Richard Gage of AE911 Truth Interview/Podcast (7/26/2019)

I just finished listening to this interview on one of my favorite podcasts, Quoth the Raven (or "QTR"). Richard Gage founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and is an expert in the field of architecture.

The interview is a little over an hour and a half and has a lot of great info. AE911 Truth is pushing for a new investigation. As it turns out, a LOT of people are unaware there even was a 3rd building that fell on 9/11... that piece of information was shocking to me.

They cover the BBC reporter talking about Building 7 coming down 20 minutes before it happened, how no steel-construction high rise buildings had ever collapsed from fire prior to 9/11, Larry Silverstene taking out the most robust terrorism insurance policy ever on the World Trade Center buildings just 6 weeks before the incident and walking away with over $5 billion... all within the first 30 minutes or so.

Anyway, please enjoy and I would love to hear from others about what they thought of this interview. I know it's long, but it was worth the listen! Enjoy...

"As it turns out, a LOT of people are unaware there even was a 3rd building that fell on 9/11... that piece of information was shocking to me. "

It shouldn't be.
Remember, the CIA made it their mission that everything the American public believes to be a lie.

Also of note, Anyone born just after 9/11 will be old enough to vote in the upcoming elections. By the time they were making memories, the TV was making fun of anyone questioning the official story.

Gage has had 18 years to prove CD.
NADA

a reply to: FamCore

Three buildings? Might try like something around 7 to 10 buildings were destroyed in Manhattan on 9-11. But facts and Richard Gage are like water off a ducks back.

About 16:45 minutes into the video.

Richard Gage misstated the WTC collapse time. Was purposefully misleading.

The collapse was on going for several seconds as indicated by the first movement of the penthouse. The collapse progressed from one end of the building to the other end. Then the facade fell. The facade collapsed in three different stages. The 2nd stage of the facade collapsed is what is recognized as falling at free fall for 18 stores of a 47 story office building.

I guess Richard Gage doesn’t limit himself to facts.

a reply to: neutronflux

Why was the collapse of Building 7 announced before it even happened if it wasn't planned? Why was there an incredibly robust terrorism insurance policy taken out on the WTC buildings 6 weeks before the event? Why had no other steel-framed high rise buildings collapsed as a result of fire, up until 9/11

I don't like to talk about any particular members, but I had even said to myself "I bet neutronflux will be on this thread" because it is a 9/11 thread that questions the official story. Looks like I was right.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: neutronflux

Why was the collapse of Building 7 announced before it even happened if it wasn't planned? Why was there an incredibly robust terrorism insurance policy taken out on the WTC buildings 6 weeks before the event? Why had no other steel-framed high rise buildings collapsed as a result of fire, up until 9/11

I would love some answers to those questions.
I never considered myself to be someone who had wild conspiracies about 9/11, but every time I see someone ask questions that make sense and don't have answers I get a little bit closer to believing it was, indeed, an inside job.

a reply to: FamCore

You

Why was the collapse of Building 7 announced before it even happened if it wasn't planned?

Because there was an over zealous reporting crew confused by the reported structural failings of WTC 7. And the confusion the area was cleared out of fear WTC 7 would collapse.

It’s not like first time a reporting crew goofed up majorly.

Asiana Plane Crash: Funny Fake Pilots Names Released

m.youtube.com...

Now. Do you have proof how a controlled demolition system would have survived the wide spread WTC 7 fires, and being hit by the collapse of the towers to actuate?

You

Why was there an incredibly robust terrorism insurance policy taken out on the WTC buildings 6 weeks before the event?

I think that was part of keeping the lease. And please show it was unusually large.

You

Why had no other steel-framed high rise buildings collapsed as a result of fire, up until 9/11

Since 9/11 there was the plasco building collapse and the São Paulo building collapses.

Before 9/11, there was the Windsor Tower

materialsforinteriorsind54862016.files.wordpress.com...

The Damage
The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.
The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished. The estimated property loss was �72m before the renovation.

The WTC buildings did not have the “massive transfer structure” like the Madrid Windsor tower to save them.

WTC 5 had buckling

www.fema.gov...

