, if you really believe the final reports by the 9/11 commission, you agree with junk science and lies. At this point, you seem to believe the conspiracy is junk because you don't want to face the facts and their implications, but 9/11 is the new age pearl harbor, a false flag "terrorist" plot that was meant to gain the support of the people for a "freedom war" when in reality it's just a stepping stone towards the agenda of our government. Not only all that, but how can you dispute what 1,500 engineers say about an engineering matter? I cannot believe there are still people so locked in to their little world they can't look at all the missing information and curiosities about 9/11 and come to a conclusion that differs from the governments final reports.

2012 / 09 / 12
Albury Smith says:

Great photo of a torch-cut column - gray slag and all - and proof that troofers will believe anything, eric.

2012 / 09 / 12
USAma Bin Laden says:

George W. Bush was right: The Sept. 11th terrorist attacks were committed by Evil-Doers Who Hate Our Freedoms.

What Bush and others forget to mention is that these freedom-hating Evil-Doers are Americans themselves!

2012 / 09 / 13
rick says:

i think your on drugs albury,...just look at the whole situation involved it doesnt take a rocket scentist to see the facts
sheeesh!!!

2012 / 09 / 13
Albury Smith says:

You haven't presented any, Rick, nor have Box Boy and his "experts." Secretly cutting W14 X 730 columns with explosives in Manhattan is an absurdity.
This is what the 24 core columns in WTC 7 looked like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY
Urge him and his "800 engineers" to sever a few of them on video with sound, and let's see how well they do.

2012 / 09 / 13
David says:

Poor Albury, a convenient propagandist who cannot prove that the documentary was false. Instead what we get from this mendacious fraud is a bunch of links that are meant to give justification to the "official story" This unto itself is what exposes the the governments cover up.. http://rememberbuilding7.org/silverstein-statement/. How would building seven be pulled without being armed for demolition weeks prior?? You Albury, have only proven that Gage, and all of the AE Truth individuals are right. What is your background in this field?? Where are all of the AE against Gage??

2012 / 09 / 13
Pilot & Engineer says:

I hold a commercial pilot license and am an aerospace engineer...

It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that the official story is absolutely bogus...there are now over 1,700 architects and engineers who are saying as a matter of professional opinion that the official story does not stand up to scientific scrutiny...

That number itself is staggering...it is a good portion of the entire profession...and where are those who oppose this opinion...is there a professional movement somewhere that says the official story is factual...I have not heard of any such thing...

This "Albury Smith" is quite clearly a paid shill...one who knows nothing about engineering or physics...the simple fact is that any object supported by a number of upright columns can only fall in on its own footprint if those columns are severed all at the same time...otherwise it will fall over to one side...not straight down...

What do you think the chances are of a building coming straight down if you leave to chance the order of elimination of column supports...?...by this logic why would anyone hire demolition experts...?...just start a big fire and watch the building collapse in on itself...or hire demolition crews that have no experience and let them place the charges willy nilly...

What do you think is going to happen...?...it sure as heck is not going to fall in on its own footprint...not in a million tries...the building will collapse every which way but straight down...

That anyone can even argue this literally beggars belief...

2012 / 09 / 14
Juan F Santiago Gonzalez says:

It is a great investigation,very important information,never hear about it.Professionalism in each detail,this kind of professionals,experts investigators teach you and let you know that the goverment of USA are not telling the truh to his Great Nation.

2012 / 09 / 14
Albury Smith says:

What's your background, David, and why don't you support the new and independent investigation I suggested? If Box Boy and his "800 engineers" know how to cut W14 X 730s secretly with explosives, steel fabricators have been doing it the wrong way for years:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY
Please urge them to demonstrate the new technique on video with sound. 24 of them were cut multiple times in Manhattan in a second or so, along with 57 others weighing a mere 500#/lineal foot, so it should be pretty easy to cut a few of them for us, shouldn't it?

2012 / 09 / 14
Albury Smith says:

You should explain your new physics to the NIST SEs, and submit a paper to the ASCE, "Pilot & Engineer." It might be a good idea to learn a little about gravity and look at the framing plans for WTC 7 first, however, if you really can't understand why it collapsed downward.

