The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
Richard Gage AIA Discusses New U. of Alaska WTC-7 Study & 9/11 Anniversary
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

First hour: Richard Gage, AIA is a 30-year San Francisco Bay Area architect and member of the American Institute of Architects. He is the founding member of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

As the 18th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, Dr. Leroy Hulsey of the University of Alaska has spearheaded a new study showing in great detail that the official NIST version of the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 is so gratuitously wrong that its authors may be guilty of scientific fraud, or worse. And NIST’s report on the Towers is equally faulty. Will American scientists, architects, and engineers stand up for science? Will we ever get 9/11 justice?

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy, History • Tags: 9/11, Conspiracy Theories 
Hide 10 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Thermite vs Nukes..Either or? no they used BOTH! Thermite to break the lift shafts and some columns then nuked the interior. We WONT know until someone is ARESSTED! or guilt gets the better of them..unlikely in the present environment,

  2. Here’s an interesting presentation by physicist Heinz Pommer including an unusual explanation of why conventional explosives might have been used in a nuclear demolition:

  3. @Kevin Barrett

    an unusual explanation of why conventional explosives might have been used in a nuclear demolition

    All talk of nuclear detonations is an easily falsifiable hypothesis that anyone can test by wandering around ground zero with a Geiger counter. They’re available on Amazon. What say you give it a try, Kevin?

  4. @Kevin Barrett

    Thanks for the link to Heinz Pommer’s presentations.
    I normally listen a minimum of 2X before ever posting a comment concerning ‘scientific investigation’.
    But, I’ll make an exception for expediency’s sake.

    From what I’ve heard from Arto Lauri in Finland, there were *mini nuclear reactors* placed in the basement of WTC 1 & 2.
    They were Swedish ASEA reactors.
    Of course this is always denied. Why? The simple fact is a nuclear-power plant is impossible to have in Manhattan because of ‘zoning laws’, etc.
    Oh. I’m crazy?

    Well, ASEA(Sweden) merged with Brown Boveri(Switzerland) and became ABB.
    2 ‘neutral’ countries/non-aligned (cough-cough) , with no atom bombs but 1st class nuclear tech.
    You did known Donald Rumsfeld was….
    “US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, was a member of the ABB board from 1990 to 2001. In January 2000, ABB signed a $200 million deal for two nuclear power stations in North Korea.”?

    May I suggest You take contact with Arto Lauri.
    The discussion was in Finnish with rudimentary subtitles in English, so only an astute person with knowledge of Scandinavian history & languages I would think would catch-it.
    It would be missed by almost everyone.
    I’m an old N.J.-guy, living in Scandinavia for many many decades.
    I’ve lived in Finland during the 1980’s and am pretty good at understanding/speaking Finnish.

    I’ve also actually, have been ‘inside’ Sweden’s 1st experimental atomic reactor.
    It’s not at Studsvik which is the normal answer.
    It was in the bedrock under a building at KTH-Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan(Royal Institute of Technology) in Stockholm.
    Probably built during the 1950’s.
    Between the Cafeteria/ Q-Huset and the Swedish Military College/Försvarshögkolan … Drottning Kristinas Väg 49.
    Considering when it was built and its diminutive size, I’d say a mini-atomic reactor from the 1970/1980’s could be pretty damn small.

    Anyway, try doing that Kevin.
    Cheers X- in Sweden

    • Replies: @Iris
  5. intp1 says:

    Re. Kevin´s belief that a nuclear event may be needed to explain 1000 people ¨vaporizing¨ on Sept 11.

    So when human beings are subjected to a nuclear event (in close proximity) what do you believe is actually responsible for their destruction? I would put it to you that would be the incredible transient pressures involved, especially within a mixture of pulverizing solid materials like steel and concrete, plus, or in combination with, extreme temperatures. There is something inherently different about nuclear explosions in terms mostly of how they are generated and how extreme they are but these are the two major sources of energy responsible for subsequent destruction. Extreme pressures and extreme temperature near to the ground zero. Human bodies are comparatively pretty soft, even bone, and at certain distances would be unable to withstand being obliterated by these energies that even concrete and steel better might. The other killer is radioactivity, both from the intense flash that is also melts everything close to it and from the fall-out dust that persists for centuries.

