Proof of Controlled Demolition, part 2 Richard Gage, AIA

Architect, Richard Gage explores the flawed conclusions of the 911 Commission report and the conclusions of NIST, in this new presentation on evidence supporting controlled demolition for World Trade 1, 2 and 7.

Newly produced architectural blueprints of the north tower augment Richard's analysis.

Produced by John Parulis of brightpathvideo

The presentation at Sonoma State Univ, Project Censored, is divided in 3 parts, this is part 2


I don't think we need any more proof. We already have more than we need. Now we just need an investigation.


Richard is working to enlist more architects in overturning AIA's support for the NIST report. The evidence needs to be heard again and spoken to by new faces as well. The more high level professionals who come on board the better.

uses Judy Wood's flawed pancake calcs

OK, this concerns me; Richard Gage is using a graph from Judy Wood's notoriously wrong "Billiard Ball" paper ( ). Which suggests a "pure" pancake collapse time of 87.9 seconds at least.

These calculations have been debunked many times and should stop being used by the 911 movement (they are also in 911 mysteries).

Jim Hoffman has developed calculations based on the same principles which result in much shorter times.


I believe Richard was using that graph to illustrate a flawed concept.

Well, he was using it to

Well, he was using it to demonstrate that the collapse time should have been longer if gravity-driven. To paraphrase he says something like if each floor goes 'ker-chunk, ker-chunk' and takes at least 1 second then it'll take at least 100 seconds for 100 floors.
So clearly he's using it to make the point that the observed collapse time is impossibly short.

Who's flawed concept? Wood's?

I haven't watched the video yet (no time to at the moment) so I'm just asking for clarification.

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace


yes wood's

There are several

excellent papers on that discuss very cogently the issues of propagation or initiation of collapse and the, excuse me, -demolition - of the buildings themselves. He might be encouraged to use these as opposed to Judy's.