Richard Gage asks, “Can Directed Energy Weapons Account for the WTC Destruction on 9/11?”
Someone sent me a link to this latest disinformation piece by Mr. Gage. I don’t discuss “Directed Energy Weapons” in my book. So his obsession with that is telling. It is also apparent that Mr. Gage does not understand how to conduct an investigation. You must begin with evidence and not a guess at a technology or a scenario. NTSB investigators, when called to study a plane crash, are careful not to look at newspapers, TVs, or listen to radios before arriving at the crash site. They want to begin with the evidence, not theories or speculation.
NTSB (National Transportation and Safety Board) Plane Crash Investigation
Courtesy of MES Truth.
It gets really tiresome to have to answer the same disinformation, over and over again. I prepared and published a book for a reason. The title of my book is a question more people should have been asking. Where Did the Towers Go? This is a book that Mr. Gage does not want anyone to read. My book is the final report of an independent and comprehensive forensic investigation. It is an investigation of the evidence of what happened to the WTC complex on 9/11/01. Mr. Gage has called for a new investigation, so why wouldn’t he encourage people to read this book? Mr. Gage seems to be in a panic to direct people away from looking at the book themselves.
The book has been out for over 15 years and no one has been able to refute it. You can bet they’ve tried. They can only refute the disinformation they promote about it. They cannot refute anything in the book because it is evidence. And here we have yet again someone pushing disinformation about my book. The text of Mr. Gage’s article.is covered in the page numbers, so I will address the specific disinformation he is spreading about my book, by page number.
Mr. Gage claims to want a new investigation, but clearly he does not want a new investigation. My book is The New Investigation. It is the only independent and comprehensive investigation in the public domain. So why is Mr. Gage attacking this and promoting disinformation about it? He clearly is afraid that people might actually read it. The book contains evidence, both direct evidence and parallel evidence, and analysis of the evidence. The book does not contain a theory. So those who claim it does are clearly promoting disinformation. That’s actually an easy way to identify those who are promoting disinformation. Remember that.
It’s such a shame to see Mr. Gage resort to attacking Dr. Wood by promoting disinformation about her work. It’s such a shame to see Mr. Gage resort to these tactics and resort to covering up the New Investigation he claims to want. It is rather puzzling.
Mr. Gage claims his organization of thousands of engineers and architects “calls for a new investigation.” By calling for a new investigation, they are acknowledging that they are not capable of conducting such an investigation themselves. Instead, Mr. Gage promotes disinformation about someone who is well qualified and who has actually conducted The New Investigation and actually filed a court case..
Why is Mr. Gage so focused on the category of "Directed Energy Weapons"? It is odd that this is how some people refer to the evidence I present in my book. But my book is not about “Directed Energy Weapons.” I don’t think that is even discussed in the book. I only talk about evidence – which is a concept foreign to many people. Observation of evidence provides a tremendous amount of information. For example, the evidence of what happened to Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, was evidence that we could have nuclear power plants. That is not saying that nuclear power plants destroyed Hiroshima. Similarly, The subtitle of my book, “Evidence of Directed Free Energy Technology on 9/11” is analogous to that. The evidence of what happened on 9/11 is evidence that we could have free-energy. Who would want to cover this up? Mr. Gage seems obsessed with covering this up, which is probably why the discussion got away from evidence.
How do you solve a problem if you don’t look at the evidence – all of the evidence, not just cherry-picked interpretations?
If someone can turn discussion of “Evidence” into "Directed Energy Weapons," then they will turn an interpretation of “Directed Energy Weapons” into something else specific -- that can be debunked. (e.g. "Laser beams from space”)
When it is shown that thermite cannot do what was done, Mr. Gage would then say, "Well, it wasn't just thermite, it was explosives, too.” Then it becomes “spray-on thermite” or “paint-on thermite.” When it is shown that explosives are ruled out, he changes to something else. It’s like a game of whack-a-mole. The goal is to defend Mr. Gage's theories, not to look at what happened. But it can be said that the destructive mechanism for the buildings was not Kinetic Energy (KE) and was not Thermal Energy (TE). Essentially, the buildings were not beaten to death nor were they cooked to death. Ask the survivors in Stairway B who walked out.
It would be interesting to ask Mr. Gage what the mechanism of destruction is for thermite. Is it Kinetic Energy or is it Thermal Energy? Do the same thing for "Conventional Controlled Demolition” (Bombs in the Building). But all Kinetic Energy and Thermal Energy can be ruled out as a destructive mechanism by looking at the evidence.
