Interview 1471 – 9/11 Revisited with Corbett, Gage and Grove

08/12/201935 Comments

via getAUTONOMY.info: In this conversation, James Corbett of The Corbett Report, Richard Grove of TragedyAndHope.com and Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org talk to Christopher McMillan, a student of the AUTONOMY course at getAUTONOMY.info about 9/11. Topics discussed include an investigation into the destruction of WTC 7 at the University of Alaska and the recent call by New York City fire commissioners for a new investigation into 9/11. They also answer questions from the class.

VIDEO COURTESY: Tragedy And Hope

SHOW NOTES
“WTC 7 Did Not Collapse from Fire” – Dr. Leroy Hulsey, UAF, Sept. 6, 2017

New York Area Fire Commissioners Make History, Call for New 9/11 Investigation

9/11 Suspects: Christine Todd Whitman

Info on WTC elevator upgrades

Info about radar blind spots on 9/11

Project Constellation

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (35)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. HomeRemedySupply says:

    This was an excellent “roundtable discussion”! I loved the approach and dialogue.
    Corbett asked some very good questions.
    Thanks to “mkey” for an early sneak peek…
    https://www.corbettreport.com/crisis-in-kashmir-what-does-it-mean/#comment-64703

  2. flammable says:

    I think I remember there were photos from WTC 7 south side I believe, that showed smoke coming from every floor. Does this add doubt to the claim of small office fire? Or maybe someone already proved the pictures to be photoshopped and I missed it. And if it was real, what could make such a massive fire in a tall office building? Explosives or a building that didn’t meet fire code?

  3. candlelight says:

    It cannot be emphasized loudly enough the significance of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District coming on board, fully and “on fire” to 911 Truth, in an official capacity.

    As one might interpret and/or paraphrase Richard Gage as meaning and saying, respectively, with regard to James’ cynicism – or what Gage would prefer referring to as skepticism – is that maybe it has simply come the time for a breakthrough to finally occur, sighting the unprecedented involvement of the aforementioned fire district. Amen to that!

    Also of much interest was the discussion involving a contract “given” to Ace Elevator Company for the modernization of the elevators in the Twin Towers.

    This is very curious, and I would concur highly unusual. Though it wasn’t actually mentioned, if Otis Elevator Company had been the company maintaining the elevators, the chances are great that the elevators in the towers were, indeed, Otis elevators.

    Key components of the operating systems of Otis elevators are proprietary, meaning that such components are not readily available to other companies, making it extremely arduous for another company to work on Otis’ equipment. Furthermore, by Otis’ own doctrine, their maintenance employees are tasked to “walk away” from maintaining equipment installed by others, therefore making little or no sense for the owners of the Twin Towers to have farmed out any modernization contract to any other company besides Otis.

    Said contract and/or any other related documents concerning Ace Elevator’s involvement in the modernization of the elevators should be legally summoned to be studies and if appropriate, brought before the special grand jury.

    My hat’s off to Richard Gage for his tremendous work in deconstructing the official framework of the 911 deception.

    Maybe, just maybe, after 18 years, the time for Truth has finally arrived.

    • cooly says:

      candlelight-

      Interesting details about the elevator industry. Thanks.

    • richard.mo says:

      Are you saying only Otis can install and maintain their elevators? If so that seems like a weird distribution model for a manufacturer. I would not expect them to be such a popular Brand if they had to manage not only their manufacturing base including R&D, as well as installation crew. It would make more sense if the manufacturer in question followed a fairly industry standard method of training independent contractors to be approved installers. I think your vertical integration strategy argument doesn’t make logical sense.

      • candlelight says:

        richard.mo

        Correct. Otis can and typically does install as well as maintain their elevators. Whether or not Otis themselves actually manufacture all of the components of their elevators, I cannot say with certainty. But, that’s really beside the point. Some of the equipment that goes into Otis’ elevators are proprietary, so either they make these things themselves, or some other entity makes it for Otis, whereby Otis, by rights, would own a patent for such proprietary equipment/components. Otis does claim to develop and manufacture and market their elevators.

