Talk argues planes didn’t bring down twin towers

Josh Pennell
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

A talk at MUN with a different take the 9-11 terrorist attacks didn’t exactly bring out the masses on Thursday night but those who did show up needed no convincing that the events of that day weren’t as straightforward as two planes hitting the World Trade Centre.
Architect Richard Gage of the ReThink911 organization presented a series of slides and videos. The group’s argument is that though planes hit the towers, it was planted explosives that brought the buildings down.

Architect Richard Gage speaks at a presentation at the Bruneau Centre lecture theatre Thursday night. He was representing the ReThink 911 group. — Photo by Keith Gosse/The Telegram

“Never in history have we lost a high-rise building due to fire,” Gage said during his talk.

The talk focuses on a third building that came down the day the twin towers collapsed. Building 7 was a 47-storey building that collapsed after the horror of the plane crashes and the fall of the twin towers. It was located next to them and collapsed just before 5:30 p.m. on the same day. The largely accepted conclusion is that debris from one of the falling towers started fires in Building 7 that eventually led to its collapse. But some say steel highrises don’t collapse due to fire, and the way it fell looks remarkably like a planned detonation of a building.

Gage’s talk shows video interviews with people who say they heard explosions come from the building. It has interviews with detonation specialists who look at the footage of the building collapsing and say that it was definitely explosives that brought it down. Gage said a building that is going to collapse due to structural damage will topple over because that’s the path of least resistance, and anybody who has seen footage of a building being detonated will recognize how it crumbles in on itself. Gage said that’s the path of greatest resistance, and it only happens through planned, skilled placement of explosives.

Related stories:

Steel from wreckage of Twin Towers unveiled in Appleton to mark anniversary of 9/11

Jerseyside native watched Twin Towers fall

Gage said the twin towers collapsed the same way, and he uses Building 7 to argue his point about how the building collapsed. He then points to the similar circumstance with the twin towers.

Gage said steel from the twin towers was carted away before it could be analyzed for explosive residue as evidence of a coverup. Others say that’s just a convenient way of turning a lack of proof into fuel for a conspiracy theory.

Anybody interested in learning more about Gage and his theories can check out

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • Tom
    April 05, 2014 - 09:03

    AE911Truth vs Dr. Judy Wood This download is the Foreword and book review of "WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?" by Eric Larsen, Professor Emeritus at John Jay College of Criminal Justice 1971 - 2006 (35 years), plus the Author's Preface. Those of us who have read Dr. Wood's book can give at least 10 reasons that rule out the theory by "AE911trutherd" that welding material destroyed the WTC. How many can you list ? Hint: the bottom of page 45, the top of page 171, the diagrams on page 81 and 84, the diagram at the bottom of page 11, and of course pages 122 to 127. The list is endless, actually. Better yet, go to any engineering professor or professional engineer and ask if the welding material, thermite, can turn a building into dust in mid air in 10 seconds - or if thermite can turn a building to powder in mid air. You might leave red-faced, but at least you will know you've been fleeced. By reading WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, you know from the EVIDENCE that the Twin Towers turned to dust in mid-air never hitting the ground. >Bombs don't do that. >Thermite does not do that. >Thermate does not do that. >Nano-enhanced thermite does not do that. >Nano-thermite does not do that. >New-and-improved super-duper mini-micro-nano thermite does not do that. >Firecrackers do not do that. >Fire does not do that. >Nukes do not do that. >Megga nukes do not do that. >Milli-nukes do not do that. >Mini-nukes do not do that. >Nano-nukes cannot do that. >A wrecking ball cannot do that. >A slingshot cannot do that. >Missiles cannot do that. We know this because we know those things above involve Kinetic Energy and/or Thermal Energy and we know that the "dustification" was done without Kinetic Energy and without Thermal Energy. That is, "dustification" was not done with high heat (Thermal Energy) nor with some form of Kinetic Energy (wrecking ball, projectile, gravity collapse). The building was not cooked to death nor was it beaten to death. So Kinetic Energy Weapons (KEW) did not destroy the buildings nor did Thermal Energy Weapons (TEW) destroy the buildings. But we know that Energy was Directed somehow (and controlled within fairly precise boundaries) to cause the building to turn to dust in mid air. That is, some kind of (cold) Directed Energy Weapon (cDEW) had to have done this. Energy was directed and manipulated within the material such that it came apart without involving high heat (fire, welding materials such as thermite) and without having something fly through the air and hit it (bullets, missile, bombs, wrecking ball, a giant hammer, or many micro hammers) If this technology can manipulate energy to do something like this, it can also be manipulated to provide us with "free energy" (i.e. "off the grid"). Simply by looking at the cover of Dr. Wood's book you can realize there must be a technology that can do this. This is evidence that such technology does exist. This is evidence that a technology capable of providing "free energy" ("off the grid") exists. The whole world witnessed this which means the whole world can know that "free-energy technology" exists. This realization will change the world. This is probably the biggest reason why there is so much effort spent misrepresenting, distorting, and suppressing Dr. Wood's research. Those that choose to focus on hearsay, speculation, conspiracy theories, or unqualified opinions while ignoring irrefutable factual evidence by avoiding it is what keeps a cover-up in place. Diverting the public to arguing between the two false choices of "9/11 Truthers" verses "The Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory" while ignoring the facts is classic perception management designed to hide and obscure the evidence. (Chanting "9/11 Was An Inside Job!" is equivalent to chanting "Yes To Fascism!") Richard Gage is NOT a qualified forensic scientist. Dr. Judy Wood IS a qualified forensic scientist. AE911Truth is calling for a new investigation. This implies an admission that they are NOT qualified to conduct such an investigation of what happened. Otherwise, why are they calling for a new investigation instead of conducting one themselves -- unless the intention is to knowingly distract its members and others away from the new investigation that has already been conducted? AE911Truth wants a new investigation? They already have one. It's contained in a book called "WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?" Why is AE911Truth suppressing it? AE911Truth cannot lobby Congress. They are a 501( c )3 and are prohibited from lobbying Congress. Why didn't AE911Truth submit their so-called "thermite evidence" to NIST? - Oh, that's right. It's a federal crime to defraud the government. Why hasn't AE911Truth filed a Federal qui tam case? Because they haven't blown the whistle on anything and they have no evidence and it is past the statute of limitation. So, why didn't they support Dr. Wood's Federal qui tam case that was filed instead of banning members who mentioned it? * -- I guess they really didn't want such a case to go forward. So they want "respect and compassion for all people" except for those named "Dr. Judy Wood." AE911truth first opened their website about 3.5 weeks AFTER Dr. Wood submitted her Request for Corrections (RFC) to NIST. She was the first to submit an RFC that blew the whistle on the contractors for the NIST report. Can you say "damage control" ? Then she filed a federal qui tam case that could have blown this whole case wide open, including putting people under oath - if there were enough supporters. Guess what? It became a policy in AE911Truth to ban those who discussed the work of Dr. Wood in an honest manor. ** Since Richard Gage, founder & CEO of AE911truth, bought Dr. Wood's book in the spring of 2011 and read it, he can no longer use "plausible deniability" as a defense. Mr. Gage is knowingly leading people away from the truth about 9/11 and using AE911Truth funds to accomplish this task. So leading people away from the truth must be the mission of AE911Truth. How else could he justify using AE911Truth funds to buy this book? Who funds AE911Truth? Donations through the donation drives on his site have dried up. However, donating creates a psychological hold on the donor and they are less likely to leave the organization or question Mr. Gage. Dr. Wood is a teacher and promotes independent thinking. Perhaps this is why she does not ask for donations on her website or conduct membership drives for a "truth club" to keep everyone in lockstep, where members are issued a list of talking points to focus on so that they don't go looking for the truth. Dr. Wood is just one person. Richard Gage brags about having a large membership in lockstep with him. So why is he so concerned about just ONE person and radiates such anger at Dr. Wood? The truth is powerful and it emerges through independent thought. The scientific method, as it came into being during the Enlightenment period, is a method of thought known as empiricism or as the empirical method. Under the terms of empiricism, all conclusions are, must, and can be drawn from observable evidence and from observable evidence only. Evidence must precede any and every conclusion to be drawn from it. Then, if sound logic governs in the relationship between evidence and the conclusion drawn from it, that conclusion will be irrefutable Scientists, as all know or should know, proceed in their thinking not according to belief or desired outcome but according solely and only to what the empirical evidence they have gathered, studied, and observed allows them to conclude or makes it inevitable for them to conclude. This is why Dr. Wood's work is irrefutable. She only presents evidence and an analysis of that evidence. There is no use for a theory in forensic science. Either you know something or you don't. That is why those in charge of a cover up don't want people to look at the evidence in Dr. Wood's book. Dr. Wood does not ask you to believe her. She only wants you to believe yourself and think for yourself and look at the evidence yourself and not argue about opinions of theories of speculation of ideasŠ That is what keeps a cover up in place. Those of us who have read Dr. Wood's book know this to be true. On 9/11 over a half mile of vertical building height, containing nearly 150 football fields of floor space, was reduced to a near-level field of dust and debris, where rescue workers walked horizontally or rappelled into empty caverns to look for survivors. How was this possible given the standard laws of engineering and physics? The 9/11 Commission Report bypassed this central issue, as did the report of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Contrary to its stated objective of determining 'why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed,' the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) made the stunning admission that it did not investigate how the towers fell. Neither the standard view that the Twin Towers collapsed from fire nor the standard opposition view that they were intentionally detonated by thermite explosives explains the evidence, nor do they follow the laws of engineering and physics. Dr. Wood left Clemson to research the 9/11 conundrum full time, and she has focused her research strictly on physical evidence and scientific principles. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? provides an understandable, credible, and photo-enhanced summary of Dr. Wood's disturbing findings, which resulted in her lawsuit against the contractors of the NIST report. Dr. Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry. She taught graduate and undergraduate engineering classes and has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed papers in her areas of expertise. In the time since 9/11/01, she has applied her expertise in materials science, image analysis and interferometry, to a forensic study of over 40,000 images, hundreds of video clips and a large volume of witness testimony pertaining to the destruction of the WTC complex. Dr. Wood has conducted a comprehensive forensic investigation of what physically happened to the World Trade Center site on 9/11. And, based on her analysis of the evidence she gathered, in 2007, she filed a federal qui tam case for science fraud against the contractors who contributed to the official NIST report about the destruction of the WTC. This case was filed in the US Supreme Court in Dec 2009. To this day, Dr. Wood's investigation is the only comprehensive forensic investigation in the public domain. *Chapter 31. AE911 "Truth" and Other Sites Again Censor The Evidence 04 Apr 2010 AE911 - Silently Deletes A Petition Signer (pages 297 to 300) of 9/11Finding the Truth - A Compilation of Articles by Andrew Johnson Focused around the research and evidence compiled by Dr. Judy Wood **In Appendix C, page 238, section C, (Refined searches) of Michael Armenia's book, "Nanomanagement:The Disintegration of a Non-Profit Corporation", the name "Judy Wood" is a search term used to disqualify a person's affiliation with AE911Truth.

  • Mitzi
    April 04, 2014 - 18:16

    Thank you MUN for hosting this event. Universities are supposed!!! to be places where status quo theories are challenged and debated.

  • Bikerdude
    April 04, 2014 - 16:44

    The Twin Towers were designed to withstand a impact of a commercial air liner and were are designed to withstand fire. Also, doubters should Google "Operation Northwoods". President JFK refused to go along it.

  • Jed
    April 04, 2014 - 16:09

    Bull crap! It was the intense heat from the jet fuel combined with the initial impact and the weight of the top sections of those buildings that brought both towers down. Each of those aircraft were heavily loaded with fuel. In my opinion this is just another conspiracy theory.

  • Observer
    April 04, 2014 - 15:44

    I am certain it is no accident that he came to present his "theories" here in Newfoundland. Fertile ground here indeed with our over abundance of conspiracy theorists, doubters and disbelievers of anything related to government or authority. He got that right anyway.

  • JT
    April 04, 2014 - 15:24

    No way 2 planes caused 3 towers to fall. Science backs this. I like to mention how the BBC had reported the falling of Building 7 approx 20 mins before it had happened. The clip from the news program shows the reporter standing in front of a live feed from the city. You can still see building 7 still standing in the background. No mention of this mistake was ever given or explained. How did the BBC know that Building 7 was going to collapse 20 mins before it did. This is just one of thousands of events and accounts that simply cannot add up. I simply want the truth and justice to those who could orchestrate such a horrible event. Cal us what you will, it doesn't change the lies that were given in the commission report.

    • Albury Smith
      April 05, 2014 - 07:24

      The FDNY thought it would collapse from the fires hours before it did, and the BBC simply misread the report on a hectic news day. Ask Richard Gage* and his "experts" to show you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91" flanges, 3.07" webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7's core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower's core: If they ever HAD TO do it, this "debate" would be OVER. *Gage's ONLY 9/11 "research":

  • Fred
    April 04, 2014 - 15:14

    I had no idea this lecture was taking place, otherwise I would have attended. I have asked profs at MUN (years ago) what they thought of the complete pulverization of the buildings and I got one of two reactions -- anger about conspiracy theories in general or no comment because they do not want to develop a reputation for challenging authority or hurt their chances at getting tenure. Why is it that people have such a hard time accepting that our own governments were very likely to be to have been part of this evil? It isn't just engineers and architects that are questioning the official story, there are pilot groups, first responders, fire fighters scientists and many other groups. I am also amazed, but happy that this article turned up in the Telegram and I quite sure it was a real eye-opener for many.

  • Dave
    April 04, 2014 - 14:22

    I just have to say this: Until the following questions can be answered, i will certainly not believe the official story: 1) Where are the pancaked floors of the WTC's ? They should have stacked up fairly high....They were not there! Small sections of the steel framing was visible amongst all the dust! The building should have still been somewhat recognizable. At the very least pancaked floors stacked up. 2) Where did evidence of thermite (read about thermite) and military grade thermate in the dust come from? 3) Why did thousands of tons of concrete pulverize in mid air? So much that there was barely anything recognizable of the building. 4) Why did so many people in the area report hearing bombs go off, especially the firemen and emergency personnel in and around the buildings? 5) Why did BBC and CNN report building 7 had collapsed before it even collapsed? You can view it on the web and you can see building 7 still standing in the background, yet the reporter announced that it had collapsed lol. 6) Why is that when you compare a planned demolition of a building with what happened at WTC (ESPECIALLY Building 7) that they look nearly identical in how they collapsed? A sophisticated controlled demolition and office fire collapse look so similar?? 7) Why did the WTC owner Larry Silverstein take out a multi-billion dollar insurance policy in the previous couple of months to 9/11 that stated he get compensated and the right to rebuild them should the towers ever fall? Coincidence for sure! Or could he somehow read the future?? Must be a time traveler. Lol 8) How about the abnormal number "put options" in the stock market for American & United Airlines on the day before 9/11? 9) The most sophisticated Military in the world failed miserably that day. Not only allowed 1, but 4 planes to fly off course and crash? Anything that flies near the white house or pentagon like that are SHOT DOWN if they don't back off! Not that day. WHY NOT? 10) How is it possible that Molten Steel and Molten Iron could be found at the WTC site? Iron can not melt unless there is an incredible amount of heat: 2800 Fahrenheit. Office fires and jet fuel can generally not reach 1000 degrees Fahrenheit much less 2800! Again tip of the iceberg. There are WAY too many coincidences that day. WAY TOO MANY. It really hurts to see so many people blindly shutting this down. Largely because of two words: CONSPIRACY THEORISTS. People, this isn't a Conspiracy! What i am discussing here is FACT! Scientific facts. How you can chose to believe the government and main stream media over this blows my mind. Do you truly trust the government (CIA is also gov don't forget) and everything they do/tell us?? COME ON!

  • Bob
    April 04, 2014 - 13:47

    Has anyone heard or read about the fact that there were "workers" crawling throughout those buildings in the off hours,supposedly "wiring" for internet connections.People who worked in the buildings can attest to this and they claim they witnessed these people doing their deeds in the months leading up to September,11th.They had that place wired very well for a controlled explosion all the while working on the guise of standard electricians.Apparently,the buildings were crawling with these people and they were working in the walls and ceilings as well.Some WTC office workers would even find dust and cement fragments on their desks in the mornings.

    • Dave
      April 04, 2014 - 14:33

      Bob, i did hear that and i also heard that ACE Elevator Company (who has since gone bankrupt lol) had exclusive access to the building in the days or weeks leading up to 9/11. Many workers have reported that the weekend prior to 9/11, no one was allowed in the building period due to maintenance, etc. Is this correct i wonder? Quite possible. A group with access to the central core area of the building (elevator shafts) could certainly have worked something up. Again this is speculation...we don't know the exact details as to who or what caused it....we just know that what they (the gov/media) have been telling us is DEFINITELY not correct. Too many things are wrong with the equation on so many levels.

