Dear Congressman Wexler:
My name is Richard Gage, AIA, a 20-year licensed practicing architect and member of the American Institute of Architects. I am founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc., and I am asking for your help in a matter of grave importance to the United States of America.
Just over a year ago, I heard on a radio program new facts and compelling arguments regarding the terrible events at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. I was stunned. After completing some investigation, I realized that we had not been told the truth about the events of that day.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth was born and we began an online petition drive for fellow architects and engineers who are also determined to learn and publicize what really happened to the three World Trade Center Towers that collapsed on 9/11.
We developed a multimedia presentation that exposes the myth of the official explanation using simple, rational forensic inquiry and basic physics. I travel the country speaking to building professionals and others to expose the fallacies. The response to this presentation is the same everywhere I go. A simple show of hands before and after reveals that about 90% of those who believe the "fire-weakened steel" hypothesis come to accept the "controlled demolition with explosives" hypothesis after the presentation. The explanations of the destruction of the iconic Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 offered by FEMA and NIST defy laws of physics. This is easy to prove and has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The existing, prevalent physical evidence shows that the explanations offered cannot be true. That such serious inconsistencies remain unaddressed, and that additional questions remain unanswered – even unasked – is untenable. We must pursue them now.
AE911Truth.org operates an increasingly popular website that receives more than a thousand daily visits. We host over 2,000 petition signers, of whom more than 400 are degreed/licensed architects and engineers. Our licensed A/E's have agreed to uphold a code of ethics upon obtaining their licensure and they are meeting that obligation today by responding with great courage to the myth that we know as 9/11.
They ask the following questions and document these observations, which are just a few of many that remain unanswered or ignored by those who, at the behest ultimately of the White House, directed the official investigations:
• Why did more than 100 FDNY first responders describe, in great detail, the sounds of explosions and flashes of light that they saw and heard at the onset, and during, the collapse? Why did we not know about these 10,000 pages of FDNY "oral history" evidence until August, 2005 – and only then after a court order for their release? FDNY's own Chief of Safety, Albert Turi, and FDNY's nationally recognized Chief, Ray Downey, the "premiere collapse expert in the country" according to a fellow chief, both spoke of the presence of explosives in the Towers prior to their failures. More than 100 testimonies referring to multiple, violent explosions were ignored by the 9/11 Commission, NIST and FEMA.
• What was the energy source, and through what mechanism was it applied, that pulverized 400,000 cubic yards of concrete into a fine powder that blanketed Manhattan? Calculations show that the energy requirement for this was greater than the available gravitational potential energy of the structures. Is this the same energy source that is responsible for the complete obliteration of more than 1,100 human bodies that were never found?
• How were massive structural steel members hurled from the Twin Towers at 70 mph – some of them landing 600 feet away?
• Why were most windows within 400 feet of each tower blown out?
• Why were virtually no floors found at the base of either Twin Tower? There were originally 110 floors – each of them one acre in size. What explains the disappearance of 220 acres of four-inch thick concrete and steel decking?
• Why were there explosive ejections of dust & gases (squibs) 20, 40 and 60 stories below the rapidly descending "collapse" in each tower? These can be seen in many publicly available videos and show rapidly ejecting pulverized building materials – over 200 feet a second.
• How did the elevated building mass destroy 80,000 tons of structural steel at near free-fall speed , and with such radial symmetry? Given the asymmetrical structural and fire damage and the tendency of any disorder to grow over time (as described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics), the falling building sections should have "rolled off" of the intact sections below, resulting in only partial collapses.
• Given that open-air jet fuel fires and normal office fires both burn at a maximum of around 1,500° F., and the melting point of steel is around 2,700° F., what thermal energy source produced the tons of molten metal observed flowing out of the South Tower shortly before its collapse – and also seen for weeks after 9/11/01 in the basements of the Twin Towers and Building 7 by numerous witnesses, including the WTC structural engineer, Leslie Robertson.
• What explains the chemical evidence of thermite , an incendiary material found on the ends of steel beams? In Appendix C of its BPAT Report, FEMA documented that "evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure." This is clearly not a feature of gravitational collapse, or jet fuel or office fires.
• What is the source of the billions of microspheres consisting of previously molten iron in all the pulverized concrete of the World Trade Center? The United States Geological Survey, in its "Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust Report," and RJ Lee Group, Inc., in its December 2003 WTC Dust Signature Report: Composition and Morphology, both document these once-molten drops of metal without explanation. These microspheres also contain the chemical signature of thermite, an incendiary material used to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter.
• Why did Building 7 start its sudden and uniform collapse at an acceleration rate nearly that of a body in free fall? Video analysis shows the upper portion of the structure accelerating at the maximum rate gravity allows. This can only mean that the structure below offered no resistance. What mechanism can account for the simultaneous failure of the critical number and distribution of columns required to produce this rate of acceleration? NIST now attributes the catastrophic collapse of Building 7 to "normal office fires," with little to no contribution from falling debris or diesel fuel. At this suggestion by NIST, are we to suddenly accept that our understanding of fire science, materials and structural behavior has been deeply flawed? The American Institute of Architects has steadfastly resisted changes to the building codes after 9/11! Here is the potent 5-minute AE911Truth executive summary testimony delivered to NIST on Dec 18, 2007.
On behalf of the more than 2,000 petition signers at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth – and of the thousands of citizens becoming aware of this deception regarding the destruction of these three high-rises on 9/11 – I urge you to spend ONE HOUR of your undivided attention to review the stunning evidence that answers these crucial questions.
Joel Hirschorn, Ph.D., Senior Staff Member of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and AE911Truth.org petition signer, states "First, let the technical truths emerge. Then, if necessary, cope with the inevitable political and conspiracy issues."
We have the technical expertise to support your own research into the collapses of the 3 World Trade Center high-rise "collapses" on 9/11, and we offer ourselves in service to you.
Mr. Richard Gage, AIA
cc: Members of the Board, AE911Truth.org, Inc.
Richard Gage lays out the physical proof that the World Trade Centre Towers were demolished using explosives. One cannot argue against the forensic evidence here.
911 was obviously an Inside Job and it is up to brave politicians, members of the Judiciary, Law Enforcement and Military to take a stand and launch a criminal investigation into the attacks.
**Readers please note: the first comment appearing under the article here is from a serial disinformation pest named Arthur Scheuerman.
This man has a long record of putting up false and distorted arguments in order to "debunk" evidence. However, a careful examination of his claims always reveals his explanations to be in conflict with the facts about what was observed. You will note that his primary tactic, evident in his reply, is to miscast the evidence at hand in order to downplay the significance of various critical observations. A man with his fire engineering background(!) should know better than to put forward such gross misrepresentations- lest we conclude that his actions here represent a deliberate attempt to deceive. Although Scheuerman puts up "clever arguments" he is wrong.
In this particular instance you can observe that Mr Scheuerman opens with a nasty little attack on Gage and other experts involved in the 911 truth movement, essentially claiming that there is no hard evidence back up their conclusion that explosives were used to demolish the World Trade Centre buildings. In this endeavour he begins with numerous appeals to authority figures- most of whom worked on the NIST report- a DISCREDITED investigation into the collapse of the Twin Towers. Citing a BBC documentary he also refers to the opinion of demolition expert Mark Loizeaux who said in relation to explosives being used on WTC7: “…all of the windows on the surrounding buildings would be blown out all the way around. No way around it.”
Yet, on Mark’s own website he clearly states how one of his demolition jobs posed a significant problem to the surrounding historic structures - that there were old glass windows on buildings facing the target building and yet he was able to demolish this building (a steel framed structure) without causing hardly any window breakage: “There was far less window breakage in adjacent buildings than glass company crews were prepared to handle. Many of the broken windows appeared to have been those which were cracked before the implosion,…”
Clearly not all expert opinion with regard to the WTC collapses can be trusted. We must therefore rely solely on the HARD EVIDENCE and scientific fact to determine the truth. We cannot accept Mr Scheuerman's assurances that the "recognised experts" have got it right.
Taking the side of science, we can see that Scheuerman's next claims about the collapse of WTC7 do not provide a reasonable refutation of Gage's evidence based thesis-that this building required explosives for it to exhibit the symmetrical collapse that was observed. Scheuerman states that because we cannot see exactly how the lower section of WTC7 is collapsing we should not assume the collapse in lower section was symmetrical. The problem with Scheuerman's account is that although he advocates for asymmetric damage occurring in the lower floors he maintains that this would produce the symmetrical drop we all saw. However, his counter hypothesis, lacking any computer or practical modelling, should not lead to a symmetrical collapse. Logically, with various levels of resistance provided by Building 7's immensely strong steel frame, we should have seen a lopsided failure, if any.
Nevertheless, Scheuerman's observations about the fall of the interior of the building, right before the outer walls suddenly give way, are an exact match for how a classic controlled demolition is carried out: blowing the interior columns first so that the exterior collapse is drawn inwards.
Regardless of these collapse features we also have other, very definite indications that WTC7 was deliberately demolished- namely the fact that Molten Steel was found under this structure (no office fire can melt steel in the manner that was observed-ONLY EXPLOSIVE INCENDIARIES CAN DO THIS), and huge shockwave-like explosions which were seen to rip through the building just before it fell.
From the point where Mr Scheuerman writes, "Reports of Controlled Demolition, Molten Steel, Thermite, etc." the reader will encounter this debunker's regular pasted reply that pops up on many well informed 911 truth posts. Thankfully, I have thoroughly demolished such a paste in a previous encounter with this man. See my comments below his.
To Mr Scheuerman. You're doing the country a disservice with your shill debunking attacks. You are smart enough to know that most of what you write cannot possibly be true- especially your claims that the Molten Steel photographed in the rubble might be lead or aluminium. Yellow/orange coloured lead or aluminium is a LIQUID, not plastic as was observed in the photos. This is but one basic error of yours that leads me to suspect your motives.
[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 31th, 2008 and updated on Aug 1st.]