[Editor’s note: Lenin observed, “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it”. Richard Gage, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, was featured on C-SPAN on 1 August 2014. He was unable to explain who was responsible and why, and his answer to how it was done was already known to be hopelessly inadequate. Perhaps that’s why he was chosen to appear.]
“9/11 was conceived as an elaborate psychological operation to instill fear into the American people in order to manipulate them into supporting the political agenda of the Bush/Cheney administration”–Jim Fetzer
Not only that, but there are three major questions in the public mind about 9/11, which are these:
(a) what happened on 9/11?
(b) how was it done?
(c) who was responsible and why?
We know the before and after of the World Trade Center in relation to 9/11, so the answer to (a) is trivial. But Richard Gage had no answer to (c), even though he was asked it several times, and his answer to (b) was false and misleading. Is this the best that Richard Gage and A&E911 can do? It was embarrassing when he was asked the all too obvious question and could not answer it. [Editor’s note: In retrospect, that may have been the point and why he rather than, say, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, was featured on C-SPAN.]
A&E911 is not alone in attempting to place the how ahead of the who and the why, where Judy Wood and her DEW supporters adopt the very same stance. But the American public has limited patience with those who can’t produce answers to such obvious questions, especially more than a decade after the event. And that is why “Operation Terror”, Art Olivier’s reconstruction of the events of 9/11, is a more powerful instrument for opening the mind to what may have happened than the appeal to an obscure causal mechanism–especially when it is misconceived.
All three questions have justifiable answers, but Richard Gage did not deliver them. It was much worse than that, because the host had prepared to defeat any appeal he would make to “thermite”, using NIST as his authority and thereby begging the question, by assuming the position of NIST that is the position in doubt:
If this had been an episode of “The Twilight Zone”, it might have made more sense where 9/11 Truth is caught in a time warp. Richard Gage must know by now that nano-thermite cannot live up to its capabilities as advanced by Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and others, who regard themselves as the custodians and only true practitioners of the scientific method in 9/11 research. Nano-thermite (or even “thermite”, which is the term Gage used) has only 1/13 the explosive force of TNT and, whatever contribution it may have made to the collapse of Building 7, cannot possibly have been responsible for blowing apart the Twin Towers.
As Denis Spitzer et al.,“Energetic nano-materials: Opportunities for enhanced performances”, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids (2010), observes, given the crucial role of the rapid expansion of gases to perform work by explosives, states, “Gas generating nano-thermites: Thermites are energetic materials, which do not release gaseous species when they decompose. However, explosives can be blended in thermites to give them blasting properties”, which implies that, unless supplemented with explosives, nano-thermites are non-explosive. So Mark and I may have been overly generous.
Having published three articles explaining that nano-thermite cannot have done it and to inform prominent researchers about this discovery, Mark wrote to Steven Jones, Richard Gage, and others. Dwain Deets, the former Chief of Research Engineering and Director for Aeronautical Projects at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, wrote to Mark and told him that he had listened to our interview on “The Real Deal”and said: “Excellent interview. A step toward trimming back claims that overshoot the evidence.”
Dwain also sent a diagram illustrating certain detonation velocities as well as the sonic (speed of sound) velocities in various materials. Thus, for a high explosive to significantly fragment a material, its detonation velocity must be equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material. This law requires a detonation velocity of at least 3,200 m/s to fragment concrete and 6,100 m/s to fragment steel, which is far beyond the highest recorded detonation velocity of 895 m/s for nano-thermite.
It came as no surprise when Richard Gage recommended“Explosive Evidence”, the A&E911 documentary about what happened to the World Trade Center, especially to WTC-7. Since it was published on 12 September 2012, while Mark and I published our studies in May-August 2011, A&E911 must have known that the theory they were presenting had already been shown to be indefensible on scientific grounds. While nano-thermite proponents claim to be “scientific”, they violate the canons of science by not revising their views when new evidence or new hypotheses become available.
