Architect Gage Rehashes 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

He noted the attacks profoundly affected everyone, referencing Bush and Rice briefings in the lead-up to the event.

Stein framed the conversation as an opportunity to delve into what he considers unanswered questions, implicitly suggesting gaps or inconsistencies in the widely accepted account of the tragic events.

Stein highlighted the health consequences for first responders as a key point of contention against government credibility. He claimed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided false assurances about air quality on September 12, 2001.

These assurances, Stein argued, directly led to severe health issues, including over 5,000 cancer-related deaths among responders. He used this alleged deception to underscore his argument that the government has not been transparent about the full scope of the 9/11 aftermath.

The host suggested that the significant number of deaths due to exposure to hazardous airborne particles indicated a deliberate misrepresentation of the safety conditions at Ground Zero.

He stated that he was informed by David Ray Griffin in 2006, expressing shock that such a significant event had not been widely discussed within his professional community.

Gage criticized the lack of structural investigation into WTC 7, noting that the AIA, with its 90,000 members, had not received any bulletins or information regarding the third tower's collapse. He pointed out the building's critical role as an emergency command center for the city, further questioning why its destruction received less public attention and official scrutiny.

He described his professional and personal struggle to reconcile the official narrative with the fact of a third skyscraper collapsing without being hit by a plane, highlighting it as a major catalyst for his deep dive into the 9/11 events.

He described the collapse as beginning with the upper-left east penthouse at 5:20 PM, followed by the entire building dropping symmetrically and uniformly into its own footprint in under seven seconds.

Gage referred to witnesses who reported hearing explosions before the collapse. He likened the speed and nature of the fall to "freefall acceleration," comparing it to a bowling ball falling in a vacuum, which he argued indicates a controlled demolition rather than a fire-induced structural failure.

His analysis focused on the visual and auditory evidence, asserting that the symmetry and rapid descent of the building challenge NIST's findings that fire was the primary cause of the collapse.

Gage emphasized that this comparison, made by a prominent news anchor, was never repeated in subsequent mainstream media coverage.

He argued that the symmetric nature of the building's fall, as observed by Rather, strongly suggests a pre-planned mechanical failure rather than a collapse caused solely by fire. Gage highlighted this early reporting as a key piece of evidence that contradicts the official explanation for Building 7's demise.

Richard Gage presented witness testimonies from within Building 7 to support his argument that explosive events occurred prior to its collapse. He specifically mentioned Richard Rotanz, who reported hearing the building creak, seeing gaping holes in concrete floors, and observing an elevator car blown out of its shaft and landing down the hall.

Gage also cited Barry Jennings, who claimed to have heard explosions on the 8th floor of the building. These accounts, according to Gage, contradict the official NIST stance, which maintains that no explosive devices were involved in the building's destruction.

The witness statements are used by Gage to suggest that internal forces, consistent with controlled demolition, were at play before the building's eventual collapse.

The study found that temperatures inside the building were not high enough to significantly weaken the steel framing, thereby refuting the official narrative.

It also determined that thermal expansion did not result in a loss of support for the beams and girders, a key component of the NIST explanation. The forensic analysis instead identified the building's failure as 'near-simultaneous' across all columns, a characteristic often associated with controlled demolitions.

Gage additionally claimed that findings from FEMA reports, which indicated the presence of molten iron and extreme temperatures, were ignored by NIST in its final assessment. This omission, according to Gage, further undermines the credibility of the official investigation.

He underscored that the study's scientific findings directly contradict the government's explanation, suggesting a deliberate oversight or misinterpretation of critical evidence.

He suggested that this hasty disposal was suspicious and intended to hide crucial evidence.

Alex Stein questioned why international parties did not conduct their own forensic analyses, while Gage interpreted the international silence as evidence of a global 'deep state' consensus. Both implied that the rapid removal of the steel prevented thorough investigations that could have shed more light on the true causes of the collapses.

Alex Stein introduced the theory of 'The B-Thing,' an alleged art project involving Israeli art students living on the 93rd floor of the World Trade Center. He suggested that non-residential office floors were modified to facilitate access for explosive placement.

Stein argued that elevator shafts could have been used to plant explosives. This theory posits that these activities were part of a pre-planned effort to set up the buildings for demolition, rather than an authentic art installation.

Richard Gage highlighted claims from Kevin Ryan's blog, digwithin.net, regarding alleged fireproofing upgrades in the months and years leading up to 9/11, specifically on the impact floors of the World Trade Center. Gage suggested that these upgrades provided an opportunity for nano-thermite to be applied under the decking of the buildings.

He also noted a suspicious elevator modernization contract awarded to an unknown company. Gage pointed to reports that 50 elevator employees were notably absent from a union meeting on 9/11, further fueling suspicions about coordinated actions prior to the attacks.

These activities, according to Gage, could have facilitated the controlled demolition of the towers.

He argued that these drills confused radar technicians and redirected fighter jets, thereby hindering a timely response to the actual attacks.

Gage asserted that such extensive and strategically timed drills would have required involvement at the highest levels of government. Alex Stein additionally questioned reports of warnings sent to specific individuals, advising them to avoid the World Trade Center on that day.

These points collectively suggest a coordinated effort to suppress or divert defensive measures, according to Gage.

Richard Gage cited NIST evacuation studies to suggest that the World Trade Center buildings were only half-occupied on 9/11, implying a lower-than-expected number of people present. He linked this to claims that the security contractor, Stratus, had ties to the Bush family.

Gage specifically mentioned Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker III as being connected to the security firm's board. These connections, he argued, warrant further research into the security operations on the day of the attacks.

These alleged discrepancies in occupancy and the high-level connections of the security firm are presented as further evidence of an orchestrated event, according to Gage's perspective.

He called for deeper investigation into how these factors might have contributed to the tragic outcome of the attacks.

Richard Gage confirmed that his colleagues, Ted Walter and Mava, met with Representative Thomas Massie in his office. Gage highlighted that Massie, like his associates, has an engineering background, fostering a productive conversation about 9/11 truth issues.

Gage stated that Massie is aware of the various questions and alternative perspectives surrounding the events of September 11. While Gage himself has not spoken directly with Massie, the confirmed meeting with his engineering-minded colleagues indicates an ongoing effort to engage political figures on these matters.

This engagement suggests an attempt to bring the long-standing questions and theories about 9/11 into broader political discourse, leveraging shared professional backgrounds to establish credibility.

Alex Stein attempted to fact-check a caller's claim about a woman who allegedly killed three children, spent six years in a psychiatric facility, and then killed three more. Stein used an AI tool, Grock, to verify if such a documented case existed.

Stein found no evidence matching the exact timeline and details provided by the caller. The closest reference he found was Diane Evers from 1980, but that case did not align with the caller's specific narrative, leading Stein to express skepticism about the accuracy of the story.

A caller described an incident in Northern California where a poll worker reportedly refused to ask for identification to avoid trouble, sparking a critique of election integrity. Alex Stein interpreted this as an institutional lack of requirement for ID, further solidifying his deep skepticism toward the integrity of modern elections.

The caller's experience highlighted concerns that lax ID policies could potentially compromise the fairness and security of voting processes. Both the caller and Stein suggested that such incidents contribute to broader distrust in election outcomes.

The caller suggested that Clancy's act was a deliberate attempt to punish her husband for an alleged affair.

Stein agreed that Clancy should be held guilty regardless of any domestic issues, firmly stating that the husband's potential infidelity does not excuse the murder of their children. He also clarified that there is no current evidence to support the claim of the husband's infidelity.

Stein characterized the focus on the husband's actions as secondary to the gravity of the children's murders, emphasizing that the primary culpability lies with Clancy. Both expressed little sympathy for her, advocating for her conviction for murder.

They maintained that the heinous nature of the crime overrides any speculative marital problems, placing the children's murders as the central and most tragic aspect of the case.