Richard Gage of Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth joins Media Monarchy on the eve of their “13-City Pacific Northwest Film Tour” to talk about where we are nearly 15 years later.
“FREE FALLIN’ starring BUILDING 7” is a riff on the classic Tom Petty song Free Fallin’. Twenty-seven years after the release of this beautiful song, it provides a perfect platform to bring attention to the troubling destruction of World Trade Center Building 7, which came down in free fall late in the afternoon on September 11, 2001. According to the official account of 9/11, Building 7 collapsed due to normal office fires ignited by falling debris from WTC 1 (structural damage and diesel fuel fires did not contribute to the collapse, according to the government). However, scientific and circumstantial evidence strongly contradicts that explanation
The fact that Building 7 instantaneously entered free fall – the acceleration of gravity – for a period of 2.25 seconds over a distance of eight stories is very strong evidence of controlled demolition. Free fall can only be achieved when there is no resistance provided by the structure below. A free-fall drop of eight stories indicates that all 81 columns in Building 7 were simultaneously severed over eight stories. Only explosives can account for this kind of structural failure. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise, let alone in the manner of a classic controlled demolition.
The infinitely small chance of a fire-induced failure bringing down the entire building – in particular, through the improbable series of structural failures which the government alleges caused the collapse – cannot be reconciled with the strong foreknowledge on the part of local authorities that Building 7 would eventually collapse (which the video highlights prominently). If Building 7 actually collapsed from fire, the authorities’ prediction of Building 7’s collapse would be analogous to confidently and correctly predicting one specific lottery ticket to win the lottery.
The inexplicable foreknowledge on the part of authorities is made all the more apparent by the inability of the engineering community to explain it after the fact. Nine months after the collapse, FEMA would state, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time…. [T]he best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” More than four years after the collapse, the government’s lead investigator would state, “[T]ruthfully, we don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”
In reality, the warnings of Building 7’s imminent demise must have originated from someone who knew that Building 7 was going to be brought down in a controlled demolition. Beyond that, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which represents over 2,400 architectural and engineering professionals, does not speculate on who brought down Building 7 or why. Instead, we are dedicated to educating the public about the destruction of all three World Trade Center buildings with the expectation that others with the responsibility and authority to conduct a proper investigation will do so.
Please share this video widely and visit http://AE911Truth.org for more information on how you can help advance the cause of truth!
Published on Jul 19, 2015
This video encapsulates the ridiculous assertions of the “official” story for those who believe the Government’s version about what happened on 9/11. It was also created to honor those who lost loved ones as a direct or indirect result of 9/11 in the hopes that the real criminals will be brought to justice.
Special thanks to James Corbett for granting permission to use his script for the making of this video.
The American Institute of Architects confirmed their place in modern Amercian [sic] SCAD in Atlanta this week, by voting not to confront the massed evidence of Controlled Demolitions in New York on 911.
By allowing the Thermal Expansion hypothesis of Shyam Sunder to stand part [“The Results Are In || May 16, 2015 Overwhelming Majority of AIA Delegates Make the Political Decision and Vote Down Resolution 15-6:”], the Institute formally wrote into the literature its blessing of the 911 creatioNIST agnotology, whereby engineering algorithms were constructed -without peer review – to explain the 82 columned 47 storied steel framed high-rises’ sudden, complete and symmetric FREE FALL, directly into its own plan area, due to the NIST described ‘New Phenomenon’ “Sequential building collapse (due to Normal Office Furnishing Fires” already OUT at time of critical initiation) on ONE floor, around ONE column seat, in 6.5 seconds.
‘“We are a professional – not a political – organization. But in this case, if we vote “no” on this resolution, we are making a political decision, not a professional one. Thank you very much.” – Daniel Barnum, FAIA
Those were the closing remarks from the lead sponsor of AIA Resolution 15-6, Daniel Barnum, FAIA. Seconds later, the AIA delegates cast their votes. The unfortunate outcome was that an overwhelming majority made the political decision. Resolution 15-6, which called upon the AIA to support a new WTC 7 investigation, was voted down 3,892 to 160, garnering 4% of the delegates’ votes.
The vote came after a number of impassioned statements from supporters and opponents. It was evident that those who opposed the resolution did not fully understand the official explanation of WTC 7’s destruction for which they claimed such adamant support. One architect from New York stated that diesel fuel fires were responsible for WTC 7’s destruction, an explanation that even NIST itself has disavowed.
