Uploaded June 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Date: June 13, 2026
Time: 5:00 PM ET (extended, over 2 hours)
Host/Organizer: Mick Harrison (lawyer assisting with drafting a new report to Congress for Sen. Ron Johnson’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations)
Purpose: Presentation by Richard Gage on evidence supporting controlled demolition for the destruction of WTC Building 7 and the Twin Towers, as part of educational sessions on competing 9/11 theories.
Key Ground Rules (reiterated by Mick Harrison)
- Focus on evidence and logic.
- Questions primarily from host; others at the end if time allows.
- Open-minded approach to all theories; follow-up calls planned.
Agenda & Presentations
Richard Gage’s Presentation: Controlled Demolition Evidence
- Emphasized features of controlled demolition observed in WTC7 and Twin Towers, contrasting with DEW and official narratives.
- WTC7:
- Sudden onset, symmetric free-fall collapse into its footprint at 5:20 PM.
- Explosions reported by multiple witnesses (including Barry Jennings, Michael Hess, firefighters) before collapse; seismic signals preceding visible collapse.
- Minimal damage from debris; fires insufficient per University of Alaska Fairbanks study (near-simultaneous failure of all columns).
- Evidence of extreme heat (molten steel, high temperatures persisting for months).
- Twin Towers:
- Explosions and flashes reported by numerous witnesses and first responders before and during collapse.
- Pulverization of concrete, lateral ejection of steel sections hundreds of feet.
- Minimal seismic impact inconsistent with gravitational collapse; steel not reduced to dust.
- Nanothermite evidence (red-gray chips, iron microspheres) from peer-reviewed studies (Harrit et al.); compatibility with thermitic reactions explaining heat and byproducts.
- Referenced Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (over 3,600 signatories), witness testimonies, seismic data, molten metal, and limitations of DEW hypothesis in explaining observed phenomena.
- Noted combination of explosives and incendiaries (e.g., nanothermite) as more consistent with evidence than sole DEW or fire.
Q&A and Discussion Highlights
- Limited time; participants including Bob Greenyer, Patricia Casaza, Gene, and others asked about slag wool, electrical smells, heat vs. cold processes, seismic data, and sample analysis.
- Mick Harrison facilitated, emphasizing evidence over criticism of proponents.
- Closing remarks from participants stressed open-minded review of all evidence and potential for multiple mechanisms.
Closing Comments
- Mick Harrison thanked presenters and attendees; noted technical complexity requires further study. Planned additional calls for Q&A and other perspectives. Goal remains informed recommendations for congressional report.
Next Steps
- Mick to review materials and schedule follow-ups.
- Continued public outreach and evidence sharing encouraged.
Objective Note: The session focused on physical evidence, witness accounts, and scientific analyses supporting controlled demolition. Format prioritized presentation and clarification; no formal debate occurred. All views urged consideration in context of incomplete evidence.
Date: June 13, 2026
Time: 5:00 PM ET (extended, over 2 hours)
Host/Organizer: Mick Harrison (lawyer assisting with drafting a new report to Congress for Sen. Ron Johnson’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations)
Purpose: Presentation by Richard Gage on evidence supporting controlled demolition for the destruction of WTC Building 7 and the Twin Towers, as part of educational sessions on competing 9/11 theories.
Key Ground Rules (reiterated by Mick Harrison)
- Focus on evidence and logic.
- Questions primarily from host; others at the end if time allows.
- Open-minded approach to all theories; follow-up calls planned.
Agenda & Presentations
Richard Gage’s Presentation: Controlled Demolition Evidence
- Emphasized features of controlled demolition observed in WTC7 and Twin Towers, contrasting with DEW and official narratives.
- WTC7:
- Sudden onset, symmetric free-fall collapse into its footprint at 5:20 PM.
- Explosions reported by multiple witnesses (including Barry Jennings, Michael Hess, firefighters) before collapse; seismic signals preceding visible collapse.
- Minimal damage from debris; fires insufficient per University of Alaska Fairbanks study (near-simultaneous failure of all columns).
- Evidence of extreme heat (molten steel, high temperatures persisting for months).
- Twin Towers:
- Explosions and flashes reported by numerous witnesses and first responders before and during collapse.
- Pulverization of concrete, lateral ejection of steel sections hundreds of feet.
- Minimal seismic impact inconsistent with gravitational collapse; steel not reduced to dust.
- Nanothermite evidence (red-gray chips, iron microspheres) from peer-reviewed studies (Harrit et al.); compatibility with thermitic reactions explaining heat and byproducts.
- Referenced Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (over 3,600 signatories), witness testimonies, seismic data, molten metal, and limitations of DEW hypothesis in explaining observed phenomena.
- Noted combination of explosives and incendiaries (e.g., nanothermite) as more consistent with evidence than sole DEW or fire.
Q&A and Discussion Highlights
- Limited time; participants including Bob Greenyer, Patricia Casaza, Gene, and others asked about slag wool, electrical smells, heat vs. cold processes, seismic data, and sample analysis.
- Mick Harrison facilitated, emphasizing evidence over criticism of proponents.
- Closing remarks from participants stressed open-minded review of all evidence and potential for multiple mechanisms.
Closing Comments
- Mick Harrison thanked presenters and attendees; noted technical complexity requires further study. Planned additional calls for Q&A and other perspectives. Goal remains informed recommendations for congressional report.
Next Steps
- Mick to review materials and schedule follow-ups.
- Continued public outreach and evidence sharing encouraged.
Objective Note: The session focused on physical evidence, witness accounts, and scientific analyses supporting controlled demolition. Format prioritized presentation and clarification; no formal debate occurred. All views urged consideration in context of incomplete evidence.