Mr. Gage claims he doesn't know of a specific Directed Energy Weapon that can do what was done. Is Mr. Gage aware of all classified technology? Well, I sure don't know of any Kinetic Energy weapon, or Thermal Energy weapon that can dustify a building, much less in 8-10 seconds; do you?
It's dishonest to compare a specific technology with a category. That is like saying a slingshot couldn’t do it, so therefore no other Kinetic Energy technology can do it. This is essentially the game Mr. Gage has been playing by saying a particular Energy technology can’t do it, so none can. And before that, it was Steven Jones and Greg Jenkins who played the same game. They claim all energy weapons are laser beams from space, or “spacebeams.” (Perhaps they aren’t familiar with TV-remote controls.) So they claim that refuting laser beams from space refutes all forms of directed energy. And round and round it goes, playing spin the dial on “name that weapon.” Again, why is Mr. Gage so obsessed with talking about Directed Energy instead of evidence?
So let’s just stick to evidence. You can’t solve a problem by throwing out trendy terms. You first must understand WHAT happened. And that is all my book attempts to do.
There is a clever proof of dustification in my book on pp. 306-308. The top of WTC2 begins to tip as a rigid body, but appears to stop tipping, as the whole tower appears to go straight down. Consider the tipping top of WTC2, as shown in Figure 1. As the destruction progresses, the top part of WTC2 has turned into dust as shown in Figure 2.
 |  |
|---|---|
| Figure 1. WTC2 from the south | Figure 2. WTC2 from the south. (Referred to as the snowball.) |
| Quoting from my book: |
The transition between Figures 3b and 3c appears to violate the laws of motion of conservation of angular momentum for rigid bodies. This therefore implies that we are not dealing here with a rigid body. The upper part of the building has turned to dust. Once the top begins to rotate, it develops angular momentum. That angular momentum predicts that the top will keep rotating until it falls to the ground. Figure 3c, however, shows that in this case the top did not continue to rotate, but decreased in size. [Quoted from my book.]
Figure 3. Diagram of WTC2 demise as viewed from the south.
The only way this phenomenon could occur is if the rotating top were in fact not to remain a rigid body but instead break down into individual particles. Only in that way would the laws of angular momentum not be violated, since each individual particle can continue to rotate, angular momentum being conserved on a piece by piece basis. The fact that the rotating top did not continue to tip over means, simply, that it did not fall as one rigid body. Its disintegration also explains why the size of the snowball increased. Again, in Figure 1, we can see that the building is already turning into powder when the top of WTC2 has barely begun tipping over. [Quoted from my book.]
Mr. Gage also thinks this is a clever proof because he tried to use it in his new presentation. The above paragraphs quoted from my book will be familiar when you watch the video below. But he refers to particles of “sand” maintaining conservation of angular momentum. Apparently Mr. Gage doesn't realize the building turn to dust, not sand. Also, Mr. Gage did not realize this proof supports dustification and contradicts the 600-foot “lateral ejections” he often talks about to explain the lack of significant debris. But you will see in Figure 4, as well as in the video of Mr. Gage's presentation that there are no ejections shooting beams 600 feet laterally. Each tower is about 200 feet wide, so 600 feet would be a distance three times the width of a WTC tower. Note the video from 0:24 to 0:34 in the video, and the image in Figure 4. Do you see any beams being ejected out 600 feet (three times the width of the tower)? Figure 4 shows the image from 0:30 in the video.
Figure 4. The demise of WTC2. No lateral ejections of 600 feet (600 feet is about three times the width of WTC2)
That is, Mr. Gage agrees with Dr. Wood's proof that most of the towers were turned to dust. He uses Dr. Wood's proof of dustification to explain how conservation of angular momentum was maintained.
9/11 disinfo spook Richard Gage copying Dr. Judy Wood's argument for dustification
Courtesy of MES Truth.
Let’s consider the section of Mr. Gage’s article about my book, titled “The Directed Energy Weapons theory fails to account for the above evidence.” Mr. Gage must believe his audience is illiterate and can’t read things for themselves. But maybe Mr. Gage didn’t even read it himself. In my book, there is no discussion of a “Directed Energy Weapons theory.” Those who use this phrase identify themselves as promoting disinformation. The Conclusions chapter of the book is a presentation of facts that are established in the book. You cannot argue with facts.
It seems that Mr. Gage did not actually read the sections of my book he is referencing below, but perhaps he merely looked at the Table of Contents and assumed or projected what he thought I might say in those sections. The pages Mr. Gage referenced do not present what he seems to claim they say. Or does Mr. Gage have a reading comprehension problem or is he just dishonest? This is a serious question.
The following are page numbers with Mr. Gage’s complaint about what is on that page, followed by an explanation of what is actually on the pages he references.
"Page 124 — There was no thermite"
On page 124, I explain what thermite is made of. The most common type is made of rust and aluminum powder. If the towers were dustified, you’d expect there to be aluminum powder and iron oxide (rust) in the dust. So if you collected this dust into a dust baggie, finding constituents of the building in the dust baggie doesn’t prove what happened to the building. To make this point, I use other constituents found in the dust.
This is a quote from P. 124-125 in my book. (“chocolate-chip cookies”)
The building was turned to dust, and therefore the dust would be expected to contain traces of all materials that were in the buildings. Finding traces of chocolate, sugar, and nano-wheat (flour) in the dust would not prove that chocolate chip cookies turned the buildings to dust. It would not prove these ingredients had been combined as chocolate chip cookies in the buildings, nor that such cookies were capable of turning buildings to dust. The same is true for thermite. Finding constituents of the building in the dust does not give a proof of what happened to the building. In this case, focusing on particular constituents found in the dust and claiming that those constituents support a particular theory may actually distract attention away from the central and incontrovertible fact that most of the building and its contents were, quite simply, turned to dust. [Quoted from my book.]
Remember, nano-wheat is also explosive. (Look up flour mills that had explosions.)
So is Mr. Gage now saying that the towers were destroyed by Chocolate Chip cookies, based on sugar, chocolate, and nano-wheat found in the dust (pages 124-125)? The hypothetical example I present using ingredients of chocolate chip cookies seems to hit the mark. Finding particular constituents of the building in the dust baggie does not prove what happened to the buildings. However, it is indeed a distraction away from the fact that most of the towers, and their contents, were quite simply, turned to dust..
"Pages 263, 295 — Molten Metal is not hot."
Will Mr. Gage say under oath that I made such a claim on page 263 or 295?
Already he has said it in writing, which is proof of libel.
Page 263 discusses "hot things glow but not everything that glows is hot" Most people are familiar with incandescent light bulbs and fluorescent light bulbs. They both glow, but only one of them glows because of heat. That is, luminescence does not prove temperature. There is nothing about "molten metal." on that page.
Page 295 is a page of references for the chapter and does not contain any statement about "molten metal" not being hot. Did Mr. Gage just list random page numbers? Is Mr. Gage illiterate?
"Page 332 — The iron microspheres were not the result of thermite."
I do not make such a statement and it is libelous to claim I do.
At this point, one must ask if this is a reading comprehension problem of Mr. Gage or an attempt at promoting disinformation. I just show other places where iron-rich microspheres can be found. That is, finding iron-rich microspheres does not prove there is thermite. Does Mr. Gage also claim that grass isn't green because trees have green leaves? Does the color green only exist in one kind of plant?
Why is Mr. Gage so obsessed with promoting disinformation about my work?
"Page 131 — 150,000 tons of structural steel disappeared — turned to dust."
There is no statement like this on page 131. What is discussed on page 131 are words like, "collapse" vs. "pulverize" and "vaporization," and why those words don't apply. There is no mention of "150,000 tons of structural steel" or that anything "disappeared." There isn’t even a mention of 150,000 tons.
This one is worth asking Mr. Gage if he'd swear under oath that I said this.
Wait a minute. What Mr. Gage has already written is libel.
"Pages 110, 153 — There were no explosions, except for pressurized tanks"
Again, What Mr. Gage wrote is not on the page. To the contrary. So what Mr. Gage stated is libel and disinformation. He seems desperate to hide things that are in my book. I think that is called a cover up.
P. 110-111, Rene Davila talks about his vehicle exploding.
"We saw the sucker blow up. We heard a 'Boom!'"
I don't think Rene Davila was talking about Scott Tanks. Rene Davila specifically was talking about his vehicle. On page 110, the sound an egg makes in a microwave oven is discussed. Also, it is stated that when water becomes steam, it needs to expand in volume by 1,600 times. I could have also mentioned cans of hair spray or even balloons. Lots of things go boom. Hearing a boom doesn't prove it's a bomb. So what Mr. Gage stated is again, libelous and disinformation. Rene Davila's vehicle was not a pressurized tank.
Page 153 has nothing to do with the sound of explosions. There is mention of the 18th or 20th floor of the building across the street being the highest "stab wound" on the adjacent building. Recall the smooth dome of WFC2. WFC2 is 44 stories tall and there was no trash on top of it or any dents from something hitting it -- which is not what you'd expect directly across the street from WTC1 after its demise.
Page 153 also has first responder testimony of a fire marshal who noted that it wasn't smoke because he could breathe. That it was an enormous amount of dust. The fire marshal said,
"I realized there was no heat, you could breathe."
"Pages 61, 73 — The seismic readings don’t show explosions"
Again, this is disinformation and libelous.
Page 61 discusses that we were told the buildings pancaked down in a progressive collapse and why that is wrong. (Is Mr. Gage claiming the buildings actually did come down in a pancaking progressive collapse?) I discuss that for a pancaking progressive collapse, the lower floor must be rigid if the floor falling on it gets busted up by slamming onto it. And, if we have all this floor slamming going on, we'd see it in the seismic signal. We didn't see it. Also, with all this slamming going on, why is the bathtub wall still intact?
There is nothing on that page about explosions.
Page 73 discusses that the surface wave disturbance lasted for only 8 seconds, which rules out Kinetic Energy as the destructive mechanism. Does Mr. Gage actually believe that Kinetic Energy can destroy the building in 8 seconds when it takes at least 9.5 seconds to drop a bowling ball off the roof and have it hit the ground? There is also discussion that the Seattle Kingdome made the equivalent of a 2.3 seismic signal, the same as WTC 1, which had 30 times more potential energy. There is no discussion about "explosions." Why did Mr. Gage reference this page? It makes me wonder if Mr. Gage is illiterate and just drew numbers out of a hat.
“Pages 122-130 — There was no nano-thermite.”
Page 122 begins with discussing what thermite is used for. "Thermite is a welding material, not an explosive." Does Mr. Gage believe thermite is not a welding material? By the way, anything ground to a fine powder is explosive. This is a big problem in grain mills. Yes, nano-wheat is explosive. But it is a poor choice if you want to blow up a bridge. Thermite is used by the military to quickly burn all their top-secret documents if being invaded by the enemy. Does Mr. Gage disagree with this? Thermite is also used to disable enemy guns so that the invading military need not tote all the enemy guns out of there. Put thermite down the gun barrel and ignite it, then the gun will be useless. There have also been thermite "bomblets" linked and fused by a magnesium fuse. This might be good for burning down a community of wooden buildings. Is Mr. Gage proposing that is what set off the fires in Hawaii? (Actually, it might be somewhat possible.)
P. 124-125 The "chocolate chip cookie" section. (See large quoted paragraph above)
P. 125. Thermite has a problem with ignition and control, which is why it can’t be used in controlled demolition. Also, thermite does not turn a building to powder. It can't even pulverize something.
P. 126, The Kitchen Sink, Occam's Razor (eliminating the most assumptions). Does Mr. Gage believe that the best explanation is the one with the most number of assumptions? What's wrong with this guy?
P. 127-130 is just references for the chapter.There is nowhere that I state that there was no nano-thermite. I only presented why thermite couldn't do what was done. So Mr. Gage is again guilty of libel.
"Pages 270, 370, 465 — FEMA’s Appendix C metallurgy analysis of the steel was not the result of “hot sulfur corrosion attack” as FEMA declared."
Page 270 I discuss how memories are not like Memorex. Often memories are formed by the power of suggestion. This is how people can recover from a stroke or a brain injury. Their brain fills in what it thinks should be there. After being told a plane hit the building, everything that some first responders saw became "proof" there had been a plane. A tennis shoe on the street was seen as being from a passenger. A wadded up ball of wire was seen as the wiring from an airplane. These folks needed confirmation that a plane hit the building and their brains interpreted evidence to support that. On that page is also discussion about being told there was hot molten metal -- became a belief that the person had actually seen it. -- But what does that have to do with FEMA's Appendix C? It appears that Mr. Gage just tossed out a random page number.
Page 370 What is odd here is that Mr. Gage is claiming I denied what was in Appendix C. But I actually quoted large sections from that Appendix. Did Mr. Gage confuse that quote with something else? For example, here is part of the text I quoted from the FEMA document:
"...the unexpected erosion of the steel found in the beam warranted a study of the microstructural changes that occurred in the steel." and "...a novel phenomenon...occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel into Swiss cheese.
"This discussion was in the Hutchison chapter -- and you can see why.
Page 465 shows the pictures I refer to as rolled-up carpets, cake batter, and paper mache. The text discusses the next pictures, pictures described as steel being like curling ribbon on a gift package -- not buckled from an axial load. I also discuss how you curl a curling ribbon. properties are altered on one side, making it curl -- and I draw a parallel to a Timoshenko bi-metal strip thermostat.
What does that have to do with what Mr. Gage is claiming it talks about? I really don't think Mr. Gage read what he was referencing. Is he unable to read or does he believe that his supporters aren't able to read or not interested in reading it for themselves? There is no refutation here. There is only discussion of strange phenomena seen in the evidence.
Hey, I could debunk Mr. Gage's book, page 123 and page 42 and page 69. Oh, that’s right, he has no book. Well, what's the difference when you’re quoting random page numbers? ;-) Perhaps Mr. Gage doesn’t have a book in print because he cannot keep changing the text from thermite, to thermte, to spray-on thermite, to thermitic material, to mini-micro-nano thermite. Printed books must have more thought in preparing because they don’t change.
Mr. Gage titled the section citing page numbers as, "The Directed Energy Weapons theory fails…."
What is " The Directed Energy Weapons Theory?" Mr. Gage fails to define it. Perhaps that is why he fails to refute anything. Next, will Mr. Gage claim to refute “Kinetic Energy Theory” or “Thermal Energy Theory”?
What problem is Mr. Gage trying to solve? Perhaps it is,to deter people from looking at the evidence that Dr. Wood presents. If folks look at this evidence, they probably won't listen to Mr. Gage again. Maybe that is what scares him the most.
Please read Chapter 13 of my book (Where Did the Towers Go?) and then explain to me what the evidence reveals. This issue has not been overlooked. Please explain how it can be 819°F at the location where firefighters are wading in knee-deep water.
On 9/11, there was a broken water main on West Street and West Street flooded. If there had been molten metal, there should have been a steam explosion with all of this water. Remember, when water becomes steam, it expands in volume by 1,600 times.
The following images illustrate the importance of using good observational skills instead of repeating rumors and disinformation. Why would someone claim that these firefighters are wading through water that is hotter than 800F? If someone told you these places where the firefighters are is over 800 F, would you believe them or would you apply some logical thinking?
The myth of high temperatures
Why does Mr. Gage want you to believe these firefighters are wading in “hot molten metal”?
 |  |
|---|---|
Figure 5. Image collected September 16, 2001. This is claimed as a “thermal map” but clearly the temperatures are not correct. Location E is where the firefighters are wading, It is claimed that Location E is 819 F. (9/16/01)  and here | Figure 6. This is a view from the southern "shore" of West Street after a water-main broke. Note these firefighters are wading through water. They are not in boiling water. So the supposed “thermal map” cannot be correct. (9/11/01) Source |
| Hot Spot | Kelvin | °C | °F |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 1000 | 727 | 1341 |
| B | 830 | 557 | 1035 |
| C | 900 | 627 | 1161 |
| D | 790 | 517 | 963 |
| E | 710 | 437 | 819 |
| F | 700 | 427 | 801 |
| G | 1020 | 747 | 1377 |
| H | 820 | 547 | 1017 |
Table 1. United States Geological Survey (USGS) "thermal hot spot" data from September 16, 2001. Source
Figure 7. Location F. Basement of WTC2, two days after the claimed “thermal map” was recorded, claiming it is 801 F. Do these first responders look like they are climbing down into an 800 F bake oven? The temperatures assigned to that “thermal map” diagram cannot be correct.
(9/18/01)
It is truly amazing how hard the “hot molten metal” myth has been promoted. Perhaps the “hot molten metal” myth is actually a cover up for unusual evidence that is difficult to explain away. Mr. Gage claims there was “hot molten metal” flowing in the underground. Yet there have been no images or evidence presented of solidified “lakes of molten metal.” With all of the reports of “hot molten metal,” wouldn’t you think there would be some evidence of it, somewhere?
Yes there is evidence of formerly liquid metal. but there is no evidence it was hot.
If the liquid metal had been hot, it would have burned the paper. That didn’t happen
 |  |
|---|---|
| Figure 8. Bible found at the former WTC. Re-solidified metal shows that it was not hot. | Figure 9. Close-up of Figure 8 |
Perhaps you can think of why the myth of “hot molten metal” is being promoted, along with other myths that cover up actual evidence.
For more information, please read the book for yourself,
“Where Did the Towers Go?” by Dr. Judy Wood
Posted Using INLEO