  • No tin foil hat
    April 04, 2014 - 13:12

    Two points as food for thought: 1. Accepting the premise that the three buildings were brought down with explosives as controlled demolitions, it makes no sense that this was an "inside job" by the American security apparatus because of where the blame was placed. If the goal was to provide a pretext to invade Iraq, why would the security apparatus blame Saudis and in doing so alienate and strain relations with their most important strategic ally in the region? If you were planning such a false flag operation you would blame Iraqis and if it was an inside job you could pick where the blame was to be placed. 2. Accepting that the three buildings were brought down as controlled demolitions, the best reason to perpetuate the narrative of an inside job conspiracy is to take credit away from the perpetrators of the attack and downplay their capabilities. Otherwise, the American security apparatus would have to admit to a massive intelligence and defense failure which would undermine the legitimacy of the security apparatus. Certainly, it is possible the Americans were duped, infiltrated, and perhaps even deceived into complicity with or facilitation of the attack. The intelligence world is shadowy and no one knows who is who or what is happening. No one. Oddly enough, it is better to have a conspiracy of the inside job become prevalent than to admit to the capability of ones adversary/allies (the two are indistinguishable in the intelligence game) and ones own failures. I do believe that the three buildings were brought down with explosives as controlled demolitions, but I believe the conspiracy theory, as with all good conspiracy theories, is a misdirection. The horrific attack was carried out in a commonly employed AQ tactic, with an initial event to draw in first responders and focus the media gaze, followed by a secondary event intended to shock and terrify. A tragic day that led to many further terrible acts of war and terrorism, but not an inside job.

    • Albury Smith
      April 05, 2014 - 07:33

      Murdering hundreds of people by crashing planes into hi-rises is shocking and terrifying enough even without the later fire-induced collapses. Please ask Richard Gage* and his "experts" to show you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91" flanges, 3.07" webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7's core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower's core: If they ever HAD TO do it, this "debate" would be OVER. *Gage's ONLY 9/11 "research":

  • JackieLogans
    April 04, 2014 - 13:07

    No, of course not! The Muslim fanatics had nothing to do with 9/11; it was all a Jewish plot; and . . . oh, by the way . . . Adolf Hitler loved humanity and was just a misunderstood dog lover! Yeah, right. ~~~ This nonsense at MUN is a little late -- April Fools was four days ago!

  • Paul J
    April 04, 2014 - 11:42

    I am cautious of jumping on an anti-establishment band wagon but there are some key things here that just do not add up...mainly the collapse of building 7 which was some distance away, small by skyscraper standards, and not struck directly by a scrapers all around the world have had terrible fires in them, burning for long time, but have never collapsed like bldg 7, from a fire...this does not add up. the other thing is that this will never be openly discussed in US mainstream media because the MS media is controlled by a hand full of corporations who all have huge interests in weapons manufacuturing, oil, etc...

  • JeffG
    April 04, 2014 - 11:34

    While the faking of the moon landing does concern me... shouldn't the fact that this was hosted by Memorial and covered by the Telegram be more alarming?

    • Stephen Harris
      April 04, 2014 - 12:05

      Learning institutions are a great place to go to learn. MUN, especially the Bruneau Centre, was the perfect venue for this incredible event, and I'm super happy that they had the room available. THANKS MUN! As for The Telegram - not only did they do right by covering the event, this article is one of the most unbiased pieces of journalism from mainstream media that I've read on this topic... and I've read plenty. THANK YOU TELEGRAM (and Josh specifically)

  • Shocking! Shocking! Shocking! Everyone should hear this Talk!
    April 04, 2014 - 11:16

    @islander Be assured that Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the collapse of the Western Stock markets, Banking and Insurance Industries are all connected with 911. There is so much Corruption and Crime intertwined and connected with 911, it would blow everyone's mind if they were given an Accounting Ledger documenting the destruction and the Trillions of dollars involved in the destruction that have gone into the bank accounts of those responsible for the events. It was premedicated! The World and its ordinary people have suffered greatly from the 911 Tragedy, the lost of their life-savings in investments. The Wars that followed killed upwards of a million people and a handful of the World's wealthiest Corporates and the Financial Institutions, Insurance Companies and Oil Corporations they control have become out of this World Filthy Rich. Evil and Corruption have to be eradicated from our World and we, the World's people have to see that it is eradicated. Unless we take a stand it will not happen.

  • Chad
    April 04, 2014 - 11:14

    I did not attend this presentation but I believe the path of least resistance was at the centre of the building. The plane was on fire at the centre of the building, which caused the beams to heat up and buckle. The beams at the centre of the building eventually failed creating a void and a chain reaction whereby subsequent floors collapsed. The initial collapsing of the beams and creation of a void caused the outside walls to pull inward which is why the building did not topple over.

    • Sickened by the Evil and Greed of this World!
      April 04, 2014 - 12:00

      @Chad Building 7 fell at 5:20 in the afternoon, 7 hours after the first two buildings that were hit by planes came down. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, it came down in 7 seconds and it disintergrated into its own footprint in a pile of dust. The video of Building 7 collapsing straight down was shown several times with comparisons of other buildings in the video that were imploded under controlled implosion. Building 7 was, no doubt, a controlled implosion.

    • Stephen Harris
      April 04, 2014 - 12:09

      The path of least resistance was directly THROUGH the unaffected 80 floors below the impact zone? That seems like an odd thought to have... Also, there would have been a stack of many floors below if your scenario was anywhere near accurate, not a complete obliteration of all that concrete - let alone everything inside the buildings - which spread from river to river all over NYC. Buildings don't do that naturally, and certainly not from gravity.

    • Dave
      April 04, 2014 - 12:16

      Chad, while the path of least resistance certainly was the center of the building, can you tell us HOW that was possible? We're talking about a building that had 47 massive columns running the full length of the building and somehow they buckled and lost it's strength through a jet fueled fire and allowed the building to collapse at or near free fall speed? It doesn't add up. Yes i agree, the path of least resistance was certainly in the middle of the building, but i certainly don't buy jet fuel being the cause. Do some research on how hot jet fuel burns vs how hot it has to be melt or bend steel to a point it provides ZERO resistance. It's not possible. Assuming the pancake affect of floors (as they released officially) happened, there would have been some resistance as the building toppled. If you drop a book from 100 feet in the air to the ground, there is NO resistance, each of the 3 buildings fell at almost the exact same speed! Tell me that doesn't raise some serious questions....never mind the rest of it. like where are the pancaked floors? The rubble was almost all pulverized concrete. There should have been several stories worth of floors pancaked there. But there was hardly anything aside from minor frames of the building left. how could it have pulverized? Lastly, i suggest taking a close look at a controlled demolition and take a look at each of these WTC collapses. It's mind blowing and mind numbing. Main stream media reports it was Bin Laden and the rest of the world goes on preaching that's what it was and now can't be told otherwise. ITS SICKENING. Get the facts! Look at it...i promise you, if you are not a stubborn person and can analyze facts, you will come to the same conclusion that 2100+ Architects & Engineers have and thousands and thousands of other people like myself that believe we were lied to. It's a no-brainer when you dig in and look at the facts. That's all we are asking. We're not trying to say for SURE it's the government or anything....we just know the story we were fed is WAY wrong. It's up to us to do something about it. This isn't the first time something like this has happened to benefit a group of elite powers and for sure it won't be the last.

  • Fred
    April 04, 2014 - 10:40

    This is not new. Watch the movie "Zeitgeist" and see it all explained.

  • Elizabeth
    April 04, 2014 - 10:16

    Mr. Gage is backed up by strong evidence from the academic 24-member 9/11 Consensus Panel, which has produced 37 peer-reviewed Points against the official story. Check out its evidence, its Members, and its Honorary Members -- which include the most famous judge in Italy and the longest sitting member of British Parliament:

    • Albury Smith
      April 06, 2014 - 08:28

      Ask Richard Gage* and his "experts" to show you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91" flanges, 3.07" webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7's core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower's core: If they ever HAD TO do it, this "debate" would be OVER. *Gage's ONLY 9/11 "research":

  • islander
    April 04, 2014 - 10:16

    While it's a certainly a concern, I think the effort should be placed into investigating the subsequent invasions and mass genocide(s) that have taken place in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan this past decade. As a globally community, we've basically approved corporate business and war-related industries to advocate racism and kill for profit.

  • John
    April 04, 2014 - 09:27

    please do not adjust your tin foil hat.

  • Shocking! Shocking! Shocking! Everyone should hear this Tlk!
    April 04, 2014 - 08:31

    I attended this talk last evening and I came away convinced beyond a doubt that the 911 event was orchestrated by insiders within the United States. Mr. Gage spoke of events that occurred prior to 911, for instance the failure of two of the largest corporations in the World, WorldCom and Enron. He also insinuated that the Banking and Insurance industries could have had a hand in orchestrating 911, the event that has shocked the Western World to its core. He even disclosed that Building 7 had been purchased a few months previous to the 911 event and several building around Building 7 were also purchased for a paltry few Hundred Million dollars, the deal he said was highly leveraged and in the end after the dust had settled the payout to the purchaser of those buildings was well over $6 Billion dollars. I am very Frightened for our future. It is in the hands of the most powerful entities in the World who do not have souls or compunction for the rest of human beings! Their only desire is for them to own the World and all its contents. Shocking, indeed!