2012 / 09 / 14
Albury Smith says:

Please explain why Swiss Re, Copenhagen Re, Lloyd's, Zurich Financial, and 8 other major insurance companies all paid Larry Silverstein a total of ~$4.68 BILLION if your absurd spin on his PBS statement is true, David. Post the link to even ONE controlled demolition contractor's web site where the terms "pull," or "pull it" are used to refer to the explosive demolition of buildings. Was the FDNY in on this alleged plot? He said "THEY," i.e. the FDNY "made that decision," or didn't you notice?

2012 / 09 / 14
David says:

Albury, my background is in both physics, and chemical engineering. I received my masters at Cornell. You sir are nothing more than a shill for injustice, and every single attempt by the US government to enact its current pro war, pro terror policies against nations of Muslim decent. Why did the major insurance companies pay Larry Silverstein to implode all three buildings? because it was part of an orchestrated plan involving a cabal in the US government and various complicit elements. There was not a "company" that was involved with the controlled demolition, because the risk of "leaks" would be too great. There was a team that was orchestrated most likely with help from the Mossad who are experts in false flag attacks. Israel had everything to gain as did the war profiteers. Silverstein said point blank..."pull" the building...meaning demolish it.

2012 / 09 / 14
Albury Smith says:

An "orchestrated plan" to do what? US troops were as good as in Afghanistan as soon as UA 175 hit the South Tower, and Silverstein Properties lost billions on 9/11, even after the insurance settlement.
If you truly want a new and independent investigation, join me in urging Box Boy and his "800 engineers" to show us on video how W14 X 730 columns are secretly cut with explosives. The new investigation should also include these eyewitness accounts:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalf...

http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabi...

http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/insidethetowers:summaryofwitness...
Insurance companies don't hand out billions for insurance fraud, you never took a science course in your life, and the dog didn't eat your homework, so your cover has been blown.

2012 / 09 / 15
David says:

Albury, the facts have been laid out for you. It is your own fault for exposing yourself as a fraud, and a very uneducated one at that. Your links mean nothing as do your insipid exploits that favor the official story. Where did you attend school?? certainly not at Cornell. You seem to be one of those "wannabe's who never made anything of himself. The insurance companies who paid off Silverstein, because they decided to go along with whatever the plan was, and knew that the three towers were a controlled demolition. Oh yeah, nano thermite was used to "cut" the beams in all three towers towers. Why were nano thermite fragments found at the scene? Hmmm? Again Albury, the world is not flat, and the official 911 story is a complete, and utter lie. Get a life, or STFU!

2012 / 09 / 15
Michael O'Neill says:

I can't claim to be an expert on demolitions, or on the facts of 9/11. I'm pretty good on looking for weak points in fields of information.

In an official story, all the points either stack or they don't. If even one material point is incorrect, the rest of the story is called into question.

I received my architectural qualification in 1990 and have been in practice continuously since then. I have developed a degree of expertise on building defects.

After 9/11 I became interested in catastrophic building collapse, of which there were several around the world, mainly involving overloading, earthquakes, local explosions and the like.

I think I'm right in saying that even now, years later, only 9/11 involved steel frame building collapsing by fire, but I'm not getting bogged down in the twin towers collapses here.

What drew my attention was the WTC 7 collapse. The relevant facts appear to be these -

- No airplane impact.
- Minimal debris impacts with no structural deformation.
- Small fires on the opposite side to the Twin Towers

Then - total catastrophic collapse of the entire building.

My experience of building defects would have led me to expect

- a minor local collapse immediately after the debris hit, but there was no visible damage.
- a development of the fires leading to a local collapse but the fires did not develop significantly.
- no damage to the core areas.

Instead, every video shows that the core - the roof of which projected above the roof of the top floor - collapsed first. This is one of the techniques used in a controlled demolition. Since there were no fires in that area and no debris field the collapse in this way seems to be unexplainable. Unless, that is, we admit the possibility of a controlled demolition having occurred.

I'm not going to detract from other posters who do not believe that 9/11 was a controlled demolition. I would ask them to view the footage of WTC 7 and consider what I have posted. Thanks for taking the time to read this and I look forward to reading your comments in reply.

