|Video: 9/11 Blueprint for Truth (2008 Edition)|
In the 2008 Edition of this stunning multimedia presentation, filmed professionally in a studio before a live audience, San Francisco Bay Area architect, Richard Gage, AIA, provides the myth-shattering scientific forensic evidence of the explosive controlled demolition of all 3 WTC high-rise buildings on September 11, 2001. For details see http://www.ae911truth.org/
Conspiracy theory or hidden truth? The 9/11 enigmas...
Richard Gage, AIA, Gregg Roberts, and David Chandler
Richard Gage, AIA has been a practicing San Francisco Bay Area architect for more than 20 years, and is a registered member of the American Institute of Architects. Most recently he worked on a $400M mixed-use facility in Las Vegas NV. But he is also the founder and CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, now numbering over 800 A/E’s, calling for a new investigation into the destruction of all 3 WTC high-rises on 9/11. Gage has spoken at over 100 events, reaching 20 U.S. states and 8 countries. He has been invited to present in 14 cities Australia, New Zealand, and Japan before the end of this year. As the anniversary of the events approaches, Gage tells WAN why he thinks there are hidden depths to the destruction of the World Trade Centre...
In all likelihood, you are unaware of the most important facts involving the destructions of the World Trade Center buildings. Nearly all the mainstream information sources and government officials have kept crucial information hidden from the public. This brief article will provide a clear explanation as to what actually happened to the Twin Towers and Building 7 (WTC 7) on September 11, 2001.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is a non-partisan, non-profit organization now numbering over 800 technical professionals and thousands of other supporters dedicated to exposing the facts that point to the explosive destruction of all three World Trade Center (WTC) high-rises.
We are calling for a new independent investigation empowered to subpoena and question witnesses under oath. Well-documented facts prove the WTC high-rises were destroyed by explosives. The implications are grave, but we ask that you look at the facts. AE911Truth is also concerned that evidence has been distorted and covered up by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the federal agency assigned to investigate the building collapses.
World Trade Center – Building 7
47-storey WTC 7 before destruction
WTC 7 was a 47-story steel-framed high-rise 100 yards from the North Tower. Even though no airplane hit it, it collapsed rapidly and totally on 9/11, in the manner of a controlled demolition. Despite its suspicious collapse, the 9/11 Commission report does not even mention WTC 7. NIST left its analysis of the WTC 7 collapse until 2008, seven years after the events, long after all the rubble was destroyed. NIST claims WTC 7 collapsed due to “normal office fires” which created a “new phenomenon” in high-rise catastrophes: collapse caused by thermal expansion of beams. NIST claims this caused the failure of a single column – the rest just followed.
Free-fall acceleration through 40,000 tons of structural steel?
NIST Forced to Acknowledge Free-Fall of WTC 7
In August 2008, NIST released the draft of its final report on Building 7. In that draft NIST claims that the building took 40% longer than "free-fall time" to collapse the first 18 stories. In a technical briefing that followed the release of the draft report Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator, denied that free-fall had occurred and stated that free-fall was incompatible with their analysis. He said, “… a freefall time would be an object that has no … structural components below it...And that is not at all unusual because there was [emphasis in original] structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had … a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous.”
However, one of this article’s co-authors, David Chandler, used video analysis to show conclusively that for 2.5 seconds (about 100 feet) WTC 7 was in complete free-fall. He publicly challenged NIST’s claims at the technical briefing and he, along with others, filed formal requests for corrections.
NIST were forced to reverse themselves in their Final Report and acknowledged 2.25 seconds of absolute free-fall. Yet they did not reconsider how this was compatible with their analysis. A network of heavy steel girders had to be forcibly removed suddenly across the width of the building for eight floors. However, a free-falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall, so the structural support had to be removed by something else—explosives. The free-fall of Building 7 is a smoking gun.
