Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc. (AE911Truth) is an American non-profit organization promoting the conspiracy theory that the World Trade Center was destroyed in a controlled demolition, disputing accepted conclusions around the September 11 attacks, including the 9/11 Commission Report,[6][7][8] as well as FEMA's "WTC Building Performance Study" (2002). Their claims and theories lack support among the relevant professional communities.[9][10][11][12]

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc.
FoundedNovember 13, 2007[1]
FounderRichard Gage
TypeNonprofit corporation[2] with 501(c)(3) tax exemption[3]
Focus9/11 truth movement
Promoting the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theory
Location
Area served
United States
Members
4 board members, 1 staff members[5]
Websitewww.ae911truth.org

Activities
Two people holding a banner of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Richard Gage (second from left) with 9/11 truth activists at the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2010

Richard Gage, a San Francisco Bay Area architect,[13] founded Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in 2006.[14] Gage's website states that he is a member of the American Institute of Architects and that he worked as an architect for 20 years and was involved in the construction of numerous "fireproof" steel-frame buildings.[15] He became convinced of the need to create an organization that brings together architects and engineers after listening to an independent radio station interview with theologian David Ray Griffin.[14]

Gage has given speeches at conferences organized by supporters of the 9/11 truth movement[16] in various locations in the United States[17] and Canada,[18][19] and has presented his multimedia talk "9/11 Blueprint for Truth – The Architecture of Destruction" in 14 countries.[20] His presentations focus on the sequence of events leading to the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings and include videos of their collapses alongside footage of controlled demolitions.[17] He went on a tour of European countries in 2008[21] and gave speeches in Australia, New Zealand and Japan in 2009.[22] In 2009, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth had a booth at the annual convention of the American Institute of Architects.[23] AIA media relations director Scott Frank has stated that "We don't have any relationship with his organization whatsoever."[24]

The controversial two-hour movie 9/11 Blueprint for Truth, popular among members of the 9/11 Truth movement, is based on a presentation given by Richard Gage in Canada.[13] Gage was also interviewed for an episode of the BBC television program The Conspiracy Files,[25] an episode of the ZDF's series History,[26] based on a co-production of the BBC and the ZDF,[27] as well as for a documentary produced by the Canadian television news magazine The Fifth Estate.[28][29][30]

The organization is the main constituent of the ReThink911 coalition, which ran an advertising campaign putting up signs and billboards in seven U.S. cities, as well as in Vancouver, Toronto, London, and Sydney in 2013.[31]

Gage left Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in September 2021,[32] after being criticised for remarks he made suggesting vaccines were poisonous and allegations of antisemitism. [33]

Advocacy
See also: World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories and Collapse of the World Trade Center § Investigations
Ed Asner speaking in support of Richard Gage and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth at an event in Los Angeles

Members of the organization argue that the buildings of the World Trade Center could not have collapsed only because of the impact of the planes,[34][35] or as a result of the fires that had been caused by them.[36] On the one hand Gage has said that avoiding speculation on the attacks on the Pentagon or on the involvement of the Bush administration is critical to the mission of the organization.[37] But on the other hand, Gage has said that if the destruction of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition, this would mean that part of what happened on September 11, 2001, would have been planned by "some sort of an inside group".[38] According to Gage, an elevator modernization program that had taken place before the attacks would have provided an opportunity to get access to the core areas of the WTC towers without creating suspicion.[39]

Investigations by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have concluded that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impacts of the planes and of the fires that resulted from them.[40][41] In 2005, a report from NIST concluded that the destruction of the World Trade Center towers was the result of progressive collapse initiated by the jet impacts and the resultant fires. A 2008 NIST report described a similar progressive collapse as the cause of the destruction of the third tallest building located at the World Trade Center site, the 7 World Trade Center. Many mainstream scientists choose not to debate proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories, saying they do not want to lend them unwarranted credibility.[42] The NIST explanations of the collapses are universally accepted by the structural-engineering and structural-mechanics research communities.[43]

