ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS
FOR
9/11 TRUTH
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
www.ae911truth.org
May 12, 2008

Dear Honored Citizen(s):

You are invited to attend a forum at MIT concerning the Collapse of the 3 World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11.

I am the founder of the organization Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth which is a fast-growing collaboration of more than 350 architectural and engineering professionals. The last few years have witnessed the emergence of mounting scientific evidence that the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 were not adequately explained by the official theories outlined in the 2002 FEMA and 2005 NIST reports. The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth call for a new, fully funded unimpeachable Congressional investigation with subpoena power.

We are dedicated to presenting the evidence that supports our call in this comprehensive presentation.

What the Evidence Shows

Sounds of explosions coming from each of the WTC Twin Towers were heard well before the collapses began. These were reported by over 118 first responders in the FDNY recorded “oral histories” (the release of which was resisted by the City of NY until forced by a New York Times FOIA filing).Numerous accounts of “flashes of light” which commonly accompany the detonation of demolition charges were also reported. Video footage reveals the striking symmetry, explosiveness and rapidity of the Towers’ destruction.This destruction differed from the more classic controlled demolition of WTC 7 in its extreme explosiveness.

Each rubble site contained tons of molten metal “flowing like lava” in the basements – as observed by Leslie Robertson, WTC structural engineer, and numerous other first responders. The temperatures of these flows were far in excess of anything possible from a jet fuel fire or from the burning contents of the buildings. Scientists have determined conclusively that thermate – a high-tech incendiary - was used. Chemical traces of thermate were found in the steel and dust. Each “collapse” exhibited thick billowing pyroclastic dust clouds that rapidly expanded to over ten times the volume of the buildings.Each also showed squibs (explosive ejections of pulverized building materials) easily observed in many of the videos. The twin towers were explained to have “pancaked” down, however there was no stack of floors found at the bottom – nearly everything was blown outside the footprint of the towers in a symmetrical pattern extending 1,200 feet in diameter around each building – and 90,000 tons of concrete , metal decking and floor trusses were completely missing from the debris field.

Most damaging to the official story, WTC building 7 was a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane and yet became the 3rd modern steel-framed skyscraper to collapse symmetrically at near free-fall speed on 9/11 – in the exact manner of a controlled demolition with explosives. It collapsed into a neat, compact pile, exhibiting ALL the classic features of controlled demolition:

Rapid onset of “collapse”
Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse
Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at near free-fall speed (i.e. the [core] columns offered no resistance)
“Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
Tons of molten metal found in basement by demolition workers
Chemical signature of thermate (a high-tech incendiary) found in slag and dust samples
Rapid oxidation and intergranular melting found (by FEMA) in the structural steel samples
Expert corroboration from controlled demolition professionals
Foreknowledge of “collapse” by First Responders, media, NYPD, FDNY, etc.
You can review all of this evidence and much more online atwww.AE911Truth.org.

Thank you - we look forward to meeting you at the forum!

Sincerely,

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov3.htm
about the core columns

Soooo - have we heard an outcry of MIT people in support? No?

Wonder why that would be - perhaps because it is unsupportable? Hmmm?

Seems Richard Gage has agreed to debate Mark Roberts on 'Hardfire' 18 JUN.

This will be very interesting... if he turns up. So far 9 prominent people - who believe there is some type of conspiracy - accepted invitations then backed out at the last minute. I note that Prof Fetzer is one that DID appear on the show.

Just a reminder: Richard Gage will be on Hardfire in a few days, on 18 Jun.

On a related note, Hardfire also did a special on the claims surrounding WTC7. It featured Ron Wieck, Mark Roberts, and Arthur Scheuerman - FDNY Battalion Chief (Retired). It was no surprise that no "people who substantially disagree with the official 9/11 Report findings" wanted to be involved in the debate.

From Mark Roberts:

I don't expect the shows to be on the web for a couple of weeks. Gage had them videotaped on his end. He'll send the tape to the Hardfire producer, who will combine it with the tape shot in the NY studio...a good idea which I assume was Gage's. He was connected by telephone to us. There were a few audio glitches.

The host was John Clifton, an amiable guy. I had thought he was merely sympathetic to truther claims, but he's actually a a hardcore truther. He doesn't seem to be aware of much of the evidence on the...er...evidence-based side. I kept inviting him to check out my website. He didn't seem to go out of his way to show bias against me, though. I talked with him quite a bit before and after the taping but don't think I made a dent. He's a believer in many conspiracy theories, with the overriding belief that the government controls so much information that it's impossible to know what's true. Well, the government doesn't control the physical laws of the universe, which are what falsify Richard Gage's claims.

It was originally to be one show, about the three WTC skyscraper collapses, with Gage choosing the topics. Most of my preparation was about the Twin Towers, since that's what Gage spends most of his time on and makes his most extreme claims about.

To give the show some structure and to insure equal time, last week I proposed this format:

1) Mr. Gage would choose his five best pieces of evidence in favor of controlled demolition. I would not know the topics in advance.

2) Each topic would receive a two-minute summary of evidence by the first presenter, then a two-minute rebuttal, then a 15-second response by the first presenter.

3) We would alternate being the first to present on a topic, to avoid the same person doing a rebuttal each time (assuming that I'd learn the topics when the show started). Considering overruns and topic introductions by John, that format should have taken about 24 minutes, leaving about 3 minutes for guest introductions and other topics.

That proposal was rejected.

Before we took our seats, I was informed by John Cifton that the subject was going to be restricted to WTC 7. I was not pleased by this, since I had prepared to discuss all WTC topics and had done a Hardfire show with Ron and Arthur Scheuerman about WTC 7 in February...for which we could find no prominent truther opponent. I would rather have covered new ground. However, since my policy is that I'll debate any prominent non-insane truther on their own turf, I went along with this change of plans.

As it turned out, producer Gary Popkin made time for two shows, and we did cover some Twin Towers ground in the second, although not in the detail necessary. By that time the debate had gotten pretty heated, and Gage was jumping around from claim to claim a bit. In retrospect, one show would have been almost comically insufficient, so I thank Gary for squeezing two in. Three would have been far better, but then I'd be wanting four.... As I explained to someone yesterday, I could easily do a 10-hour solo presentation on all Gage gets wrong, with no preparation. Condensing everything to a few minutes is difficult.

It was amusing hearing Gage being coached about WTC 7 specifics before the show. He didn't know we could hear him and at that point he couldn't hear us. Let's just say that he was...confused about important points with only two minutes to go.

Gage requested just before the show started that we adhere to my suggested 2-minute presentation format after all...too bad I hadn't prepared for that format. But Gage didn't want to alternate being the first to present on a topic as I had suggested. This put me at a bit of a disadvantage since I had to always respond to what he said on the show, as opposed to being able to raise the many other – and nuttier – things he says about each topic in his other presentations. There was no time to argue this point since the show was starting.

John began the show with a statement that consisted of two quotes by Ron Paul, one of which was misleading and irrelevant (the 9/11 Commission didn't discuss the collapse of WTC 7), and the other of which was wrong and irrelevant (Bin Ladens were flown out of the US after 9/11 before airspace was open to others). We were not asked to comment on those quotes. Because I didn't want to immediately embarrass a host who was already biased against me, I held my tongue. That was not easy to do.

I don't think we adhered closely to the 2-minute debate/rebuttal format, but I could be wrong about that. These shows go by so fast that they're mostly a blur. The second show was more free-form.

Gage used part of his time to play vldeos that we in New York couldn't see and for the most part couldn't hear. Although I know the context of the videos, I would rather have dealt with Gage directly.

Unlike the other Hardfire shows I've done, each of these shows was interrupted midway by a promotion for the New York Libertarian Party...more time lost.

I never got to use my two most devastating responses because Gage didn't raise the topics. I was very surprised, since he'd raised them in every presentation I'd seen him give. Perhaps he understands his vulnerability there.

The sheer volume of Gage's wrongness can be mind-numbing: in his online Powerpoint presentation I cataloged 311 false statements, 114 misleading statements, and 137 logical fallacies. There were lots of important points I missed during the shows, but that's always the case and I don't kick myself too much about it. People will be directed to my website, where I'll have a page dedicated to these shows and links for investigating each claim. I wanted to have a graphic added for bolo's ae911truth.info site, but the producer wouldn't allow it since I hadn't mentioned it during the shows.

People shouldn't get too excited about seeing the shows. Although the debate got heated at times, I was bored stiff throughout since Gage was being more cautious than usual and no new ground was covered. With a few exceptions, they're the same old claims that had been debunked long before AE911truth existed.

There's quite a bit of editing to be done after Gary gets Gage's tape, so I don't imagine the shows will be up soon. Although it took getting him a sympathetic host, Gage gets credit for showing. It's been over a year since anyone's agreed to debate me. A couple of times, after he said certain evidence didn't exist and I explained that it did, he seemed open to reviewing that. A glimmer of light in the dark, perhaps.

Although we are yet to view the debate, I do find it (apparently) interesting that Richard Gage did not use the opportunity to highlight the "errors" that we 'official government version believers' suffer from; instead he did not try to show the "errors" of Mark Roberts. Perhaps it was because he did not wish to highlight those areas because he avoid talking about them?