World Trade Center – Commonalities in all Three Building Destructions
Complete Destruction Through the Path of Greatest Resistance
NIST claims that the Twin Towers collapsed due to the plane impacts and fire, and that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire alone. However, note that the Twin Towers survived the plane impacts and the jet fuel burned off in the first 10 minutes. Beyond that, all we have are not very large office fires. Over 100 steel framed buildings have suffered major fires, many much worse, yet none have collapsed. All three buildings on 9/11 fell through what should have been the path of greatest resistance – thousands of tons of steel – resulting in total dismemberment. This would require precisely timed removal of critical columns, which office fires cannot accomplish. Furthermore, a small falling top section would destroy itself before it could destroy a larger, stronger, undamaged lower section of the building. The impossible collapse is a smoking gun.
The temperatures of the fires present a problem for NIST's claim that fire alone was involved. The melting point of steel is about 2800° F. According to NIST's own documents, hydrocarbon fires (e.g., jet fuel and office furnishings) generate temperatures only up to about 2,000° F under ideal conditions. NIST recognizes these fires could not melt steel, so they had to postulate elaborate mechanisms that might trigger collapse due to weakened columns and sagging girders.
Yet there is widespread evidence of molten iron in the rubble piles. Photos and numerous witnesses -- including fire fighters, cleanup crews, and structural engineers -- confirm the existence of several tons of molten metal under the debris. Some fire fighters described molten steel flowing like lava. Photos clearly reveal molten metal dripping as material is being lifted by excavation equipment.
Office fires are not hot enough to create the molten metal seen by dozens of witness
A video of the South Tower shows molten metal pouring out, glowing a radiant orange-yellow. Some have claimed this is molten aluminum, which melts at a lower temperature, but molten aluminum would be silvery in these conditions. This is molten iron or steel.
Jet fuel and office fires can’t create molten iron
At least three independent laboratory analyses of the dust that blanketed Lower Manhattan after the destruction of the Twin Towers reveal the presence of iron-rich “microspheres.” These spheres are formed when molten iron is sprayed into the air and forms droplets that cool before hitting the ground. The iron droplets indicate temperatures during the collapses much higher than hydrocarbon fires, in an explosive environment that could spray many tons of these droplets into the air.
Billions of previously molten iron spheres found in all WTC dust samples
In April 2002, the RJ Lee Company was hired to investigate environmental contaminants in the Deutsche Bank, across the street from the World Trade Center. It reports, “Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event.” The problem here is that lead vaporizes at 3200° F, some 1200° F hotter than is possible in hydrocarbon fires. A study of the WTC dust by the USGS for the EPA observed molybdenum-rich spheres that can form only above 4750° F. The high temperatures are another smoking gun.
Unignited Nano-Thermite in the WTC Dust
NIST did not even look for physical evidence of explosives. In fact NIST did not look at the physical evidence at all, apart from a few selected samples of the steel. The rest was destroyed. However, physical evidence did remain: the dust. NIST did not look at the dust, but independent investigators did. They discovered, along with the microspheres, tiny red-grey chips. They examined samples of WTC dust from different parts of Manhattan. All contained the red-gray chips. They found that the red layer consisted of unignited nano-thermite. Ordinary thermite is an incendiary: it can burn through heavy steel in seconds. The tiny particles in nano-thermite (1/1000 the thickness of a human hair) causes a much faster reaction so it can be used as a high explosive. The discovery of nano-thermite in the WTC dust was published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal in April 2009.
Hundreds of Red/Grey chips of “Unignited thermite” in every WTC Dust sample
Nano-thermite particle sizes are 1,000 times smaller than a human hair. This material is not made in a cave in Afghanistan.
These scientists found not just a smoking gun, but a loaded gun.
Independent lines of evidence prove the official government claims are impossible. We see our role at AE911Truth as exposing the evidence official agencies and the corporate media are covering up. Following up on the implications is the responsibility of every citizen. Every citizen must face his or her own conscience when confronting these difficult facts -- especially when we consider that 9/11 is the foundation for two wars, the launching of an endless "war on terror," and the loss of our freedoms due to legislation pushed through amid the fog of war.