World Trade Center towers

Gage criticized NIST for not having investigated the complete sequence of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers,[44] and claims that "the official explanation of the total destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers has explicitly failed to address the massive evidence for explosive demolition."[45] In particular, Gage argues that the buildings of the World Trade Center could not have collapsed at the speed that has been observed without tearing apart several columns of their structures with the help of explosives.[36] To support its position, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth points to the "free fall" acceleration of 7 WTC during part of the collapse,[46] to "lateral ejection of steel," and to "mid-air pulverization of concrete."[34] Gage also said that the absence of "large gradual deformations" associated with the collapse would indicate that the buildings have been destroyed by controlled demolition.[47] That the three buildings of the World Trade Center "fell through what should have been the path of greatest resistance" would, according to the organization, require "precisely timed removal of critical columns, which office fires cannot accomplish".[46] As the mass of the top of the North Tower had been blown outward during the collapse, there was "nothing left to drive this building to the ground," Gage says.[48]

Gage maintains that the "sudden and spontaneous" collapse of the towers would have been impossible without a controlled demolition, that pools of molten iron found in the debris of the buildings were evidence of the existence of thermite,[49] and that researchers had found unignited nano-thermite in the dust produced by the collapse of the World Trade Center.[28][46][48][50] Gage argues that this material "is not made in a cave in Afghanistan".[51] Iron-rich micro-spheres, which, according to the organization, have been found in the dust of the World Trade Center buildings by independent laboratory analyses, would indicate temperatures during the collapses much higher than temperatures that would result from hydrocarbon fires.[46] A DVD produced by the group contains eyewitness accounts of claimed explosions and flashes seen in the buildings.[52]

In 2008, Zdeněk P. Bažant, professor of civil engineering and materials science at Northwestern University, published with three coauthors a paper to examine whether allegations of controlled demolition might be scientifically justifiable. They found that the available video records are not consistent with the free fall hypothesis, that the size of the concrete particles is consistent with comminution caused by impact, and that the high velocity of compressed air explains why material from the towers were ejected to a distance of several hundred meters from the tower. The authors conclude that the allegations of controlled demolition do not have any scientific merit.[53] A spokesman for NIST said that any sightings of molten metal, including metal seen pouring from the South Tower, were likely molten aluminum from the airplane, an explanation disputed by Gage who stated that the color of the molten metal rules out aluminum.[54] "Basically, gravity and the utter force of the upper floors forced the towers down," said NIST spokesperson Michael Newman.[48]

7 World Trade Center

According to Richard Gage, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC), a 47-story high-rise building that was part of the World Trade Center complex and collapsed in the afternoon on September 11, 2001, is the "smoking gun" of September 11,[46][55] providing the most compelling evidence that something was suspect about the building's collapse that had not been told to the public.[56][57] Gage also described 7 WTC as "the most obvious example of controlled demolition."[58] According to Gage, the only way to bring a building down with free-fall acceleration would be to remove its columns, which provide resistance to the force of gravity.[59] Scott Grainger, a fire protection engineer and member of the group, told the BBC that the evidence he had seen indicated the fires in 7 WTC were scattered about on the floors and would have moved on as they would have found no more combustibles. He thus claims that the fires could not have developed enough heat to cause the collapse of the building.[58]

Gage dismisses the explanation of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center given by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), according to which uncontrolled fires and the buckling of a critical support column caused the collapse, and argues that this would not have led to the uniform way the building actually collapsed. "The rest of the columns could not have been destroyed sequentially so fast to bring this building straight down into its own footprint," he says.[28] Gage argues that skyscrapers that have suffered "hotter, longer lasting and larger fires" have not collapsed.[55] "Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance," says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves."[60] Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth also questions the computer models used by NIST, and argues that evidence pointing to the use of explosives had been omitted in its report on the collapse of 7 WTC.[61]

