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...
64 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“1,200 People in the building industry” infers lack of knowledge and ignorance.


The 9/11 truth organisation, Architects and Engineers are said to number over 2000 . They do not seek to establish blame, but a refreshing unbiased report to counter that of the “Official Conspiracy Theory”


“Only 16% of the American public agree to a new investigation” that is as may be but countless thousands of people, increasing daily, all over the world professional and layman refute the “Official” explanation for the heinous crime against humanity initiated on the eleventh of September 2001, which continues to this day.


“Dr J Woods makes A and E look almost sane” suggesting that those committed in analysing evidence, spending hundreds of hours over the past thirteen years in research; the curiosity of “critical thinkers”reviewing, writing, documenting by film, addressing seminars on the subject both in refuting and upholding facts and fiction of the infamous day known in short as 9/11. The huge number of concerned people worldwide are to be “committed” for using their heads!?


Richard Gage is following tireless determination to awaken people to the realisation that they have been fooled in the NIST tale. The tale of 19 rabid Muslims, who even if they could perform the aerodynamic performances they have been accused of, would have needed navigation skills well beyond most of us.


It just might be worth considering that those who accept the government explanation, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, are in need of psychological help both in mediation and medication..


Western Malaysia, secondary school teacher.


Thank you so much for speaking out and standing up for the AE911Truth organization. I’m reasonably sure that most people on this comment board have not looked at their evidence and are simply trying their hardest to stick their heads as far in the sand as possible so as not to give light to the truth.


The assumption that is made is that only 2000 Architects and Engineers believe what this organization is suggesting. From my perspective I would say that is a very false assumption. I happen to personally know one VERY knowledgeable mechanical engineer who will not join them as he is concerned he will loose his job. I’m sure there are many others like him. He was the one the turned me on to ae911truth.org and says he completely believes what they are saying. He just can’t afford to risk his job by joining them. How many others are out there that feel the same way, but can’t speak out?


Sadly, it’s the “1,200 licensed professionals” that seem to get the low-info crowd into a tizzy. No one thinks about the over 1,000,000+ licensed professionals who DO NOT believe this.


Oh well.


You cannot disprove the proof, can you.


NIST provided the logic for the proof. Therefore, NIST is also responsible for the ‘tizzy’ created:


II. And given that NIST agrees, “free fall” is only possible if there are “no structural components below” providing resistance; (Shyam Sunder, NIST)


III. Therefore, NIST understands that it requires no structural resistance below for a building to free fall.


IV. Given that NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall, and therefore there was no structural resistance from the structural components below;


….. i.e., WTC7 was indeed a controlled demolition.


Please try to explain to Shyam Sunder and NIST that they are not logical.


Can you disprove this simple proof?


I. Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building” due to the structural components below providing resistance; (David Chandler, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)


II. And given that NIST agrees, “free fall” is only possible if there are “no structural components below” providing resistance; (Shyam Sunder, NIST)


III. Therefore, NIST understands that it requires no structural resistance below for a building to free fall.


IV. Given that NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall, and therefore there was no structural resistance from the structural components below;


V. And given that the only way for there to have been no structural resistance below allowing WTC7 to free fall, would have been to remove all structural resistance at once and that can only be done with a controlled demolition;


VI. Therefore, the free-falling WTC7 was a controlled demolition.


A small sampling of the inanities from Judy Wood and some intelligent responses to them:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics0.HTM

She almost makes Richard Gage and his “experts” look sane. If Janice Elaine is related to Jim Fetzer, there could be trouble in paradise. His latest malarkey is that mini-nukes brought down the WTC towers.


Please do not post large blocks of text, a excerpt and links are customary.


! or ? moderator@calcoastnews.com


Thank you for posting your opinion. However, where I was referencing a link there was only a title and short description. The large blocks of text that you are referring to are my original writings. It’s regrettable that you find this offensive.


” It’s regrettable that you find this offensive.”


Not offensive and not a opinion, too much text….


2400 words in a comment, if you want to submit a opinion piece send a email to tips@calcoastnews.com

From our comment guidelines “Do not submit comments containing large blocks of text, lists, the text of long court filings,…. “


Thank you for the tip and sharing your opinion of your guidelines. I suppose posting the truth and then having it deleted would be an act of futility but no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, a pig is still a pig. :)


It is not a opinion, it is our guidelines. If you want to comment here, follow them.


True or false 2400 words in a comment is way too much.


Quack Quack!


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 !


WAKE UP THIS IS YOUR ALARM !

music, lyrics, and vocals by Charlie Pound © 2012

http://www.youtube.com/v/E54TwifMzcg


Verse 1:

Where did the towers go? Away with the breeze that blows.

And how much steel did they find? Could it be shipped in time?


I don’t know I haven’t seen the receipt, but it doesn’t make sense to me!

All those cars in a line, door handles and engines gone.


I’d tell you if I could, but you need to ask Judy Wood.

Before you accuse someone, you better make damn sure you know what was done!


Chorus:

Wake up! this is your alarm!

Wake up!


Verse 2:

So while you’re sitting on the fence, why don’t you check the evidence?

I’ll tell you something that you’ll learn, World Trade Center paper doesn’t burn.


And how could those buildings fall, with a seismic impact so small?

I know that something’s wrong, eight seconds the north tower’s gone.


I’d tell you if I could, but you need to ask Judy Wood.

Before you accuse someone you better make sure you know how it was done!


Chorus:

Wake up! this is your alarm!

Wake up!


Middle eight:

You know it was 2001,

here we are and we’re still arguing!


Chorus:

Wake up! this is your alarm!

Wake up! this is your alarm!

Wake up!

Wake up!

Wake up!


“The towers didn’t burn up, nor did they slam to the ground. They turned into dust in mid air.”


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.


The order of crime solving is to determine


1) WHAT happened, then


2) HOW it happened (e.g., by what weapon), then


3) WHO did it. And only then can we address


4) WHY they did it (i.e. motive).


Let us remember what is required to convict someone of a crime. You cannot convict someone of a crime based on belief. You cannot convict someone of a crime if you don’t even know what crime to charge them with. If you accuse someone of murder using a gun, you’d better be sure the body has a bullet hole in it.


Be aware of the deception, distraction, and diversion going on, both intentional and otherwise, leading people to climb on to popular “theories” or “band wagons”. Truth is not established by popularity, although agenda-driven political campaigns are. So we need to establish a better way to sort through the information we find by improving our problem-solving skills.


There are various groups on the internet lead by nefarious figures such as Richard Gage, each with their own set of beliefs and objectives, promoting how it was done, or who did it or why they did it. But none of them have taken the first step of an investigation which is to determine what it is that was done, that is, to first determine WHAT happened. Until they have done that, they are merely speculating or theorizing or hypothesizing or guessing. This is essentially assuming what happened and then proving the assumptions through biased observations (i.e. “cherry-picking” data). Promoting beliefs distracts away from determining WHAT happened. This is why the order of problem solving is so important. Remember, you must first determine WHAT happened BEFORE you can determine HOW it happened and independent of knowing HOW it happened.


Remember how a cover-up works. Get people to theorize and speculate about an imagined problem, then get them to argue opinions with others. Everyone will be arguing about opinions of speculations of theories of opinions of guesswork, and they’ll just go round and round and round and get nowhere. It is amazingly easy to keep a cover up in place! The only way out of that vicious cycle is to deal with the facts and only the facts (empirical evidence).


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.

Sheeple need to leave the herd and read the empirical evidence contained in her book.


19 guys armed themselves with fueled airplanes, flew them into targets @ ballistic speeds.

fire and gravity did the rest , no mystery no magic, ,dynamic forces versus static forces.

No E.T. no magic. no perpetual motion free energy involved. watch any of the video record of the collapse with the sound turned off.


Do you always believe everything the media and the government feeds to you?


Below is A&E911Truth Debunking Dr. Wood’s theory for those interested. It is logical and does not ridicule Dr. Woods.


http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/05/architects-and-engineers-for-911-truth_9853.html


Also, for those interested who may not have gone to see Richard Gage you can watch for free the Documentary that has been produced by A&E911Truth at the following link:


http://youtu.be/YW6mJOqRDI4


Janice, “All those cars in a line, door handles and engines gone.” The pulverized concrete. Are Richard Gage, Stephen Jones, necessarily mutually exclusive with Judy Woods? Could the first have started things and the second finished it?


Truer words were never spoken. Gage and his “experts” are ignored by the ASCE, NCSEA, SEI, RIBA, AIA, structuremag . org, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ENR, etc. Divining the cause of a building collapse by timing it (dishonestly), calling room-temperature dust “pyroclastic,” and claiming that molten metal in debris fires for months is C/D evidence just doesn’t get it with real engineers or even architects.

Ae911″truth” is pathetic.


“Gage and his “experts” are ignored by the ASCE, NCSEA, SEI, RIBA, AIA, structuremag . org, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ENR, etc.”


Are they “ignored” or have they been debunked by them? There is a difference. Silence does not necessarily mean rejection. Not speaking up and joining in on a controversial issue does not mean that people disagree with it. It could mean that they are afraid to speak their minds for fear people (like you) might ridicule them for thinking outside YOUR box.


This 9/11 truth thing is total baloney. The official explanation makes lots of sense, the one these guys peddle none at all. One has to be an ignoramus to believe this stuff. And, by the way, Barasch doesn’t have any credentials to even be in this discussion, and if you listen to his testimony in the film (u-tube it), you’ll hear that he actually doesn’t say much either, just a lot of hemming and hawing and maybe this, maybe that. Gage and company would do the truth a favor if they just went away.