2012 / 09 / 15
AIbury Smith says:

The soi-disant "experts" you support have glommed onto the fact that PUBLIC release of NIST's complete input and results FILES was proscribed by the 2002 NCST Act, and have falsely claimed that the NIST investigations and data are all a big secret. I'm not sure how many SEs you know who'd need 4+ years and access to someone else's entire work product before running competing ANSYS and LS-DYNA models with all of the input data spoon-fed to them (in NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, etc.), but if I ever had one working for me, he'd very quickly have been looking for a new job. If you and Richard Gage's "800 engineers" can't understand why WTC 7's tightly-spaced exterior W14 X 500 columns, which were 100% moment connected to spandrel beams, would only allow a rapid downward descent of the entire facade after the interior collapses had progressed sufficiently, and not the toppling over that many of them claim would have occurred because of the limited NT debris damage to the SW corner, then you really need to find a new hobby.

2012 / 09 / 15
AIbury Smith says:

(3rd segment-cont. from previous) If you think that collapse causes can be divined by timing them, you're not ready for prime time. Since you apparently believe that the 24 W14 X 730 core columns in WTC 7, each of which weighed 730#/lineal foot, measured 22.42" in depth, had a 215 sq. in. cross-sectional area, a web thickness of 3.070", and 2 flanges that were 4.91" thick by 17.89" wide, could all have been secretly severed with explosives at multiple levels in a split second in Manhattan at ~5:21 PM on 9/11/01, along with 57 perimeter columns weighing a mere 500#/lineal foot, and that the ~40,000 different people who worked at GZ for nearly 8 months after the collapses wouldn't have noticed anything suspicious on the cut ends, there's a very easy way to demonstrate that amazing capability - on video, with sound, and AE911"truth" has sufficient financial backing from Rosie, Ed, Charlie, and other Hollywood demolition experts, plus the renowned expertise (or whatever) of Jesse Ventura.

2012 / 09 / 15
AIbury Smith says:

(4th segment) My links to numerous FDNY eyewitness accounts of the fires in WTC 7, the structural damage observed as a result of those fires, and the ~2:30 PM order to withdraw to a safe distance from the building "mean nothing" to you, and you've avoided my suggestion of a new and independent investigation that actually shows the explosive demolitions that are key to your hypothesis, so any claims you make of being educated at all ring pretty hollow. There's no plausible and coherent motive or perpetrator for these alleged C/Ds, no evidence of them was observed immediately prior to or during the collapses, no evidence was found in the debris (what sulfur, rust, aluminum, etc. "remind" someone of is irrelevant, as are photos of torch-cut columns), and secret explosive demolition in NYC is an oxymoron. Your claim that ZurichFinancial, Copenhagen Re, Lloyd's, Swiss Re, and 8 other major insurers all handed over hundreds of millions each and "decided to go along with whatever the plan was" indicates an urgent need for an extra layer of Reynolds Wrap (it's not just for baking cookies, yanno), plus counseling and meds.

2012 / 09 / 15
AIbury Smith says:

[Will rewrite 1st segment of my response to try to get it past "spam filter" on this site]

2012 / 09 / 15
AIbury Smith says:

(Synopsis of 1st paragraph)
To respond to your gratuitous insults, David:
-I'm college educated at a slightly more competitive university than Cornell.
-I've personally field engineered numerous major building projects from the ground up, using both conventional transits and total stations after they were introduced to our industry in the '80s.
-I have both field and office experience, much of it in steel-framed building projects, including hi-rises.
-Your comments here indicate a lack of basic knowledge of structural engineering and controlled demolition procedures, and if the credentials of the NIST investigators, including those of Dr. Sunder (ScD MIT) and Dr. Gross (PhD Cornell), mean nothing to you, then no other degrees or work experience would either. (cont.)

2012 / 09 / 15
AIbury Smith says:

[Sorry that the 4 segments are out of sequence, but something in the original draft of the first segment kept triggering the spam filter.]

