User:Cs32en/911/Articles/AE911Truth/2009-05-30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Founded2006
FounderRichard Gage
TypePolitical advocacy
Focus9/11 Truth movement
Area served
United States
Websitehttp://www.ae911truth.org

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is an organization including professionals[1] that advocates September 11 conspiracy theories.[2] The group demands of the United States Congress "a truly independent investigation" into the September 11 attacks and claims that the investigations into the collapse of the World Trade Center conducted by government agencies have not addressed what it sees as "massive evidence for explosive demolition". The scientific community generally rejects controlled demolition as an explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings,[3][4][5] while the group itself states they are acting "clearly outside the scope of our training and experience".[6]

Activities[edit]

Two people holding a banner of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Richard Gage, a San Francisco Bay area based architect,[7] founded Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in 2006.[8][9] According to a BBC news report, Gage had been convinced of the need to bring together architects and engineers when he heard an an independent radio station interviewing the theologian David Ray Griffin.[8]

The organization is collecting signatures for a petition to the United States Congress that demands "a truly independent investigation with subpoena power" of the September 11 attacks, and in particular "a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction" of the World Trade Center buildings.[10][11] According to its website, more than 600 professionals and 3,500 other supporters have signed the petition[11], although the actual number of architects and engineers is only 284 according to AE911Truth.INFO[12] and The Santo Ynez Valley Journal reports that the group consists of 640 architects and engineers.[13]

Supporters of the organization who make a monthly donation receive The Blueprint, the periodic e-mail newsletter of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.[14]

Gage has given speeches at conferences organized by 9/11 deniers in various locations in the United States.[15] His presentations, which are focused on the sequence of events leading to the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings,[16]. In 2009, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth had a booth at the annual convention of the American Institute of Architects.[17][18] According to AE911Truth.INFO, out of the 24,000 people who attended the convention, about 50 new petitioners were added and most of these were not architects or engineers.[19]

The controversial two-hour movie 9/11 Blueprint for Truth, which is popular among supporters of the self-described 9/11 Truth movement, is based on a presentation given by Richard Gage in Canada.[7] When the movie was played on cable-access Groton Channel, it sparked anger among its viewers such as Groton resident Alan Hoch who said "I think the piece was absolute drivel, and I would be embarrassed if I were the one who foisted this nonsense on the viewing community".[7]

Advocacy[edit]

See also: World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth argues that the buildings of the World Trade Center could not have collapsed only because of the impact of the planes,[20][21] while acknowledging that they are acting "clearly outside the scope of our training and experience".[6] Investigations by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) have concluded that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impacts of the planes and of the fires that resulted from them.[22][23]

World Trade Center towers[edit]

Gage critizised NIST for not having investigated the complete sequence of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers[24] and claims that "the official explanation of the total destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers has explicitly failed to address the massive evidence for explosive demolition."[25] To support its position, the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth points to the "free fall" pace of the collapse of the buildings, the "lateral ejection of steel", and to the "mid-air pulverization of concrete".[20] Richard Gage also said that the absence of "large gradual deformations" associated with the collapse would indicate that the buildings have been destroyed by controlled demolition.[26]

In a paper written to examine whether allegations of controlled demolition might be scientifically justifiable, Zdeněk P. Bažant, Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science at Northwestern University, and three other scholars, found that the available video records are not consistent with the free fall hypothesis, that the size of the concrete particles is consistent with comminution caused by impact, and that the high velocity of compressed air explains why material from the towers were ejected to a distance of several hundred meters form the tower. The authors conclude that the allegations do not have any scientific merit.[27]

7 World Trade Center[edit]

According to Richard Gage, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC), a 47-story high-rise building that was part of the World Trade Center complex and collapsed in the afternoon on September 11, 2001, is the "smoking gun of September 11,"[28] and would provide the most compelling evidence that something was "wrong" with the building that had not been told to the public. Gage also described 7 WTC as "the most obvious example of controlled demolition."[29] Scott Grainger, a fire protection engineer and member of the group, told the BBC that the fires that were observed in 7 WTC were scattered about on the floors, would have moved on as they would have found no more combustibles, and thus could not have developed enough heat to cause the collapse of the building.[29] According to Richard Gage, skyscrapers that suffered "hotter, longer lasting and larger fires" have not collapsed.[28] "Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance", says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves."[30]

After the publication of the results of NIST's inquiry into the collapse of 7 WTC, Richard Gage called a news conference[31] and leaders of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth dismissed NIST's investigation as flawed. "How much longer do we have to endure the coverup of how Building 7 was destroyed?" said Richard Gage, the leader of the group.[23] When told of the claims, Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator from NIST, responded: "I am really not a psychologist. Our job was to come up with the best science."[23]

The community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally supports the explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings provided by the investigation conducted by NIST.[32] The appearance of a controlled demolition can be explained by an interior failure of the building, which is suggested by the sequence of the collapse of 7 WTC that shows roof elements sinking into the building while the façade remains intact.[33]

External links[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Beam, Christopher (April 8, 2009). "Heated Controversy". Slate. Retrieved May 23, 2009. Do other professions marshal their own expertise to poke holes in the official story? Absolutely. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth point to the physics of the towers' collapse [...].
  2. ^ Sutcliffe, Thomas (July 7, 2008). "Yet more tall stories with no foundation". Independent Extra. Retrieved May 24, 2009.
  3. ^ "NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster" (PDF). NIST. 2005. pp. p. 146. Retrieved 2008-09-29. {{cite web}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  4. ^ "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" (PDF). NIST. 2008. pp. p. 22-4. Retrieved 2008-09-29. {{cite web}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  5. ^ Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Volume 133, Issue 3, pp. 308-319 (March 2007). Bazant and Verdure write, "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows..." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).
  6. ^ a b "Why are Architects and Engineers Re-examining the WTC Collapses?". Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings [...]. However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which "collapsed" on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e., controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessed= ignored (help)
  7. ^ a b c Moskowitz, Eric (November 29, 2007). "Airing of 9/11 film ignites debate". The Boston Globe. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  8. ^ a b Rudin, Mike (July 4, 2008). "The evolution of a conspiracy theory". BBC. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  9. ^ Barber, Peter (June 7, 2008). "The truth is out there". Financial Times. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  10. ^ Olivier, Clint (May 27, 2009). "Controversial Group Re–Examines 9/11 In Clovis". KMPH FOX 26 News. Retrieved May 28, 2009.
  11. ^ a b "Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!". Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Retrieved May 24, 2009.
  12. ^ http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-view_blog.php?blogId=1
  13. ^ "A & E Briefs". The Santa Ynez Valley Journal. May 21, 2009. Retrieved May 30, 2009.
  14. ^ Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. "Become a Sustaining Member". Retrieved May 26, 2009.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  15. ^ Abel, Jennifer (Jan. 29, 2008). "Theories of 9/11". Hartford Advocate. Retrieved May 25, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  16. ^ Handler, Richard (May 7, 2009). "Don't read this, I've been abducted by aliens". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News. Retrieved May 25, 2009.
  17. ^ McKnight, Jenna (May 1, 2009). "AIA 2009: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth". Architectural Record. Retrieved May 30, 2009.
  18. ^ American Institute of Architects. "AIA EXPO 2009". Retrieved May 30, 2009.
  19. ^ http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-view_blog.php?blogId=1
  20. ^ a b Beam, Christopher (April 8, 2009). "Heated Controversy". Slate. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  21. ^ "9-11 critic to speak at Cal Poly tonight". The Tribune (San Luis Obispo). May 29, 2009. Retrieved May 30, 2009.
  22. ^ Dwyer, Jim (September 2, 2006). "2 U.S. Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories About 9/11". New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2009.
  23. ^ a b c Lipton, Eric (August 22, 2008). "Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says". New York Times. Retrieved May 23, 2009. Cite error: The named reference "Lipton" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  24. ^ Potocki, P. Joseph (August 27, 2008). "Down the 9-11 Rabbit Hole". Bohemian. Retrieved May 25, 2009.
  25. ^ Beam, Alex (Jan. 14, 2008). "The truth is out there . . . Isn't it?". The Boston Globe. Retrieved May 23, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  26. ^ "Great Day Talks to Architect Richard Gage". KMPH FOX 26. May 28, 2009. Retrieved May 28, 2009. (Inofficial transcript)
  27. ^ Bažant, Zdeněk P.; Le, Jia-Liang; Greening, Frank R.; Benson, David B. (2008). "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York" (PDF). Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 134 (10): pp. 892—906. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  28. ^ a b Bowden, Rich (August 21, 2008). "Twin towers mystery resolved, fire brought down WTC7". The Tech Herald. Retrieved May 25, 2009.
  29. ^ a b "Q&A: The Collapse of Tower 7". BBC. July 4, 2008. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  30. ^ Rudin, Mike (July 4, 2008). "9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'". BBC. Retrieved May 26, 2009.
  31. ^ Trembath, Brendan (August 22, 2008). "Sept 11 building downed by fire, not explosives: inquiry". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved May 25, 2009.
  32. ^ Bažant, Zdeněk P.; Verdure, Mathieu (2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" (PDF). Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 133 (3): pp. 308–319. Retrieved 2007-08-22. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  33. ^ Gilsanz, Ramon; Ng, Willa (2007). "Single Point of Failure" (PDF). Structure magazine: pp. 42—45. Retrieved May 26, 2009. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cs32en/911/Articles/AE911Truth/2009-05-30&oldid=982906927"