Front Page  »  

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.

 


Loading...
Subjects:                 
Related:


64 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Thank you for your opinion Sir. Let us recap- Bush was a horribly inept President… But he, or Cheney, or (insert name here) were able to pull off the magic trick of all time with absolutely nobody talking about it thirteen years later… The explosives were there all along? They were brought in just prior to 9/11, and nobody caught the installers doing this deed?

It is a sad fact that these “engineers” are looking for a CSI moment. They want the least logical explanation to be proffered, thereby raising their public image. Attention seekers at best, Bush conspiracy nuts being the most likely choice…

Question of the day- such sharp engineers everywhere, why is it that logic is not their first tool in the box?…


0

This “article” is promoting false and misleading information. 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.


*Chapter 31. AE911 “Truth” and Other Sites Again Censor The Evidence 04 Apr 2010

AE911 – Silently Deletes A Petition Signer (pages 297 to 300) of 9/11Finding the Truth – A Compilation of Articles by Andrew Johnson Focused around the research and evidence compiled by Dr. Judy Wood

http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/9-11%20-%20Finding%20the%20Truth.pdf


**In Appendix C, page 238, section C, (Refined searches) of Michael Armenia’s book, “Nanomanagement:The Disintegration of a Non-Profit Corporation”, the name “Judy Wood” is a search term used to disqualify a person’s affiliation with AE911Truth.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/124871928/Nanomanagement-The-Disintegration-of-a-Non-Profit-Corporation


BTW… Those who ridicule and marginalize Dr. Judy Wood are promoting the fascist police state that Edward Joseph “Ed” Snowden is alerting us to…


Fascism Anyone?


Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not. (Remember that fascist regimes have elections too. Putting a red, white, and blue sticker over it doesn’t make it any less despicable. When are people going to wake up and start using the “F” word?)


https://web.archive.org/web/20030603193129/http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm


0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSRm80WzZk


0

Many of the stories that I have a comment for are within the realm of personal experience, some of which are painful memories. As for the 911 stories, fortunately, I have no experience but there is one exception. The one exception is that Physics was my favorite subject in college, obivoulsy not English and with my reasonably well seated expectations of how physical science works, I am puzzeld by the whole 911 saga.


My guess is that the twin towers were constructed with explosive connections, given the height of the buildings. An engineered take down does seems plausible because of the potential liability to the surrounding structures. Consider a scenario where the buildings were not completely destroyed, sorry this is about money not lives.


0

The idea that the Twin Towers were built with explosive connections and none of the hundreds of workers involved in this aspect of the design, construction and inspection has ever come forward to reveal this should be enough to stop you from offering this theory, but apparently not. As I mentioned in my comments below; the same thing applies to your theory. The number of people involved in planning and carrying out what you are suggesting would be considerable. It is beyond the bounds of reason to believe all these people have kept their mouths shut all these years. Killing almost 3000 innocent people is not something most could live with and keep quiet about.


0

Engineers working in the building that morning have written about the experience, first person narratives bypass speculative sidesteps


0

People who do it for a living professionally have written a paper about explosives and 9 11

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf


0

As I previously said and I will once again repeat, not a single person of the hundreds of people, at a minimum, who would have been involved in constructing the Twin Towers using “explosive joints” has come forward. You all want the rest of us to seriously believe that not one of the hundreds of people who would have known about the “explosive joints” has ever come forward despite almost 3000 innocent people being killed.


Zaphod, just so you understand, people professionally write about many subjects and are dead wrong. The easiest example for you to understand would be man made global warming. Professionals on one side write man made global warming is a hoax and professionals on the other side say the evidence is clear and incontrovertible. One professional side is right and one professional side is wrong.


In the case of the Twin Towers the elephant in the room for all these conspiracy theories is the fact that NOBODY actually involved in any of the supposed theories has ever come forward. So we would have to believe that despite hundreds of people being involved in the task of preparing to bring down the Twin Towers with explosives, not one person supposedly involved in this act has a guilty enough conscious to feel compelled to “spill the beans” despite almost 3000 innocent people being killed. This simple stretches the bounds of credibility too far.


0

Let me see, Whatisup, you have the idea that a large number of people had to have been involved, number one, and that they wouldn’t have been able to keep their mouths’ shut.


Are you one of those people who still believe the Warren Commission Report on the death of JFK? It’s been 50 years. A highly admired President was murdered. A little looked at House Select Committee on Assassinations Report was done in 1976 and yet that report is still suspect. See: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/contents_hsca.htm


After 50 years, yes, some people have come forward and confessed. Has anything been done about their confessions? No, they have been ignored either because people preferred to think of them as quacks or crazy and/or because our Government really does not want to have the issue of who killed Kennedy and why cleared up.


Maybe after 50 years, if any people who were involved in placing explosives in the twin tower are still alive, they too might want to confess. Do you think anyone will believe them?


Also, does it occur to anyone that this was not necessarily the work of our Government? It’s entirely possible that explosive could have been placed by others outside of our Government…even by Al-Queda. But we also must remember the long standing relationship between the CIA and Al-Queda.


0

climate science consensus

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus


0

You are a funny guy zaphod, but I am not sure what your point is. Talking now about JFK instead of the Twin Towers. And, with this information confirming that 3% of climate scientists take the other side of man made global warming. Certainly the majority of structural engineers do not believe the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives, only a very small percentage believe this. So again, What is your point?


0

Justducky,


So as I understand, you are proposing that Al-Qaeda may have been able to place enough explosives in the Twin Towers to bring them down without being detected. Security was tight at the Twin Towers — perhaps you forgot the previous attempt to blow up the Twin Towers with a large truck bomb?


Seriously, do you really think that anybody, let alone Al-Qaeda, could have spent several years loading explosives floor by floor into the Twin Towers and nobody noticed. Never mind it would take several years to do this — never mind nobody noticed Al-Qaeda guys working for several years to place the explosives — why if there was enough explosives to bring the buildings down would Al-Qaeda bother to hijack and fly jets into the Twin Towers?


0

You are certain that this would take several years. I have to believe that you’ve timed this out then:))


I believe that it is possible for people with Al-Qaeda connections who may have been working in the building at the time or may have had permission to work on or around the elevator to place explosives and I don’t believe that it would have taken years.


Why would they bother to highjack the planes AND place explosives? That’s a thoughtful question. My quick answer to that is 1) for the sake of drama…the planes flying into the buildings was terrifying to everyone; 2) those involved most likely knew that a plane striking one of those buildings alone would not bring them down, thus the need for the explosives; 3) if you look at the extreme changes that have taken place since 9/11 in regards to “security” surrounding air travel…TSA…it is certainly possible that the disruption of our way of life could also have been a goal. Placing fear in the minds of the American citizen allows the Government to more easily take rights away from the people. If there was no US Government involvement then Al-Queda would still have loved the chaos that our Country has had to go through in order to protect itself. Any way you look at it Al-Queda wins.


0

Explosive joints do not have to be apparent. The ignition can be a severe torsion, the calculated threashold for a self distructive chain reaction, vertical take down.


0

Jorge, get real…you think the building was built with “explosive connections?” What in the world do you mean? This is totally unrealistic. Either that or I am misunderstanding what you are saying.


0

Please urge 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”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw


0

Your link leads to nowhere land and your video is nonsensical. If you have an issue that you think has not been properly approached by the A&E people why don’t YOU suggest to them that they investigate your issues rather than just ridiculing them.


0

I shouldn’t even have to suggest to ae911″truth” that they demonstrate their hypothesis on a typical W14 X 730 core column found in all 3 collapsed WTC hi-rises, but I’ve done so repeatedly for 6 years or more. Their response has either been derision and abuse or my suggestion’s just been ignored.

Gage is content to drop empty cardboard boxes on each other and leave scientific method to everyone else, despite his glowing praise for testing and experimentation in his latest dog-and-pony show. The guy’s a buffoon.


0

Watch the whole movie on Netflix.


http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Loose_Change_9_11_An_American_Coup/70083965?locale=en-US


0

Whether thermite or planes was used to bring down the buildings, there WAS a conspiracy. There was a conspiracy to facilitate or at least capitalize upon a terrorist act in order to gain support for the invasion of Iraq. Back in 1998 John Maresca, a vice president of Unocal, gave a speech to congress entitled “U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics.” It was practically a road map for everything that came afterwards. It is very doubtful that somehow we wound up following this road map only as a result of unplanned events that occurred later.


Americans are afraid of looking like nutcases, so they don’t want to call a spade a spade when they have been told that it is not. But the fact is that there are core power groups that have seized control of this country and are guiding its actions at our expense.


0

Here is that speech if anyone is interested. http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.HTM


0

Given your assumptions that the captains of industry really did want that war (plausible),what makes you think that:


1) they would publicly state this to congress?

2) they couldn’t come up with a plot that actually used Iraqi terrorists?

3) they could come up with a plot so complex and involved that also was kept entirely secret by the masses of people needed to carry it out?

4) given the state of the Middle East politics, they didn’t just decide that a massive terrorist action was inevitable and just waited until it occurred and took advantage of it when it did?


0

“Americans are afraid of looking like nutcases,”


Your post tells a different story.


0

The other side of the story, http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm.


0

Hey thats a good accumulation of facts right there the section on wtc7 is particularly illuminating the fireman points out the missing integrity of the building and admits it is beyond what the NYFD could do and you can see with your own eyes good reporting Citizen! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI


0

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.


0

Unless of course if the government has gotten their matter energy transporters working, then they could just beam the explosives in place with few involved. Then they could set up cloaking fields to keep everything hidden until they set them off. Only a few people would be needed for this. We all know they have been working on this technology for decades at Area 51, ever since they moved the aliens from Roswell there.


0

Nice! Well done!


0
1 2 3