Resolution 15-6 met the same fate as all but one of the substantive resolutions considered. Even in terms of percentages, the outcome was not that different, with the other four losing resolutions garnering between 6% and 26% of the votes and one being tabled. This does not mitigate our disappointment—nor does it excuse the delegates for their failure to accept their moral and ethical responsibility as architects—but it does illuminate something that we learned: it is difficult to pass even most slightly controversial resolution at the AIA National Convention.
However, that does not signal to us that we should give up on reaching out to the AIA membership. We are pleased to have gained the signatures of another 150 AIA members, seven of whom are fellows of the Institute. We will continue and intensify our outreach efforts with ever more creative and incisive strategies.
We would like to thank everyone who supported and contributed to our AIA resolution campaign. We were able to spark an unprecedented level of dialogue at the convention and gain a much deeper understanding of how we can successfully awaken the architecture community. Thank you.”‘ [A&E Bulletin]
Democratic presidential candidate’s logo sets off mini-Twitterstorm with claims of plagiarism, mixed messages and allusion to the twin towers
Hillary Clinton’s new campaign logo was the subject of fevered comment as soon as it hit the internet on Sunday.
Some pointed out flaws in its basic symbolism, as a red arrow – the colour of US Republicanism – striking to the right, through what people said looked like a blue blockade.
Wikileaks entered the fray to accuse Hillary of plagiarising their own logo, which also, erm, features a red arrow.
But others saw a more sinister image at play.
By Peter Drew
Global Research, February 19, 2015
The Bishop of Guildford
The Right Reverend Andrew Watson
Guildford, GU4 7QS
Dear Reverend Watson,
As the Bible says about God, “His throne is built on a foundation of justice and righteousness”. Does the Church of England stand by that statement and support it with their actions? I refer to the Church of England’s seemingly inconsistent and racist approach to the issue of 9/11 in relation to the recent announcement of your decision to ban Reverend Stephen Sizer from using social media due to his posting a link and a comment raising questions about who committed 9/11.
I have an interest in this issue as I am the UK Coordinator for the international organisation ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’ (AE911Truth). This is an organisation made up of more than 2,300 qualified and professional Architects and Engineers from around the world who believe that the scientific and forensic evidence they have gathered proves that the collapse of the three towers on 9/11 could only have occurred through controlled explosive demolition and are asking for a new and independent inquiry, with subpoena power. This evidence has now been presented in over 30 countries around the world and in over 80 cities across the US. The reaction from the audiences to this evidence has been overwhelmingly supportive everywhere it has been presented. So much so that the Washington Journal news network (C-SPAN) in the US recently ran a 40 minute live and in depth interview with Richard Gage, the CEO of AE911Truth, which was shown live to millions of American citizens.
I must say that I find the decision to ban Reverend Sizer from all social media a little difficult to understand and I find it an extremely inconsistent approach by the Church of England, especially following so closely on the heels of the Charlie Hebdo event in Paris. In Paris we had 3 million people gathered in the streets in a quite amazing show of public unity and public strength behind a common cause of peace and freedom of speech. Those who gunned down the innocent victims in Paris sought to quash freedom of speech when they didn’t agree with the message. While the Church of England has not fired any physical bullets of terrorism or racism with this decision, the principle is the same. Why has the Church of England not also publicly condemned the allegations by our government officials and mainstream media about alleged Muslim involvement in 9/11? These are allegations that have been made with absolutely no evidence to support them. But yet any mention of possible Israeli involvement is met with instant condemnation by the Church of England. No group or nationality should have the finger of blame pointed at them for anything unless there is clear evidence to support the allegations, so where is the consistency by the Church of England with regard to Muslims?
More than one million innocent people have so far lost their lives in the Middle East since the US and UK launched their military attacks on the back of 9/11. More than half a million of these victims have been innocent children. In addition, most people in the UK are not aware that millions more in the Middle East will die or be deformed at birth in the coming decades and for centuries to come from the massive amounts of depleted Uranium shells that have poisoned Iraq and surrounding regions. Iraq and the wider Middle East have now had their own holocaust, and it is still ongoing right now as we speak. This holocaust was launched on the back of totally baseless allegations that 9/11 was committed by 19 Muslim hijackers.
Instead of banning your staff from attempting to ask questions about who was really responsible for 9/11, the Church of England should instead be supporting the hundreds of thousands of courageous and peace loving individuals around the world who have been campaigning tirelessly for new investigations into what really happened on that day of 9/11, and exactly who was involved. Because the one thing that is absolutely certain about 9/11 is that we have not been told the truth by our governments and our military officials.
I have no idea if Israel was involved or not, and I have no idea if Muslims were involved or not, but I do know that we have not been told the truth and that very serious questions and very serious investigations need to be carried out which could potentially alter the course of history in a positive manner. Any hatred towards another specific sector of the community such as Anti-Semitism is a terrible thing. But could you please explain to me how this is any different from accusing Muslims of committing 9/11? Muslims have been blamed for 9/11 and as a result of this there has been a massive global backlash against the Muslim community. Are you aware that despite what we have been told by our government officials, there is not one shred of any evidence that 19 Muslim hijackers were the perpetrators of 9/11? None. And yet Muslims have been blamed for committing this horrendous crime and a holocaust has been unleashed in Iraq and the Middle East. Has the Church of England ever asked our government officials and media to provide evidence of their allegations against Muslims, or if they can’t provide this evidence then to stop spreading these false allegations about Muslims being the perpetrators of 9/11? The silence from the Church of England on this has unfortunately been deafening, despite attempts made by the public for the Church of England to look at this issue.
Are you aware that there is no video footage of the alleged Muslim terrorists getting on board the airliners that day, and no evidence of their names being on the passenger lists? Are you aware that many of the 19 alleged Muslim hijackers on 9/11 have been confirmed to be still alive and well today, and as such they are wondering why they are on a list of alleged suicide terrorists who died on 9/11? This is a quite incredible fact that has even been highlighted on BBC documentaries. Are you aware that Osama Bin Laden was never put on the FBI wanted list for 9/11 because the FBI stated themselves that they had absolutely no evidence to implicate him with 9/11, despite what the US government was saying? Muslims have been accused of this horrendous crime with literally not one shred of evidence. They are just baseless allegations by our government officials which we are told to believe while they launch a holocaust on the Middle East. That is racist in the extreme. Why is the Church of England not seriously challenging this situation instead of quashing the freedom of speech to raise some very difficult questions about 9/11? You have said to Reverend Sizer that his Facebook posting was racist. But it is also racist for the Church of England to condemn allegations against Israel but not to condemn allegations against the Muslim community when there is zero evidence to support those allegations?
Are you aware of the incontrovertible scientific and forensic evidence and eye-witness evidence which proves conclusively that the three towers on 9/11 collapsed as they did not because of fire from the airliners, but because of explosive, controlled demolition? This evidence has been provided and supported by thousands of professional experts as well as eye-witness testimony from 118 of the first responder fire fighters on 9/11. Are you aware that World Trade Centre Building 7, the third tower to completely collapse on 9/11, was a 47 storey sky scraper not struck by a plane and yet it collapsed totally, in near perfect symmetry, in less than 7 seconds, and achieved free fall (gravitational) acceleration during its descent? As our 2,300 professional architects and engineers will confirm with you, the ONLY way that this can occur in a high-rise tower is through controlled demolition using perfectly placed and perfectly timed explosives. There is no other possible explanation within the known laws of physics. It is as simple as that, despite what our government officials and media try to tell us. As we speak, NIST, the official US government investigators into the collapse of the three towers on 9/11, have a major legal action against them for criminal fraud on the basis of their fraudulent investigations and fraudulent findings into the collapse of those towers.
This raises extremely difficult and psychologically challenging questions about who could have been responsible for making those towers come down in that manner, because it certainly wasn’t Muslim terrorists who would have had the ability to make that happen. In further support of what I have just stated here, are you aware that 100,000 citizens of New York have just signed a petition in support of the ‘High-Rise Safety Initiative’, which calls for a new investigation into the free fall collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7? These calls for new investigations are also supported by numerous family members of victims of 9/11 who want the truth about who killed their loved ones. President Obama is under extreme pressure at the moment from many members of US Congress to release the 28 redacted pages from the 9/11 Commission Report. The two members of US Congress who have been granted special permission to view those 28 pages have demanded they be released to the public because they say the content will shock the nation, and the public needs to know.