  • Engineer
    April 04, 2014 - 08:19

    911 was absolutely a controlled demolition. No way all three buildings were transformed into dust by a simple kerosene fire. There is an enormous amount of evidence proving that the official story is false. As a scientist and engineer, I have great respect for the people working to expose this crime. Given the extreme nature of the event, unless the Edward Snowden NSA document cache outlines what happened, we will likely never be told the truth. For you students at MUN studying physics, math or civil engineering, look up engineers and architects for 911 truth and read the evidence. It is disturbing.

    • Peter
      April 04, 2014 - 11:13

      "Simple kerosene fire" Buzzword for an IDOIT.

    • Bikerdude
      April 04, 2014 - 15:12

      According to the videos of the each of the plane's respective impacts with each WTC building, much of the jet fuel (i.e. kerosene) went out the other side of the respective buildings and was consumed in a mid air fire balls. Also, the black smoke that was pouring from the buildings suggests an incomplete combustion (i.e. insufficient oxygen) and these fire are low heat.

    • Bikerdude
      April 04, 2014 - 15:13

      According to the videos of the each of the plane's respective impacts with each WTC building, much of the jet fuel (i.e. kerosene) went out the other side of the respective buildings and was consumed in a mid air fire balls. Also, the black smoke that was pouring from the buildings suggests an incomplete combustion (i.e. insufficient oxygen) and these fire are low heat.

  • Dave
    April 04, 2014 - 08:08

    I was at the presentation last night and felt that Richard did an amazing job. At the start of the presentation, he polled the audience to get a sense of how many people believed in the official story published by the government and mainstream media on 9/11. He then asked how many people were undecided and how many fully think the official story is false and could not have happened that way. Surprisingly maybe 1 or 2 people agreed with the official gov/mainstream media story and the remaining people were about half and half on being undecided or very confident that the official story is false. After his presentation he again polled the audience. This time no one agreed with the official story and maybe 2 were still undecided. The remaining people (approx 35-40) were now fully convinced that the information provided to the public on what caused Building 7 and the Twin Towers to collapse on 09/11/2001 was completely false. Its that simple. He approaches this by presenting scientific proven facts, not speculation. His points cannot be denied. We need more people like him and not only Architects (like Richard) and Engineers but EVERYONE to at least look at the evidence uncovered and decide for yourself. We need another investigation in to this!

    • Paul
      April 04, 2014 - 13:50

      This was no "simple kerosene fire". Planes crashed into the buildings, remember?

    • Paul
      April 04, 2014 - 13:51

      This was no "simple kerosene fire". Planes crashed into the buildings, remember?

    • Stephen
      April 04, 2014 - 14:14

      Paul: The towers took the planes impact like a champ. Stood for an hour after they striked. And you know what, I'll even give you that collapse INITIATION is possible from those strikes. What's not possible is the total obliteration of the 80 floors below the strike zone. 90000 tons of concrete pulverized and spread all over NYC. 20 floors of mass cannot EVER do that to 80 floors of mass. Anyway, also remember that building 7 wasn't hit by a plane...

  • Bob
    April 04, 2014 - 08:02

    This man speaks the truth and the "ruling establishment" has all of you under such mind control that everyone who has a differing opinion is labelled a "nut" or a "conspiracy theorist". The truth is really out there and it's up to us to find it.Big government and big oil are nout our friends and the chosen elite are pulling the strings in the background,laughing as they play with us like puppets.Keep an open mind always.

  • Steven Hewitt
    April 04, 2014 - 07:43

    I refused on principal to give the man a single penny to hear his presentation. But I seriously doubt he has a response to the American Society of engineers that published a peer reviewed paper titled "what did and did not cause the WTC twin towers to collapse". In that paper, they concluded, and I'm quoting straight from the paper here: "... the alternative allegations of some kind of controlled demolition are shown to be totally out of range of the present mathematical model, even if the full range of parameter uncertainties is considered. These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire." Another question I have would be how explosive charges and detonators could have survived the intense fires of WTC 7, why didn't the seismographs recored any explosions, and why none of the numerous videos recorded any loud bangs associated with controlled demolition? And that is me just getting started.

