AIA Speaks on AE911Truth and Richard Gage: "No Relationship Whatsoever"

[DaveThomasNMSR]

In a July 19th article by Jeremy Stahl, "Architects Shy From Truther 9/11 Conspiracy," ARCHITECT, "the Magazine of the American Institute of Architects (AIA)," clarifies its relationship (or complete lack thereof) with AE911Truth and Richard Gage. The article appears to be a response to Gage's recent appearance at AIA headquarters, the "23rd stop on the 30-city 'world premiere tour' of AIA member Richard Gage’s new film 9/11: Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out: Final Edition."

A few juicy snippets:

Quote:

The AIA itself, however, is firm about its relationship with Gage. “We don’t have any relationship with his organization whatsoever,” Scott Frank, head of media relations for the AIA, told me.

Quote:

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

What is more interesting than these bizarre and debunked conspiracy theories is the way that Gage places his AIA membership front and center in his presentations. He seems to be attempting to cloak his organization in the officialdom of the venerable 155-year-old professional institution, even as AIA wants nothing to do with his organization.

Quote:

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....

During the screening, Gage was at the very least intimating that his organization had been invited to AIA officially.

Quote:

“I can’t tell you how grateful we were to have been accepted to be here in the boardroom at the national headquarters,” Gage said. “We hope this is the beginning of a very productive relationship.”

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.

Quote:

“It is somewhat troubling that he sort of portrays the notion that we have a relationship when we certainly do not,” Frank [Scott Frank, head of media relations for the AIA] said.

Quote:

Gage should not expect those invitations [to speak at future AIA conventions] any time soon, according to Frank: “There is absolutely zero relationship … [between our groups], nor will there ever be in the future.”

A lot more good stuff in the article - go get it!

Architect(s), the comments are running 4-0 in favor of that old-time truthiness. You know what to do.

[ozeco41]

Great stuff. Thanks Dave.

[SpitfireIX]

I find it odd that the AIA would even rent space to him at their headquarters or their convention; surely they wouldn't rent to, say, the Ku Klux Klan?

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Great stuff. Thanks Dave.

I should in turn thank my fellow vanpool rider Dan, who came across the article at work, and printed the first page for me. Cheers, Dave

[Scott Sommers]

Thank you Dave. This is a great link.

[Orphia Nay]

Bloody brilliant! Thanks for this, Dave & Dan!

I notice the author is Jeremy Stahl, who wrote the best editorials on 9/11 CTs I can recall, in Slate Magazine last anniversary.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...come_from.html

[valleytenderfoot]

A very interesting (and telling) article about how the AIA feels anout Mr. Gage. Thank you (and Dan) for finding it and linking it here.

Jeff

[SpitfireIX]

Welcome, valleytenderfoot.

[valleytenderfoot]

sorry, double post

[valleytenderfoot]

Thanks SpitfireIX, I have been lurking about for a while.

[Animal]

Just another reason why I do not belong to the AIA

[tsig]

Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR

In a July 19th article by Jeremy Stahl, "Architects Shy From Truther 9/11 Conspiracy," ARCHITECT, "the Magazine of the American Institute of Architects (AIA)," clarifies its relationship (or complete lack thereof) with AE911Truth and Richard Gage. The article appears to be a response to Gage's recent appearance at AIA headquarters, the "23rd stop on the 30-city 'world premiere tour' of AIA member Richard Gage’s new film 9/11: Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out: Final Edition."

A few juicy snippets:



















A lot more good stuff in the article - go get it!

Architect(s), the comments are running 4-0 in favor of that old-time truthiness. You know what to do.

And yet they haven't rescinded his membership.

[Grizzly Bear]

I found this excerpt interesting as well:

Quote:

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 is somewhat troubling that he sort of portrays the notion that we have a relationship when we certainly do not,” Frank said.

After writing that letter to Congress, Gage was told, according to Frank, that “membership in AIA alone does not give any individuals the right to speak on behalf of the institute or represent the institute’s views.”

He was abusing his AIA membership to death for a long time playing along the boundaries of violating the ethical codes of conduct and standards as far as I'm concerned.

[Orphia Nay]

I posted the link to AE911Truth's Facebook page (as a comment to their latest post, as they don't allow people to make new posts).

[valleytenderfoot]

Originally Posted by tsig

And yet they haven't rescinded his membership.

I wondered at that as well tsig. I looked at the AIA Code of Ethics just to get a basic understanding and it would seem there are a couple of possible violations there (on the AIA homepage, About AIA, Code of Ethics & By-Laws)

Rule 2.104
Rule 2.301
Rule 4.103

It also seems to be a peer monitored Association, so it may be that another member would be required to file a notice of violation of the Code of Ethics for disciplinary action to be undertaken. But I will keep reading.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by valleytenderfoot

I wondered at that as well tsig. I looked at the AIA Code of Ethics just to get a basic understanding and it would seem there are a couple of possible violations there (on the AIA homepage, About AIA, Code of Ethics & By-Laws)

Rule 2.104
Rule 2.301
Rule 4.103

It also seems to be a peer monitored Association, so it may be that another member would be required to file a notice of violation of the Code of Ethics for disciplinary action to be undertaken. But I will keep reading.

I started a thread with similar questions not long ago.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=236715

Not sure if we reached any conclusions, though.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

...Not sure if we reached any conclusions, though.

As usual the discussion 'tailed off' into generalities.

The specific question in that thread was "Is Richard Gage breaching the AIA Code of Ethics & Bylaws?"

That is a question of legal interpretation. Both Ryan Mackey and I offered some definitive comments - against a lot of confused thinking about 'Freedom of Speech'. It is not a 'freedom of speech' issue.

So I pointed out the specific legal issue:

Originally Posted by ozeco41

...The issue is not Gage's freedom to say what he wants BUT whether he is restricted by obligation to comply with the ethical code which flows from his own personal choice, voluntarily taken, to subscribe to membership of the AIA....

I also offered my opinion that the AIA code:

Originally Posted by ozeco41

... '..is quite soft.'

Ryan Mackey quoted a specific example of action related to another AE911 member taken by a different professional organisation. also stated with legal clarity.

After both those the waters again became muddied. Such is life.

Despite the wish by some members here for firm action I would expect that in R Gage's case, even if there was cause for AIA disciplinary action, the first step would likely be a caution or lesser reprimand.

[Triterope]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

I started a thread with similar questions not long ago.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=236715

Not sure if we reached any conclusions, though.

I thought the definitive comment was:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

The AIA has enjoined Gage from using their identity in connection with his presentations, though not from identifying himself as an AIA member. This seems to be their level of comfort.

Which is what it seems like to me as well. That an AIA media relations person is commenting publicly suggests that they are aware of his actions and feel a need to clarify what Gage's relationship with the organization is and is not.

[Orphia Nay]

[sts60]

OK, but Popular Mechanics, as fine a publication as it is, is not an "engineering journal".

[DGM]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

I find it odd that the AIA would even rent space to him at their headquarters or their convention; surely they wouldn't rent to, say, the Ku Klux Klan?

I got the impression after contacting the Washington and NewYork chapters before the shows, they did not know they did.

I believe someone else rented the hall. I know in the case of the (canceled) NewYork show, they had no idea.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

As usual the discussion 'tailed off' into generalities.

The specific question in that thread was "Is Richard Gage breaching the AIA Code of Ethics & Bylaws?"

That is a question of legal interpretation. Both Ryan Mackey and I offered some definitive comments - against a lot of confused thinking about 'Freedom of Speech'. It is not a 'freedom of speech' issue.

So I pointed out the specific legal issue:
I also offered my opinion that the AIA code: Ryan Mackey quoted a specific example of action related to another AE911 member taken by a different professional organisation. also stated with legal clarity.

After both those the waters again became muddied. Such is life.

Despite the wish by some members here for firm action I would expect that in R Gage's case, even if there was cause for AIA disciplinary action, the first step would likely be a caution or lesser reprimand.

I just read thru that thread. The free speech issue seems a red herring since no one is trying to deny him his right to say whatever he wants however the AIA should have the right to deny membership to whoever it wants*. If anyone can send in their dues and become a member then the AIA becomes meaningless as a professional organization.


*while complying with whatever antidiscrimination laws that might apply.**

**added to prevent the comments about racism.***

***added just because(stop me before I * again).

[DGM]

Originally Posted by tsig

I just read thru that thread. The free speech issue seems a red herring since no one is trying to deny him his right to say whatever he wants however the AIA should have the right to deny membership to whoever it wants*. If anyone can send in their dues and become a member then the AIA becomes meaningless as a professional organization.


*while complying with whatever antidiscrimination laws that might apply.**

**added to prevent the comments about racism.***

***added just because(stop me before I * again).

The simple fact is the AIA is very unlikely to care about him. He is so far under the radar and insignificant that there is no chance he could hurt their reputation.

It would be like some guy in the dessert in Arizona bad mouthing my company. I wouldn't waste my time dealing with this, and neither would the AIA.

[valleytenderfoot]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

I started a thread with similar questions not long ago.


Not sure if we reached any conclusions, though.

I'll pop over there for a look, thanks Orphia.

Jeff

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by sts60

OK, but Popular Mechanics, as fine a publication as it is, is not an "engineering journal".