Fire Damage
Figure 4-13 shows WTC 5 on fire. The source of ignition has not been identified. It is likely that it was due to flaming debris entering the building from WTC 1 and WTC 2. There was a complete burnout of all combustibles from the 5th floor and above. Some steel beams supporting the roof were deformed due to the heat, as illustrated in Figure 4-14, and some local buckling occurred as well.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: neutronflux

Why was the collapse of Building 7 announced before it even happened if it wasn't planned? Why was there an incredibly robust terrorism insurance policy taken out on the WTC buildings 6 weeks before the event? Why had no other steel-framed high rise buildings collapsed as a result of fire, up until 9/11

I don't like to talk about any particular members, but I had even said to myself "I bet neutronflux will be on this thread" because it is a 9/11 thread that questions the official story. Looks like I was right.

Now. Do you have actual proof of WTC 7 CD? Or lots of innuendo that has nothing to do with the actual video, audio, seismic, physical evidence?

Do you want to actually talk about the actual video, audio, seismic, physical evidence, or just make empty allegations.

And quote where I said don’t “questions the official story.“

Your the one citing Richard Gauge that blatantly misrepresents the WTC 7 collapse in your cited video.

Again..

About 16:45 minutes into the video.

Richard Gage misstated the WTC collapse time. Was purposefully misleading.

The collapse was on going for several seconds as indicated by the first movement of the penthouse. The collapse progressed from one end of the building to the other end. Then the facade fell. The facade collapsed in three different stages. The 2nd stage of the facade collapsed is what is recognized as falling at free fall for 18 stores of a 47 story office building.

I guess Richard Gage doesn’t limit himself to facts.

So? How is pointing out Richard Gage’s false arguments “supporting the official narrative”?

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: neutronflux

Why was the collapse of Building 7 announced before it even happened if it wasn't planned? .

Well either humans make mistakes

or

the reporters were included in the conspiracy, briefed on the plans for the day, ordered to keep quiet about it for the rest of their lives and humans make mistakes

The significance attributed to this by truthers is bizarre

The significance of Building #7 is that it was "PULLED" by the Mayor of the City using special powers only he had.....a REQUEST WAS MADE OF HIM and he complied to it....research that particular LEGALLY BINDING ACTION TO WILLFULLY DETONATE EXPLOSIVES IN A FEDERAL BUILDING TO PROTECT NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS...LOOK IT UP....DIG DEEP ...PEOPLE HAE ALREADY....

"PULLED" MEANS INTENTIONALLY DESTROYED USING EXPLOSIVES THAT WERE PRE-PLANTED....this was a major part of the overall plan of 911......this was the HEART OF THE PLAN.....the CATALYST OF THE PLAN was to arrange a way to have Building #7 be LEGALLY DESTROYED BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT.....GO FIND THE REAL TRUHS...and remember President JFK when you find them ...OK.....the same people who intentionally destroyed Building #7 are part of the organisation that actioned the Coup .

a reply to: one4all

One.
Not when it’s referring to pulling firefighters from a burning building.

www.911myths.com...

WTC 7 Pulled

Larry Silverstein said that WTC7 was "pulled", intentionally demolished.

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
www.serendipity.li...

As in pull rescue operations.

Like

Final group was pulled from Thai cave just before water pump malfunction
www.cbsnews.com...

Or even better...

Pull" = Withdraw firefighters from danger?

Contents
Main 9/11 Links Page
Yes.

It certainly was used that way on 9/11. Again and again, “pull” is how firefighters and EMTs describe the afternoon withdrawal from the area in and around WTC 7. In the accounts I’ve read, excluding Larry Silverstein’s, “pull” is used 30 times to refer to the withdrawal of WTC firefighting and rescue operations. 27 of those references are about WTC 7. Add Silverstein’s statement and we’ve got 32 references to “pull” meaning “withdraw.” My survey was not exhaustive.

Here’s a summary of the first-person accounts I’ve read. All but a few are from first responders:

41 – People who specifically mention the severity of the WTC 7 fires
29 – People who specifically mention extensive damage to WTC 7
104 – People who mention the FDNY order to withdraw from WTC 7 area
36 – Number of times “Pull” is used to mean “withdraw rescuers”
39 – Other witnesses who say the collapse of WTC 7 was expected
Download an Excel spreadsheet breakdown of these accounts

Doubters, please read the following accounts in full.

I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

I do remember us being pulled off the pile. ...We were down by the pile to search or looking around. 7 World Trade Center was roaring. I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down. –Firefighter Kevin Howe

Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to col-lapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. 



