It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Another Look at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Centre Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers and Building 7.
We do not know who the perpetrators of this crime are. Identifying the culprits is the purpose of a real criminal investigation. However, we are able to provide overwhelming evidence of a cover-up of this crime. In addition, scientific forensic evidence indicates that only individuals who could gain long-term access inside the highly secure WTC skyscrapers and obtain advanced thermitic materials could have orchestrated the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7
Most architects and engineers have never been presented with the scientific evidence of controlled demolition. In addition, most of those who take the time to examine this evidence acknowledge that the official story can’t be true. As of the date of this publication, there are almost 1,700 architects and engineers who openly support the findings of AE911Truth vs. only a few dozen who have openly supported the NIST WTC reports. Even so, in the end, the evidence stands on its own, regardless of how many professionals are aware of it
The AIA itself, however, is firm about its relationship with Gage. “We don’t have any relationship with his organization whatsoever,”
The accusations of Gage’s organization are the typical hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific claims. Along with other esoteric and debunked technical arguments, he says that melted steel was visible at the Ground Zero site proving that the fires burned too hot to have been caused by jet fuel; that because the buildings collapsed at “near free fall speed” there must have been a controlled demolition; and that traces of a thermitereaction found in the World Trade Center debris proves that explosives were used.
All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.
Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces. 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.
originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Note ATS'ers, this is yet another opinion piece from OP, it doesn't change a flawed NIST report or any of the other holes in the official version of the events.
originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Note ATS'ers, this is yet another opinion piece from OP, it doesn't change a flawed NIST report or any of the other holes in the official version of the events.
look,
Rather than pointless one liners that do nothing to discredit anything I have said why don't you tell me where you specifically disagree with me.
Its all very well getting in that all important first post to grab all those anti-OSer stars
But please make it count, what specifically do you disagree with me on and what sources do you have to back up any assertions you may have.
I disagree with your total approach, your presentation, the way you just attack everyone who disagrees with the official version like it's some kind of crime.
And it's typical debunker style, when all else fails attack the people and their credibility, usually using ''they express their views for all the cash it will bring'', have you ever thought that perhaps it took some of these folks a lot of guts to go on the line and disagree with the official version?
I am not attacking people who disagree with the official story, at least not on a personal level, I am attacking Gage
There is more to this than "he is in it for the cash", true I do believe that is a big part of A&E for 9/11 truth but at the same time its true. Gage makes $85,000 out of A&E for 9/11 truth that's how he makes his money so no matter what contrary evidence he is presented with, he is probably going to ignore it because like i said if he turns round and starts saying that NIST were correct and thermite is a load of rubbish, he is going to lose his means of earning.
His means of earning is architecture, which is his profession and A&E for 9/11 truth is a non-profit organization.
originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Zcustosmorum
His means of earning is architecture, which is his profession and A&E for 9/11 truth is a non-profit organization.
Really so that is why he is taking a salary of $85,000 from A&E for 9/11 truth?
Its probably more now, it was about ten grand less in 2009.
Also I cannot see that he has been involved in any significant architecture projects in the last few years.
What a useless thread - or should I say waste of bandwidth
you could have just said in one sentence that you think A&E are in it for the money
like those running it left their practices and are living the hi-life on a beach collecting their $2.50 checks each month.
I say this goes into the hoax bin until proof is presented.
So you're accusing him of dodgy activites? Isn't there a watchdog which oversees non-profit organizations in the U.S, have they said anything?
So what do you think about the AIA distancing themselves form Gage??