        Such a monopolistic business model – developing, producing and maintaining proprietary equipment, especially when there’s not that many elevator companies to choose from makes perfect sense. Basically, once Otis, or presumably any elevator company with a similar business model, is awarded a winning bid, the building owner is essentially married to that company, for maintenance, upgrades and/or modernization. It is claimed that Otis is the largest elevator company in the world, and they did, indeed, install and maintain their elevators in the World Trade Center….until 1994.

        Coincidentally, that’s one year following the FBI-coordinated false flag attack in 1993.

        I’d love to see any internal memos relating to the decision to discontinue Otis’ maintenance contract and opting for Ace Elevator to maintain Otis’ elevators. That, to me, is what does not make any sense!

        It’s also sickening to hear that, as Richard Gage states, the
        Ace Elevator crew “…ran like rats…” the day of 9/11.

        You would think that in the immediacy of such an emergency these guys would stick around and use their expertise to do anything they could to help out, as was reported back in 1993 of Otis’ maintenance workers doing whatever they could to help out. Even if the elevators were damaged beyond their means, I can’t imagine them fleeing in such a fashion as described by Gage.

        It’s been speculated that the planning of 9/11 dates all the way back to that first false flag in 1993. Could dumping Otis in 1994 and hiring a relatively small, two-bit elevator company like Ace have been a part of that planning??

        Subpoena the records!!!

  4. manbearpig says:

    well, haven’t finished the interview and haven’t really thought much about it but…

    why do I suspect that cooperative Al Qaeda operative Khalid Sheik Mohammed and uncooperative pseudo-corpse Epstein are gonna steal the spotlight from Hulsey’s otherwise eye-opening study and the NYC fire commissioner’s appeal to justice come 9/11/19… ???

    at least I can send this to my Firefighter captain friend in Massachusetts…

    now on with the end of my vacation…

  5. dubrey says:

    It’s great that the investigation into 9/11 is finally getting somewhere. There appears to be updated information, with an updated explanation. Apparently, the thermite explanation alone, would have required a prohibitive amount of Thermite to get the job done. Here’s another hypothesis.

    https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=13U1ODM1H8WX

  6. pbirdstheword says:

    911. . . Steven Jones PhD in physics at Brigham Young University said in 2007 it was Thermite that brought down the towers, thus all set up and phony. It cost him his job.

  7. flammable says:

    That Ace Elevator Company could be critical to the new 9/11 investigation. It is understandable how many people thought the towers being brought down by explosives is illogical. How can it get through building security? How can it be done. There must be too many people needed to execute this?
    Well now there is a logical answer that involves only one suspicious maintenance company.

    • cooly says:

      flammable-

      You ask valid questions. I would like to respond.

      1) “It is understandable…”
      Only if you consider that most people have no knowledge of how controlled demolition takes place, what it looks like physically.

      2) “How can it get through building security?”
      Who has control of building security? Not the security guards. They are employees who do what they are told.

      3) “There must be too many people needed…”
      Compartmentalization. At every level of an operation, those who are needed or useful are only told what they need to know to complete their specific task. They are not informed of the whole picture. They are just doing a job. And when someone does know more than they are supposed to, they had better make arrangements for who will be feeding their pets in the future.

      • flammable says:

        Thank you for the answers cooly. I’m kind of new to the 9/11 conspiracy. I still have my doubts but more and more details are getting through to me.

  8. mellander says:

    Please send info on UC Berkeley presentation by Prof. Halsey (sp?) on 9/5 that was mentioned

  9. Olaf says:

    I’ve been a proponent of the theory that thermite had been used for the demolition from the get-go.

    As far as what hit the towers, I feel that Steve De’ak hit the nail on the head with his research on the events.

    The footage was faked, using tripods for stability, so they could add the “planes” later. Notice after the vigorous shaking camera movements, you see that right before the impacts occur there is practically no camera movement for like 15 frames or so.
    The objects that went into the towers must have been missiles. Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM) by Lockheed Martin was his guess. That’s why the steel girders were bent inwards and there was also evidence of lateral damage to the beams along the margins of the impact crater on the side of the buildings. These missiles are 14 feet long and have a wingspan of about 8 feet. They are terrain hugging subsonic cruise missiles. They have 450 kg (1000 lb) WDU-42/B penetrator warheads designed for punching through hardened targets prior to detonating. They kind of look like small white planes. They can also fly together in formation. A plane could not have cut through all those steel beams upon impact. The alleged “planes” were filmed maneuvering with precision at sea level. One with a ground velocity in excess of 500 knots (575 mph, 926 km/h) and the other above 400 knots (460 mph, 740 km/h).

    The object seen hitting the pentagon is a subsonic cruise missile as well but that one didn’t have a penetrating warhead as it is seen exploding upon impact. They collapsed the building with secondary explosives because the missile didn’t do enough damage to it. Then they used a rapid hole breaching kit for the alleged punch-out holes. The punch-out holes were almost perfectly round. They also used smoke machines during the pentagon incident aftermath.

  10. Olaf says:

    I meant to say: right before the “planes” are about to come into view.

    Not, right before the impacts occur.

  11. allister says:

    I’m definitely FOR exposing the truth of 9/11 but call me cynical why do I feel the closer the 9/11 truth movement get to exposing 9/11 the closer we get to the next 9/11.

    Everywhere the players appear to be jostling for positions, politically, economically and militarily. Kashmir and the Persian Gulf build-up just the latest examples and even in the detail one might be excused for reading war in the tea leaves as Trump looks to free up resources within US boarders.

    How relevant today is James’s “Echoes of WW1” presentation in Denmark.

  12. Libertydan says:

    I met Richard Gage in 2008 after a Presentation he did at The Town Hall in Seattle. At the beginning of his presentation he asked for a show of hands of how many people believed the “Official government Story about 9/11”, and about half the of the hands went up, (about 300 of about 600)
    At the end of his presentation he asked the same question, and about 6 hands went up. It would appear that he has a 99% success rate with those who are willing to listen.
    I should be clear why he can’t get on main stream TV. In fact, I would be willing to bet that he has been declared a “Threat to National Security” (made the top of the Shit list, as I like to say).
    Yep, the Evil Empire has little toleration for people that expose the lies and corruption it uses to manipulate the masses.
    In order to find out who runs the evil empire, I would recommend “Solving 911, The Deception that Changed the World” by Christopher Bollyn. He also has a website, http://www.Bollyn.com where nearly everything is available for free.
    I also think that Christopher Bollyn would make an excellent guest for the Corbett Report!

  13. John Blaid says:

    I think what is greatly missed in the discussion of what happened with the towers on 9/11 is the work of Dr Judy Wood. Her work with the physical evidence needs to be included in the discussion regardless of how some parties like Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth feel about it.

    I think one of the best presentations made by Dr Judy Wood is this one from 2012 at the Global Breakthrough Energy Movement conference in Holland

    9/11 Breakthrough Energy Technology | Dr Judy Wood
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vadSaWyiozg

    • Olaf says:

      What i can’t wrap my head around with this person is the fact she’s staring the obvious in the face (no major seismic activity from the building going down at free fall speed, squibs from the sides of the buildings, glowing “cheetos” on the ground, localized “spontaneous” combustion within the debris, melting metal in environments with temperatures well below it’s melting point, cars that burned with their handles being completely gone, actual side fires, curled-up steel beams, steel on boots melting, extreme rust a.k.a iron (III) oxide on some beams but not on others near them) and at the same time knows what thermite is and what it does, knows what a top-down demolition looks like and she concludes that it must have been a cold process and that a generated electromagnetic field must have been the cause behind the buildings falling at free fall speed.

