Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.
Misha mentioned in a post a while concerning the potentially truthful statement that if 1,700 architects and engineers have signed Gage's petition, we should take him seriously. I wanted to do some additional research into just what the other architects and engineers felt about the building collapses and their thoughts on Gage's "mission."
I found this article from Gage's proud affiliation of the American Institute of Architects (AIA). I believe it is an important article on what the general feelings are about 9/11 from architects themselves:
http://www.architectmagazine.com/archit ... ory_1.aspx
Agree with Misha. IF 1,700 architects and engineers have signed this petition, there may be cause to reevalutate the situation. Besides, doesn't Gage's petition simply state the following:
These are the architects and engineers that didn't sign the petition?
All architects or the autors of the articles?
I might be wrong, but I believe that his use of the term "explosives" is relatively new. I wish I could go back in time to see if or when that was added at a later date.
One author with information concerning Gage and AIA's relationship. Quite relevant, I believe as evidenced by the following:
"Gage often seems to wield his AIA status in promoting his conspiracy theories. In making his case, he also regularly cites that more than 100 AIA members and at least six AIA Fellows have signed his petition calling for a new investigation. In total, Gage says that more than 1,700 of the petition’s roughly 16,000 signatures are from architects and engineers.
Aside from Gage, though, there was not a single other architect in the room, much less an official from AIA, or even another member. The 80-strong crowd was made up largely of members of the local 9/11 Truth movement and other political activists.
Gage was once warned by AIA not to spread the misimpression that there is a relationship between the two organizations, after he wrote a letter to Congress stating that more than 100 members of AIA who signed his petition were demanding a new investigation into 9/11."
It's obviously been there since 2009. viewtopic.php?f=12&t=412&start=0#p5488
Is he a member or not?
Are there more than 100 AIA members and six AIA Fellows on his list of petition signers?
Is this a fact?
And this has what to do with his claims of signatures on his petition???
Yes, I noticed that comment. I believe that it said that Gage was informed that he was not to come off as speaking on behalf of the AIA.
Something different, ProfWag goes the smear and finds a smearing article written by someone called 'Jeremy Stahl', which contains mainly appeals to authority (all of which have been shown to be compromised) as the overriding method of reasoning. Hence all the reasoning is circular. Richard Gage is a qualified architect and a member of the AIA. Many other members of the AE911 group are also architects and members of the AIA. He has used their logo on his site, and is entitled to use their logo on his correspondence. I don't think he is trying to drag the AIA along for the ride. Nothing to see here.
It is obvious from the article that Gage's motives are questionable and that he does not have the support of the vast majority of the members of the AIA. That is a very relevant point when researching the credibility of of someone making statements, either for or against your viewpoint.
Somewhere on this fourm, buried In another topic, I had said that the person's motive is certainly a part of the equation when it comes to determining credibility.
I am not questioning Gage's credibility or motives here. I am questioning the credibility and motives of the author of you OP article. What do we know about him?
The article came from the AIC itself and is read and edited by senior leaders within the organization before it goes to print so it is represented as the voice of the AIA. As usual, this is my humble opinion, but I believe that the motive of AIA is that Richard Gage desires to have the AIA support him in his cause, but that AIA itself does not come to the same conclusion as Mr. Gage and wants to ensure that they distance themselves from his own motive.
How do we know what most American architects, or the ones in the AIA, really believe? Did anyone ask them all? There's a difference between believing a collapse was unlikely on the physics and being too shit-scared to rock the boat in case they come after you next, and believing the official story. Architects have to work for a living too, and their next customer could be some compromised mob-run outfit, who knows. We don't know what the majority of architects think, because we haven't asked them. I DO know that an architect friend in Sydney was working with an architecture firm on 9/11 where one of the other architects heard the news and said 'that's not possible, I've studied that building' and took out books and illustrations and said it couldn't have possibly collapsed in that way without extreme assistance.
The AIA 'concludes' what is financially best for its members, including getting future lucrative government contracts. They're not going to rock the boat.
Oh snap! Excellent point.
And on that note, I'm outta here to do my own style of research.
First, no. I did not call 79,000 members of the AIA.
Second, I do NOT agree that they would support an "official story" of the magnitude cover-up you are attempting to accuse just so they could get government contracts.
In my humblest opinion this hits the very crux of what I call the "invisible electrified fence." Unfortunately at this moment I have to head to work and cannot post something which might shed a little light on this social phenomena. Perhaps tomorrow, I would like to quote an example which illustrates exactly what SydneyPSIder has generally pointed out. The passage is in Valerie Plame's book - "Fair Game."
My apologies for the teaser.
But that's just your pseudosceptic 'belief' -- you're a faith-based thinker now! Another characteristic on the PS list.
You could attempt to anonymously poll 79,000 architects, but they would think something was up and would not believe their anonymity was being protected, but that it was a Stasi-like trap, so it seems that in the social sphere of the real world that is an experiment or survey that is actually not possible to conduct.
You underestimate the increasingly Stasi-like social settlement of the US, profwag.
Getting back to basics, Mr. Gage is not an expert on high-rise architecture. The tallest building he ever designed was 3 stories. Does anyone have a reference from a practicing architect who is an expert in skyscrapers who supports his theory? I couldn't find one. I researched a few names who have signed his petition and I couldn't find anyone associated with high-rises. In fact, I found one that was only recently granted membership, one that designed landscaping, and one house designer. Are these the people you want to put your money on as taking their views on the WTC collapses seriously? I'm sure they are great at their job, but I have to question their knowledge of 100 story buildings and airplanes.
In addition to the AIA, I do know the following organizations also do not support Mr. Gage: CTBUH, RIBA, KBF (NY's largest architectural firm), ASCE, and the SEAoNY. I'm sure there are more...
Note for clarity, the referenced acronyms spelled out:
CTBUH - Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
RIBA - Royal Institute of British Architects
ASCE - American Society of Civil Engineers
SEAoNY - Structural Engineer Association of New York
Now, you can rely on the credibility of Mr. Gage and claim that the other organizations are "afraid to come forwward" or you can rely on the credibility of the above organizations. Take your pick. I'll pick the organizations listed.
There's quite a few high rise architects on Richard Gage's doco material who question it, yes. You would have to view the material to consider what they're saying, something any self-respecing PS artist would be loathe to do, of course.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests