AE911Truth “Companion” Edition 10-Minute WTC 7 Video Online

9/11: Blueprint for Truth – WTC Building 7 – 10 minutes – from the new AE911Truth “Companion” Edition DVD

This is one of the 3 abridged videos on the new AE911Truth Companion Edition to "9/11: Blueprint for Truth — The Architecture of Destruction" DVD. In just 10 minutes Richard Gage, AIA of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth takes you through most of the scientific forensic evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the destruction of WTC 7 was accomplished with explosive controlled demolition.

This DVD is available at the AE911Truth online store, packaged together along with the 30 and 60 minute versions of 9/11: Blueprint for Truth. See the extended 2 hour Research Edition for the complete array of evidence and background information! Visit for further details.

Extremely use full clip to introduce 9/11 Truth!

Thanks to Ken, Hummux and Richard for this excellent resource! and Hummux) often get missed when the thank yous go around, for the work they do and have done has lifted our campaign to a professional status!

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

On the distinction between nano and normal thermite...

Reading the discussion below I understand why it is important, but I did not think it was really that important during an introduction to the idea of thermite in the towers?

I fully understand the difference and I was not of the feeling it was a problem here.

This is a teaser, is it not?

Good to see once again at blogger we can continue to improve our material, accepting criticism as helpful...this makes my day as it is refreshing in the net world of 9/11!

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!


Probably the most well put together clip I've ssen in a long time. If you ever need to use the music of the Ameros in a video... feel free. We've been getting on FM radio in Albany and are working on a new album.


Thanks for the resource ae911truth team.

Thanks Richard and team for this wonderful resource. Can't wait to see the other 30 minute and 1 hour addition.

I Handed Out 25 Copies of the Disc Last Night to a Local ACLU Me

I Handed Out 25 Copies of the Disc Last Night to a Local ACLU Meeting along with copies of "In Their Own Words"


North Texans for 911 Truth
North Texans for 911 Truth Meetup Site

Over 32,000 DVDs distributed in Dallas area!!

Way to go Joe!

The person behind me seemed intrigued

Sitting at a public computer, University of Washington. Just moved from a computer with no video access, to one which has video imagery but no sound. What you have here looks good. In fact, someone just paused behind me, and they seemed to be watching the screen from over my I fast-forwarded around and got to building 7. Hopefully that intrigued the person.

Looking forward to June 27th, for the AE911Truth presentation right here in Seattle!

Gage on 7

Excellent. Crisp, clear, convincing.

Looks like the bandwidth is

Looks like the bandwidth is getting throttled. I can view Carrie Prejean with no problems, and every other link...

Is there some confusion between thermite (incendiary) and

nanothermite (explosive)?
I enjoyed the clip, but I'm wondering if others are seeing the same confusion/conflation of these two distinct forms of thermitic material.

Maybe I'm overreacting? Please let me know if you find the distinction clear or blurred here...

NIST refuses to talk about nanothermite (e.g., their FAQ from 2006) but they will talk about thermite (incendiary). I'm finding the same confusion as I talk to people doing interviews for National Geographic... they just seem unwilling to make the distinction between thermite (incendiary) and nanothermite (explosive), but they may be coming around as I keep hammering the significance of the two distinct forms of thermitic material. The red/gray chips are NOT THERMITE -- is that clear? The ultra-fine particles of fuel and oxidizer, the presence of organic material, etc. -- this is not ordinary thermite! Our April 2009 paper works diligently to explain the very important distinction... Is the distinction clear to you and clear in this AE911 video?

Feedback welcomed.

It's Clear to me,

but could have been clearer in the clip admittedly. 'debunkers' will often make that point about how thermite is not explosive. we must be clear in pointing out this is nanothermite. (which they deny the existence of altogether). any thoughts on how to best prove that there is such a thing? and any thoughts on the source of the nano in the dust samples? i like being able to argue that we have... US military anthrax in the 9/11 letters and nanothermite in the WTC dust.... as a forensic combo for inside job.

Thanks Dr. Jones. Hopefully you will soon have the opportunity to present your evidence and analysis to an independent NYC investigation!

I agree Dr Jones. I do not think that the difference hits home.

Dr. Jones, you make a profound point. I have noticed that with many on the blogs or in conversations, they do not quite grasp the dynamics of nano-thermite. With some conversations, I found myself backing up after using the term and seeing a "blank expression"... and just explaining that this was a very high-tech, military grade explosive which could only be made utilizing advanced laboratory methods. And I had to repeat the statement in various ways so it would stick.

It would be great if you wrote a very layman, "Freshman 101" rendition that we could use for the people on the street.

Tiger Sharks

To be sure, you (Professor Jones) have been very clear about the distinction all along. I am a non-scientist, and just from watching Internet videos of your talks, during the past year or so, the distinction is seen as imperative. Error regarding this point sends the "debunkers" into shark frenzies. And I'm talking tiger sharks.

The comment titled "They mis-label..." (below) was intended as a direct reply.

Back to the drawing board, I'm afraid

This video was, in my opinion, very poorly done. It tried to do too much - cover too much ground - and as a result, did very little.

What good does it do to show paragraphs of text with no time to read them?

What good does it do to use unexplained acronyms that nobody but physics phds understand?

If one wanted to make a short 10 minute video, it would have much more impact if it focused on one subject, or made one point and made it well.

For example: 10 minutes of choice fireman clips and interviews.
or 10 minutes focused on intergranular melting, with a step by step explanation of its significance that the person on the street can easily grasp.

or 10 minutes with Dr. Jones explaning the significance of thermite and nanothermite.

or 10 minutes showing the lies and contradictions of NIST.

But - this was aimless wandering all over the map - without focus.

If you have to ask if something was clear, Dr. Jones, then obviously it was not.

