Architect brings dispute of 9/11 story to SLO

December 2, 2013
Richard Gage

Richard Gage

Bay Area architect and international speaker, Richard Gage, stated his case in San Luis Obispo Saturday that explosives, not planes, brought down three World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001.

Gage founded the organization Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which consists of 1,200 licensed professionals in the building industry who dispute the government account of the collapse of the Twin Towers, as well as of World Trade Center Building Seven.

The speed and symmetry of the collapses, as well as the molten metal and incendiary residue found in the debris and the witness reports of explosives, prove controlled demolitions brought down the towers, Gage argued.

“It’s irrefutable,” he said.

But, Gage acknowledged that most Americans disagree with his account of the events. He cited a poll conducted by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), which found that only 16 percent of Americans believe explosives brought down the Twin Towers.

“People have a hard time acknowledging this,” Gage said.

The official account of the Twin Towers collapse is that the buildings fell down due to fires caused by the impact of the planes. The jet-fuel sparked fires led to structural damage of the buildings and its core columns and subsequently total collapse, according to reports issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and NIST.

Gage claims fire could not have caused the collapse of the towers because they fell symmetrically at near free fall speed through the path of greatest resistance. Steel frame high-rise buildings had never collapsed previously due to fires, even hotter and longer lasting ones, he said.

Residue of thermite, an incendiary, and melted steel, which occurs at a temperature too hot to be caused by jet fuel, along with testimony from numerous witnesses that explosions occurred in the Twin Towers basement, prove explosives caused the collapses, Gage said.

Gage’s “smoking gun” is World Trade Center Building Seven, a 47-story high-rise which collapsed at around 5 p.m. EST, hours after the Twin Towers fell. No plane hit the building.

“How do two airplanes bring down three buildings?” Gage said in a documentary he aired Saturday at the San Luis Obispo Library.

Building Seven collapsed at free fall speed initially and at near free fall speed the rest of the way, falling into its own footprint with near perfect symmetry, Gage said.

A NIST report published in 2008 states that office fires, fueled by a lack of water, caused the building’s columns to buckle, leading to collapse.

Gage’s film featured San Luis Obispo architect and former mayoral candidate Steve Barasch as an industry expert disputing the government account of the collapses of both the Twin Towers and Building Seven.

“Clearly a more asymmetrical pattern should have been present,” Barasch said about the collapses. “Modern steel buildings do not behave in that manner.”

Critics accuse Gage of promoting conspiracy theories for person gain.

Gage said his organization does not delve into conspiracy theories, although it is calling for a new investigation of the 9/11 attacks to determine who was responsible. He also said he earns two-thirds of what he used to make financially as an architect.

The controversial architect did opine that the U.S. has been morphing into a police state in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.

“The truth about what happened on 9/11 starts a domino chain of events,” Gage said.

 


64 Comments

  1. leostokes says:

    Mr. Gage ignores the suggestion that demolition would destroy paper (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBP9mNqdLqM). The WTC event destroyed the file cabinets but left their paper contents strewn over Lower Manhattan.

    http://leostokes.wix.com/dustification-hints

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Janice Elaine Fetzer says:

    Wake up sheeple. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Big Brother only has as much power as you grant him. Independent thought is powerful. After reading WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, Charlie Pound of the U. K. produced the song WAKE UP THIS YOUR ALARM! Unless you enjoy being fleeced, leave the opinion herd and read Dr. Wood’s book too.

    http://www.youtube.com/v/E54TwifMzcg
    Music, Lyrics, & Vocals by Charlie Pound © 2012

    This download is the Foreword and book review of “WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?” by Eric Larsen, Professor Emeritus at John Jay College of Criminal Justice 1971 – 2006 (35 years), plus the Author’s Preface.

    http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Where%20Did%20The%20Towers%20Go%20-%20Dr%20Judy%20Wood.pdf

    Those of us who have read Dr. Wood’s book can give at least 10 reasons that rule out the theory by “AE911trutherd” that welding material destroyed the WTC. How many can you list ? Hint: the bottom of page 45, the top of page 171, the diagrams on page 81 and 84, the diagram at the bottom of page 11, and of course pages 122 to 127. The list is endless, actually.

    Better yet, go to any engineering professor or professional engineer and ask if the welding material, thermite, can turn a building into dust in mid air in 10 seconds – or if thermite can turn a building to powder in mid air. You might leave red-faced, but at least you will know you’ve been fleeced.

    By reading WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, you know from the EVIDENCE that the Twin Towers turned to dust in mid-air never hitting the ground.

    >Bombs don’t do that.
    >Thermite does not do that.
    >Thermate does not do that.
    >Nano-enhanced thermite does not do that.
    >Nano-thermite does not do that.
    >New-and-improved super-duper mini-micro-nano thermite does not do that.
    >Firecrackers do not do that.
    >Fire does not do that.
    >Nukes do not do that.
    >Megga nukes do not do that.
    >Milli-nukes do not do that.
    >Mini-nukes do not do that.
    >Nano-nukes cannot do that.
    >A wrecking ball cannot do that.
    >A slingshot cannot do that.
    >Missiles cannot do that.

    We know this because we know those things above involve Kinetic Energy and we know that the “dustification” was done without Kinetic Energy. That is, “dustification” was not done with high heat nor with some other form of Kinetic Energy (wrecking ball, projectile, gravity collapse). The building was not cooked to death nor was it beaten to death. So Kinetic Energy Weapons (KEW) did not destroy the buildings. But we know that Energy was Directed somehow (and controlled within fairly precise boundaries) to cause the building to turn to dust in mid air. That is, some kind of (cold) Directed Energy Weapon (cDEW) had to have done this. Energy was directed and manipulated within the material such that it came apart without involving high heat and without having something fly through the air and hit it (bullets, missile, bombs, wrecking ball, a giant hammer, or many micro hammers…)

    If this technology can manipulate energy to do something like this, it can also be manipulated to provide us with “free energy” (i.e. “off the grid”). Simply by looking at the cover of Dr. Wood’s book you can realize there must be a technology that can do this. This is evidence that such technology does exist. This is evidence that a technology capable of providing “free energy” (“off the grid”) exists. The whole world witnessed this which means the whole world can know that “free-energy technology” exists. This realization will change the world. This is probably the biggest reason why there is so much effort spent misrepresenting, distorting, and suppressing Dr. Wood’s research.

    Those that choose to focus on hearsay, speculation, conspiracy theories, or unqualified opinions while ignoring irrefutable factual evidence by avoiding it is what keeps a cover-up in place. Diverting the public to arguing between the two false choices of “9/11 Truthers” verses “The Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory” while ignoring the facts is classic perception management designed to hide and obscure the evidence. (Chanting “9/11 Was An Inside Job!” is equivalent to chanting “Yes To Fascism!”)

    Richard Gage is NOT a qualified forensic scientist. Dr. Judy Wood IS a qualified forensic scientist. AE911Truth wants a new investigation? They already have one. It’s contained in a book called “WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?” Why is AE911Truth suppressing it? AE911Truth cannot lobby Congress. They are a 501( c )3 and are prohibited from lobbying Congress. Why didn’t AE911Truth submit their so-called “thermite evidence” to NIST? – Oh, that’s right. It’s a federal crime to defraud the government. Why hasn’t AE911Truth filed a Federal qui tam case? Because they haven’t blown the whistle on anything and they have no evidence and it is past the statute of limitation. So, why didn’t they support Dr. Wood’s Federal qui tam case that was filed instead of banning members who mentioned it? * — I guess they really didn’t want such a case to go forward. So they want “respect and compassion for all people” except for those named “Dr. Judy Wood.”

    AE911truth first opened their website about 3.5 weeks AFTER Dr. Wood submitted her Request for Corrections (RFC) to NIST. She was the first to submit an RFC that blew the whistle on the contractors for the NIST report. Can you say “damage control” ? Then she filed a federal qui tam case that could have blown this whole case wide open, including putting people under oath – if there were enough supporters. Guess what? It became a policy in AE911Truth to ban those who discussed the work of Dr. Wood in an honest manor. ** Since Richard Gage, founder & CEO of AE911truth, bought Dr. Wood’s book in the spring of 2011 and read it, he can no longer use “plausible deniability” as a defense. Mr. Gage is knowingly leading people away from the truth about 9/11 and using AE911Truth funds to accomplish this task. So leading people away from the truth must be the mission of AE911Truth. How else could he justify using AE911Truth funds to buy this book? Who funds AE911Truth? Donations through the donation drives on his site have dried up. However, donating creates a psychological hold on the donor and they are less likely to leave the organization or question Mr. Gage. Dr. Wood is a teacher and promotes independent thinking. Perhaps this is why she does not ask for donations on her website or conduct membership drives for a “truth club” to keep everyone in lockstep, where members are issued a list of talking points to focus on so that they don’t go looking for the truth. Dr. Wood is just one person. Richard Gage brags about having a large membership in lockstep with him. So why is he so concerned about just ONE person and radiates such anger at Dr. Wood? The truth is powerful and it emerges through independent thought.

    The scientific method, as it came into being during the Enlightenment period, is a method of thought known as empiricism or as the empirical method. Under the terms of empiricism, all conclusions are, must, and can be drawn from observable evidence and from observable evidence only. Evidence must precede any and every conclusion to be drawn from it. Then, if sound logic governs in the relationship between evidence and the conclusion drawn from it, that conclusion will be irrefutable

    Scientists, as all know or should know, proceed in their thinking not according to belief or desired outcome but according solely and only to what the empirical evidence they have gathered, studied, and observed allows them to conclude or makes it inevitable for them to conclude.

    This is why Dr. Wood’s work is irrefutable. She only presents evidence and an analysis of that evidence. There is no use for a theory in forensic science. Either you know something or you don’t. That is why those in charge of a cover up don’t want people to look at the evidence in Dr. Wood’s book. Dr. Wood does not ask you to believe her. She only wants you to believe yourself and think for yourself and look at the evidence yourself and not argue about opinions of theories of speculation of ideas… That is what keeps a cover up in place. Those of us who have read Dr. Wood’s book know this to be true.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. David Watts says:

    Albury, I see that you agree with my statement to you: I guess you are saying that while all the columns are buckling in unison, they are buckling but providing no resistance; kind of like wet noodles.
    Albury, How is it possible for WTC 7 to go into instant free fall. (Give me YOUR analysis.) And I mean it was instant. The end of the penthouse fell. The building remained standing still due to all of the structural support below. Then – 5 seconds later it instantly began free falling from a standstill as if like magic. And I mean it was instant. The building was standing up straight supported by the resistance below; its roofline perfectly level and not moving; then, … instant free fall.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • Albury Smith says:

      @David Watts: There’s little point in responding to you if you’re just going to continue to ignore my comments. David Chandler’s precious ~2.25 seconds at g started at t=1.75 seconds of WTC 7′s EXTERIOR collapse, after the interior had already been falling for 10 seconds or so. Because of the downward velocity of the interior mass, g could actually have been EXCEEDED for part of that time, but there was obviously no MEASURABLE resistance from buckled and sideways columns. The 610′ of exterior collapse took ~8.5 seconds, not the 6.5 seconds claimed by Gage and other 9/11 liars, so there was considerable resistance for most of the collapse.
      Once again, ask Richard Gage and his “experts” to demonstrate their hypothesis for you on a W14 X 730 column. There were 11 of them in WTC 7′s 24-column core.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Albury Smith says:

    @David Watts: “Hey, wouldn’t you think Shyam would at least consider controlled demolition as a possibility? But hey again, he seems like a nice enough person; I’m sure he knew what he was doing.”

    Hey wouldn’t YOU think that someone who’s criticizing a report would at least READ IT? 3.3 Hypothetical Blast Scenarios in NCSTAR 1A makes it very clear that Dr. Sunder and his team did more than “at least consider controlled demolition as a possibility.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    • David Watts says:

      Quite remarkable they ALL buckled in UNISON. By the way, I guess you are saying that while they all are buckling in unison, they are buckling but providing no resistance; kind of like wet noodles.

      Could you ask Shyam how compromising just one column could instantly result in no resistance at all from not only that one column, but all of the others as well. And I mean it was instant. The penthouse fell. The building remained standing due to all of the structural support below. Then, it instantly began free falling from a standstill as if like magic. The magician waved his hands and POOF, all of the structural support instantly vanished. And I mean it was instant. The building was standing up straight supported by the resistance below; its roofline perfectly level and not moving; then, … instant free fall. And all because of ONE column purportedly getting a little too hot from the burning of ordinary office furniture.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • Albury Smith says:

        @David Watts:
        David Chandler’s precious ~2.25 seconds at g started at t=~1.75 seconds, as clearly shown in Figure 3-15 in NCSTAR 1A. Your “9/11 researcher” and the NIST WTC investigators agree that the initial collapse period of the exterior was at a much lower acceleration. Dr. Sunder and his team explained in their report how connection failure at one column led to the total collapse, so why not read it before commenting? Column 79 didn’t get “a little too hot”; the beams on the east side of the 44-79 girder heated and expanded axially, pushing the asymmetrically-loaded girder off its seat and triggering a series of partial floor collapses. Since you believe in miracles, ask Richard Gage* and his “experts” to demonstrate for you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:

        If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.

        *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:
        http://wwwyoutube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    • David Watts says:

      Albury, I see that you agree with my statement to you: I guess you are saying that while all the columns are buckling in unison, they are buckling but providing no resistance; kind of like wet noodles.

      Albury, How is it possible for WTC 7 to go into instant free fall. (Give me YOUR analysis.) And I mean it was instant. The penthouse fell. The building remained standing due to all of the structural support below. Then, it instantly began free falling from a standstill as if like magic. And I mean it was instant. The building was standing up straight supported by the resistance below; its roofline perfectly level and not moving; then, … instant free fall.y office furniture.

      “What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall.  Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually.  The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner.  The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”
      “The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.” (David Chandler)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • David Watts says:

      Albury, Apparently you agree with: Quite remarkable they ALL buckled in UNISON. By the way, I guess you are saying that while they all are buckling in unison, they are buckling but providing no resistance; kind of like wet noodles.

      (I posted this response in the wrong place so I am reposting it here.)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • David Watts says:

      Albury, could you respond to my replies below? Thx.

      (I do not know what is going on with my replies. I click the reply button below your comment at 5:47 pm but the replies show up further down.)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. David Watts says:

    “the ~2.25-second period of WTC 7′s EXTERIOR collapse started when the exterior columns all buckled in unison.”

    Quite remarkable they ALL buckled in UNISON. By the way, I guess you are saying that while they all are buckling in unison, they are buckling but providing no resistance; kind of like wet noodles.

    “Ask Richard Gage* and his “experts” to demonstrate for you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
”

    Could you ask Shyam how compromising just one column could instantly result in no resistance at all from not only that one column, but all of the others as well. And I mean it was instant. The penthouse fell. The building remained standing due to all of the structural support below. Then, it instantly began free falling from a standstill as if like magic. The magician waved his hands and POOF, all of the structural support instantly vanished. And I mean it was instant. The building was standing up straight supported by the resistance below; its roofline perfectly level and not moving; then, … instant free fall. And all because of ONE column purportedly getting a little too hot from the burning of ordinary office furniture.
    Hey, wouldn’t you think Shyam would at least consider controlled demolition as a possibility? But hey again, he seems like a nice enough person; I’m sure he knew what he was doing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Albury Smith says:

    @David Watts: Columns are no longer considered structural when they’re buckled, broken and sideways, and the ~2.25-second period of WTC 7′s EXTERIOR collapse started when the exterior columns all buckled in unison. They were 100% moment connected to spandrel beams, so that’s the only way they could go. Since the interior framing had been in motion for ~10 seconds at that point, g could theoretically have been EXCEEDED during part of it.
    Dr. Sunder & NIST are very logical, so why would I explain to them why they’re not? Ask Richard Gage* and his “experts” to demonstrate for you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7′s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png&imgrefurl=http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/sustainability8.html&h=478&w=638&sz=404&tbnid=q-S41Ix2mT4HeM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=122&zoom=1&usg=__UlCatIoHNuaIBUbQaF2PuEchSxU=&docid=adi9gO1tvsGG9M&sa=X&ei=FIbgUaLxFOr54APlsYHABA&ved=0CDUQ9QEwAw&dur=135
    If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.

    *Gage’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  7. whatisup says:

    The downside to these conspiracy theories surrounding 911, that could be plausible, is simply the number of people that would be needed to be involved in the planning and carrying out of such theories stretches the bounds of reason that someone involved would not have gone public by now. Killing almost 3000 innocent people is not something this many people could live with and keep quiet this long.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

Leave a Comment