C-SPAN Washington Journal: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

August 1, 2014

Richard Gage talked about his group, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which claimed that the World Trade Center was brought down by explosive demolition on September 11, 2001. The group was founded in 2006 and said its mission was to “expose the official lies and cover-up surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 in a way that inspires the people to overcome denial and understand the truth.” Mr. Gage spoke via video link from San Francisco, California.



Are You New to the Evidence? Below is a summary of information that we feel you need to know regarding the events of September 11, 2001, in New York City.



Fantastic job Richard!

Credit also goes to Andrew Steele for paving the way.

Tenacity pays off.


Yes, a strong presentation. The truth will out.

Wow! Wow! Wow!

A bit tense and heavy in delivery. Otherwise, perfect! Very curious to see what shows up via media response. This should turn a few heads.

Andrew Steele absolutely deserves a lot of the credit!!

Blogs: http://911blogger.com/blogs/andrew-steele

PART 7: Legislators, Pundits & 9/11 Controlled Demolition Questions on C-SPAN (All previous six parts linked to as well)

Andrew Steele absolutely deserves a lot of the credit!!

I could not agree more! Tons of credit.

About Time

Well, it's about time a Major News Outlet allowed a guest to talk about the REAL issues of 9/11, without calling him names and making him look like an idiot. Richard Gage did a brilliant job on focusing on the issues and revealing the facts. And I'm glad so many callers also wanted a new investigation. This 9/11 Truth movement is really spreading. I hope the real truth comes out soon.

A strategic plan for AE911Truth, the first one ever?

AE911Truth, the richest, most visible and in some ways the most successful organization in the 9/11 Truth movement, is also arguably the most dysfunctional, unorganized, and poorly led. With total income of $460,000 in 2011, AE has the opportunity to do great things in terms of outreach. Unfortunately their most successful work to date is the website, which provides accurate and relevant information not shown in the mainstream media. The lack of project plans, agendas for meetings, structure for conference calls, transparency by the Board and a systematic and organized method for making decisions leaves AE mired in inefficiency and needless discussions and arguments with very little action. Founder Richard Gage has no business leadership experience and has resisted calls for AE to hire a CEO with such experience. AE suffers as Gage leads by his whim, often spontaneous and unplanned. AE accomplishes about 10 to 20% of what it could if it were properly led, or at least led as well as the average non profit of its size.

In September, 2013 I wrote a concise, action focused document for use in reforming AE based on my 3 years as Volunteer Team Leader. I called it my "Insider Analysis of AE911Truth".


My Insider Analysis of AE911Truth described 8 problem areas in AE's structure and day to day operations that are causing low productivity and morale and high turnover. I made recommendations for addressing each issue. I sent this to the Board of Directors and many current and former volunteers and supporters.

Years before I wrote my Insider Analysis of AE911Truth a former Board member and Team Leader, Michael Armenia, wrote a book with the same intention; to provide recommendations and analysis for use in reforming AE911Truth. Michael Armenia's book is called Nanomanagement: the Disintegration of a Non Profit Corporation.

Michael Armenia's book about AE911Truth, Nanomanagement

The situation that Michael Armenia described at AE in his book was still the same in 2010 through 2012, when I was the Volunteer Team Leader. The problems have remained and have not been solved.

Months ago Robert McCoy, one of the AE Board members wrote that the AE Board was working on a strategic plan. This would be the first strategic plan in the history of AE. However, the Board has not released any details nor a draft of this strategic plan. It may be that they have abandoned the effort. The strategic plan would be a huge step in the direction of getting organized and actually planning AE's efforts.
You can download McCoy's letter to a supporter of AE from my website. Scroll down about half the page to where it says "You can download a copy of McCoy’s letter here" or use this link:

Robert McCoy AE911Truth Board letter Nov 14 2013

Although AE desperately needs a strategic plan to guide its work in the next 1, 3 or 5 years, there are several other major problems AE should address. There has been no indication that the Board is addressing them. Until the Board does, with input from its Team Leaders and volunteers, it will continue to bumble along.

AE is at a fork in the road. On one fork is taking the time and effort to solicit input from Team Leaders and other volunteers and actually plan. On the other fork is to continue bouncing along, spontaneously committing to major projects and large expenses with little or no planning or foresight. Which fork the Board chooses will have a large impact on AE's productivity and efficiency in the future. If you have ever supported AE with donations or by volunteering, or you have signed the petition, you have a right to have a say in this decision.

Email your thoughts to board [at] ae911truth [dot] org. Ask for a written response. The Board has a bad habit of ignoring the input of thoughtful and concerned supporters.

Dear Mark,Although I sense

Dear Mark,

Although I sense your frustation, and get the direction u want to take with the constructive critics towards AE, I'm nevertheless bound to say this is not the time and place to make such strong accusations.

Specially, the first part of your statement "AE911Truth, the richest, most visible and in some ways the most successful organization in the 9/11 Truth movement, is also arguably the most dysfunctional, unorganized, and poorly led. With total income of $460,000 in 2011, "

makes it look like AE is a $billion profit cooporation, which we all know it is not. It just puts all message in jeopardy if it goes into wrong "hands" and misleads the unknown public.

A public forum does not earn nothing with such comments.

Agree that this is not the place for critique but...

F...there are a few issues that really need to be dealt with when it comes to the effectiveness of AE911Truth. One thing that stands out for me is the transparency of total income and expenditures of the organization. I have yet to find it on the website, which bothers me somewhat. And 460,000 dollars for2011 is not all that much, and I don't think it's that easy to make it look like this organization is raking billions in profits, I assume you meant millions instead.
Nevertheless, I think that Richard did a very good job in answering and addressing the various questions. IHe's getting ever better at it, bit I still sense though that he's sometimes looking for the right words, he should use shorter answers I think to some of the all to familiar questions like "Why would someone want to blow up those buildings?" or "Who would be behind this?".
He should have all the answers ready to any possible question that may be askedsales, I assume hè practices all this sff day in and day out. He has someone WHO coaches hun? Or not?

In the end, very happy to see him get this much airtime, completflabbergasted in fact, they even showed 7's collapse in detail from various angels! This, in combination with the current succes of NYCCAN gives me a lot of hope for the future. These are exciting tunes we're living in!

Edit: maybe next time C-Span can show the collapse of WTC1, to show what Richard means with his remarks about laterally ejected sections of steel, an upper block that disinegrates from the bottom up before anything happens to the lower block etc.

The AE financial statements are not on the internet


About this:

"One thing that stands out for me is the transparency of total income and expenditures of the organization. I have yet to find it on the website, which bothers me somewhat."

The AE financial statements are not on the internet.

Furthermore, the AE Board of Directors operates with just about zero transparency. One cannot even know, easily, who are the current Directors.

The Board does not even circulate its meeting agendas or meeting minutes to its Team Leaders, let alone the rest of the volunteers or the 9/11 Truth community or the public.

To really understand the dysfunction of AE911Truth read my Insider Analysis



Well, that's what I was afraid of....

So even when this is a great moment to celebrate this period of visibility of AE911Truth, it's also a moment to think about the things that can be improved upon. I think it's one of the first things that should be corrected ASAP, shouldn'ttake a lot of time, publish total income and expenditures right away. Not doping so will give anyone who has doubts about the integrity of Richard Gage and his organization ammo to shoot it down, even though the facts and physics are spot on.
I am a donor for over 4 years now, and if there are specific reasons for the Board of Directors to hide its idendity, their plans and their finances, I'd like to know about it. For all I know, this can only backfire on us.

About Richard's ability as a spokesperson for his own organization, I wanna ask again, does hè have a coach whom he practices with?
Or can I direct thse questions at AE911Truth, and expect quick and honest answers? I'm not gonna retract my donorship, but come to think of it it's amazing that this situation has been going on for 8 years now.

On a positive bite, again, great visibilty this, but let's focus now on the issuesat hand.
While I'm at it, I saw the new billboards to be launched next month. I think the message on it is excellent., but I wonder about the photograph on it; it this an existing photograph (because I've never seen it before), or is it a Photoshop of two seperate photo's? In the case of the latter, could this be a problem?

The 'financials' ARE on the Net

As a 501c(3) California Nonprofit Corporation, the AE911Truth "financials"
ARE on the Internet and people can find them if they really want to.
(I have no interest in providing that information to anyone)
And they are accessible in other manners, as well.

Pretty much ALL Board of Directors of pretty much ALL corporations,
whether Nonprofit, or otherwise, almost ALWAYS operate in near-zero
"transparency". It is up to the Board to decide how transparent they
want to be, and is sometimes stated in the bylaws. Whether to the
public or anyone connected with the organization. (volunteers,
employees, etc.)

We had discussions about this at the beginning and throughout and
decisions were made as they are. I have no problem with it and
still think it is probably the way it should be done.

Do you want to see the AE911Truth 2011 financial statements?


There was nothing misleading or false in my comment. My comment does not "makes it look like AE is a $billion profit cooporation,"

You were probably referring to the unknowing public when you wrote "the unknown public".

You must have been in a hurry when you wrote your comment. Hence your use of a double negative in your last line, "A public forum does not earn nothing with such comments."

Everybody who is interested in AE911Truth and its work should know about its inner workings and how much money, time and the valuable, in fact precious, efforts of volunteers they waste. All of this is reparable in theory. I have heard that Richard agrees with most of my comments in my Insider Analysis of AE911Truth. The fact that the Board of Directors began to create a strategic plan proves that they agree they should have one. Therefore your disagreement with my blog entry is a disagreement with both Richard Gage and the AE Board of Directors.

Have you read my Insider Analysis of AE911Truth?


Mark, he doesn't disagree with you...

