Richard Gage on Truth Teller’s Radio Sept 2018

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Now Has Over 3,000 Professionals Signed on to Their Petition – ‘Debunkers’ Have Mostly Shut Up:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2018/07/architects-and-engineers-for-911-truth.html

The Architects and Engineers Who Propelled Us to the Milestone of 3,000 Signatories:

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/469-the-architects-and-engineers-who-propelled-us-to-the-milestone-of-3-000-signatories

Peer-Reviewed 9/11 Truth:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/10/peer-reviewed-911-truth.html

9/11: Explosive Material in the WTC Dust:

https://citizenfor911truth.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/911explosivematerialv1-3.pdf

9/11 Justice for All: A Day of Events in the Nation’s Capital!:

http://911truthactivism.blogspot.com/2018/08/911-justice-for-all-day-of-events-in.html

Richard Gage’s Asterisk

Richard Gage’s Asterisk
by Michael Wolsey
www.visibility911.com

March 29, 2011

Anyone who knows Richard Gage, AIA very well or has worked with him, knows that Richard insists that when you cite his name anywhere, whether  in voice or print, that you include his title AIA, which stands for American Institute of Architects.  I assume it’s much like a Dr. following his name with the letters PhD and is obviously important to Richard for whatever reasons.    Those of us who know, always include the AIA tag when formally referring to Richard.   We know that if we do not, Richard will be quick to correct us!

Unfortunately, Richard now has another inclusion in his title; an Asterisk.

In early 2009, I learned that Richard Gage, AIA and founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth had given a written endorsement of a new documentary about the September 11th Pentagon attack titled National Security Alert.  This film was being aggressively promoted by two people, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis who call themselves the Citizen Investigation Team or CIT.  Craig and Aldo were apparently seeking written or verbal endorsements of their film from high profile members of the 9-11 Truth Movement.[1] At some point, they had approached Richard and he agreed to give them a statement.    Richard’s written endorsement reads as follows:

“The exhaustive effort by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team to contact, record, document, and analyze numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts of the actual flight path of the airliner at the Pentagon on 9/11 has been long overdue, but worth waiting for.  The evidence they have uncovered and compiled in their DVD “National Security Alert” deserves serious attention – particularly in light of what we now know about the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises that day.”

Prior to Richard’s endorsement of CIT, I knew about Craig and Aldo and their kooky theory that speculates that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon.  I confess that I didn’t really pay that much attention to them.  I consider CIT’s work to be counter to the truth and believe that unsubstantiated claims of truth based on dishonest research and methods and speculation actually hurts our efforts at achieving a new 9-11 investigation.   It was also a highly held belief that in most cases, it’s best as a movement to ignore disruptions such as these, which is what I did with CIT.

With much fanfare, CIT boasted their high profile endorsers to as much of the movement as would listen and used these peoples’ names as an appeal to authority [2] to further promote their film.  I saw this behavior as extremely dishonest and was very disappointed in Richard and the others. [3]  I considered this a tipping point and a place where 9-11 activists could no longer ignore CIT.  Since then, we have published several podcasts as well as articles on the topic at visibility911.com. [4]

In response, I personally contacted Richard and some of the other endorsers with polite, yet firm emails asking them if they knew the whole story behind CIT.  I urged them to look further into Aldo and Craig if they had not done so in the beginning, and reconsider their endorsements of what I considered to be the worst disinformation in the 9-11 movement history.    I also had a chance to sit down with Richard face to face when he was in Denver in August of 2009.

My biggest concern was that Richard’s endorsement of CIT was helping CIT’s credibility and hurting his own.   It is my opinion that there is very strong evidence to support the Controlled Demolition hypotheses at the World Trade Center on 9-11.  Richard and his organization AE911T had gained much credibility over the years in this area.  I did not want to see this hard work discredited by association with CIT and I saw this as a real possibility.  I informed Richard of my concerns, as well as why I believe what I do.  I was certainly not alone in my critique of CIT and I know Richard was hearing from many others on this topic.  After spending over an hour and a half talking on this, Richard admitted to me privately that he had probably made a mistake with regards to CIT but still failed to fully retract his endorsement.