      What a top-down demolition pattern looks like:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJQRK0JjH70

      Simultaneous squibs on all sides of both towers:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZFIabl7Di8

      Actual analyses of pre-treated dust samples and peer-reviewed paper proving that nano-thermite was used:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0cMOr7SSKg

      https://www.benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

  14. HomeRemedySupply says:

    This “Interview 1471 – 9/11 Revisited with Corbett, Gage and Grove” is also posted at 911blogger.com
    (By the way, 911blogger is asking for donations. Any amount.)
    http://911blogger.com/news/2019-08-11/autonomy-9-11-revisited-james-corbett-richard-gage-and-richard-grove

  15. grant.m says:

    Great work James,

    Thank you for your good works.

    regards,
    Grant

  16. mkey says:

    I’d like to once again raise the issue of the “heavy damage” on WTC7.

    http://911truthout.blogspot.com/2014/08/90-west-heavy-fire-building-7-small.html

    • Olaf says:

      Heavy fire has never brought down a steel skyscraper before in the history of the world.

      Even the alleged “heavy damage” to the steel structure of the building by debris, that’s shown in the diagram of the article that you provide here, could not have had possibly accounted for the rate of acceleration and symmetry at which the building “came down” that day.

      A simple analysis of the acceleration:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP9Qp5QWRMQ

      What a gravity demolition looks like:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FYUGFG3Rj0

      Controlled Demolition Expert looks at WTC7:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k82vowo7doE

      • mkey says:

        I’m not suggesting that it does, my apologies for not making that clear from the start.

        What I’m saying is that this looks like an exquisite example of astroturfing where the controlled narrative is so overbearing that even evidence supportive of the official narrative is being kept occluded.

        I have seen a video on YT testifing to fact of the wtc7 sustaining massive damage when coming into collision with the falling tower, but it’s been memory holed.

        • Olaf says:

          There was little fire going on at WTC7.
          The fire was only on 3-4 floors and it was already out by the time they brought down the building. I don’t see much structural damage either.

          This was the fire at WTC7:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW7CACDE-oU

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

          After the fire was out they used smoke machines to fake the building burning.

          Watch this burst of flames as seen on one of the NIST report videos:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IAcuITqh6E

          This burst of flames is not coming out of the building, but from a smoke machine, that was pointed upwards, which was located in front of the building.

          Smoke machines produce their effect by pouring a fluid mixture onto a heating element which vaporizes it upon contact and then it is forced out into the atmosphere under pressure.
          Military grade smoke machines are jet-powered and make a roaring swooshing sound.
          Sometimes the temperature of the element gets too high and the smoke machine briefly turns into a flamethrower.
          When that happens you need to go there and tweak the element manually if you want it to cool faster otherwise in order for it to cool on it’s own while it’s still pumping out smoke, it has to keep squirting out the hot fluid.

          Same gimmick at the pentagon aftermath.
          Again, you can clearly see the flame coming out of the smoke machine at 0:22 followed by the swooshing sound as it pumps out the smoke.
          Fortunately this video has sound. :

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39IwxayVeIw

          This is an example of a random smoke machine so you can compare the swooshing sounds. Sound comes at 0:53 of the video:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUSF3ocQD8w

          WTC5 that was actually on fire that day didn’t even budge an inch. Go figure. :

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ

          • mkey says:

            Again, I’m talking about heavy damage on WTC7, not office fires.

            There is/was a video on youtube showing one of the towers falling (the one which had the top proken off prior to falling down) from an angle from which it can be seen that the broken off section of the building cuts into WTC7 and does extensive damage on its (north, is it?) side, spanning several floors.

            Again, I’m not saying that WTC7 wasn’t brought down in a controlled fashion. I’m not saying anything that has been done there hasn’t been planned months in advance.

            What I am saying is that someone is going through quite an effort to obfuscate facts, even those that may be supportive of the narrative.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top