He just feels this is not the time and place ( for constructive criticism). Which I can understand. I'm sure you can too.

If not here, where? If not now, when?

Although I disagree with many/most of Mark's comments and such,
some of them strenuously, I think this is an appropriate forum
in which to bring them up and discuss them.

Pro and Con and otherwise.


"Everybody who is interested in AE911Truth and its work should know about its inner workings and how much money, time..."



It should be acknowledged that Mr Gage's contribution & inspiration has been to this point commendable. But it's clear that he's not the best (or most effective) spokesman especially considering how such an organization morphs from an informational (investigative) group to more of an advocacy group at this point. In this presentation alone, I think he missed many opportunities to place the onus on those who support the official lie. Such as if the government theory is global collapse which resulted in a pancake effect, where did the additional energy come from to melt steel & concrete (the Meteorite)? He skirted around it in a more circumspect fashion but he needs to be more adversarial & direct. Similarly to produce temperatures of molten steel pools that were flowing for weeks underneath Ground Zero, the initial reaction was probably started at 4000 degrees F. How do proponents of the government theory explain such conditions if they resulted from the pancake theory? Where did the additional energy come from in such a case? Why are there absolutely no remains of nearly 1200 victims?

Lastly it's about time CSPAN finally gave a venue to those of us who don't believe the official coverup. Better late than never.

Can you handle the Truth?

It is ironic that so many in the 9/11 Truth movement cannot handle the Truth.

Each of us is entitled to our own opinion. However, each of us is NOT entitled to our own set of facts.

The mass media has done their best to cover up the facts that prove that the government has been lying from day 1 about 9/11 and that the government planned, executed and covered up the 9/11 attacks. This includes the Presidents and Congressional leaders and members of both parties.

As a result the vast majority of Americans have no idea, are not even remotely aware, of the thousands of relevant facts that some of us in the 9/11 Truth movement are aware of.

Apply that same paradigm to the internal workings of AE911Truth. Everything I wrote was based in 3 years of hard experience as a volunteer, as the Volunteer Team Leader, as a true insider.

Those who vote my comment down cannot handle the Truth! They don't know and because of their aversion to the Truth about AE911Truth they will never know.


Dear Mark

like Sandberg just told above, I don't disagree with your comment, far the contrary, it made me think about something about the movement I've never lost any second to dig into.
It just felt, and still feel, it was not the time and place to do it. Meaning, "time" not just after "we" the 9/11 truth movement "gained" some great advertisment over the C-span coverage. The "place" councerning the thread relating to it.

I'm half way your insider analysis, looks pretty exciting.

ps: possibly, because u felt like my comment was more "negative", I can assure u it wasn't. And also for the negative votes, I surelly wans't one of those. I don't even know where's the button's to vote are located on the thread.

ps2: my suggestion to your post would have gone for a different timing and a completely new topic thread here in the forum.


Yes and No

You, among others, many others, actually, have made some suggestions
that vary from good, to okay, to maybe not so good, regarding the "problems"
at AE911Truth.

Although many of the suggestions are good ones, they are IDEALS, that will
ALWAYS fall short of reality. Just as they currently do.

And MOST of them are simply not workable, or implementable, especially
in the ideal sense, and come from a place of effective if not actual ignorance
in a variety of forms, levels, and degrees, about much of what and how
such organizations are structured and run, and especially AE911Truth, which
in some ways, if not many ways, is a special case.

EVERYONE with whom I have discussed some of these issues thinks that
"they know the RIGHT way to do it" and that "they can do it better". My response
to them is: Then go do it right and better.
And then you will see how difficult it is to "do it right" and "perfect" and even "better".
You will ALL fail, miserably, and catastrophically. I would bet hard cash money on that.

I've told you what I think of Michael's book. Although he also mentions some of
the issues at AE911Truth, at the time of its writing, Michael was "not in a good place",
to be polite about it, and the book is fraught with bias, skewed perceptions, and outright
mistakes and errors (I know Michael very well, and I have no doubt that there was
(most probably) an "absence of malice" on his part, so they were not lies).
He got a lot of it right. (-ish)
But the book, which was never written for "public consumption", was simply a way
for Michael to 'purge his demons' (among other issues like that). Imo, the only reason
he actually published it after writing it was as part of his need for some type of closure,
especially after putting all that time and effort into it. To not publish it after all that would
have added to his 'problems', rather than securing some sort of 'comfort'.
I always wish Michael well and hope he and his family are doing well.

"This would be the first strategic plan in the history of AE."

That's complete and utter bullshit and about as much of a falsehood as you have made.
For those who do not know me, I was there from the beginning, and am a founding member
of AE911Truth, was the original and primary webmaster for many years, & am a past member
of the Board of Directors, so I know of what I speak. (I have not been officially connected or
associated with AE911Truth for a few years)

Although internally AE911Truth has issues, so does EVERY other organization, agency,
business, company, corporation, etc. Some are 'better' and some are 'worse'.
People who do not know this or understand it apparently have not worked much in the
work force, or been privy to what is going on in the 'group'. Obviously, most do not,
because most people are simply "low-level" worker-bees. The fact that many saw/see
any issues at AE911Truth is because of the fairly good "transparency" within the org itself.