In December 2009, Richard issued a “clarification” of his CIT statement, and in February of 2011, after educating himself about who Craig and Aldo really are, issued his “complete withdrawal of support” for CIT and their film.

Personally I welcomed this withdrawal of support by Richard, although I wished he hadn’t given them the statement in the first place.  I argued for a long time that the damage had been done, and that even if Richard took back his support from CIT, that they would never remove his name or words from their website.  This was even a prediction I made privately after Richard issued the withdrawal;  repeat, that CIT will NEVER remove his name or endorsement from their website.

Since then, I have from time to time checked back to the “Praise for Citizen Investigation Team” webpage to verify my prediction.  It is no great surprise to me, nor should it be to anyone familiar with CIT’s methods, that Richard’s endorsement continues to be posted at the CIT website along with the others.  The only difference now is that Richard’s words are now followed by a big red Asterisk which is actually a link to another page at the website which contains a long and wordy response by CIT to Richard’s withdrawal of support.  The link is neither prominent or easy to see.  It is linked only to the Asterisk itself and unless you are looking for it, you won’t see it.

The reasons that CIT will never remove Richard’s statements are not hard to understand.  It’s not because of pride or ego or anything like that.  The main reason, and one of the main goals of disinformation is to discredit good information with bad .  Since Richard and AE911 promote solid information, one way to undermine them is to discredit them.  When Richard, and all the other endorsers gave their names to CIT, they all in one way or another discredited themselves by associating good information with bad; some have called it the “turd in the punchbowl”.  The endorsements provide a strong tie between the good and the bad and these ties will never be broken; they are actually the goal.

Dishonest?  Heck yea, but what else is new with CIT.

Endnotes:

[1] It should be noted here that in my experience in the movement which goes back to 2003, I have never known any film about 9-11 to seek or even need endorsements.  The movement has at times been hungry for tools to use on their friends and new video’s about the 9-11 attacks are no exception.  The success or failure of a film was based on the films’ own merits.

[2]  Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

[3]  This list includes David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Aidan Monaghan, Barrie Zwicker, Sander Hicks, Kevin Barrett, Peter Dale Scott, and Ed Asner.

[4]  It is not my intention in this essay to discuss the relative dangers in disinformation/ misinformation as it relates to CIT.  This topic has been extensively covered on our podcast and at my blog.

9/11 WTC Debate: Collapse by fire or explosive controlled demolition?

On Sunday afternoon, March 6th, at the Boulder campus of the University of Colorado, Colorado 9/11 Visibility hosted a debate between Richard Gage, AIA (American Institute of Architects), and Chris Mohr, Denver investigative journalist and nondenominational minister.  This is the audo of that historic debate.
The question: What brought down the three World Trade Center skyscrapers?
Richard Gage, AIA, is a San Francisco Bay Area architect and a member of the American Institute of Architects. He has been an architect for over 23 years and has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed, steel-framed buildings. His quest for the truth about 9/11 began in 2006, and he subsequently founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Chris Mohr, investigative journalist and advocate of the “natural collapse” theory, is a sincere seeker of the truth who has extensively researched the collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings, consulted with independent physicists and engineers, and passionately argues that the buildings collapsed due to the plane impacts and fires.
In November 2010 at Denver’s Mercury Cafe, Mohr debated attorney Earl Staelin on the collapse of the twin towers. This debate was unprecedented in its civility and professionalism.
During this debate between Chris Mohr and Richard Gage, the discussion explored not only the collapse of the twin towers, but also that of 47-story World Trade Center Building 7, which collapsed completely at 5:21 pm on 9/11/01. For those of you not familiar with the collapse of WTC7, this is a riveting, don’t-miss controversy. We look forward to a dynamic, respectful, and thoroughly informative exploration of these topics.
Special thanks to Colorado 9-11 Visibility and all the volunteers and donors that made this event possible.


Source: Visibility 9-11 Podcast

(Audio) 9/11 WTC Debate: Collapse by fire or explosive controlled demolition?

матрациOn Sunday afternoon, March 6th, at the Boulder campus of the University of Colorado, Colorado 9/11 Visibility hosted a debate between Richard Gage, AIA (American Institute of Architects), and Chris Mohr, Denver investigative journalist and nondenominational minister.  This is the audo of that historic debate.

The question: What brought down the three World Trade Center skyscrapers?

Richard Gage, AIA, is a San Francisco Bay Area architect and a member of the American Institute of Architects. He has been an architect for over 23 years and has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed, steel-framed buildings. His quest for the truth about 9/11 began in 2006, and he subsequently founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Chris Mohr, investigative journalist and advocate of the “natural collapse” theory, is a sincere seeker of the truth who has extensively researched the collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings, consulted with independent physicists and engineers, and passionately argues that the buildings collapsed due to the plane impacts and fires.

In November 2010 at Denver’s Mercury Café, Mohr debated attorney Earl Staelin on the collapse of the twin towers. This debate was unprecedented in its civility and professionalism.

During this debate between Chris Mohr and Richard Gage, the discussion explored not only the collapse of the twin towers, but also that of 47-story World Trade Center Building 7, which collapsed completely at 5:21 pm on 9/11/01. For those of you not familiar with the collapse of WTC7, this is a riveting, don’t-miss controversy. We look forward to a dynamic, respectful, and thoroughly informative exploration of these topics.

Special thanks to Colorado 9-11 Visibility and all the volunteers and donors that made this event possible.

To listen to the debate, click Play in the embedded player below. Click download if you would like to download the file for your media player or iPod.

Colorado 9/11 Visibility.org, Colorado Citizens Concerned Over What Really Happened on September 11, 2001

Mar. 4, 2011 (PR Newswire) —

From the iStockAnalyst website.

DENVER, March 4, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Colorado citizens are among the nation’s leaders in pursuing the growing questions of what really happened on September 11, 2001.

Two developments are of particular interest:

1)  On Sunday March 6, 2011, Colorado citizens will sponsor a debate at the University of Colorado at Boulder exploring the question, “What brought down the three World Trade Center Towers?”

At 5:00 PM, Richard Gage, AIA, a 23-year architect and founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, squares off with Chris Mohr, a Denver investigative journalist.  See http://colorado911visibility.org/ for event details.

2)  On May 20 last year, the Colorado Democratic Party (CDP) adopted its 2010 Platform (http://coloradodems.org/docs/2010PlatformWeb.pdf) that includes a resolution calling for a new, independent investigation of the events of, and related to, September 11, 2001:

“WHEREAS many disturbing facts were consciously ignored by the 9/11 Commission; Be it resolved, therefore, that the CDP calls for the establishment of a truly independent Grand Jury and public investigation into these and other anomalies in order to find the truth of the September 11, 2001 attacks, so that we have a greater probability of preventing attacks of this nature in the future.”

Colorado citizens, some of whom are signatories to the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Petition (http://www.ae911truth.org) which calls for a new forensic investigation into the events of September 11th, raised the issue for adoption at their respective precinct caucuses and county assemblies. The state platform committee then discussed, finalized and voted on the resolution and forwarded it, along with many other proposed positions, for adoption by the state party.

For supporting evidence and analysis, see:

Building What?  (http://www.BuildingWhat.org)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth  (http://www.ae911Truth.org)

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice  (http://stj911.org)

The Journal for 9/11 Studies  (http://stj911.org/journal.html)

911 Press For Truth  (http://www.911PressForTruth.com)

911 Truth (http://www.911Truth.org)

911 Research WTC 7  (http://www.911Research.wtc7.net)

911 Review  (http://www.911Review.com)

Hundreds of high-level military and intelligence officers, government officials, pilots and aviation professionals, scientists, journalists, 9/11 survivors and family members have called for a new independent investigation of the events surrounding 9/11. Their collected statements at Patriots Question 911 (http://www.patriotsquestion911.com) give weight and credibility to the call for a new, independent investigation.