    It is then certainly a feasible hypothesis that some human bodies closely exposed to both extreme pressures from both extensive cutter charge explosives mixed with solid materials in the WTC buildings plus the extreme temperatures from the Thermite or Nano-Thermate could cause nearby biological materials to disintegrate into minute particles, hot vapour and dust for exactly the same reasons. It needs some more technical research regarding the percentages of people affected but it certainly seems very possible, especially when we know that some of the Thermate was still active during and after the collapse, within the rubble, I believe through December.

    Also, the one smoking gun for a nuclear event is impossible to avoid, I don´t care what new research they are doing, and which no-body is claiming to have detected and would still be unavoidably present today – the radioactivity.

    I would say that although both theories are only theories, that the evidence, makes the explosives plus Thermate theory much more likely than a nuclear event. You don´t need a nuclear explosion the explain what happened to these people and evidence for a nuke, that should be staring us in the face, is simply not there.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  6. One measly response in 8 days? Desperate stuff! I was right in saying that 9/11 trutherism is dying on its feet. This Truth Jihad can’t even raise a whimper.

  7. Iris says:
    @Veritas X-

    The simple fact is a nuclear-power plant is impossible to have in Manhattan because of ‘zoning laws’, etc.

    A nuclear reactor cannot operate without:
    – Continuous access to a source of cold and clean water, indispensable to continuously cool down the reactor during its operation.
    – A second, redundant, source of water for safety.
    – A pool full of water where used nuclear fuel is disposed off temporarily, before going to re-treatment.

    Nuclear plants, for that reason, are always built directly next to the sea, or by a large river.
    The WTC was enclosed within the “Bathtubs” slurry wall to completely stop water ingress.
    No nuclear reactor could have been operated inside the WTC.

    • Replies: @Veritas X-
  8. MarkinLA says:

    Re. Kevin´s belief that a nuclear event may be needed to explain 1000 people ¨vaporizing¨ on Sept 11.

    Well lets see, human bodies trapped in a collapsing building made of glass, concrete, and steel breaking into various pieces and falling and rotating in one big heap. With pieces bouncing into each other that weight many many times that of a human body. You have the world’s largest tree limb grinder. What does that do you unlucky guy who occasionally gets pulled in?

  9. @Iris

    May I suggest You-Iris do a little research.
    And read what I initially wrote.
    It’s not what I said, it’s what Arto Lauri said.
    He’s an expert:

    In less than ½ hr. I found just 1 example of a mini-reactor which is Swedish.

    *SEALER. SEALER (Swedish Advanced Lead Reactor)*

    “Abstract. SEALER (Swedish Advanced Lead Reactor) isa 3-10 MWe lead-cooled fast reactor operating on 19.9.%enriched UO2fuel.It is designed for commercial production of electricity in communities and mining operations in the Canadian Arctic….”.

    “…Hence, the diameter of the SEALER primary vessel (2.7 m) was designed to fit into an Hercules C-130freighter…”

    “…The test facility is to be constructed at KTH[Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan] and the endurance test of the impeller will commence in 2018.The loop where the pump is installed will also be used to study…”
    Try reading:

    There is a nice little list found here with currently known & publicly disclosed projects:

    Regards X-

  10. OK maybe mini-nukes are 4th generation nuclear devices and not like hiroshima type era technology.. Gage said that 4th generation is beyond what we have with existing science in the public domain so it is all just “speculative” to talk about it. Yeah, it’s all that secret stuff they’ve been doing for decades at Area 51.

    But just because cutting edge technology has not been introduced to the public sphere doesn’t mean those capacities don’t exist and yes, it may be speculative but I feel it is wrong for Gage to negatively discredit the mini-nukes theory. I appreciate he says we don’t have the science to study it, but just don’t denigrate those who are proposing mini-nukes. It’s as if Gage sees the mini-nukes theory as a rival to controlled demolition. But, it could be both or all three when you include directed energy.

    911 was somewhat of a big lab experiment for the boys with the toys. They probably even used holograms to create the effect of planes going into the buildings. We should not discount anything .

    And indeed, I feel the Universe has vindicated my point by the fact that I was reading David Icke’s new book The Trigger about 911. And I stopped for a moment to contemplate my reponse to Gage’s statements. When I returned to Icke’s book this is the exact very sentence I read next on page 110: “It is a big mistake to judge what is possible only on the basis of technology you know about.”

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS