On C-SPAN, Richard Gage leaves 9/11 Truth in a Time-Warp
by Jim Fetzer
[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
Everyone
who’s committed to 9/11 Truth should welcome more coverage from C-SPAN.
Perhaps the greatest coverage to reach the public in the past was also from C-SPAN, when it covered the panel discussion of the American Scholars Conference, Los Angeles, 24-25 June 2006. But this one might be an exception.
We heard then about nano-thermite from Steve Jones, Co-Chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
And we heard it again from the founder of A&E911. But a major
division has arisen between those who claim that nano-thermite can have
blown the buildings apart and those who maintain that it isn’t even
theoretically possible. Recent intel dumps confirm the use of nukes and explain those small iron spheres as a consequence of the use of special (iron jacketed) high-tech nukes.
So
what’s with Richard Gage and A&E911 that they are still promoting a
theory that T. Mark Hightower and I proved was indefensible in three
articles published on 1 May 2011, on 17 July 2011 and on 27 August 2011? Why did Gage squander this precious opportunity to advance 9/11 Truth on C-SPAN by endorsing a provably false theory?
The “big three” questions
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:
Most
Americans are too gullible to realize that this is citing the very
source that Gage is disputing. But it could have been worse. He could
have pointed out that Neils Harrit, a proponent of the nano-thermite
hypothesis, has estimated that it would have required “hundreds of tons” to do the job (where Harrit has also offered the more precise calculation of from 29,000 metric tons to 143,000 metric tons for each tower) or that the lab Christopher Bollyn has cited Los Alamos as his source for “explosive nano-thermite” told Gordon Duff “they couldn’t produce anything smaller than 10 microns and it couldn’t blow a hole in a piece of paper”.
Why nano-thermite can’t cut it
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.
“Explosive Evidence”
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, during The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference, which was held in Urbana, IL, on 22 September 2013, we presented “Explosive Evidence” as the 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 during The 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 his 9/11 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.
New research on the use of nukes has provided further confirmation, including studies by Don Fox, Dr. Ed Ward and Jeff Prager, show these elements occur in patterns of correlation that make the hypothesis virtually undeniable (not
that Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and Richard Gage, among others, will not
continue to deny it), where Gordon Duff has recently published that the actual number of New Yorkers who have incurred these unusual 9/11-related cancers has now increased to more than 70,000.
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.
What about Planes/No Planes?
If
the impossibility of nano-thermite having blown apart the Twin Towers
drives Richard Gage, Steve Jones and Neils Harritt up the wall,
questions that have arisen about the 9/11 crash sites and evidence
suggests that all four of them were fabricated or faked (albeit in
different ways). It was profoundly disturbing, therefore, when Richard
Gage implied the 9/11 plane crashes were real, which contradicts the
available evidence. But
we have documentary proof that Flights 11 (North Tower) and 77
(Pentagon) were not even scheduled that day, where FAA registration
records show that the planes used for Flights 93 (Shanksville) and 175
(South Tower) were not taken out of service (“deregistered”) until 28
September 2005. So how could planes
that were not even in the air have crashed on 9/11? and how could planes
that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later?
For many students of 9/11, their brains shut off at the very idea, even though Pilots for 9/11 Truth have established that Flight 93 was in the air that day, but that it was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, after it had allegedly crashed in Shanksville; and that Flight 175 was also in the air that day, but that it was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long after it had purportedly hit the South Tower. This means that the videos we have seen of the planes hitting the North and the South Towers involved some form of fakery, as I have repeatedly explained.
It
won’t do to suggest that real planes of any kind–such as drones or
special military aircraft–were used for that purpose, since their entry
involved no loss in velocity in violation of Newton’s third law. And,
as Jack White, a legendary student of JFK, who turned his attention to
9/11, discovered, the engine component found at Church & Murray was
under a steel scaffolding, sitting on a relatively undamaged sidewalk,
and was the wrong make to have come from a Boeing 767. He also found FOX
NEWS footage of men in FBI vests unloading something heavy from a white
van, which would have come as sensational news, had Richard Gage made
observations of this kind on C-SPAN:
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.
Who was responsible and why?
More
disturbing than his failure to discuss the planes that did not
crash–and to imply that they were real–was his utter incapacity to
answer simple, direct questions about who and why. 9/11
dates from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990-91, which left the
military-industrial complex without a boogie man to pacify the American
public with regard to the “peace dividend” it would never see and a new
threat to keep the taxpayer’s billions coming into their coffers.
It involved collusion between the CIA, the Neo-Cons in the Department
of Defense and the Mossad, where Israel would come out of 9/11 as “the
big winner”.
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.
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, which included the
invasion of several nations in the Middle East to bring about the
creation of a new century of American domination of the world for the
next 100 years. The
evidence supports the inference that 9/11 was a “national security
event” which was authorized at the highest levels of the American
government–the CIA, the NSA, the Pentagon and The White House. It
facilitated a reversal of US foreign policy and extraordinary
constraints on the Constitution of the United States, which have
dramatically increased the centralization of political power in the
executive branch and dominating the legislative and judicial branches of
government.
The
creation of the Department of Homeland Security has been especially
ominous, where DHS has now requisitioned more than 2 billion rounds of
.40 caliber hollow point ammo, which is not even permissible in the
conduct of warfare under The Geneva Conventions. Combined
with more than 300 FEMA camps around the country, every American should
be alarmed at the parallels with the rise of The Third Reich in Germany
before WWII. As a former Marine Corps
officer, I am extremely apprehensive over the future of my country,
which has been transformed from the most admired and respected nation in
the world–along with our “gallant ally”‘ in the Middle East, Israel–to
being the most despised and reviled. By 2014, Richard Gage should have
known these things, which makes his silence about them all the more
telling.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment