What other architects think of Gage's theories

[Len Colby]

RIBA comes under fire for hosting ‘bonkers’ 9/11 talk

24 June 2011 | By Will Hurst, David Rogers

Institute reviews policy after controversial event booked by Zaha Hadid Architects associate

The RIBA is reviewing its policy on hiring out 66 Portland Place following a storm of criticism over its hosting of a group claiming that New York’s Twin Towers were brought down through a controlled explosion.

Leading architects on both sides of the Atlantic hit out at the institute this week after American architect Richard Gage, part of the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, delivered a lecture at RIBA HQ on Monday night

[...]

Director of the American Institute of Architects’ New York chapter Rick Bell, who witnessed 9/11, expressed surprise at the event and said “no amount of money” would persuade him to allow the group to talk at his headquarters.

“The professional community discredits this guy,” he said. “We rent to just about anybody but if this guy came to me I’d say we don’t want your money, we don’t want you in our building.

“You have to draw the line somewhere… Not for any amount of money would we have that talk in our space. It gives it a credibility that it doesn’t deserve.”

KPF chairman Gene Kohn, who was the AIA’s spokesman in the aftermath of the attacks, called Gage’s theories “ridiculous”.

[...]

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/riba-comes-under-fire-for-hosting-%E2%80%98bonkers%E2%80%99-9/11-talk/5020382.article

For some reason this was covered by 9/11 Blogger

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-2...ites-firestorm

What these architects said echos the sentiments of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat which years ago declared:

I believe that the NIST report is a responsible attempt to find the cause of the failure, however there are many questions that are not answered in any detail and several of these questions are already on the discussion forum. I think that with a responsible dialog and debate that the NIST report can be much better and clearer than it is in the current form.

However, that being said, I would like to be clear that I see no credibilty whatsoever in the 911 truth movement and I believe, like the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC ( WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. I have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 truth movement presents and I cannot see any evidence of a controlled demolition. Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views.

David Scott - CTBUH Chairman

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=697314

Note the comments by other A's & E's on the thread and lets not forget the so called FEMA Report was the result of an investigation lead by the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) and the SEA of NY (Structural Engineers Association of New York)

Edited June 26, 2011 by Len Colby

[Evan Burton]

Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views.

That's what I have found; the Loose Change and Pilots for 9-11 Truth sites were particularly rabid examples.

[Len Colby]

???

Who were you replying to Evan? Was that meant for another thread?

[Ron Ecker]

I don't know what RIBA stands for, and I suddenly don't care.

There is ample evidence of conspiracies both on 11/22/63 and 9/11, and there are unanswered questions that may never be answered (particularly since those with the power to get answers won't do it). No need to get into all that. So I'll just say this. I've watched JFK get shot on film, and I've watched three buildings fall on film. I don't care how many experts tell me that Oswald acted alone, and I don't care how many experts tell me that two airplanes acted alone. I've seen the backward head snap, and I've seen controlled demolition.

[Evan Burton]

???

Who were you replying to Evan? Was that meant for another thread?

I was agreeing with the comments made by David Scott.

[Evan Burton]

I don't know what RIBA stands for, and I suddenly don't care.

There is ample evidence of conspiracies both on 11/22/63 and 9/11, and there are unanswered questions that may never be answered (particularly since those with the power to get answers won't do it). No need to get into all that. So I'll just say this. I've watched JFK get shot on film, and I've watched three buildings fall on film. I don't care how many experts tell me that Oswald acted alone, and I don't care how many experts tell me that two airplanes acted alone. I've seen the backward head snap, and I've seen controlled demolition.

Ron, you don't have any expertise in either building construction, aviation or demolition, do you? If not, isn't it a little arrogant to say that you know better regardless of what the qualified people determine?

Wouldn't it be like someone saying they don't care how many experts or panels say that there was more than one shooter, they know Oswald was a lone nutter assassin and no-one will change that opinion?

[Ron Ecker]

Ron, you don't have any expertise in either building construction, aviation or demolition, do you? If not, isn't it a little arrogant to say that you know better regardless of what the qualified people determine?

It is not arrogant, because there are qualified people who believe it was controlled demolition. So which side do I as a layman take? I see what looks like controlled demolition, I see all the evidence for conspiracy, I believe that controlled demolition is exactly what conspirators would do in that situation, and I conclude that the qualified people who believe there was controlled demolition are correct. You can call it arrogance. I call it common sense.

I further believe, based on human nature and the pressure of government cover-ups, that some of those qualified people who support the official story do so because they work for the government or have other career concerns that dictate their position. And I hope they don't sleep well at night.

[Evan Burton]

Ron,

Let's start at the beginning. What people who are qualified in building demolitions say it was a CD, and what people qualified in building demolitions say it was not a CD?

[Ron Ecker]

Let's start at the beginning. What people who are qualified in building demolitions say it was a CD, and what people qualified in building demolitions say it was not a CD?

I don't have lists of names and am not going to try to compile any. What difference would it make? The fact is that the government got away with its complicity in 9/11, just like it got away with Dallas, and arguing about CD or magic bullets is not going to change that. There is evidence of government complicity whether there was CD or not. However, I will reiterate my belief that CD would logically follow from complicity. Those towers were going to come down for "shock and awe" and surefire war in the Middle East. That's what it was all about, and nothing was left to chance.

[Evan Burton]

So you say "...there are qualified people who believe it was controlled demolition..." but can't produce any names? Surely you have at least ONE expert in building demolition whom you can reference?

[Bill Sherwood]

The controlled demolition thing is easily demonstrated as being wildly wrong -

- The buildings collapsed where the airliners hit.

- For that to happen, any explosives that would cause the towers to collapse at the impact point would have firstly be placed exactly in that point beforehand and also somehow survive the impact of a 100 tonne+ aeroplane moving at very high speed, and then go off reliably. There also couldn't be any other explosives anywhere else or they could easily be detected by regular people in the building, as it would take months of preparation to organise all that.

That simply cannot be done with any degree of reliability with all the factors involved.

[Ron Ecker]

Surely you have at least ONE expert in building demolition whom you can reference?

Tom Sullivan.

[Evan Burton]

Tom Sullivan? The guy who worked for CDI as a freelance photographer? Well, IIRC he's got a powder carrier permit but he's got no significant expertise in building demolitions.

Anyone else?

Edited to add: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Tom_Sullivan

Edited June 26, 2011 by Evan Burton

[Len Colby]

AFAIK No CD experts have said that 1 and 2 WTC were brought down by CD/. The owner of a Dutch demolition company said he though 7 WTC was 'shot' based solely on seeing a video but said the towers collapsed from impact fire dammage.

Though a small number of WTC survivors, architects, engineers, firefighters and pilots signed petitions calling for a "new investigation" they come out to about 1 in 10,000 members of these professions in the US and the ratio for other countries is even lower. Note that these petitions have been circulating for years and can be signed in person or online. On the other hand in a few months "truthers" in NYC got 1 - 2% of registered voters to physically sign a similar petition. So people who believe such theories should ask themselves why are people who were there and those with professional expertise at least 100x LESS likely to publicly support such theories than NYC voters?

[Ron Ecker]

You asked for a name, so I Googled and gave you one. I have not researched Sullivan, I did research 9/11 for two or three years, and I share the view of many who do not buy the official conspiracy theory that debating CD is a sideshow, a diversion from all the unanswered questions about 9/11. I have basically quit researching 9/11, and am not going to provide you with names or lists about CD, because there is nothing ordinary people can do now about this atrocity. The government got away with complicity, just like it got away with Dallas and other egregious crimes, and there's nothing we can do about it. The government is untouchable. I still like to discuss these matters, but there's nothing much left to research unless or until there is some real investigation of 9/11, which would open the floodgates, and of course that is not going to happen. I will simply say on CD that if it looks like CD, and CD would make perfect sense for the conspirators, then I think it was CD. And I am not impressed with the debunking work of establishment experts when they all start with a foregone conclusion (it could not be CD, because that would be crossing the government and would be unthinkable) and work backwards. IMO that turns all their studies into nothing but crap, however convincing their expertise might seem to the layman, because in an investigation you're supposed to go where the evidence takes you, and not where the government (and your fear thereof) tells you to go. But that's just my opinion.