    • Dave
      April 04, 2014 - 08:26

      Steven Hewitt, i will not get in argument with you on this topic but what do you have against acquiring the truth? The easiest thing for you people to do is say "yeah conspiracy therorist...they're all crazy". So i suppose the 2100+ Architects and Engineers that have all gone on record as saying the official story released by the Gov are scientifically impossible are all nuts too right? Yet you're perfectly normal. It's this kind of thinking that will keep the elites in power and do what they want. I know it's a massive thing to swallow and i was one of those too at one point. But you view all the documentation and scientific facts like i have and it's a no brainer. Then dig a little further as to why!? That's the problem most people grapple with. Why would government pull this off or at least allow it to happen? Hmmmmm, well lets look at history for a sec. False Flag warfare has been used for decades and maybe centuries. Hitler did it in Germany to get his people on board. The US and the Gulf of Tonkan (that ship didn't even exist, let alone sink - public information) yet that got the US in the Vietnam War. Pearl Harbour! Then you look at today and what drives the US Economy and allows them to have a stranglehold and own the world trading currency, the US Dollar. The have "A New Pearl Harbour" attack on home soil and say, "THOSE TERRORISTS ARE TO BLAME". Giving them just the reason they need to go over and bomb the hell out of Afghanistan and then Iraq. STILL GOING ON! Why? Cuz the oil! The problem is so many people are just not informed and it's easier to shut it down and call people crazy. You dig in and look for yourself. Also, If you research about Termite and Thermate used for cutter chargers, they don't just ignite by fire. You can drop a bomb and it will not explode unless it's triggered. Very similar. You're telling me that a building that had a plane crash into (designed to withstand TWO jumbo 707s) would PULVARIZE? There is little to NO evidence of the World Trade Center in the rubble...Where are the pancaked floors that you would expect to see. How did all three buildings fall at FREE FALL or near free fall speed if it's collapsing in the path of GREATEST resistance. The top part of the building should have toppled over. Office fires have caused three buildings to fall in history. Guess when that was? Yes, sept 11, 2001. Building 7 never even got hit by a plane, yet somehow later that day, it imploded on itself? I could go for days and days on how wrong all of this is. Also, if you think the government is not corrupt enough to pull this off, YOU are the nutty one i think. CIA has never done anything crazy in the past. Never killed Kennedy or anything i'm sure. Have a good day guys. Hopefully you don't give up on this and really look at the facts. It's hard to swallow and SO much to swallow but at the end of the day, there's way too much wrong here to turn a blind eye and let all the hundreds of people that died that die, be covered up in a lie.

    • Stephen Harris
      April 04, 2014 - 08:42

      You didn't have to pay Steven. I was giving you a free ticket remember. Regardless, hopefully the questions you have will be addressed in the new criminal investigation. For now, local architects and engineers in attendence all agreed with the evidence presented and some of those will be taking steps to make sure we get that investigation.

    • Steven Hewitt
      April 04, 2014 - 10:06

      Dave, I'm amused at how you said you weren't going to argue me and then wrote an argument against me. Not to mention I could shed your argument in my sleep, why bother? I doubt aliens who were watching from above could convince you otherwise.

    • Shawn
      April 04, 2014 - 10:33

      Steven, just on your last comment. If you do some research there is no end to the videos that recorded explosions. You can even see people reacting to the explosions in the videos. There are hundreds of eye witness accounts.

    • Dave
      April 04, 2014 - 12:53

      Steve, if you can "shed" (i assume you meant shred) my comments in your sleep, by ALL means. Show us the evidence! If you can find a way to prove Physics and Chemistry wrong...I'd love to hear from you.

    • Stephen Harris
      April 04, 2014 - 13:28

      Steven: What's humorous to me is that aliens causing building 7 to collapse the way it did is far more believable that the official story of 'normal office fires' causing it... which of course is impossible. Totally and completely impossible. People lie my friend. Physics does not.

  • Paul
    April 04, 2014 - 06:54

    What a nut !

  • Joe
    April 04, 2014 - 06:49

    I'm sorry, is MUN now hosting 9/11 Truthers to spew their conspiracy theory nonsense? And is the Telegram explicitly directing people to the websites of these people? What a laughingstock.

    • saelcove
      April 04, 2014 - 10:41

      Joe, when you live next door the the most corrupt country on the planet anything is possible

    • James
      April 04, 2014 - 11:22

      My thoughts exactly Joe - but my first reaction to this story: Here is another good reason not to subscribe to the Telegram. I expect "journalists" to aim a little higher than widely debunked conspiracy theorists. If the Telegram wants to distribute such gibberish, they should look into and report on how 9/11 Truthers fit within the growing trend of conspiracy theorists in our society. You know - journalism instead of BS.

    • Redgrave
      April 04, 2014 - 11:32

      Trust me--I WAS THERE!!! the alleged fires were theatrical smoke (intented to keep regular folks away--I was a worker), and not even the New Yorkers thought it was what they were saying. The only thing real were the thousands who died--GET REAL BUDDY!!