Audio Debate Transcript: 09-11-11: "9/11's Footprint on America Ten Years Later"
We have gone through the audio of the recent 9/11 debate between Richard Gage and Neils Harrit against Dave Thomas and Richard Muller:
The transcript of the debate follows below. We encourage everyone to read this carefully to understand the true character of our county's enemies. We will be going through their statements point by point to identify existing video/audio/text to refute them. We will add our own where we need to. Our intention is to produce text and video responses for widescale distribution. If anyone would like to participate in the complete dismantling of these ridiculous and unethical 'arguments' we would welcome your help. We are a small group but determined. Email us at the following address. Thank you.
Oregon AE911Truth - Ashland - Newport - Portland
9/11 Footprint on America
Participants in the debate:
Dave Thomas: Head of New Mexicans for Science and Reason (www.nmsr.org), fellow of Committee for
Dr. Richard Muller: Prof. Physics, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, author of Physics for Future Presidents
Richard Gage: Founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, member of American Institute of
Dr. Neils Harrit: Associate Professor Emeritus, Nanoscience Center University, Copenhagen, Denmark,
author of 60 peer reviewed scientific papers
11:20: Dave Thomas (3 minutes)
Hello. I'm Dave Thomas with New Mexicans for Science and Reason,
and I'm not a government employee and I don't work for NIST, but I've been researching
9/11 conspiracy theories for a while, most intensively since I had a debate in October 2009
with Richard Gage at my school, New Mexico Tech, in Socorro, New Mexico. I would like
to say that speaking for myself, I would certainly have supported an investigation into the
Bush/Cheney run up to the war in Iraq. And I think that hinged heavily on the Bush
administration's attempt to link Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. I think the Bush administration
manipulated 9/11 to get us into Iraq, but I don't think that they caused 9/11 or were
responsible for a controlled demolition by any means. So the run up to Iraq, that's the
investigation I'd like to see.
I've got some comments on three main topics;
- the collapse of the Twin Towers themselves,
- whether thermite was used to destroy the towers, and
- thirdly, World Trade Center 7
...and I may not get to all of those in this introductory segment. But starting with the
towers, I think my research has led me to think that it was their unique design construction
(tube within a tube) that made them so vulnerable and I've explained this in a recent article
in the July-August 2011 Skeptical Enquirer, which is also posted on nmsr.org on our
9/11page. One reason it was not a controlled demolition that collapsed the towers was the
complete lack of high explosive detonations. There was no ‘boom, boom, boom’ that you
always hear at controlled demolitions. Another fact is that both collapses started right
where the planes impacted each tower, and it would be impossible to protect like detonation
cords and high explosives from these energetic impacts of the planes full of jet fuel. The
dynamic impacts of the upper sections once failure occurred because steel was made soft –
it didn't have to melt; it just got soft enough to lose the structural strength, and once those
upper sections started falling they had so much impact, probably 30 times the static weight
of the upper section, that they caused an avalanche basically that collapsed each building in
15 to 20 seconds, definitely less than freefall, resistance at every step, in fact my model,
physics model, shows that the (time up)
14:36: Richard Gage (3 minutes)
The first step in looking at the evidence objectively is to realize that we've been misled into
equating conspiracy theories with theories that are not evidence based and people that are
But the official story...
Moderator: OK, let's remember the rules, Richard, please
Well that's what we are called. I'm not saying anyone else.
But Osama bin Laden and 19 hijackers did it – it is a conspiracy theory itself. In fact, any
crime planned and committed by two or more people is a conspiracy by definition. So
conspiracy is a crime. Before 9/11 the FBI charged bin Laden with the crime of conspiracy
because they had evidence that he was involved in planning the attacks on our embassies in
Africa. But they said they did not charge him with the crime of 9/11 because there is no
hard evidence that he was even involved. So that's just a theory. The official narrative is a
conspiracy theory – the official conspiracy theory.
Fifteen hundred architects and engineers that I represent, and millions of other people, have
taken the time to examine the scientific forensic evidence regarding the destruction of these
three skyscrapers. They agree that the evidence supports the hypothesis of explosive
controlled demolition of these buildings. This is a building-destruction theory, not a
conspiracy theory. And it is supported by an overwhelming amount of hard evidence. The
official-collapse theory is not supported by the evidence. In fact it denies, ignores, and
obscures it. I will focus on a few key pieces, but the issue of the destruction of these three
high-rises is far too important to take anyone's word, so I want to make sure everybody has
a chance to look at the evidence on our website, which is AE911TRUTH.ORG.
So my first point here is that the official theory reported by NIST (National Institute of
Standards and Technology) argues that this building's destruction was due to normal office
fires. They say that the fire on floor 12 on the northeast side of the building heated the
floor beams under floor 13 causing them to expand to the point where they pushed a girder
off of its seat, and then started a chain of collapses that turned this 47-story skyscraper into
a pile of rubble like a house of cards altogether in less than 22 seconds. But photos reveal
clearly that the fire had already burned out in that part of floor 12 where the collapse
supposedly began, over an hour before the collapse. So they could not have caused the
collapse. Period. End of story, really, for Building 7. In fact fires have never cause a total
collapse of any skyscraper, even though we have up to a hundred examples of very hot,
very large, and very long skyscrapers. So NIST should have examined the hypothesis of
explosive controlled demolition first, and then fires since no skyscraper has ever collapsed
by of fire, and every one that has ever come down has come down as a result of controlled
...and it looked exactly like it as well.
17:45: Richard Muller (3 minutes)
Thank you very much. I'm simply going to stick to the physics here. On 9/11, I watched
the buildings collapse, and my reaction was "oh, of course." As soon as I saw them collapse
I realized why such a fire up on the 90th floor should cause a building to collapse, many
kinds of buildings, not just that one. What happens is that there were enormous fires inside
of the building, fires including much of the jet fuel.
I had taught my class the week earlier that jet fuel contains ten times as much energy as
TNT per pound. It contains 40 times as much energy per pound as thermite. Gasoline; the
reason we use it, the reason we love it is because it has so much energy. Some of that
gasoline, only part of it, burned along with everything else in that floor. If the temperature
reaches merely 600 degrees. Now 600 degrees is what you get in a typical office fire, it's
what you get if your house burns down, you get 600 degrees. The fact about steel and
concrete, is that when it gets to 600 degrees it loses half of its strength. This comes about
simply because the molecules expand; they're further apart from each other; they're not as
strong; and so these columns are designed to hold up twice as much weight as they actually
hold. But once they lose half of their strength then they are bound to buckle.
Buckling is the next important thing here. Once a column buckles, take a soda straw and
squeeze it between your hand and it's an enormous force, except when you push a little bit
too hard, then suddenly it goes. And there's no resistance whatsoever. That's buckling;
that's what happens. Now this floor in which the columns have collapsed, slams against the
lower floor, I call that the ‘hammer effect.’ It multiplies the force. You take a hammer
sitting on your hand, it's a pound. You swing it down on your hand and it could be 100
pounds. There's probably an amplification of about a factor of 30 as this came down. That
means the columns below will buckle. Boom, boom, boom, boom, all the way down.
This thing will happen at virtually freefall because of the fact that a buckling column has no
resistance whatsoever. The energy carried by these airplanes was enormous. I calculate
that for the two airplanes the total energy was about 14 percent of the Hiroshima bomb.
That's surprises a lot of people because they don't realize how much energy there is in
gasoline. Fire is far more destructive than explosion. Explosions tend to move around the
columns. A fire heats the columns, weakens it and makes it go. When I saw all this that's
what I ... On 9/12 I went and told my class that... how it did. If I were a conspirator and
wanted to bring down a building, I wouldn't use thermite, I wouldn't use dynamite, I would
somehow get gasoline into that building and set it on fire. (time up)
20:51: Neils Harrit (1 minute rebuttal)
OK. I'm a scientist, and natural science is based on experience, so I wonder where
Professor Muller got that "oh, of course" feeling from, since this has never before happened
in history that a steel-framed high-rise has collapsed due to fire. It means that the
experiment has been done many times over and over again. Each time you concluded that
the building did not collapse. Once you have done the experiment a sufficient number of
times you conclude that steel-framed high-rises do not collapse due to fire. Period.