2012 / 09 / 22
John Cameron says:

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to smell a RAT.
Titanium & steel engines evaporating.?
Pentagon aircraft wreckage MIA.
Hundreds of thousands of tons concrete pulverised.?
WTC Buildings 1-2 & 7 destructed in nr.FREEFALL.?
Wake up or suffer the consequences of further inside ops.
Whilst secrecy prevails democracy withers & fails.

2012 / 09 / 26
Mike Corbeil says:

Heh, you guys are overlooking something Albury Smith has stated in a number of his posts and I'll quote from one of them.

"What's your background, David, and why don't you support the new and independent investigation I suggested? If Box Boy and his "800 engineers" know how to cut W14 X 730s secretly with explosives, ..."

They weren't cut with explosives. They were cut with the use of thermite or nano-thermite, using it in a non-explosive way. The explosions in the towers didn't come from this. This has been stated many times for a few years or more, now, by AE911Truth after Professor Steven E. Jones discovered and Professor Niels Harrit confirmed the presence of a LOT of thermite or nano-thermite in the dust from the fallout of WTC Towers 1 and 2; dust that had been provided to them by I guess some New Yorkers who gathered enough dust that it could be sent to a number of scientists. So Albury Smith is immediately starting off on a false basis to begin with, and anyone who does that isn't going to get far in scientific/forensic analysis. Starting right-off-the-bat with falsehoods to try to distort what AE911Truth and its members have been truly saying for years now immediately indicates that you have no point to make, Mr Albury Smith.

2012 / 09 / 26
Mike Corbeil says:

Physics professor David Chandler, who's a member of AE911Truth has produced a video demonstrating how thermite or nano-thermite, whichever, cuts through strong steel beams, and there's no explosive sound coming from this at all. It's not used as an explosive. It's used in demolition jobs to cut through steel beams, not to cause explosions. Chandler has a YouTube channel, DavidChandler911. The video should still be available, there.

2012 / 10 / 14
christian says:

Why if aubrey don't believe why does he try so hard to come on websites to try to debunk us. Look at a article from obamas minions not sure what it is but you can Google paper on taxing conspiracy theories it says in their that the govt. Should tax conspiracy theories and that the cia should get on websites and spread doubt. Now do you see why aubrey is here. Why do you need to worry about taxing free speach if you have nothing to hide.

2012 / 10 / 24
albury is a shill says:

@ albury smith

post one piece of evidence that links ANY of the planes said to have crashed that day.

2012 / 12 / 22
Mike Corbeil says:

Re. the post by "albury is a shill", I read all of Albury's posts and didn't notice any mentions of the planes used for the attacks on 9/11 being linked in any way. Maybe he did and I just didn't notice it, but I'll only recommend to reread his posts, for anyone who thinks that he did say the planes were somehow linked.
They were linked in a manner of speaking and it's that it was the same cabal or group that was behind the use of these planes to commit the attacks; but, I doubt that this is the sort of linkage that "albury is a shill" is referring to.

2013 / 08 / 11
Michael says:

Albury Smith = US government /dismisinformation

If you are reading this, you need to realize the person posting here as Albury Smith, she is coordinated dis/misinformation.

*Consider this, a person by the same name, Albury Smith, can be seen posting the same material all over the internet. Case in point, an Albury Smith has posted the same material at... wait for it... CM Life, which is the college newspaper for Central Michigan University in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan.

I ask, what are the odds of that? That is, this one person posting at all of these sites? Very slim...

It is likely there is whole rooms of persons somewhere posting as Albury Smith, as well as other names, almost certainly on behalf of the US government.

You can see 'Aubrey Smith' posts on the very obscure, seldom traveled CM Life online publication here --> http://www.cm-life.com/2011/04/26/inks-911-truth-pointless-at-best-taste...

2014 / 02 / 26
Anke says:

UK Payday-Loans are short-term advances in your wages or income and
must be medicated as this category of.

Look at my web site: pay day loans ([url=http://www.dirtdive.co.uk]Anke[/url])

2014 / 02 / 26
Belle says:

Underneath the provision of the loans, you are able to gain a
bit in the number of GBP100 GBP1500 to get an interval of 2- 4 weeks.

Also visit my blog; uk payday loans [[url=http://www.dirtdive.co.uk]Belle[/url]]

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Related videos

Our newsletter