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.
“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.
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 http://rethink911.org.