Regarding the jet fuel, I'm a chemist. If you watch the impact of the airliners in(to) the
skyscrapers, you see a huge fireball outside the building. There went the jet fuel, 90% of it.
It’s gone. It’s outside of the building; it’s out of this business. So the jet fuel could never
have done that. Thank you.
21:52: Richard Gage (3 minutes)
Let's continue talking about Building 7, the ‘smoking gun’ of 9/11. Physics teacher, David
Chandler, using an online program that his students use demonstrates that World Trade
Center 7 fell at free-fall acceleration. Now, a building can't fall at free-fall acceleration
and convert all of its gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy, motion, and do any
other work – like buckling columns as Professor Muller (in the case of the Twin Towers) is
pointing out. Those columns had to buckle. How did that energy get started? It can't. The
building would have to slow down substantially. Ninety percent (90%) of the Twin
Towers' strength was removed which enabled that building to come down at 66% of freefall.
It is accelerating straight down through the path of what was the greatest resistance.
And its almost symmetrical, indicating that almost every column in the Twin Towers is
being removed, and that has to be done simultaneously, virtually on each of any given floor
—synchronistically timed explosives on those floors. And the first responders heard those
explosions. They documented it, over 150 of them, in the oral recordings. [They] talked
about bands of explosions, "pop, pop, pop" at the onset of the destruction of that building.
Back at World Trade Center 7, there was no resistance. NIST acknowledges absolutely no
resistance. And that building came down even more symmetrically, indicating that all of
the 24 columns had to have been removed virtually simultaneously and probably the
perimeter columns as well, because not one of those 80 columns on each of at least eight
floors gave any resistance. And they are five times stronger than they need to be in order to
hold this building up. Buildings have structural resistance. That's why we feel comfortable
going into a building, because of the resistance.
The question on the table is, "Where did the resistance go, and why do have the chemical
evidence in all the dust of explosives? In this case, thermite and nanothermite, which
Professor Harrit will be talking about next. Where did... why do we have that evidence,
and why would (in a deceptive controlled demolition) why would we be using thermite? It
is more efficient, and it is quieter and it doesn't have the loud bright flashes that would give
away high-energy explosives like C4 and RDX. So it’s the perfect solution.
25:00): Dave Thomas (1 minute rebuttal)
25:00: Basically there is an explanation for that free-fall. What Richard is not telling you
is that NIST identified three stages of the collapse of the facade and the whole collapse took
like 16 seconds, not the 6 and a half seconds, including the penthouse dropping, a lot of
things failing inside, but for that, about the 6 and a half seconds of the facade falling... the
first stage was the crunching phase where columns were broken and that was definitely less
than free-fall. And then once those were broken, like the straws that Richard Muller
mentioned, once you crimp a straw it doesn't support and that's where you got the two and a
quarter seconds of free-fall. And then after that there was a third stage where the structure
impacted the building below and slowed down again. So, Richard is only telling, talking
about stage 2 of a 3-stage process and that's just for the facade of World Trade Center 7.
26:21 Neils Harrit (3 minutes)
What Mr. Thomas has just said is a complete misunderstanding of the NIST results. He's
talking about the whole collapse should take six seconds. Now please tell me, Mr. Thomas,
next time you get the chance, when did NIST start their clock? Because their clock was
ended when the facade, or the roofline, went down to the level of the 29th floor, but they
never told us when they started the clock. When you should start the clock of course is
when the top roofline starts moving.
This is the point that the whole building is going down in free-fall if you monitor the
roofline. And there is no kink in front of the roofline. It’s an error, because you're
watching the building from below. If you watch the building horizontally the top roofline
is completely unbroken. So you are simply, excuse me, messing up the observations and
the data when you talk about this three-period thing. You have to make the observation
when the roofline starts moving until it reaches the 23rd floor.
Beyond that, NIST's argument is completely irrelevant. What you are saying is completely
irrelevant. It doesn't matter. NIST is admitting that the building is going into free-fall for
more than two seconds. It doesn't matter if this is two milliseconds or ten seconds. The
fact that you at all see free-fall, which is admitted NIST actually, better than David
Chandler did. NIST is exactly on the point on free-fall acceleration. And this is the key
observation. NIST is admitting it, and it means that at that time, when the roofline starts
moving, all the internal structure has been removed, and this can only be accomplished by
explosives fired in a very accurate sequence. Very, very meticulously done. Thank you.
28:44: Richard Muller (1 minute)
I really recommend (that) the members of the audience take a sheet of paper, 8 x 10, roll it
into a cylinder, put a little Scotch tape on it, and then put it on its end, and put a book on
top. It’s amazing that paper can hold up a book. Then put a second book on top, then a
third, and add them up until the thing collapses. You'll find that when it collapses it doesn't
take energy. It doesn't take time. The whole thing collapses very suddenly. This is the
nature of buckling, that it doesn't take very much energy and it is very fast.
Comment on the thermite: Many people don't appreciate that thermite is not a super exotic
material. It basically consists of rust and aluminium, or a paint pigment and aluminium.
The papers that claim to have found thermite simply reported that they found the rust and
the aluminium together. That would happen. They never tested to see whether they would
find that in a normal building.
29:45: Dave Thomas (3 minutes)
OK, I'd like to talk a little bit more about World Trade Center 7, since that's the new hot
topic. And it was not hit by an airplane, but it was hit by a flaming and collapsing 110
story skyscraper, World Trade Center 1. And it had huge fires that raged for seven hours,
with physical deformations. The New York City Fire Department knew it would collapse,
and they saved many lives by evacuating many blocks around World Trade Center 7. And
it did not fall in its own footprint, but it fell asymmetrically, tipping over and it crashed into
buildings across very large 4-lane streets. And as far as what Richard said about the fires
going out, and how could an extinguished fire cause the collapse, I'd like to point out that
not all investigations agree with NIST that it was thermal expansion. And in particular the
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats, CTBUH, disagrees with NIST on the
expansion and thermal contraction and about column 79 being the Achilles heel. But, they
agree that it was fires that brought down World Trade Center 7. It was not thermite.
And as far as that brief period of free-fall, that definitely was the roofline that NIST was
looking at. And they looked at three stages of that corner of the facade collapse. And so
basically, has a steel-framed structure ever collapsed before? Yes. The Kader Toy Factory
failed. It was a steel structure and it failed because of fires. And the Mumbai High North
Platform in India, total steel structure, it burned, seven stories, it collapsed. And so my
point is, if a 4-story can fail just from fire, a steel framed structure, and a 7-story steel
framed structure can fail from fire, so can a 110-story structure, or a 47-[story] structure.
And the actual experiment, the first experimental evidence of this was on 9/11, 2001 at the
World Trade towers.
And another question is why do building codes require fire insulation on steel beams? And
in particular, in the World Trade Center the fire insulation was blown off the beams. So the
beams were not as protected as they should have been. And that's why the buildings failed
in a mere hour or so.
And finally getting back to the Twin Towers, they did not collapse at actual free-fall
speed(sic), but my physics model shows that the initial collapse would be about two-thirds
of gravitational acceleration because of resistance. Every floor that was crushed resisted
the fall... (time up)
32:52: Richard Gage (1 minute)
Yes, these fires are documented quite well. There are only about eight of them that can be
found. They're not large, huge all-engulfing fires like is claimed by our opponents. These
are fairly small and scattered office fires. And they are not uniformly distributed around
the building such that they can cause eight floors in a row to collapse, and symmetrically.
The building was hit by a small amount of debris and NIST claims that this is not a part of
the destruction of the building. So that's wrong. And other steel structures have failed, but
not high-rise structures. These are fire-proofed heavy steel-framed structures. Structures
that have failed are factories that have unprotected lightweight steel trusses.
34:25: Richard Muller (3 minutes)
Let me talk a little bit more about the physics of a collapse, because I think this is the thing
that everybody can understand. Physics tends to make great simplifications. It’s a joke that
a physicist wanted to help the dairy industry so he assumed that the cow was spherical in
shape. Engineers go into all the details and physicists try to get the broad overview. When
I saw that thing collapse my reaction was "That makes sense from the physics I know. I
would expect almost any tall building if it weren't particularly adapted to prevent that kind
of collapse to collapse in such a way." Let me address a few of the points that were raised
so far about how this happens.
Now you have a fire that's going on. And as I said, even in a house fire you typically get up
to the 600 degrees that you need to weaken the steel. Once you start weakening those
columns, then they no longer support the weight above them. They will continue to be
there until the weight above it is large enough to collapse them all. And then it goes down.
It will always start at one side so the building will tilt a little bit, but it should all go down.
The so-called uniform distribution is not a problem. That is what you expect. The
buckling, and the point was right. Every time you hit a new floor you have to accelerate
that, so it won't quite be at free-fall.
But buildings are like houses of cards. They are made lightweight. They are not full of
material. They are made lightweight on purpose so that you don't have to have a huge
structure at the bottom to hold it up. Notre Dame in Paris is quite different because they
could only use stones, so it was really solid at the bottom. These things are really solid at
the bottom too.
Remember the amount of energy released here. Remember that jet fuel has about 15 times
the energy of TNT. We use TNT not because it has a lot of energy, but because it gets its
energy out very quickly, and that can fracture rock. It’s very bad in a loose structure like
the World Trade Center because it will tend to go right around the columns and blow out.
The energy is 15 times that of TNT. It is 40 times that of thermite. Thermite is the last
way I would try to do anything. You have to put it into place; you have to aim it; it's very
very difficult. And you have so very little energy in it.
Jet fuel is really the way to go. That's why we use jet fuel and gasoline in our automobiles.
We use it because it has so much energy. We would eat it if it weren't toxic.
37:11 Neils Harrit (1 minute)
Mr. Muller keeps on talking about the jet fuel but there was no jet fuel in the towers. Most
of it was in the fireball outside. Only a few percent went into the towers and they were
gone after five minutes. Mr. Muller may be aware of the experiment, which was done by
British Steel from 1993 until 2001. On eight occasions they set fire to a real scale 8-story
steel-framed building. And in the worstcase scenario, the temperature in the steel reached
1100 degrees centigrade. But the building remained standing. Now the columns, what was
captured, was investigated of the steel, core steel. None of the WTC was beyond 250
degrees centigrade. It didn't even get hotter than 200 degrees centigrade. And the earlier
experiments proved that you could stay until 1100 degrees centigrade.
38:19: Richard Gage (3 minutes)
There are a whole bunch of reports of companies like Tully Construction, Peter Tully, the
president of that company, seeing ‘pools of molten steel,’ as he called it. Leslie Robertson,
the structural engineer of the World Trade Center himself, documents in a video that he saw
a ‘little river of molten steel.’ Structural engineers document melted beams and iron
workers and first responders see ‘molten steel flowing like lava’ the say. Where... And it's
pouring out of the South Tower 10 minutes prior to its collapse. It's bright orange, molten
metal. It turns out to be molten iron, by chemical tests, all of this stuff. In fact, R. J. Lee
and the USGS independently confirmed the existence of billions of small, previously
molten iron microspheres in all the World Trade Center dust samples. In fact, up to 6% of
the dust sample in the Deutsche Bank building is confirmed to of these small spheres. How
could they get there? Officials have no explanation. What does it mean? It means
temperatures exceeding 2800 degrees, the melting point of iron.
This is a matter of physics. This is not another ‘magic show.’ We've got to get to the
reality of the physics and what could create those temperatures. Thermite issues molten
iron as its byproduct when it's set off after it burns through structural steel, which is what
it's designed to do. We not only have these molten-iron microspheres and all of this molten
metal, but concrete, which is flowing like lava, they say. It’s in the museum, in the police
museum here in New York and you can go and see it. The melting point of concrete is
3000 degrees. It's formed itself around the gun. There is no question about the
temperatures required to produce all these phenomena. The question is, “What produced
it?” Jet fuel only burns up to 1200 degrees or so. So we're looking for temperatures that
exceed 2800 degrees. There is no source for all of that material in the dust outside the
debris pile pouring out of the South Tower or in the melted beams documented by
structural engineers in the debris pile. This is a ‘case closed.’ Now, FEMA finds in their
analysis in appendix C of NIST’s*1 report in May of 2002. They document the hot sulfur
corrosion attack on the steel. Inter-granular melting with the eutectic mixture of molten
iron. This is a problem.
41:22: Dave Thomas (1 minute)
I'd like first to respond to all the reports of molten steel, and those were not really validated.
Dave Perassa(?), the chief engineer in charge never could get any actual documented
molten steel. What we think happened, there was molten aluminium. That's what was
flowing out of the towers, and it's really hard to identify molten steel from a visual.
But let’s move on to the microspheres. USGS and R. J. Lee did find microspheres. They
found the iron microspheres in dust that was not from the World Trade Center. There was
more of it in the WTC dust, but it turns out, if you have a rapid rate of reaction, if you have
a thin piece of iron like steel wool you can just take a Bic lighter to steel wool and make
iron microspheres like a millimeter size. I've done it last week. So it does not prove
42:20 Neils Harrit (3 minutes)
Well I didn't get the mechanism that Mr. Thomas suggested for the formation of iron
spheres. It requires that the iron has been molten and has been up flying [airborne]. You
get the spherical shape from the surface tension of the liquid. So the only chemical
reaction, which can be made responsible for the formation of iron spheres, is a thermite
reaction. So I just didn't get the experiment Mr. Thomas was describing. There is no other
chemical reaction which can account for the iron spheres. And the number found by the R.
J. Lee group is a huge number – 5.87%. It's a gigantic number, and it's not found anywhere
else in ordinary building dust. Period.
43:19: Richard Muller (1 minute)
I was told I should mention my book again, 'cuz it's for future presidents. It was a best
seller and only costs $10. I see some skepticism-bias here. I see people who are willing to
accept verbatim statements made by people who see molten stuff flowing from a building.
It's very hard for an amateur to tell the difference between molten steel and falling debris
that's burning. I'm old enough to remember the fireball, or what's called the "fire-fall" at
Yosemite where they set a bonfire and they poured it over the edge. And sure enough, it
really looked like molten steel going down. So be careful of the skepticism-bias.
As for the fireball which consumed all the jet fuel, I guarantee it didn't. We had 900 tons of
TNT equivalent. That fireball... I've seen bigger ones at Burning Man [gatherings].
44:14: Dave Thomas (3 minutes)
I'd like to use the three minutes to talk about thermite, and thermite just burns way too slow
for a timed, controlled demolition. And plus, it's really extremely difficult to apply to
vertical beams without lots of give-away cladding and devices. And Dr. Harrit did a paper
with Steven Jones and they did some interesting and scientifically correct methods, but they
missed the big picture. They did not test for the things that would have proved it to be
thermite. And all the sort of bi-layered thermitic material in that paper is most likely floor
truss primer paint produced by the Laclede Steel Company. And this burns at 430 degrees
centigrade, just as shown in Dr. Harrit's paper. Unlike thermite, which combusts at 850 to
950 degrees centigrade.
Mark Basile who is a Truther who analyzed*2 that, found like 1.68% aluminium 2.63%
iron composition, and mostly carbon, over 70% carbon. That is not thermite. Thermite is
major parts of aluminium and iron oxide, so it's got aluminium, iron, and oxygen. And to
have just, you know, like 2% aluminium and iron, that's not thermite.
Another big problem was that Dr. Harrit's experiments were performed in air, where
oxygen can promote burning of, say, paint chips. And those experiments need to be
repeated in an inert atmosphere like argon. And I request that Dr. Harrit consider doing
A lot of talk is made of NFPA, the National Fire Protection Agency rules, and the reason
they didn't really search for thermite is because those elaborate rules are for fires of
unknown origin, and we know exactly what caused the fires in the towers, it was flights 11
and Flight 175. And the iron-rich microspheres are expected in normal office fires. And
they are also a part of fly-ash that was used in cement in the towers. And the experiment I
mentioned is take some steel wool and light it with a Bic lighter and you can create iron
microspheres. They get hot enough to melt. The little filaments can easily get hot enough
to melt and no thermite is required for that.
So, basically, Richard Gage has an organization that makes hundreds of thousands of
dollars a year and I encourage Richard Gage to get an independent lab – it doesn't have to
be in America if you don't think any American lab can do it. Get a good reputable non-
Truther European lab to test for thermite.
47:17: Richard Gage (1 minute)
I'll leave the nanothermite opportunity to Neils. Regarding our income here, it’s a common
attack, if you will. I make about half the income I had as an architect and I'm working
about three times the number of hours. One of the things I do as I represent these 1500
architects and engineers who're technical and building professionals, not conspiracy
theorists. They have solid scientific evidence, including these iron microspheres. When
you burn steel wool, you get melted steel. You don't get molten iron microspheres. You
don't get 6% of the dust sample on top of the Deutsche Bank building composed of molten
iron microspheres which tests show had the traces of aluminium, manganese, silica, and
other thermite-bearing chemical signatures. This is extraordinary.
48:51: Dave Thomas (90 seconds)
I'd like to refer listeners to my website nmsr.org and we have a 911 actually several pages
that discuss all of this, thermite and the collapse of the towers and David Chandler's stuff.
And also we have a YouTube channel "TheNMSR" seven letters, all one word. And I'd
like to just urge Richard Gage to go ahead and submit his petition to congress, because like
the Grateful Dead said, “Sometimes your cards ain't worth a dime if you don't lay 'em
down.” So I wonder when he is going to finally turn in that petition to Congress.
49:40: Richard Muller (90 seconds)
The building should have collapsed. There was one engineer who ran to the building trying
to get there, an engineer who helped design the building who realized it was going to
collapse. When it collapsed, elementary physics said it should collapse. Now, maybe
there's something that violates elementary physics, I don't know, something that I don't
know about that meant it shouldn't work. But it should have collapsed.
Now, when it collapses, more energy is released. It's about 200,000 pounds of TNT
equivalent, in simply the collapse of the building. Once it's all collapsed you have
smoldering flames, and that makes it even hotter down there. Maybe that even accounts for
some of the molten steel, I don't know. But this is a building that if I wanted to attack a
building and make it collapse, I would deliver gasoline or jet fuel onto the 91st story and do
it in this way, because it is so straightforward that you hardly need a conspiracy.
50:41 Neils Harrit (90 seconds)
Well I was jumping around for joy when I heard Mr. Thomas actually endorsing the
application of nanothermite to the World Trade Center. He was admitting all the
characteristics of our findings. He didn't mention that the stuff was reacting to juicing”
elemental iron, but I assumed that when he characterized this, as ‘thermitic paint.’ This is
what David Thomas told us. We call it ‘painted-on thermite’ eventually. So if Mr. Thomas
called it ‘thermitic paint,’ I can easily live with the difference. So I welcome you Mr.
Thomas on board, on the ‘thermitic paint’ team. Because this was basically what you said.
And as to Mr. Muller, I would just as a final remark say that he is still referring to an
experience, which does not exist. Steel-framed high-rises do not collapse due to fire. Now
the science that we share is based on experience, and there is no experience for you to refer
to when you bring up your claims. Thank you.
51:57: Richard Gage (90 seconds)
The Twin Towers, we are told, were dropped by jet fuel and airplanes. The problem here is
that that's not what we see. We're told the upper portion drove the rest of the building down
to the ground. Not what happened. Watch the videos very carefully. You'll see the upper
15 stories in the case of the North Tower disappearing. Absolutely disappearing in a
telescoping miniature controlled demolition. After that, there is nothing left to drive the
rest of those buildings down. The building is tearing itself apart, hurling four-ton perimeter
wall units laterally at over 70 miles per hour – instantly – outward. Gravity works
downward. These two physicists can tell you that. But what we have is the lateral
dispersion of material out to a 1400-foot radius. This is a very explosive event with lateral
forces here. So the other thing about nanothermite is that they are composed of extremely
small particles, nano-size, a thousand times smaller than a human hair. These are
intimately mixed with iron oxide and aluminium powder in the perfect percentage to
become what? Nanothermite. And that does not happen in some gradual process of falling
debris from the Twin Towers. So I encourage everybody to get yourself informed and don't
be bamboozled by fancy-speaking physicists.
*1 Mr. Gage is most certainly referring to the FEMA's "WTC Building Performance Study, Appendix C
(Limited Metallurgical Examination)"