Richard Gage leaves 9/11 Truth in a “time warp”

On C-SPAN, Richard Gage leaves 9/11 Truth in a “time warp”

 by Jim Fetzer

 “9/11 was conceived as an elaborate psychological operation to instill fear into the American people in order to manipulate them into supporting the political agenda of the Bush/Cheney administration”–Jim Fetzer

Everyone one committed to 9/11 Truth should welcome more coverage from C-SPAN. Perhaps the greatest coverage to reach the public in the past was also from C-SPAN, when it covered the panel discussion of the American Scholars Conference, Los Angeles, 24-25 June 2006. But this one might be an exception.

We heard then about nanothermite from Steve Jones, Co-Chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. And we heard it again from the founder of A&E911. But a major division has arisen between those who claim that nanothermite can have blown the buildings apart and those who maintain that it isn’t even theoretically possible. Recent intel dumps confirm the use of nukes and explain those small iron spheres as a consequence of the use of special (iron jacketed) high-tech nukes.

So what’s with Richard Gage and A&E911 that they are still promoting a theory that T. Mark Hightower and I proved was indefensible in three articles published on 1 May 2011, on 17 July 2011 and on 27 August 2011?  Why did Gage squander this precious opportunity to advance 9/11 Truth on C-SPAN by endorsing a provably false theory?

The “big three” questions

Not only that, but there are three major questions in the public mind about 9/11, which are these:

(a) what happened on 9/11? 

(b) how was it done?

(c) who was responsible and why?

We know the before and after of the World Trade Center in relation to 9/11, so the answer to (a) is trivial. But Richard Gage had no answer to (c), even though he was asked it several times, and his answer to (b) was false and misleading. Is this the best that Richard Gage and A&E911 can do? It was embarrassing when he was asked the all too obvious question and could not answer it:

A&E911 is not alone in attempting to place the how ahead of the who and the why, where Judy Wood and her DEW supporters adopt the very same stance. But the American public has limited patience with those who can’t produce answers to such obvious questions, especially more than a decade after the event. And that is why “Operation Terror”, Art Olivier’s reconstruction of the events of 9/11, is a more powerful instrument for opening the mind to what may have happened than the appeal to an obscure causal mechanism–especially when it is misconceived.

All three questions have justifiable answers, but Richard Gage did not deliver them. It was much worse than that, because the host had prepared to defeat any appeal he would make to “thermite”, using NIST as his authority and thereby begging the question, by assuming the position of NIST that is the position in doubt:

Most Americans are too gullible to realize that this is citing the very source that Gage is disputing. But it could have been worse. He could have pointed out that Neils Harrit, a proponent of the nanothermite hypothesis, has estimated that it would have required “hundreds of tons” to do the job (where Harrit has also offered the more precise calculation of from 29,000 metric tons to 143,000 metric tons for each tower) or that the lab Christopher Bollyn has cited Los Alamos as his source for “explosive nanothermite” told Gordon Duff “they couldn’t produce anything smaller than 10 microns and it couldn’t blow a hole in a piece of paper”.

Why nanothermite can’t cut it

If this had been an episode of “The Twilight Zone”, it might have made more sense where 9/11 Truth is caught in a time warp. Richard Gage must know by now that nanothermite cannot live up to its capabilities as advanced by Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and others, who regard themselves as the custodians and only true practitioners of the scientific method in 9/11 research. Nanothermite (or even “thermite”, which is the term Gage used) has only 1/13 the explosive force of TNT and, whatever contribution it may have made to the collapse of Building 7, cannot possibly have been responsible for blowing apart the Twin Towers.

As Denis Spitzer et al., “Energetic nano-materials: Opportunities for enhanced performances”, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids (2010), observes, given the crucial role of the rapid expansion of gases to perform work by explosives, states, “Gas generating nano-thermites: Thermites are energetic materials, which do not release gaseous species when they decompose. However, explosives can be blended in thermites to give them blasting properties”, which implies that, unless supplemented with explosives, nanothermites are non-explosive. So Mark and I may have been overly generous.

Having published three articles explaining that nanothermite cannot have done it and to inform prominent researchers about this discovery, Mark wrote to Steven Jones, Richard Gage, and others. Dwain Deets, the former Chief of Research Engineering and Director for Aeronautical Projects at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, wrote to Mark and told him that he had listened to our interview on “The Real Deal” and said: “Excellent interview. A step toward trimming back claims that overshoot the evidence.”

Read the full article SOURCE