The community of experts in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally supports the explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings provided by the investigation conducted by NIST.[62] In the case of 7 WTC, the appearance of a controlled demolition can be explained by an interior failure of the building, which is suggested by the sequence of the collapse of 7 WTC that shows roof elements sinking into the building while the façade remained intact.[63]

Criticism of the official investigations
See also: Collapse of the World Trade Center § Investigations

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has expressed concerns that evidence related to the destruction of the World Trade Center could have been distorted and covered up by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which conducted a building and fire safety investigation, one of the official investigations into the event. According to the group, and NIST themselves who considered it unnecessary, NIST did not look for physical evidence of explosives[28][46] and did not include the eyewitness accounts from first responders and from people who escaped the buildings in their investigation.[54] The organization also alleges that much of the physical evidence, apart from a few selected samples of the steel, would have been destroyed.[46] Gage says that taped eyewitness interviews that were released to The New York Times in August 2005 had been "hidden by the city of New York".[54]

After the publication of the results of NIST's inquiry into the collapse of 7 WTC, Gage called a news conference,[64] and leaders of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth dismissed NIST's investigation as flawed. When told of the claims, Shyam Sunder, lead investigator from NIST, responded: "I am really not a psychologist. Our job was to come up with the best science."[40] A spokesperson for NIST said the agency's computer models were highly reliable in assessing the amount of fireproofing dislodged, a factor that would not be present in other steel buildings cited by Gage.[54]