And MOST of the problems are simply due to the way the organization is structured.
That is what I meant by "special case" above. With PART-TIME working volunteers
spread out across the country and world, extremely high 'employee' turn-around,
a work force that, although they are all (more or less) dedicated, hard workers,
the greater majority of them are not anywhere near what one might describe as
"creme of the crop" (to be polite about it), and a host of other similar issues.

At this point I would like to offer as an aside a shout out to the "Original Team",
who we are all very lucky came together in the beginning (for the first few years),
and who were the fundamental and basic reason why AE911Truth is what it is today.
None of them ever got the kudos and congratulations and acknowledgment
they should have. (none of us did it for those reasons)

MOST of the ideas you want, desire, and suggest would NEVER be implemented, and
MANY of them COULD never be implemented.

The MIRACLE is that AE911Truth has been able to become what it is, which is more or less
what we always wanted it to be, and has done so in the time frame it has, and has been able
to achieve what it has. I have been involved in MANY grassroots and other 'professional'
activist organizations, movements, and the like, for (too) MANY years, and I have NEVER seen
this occur like this EVER.

You are also ABSOLUTELY WRONG in your suggestion that anyone who has signed the
petition or donated money to AE911Truth has "a right to have a say" ANYTHING.
Except in suggestion. Period.

- Bill


Great job!!

I think C span got tired of all the WTC 7 call ins....lol. Good for them to have Richard Gage spell it out for everybody. Great work everybody.

Bull's Eye from Richard Gage!

This is an awesome presentation. Excellent answers to all the questions from Richard Gage. The official theory only lives in the minds of those who promote it, and those who are unaware of the evidence.

I agree! Superb delivery by Gage

Gage has really gained some skills over the years. Very, very impressive.

He handled the questions and comments from callers extremely well.

Tremendous exposure with this C-SPAN venue.

$$ --
Also, the almost 40 minutes Gage was permitted to speak equates to countless thousands of dollars in paid advertising.

Wonderful Visibility

Even if the host appeared to be holding his nose to do the interview, this was great visibility. Thanks to Mr. Gage and his team at AE911Truth.org for their persistent efforts to bring this issue before the American people.

Clever Obfuscation


At mark 15:10 the C-Span moderator draws attention to the use of thermite to cut column 79. In their FAQ answer, NIST says it would take more than 100 pounds of thermite to cut a column that weighs approximately 1000 pounds per foot.

Let's put this back into the proper perspective.

NIST did not claim that WTC7 collapsed because a column was cut. NIST claimed a 13th floor girder (A2001) walked off its seat at column 79. This caused a floor failure of 13 down to 12 and so on for 8 stories. Once the floors were removed, column 79 had no lateral (sideways) support, it buckled and the interior floor progressive collapse ensued.

The supposed structural failure really began at girder A2001's 7/8" thick bottom flange when it was no longer supported by the seat, due to the walk-off. Here is what NIST said about the flange failure:

Gravity shear loads in a beam were transferred to the bearing seat primarily in the proximity of the web on the bottom flange. Therefore, when the web was no longer supported by the bearing seat, the beam was assumed to have lost support, as the flexural stiffness of the bottom flange was assumed to be insufficient for transferring the gravity loads. . NCSTAR 1-9, (Nov 2008) Page 488, PDF page 554.

"flexural stiffness of the bottom flange was assumed to be insufficient"
Translation: Flange folded upwards

Zoom your focus to a failure at the bottom flange of a girder just 7/8" thick, NOT on a column with 5" thick flanges and 3" thick web. (BTW--C79 had 2" thick x 26"wide side plates added --OUCH!!)

The question is-- How much thermite would it take to cut the 7/8" flange, to cause the girder to fall to floor 12 and so on, beginning the unprecedented global progressive collapse?

Here is a short video explaining the stiffeners and how they strengthen the flange AND the web.

    The Stiffener Plates Explained


Let me know if I'm not making myself clear.


Good job Richard ! Thanks C-SPAN for having some balls, and hopefully cover more on it. Take the lead and other stations will have no choice but to address it.

This is the story of the century America needs this truth

P.S. I am a steelworker , welder fabricator as well for 35 years. The caller on the show that claimed to be is an idiot


I'm a shocked C-SPAN allowed Richard Gage on for a full 40 minutes! I just finished watching the entire episode on Youtube and it is good to know that most of the callers are with us. Gage, as always, stuck to hitting the high points without getting bogged down in unsavory speculation.

"Host Peter Slen told viewers that Gage was brought in as a guest because Washington Journal had received so many calls in recent months asking its other guests to address the issue of how Building 7 fell..."

p.s. I hope the callers keep calling in though, and now they can reference this interview. :)

C-SPAN's Diplomacy needs to be understood

C-SPAN's hosts, such as the one interviewing Richard Gage in the video, seem like generally good people and they realized that 9/11 truth activists will not stop calling in so they made a diplomatic calculation to interview Gage. For truth activists calling into their shows in the future, the hosts will feel like saying "we have already provided your viewpoint fair coverage ... please refer to our previous episode". We need to understand this. If we push C-SPAN hosts too far, we may actually appear to be an annoying group. So I would recommend to my friends here to please try a different approach. C-SPAN has given us coverage and this the climax in our relationship with them. We need to move on by using the C-SPAN interview to connect with other media outlets and professional groups.

Never stop.

Dominate and persist.


Carbon, while I appreciate the spirit and intent of your comment I think that we might consider carefully whether to keep pushing instead. The evidence for CD is so strong that our position is akin to Galileo standing at his telescope saying "just look, the Earth moves around the Sun." That is, it's not a debatable point for those who have reviewed the evidence. I think our goal should be to pull organizations like C-SPAN to our camp until they acknowledge that, indeed, 'the Earth does revolve around the Sun'.

Honest people can disagree, but I think it's a point that should be weighed carefully.

I appreciate your thoughts but

the suggested approach needs to take into account the perspective of people at C-SPAN. By holding CD as an absolute, that shouldn't be a reason for dominating the C-SPAN shows, even after they have provided us coverage, as Orangutan suggests in the post above. Orangutan is just really pumped up and inspired by the coverage as am I.

For the very same analogy of the planets orbiting the Sun can be stated back to us in favour of the official theory, again, from the perspective of those that believe in it. We need to think beyond analogies and absolutes and think about appropriate forms of communication. Joe, below, has a good solution. Convey our thanks at journal@c-span.org

Contact C-SPAN to thank them for airing this program

Contact C-SPAN to thank them for airing this program
Email: journal@c-span.org

Another source for ae911Truth on WA Journal with 25,000 views

MediaOne Services - Richard Gage: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth


Perhaps Not...

The basic observation that something is happening with regard to the country's view of 9/11 seems entirely believable. All of the following have happened recently:

* A judge has permitted a case to proceed a step closer to trial against George Bush, Cheney, etal. regarding torture and crimes against humanity.
* Enough signatures have been collected for a ballot initiative in New York to require a real investigation of what happened to Building 7 on 9/11.
* Richard Gage was permitted 40 minutes on C-SPAN.
* The 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission report about Saudi Arabia's possible participation in 9/11 seem to be on the verge of being released.

However, unlike the alternatives Mr. Berwick presented. there may be a much more prosaic and political explanation. Perhaps allowing these things to go forward is nothing more than a signal to the leadership of the Republican Party of what might come out if they can't return to the role of "loyal opposition" in our government.

What is the sign that the 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry will be

. . . declassified?
I have been following this since Rep. Walter Jones introduced H.Res. 428. However to date there are only 10 supporters total in the House. Govtrack.us says there are 10 cosponsors (7R, 3D)

I am all for optimism and good news but what is the basis for your statement that, "The 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission report about Saudi Arabia's possible participation in 9/11 seem to be on the verge of being released."?

Govtrack.us says "This resolution was assigned to a congressional committee on December 2, 2013, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole."


It looks like the resolution has died in committee. If you are going by Govtrack.us' claim that it has a 79% chance of getting passed by the committee you should read their methodology for their prognosis.


The 10 supporters total are a bit of a miracle, really, and a lot more than the 2 who sponsored the resolution. But a majority in the house is 218. Unfortunately it will never get to 100, probably not even to 50.

Also, notice that the Democrats, those whiners, make up only 3 of the 10 supporters. This is pure partisanship and a reason you should not like the Democrats. The House Democrats have NOT supported this resolution because they are taking sides, taking the side of Obomba of course. Insofar as the resolution would ask him to actually do something for peace, and they don't want him to have to do anything, they oppose it for that reason. Party over principle. This is what many of them accuse their Republican opponents of. They are both right (on that question).

Interesting piece, but...

The explanation that Berwick says is the 'most logical' is that the revelation of 9/11 as a 'semi-"inside job"' will serve as a distraction while the US continues to carry out its imperial agenda, this time directed against Saudi Arabia.

To me, this makes no sense. I cannot see how the US could admit to 9/11 as having been in ANY degree (semi- or otherwise) an 'inside job' without depriving themselves of the ideological basis on which their imperial projects have depended for the past 13 years, whether the target is Saudi Arabia or anyone else.

If (as Pecosin Rat suggests) the administration is threatening to make 9/11 revelations to keep the Republicans in line, then my guess would be that they're bluffing. And the Republicans may guess that too (though, then again, they may not). By now, with all the collusion in keeping the truth covered up and exploiting the false official story, there's plenty of guilt to go around in Washington, and neither major party (and certainly not the wealthy interests backing them) would see much advantage in breaking with the official story at this point.

If threats from Putin to spill the beans force them to open up anyway--in other words, if outright suppression and denial are no longer feasible--then perhaps the goal will be one of maximum possible confusion: Admit to truths on different aspects of 9/11, in a scattered, haphazard fashion, to prevent a clear counter-narrative (i.e., the truth) from emerging.--no matter what Putin or anyone else cares to make public.


Maybe the PTB sense that they cannot hold on much longer to the official storyline, which could mean that another falseflag op is just around the corner.
I think this is a very real possibility, and we should be prepared to take the appropriate action when it occurs.

Twin Towers' Destruction

I do wish that, when discussing the destruction of the twin towers, that it were pointed out just how incredibly FAST they went down, to within maybe 4 seconds of absolute free fall in nothing but air, in the case of the north tower through 95 stories of undamaged structure (path of maximal resistance), which is very near free fall speed and at the onset of destruction it *was* a uniform free fall acceleration, while the upper block basically blew up, leaving little more than mere atmosphere above the remaining length of structure, yet the descending, explosively ejecting debris wave continued all the way to the ground without any appreciable loss of momentum whatsoever - which violates the laws of motion and cannot be possible absent the use of explosives sequentially removing the structure beneath the debris wave in a top down demolition who's aim it appears to have been to simulate a progressive, gravity-driven "collapse" while at the same time attempting to hide the explosive nature of the destruction beneath that debris wave.

North Tower Exploding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8

Bravo, Richard - Encore!

So glad that my friend Richard was able to get onto C_SPAN!

I appeared on C-Span in August 2006, speaking about my 9/11 research and experiments and it was replayed a few times. (From an earlier conference in Los Angeles.)
One month later in Sept 2006, I was placed on Admin Leave by BYU administrators... lost my position, was a full Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University.


When I was placed on Admin. Leave at BYU and not allowed to teach the students I love, I requested a hearing with me present IN WRITING, but this request was denied.

That was painful! but it brought me to tears when VP Dick Cheney (recall Sec'y Mineta's testimony - 50 miles out... which I have spoken about hundreds of times) was honored by BYU a few months later with an Honorary PhD for public service.

PS -- I do hope the 28 redacted pages come out, and soon! I wonder whether Mineta's testimony will be included...

You are one of the pioneers and thank you!

Prof. Jones,
We in Davis 9/11 Truth were so glad that you came to Davis and Sacramento in April / May 2009 to preset your research on the red gray chips. I always liked your plain speaking style and your humility and sense of humor.
You and Cheney are opposites in terms of integrity and public service. To average you and Cheney would be to describe a person of average integrity and public service. I can imagine an equation, but I hope this has made sense.
Thank you for your work and contributions to the 9/11 Truth movement!

Mark Graham has had a big impact on AE911Truth with his criticis

First, Applause to Richard Gage and Andrew Steele and so many callers for the recent Gage C-Span interview.

Let me also note I believe Richard Gage makes less money than he did as an architect.

Mark Graham, whom I consider my friend, is misguided. He has been successful at convincing the board of AE to increase centralized control, to the detriment of the movement.. The idea of long range planning he calls for is an example of taking power away from volunteers.

He was misguided as volunteer team leader when he attempted to prevent David Cole, recently honored as volunteer of the month, from being allowed to be a team member. his objection to David was David's dedication.

While the board knows I am disappointed with certain of their policies with respect to support for volunteers, my real criticism is not of Richard, who likes volunteers, or the board, who though misguided on certain fronts, are principled people. The real problem is with the everyday truth supporters who dislike organizing and prefer research. The truth supporters who are willing to be activists generally prefer doing it in isolation.Politics has always been done in groups and always will be. Truth sympathizers who refuse to be active locally in groups or with national groups like AE, invite fascism. If AE will not find ways to support local organizers by providing them with weekly lists of RECENT petition signers, it deserves to not achieve the goals so many of us share.

If we cannot generate a supermajority of support from everyday citizens, we will lose the rest of our freedoms.

This gets ever more interesting...

But I'm not sure in which way.
This business of getting the truth about massively important events to people who mostly do not want to know the truth about such events, can be very tricky, difficult and challenging. But it's too important I think to throw in the towel.

Not sure what to do or how to handle this new info from David.

Past Due

Good job, Richard.

It's always good to see increasing advancement into mainstream media.

He didn't have a lot of time, but did well staying on track and getting the
majority of the information out there.

It would have been better if he had actually answered some of the questions asked,
because that is irritating to people when you don't do that. Both the person asking
the question, and sometimes the people watching/listening. I'm surprised the host
didn't call Richard on that a couple of times. You can answer their questions while
still saying what you want to say. But it's sometimes hard to do when you're in the hot seat.

I do wish people would stop saying, "We aren't conspiracy theorists",
because you/we are obviously conspiracy theorists and we obviously
have a conspiracy theory. (even if it's only implied)

To say otherwise is a falsehood, and people hear that and either
consciously, or "worse", sub-consciously, have a negative reaction to that.
That is, if you are "lying" about that, what else might you be lying about?
You have to be really careful about that sort of thing.

I always encourage people to re-educate people about the terms "conspiracy theory"
and "conspiracy theorist" and "take them back" and OWN them PROUDLY and then be
vocal about it. That is the way you win that 'argument'. (I discuss this in my 'manifesto'
on my website)

I don't want to get anyone in trouble, so I'm going to be a little vague and generic
about the following, but I know for a fact that people have been threatened, either
outright, or by "strong suggestion". It's been long enough now to mention this.

There was an AE911Truth Petition signer who was contacted by an officer in their
State Bureau of Investigation (change 'State' to whatever state name you want,
they all have them), which is the state version of the FBI. His wife answered the phone
and the officer asked about why the husband signed the petition and some other
"scary" questions and comments like that, he didn't get into a lot of detail when he
contacted us, and it totally freaked out his wife, and he ended up asking us to
remove his name from the petition, because they were scared that something bad
would happen to them.

This was most probably illegal for that officer to do what he did, and "we" encouraged
him to report the incident, but he didn't want to because of the fear factor, etc.
It was obviously meant at the very least to intimidate the person.

- Bill


Exposing the falsity of the official conspiracy theory

I likewise am bothered when I hear 9/11 truth activists say, 'I'm not a conspiracy theorist,' because it essentially concedes to the other side the twisted meaning of that phrase that they have given to it--that is (as I've said elsewhere), basically a synonym for 'crazy' or 'false':


But does that mean that I agree with your statement that, '...we are obviously conspiracy theorists and we obviously
have a conspiracy theory. (even if it's only implied)'? Not exactly.

First of all, any view of 9/11 concerns a conspiracy. No one would claim that it was the work of a lone perpetrator. Nor would they claim that those who acted to carry out the attacks did so randomly, without any prior planning and coordination. (I see that you make similar points on your website.)

But does recognizing that fact make one a 'theorist'? Does critiquing a particular theory about a criminal conspiracy automatically make oneself a 'conspiracy theorist'? What Richard and others do is expose the falsity of the official conspiracy theory. But the counter-theory that is (as you say) implied as a result only concerns one aspect (albeit a major one) of the overall 9/11 conspiracy--the destruction of the three skyscrapers at the World Trade Center.

Whereas--making every effort to separate my thoughts from the warped meaning of the term that we're constantly bombarded with--I would be inclined to limit the term 'conspiracy theorist' to those who put forward a theory attempting to explain the overall plot (as the official theory does), rather than just one aspect of it--an account of who decided what, when, who gave orders and who received them, what the motives were, etc. Such theorizing may be done poorly or well, in terms of how well they account for established facts and adhere to principles of logic and evidence (just as with all criminal conspiracies--some of which actually result in indictments and convictions). While the truth movement involves a lot of people attempting to uncover and compare and analyze information, I would consider these as--at most--steps along the way towards the articulation of such a theory, rather than theorizing itself. A term like 'conspiracy analysis' would make more sense rather than 'conspiracy theorizing.' And if someone simply states their view that some kind of 'inside job' scenario is the most likely explanation, based on what is known--I wouldn't even consider that 'theorizing' as such, since that would not in and of itself constitute an attempt to put forward some kind of comprehensive theory.

What the warped use of the term 'conspiracy theorist' does is implicitly accuse anyone who dares to call attention to the defects in their conspiracy theory of holding a fully developed alternate theory of their own (which they may not); with said alternate theory necessarily being, by their definition, poorly reasoned ill-founded nonsense (which it may not be).

Of course, while any view of 9/11 itself necessarily concerns a conspiracy, there is one further point on which, I think, we would at least imply the existence of a conspiracy that others would deny--namely, that the conception and subsequent promotion of the false official conspiracy theory, and the accompanying suppression and denial of the truth, is not something that just happened, but is at least in part the result of a conspiracy. Even on this point, conscious conspiring would have only been needed up to a point, as conformist behavior within institutions and mutuality of class interests among the elites would suffice to account for much of what has resulted, in terms of what and how things have or have not been reported. Just as is so with news coverage on numerous topics. (And of course, any who would even imply that media coverage on whatever topic features more-than-coincidental bias or outright propagandizing would likewise find themselves targeted by those same media as 'conspiracy theorists.')

Six of one and two dozen of another

Yes, that's the dance that Richard and others use to
try to distance themselves from the reality, and obviously
because they don't want to be called conspiracy theorists
due to the negative and derogatory aspects that some people
erroneously attribute to the terms.

It is a false paradigm, imo, and reflects poorly on the person
who tries to take that stance.

I think you are splitting hairs, and a little too thin.

It doesn't matter if it is "a complete conspiracy theory" or
"a partial conspiracy theory", or "part of a conspiracy theory",
or "some aspect of a conspiracy theory", it's still a conspiracy theory,
and you are a conspiracy theorist.

Better to own it and use it as a teaching moment.

For example, if someone thinks that WTC 7 was brought down
by some form of explosive controlled demolition, they very obviously
have a conspiracy theory and they are a conspiracy theorist.
(regardless of what they think about any other aspect of 9/11)

What We Are

We are criminal investigators.

Are police detectives Conspiracy Theorists?
Yes. They have to take all possibilities into account when investigating crimes. The bigger the crime the more likely it was a conspiracy too.

When someone tries to label me a conspiracy theorist I tell them I am investigating a crime and it doesn't freaking matter how many thugs were involved.

Do you want a half-assed investigation? Or do you want an investigation that roots out and exposes all of the perpetraitors?


Police detectives often deal with conspiracies and have
conspiracy theories and they are conspiracy theorists
when doing so.

Sometimes they are correct and they discover conspiracy fact
and sometimes they are wrong and there is no conspiracy.

Of course, because they are law enforcement, people tend to
not react to them negatively when they are working on crimes
that involve conspiracies.

Think how terrible (and stupid) it would be if they were working on a crime
and their captains and others had a reaction of, "That's a conspiracy
theory you are working on and we don't deal with conspiracy theories."

That is one of the many disconnects people have in their minds,
as a form of cognitive dissonance.

That's why we have laws like Conspiracy to Commit Murder,
Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, Conspiracy to Commit Arson,
General Conspiracy, and the RICO Statutes.

You are just having the typical negative reaction to the terms
that have been programmed into people's minds over the last
20+ years. I suggest you resist that programming and not
let it negatively affect you as it is clearly doing.

The reason there are conspiracy theories . . .

is that there are conspiracies.

They go together.

If you want to go further on this line of semantics and logic, the Bush / Cheney / mass media theory of 19 Arabs doing 9/11 all by themselves is by definition a conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy because 2 or more individuals planned and acted to do something illegal together. It's a theory because it's an attempt to explain how and why something happened.

Therefore people who believe it was the 19 Arabs believe in a conspiracy theory. They are too . . fill in the blank, to know it and admit it.


I tried posting this comment earlier but I don't see it recorded anywhere.

There was a thread in Mr. Gage's interview about whether or not he should be the spokesman for the AE911 organization--at least that's what I surmised if it wasn't flat out stated. I found his presentation a little lacking: that is not to say that his efforts have been commendable to say the least. God bless you for your persistence & tenacity sir. But I found many of his answers too circumspect and at times simply rambling. That could be because there was no one directly challenging him--except for the few moments when the moderator was trying to provide some balance by quoting directly from the Ommision's findings.

I think the organization would be better served with a more adversarial approach as it morphs from an investigative body (where it has succeeded mightily in its mission) to one of advocacy (a new investigation based on what evidence still exists). With the wonderful work of Mazzuco's recent documentary (apparently getting stronger with each edition), there is a solid base of evidence to challenge the debunkers more aggressively and place the onus on them to support the claims of the fantasy that the government (& many lemmings chasing them down the cliff) puts forth.

For example:

In regards to Building 7 if the official report claims that the collapse commenced because a specific column gave way, then why not present a computer model showing what that would look like? My guess is that collapse would be asymmetrical & incomplete-meaning that destruction would not be a total flattening of the building. Have that model prepared & ready for every presentation because that is a crucial part to the explanation & is easily disputed.

Re the Metoerite & molten steel: if the pancake theory is your conclusion then where did the additional energy come from to produce such remarkable results? Research I've seen states that such results must be the product of a process that started at least 3000 degrees F and as high as 4500 degrees F? How do you explain such phenomenon? Or similarly related there are nearly 1100 victims whose remains are unidentifiable? How could a global collapse completely eliminate these human remains?

I'm sure there are probably more (or better) examples but all of this suggests a very powerful incendiary device was at work that completely pulverized almost all the material involved in the collapse.

Thanks again for your valuable work Mr. Gage. And thanks to the moderators of this forum.

Show "Garbage interviews that are" by kdub

You appear confused about what a theory is.

Theories by there very nature are falsifiable. Any theory can be disproven. That's how science works. NIST did not put forth a theory on what demolished the WTC towers, their investigation stops at "collapse initiation". As for WTC7, they put forward a theory, but do not provide their calculations, so it's not even testable in principal. The only thing that has _ever_ demolished steel framed skyscrapers is controlled demolition, and for some reason, we are supposed to "believe" that 9/11/01 was special physics.

Again, you don't mention any specifics. Never a number, never anything about science.

I ask you, is it a fact that dv/dt(wtc7)=g for > 100ft? Facts are things you can easily measure. NIST measured it, you could too.

As for the rest of your comment, tatics matter, I bet everyone agrees. What would put forward if you were asked to be on CSPAN?