Okay gang. I hope you won't all give me a whole bunch of minuses because you think I am insulting Richard Gage, or the folks at I am trying to help by giving my honest opinion of the video.

If anyone thinks I am bashing, let me say that I think Richard Gage is a hero of truth who stands shoulder to shoulder with David Ray Griffin, Dr. Steven Jones, William Rodriguez, Kevin Ryan, Grame MacQueen. The Jersey Girls, Cynthia Mckinney John Feal and a host of others.

But - as far as the video goes - it's back to the drawing board (in my opinion).

focused subjects for 10 minutes each

Good idea zm,

We'll cut up the 2-hour video into focused subjects - each of which would end up about 10 minute segments. I'll bet Nate will help me with this!

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect

Thermite vs. Nano-thermite

Thanks Steven,
I'll make the correction in the PowerPoint!


I am still a little fuzzy

about the difference between nano-thermite & thermite. Why is one explosive & the other incendiary?

& think the end of that video is too choppy & rushed. I'm glad Mr.Gage seems to be willing to put together a more effective 10 minute clip.

Thanks for the good work Gentelmen.

I hope this helps

Explosives do pressure/volume work (google that). That means a high explosive will expand gas rapidly around it at rates of 1000 meters per second and more. An explosive will also produce heat, but the amount of heat depends on the explosive, I believe.

Incendiaries produce heat, and burn more slowly. Themite will melt steel, but you can actually observe it happening.

So explosives 'push' and incendiaries 'heat'. Both cause exothermic reactions.

Nano-thermite greatly increases reactivity compared to 'normal' thermite, because the surface area increases dramatically. Try to picture it like this: If you break up a cubic block of 1x1x1 meter (1 m3) into two cubes of 0.5x1x1 meter (0.5 m3), you get a surface area increase. Why?

A cube has six sides. Therefore 1x1x1 meter cube has the following surface dimensions:
1x1 m2 (front) +
1x1 m2 (left side) +
1x1 m2 (right side) +
1x1 m2 (back) +
1x1 m2 (bottom) +
1x1 m2 (top)
6 m2

One half of the broken up cube has these dimensions:
0.5x1 m2 (front) +
1x1 m2 (left side) +
1x1 m2 (right side) +
0.5x1 m2 (back) +
0.5x1 m2 (bottom) +
0.5x1 m2 (top)
4 m2

Add that to the other half, you have 8 m2, a surface increase of 2 m2, or 33%

Now picture thermite powder as a collection of 'cubes'. What happens if you cut all the 'cubes' that make up the powder in half? And then cut the halves into two halves, and continue this process until you get an enormous increase in surface area?

I believe thermite powder grains are micron scale, and nano-thermite is obviously in the nanometer scale, so you can picture the increase in surface area that would yield. Don't ask me to quantify it for you though, I don't think I know how ;-)

Futhermore, nano-thermite is structured so that the oxygen atoms of the nano-sized iron oxide are easily 'accessible' by the nano-sized aluminium particles.

The reaction rate goes up dramatically, some organic components are added, and voilà, you get rapidly expanding gas, while you also retain themite's heat-producing abilities. A high-tech explosive.

Many things could be incorrect in the above attempt to explain, but I thought I'd try. :-)

They mis-label (and that should be changed)

Professor Jones,

In my opinion you are not overreacting at all. In fact, I believe it is well worth telling Richard directly. The difference between thermite and nano-thermite can be humongous, as you well know.

They mis-label the WTC red chips as "Thermite," repeatedly. I love AE911Truth, but that should not be allowed to stand.

I have always concluded

that Building 7 wasn't just a "Smoking Gun" but absolute proof that 9/11 was an inside job. This clip proves my point.

I like the above 10 minute video.

I like the above 10 minute video. It is always a dilemma on how to approach 9/11 Truth in a short period of time. The evidence can take days to cover. So, trying to fit things into 10 minutes is tough.

Below is a pretty good 10 minute AE911Truth video, but it really does not get into nano-thermite. It came from World for 9/11 Truth.

Glad to hear that the distinction

will be made more clearly. Thanks to Snowcrash for the clarification -- I would point also to the Discussion section in our paper which explains the difference. For example, from the paper:

"It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more
energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the
blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for ther-
mite is 3.9 kJ/g [27]. We suggest that the organic material in
evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most
likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure. Again,
conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary whereas
super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for
rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explo-
sive [6, 24]."

Note again the significance of the presence of organic material in the red/gray chips, important for formation of gas pressure.

An excellent "nanothermite 101" essay was also written by Jim Hoffman, available here:

Thanks for comments, and yes, I did write to Richard via email about this and he responded via email also. I hope the truth-seeking community will help make the distinction clear -- and understand the significance of the findings.

For example, nanothermite is a very highly engineered material that can be used to explosively CUT through steel, as I explained in a previous posting to 911blogger, whereas thermite is an incendiary (not explosive). Thermite can be purchased on E-bay; nanothermite requires sophisticated equipment to produce in large quantities -- as explained in the Amptiac journal referenced in our paper. That article also provides a decent "nanothermite 101" explanation, and talks about use in thermobaric devices AND in shaped charges, either or both of which could have been used in the WTC buildings.

I recommend we all read the Amptiac article

If any of you have not yet read the Amptiac article, I recommend you do so

[20] Miziolek AW. Nanoenergetics: an emerging technology area of national importance. Amptiac Q 2002; 6(1): 43-48. [Accessed February 7, 2009].
Available from:

Note that Figure 1 in this article displays ways in which nanocomposites such as nanothermite can be used, including thermobarics and SHAPED CHARGES (which can be used to cut through steel). The article reports on a conference on the subject held in April 2001, about five months BEFORE 9/11/2001...