Audio Interview: Richard Gage on 9/11 Demolitions

[and i]

i watched a documentary on PBS about the World Trade Center. The support columns were welded together out of many individual steel beams... Something serious comes along that compromises structural integrity? The beams break apart and the building pancakes...The length of each of these beams? You guessed it--30 feet. That fact was probably lost on 99% of the viewership, but anyone who's studied the event has surely heard the truthers going on about how the beams were quickly and neatly loaded into trucks with beds that were exactly 30 feet long--a perfect fit!

[Rumpl4skn]

Impressive. I'm still trying to accept the new thought process, but it's sinking in.

We've accepted for a long time now that the Truth Movement is riddled with agents arguing against concepts like CD, loosened fireproofing, weakened steel. Why wouldn't those leading the charge in the other direction be as compromised? And how brilliant is it to get the Truthers themselves arguing against the possibility that the towers did collapse - not from deliberate demolition, but from intentionally flawed construction from the blueprints? Get your "enemies" to support your innocence of the real essence of the crime.

Steel quickly, secretively hauled away? Still could be so, but not for the obvious reasons - not to obfuscate evidence of CD, but to imply it. Simply to throw suspicion towards the possibility of explosives that were never there. Human nature demands that we believe a criminal always acts suspiciously. If steel was hauled away en masse, then there must have been a cover-up of something. Perhaps, but now it seems more likely an elaborate trail of steel bread crumbs, leading where they were meant to lead - away from the real crime, the poor construction of an intended critical tool.

Additionally in consequence, Chris A. Brown's theories now appear as truly brilliant - in a totally negative way. A concrete core not only bucks up controlled demolition, but also shores up the concept that the buildings were "too massive" to have collapsed at all without help from evil entities. And the vitriol of that debate here matches those on "lesser" forums, where the m.o. has always been - as it is across the MSM theater - to get people to emotionally invest completely in one side or the other. I don't mean to implicate some of Chris' more ardent sparring partners in that horrifically long, vitriolic saga of ad homonym-laced insults.... but I'm afraid I have to. This forum is not known of that kind of emotionally-charged sparring, and that's why many of us just abandoned it early on.

I realize this is the edge of a large shit-storm, but... let the shit fall where it may.

On the larger stage - the entire Truth Movement debate - a total reevaluation of the players in this melodrama is now in order. The firemen from the Naudet Bros. video, and their "boom boom boom!" comments, for example. Without the obvious association with the Brothers themselves, these comments could be simply ones plucked from many that supported CD. But now I wonder. The level of elaboration that a ruse possesses does not indicate it's veracity - only it's level of fore planning. Does the implied intricacy of all this equal it's importance in the grand scheme of things - the long-term geopolitical benefits derived from this hideous false-flag attack? Absolutely. The name David Rockefeller keeps popping into my brain as I type this. The most prominent self-professed proponent of global government, and one of the sponsors of the World Trade Center project at it's very inception.

The most easily hidden truth would be the least likely, longest to execute one. That as far back as the 60's, the Twin Towers were a deliberately flawed icon, that would be used for the NWO's biggest moment. It's tipping point. CD or not, that seems to be where this is headed.

I'll go there. Anybody else?

[zak247]

Thanks for the links to the song Fintan.

Regarding 911:


The 911 movement is virtually dead. Of course, as I have posted many times, it never had much of a real chance to succeed.

Some reasons for this are:

The powers of the élites ruling class are just too much. They have brainwashed the populace so effectively that any real attempt at educating enough people for a real opposition to them is very difficult to nearly impossible to do

They have through infiltration, [something they really didn’t have to do since the nature of the human would have done it anyway] - Fintan’s CIA fake syndrome – diffused the theories of 911 to the same ridiculous level of all the Kennedy assassination theories that makes any legitimate investigation impossible.

Though the assassinations had the congressional investigation, which was another white wash like the Warren commission, if ever there is an official investigation of 911, it will be another white wash. As well, the many screwball theories out there would render it a side show.

All we can do is carry on within this alternative network of truth seekers, and wait for:

Something strange to happen!

[ManAtTheWindow]

Tremendous analysis, Fintan. You've made more consistent sense here in one hour than any other researcher has managed in seven years.
More sacred cows have been slaughtered than during the average British foot and mouth epidemic.
This is a supremely impressive controlled demolition of a colossal edifice of unsafe and misleading "evidence." You have successfully laid bare many of the fundamental flaws in the CD free-fall theory and most importantly you have shown that the structure of the twin towers was nothing like as robust as we have been led to believe. That alone is a major breakthrough.

[krammer]

Yes, excellent analysis. Lets not forget how the CIA fakes constantly harped about the 47 steel core columns and how massive the twin towers were.

It's amazing how transparent these things are, in hindsight.

[leon]

Well, that's just great. Back to the official theory of "planes and fires" hack with WTC7. 30 degree - ah? nice wrinkle

[Rumpl4skn]

[Aurora025]

I do not believe that only the planes caused the buildings to collapse. There were huge explosions underground. I think in order the building to implode like we saw on that day I think you would have to destroy the foundation(could they implanted that in 1993??) I would not rule out that for safety reason they have put explosives during the contruction of the building.
There were hotspots after the collapse which remained for days.
The planners had to be 100% that the buildings collapsed. Only rely on the planes is not good enough. Those were huge and heavy planes which could miss there targets pretty easily if there would have been strong winds or even birds flying in the engines which happens quite often. What is suspicios to me is that the nose of the plane is came out on the other site of the building. Fuel is mainly in the wings of a plane but if you watch closely you see that the nose is exploding in a white flash. This is very odd.
I would not rule out the no plane completely. The planes had to hit there target and a big lompy maschine with a good pilot or even remote controlled is not precisely enough because of externel influences. Probably it was a plane but not a normal american airlines boeing. I could have been some kind of missile build like a commercial airliner.

[leon]

Quite frankly, I would rather concentrate on what’s going to happen in the nearest future, rather than what happened 7 years ago – it’s just more fun and could be useful in planning ones response.
For instance, the DOLLAR?? Hyperinflation? Amero? I think both theories are false. More likely scenario is a Soviet–style monetary reform. Red-backs or something (parallel currency). Banks will have priority in converting their accounts from green backs to red backs (especially their credit accounts). Everybody else – tons of paperwork. Conversion will be fixed (for a time) – it will be just impossible to convert. Lots of speculation – widely covered in mass media and following the “people’s outcry”, the floating rates will be allowed. And then – by by green back (you still will owe same to banks in redbacks).

[Rumpl4skn]

[aspectus]

Forgive me if the following has been suggested already.

So the wtc towers were built to facilitate a quick take-down, *perhaps* because a full blown demolition would be too LOUD, but would still require some demolition, particularily the underground structural components.

The squibs confuse me, I could never decide either way if they were material ejections caused by explosives, or simply air pressure caused by the above material driving the air out the nearest available exit. I never was able to find any video of high enough definition to judge it.

EDIT: been a while since I was here, so i went browsing my old posts for lols, and was reminded of the videos of what is judged as superheated liquid metal pouring out of a part of the building (just shortly before the collapse, yes?), looking like someone is arc-welding. Another monkey in the wrench...

[Lord Carpainter]

Wow, Fintan Dunne has officially exposed himself.

It's really sad, man. I used to think you were genuine.

[Lord Carpainter]

So, 220 stories of steel, concrete, and cooling equipment were suddenly, rapidly, and completely converted into dust and small pieces because of 'faulty construction' and 'airplanes'?

[EddieT]

They're heeeeeeerrrre

[Lord Carpainter]

Okay, Fintan, I apologize for my last two responses. I overreacted. I'm just shocked and disappointed to see you suddenly pushing the official line of the collapses.

How do you explain all of the work of AE911Truth, Jeff King, and other researchers?

1) What about the eye/ear witnesses to explosions immediately prior and during the collapse?

2) What about the blown out windows on buildings 400ft away, the people/cars knocked down by the force of explosions, and the steel beams that were blown hundreds of feet outwards?

3) How do you explain the "lower floor" explosions?

4) How do you explain the squibs?