Here in the UK, we have Matthew Campbell who lost his brother in the North Tower on 9/11. He has been campaigning tirelessly with British and US officials to have his questions answered about his brother’s murder. All he has asked for are some answers to some very basic and straightforward questions that would be a standard part of any proper investigation into someone’s death. In effect, there has been absolutely no investigation into his brother’s murder and he has not been able to get one single answer or positive development on this situation from the British Embassy, the US Embassy, President Obama, or the coroners involved. Consequently he is still tormented by the fact that his brother has been murdered and that no one is willing to investigate that murder in any way or answer even the most basic of questions about how he died. If a major organisation such as the Church of England were to provide some support to Mr Campbell’s endeavours to find a little peace of mind and justice then that would be a noble cause worthy of such an establishment. Is this something that you would be willing to assist Mr Campbell with? I am copying him on this letter for his reference. If so, I can provide you with his contact details. I am sure he would be most grateful for some support from the Church of England.
To finish with here, I repeat my earlier point about freedom of speech and having the freedom and courage to be allowed to ask what can sometimes be extremely difficult and unpleasant questions in the pursuit of truth. We don’t know who committed the atrocities of 9/11 and exactly how they did what they did. What we do know is that what we have been told happened on 9/11, and who did what, is incontrovertibly false and that there were other unknown entities that must have been involved. Those unknown entities have been responsible for unleashing the most horrific carnage/holocaust imaginable in parts of the Middle East which will continue to cause terrible human suffering for a very long time to come. Reverend Sizer may perhaps have been a little misguided, but well intentioned, in raising his questions about 9/11 in the way he did. The Church of England has made the decision to supress this type of questioning towards a specific sector of the community, and that is fair enough if that questioning cannot be backed up sufficiently with clear and incontrovertible evidence. But has the Church of England done anything to support the global Muslim community against the terrible baseless accusations that have been made against them about 9/11, and which have led to them suffering their own horrendous holocaust?
Perhaps you were not previously aware of the abundant scientific and forensic evidence and eye-witness evidence that I have mentioned here. Perhaps this is why you and the Church of England have not previously rallied to the support of the Muslim community as you are now rallying to the support of Israel. If that is the case then there is still an opportunity for the Church of England to have a positive impact here and help change the course of history in a direction more aligned with peace, as should be the mission of the Church of England, according to the Bible. The Church of England could take a proactive approach to helping to put forward to the public the abundant and incontrovertible scientific evidence and eye-witness evidence that challenges the official story of 9/11.
This doesn’t have to point the finger at anyone, as Reverend Sizer has done to some extent. The Church of England could take exactly the same stance as ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’, which is to help allow the public to see the true evidence that is being covered up, call for independent investigations into this evidence, and then let the cards fall where they fall in terms of where those investigations lead to and who is found to be responsible. The Muslim community and the millions of victims in the Middle East deserve that evidence and information to be put forward, and they deserve those investigations to be conducted.
I am sure that the Church of England supported the Nuremburg trials, so will the Church of England also support this request to help bring forward the true evidence about 9/11? The current holocaust must be stopped/mitigated and the true cause identified. Reverend Sizer may not have approached this issue in quite the right way, but he was certainly correct in his belief that there are very serious questions to be asked about 9/11 and he has shown great courage to at least be prepared to put his head into the line of fire and try to raise some questions about what really happened on 9/11 and try to help address the ongoing Middle East holocaust.
I believe that Reverend Sizer’s intentions, if not his methodology, were consistent with my opening message about the Bible’s stated mission of the Church of England…..“His throne is built on a foundation of justice and righteousness”. Will the Church of England honour those words of the Bible and support justice and righteousness being sought for the victims of 9/11 and the victims of the Middle East holocaust?
Thank you for considering what I have said here, and I would be more than happy to provide further information about anything here and to provide contact details for Mr Campbell if you would be interested in following that up.
Peter Drew (MSc)
UK Coordinator – Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Tony Szamboti Interview
Interview published 29 November 2014
MP3 and Link to Show Notes: http://themindrenewed.com/interviews/2014/590-int-67
For this important interview we welcome Tony Szamboti, mechanical engineer and 9/11 researcher, who joins us for a detailed discussion on crucial evidence that, in the words of his research group, “clearly demonstrate(s) that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) were unscientific and fraudulent.”
With the group’s recently-published white paper as our focus, “Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports” which lists 25 Points seriously challenging NIST’s work in this area, we discuss striking new evidence demonstrating that NIST intentionally omitted significant structural components from its analysis of Building 7, and explore the almost inescapable conclusion that this was done in order to avoid the explanation of controlled demolition. We also discuss the potential these findings might have for legal action.
(Tony Szamboti is a U.S. Navy Veteran, he holds a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from Villanova University, and has worked predominantly in the Aerospace industry for the last 28 years.)
Anger over 9/11 Museum exhibit that casts doubt on link between health problems and toxic Ground Zero air
Committees representing 9/11 survivors and first responders are demanding the museum rewrite three of the panels in the ‘After 9/11’ exhibit because they say they contain inaccurate information about the connection between exposure to toxic dust and widespread health issues.
BY Dan Friedman /
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS /
Sunday, August 10, 2014, 8:02 PM
WASHINGTON — The government has recognized that first responders became ill from working near Ground Zero — but the 9/11 Museum isn’t so sure.
Responders and surviving family members are furious that panels at the museum’s “After 9/11” exhibit present the connection between the toxic dust around Ground Zero and the subsequent health issues of many workers as uncertain.
It’s the latest in a long list of complaints about the museum’s management and mission by victims’ families and responders, who point out that the 2011 James Zadroga Act, which helped cover victims’ health needs, settled the issue.
Read article here
Richard Gage, AIA, Drives Home Explosive Evidence
It’s the kind of rare opportunity that members of the 9/11 Truth Movement wish would come more often.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth founder Richard Gage, AIA, was invited to bring the evidence for the explosive demolition of the three World Trade Center towers to viewers of C-SPAN today on its morning program Washington Journal. His 45-minute appearance — which can be viewed here by those who did not see it live — is enabling the 9/11 Truth message to reach a national television audience of millions.
Gage explained to viewers that his organization, representing more than 2,200 architects and engineers, is focused on the science of the event and on calling for a new, independent investigation. He encouraged viewers to visit the AE911Truth.org website and watch the landmark video 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out.
“Every one of our [C-SPAN] viewers today should be calling their Congressmen and Senators and finding out why they’re not investigating the worst act of mass murder in U.S. history and the third-worst structural failure in modern history,” Gage said. “This is an extraordinary and unacceptable situation.”
Host Peter Slen told viewers that Gage was brought in as a guest because Washington Journal had received so many calls in recent months asking its other guests to address the issue of how Building 7 fell on 9/11 when it was not hit by a plane. The invitation shows that the continuing efforts of 9/11 Truth activists to bring the issue to the attention of the public are not in vain.
Slen read excerpts from the Frequently Asked Questions section of the National Institute of Standards and Technology website, which gave Gage the opportunity to explain how NIST fails to address the forensic evidence that AE911Truth’s building and technical experts have accumulated, including the symmetrical destruction of Building 7 at free-fall acceleration, the explosions reported by first responders, the evidence of thermite in the dust, and the molten iron found in the rubble of all three towers. Gage also pointed out that at least two media outlets — CNN and the BBC — reported the destruction of Building 7 before it actually occurred.
Several excellent questions were asked by Washington Journal callers, most of who made intelligent points about the subject and had supportive comments about AE911Truth.
The appearance by Gage on C-SPAN as well as recent attention given by the media to the High-Rise Safety Initiative offer real hope that the ongoing efforts of the 9/11 Truth Movement are starting to show some significant results.
Indeed, after the interview, Gage told the AE911Truth that he is “quite encouraged to finally be treated in a fair and balanced manner in a mainstream media TV interview. I also appreciate Washington Journal’s commitment to providing a forum for all voices concerning the important issues that affect our country. When it comes to the controlled demolition evidence,” he mused, “the question is, ‘How soon before other networks learn from C-SPAN’s example?’”
An inaugural ethics conference sponsored by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) — the world’s largest professional association dedicated to advancing technology — provided an exciting opportunity for AE911Truth to bring its message to the forefront of the scientific and engineering community last month.
IEEE promised that its 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science, and Technology, held in Chicago on May 23-24, would offer “a rich scientific program of highest quality,” feature speakers from throughout the world, and bring together “scientists, engineers, ethicists, and practitioners from different disciplines to discuss questions and concerns related to ethics in science, technology, and engineering.”
Based on that billing, three 9/11 Truth Movement activists were inspired to respond to the call for papers with a case study addressing the topic “Ethics and Professional Responsibility in Science, Technology and Engineering.” The resulting paper, Ethics and the Official Reports about the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2) on 9/11: A Case Study, was co-authored by physicist John D. Wyndham, Ph.D. (a member of Scientists for 9/11Truth) and engineers Wayne H. Coste, PE, and Michael R. Smith (both members of AE911Truth and the IEEE).