1,500 Architects & Engineers Disprove Official 9/11 Account of WTC Destruction

London, UK (PRWEB UK) 10 June 2011

Richard Gage, AIA, architect for more than 23 years, uses only scientific and forensic principles to argue that the the three World Trade Center skyscrapers could not have collapsed on September 11th 2001, by plane impacts and jet fuel alone.

He will explain how the official FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technologies) reports provide incomplete and contradictory accounts of the towers’ destruction. Attention will be given to World Trade Center 7, a 47-storey building which was not hit by an aircraft, yet also collapsed that day at near free-fall acceleration.(1) Never before or since has any sort of collapse happened to a skyscraper due solely to fire.

Neither have fires in buildings ever turned solid steel girders into “Swiss cheese”; shocking two Materials Science professors who expected to see distortion and bending but not holes.(2)

The New York Times called these findings “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation …. the steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” (3)

Mr. Gage, from San Francisco, is a member of the American Institute of Architects. In 2006 he founded Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), with a membership of over 1,500 licensed engineers and architects.

As the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, this is an opportunity to report on valid criticisms of the official story. Even the 9/11 commissioners have questioned their own report.(4)

September 11th prompted the controversial and costly wars with Afghanistan and Iraq, which we are still living with today.

Richard Gage is on tour. In London he will be speaking at the Royal Institute of British Architects, 66 Portland Place, London W1, (tubes Grt Portland St / Regents Pk) on Monday 20 June 7pm.

Tickets at door: £15 / £10 concs, email ae911london(at)yahoo.co(dot)uk for £3 discount.

Mr Gage will be available for press interviews at RIBA from 6pm.
Press enquiries: phone Doug Hilton 07547580452 or Noel Glynn 02076520319 / 07528618917 email:ae911london(at)yahoo.co(dot)uk

Full Tour Information:

12 June Dundalk, Ireland
10:00 am – 9:30 pm Richard Gage, AIA, Jim Corr, (band member of The Corrs) and others:
Fairways Hotel, Dublin Road, Dundalk, Co. Louth, Tickets: €25 All Day Admission only
Ian Crilly on 00353 86 371 3901

15 June Cork, Ireland
Wed, June 15, 2011, 6:00 pm Montenotte Hotel, Lower Glanmire Rd, Cork
9/11: The Architecture of Destruction. Tickets: €12.50
Ian Crilly on 00353 86 371 3901

17 June Edinburgh
Best Western Edinburgh Capital Hotel
187 Clermiston Road, Edinburgh Tickets: £15.00
9:00 am – 5:00 pm (Richard Gage speaks at 3:00 pm)

18 June Cambridge University
Email: silkiecarlo(at)hotmail(dot)com

19 June Cardiff The Atrium at Glamorgan University
Email: kevin(at)themooreshow.co(dot)uk

21st June Bristol
Colston Hall, Bristol City Centre 7.30pm Entry £6.00, £4.00 concs.
9/11:The Architecture of Destruction
Press interviews 2.30pm The Meeting Room, Colston Hall
Contact S.Coombes 07511912235

http://www.ae911truth.org – Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

(1) Dr. Shyam Sunder, WTC7 investigator for NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) Aug 2008 official admission that WTC7 fell at free-fall acceleration for more than 2 secs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
(2) Professors R.R.Biederman and R.D.Sisson jr, “an initial microstructural analysis of A36 steel from WTC building 7”, JOM 53( Journal of Minerals Metals and Materials) 12/01
(3) http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/02/nyregion/search-for-clues-towers-collapse-engineers-volunteer-examine-steel-debris-taken...
(4) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html

I'm very impressed that Richard Gage

continues to speak out along with Niels Harrit, Kevin Ryan and others. AE911Truth is in the vanguard of this effort.
Keep up the good work, Richard!

I'm impressed, too, because...

he keeps getting better. Richard stays on topic, is showing increasing poise, refuses to make wild speculations, and is learning how to control interview situations and communicate what needs to be communicated--the forensic evidence--even when interviewers present him with a barrage of challenges.

Nice article.. but..

This is a good write up, but I find some issue with the phrase "..near free-fall accelleration" i.e. "[Bldg 7].. yet also collapsed that day at near free-fall acceleration." Free-fall is now fact, agreed upon by both sides of the issue so there isn't any near about it, there was free-fall and that point cannot be stressed enough (IMO) because it proves the bottom support was pulled first.

Not only do we have to educate people about building 7, we must also re-educate them on basic physics to explain exactly why free-fall makes NIST's claims invalid.

just my 2 cents.

peace all

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
“I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within” – General Douglas MacArthur.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

2+ seconds

A part of WTC 7's "collapse" was at free fall. I guess Richard was talking about the entire collapse.

The above presentation looks solid. Couldn't such a fundamental, irrefutable argument be published in a peer-reviewed journal?


Good question Vesa, I couldn't believe my eyes when I first read the Bazant paper. The "crush up" and "crush down" theory is the exact opposite of Isaac Newton's law that there is an equal and opposite reaction. IF his paper was truly peer reviewed and I do mean a big IF, how could this fact go unnoticed or be accepted? The last time I checked, Bazant was no Isaac Newton and has not one experiment to back his claim up. Not one so-called "peer reviewer" of his paper didn't catch this fundamental refutation of Newtonian law? Not one reviewer asked the author to explain teh force that is keeping the top portion together while it is in the process of crushing the bigger, stronger, lower portion of the building? And then laughably, when this "crush down" process is done, when there is nothing left to crush, no force below it other than terra firma, it crushes itself up?!! It sounds absurd on its face. How can a journal that is supposedly reputable support such junk science?

Hey, this thought just occurred to me as well. If we look at this way, the Bazant paper is essentially claiming that the Verinage technique of CD works on steel high rise buildings right? I mean, the building falls straight down and crushes itself just like other known CD's using the Verinage technique. However, we know that this technique does not work with steel structures so any public documentation they have that explains this technique would probably be a good place start I would think. How can an expert in this technique believe the towers crushed themselves?

just my humble 2 cents.

peace all


Bažant could also be taken down by his use of the theory of comminution to explain the microfine GZ dust size. As far as I'm aware building gravity collapses have never previously produced such uniformly fine dust. And the theory of comminution is generally used as a "rule-of-thumb" mechanism by miners for predicting rubble dimensions after explosives! So both mechanism and lack of precedent is missing from Bazant's paper.

Talking about this

I don't know who PRWEB is, but I see that they sometimes carry articles like this. I saw a couple of others where is appeared after that...

1,500 Architects & Engineers Disprove Official 9/11 Account of WTC Destruction

1,500 Architects & Engineers Disprove Official 9/11 Account of WTC Destruction

1,500 Architects & Engineers Disprove Official 9/11 Account of WTC Destruction

On that last one, Archinet, there are comments from people who really oppose the ideas put forth by Gage, Et Al. I wish one or two architects and engineers could get wind of this, maybe talk turkey with turkeys there - pick up a couple of architects. I have waged the truth in other forums before, but not with these guys.

Come to think of it, the guy talking loudest there must not have read one single thing of ae911truth. I would slam them on that. That would make anybody look bad.

Cheers, Mark