Firehouse Magazine: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. 



sites.google.com...

Two, in terms of demolition. The term “pulled” is referring to getting a wall to fall a certain way, and usually by cable. “Pulled it “ is not really a term used with explosives.

The”pulled it” statement has nothing to do with the actual video, audio, seismic, physical evidence. It’s just another out of context truth movement argument filled with nothing but innuendo.

originally posted by: FamCoreAE911 Truth is pushing for a new investigation.

so are these guys;

www.wakingtimes.com... 2EubP3EZwLBI0aqCgvAoHk0ekCHDYOAHTvF9_wTYxF0SmDDwer3sBfY

a reply to: one4all

Sad the conspiracy movement cannot apply a little common sense.

Like trying to claim the columns clearly cut during cleanup by cleanup workers were cut by thermite.

What a joke.

a reply to: RoScoLaz5

Two sides to ever story..

www.metabunk.org/franklin-square-and-munson-board-of-fire-commissioners-9-11-resolution.t10842/

www.metabunk.org...

The actual fire department is diplomatically referring questions back to the Commission:

Due to the recent vote by the Board of Fire Commissioners in regards to their resolution on launching a new 9/11 investigation, the department has received multiple questions and emails on the topic. The opinions of the Franklin Square and Munson Board of Fire Commissioners does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Chiefs, Officers and Members of the Fire Department.

Please direct all questions about the resolution to Commissioner Chris Gioia 516-488-1858 Ext 141

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: one4all

Sad the conspiracy movement cannot apply a little common sense.

Like trying to claim the columns clearly cut during cleanup by cleanup workers were cut by thermite.


That is a nice piece of opinion...however the devil is in the details...counting the number of times "pulled" is used and listing who said it is sure cool...but context is everything.....there is no way to tap dance around this reality. IF WE LOOK AT THE constellation of possible alternative outcomes WHICH WOULD HAVE MANIFESTED HAD EACH OF THE PEOPLE LISTED NOT SIAD THE WORDS "PULL IT" only one of them will be projecting impacts that would be supportive and sympathetic of destroying a Federal Building containing records of a multi-TRILLION DOLLAR QUESTION MARK that could have felled an Administration.

I was clear enough in my hints/….there are special powers the Civil Leader or Mayor has....there is an SOP PROCEES between Federal and Civil Governments when it comes to National Security issues and co-operation regarding such.

The deepest connections between the American Government and the Group of Traitor Terrorists who actioned the Illegal Coup of JFKs Administration are cemented into history when the true facts illuminate themselves.THe PROOF THAT THOSE PEOPLE WERE STILL IN POWER AT THAT TIME IS IN THE PUDDING NOW.

The CONNECTIONS TO CHINA that allowed for the disposal of the materials....and EVERY SINGLE STEP OF THAT WAY FROM UNION CONNECTIONS TO and Palm-greasing that can be discovered......will be outed....the GLOBALITY of this group is clearly hammered into the overall template of this action....this one went to deep IMHO and it is the Achillies Heel of TPTB for this Era.Someone soiled the sheets on this one on a level never seen before in modern digital history.

a reply to: one4all

So, you have no actual evidence of controlled demolitions? Some video, audio, seismic, or physical evidence you would like to cite? Or you would rather rant?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: one4all

So, you have no actual evidence of controlled demolitions? Some video, audio, seismic, or physical evidence you would like to cite? Or you would rather rant?

I am simply saying what I see.I don't need more evidence...you do...I have enough.

a reply to: one4all

The story of planted explosives at the twin towers is a no go from the start. There is no way controlled demolition systems would have survived the jet impacts and fires to initiate the collapse of the towers.

For WTC 7. There is no way a controlled demolition system would hive survived the damage from the collapsing towers and the wide spread fires. For the facade, there is no evidence of the WTC 7 exterior columns being cut.

What do you not get there is zero evidence in the audio, video, seismic, and physical evidence. What do you not get the truth movement has no credibility from chasing lie after lie?

a reply to: neutronflux

You are the joke neutronflux and people including myself can't be bothered proving you wrong and arguing every little arguments you make on this subject. Why? Because I (we) have other things to do in life beside sitting in front of a computer all day and trying to convince the whole world that you are right and that it was all terrorism. Wake up or get a job.
We know better...