Colorado 9/11 Visibility  (http://www.Colorado911Visibility.org)

2010 Colorado Democratic Party Platform (http://coloradodems.org/docs/2010PlatformWeb.pdf)

SOURCE Colorado 9/11 Visibility.org
(Source: PR Newswire )

Ae911Truth's Richard Gage Respectfully Pulls All Support for Citizen Investigation Team (CIT)

source: An email to supporters from Richard Gage
dateline: 02/08/2011

Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s “National Security Alert”

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed).  These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station.  Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.  I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue.  I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.

I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.  It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of  CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon.  Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion.  I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, blogs, and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about these matters.  Most of these works analyze additional evidence and come to different conclusions than CIT does.

Relevant critiques of CIT and their National Security Alert include:

Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert”, Chris Sarns, Feb 5, 2011

9/11 Pentagon Witnesses:  They Saw the Plane Hit the Pentagon, Video by Jeff Hill, June 14, 2010

Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity, David Chandler and Jon Cole, Dec 2010

Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Name-calling, and Threats, Gregg Roberts, Jan 2011

And critiques that examine CIT’s earlier work “Pentacon” are helpful as well:

Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon ,  by Jim Hoffman, July 2009

To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’, Victoria Ashley, July 2009

Relevant peer-reviewed papers (posted on Journalof911Studies.com):

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)  January 2011

What hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.), July 2009 (updated Feb 2010)

There was a time in the four years after 9/11 when I simply assumed that the official story of the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 was true.  One could say that I “endorsed” the official story based on what I knew at the time, but as I learned more, my opinion of what happened to those buildings evolved radically. John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” A similar evolution has occurred in relation to my view of CIT’s work.

I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure.  Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind.

One of the authors cited above, Frank Legge, PhD., admonishes us to adopt a “prudent approach” to the Pentagon piece of the 9/11 puzzle.  In the end he wisely advocates the “precautionary principle” which is to “assert only what we can truly know,” given the contradictory evidence, misinformation, disinformation, and lack of information from official sources, and the difficulty in verifying much of it, years after the fact and with inadequate resources.

Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that “the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.”  And, since officials are holding the cards (videos) as to what did or didn’t hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that investigators take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon”.

We can all agree that no hijacked plane should have been able to violate the airspace of our nation’s capital and hit the headquarters of the most sophisticated defense system in the world – an hour and a half after the assault began on the Twin Towers.

The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest agreement.

Sincerely,

Richard Gage, AIA

Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s “National Security Alert”

Via e-mail, 2/8/11 
Friends and Colleagues –  below is my statement regarding my complete withdrawal of support for CIT.    -Richard Gage

Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s “National Security Alert”

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed).  These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station.  Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.  I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue.  I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.
I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.  It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of  CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon.  Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion.  I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, blogs, and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about these matters.  Most of these works analyze additional evidence and come to different conclusions than CIT does.

Relevant critiques of CIT and their National Security Alert include:
Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert”, Chris Sarns, Feb 5, 2011
9/11 Pentagon Witnesses:  They Saw the Plane Hit the Pentagon, Video by Jeff Hill, June 14, 2010
Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity, David Chandler and Jon Cole, Dec 2010
“Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Name-calling, and Threats, Gregg Roberts, Jan 2011

And critiques that examine CIT’s earlier work “Pentacon” are helpful as well:
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon ,  by Jim Hoffman, July 2009
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’, Victoria Ashley, July 2009

Relevant peer-reviewed papers (posted on Journalof911Studies.com):
Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)  January 2011
What hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.), July 2009 (updated Feb 2010)

There was a time in the four years after 9/11 when I simply assumed that the official story of the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 was true.  One could say that I “endorsed” the official story based on what I knew at the time, but as I learned more, my opinion of what happened to those buildings evolved radically. John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” A similar evolution has occurred in relation to my view of CIT’s work.

I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure.  Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind.

One of the authors cited above, Frank Legge, PhD., admonishes us to adopt a “prudent approach” to the Pentagon piece of the 9/11 puzzle.  In the end he wisely advocates the “precautionary principle” which is to “assert only what we can truly know,” given the contradictory evidence, misinformation, disinformation, and lack of information from official sources, and the difficulty in verifying much of it, years after the fact and with inadequate resources.

Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that “the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.”  And, since officials are holding the cards (videos) as to what did or didn’t hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that investigators “take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon”.
We can all agree that no hijacked plane should have been able to violate the airspace of our nation’s capital and hit the headquarters of the most sophisticated defense system in the world – an hour and a half after the assault began on the Twin Towers.

The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest agreement.

Sincerely,
Richard Gage, AIA

–end of Richard Gage’s e-mail

Editors Note: Thank you to Richard Gage for taking the time to properly look into CIT and withdraw your endorsement of misinformation.  Your information and presentations are much too powerful to be associated with sloppy, agenda driven misinformation like that found in the film “National Security Alert”.

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Richard Gage AIA, ae911truth.org

In this episode of Visibility 9-11, John Bursill welcomes Richard Gage AIA back to the program.   This interview was inspired by the recent news that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth had reach the milestone of 1,000 qualified and licensed members.   Gage who is an experienced San Francisco Architect, member of the American Institute of Architects and the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth describes some of the groups recent success’s world wide and talks about his recent tour of Australia, New Zealand and Japan.   We hear about the up coming Press Conference planned next month to announce the 1,000 A & E members to the world, which includes approximately 40 Structural Engineers.   Richard also mentions some celebrations that are planned for the A & E members, please see the site for more details www.AE911Truth.org

Later in the show Bursill and Gage discuss the recent debate between him and explosives expert Ron Craig and what was learned by the encounter.   They also touch on the issue of the CIT “flyover” and “what hit the Pentagon”.   Gage makes it clear that he does not think that the “flyover” is proven and that he does not support CIT.  Gage says he does not know what did or did not hit the Pentagon.

Towards the end of this interview Gage joins Bursill in a call for support of www.911Truth.org and Janice Matthews and they also call for direct financial support for the ongoing work that the Architects and Engineers Group continue to do, day in and day out until justice.


Direct download this episode:  visibility911_bursill_gage.mp3

Richard Gage Clarification of his CIT “Flyover” Statement

From 911blogger.com

Earlier this year I wrote a review of CIT’s “National Security Alert” in which I recommended that we all take a closer look at the eyewitness accounts supporting the “North path” of American Airlines Flight 77 at the Pentagon. CIT’s investigation includes detailed in-person interviews which appeared quite compelling. As AE911Truth’s focus is the destruction of three buildings at WTC, I didn’t perform an exhaustive review of CIT’s material and methods. My quick statement should not be portrayed as an endorsement of CIT’s conclusion that the airliner ‘flew over’ the Pentagon.

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

See Related Items-

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Jim Hoffman

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Dr. Frank Legge

The CIT Virus

To Con a Movement- Exposing CIT’s Pentacon ‘Magic Show’

Peter Dale Scott Does Not Endorse the Pentagon Flyover Theory (and Neither Do I)

CIT and Eyewitness Testimony

(video) 9/11 Blueprint for Truth Debut on Colorado Public Television

KBDI Historic Airings of 9-11 Documentaries Draws Media Attention.

9-11 Blueprint for Truth to Debut on Colorado Public Television.

Media Breakthrough! 9-11 Press for Truth to Be Shown on Mainstream Television.

KBDI Press Release: 9/11 Press for Truth on Channel 12 Draws Huge Support from Colorado Public Television Viewers.