References
  1. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc. was formed on November 13, 2007.
  2. Incorporated in California on November 13, 2007.
  3. Internal Revenue Service tax exemption determination letter of April 3, 2010.
  4. The corporation's "principal office" is located in Lafayette, California.
  5. AE911Truth website homepage. Retrieved August 22, 2023.
  6. Blatchford, Andy (April 30, 2010). "U.S. skeptics to speak of 9-11 cover-up at three Canadian universities". Toronto: Canadian Press. Archived from the original on 4 May 2010. Retrieved May 1, 2010.
  7. "Architects and Engineers Seek 9/11 Truth". KGO Newstalk. June 3, 2009. Archived from the original on 2009-08-02. Retrieved June 3, 2009.
  8. Stahl, Jeremy (September 7, 2011). "9/11 'Truth': How believers in the 9/11 conspiracy theory respond to refutations". Slate. Archived from the original on August 11, 2018. Retrieved August 25, 2018. All the same, some conspiracy theorists have actually retreated from their more difficult-to-prove claims, such as the argument that no commercial plane hit the Pentagon. 'They are focusing most of their attention on the World Trade Center stuff, where they're clinging to a few of these now pretty well-rebutted engineering hypotheses,' Zelikow says. The most successful purveyor of these hypotheses is Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth founder Richard Gage.
  9. Bažant, Zdeněk P.; Verdure, Mathieu (March 2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" (PDF). Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 133 (3): 308–319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308). Archived from the original (PDF) on August 9, 2007. Retrieved August 22, 2007. As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows [...]
  10. Gravois, John (June 23, 2006). "Professors of Paranoia? Academics give a scholarly stamp to 9/11 conspiracy theories". Chronicle of Higher Education. 52 (42): A10. Archived from the original on December 24, 2014. Retrieved January 24, 2007. Thomas W. Eagar is one scientist who has paid some attention to the demolition hypothesis — albeit grudgingly. A materials engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mr. Eagar wrote one of the early papers on the buildings' collapses, which later became the basis for a documentary on PBS. That marked him for scrutiny and attack from conspiracy theorists. For a time, he says, he was receiving one or two angry e-mail messages each week, many accusing him of being a government shill. When Mr. Jones's paper came out, the nasty messages increased to one or two per day.
  11. Walch, Tad (2006). "Controversy dogs Y.'s Jones". Utah news. Deseret News Publishing Company. Archived from the original on March 2, 2007. Retrieved September 9, 2006.
  12. Asquith, Christina (September 7, 2006). "Conspiracies continue to abound surrounding 9/11: on the eve of the fifth anniversary, a group of professors say the attacks were an "inside job."". Diverse Issues in Higher Education: 12. Archived from the original on July 9, 2012. Retrieved October 9, 2008.
  13. Moskowitz, Eric (November 29, 2007). "Airing of 9/11 film ignites debate". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 4 June 2009. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  14. Rudin, Mike (July 4, 2008). "The evolution of a conspiracy theory". BBC. Archived from the original on September 18, 2009. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  15. "The AE911Truth Petition". AE911truth.org. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
  16. "9/11 Truth movement" is the collective name of individuals and organizations that are questioning the veracity of the results of the investigations by United States government agencies into the September 11 attacks. See Barber, Peter (June 7, 2008). "The truth is out there". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 3 June 2009. Retrieved May 23, 2009. an army of skeptics, collectively described as the 9/11 Truth movement; Powell, Michael (September 8, 2006). "The Disbelievers". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 7, 2008. Retrieved May 30, 2009. The loose agglomeration known as the '9/11 Truth Movement'; Barry, Ellen (September 10, 2006). "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Gather in N.Y". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 17 June 2009. Retrieved May 30, 2009. a group known as the 9/11 Truth Movement; Hunt, H.E. (November 19, 2008). "The 30 greatest conspiracy theories — part 1". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on February 28, 2009. Retrieved May 30, 2009. A large group of people — collectively called the 9/11 Truth Movement; Kay, Jonathan (April 25, 2009). "Richard Gage: 9/11 truther extraordinaire". National Post. Retrieved October 14, 2010. The '9/11 Truth Movement,' as it is now commonly called.
  17. Abel, Jennifer (January 29, 2008). "Theories of 9/11". Hartford Advocate. Archived from the original on 2008-04-30. Retrieved 2010-08-09.
  18. Kay, Jonathan (April 25, 2009). "Richard Gage: 9/11 truther extraordinaire". National Post. Retrieved September 26, 2009.
  19. "9/11 skeptics launch Canadian speaking tour". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. April 30, 2010. Archived from the original on 4 May 2010. Retrieved May 1, 2010.
  20. Ravensbergen, Jan (May 2, 2010). "9/11 skeptics to speak at UQAM". Montreal Gazette. Archived from the original on 4 May 2010. Retrieved May 3, 2010.
  21. "Un arquitecto estadounidense presenta en Madrid su versión alternativa al 11-S". Telecinco. November 8, 2008. Archived from the original on 2009-03-09. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  22. Schröder, Sophie (November 18–24, 2009). "Did Bush knock down the towers?". The Capital Times.
  23. McKnight, Jenna (May 1, 2009). "AIA 2009: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth". Architectural Record. Archived from the original on August 3, 2009. Retrieved May 30, 2009.
  24. "Architects Shy From Trutherism". Architect Magazine. 2012-07-19. Archived from the original on 2017-04-15. Retrieved 2017-04-20.
  25. Rudin, Mike (June 27, 2008). "Controversy and conspiracies II". BBC. Archived from the original on 14 April 2009. Retrieved May 25, 2009.
  26. "Die lange Nacht der Verschwörungstheorien. Eine andere Sicht auf 9/11". ZDF. September 12, 2010. Archived from the original on 15 September 2010. Retrieved September 18, 2010.
  27. "Die lange Nacht der Verschwörungstheorien. Eine andere Sicht auf 9/11". ZDF. September 12, 2010. Archived from the original on 13 September 2010. Retrieved September 18, 2010.
  28. "The Unofficial Theory" (Flash video, only available in Canada, no transcript). Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. November 27, 2009. Archived from the original on 29 November 2009. Retrieved November 30, 2009.
  29. Ryan, Andrew (November 27, 2009). "Was 9/11 a conspiracy? 'Truthers' make their case". Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 30 November 2009. Retrieved November 30, 2009.
  30. Lisée, Jean-François (November 29, 2009). "9/11: CBC à la rescousse de Richard Bergeron". L'Actualité. Archived from the original on 2009-12-02. Retrieved December 1, 2009.
  31. Rawlings, Nate (September 11, 2013). "Sept. 11 'Truthers' Mark Anniversary". Time. Archived from the original on September 29, 2013. Retrieved October 1, 2013.
  32. Gage, Richard (Oct 20, 2021). "Why I am Going Solo". Archived from the original on November 19, 2021. Retrieved Nov 19, 2021.
  33. Stahl, Jeremy (August 24, 2021). "Spike Lee Has Fallen Down the 9/11 Truther Rabbit Hole". Slate. Retrieved Nov 19, 2021.
  34. Beam, Christopher (April 8, 2009). "Heated Controversy". Slate. Archived from the original on 18 May 2009. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  35. "Arquitectos estadounidenses piden a Obama que reabra la investigación sobre el 11-S". Reuters. November 8, 2008. Archived from the original on 2009-08-02. Retrieved May 27, 2009. Aseguran que las Torres Gemelas no fueron derribadas por el choque de los aviones. (Press agency report. Translation: "They argue that the Twin Towers were not destroyed by the impact of the planes.")
  36. Lachapelle, Judith (May 1, 2010). "Le "mystère" de la Tour 7". La Presse. Archived from the original on 3 May 2010. Retrieved May 1, 2010.
  37. Kay, Jonathan (May 16, 2011). "This is my destiny". Maclean's. Retrieved June 12, 2011.
  38. "Jonesy & Amanda Jamcast". WSFM 107.1. November 19, 2009. Retrieved November 19, 2009.
  39. "Terrorist attack or controlled demolition?". Television New Zealand. November 27, 2009. Archived from the original on December 1, 2009. Retrieved November 30, 2009.
  40. Lipton, Eric (August 22, 2008). "Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 9, 2011. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  41. Dwyer, Jim (September 2, 2006). "2 U.S. Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories About 9/11". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 12, 2011. Retrieved April 30, 2009.
  42. Pope, Justin (August 6, 2006). "9/11 Conspiracy Theories Persist, Thrive". Washington Post. Associated Press. Archived from the original on November 12, 2012. Retrieved August 27, 2009.
  43. Bažant, Z. K. P.; Le, J. L.; Greening, F. R.; Benson, D. B. (2008). "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?" (PDF). Journal of Engineering Mechanics. American Society of Civil Engineers. 134 (10): 892. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:10(892). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-09-23. Retrieved 2015-09-03. "Universally though has the foregoing explanation of collapse been accepted by the communities of structural engineers and structural mechanics researchers, some outside critics have nevertheless exploited various unexplained observations to disseminate allegations of controlled demolition."
  44. Potocki, P. Joseph (August 27, 2008). "Down the 9-11 Rabbit Hole". Bohemian. Archived from the original on 4 June 2009. Retrieved May 25, 2009.
  45. Beam, Alex (Jan 14, 2008). "The truth is out there . . . Isn't it?". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 3 June 2009. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  46. Gage, Richard; Roberts, Gregg; Chandler, David. "Conspiracy theory or hidden truth? The 9/11 enigmas..." World Architecture News. Archived from the original on September 12, 2009. Retrieved September 9, 2009.
  47. "Great Day Talks to Architect Richard Gage". KMPH FOX 26. May 28, 2009. Retrieved May 28, 2009.
  48. Levin, Jay; McKenzie, Tom (September 17, 2009). "Twin Towers, Twin Myths". Santa Barbara Independent. Archived from the original on 28 October 2009. Retrieved September 17, 2009.
  49. "Un arquitecto estadounidense presenta en Madrid su versión alternativa al 11-S". Telecinco. November 8, 2008. Archived from the original on 2009-03-09. Retrieved May 23, 2009. El ingeniero estructural del complejo WTC, advierte Gage, llama la atención sobre la piscina de magma que ardió durante semanas tras el atentado. Una evidencia que demuestra la existencia del agente incendiario 'Thermite', empleado para "fundir y cortar columnas y vigas de acero.
  50. Rogenau, Olivier (September 5, 2008). "11 Septembre, le mystère de la 3e tour". Le Vif. Archived from the original on 2009-06-17. Retrieved May 25, 2009. On aurait, selon 430 architectes et ingénieurs regroupés au sein de l'association AE911 Truth, retrouvé des résidus d'explosifs militaires de type thermate dans les débris de Ground Zero [...]. (Translation: "According to 430 architects and engineers belonging to the group AE911Truth, residues of the military explosive themate would have been found in the debris of Ground Zero [...].")
  51. Nicholls, Sean (November 25, 2009). "Utzon's son signs up for September 11 conspiracy theory". Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 27 November 2009. Retrieved November 30, 2009.
  52. Sutton, Tori (February 18, 2010). "Seeking the truth about 9/11". Stratford Gazette. Archived from the original on 24 March 2010. Retrieved February 19, 2010.
  53. Bažant, Zdeněk P.; Le, Jia-Liang; Greening, Frank R.; Benson, David B. (October 2008). "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York" (PDF). Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 134 (10): 892–906. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:10(892). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-09-23. Retrieved 2015-09-03.
  54. Levin, Jay; McKenzie, Tom (September 9, 2009). "Explosive Theory". Metroactive. Archived from the original on September 13, 2009. Retrieved September 9, 2009.
  55. Bowden, Rich (August 21, 2008). "Twin towers mystery resolved, fire brought down WTC7". The Tech Herald. Archived from the original on 2009-08-03. Retrieved May 25, 2009.
  56. Röckerath, Christoph. "Das Geheimnis des dritten Turms". Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen. Archived from the original on 2009-08-02. Retrieved May 25, 2009. Ist World Trade Center 7 wirklich die "Smoking Gun" des 11. September, der Beweis, das etwas "faul" ist, wie es der prominente Architekt Richard Gage [...] formulierte? (Translation: "Is 7 World Trade Center really the "smoking gun" of September 11, as Richard Gage, the prominent architect [...] says?")
  57. Molinari, Maurizio (July 6, 2009). "Il crollo della Torre Sette? "Fu solo colpa delle fiamme"". La Stampa. Archived from the original on August 4, 2009. Retrieved May 26, 2009. La teoria di Gage è che il video del crollo è «la pistola fumante dell'11 settembre» ovvero la prova incontrovertibile che qualcosa è stato nascosto al pubblico. (Translation: "Gage's theory is that video of the collapse is "the smoking gun of September 11" and offers compelling evidence that something is being hidden from the public.")
  58. "Q&A: The Collapse of Tower 7". BBC. July 4, 2008. Archived from the original on September 11, 2008. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  59. "Richard Gage: architecture of destruction". Radio New Zealand. November 21, 2009. Archived from the original on May 26, 2010. Retrieved November 21, 2009.
  60. Rudin, Mike (July 4, 2008). "9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'". BBC. Archived from the original on July 26, 2009. Retrieved May 26, 2009.
  61. Wagh, Manasee (March 25, 2011). "Group's 9/11 theories draw controversy and indignation". phillyBurbs.com. Archived from the original on 1 May 2011. Retrieved March 27, 2011.
  62. Bažant, Zdeněk P.; Verdure, Mathieu (March 2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" (PDF). Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 133 (3): 308–319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2007-08-09. Retrieved 2007-08-22. As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows [...] (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).
  63. Gilsanz, Ramon; Ng, Willa (November 2007). "Single Point of Failure" (PDF). Structure Magazine: 42–45. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-04-19. Retrieved May 26, 2009.
  64. Trembath, Brendan (August 22, 2008). "Sept 11 building downed by fire, not explosives: inquiry". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on August 2, 2009. Retrieved May 25, 2009.

Further reading
Wikiquote has quotations related to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.