Slide #63 - CNN Video

"The Building Is About To Blow Up"

In this slide, Gage plays a clip of a CNN retrospective of 9/11. It reuses some footage shot on the day of the attacks and edited together the next day for a report on WTC 7.

The retrospective eliminates the original reporter's narrative and adds some music. Otherwise, the shots remain the same as the edited footage from 12 September 2001.

Here's a description of the footage:

Shot A: Looking down street toward 7

(Loud sound)

Person: Keep moving, boy.

2nd Person: Did you hear that?

3rd Person: Keep your eye on that building. It'll be coming down soon.

Shot B: Closer to Building 7 from north. 7 can't be seen, but flames from 7 are visible around Fiterman Hall.

Shot C: Closeup on flames visible from around Fiterman Hall. Debris visibly falls away from 7.

Shot D: Just after Shot A

Cameraman: The building is about to blow up. Moving back.

Shot E: Policeman

Policeman: Move it back here, all right, guys?

Shot F: Cut back to Shot D

Cameraman: We are walking back. The building is about to blow up. Flame and debris coming down.

I say the cameraman is the one saying the building is blowing up because of the proximity of the off-camera voice to the camera. It sounds like he's describing the footage as he's filming. It's definitely the same person saying that the building is about to blow up.

Shots A, D, and F also appear to be sequential. The general location is the same in each, and they fit well together in that order. Therefore, the loud sound remarked on by the first responders is not a explosive device demolishing the building. Why? Because the building isn't falling down in the shot! It's still "about to" blow up.

Figurative Language

Clearly no one in that footage or anyone involved in producing either piece thinks that there are explosives in that buildings. The first responders trudging past the camera simply say the building is going to come down soon. The cameraman is busy recording the flames and falling debris.

What the cameraman is using is a figure of speech. After the spectacles of the falling towers, I'm not surprised that someone described the impending collapse of 7 as "blowing up." Who knew what it would look like?

I am somewhat surprised that Richard Gage even uses this clip, because it makes a mess of his argument. He believes that the Towers blew up all over the place and that 7 was a nice, neat implosion. Does the statement "the building is about to blow up" sound like a nice, neat implosion? Of course not. It sounds like someone using the closest phrase at hand to describe what may be happening soon.

And the towers definitely put a specific interpretation close at hand.

The Original Reporter's Script

The original reporter of the piece also has some interesting statements in her report. Remember, this was the day after 9/11.

Closer to the building, it was almost like nighttime. What was left of the building was a fiery hulk. The firefighters thought it might collapse. Pieces of the building kept falling.

The firefighters thought it might what? Collapse. What kept falling? Pieces of the building. What was left of the building? A fiery hulk.

Does anyone, anyone, in this piece think the building is going to fall as the result of a controlled demolition? No.

Two Statements Out of The Whole Day

Richard Gage doesn't have an enviable position. Out of all the immense amount of material about 7 World Trade, he's forced to rely on a phrase here and a statement there to cobble together this fantasy. I've demonstrated that 7's collapse was not the unthinkable thing Gage makes it out to be. He's only presented two statements that appear to support his position, statements easily explained as mistakes or descriptive language.

And that is the bulk of his argument here. He finds it sinister that people made educated guesses that 7 would fall down. That's it! Ooo, spooky!

I find it remarkable that an adult is making the arguments that Gage makes, much less a licensed and degreed architect. But wait until the next two slides. His argument for this point will get even more absurd than it is now.

< Previous Slide | Index | Next Slide >