Indeed, duringThe Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference, which was held in Urbana, IL, on 22 September 2013, we presented “Explosive Evidence” asthe first hour of the conference, where I advanced a critique of its limitations and shortcomings during the second hour as follows and explained why the currently available evidence now supports the conclusion that the Twin Towers were taken out using a sophisticated arrangement of micro or mini nukes, which appear to have been attached to the core columns of each:
Indeed, ample substantiation had already been presented duringThe Vancouver Hearings, which were held there 15-17 June 2012, including several presentations that supported the use of nukes on 9/11, the most significant of which was made by Jeff Prager (where Don Fox presented on his behalf). Jeff explained that, in 2002, he set out to prove that, on 9/11, 19 Muslims had hijacked four planes and attacked us. But by 2005, he realized this was false, sold his business, left the US and began to investigate 9/11 full-time. (See his9/11 America Nuked.)
How it was done
In“Proof of Ternary Fission in New York City on 9/11″ he observes (1) that dust samples are the best evidence of what happened on 9/11; (2) that the USGS samples taken over a dozen locations show how various elements interacted prove that fission reaction(s) had taken place; (3) that Multiple Myeloma in the general population at a rate of 3-9 incidents per 100,000 people, but the rate was 18 per 100,000 among first responders; (4) that other cancers relatively unusual cancers have appeared among the responders, including non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, thyroid, pancreatic, brain, prostate, esophageal and blood and plasma cancers; and (5) that, as of March 2011, no less than 1,003 first responders died from various cancers. The elements found in the USGS dust samples provide a rather astonishing array of proof of nukes:
Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It’s very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more “tell tale” signature of a nuclear detonation.
Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another “tell tale” sign of nukes.
And this is not a new issue. In his analysis of“The Pros and Cons of the Toronto Hearings”, for example, which was published 20 September 2011, Joshua Blakeney observed that Judge Richard Lee was concerned about Kevin Ryan’s appeals to nano-thermite and asked whether it had ever been used to demolish a building. If there was even “an embarrassing moment” in the history of the 9/11 Truth movement, this must have been it. So why was Richard Gage repeating the blunder on C-SPAN? Wasn’t once bad enough?
It is ironic that the nano-thermite theory, which was based on dust samples, has been superseded by new research based on more comprehensive dust samples, but that is characteristic of scientific research: the discovery of new data or of new alternatives can lead to the rejection of hypotheses previously accepted, to the acceptance of hypotheses previously rejected and to leaving others in suspense, which is characteristic not only of science specifically but of rationality of belief in general.
That no plane crashed in Shanksville should be apparent to anyone who has seen what a real plane crash looks like, such as the downing of the “Malaysian 17” in Ukraine. While that case is fascinating in its own right, the proof that we were mislead about the Pentagon extends from violation of laws of aerodynamics and physics entailed by the official flight trajectory to the more obvious consideration that the plane shown in the one frame that the Pentagon claims to show “the plane”, when compared to the image of a Boeing 757 (properly sized for comparison) was far too small to have been a Boeing 757:
Issues about the planes would be overwhelmingly more interesting to the public than talking about red-and-grey chips found in the dust, especially when–even if they were bona fide nano-thermite–cannot possibly explain how the Twin Towers were destroyed. That none of the 9/11 aircraft actually crashed and none of the passengers aboard them died is an entirely different matter, because it proves the entire “War on Terror” was a fabrication.Too many in the movement seem to forget that a half-dozen or more of the “suicide hijackers” turned up alive and well the following day.Gage not only made none of the obvious points made here but implied that the 9/11 aircraft were real. Either way, issues are raised about his competence or his integrity.
During The Vancouver Hearings, Susan Lindauer revealed inside information that 9/11 was an “inside job.” She served as the liaison between the CIA and Saddam Hussein, who was so eager to avoid war with the U.S. that he offered to purchase 1,000,000 cars per year for the next ten years. If that was not enough, he said, make it the next twenty! Imagine where the U.S. would be economically if we had only taken up his proposal? Instead, when Susan learned of plans to attack Iraq, she protested vigorously to President Bush. For taking that step, for speaking out about her concerns over the injustice of it all,she was harassed, intimidated, imprisoned and tortured.
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. NOTE: This article originally appeared in Veterans Today in 2014 and was republished on an earlier blog of mine in 2015. It appears here on the 19th observance of the atrocities committed by Israel upon the United States–with a little help from its friends. For more, see