Following Up on the Evidence
Here are some starting points for action:
a) Send the AE911Truth.org link to your personal mailing list and every architect and engineer that you can find.
b) Sign the petition and demand a new, independent investigation. Volunteer. Become a sustaining donor.
c) Write your local news media and representatives. Tell them to address the evidence. Send them the DVD, “9/11: Blueprint for Truth.”
A video of initiation of explosive destruction is here for WTC 1 (North Tower) and here for WTC 2 (South Tower).
Editorial , London
|9/11 Sceptic Richard Gage takes London and Bristol by Storm|
David Aaronovitch, 9/11 believer, Promises Debate.
Some 250 people braved a chilly Monday evening to hear world renowned US architect Richard Gage demolish the US governments' version of 9/11 at the main lecture room in the Royal Instsitute of British Architects this week. The Times' David Aaronovitch, a leading media cheerleader for the official 9/11 story, was present and accepted a challenge to debate the issue in public.
The meeting in Bristol the next day saw an even higher turnout. People were turned away from the standing room only meeting at Colston Hall.
In contrast to the corporate media outlets in London, the local media coverage of the Bristol event included a front page article in the Bristol Evening Post entitled '911:The Bombs Theory', a double page spread and a leading article entitled 'In Praise of Richard Gage' who is described as a 'brave man'. Richard Gage did an interview on Radio Bristol on the Tuesday morning and other local radio stations all covered the event including Jack FM, Bristol Community Radio and Ujimma Radio. As a result of extensive leafleting of the Bristol University Engineering Department and a mailshot to every Architechtural and Engineering practice in the city there was a good turn out from the professional community.
The London audience included a wide range of people of all ages and backgrounds including, engineering students, radical young activists, peace movement people, sceptics and those who were simply curious. There were writers from The Times, the Guardian and various other freelancers as well as Press TV and Paradign Shift TV. The team from the BBC News department under producer Mike Rudin, currently making a "Conspiracy Files" programme on the topics of Gage's presentation, did not bother to attend.
The London meeting faced obstacles in addition to the usual news blackout. The Architects’ Journal, a leading weekly magazine, had accepted an advert for the event, but shortly before it would have gone to press they changed their minds. RIBA too was under pressure to cancel. Later the magazine Building Design unleashed a torrent of vitriol, quoting two American architects and that well known expert on everything: David Aaronovitch. No independent UK architect was asked for an opinion.
Gage avoided jumping to any conclusions about who was behind the 9/11 attacks. He presented a large amount of forensic evidence indicating the official explanation of destruction of three buildings of the World Trade Centre by fire alone is impossible, and explained the new evidence from Danish nanotechnology expert Niels Harrit indicating that WTC dust has the tell-tale particles of uncombusted military grade nanothermate. Experts in the audience were particularly impressed by the extraordinary amount of microscopic iron spheres found by government scientists in WTC dust, indicating the steel was melted on a massive scale. This is impossible according to the official theory, but is predicted by the controlled demolition theory. It seemed extraordinary that the US government's NIST, charged with investigating the unprecedented collapse of the three buildings, refused to consider the possibility that explosives had accelerated the collapse and therefore avoided having to consider or explain any of this evidence in its reports.
When question time began, quick on his feet and first to the microphone was David Aaronovitch, Times columnist and self-styled expert on ‘conspiracy theories’. Charlie Skelton a freelancer who writes for The Guardian observed that of all Aaronovitch's four points, presented as questions like ‘what happened to the passengers on the planes?’, none addressed the subject matter of the presentation. Gage's bald answer to each was essentially: ‘I don’t know. I’m not an expert on conspiracies but on building design.’ When Aaronovitch complained that the meeting was biased against the official story of 9/11, he was challenged to take part in a balanced debate with Richard Gage. Two hundred people heard him say yes, but one organiser predicted that he never would.
Watch this space....
IMPORTANT NOTE: IF YOU ARE UK BASED AND CAN HELP RI911 PLEASE GET IN TOUCH, LETTING US KNOW YOUR SKILLS AND AVAILAILITY AND WE WILL PUT YOU ON OUR ACTIVISTS LIST
|RIBA comes under fire for hosting ‘bonkers’ 9/11 talk|
24 June 2011 | By Will Hurst, David Rogers
Institute reviews policy after controversial event booked by Zaha Hadid Architects associate
The RIBA is reviewing its policy on hiring out 66 Portland Place following a storm of criticism over its hosting of a group claiming that New York’s Twin Towers were brought down through a controlled explosion.
Leading architects on both sides of the Atlantic hit out at the institute this week after American architect Richard Gage, part of the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, delivered a lecture at RIBA HQ on Monday night.
The venue was booked by fellow American and RIBA member Craig Phillip Kiner, an associate at Zaha Hadid Architects.
Gage claims that the fires caused by the impact of the two jets flown into the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001, could not have been sufficient to make the steel structure of the towers collapse, and he questions the collapse of World Trade Centre 7, a nearby 47-storey building which was not hit by an aircraft.
But critics claim his scholarly approach is nothing more than a cover for a “bonkers” conspiracy theory which ultimately points the finger at the US government and allies including the state of Israel.
Director of the American Institute of Architects’ New York chapter Rick Bell, who witnessed 9/11, expressed surprise at the event and said “no amount of money” would persuade him to allow the group to talk at his headquarters.
“The professional community discredits this guy,” he said. “We rent to just about anybody but if this guy came to me I’d say we don’t want your money, we don’t want you in our building.
“You have to draw the line somewhere… Not for any amount of money would we have that talk in our space. It gives it a credibility that it doesn’t deserve.”
KPF chairman Gene Kohn, who was the AIA’s spokesman in the aftermath of the attacks, called Gage’s theories “ridiculous”.
“There were no explosives planted,” he said. “The buildings were definitely brought down by the planes. This was not your typical fire. Basically they’re accusing the government of doing something so dastardly, to destroy a part of New York – it doesn’t make a lot of sense.”
In London, figures including former RIBA president Jack Pringle and Stephan Reinke, founding president of the AIA’s UK chapter, criticised the event.
David Aaronovitch, Times columnist and author of Voodoo Histories: the Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History, was at the event. He said: “Zionists, Israelis and the Saudis were blamed for doing this, that or the other” by audience members.
He said around 230 people including 25-30 self-identified architects and engineers attended.
“It was every bit as bonkers as you’d expect it to be,” he told BD. “What they mean is that George Bush and the Zionists brought down the towers.
“The RIBA let itself out to a conspiracy theory organisation whose theories are utterly insane.
“The choice of the RIBA was not accidental… the RIBA should have made it clear that the vast majority of architects think these theories have no merit.”
But Gage said it was unfair of critics to attack his organisation without looking at its evidence, which he claims is supported by 1,500 people in both disciplines.
“Architects and engineers have willfully ignored the message that we’ve been speaking about for five years,” he said. “When is the RIBA going to take this seriously?
“It is extremely important that we understand exactly what happened on 9/11… the implications of the demolition of the Twin Towers are very disturbing – I’m not denying that – but to refuse to look at the evidence because it has dark implications is ignorance.”
Kiner said his membership of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth was a “personal matter” and had nothing to do with Zaha Hadid Architects.
In a statement, the RIBA said: “The RIBA never endorses, sponsors or publicises private events held in its buildings, therefore any perception that this event was associated with the RIBA is regrettable. We will be reviewing our policy on private hire of our building in the light of this event and reserve the right to review room bookings on a case by case basis.”
Who are architects & engineers for 9/11 truth?
According to the five-year-old group’s website, more than 1,500 architects and engineers have signed its petition calling for the US Congress to launch an independent investigation into what caused the buildings to collapse.
“We believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that three World Trade Centre buildings No 1 (North Tower), No 2 (South Tower) and No 7 (the 47-storey high-rise across Vesey St) were destroyed not by jet impact and fires but by controlled demolition with explosives.”
It says the Twin Towers’ collapse “exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosion” which include “improbable symmetry of debris distribution”, “extremely rapid onset of destruction” and “evidence of explosives found in dust samples”.
Spokesman Richard Gage, a San Francisco Bay Area architect, launched “his own unyielding quest for the truth about 9/11” after hearing a radio show in 2006.
RIBA comes under fire for hosting ‘bonkers’ 9/11 talk | News | Building Design
|Conspirers against 'conspirers'|
By David Aaronovitch, June 24, 2011
The author and 9/11 conspiracist, Ian Henshall, announced his departure from the big truther's bash on Monday evening, by thrusting his bald head into my face, twice calling me a "f---g scumbag" and then flapping off into the wet night. It was a typically careless exit.
We had both been part of an audience at the Royal Institute of British Architects for Richard Gage, who is the American front-man for "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth".
Mr Gage had delivered a two-hour slide- and film-assisted presentation which convinced most of the 200-odd audience that they were right to go on believing that the 2001 attacks were an inside job, involving secret, controlled demolitions timed to go off at the same time as planes were flown into the World Trade Centre.
I was there because I take an anthropological interest in conspiracy theories. Mr Henshall was there to reinject himself with the "truth".
"Most of us can avoid sharing air time with known racists"
Gage's lecture over, I got up to ask him some questions, none of which he felt qualified to answer. A few minutes later, Mr Henshall began to shout very loudly and very clearly, gesticulating in my direction. His complaint was that I had "libelled" him some years earlier by calling him an antisemite in the Guardian. Seeing that I was nonplussed, he then added (at the top of his voice), "you don't even remember, do you?" He was right, I didn't.
Well, I do now. It was in a 2003 piece about a careless toleration of antisemitic tropes among those who should know better. I cited, as an example, Ian Henshall's public suggestion that there was a link between my colleague Nick Cohen's "Jewishness" and support for a war in Iraq. And I also drew attention to his dissemination of stories designed to suggest a connection between Israel and the 9/11 attacks.
Nowhere had I called Henshall an antisemite. I am sure that, were Nuremberg-type laws to be enacted in Britain, Henshall would be against them. And perhaps, in the intervening years, he had become slightly less insouciant in his replication of anti-Jewish stereotypes.
A very brief wander round the internet, alas, proved otherwise. In 2006, Henshall has the conspiracist US Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney, being defeated in a primary, not because she is a flake, but "after Jewish groups, accusing her of antisemitism, poured in funds and encouraged Republican voters to support her unknown Democratic rival." Henshall reiterates his suspicion that Mossad is in some way involved in 9/11.
Henshall's book, restating much of this, came to the attention of Mr Martin Webster. In 2009, Webster wrote to Henshall expressing his interest. Henshall, knowing what younger readers may not - that Martin Webster is an unrepentant and briefly famous neo-Nazi - explained why he was not keen to foster that interest. "The main attack on the 911 Truth movement is that we are 'holocaust deniers' ie antisemitic," wrote Henshall, "and it is amazing to note the key media people who have attacked us are Johann Hari, Nick Cohen, David Aaronovitch, George Monbiot, Mathew Rothschild."
He went on: "Although I am always keen to sell my book I think it would be bad tactics to be linked to your networks, because it would give these people more ammunition."
Webster obligingly published this communication on his website, where it has remained hidden until now.
You may think that some of the fruity language Henshall sent my way, could have been included in an epistle to a neo-Nazi. Clearly not. Webster is only to be discouraged for "tactical" reasons to do with what a number of journalists (including a Rothschild) may write.
After my questions but before Henshall's goodnight, Gage was asked a couple of times about the "Zionist" influences in the conspiracy, and the possibility of Israeli involvement. One woman near me, to her credit, disapproved of this line of argument.
Most didn't. Mr Gage himself has appeared on a US radio programme hosted by one Kevin Barrett, who has described the Holocaust as a "destructive myth", and alongside a copper-bottomed Holocaust denier, whose predilections were in the show's pre-recording notes.
Is Richard Gage antisemitic? No. He'd probably rather go to jail than bait a Jew. But most of us can avoid sharing air time with known racists. And just as careless is Ian Henshall. Which was the point I made about him all those years ago, and which he was still so angry about on Monday night.
Conspirers against 'conspirers' | The Jewish Chronicle