So true.



MM

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

So true.

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/3...icsmagazin.jpg

MM

No comment on the article? Let me guess, they're all afraid of losing their jobs?

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by DGM

I got the impression after contacting the Washington and NewYork chapters before the shows, they did not know they did.

I believe someone else rented the hall. I know in the case of the (canceled) NewYork show, they had no idea.

That would explain the room rentals, but not the convention booths; surely they require exhibitors to rent space under their organizations' real names?

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

So true.

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/3...icsmagazin.jpg

MM

you are Canadian right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar

NINETEEN SIXTY ONE even!

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by tsig

I just read thru that thread. The free speech issue seems a red herring since no one is trying to deny him his right to say whatever he wants however the AIA should have the right to deny membership to whoever it wants*. ..

Agreed on both points.

And have some of these before you run out:
************************************************** *****************************
...my keyboard has lots of them.

Originally Posted by DGM

The simple fact is the AIA is very unlikely to care about him. He is so far under the radar and insignificant that there is no chance he could hurt their reputation...

His claims are so ridiculous that there is little chance of any honest person of modest intelligence or better taking any notice of him. So from the Organisations corporate perspective better to leave him ranting to the delusional few than to give even the slightest indication of credibility by acknowledging that he exists.

An easy policy decision.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by sts60

OK, but Popular Mechanics, as fine a publication as it is, is not an "engineering journal".

Didn't it start that way though?

[tfk]

Originally Posted by sts60

OK, but Popular Mechanics, as fine a publication as it is, is not an "engineering journal".

Of course it's not. It's a magazine for technology geeks, leaning towards the amateurs. Unlike others like Nature or Scientific American, which aim at professionals.

Nonetheless, the PM editors did their piece on the TM exactly right. They did not try to answer the questions themselves. They hired experts in each of the various related fields (structural mechanics, aeronautical engineers, etc.) and asked them for help in understanding the issues, framing the questions & supplying the answers.

This is exactly the right way to come to understand the issues: listen only to experts in each related field.

This is exactly what the TM members, both leaders & followers, do completely wrong: "just look at YouTube videos & figure it out for yourself".

"... or send $39.95 (plus S&H) for our DVD & we'll explain it to you.!"

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by tfk

...
This is exactly the right way to come to understand the issues: listen only to experts in each related field.

This is exactly what the TM members, both leaders & followers, do completely wrong: "just look at YouTube videos & figure it out for yourself".

"... or send $39.95 (plus S&H) for our DVD & we'll explain it to you.!"

The current AE911Lies DVD, "Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak out" pretends to have "experts in each related field" that the film producer listened to. But it is actually the other way round: These couple of dozend architects and engineers, as well as the occasional fire fighter, physics teacher or biologist, are self-selected followers of Richard Gage. They are for the most part merely repeating the memes they learned from Gage's pamphlets and website. This is even made quite obvious by the way their memes are presented in the film. Referring to a previous version of the film (the final edition is not freely available yet on the web, afaik), Gage alwazs goes first and introduces an AE911Lies claim. For example, starting at 00:42:44, the Gage first sets the issue and the claims regarding "symmetry":

• "WTC7 - Unnatural Symmetry"
• "Unevenly damaged building would fall over"
• "videos show a fairly symmetrical fal"
• "How do we make sense of this?"

then lets "the experts" speak:

• Tony Szamboti (Mechanical Engineer, PA): Both ends of WTC7 fall at same time, fire can't do that
• Jonathan Smolens (Structural Engineer, CO): Fire in 1 corner would only collapse that corner
• David Topete (Civil Engineer, San Francisco, CA): Didn't topple over
• Michael Donly (Civil Engineer, NJ; interestingly, he was a "petition" signer from 2007 to 2011, but has since been taken off the list): toppled over, not come down in own footprint
• Steve Barasch ("High rise" architect, San Luis Obispo, CA): should have been more asymmetrical

etc. - several more "experts" say the same things.

Now it is easy to verify that as early as june 7th, 2007, Gage and ae911truth.org already featured this "symmetry" on their front page, upper right hand column:

Originally Posted by ae911truth on WayBackMachine 20070607

As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:
...
3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

By half a year later, at the end of 2007, of the 25 "experts" appearing in the film as far as I have watched it (44 minutes so far), only 7 (Szamboti, Chandler, Edward Munyak, Donly, Ronald Angle, Steven Jones, William Rice) had already signed the "petition"; none of these was among the first 100 signers by early june 2007^*) (though Rice was at least referenced with a truthy article). The other 18 came in later.

So we see here: None of the experts that Gage presents offers original research or original conclusions. Gage had his mind fully made up long before the first architects or engineers showed up. His "experts" follow him, not vice versa. And we already know that Gage's true "experts", those that he follows, are not engineers or architects. They are theologians, teachers, or - whatever Jim Hoffman is. The follower "experts" are selected by conclusion, not by how they applied their expertise to the problem at hand.





*) Interesting: of the first 97 US A&E professionals listed mid-june 2007, 28 (= 31%) are no longer members (or at least not listed among the ca. 1700 today)!
6 of 22 (27%) licensed architects (among them Haluk Akol, a partner of Gage's old firm Hakul&Yoshii)
5 of 25 (20%) non-licensed architects
6 of 15 (40%) licensed engineers
11 of 35 (31%) non-licensed engineers
It appears like the licensed professionals are even more likely to abandon Gage than the unlicensed ones!
7 of 13 (54%) of the non-US A&Es also jumped ship (or were perhaps downgraded to "other")

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Oystein

.... For example, starting at 00:42:44, the Gage first sets the issue and the claims regarding "symmetry":

• "WTC7 - Unnatural Symmetry"
• "Unevenly damaged building would fall over"
• "videos show a fairly symmetrical fal"
• "How do we make sense of this?"

then lets "the experts" speak:

• Tony Szamboti (Mechanical Engineer, PA): Both ends of WTC7 fall at same time, fire can't do that
• Jonathan Smolens (Structural Engineer, CO): Fire in 1 corner would only collapse that corner
• David Topete (Civil Engineer, San Francisco, CA): Didn't topple over
• Michael Donly (Civil Engineer, NJ; interestingly, he was a "petition" signer from 2007 to 2011, but has since been taken off the list): toppled over, not come down in own footprint
• Steve Barasch ("High rise" architect, San Luis Obispo, CA): should have been more asymmetrical

etc. - several more "experts" say the same things....

For those of us who notice patterns of false reasoning that is the same wrong pattern that Tony Sz follows in several of his papers and his ongoing circling discussion about WTC 7 'Girder Walkoff'. It is the main pattern of error in 'Missing Jolt'. Viz assume a false setting then keep the 'reasoning' locked up inside the false context or false assumptions. In this case it is 'Let God Gage' define the wrong assumptions - for 'Missing Jolt' it was misuse the assumptions that God Bazant defined for a different scenario. I don't know about the other four Gageophiles - whether they also persist in the same pattern of error.

Certainly it is a parody of reasoning.

[tfk]

Oy,

I disagree … just a little bit.

Originally Posted by Oystein

The current AE911Lies DVD, "Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak out" pretends to have "experts in each related field" that the film producer listened to.

Just have to move one word for a slightly different meaning …

Originally Posted by Oystein

The current AE911Lies DVD, "Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak out" [has] "pretend experts in each related field" that the film producer listened to.

That's better, IMHO.

This is simple.

People need to learn that there are a bunch of fake experts out there. Gage has collected a bunch of them.

If someone puts out a statement saying that they are proving the FDA or NIH or NASA or [whomever] wrong about [anything], then a whole bunch of kooks will eventually show up on the website's doorstep.

Doctors who say that laetrile cures cancer.
Epidemiologists (& a microbiologists or 2 famous for endosymbiotic theory) who assert that AIDS is unrelated to HIV.
Engineers who say that we never went to the moon.
etc.

If the theory's originator wants to turn his idea into a cult, and is minimally organized, then he can simply gather up those who have more credentials than common sense, and away he goes.

Nothing surprising, or even particularly uncommon, about this.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by tfk

...
Doctors who say that laetrile cures cancer.
Epidemiologists (& a microbiologists or 2 famous for endosymbiotic theory) who assert that AIDS is unrelated to HIV.
...

Speaking of which...

Steven "Don't ask about my crap of yesteryear, I am on to new crap now" Jones just a few days ago posted at 911Blogger and recommended stuff he he found at Dr. Mercola's website. Mercola - surprise surprise! - "has questioned whether HIV is the cause of AIDS. He has argued instead that the manifestations of AIDS (including opportunistic infections and death) may be the result of "psychological stress" brought on by the belief that HIV is harmful", and he has some, well, unorthodox views on cancer (although, in my opinion, he gets enough right there and isn't reckless about the things he goes out on a limb with).

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Speaking of which...

Steven "Don't ask about my crap of yesteryear, I am on to new crap now" Jones just a few days ago posted at 911Blogger and recommended stuff he he found at Dr. Mercola's website. Mercola - surprise surprise! - "has questioned whether HIV is the cause of AIDS. He has argued instead that the manifestations of AIDS (including opportunistic infections and death) may be the result of "psychological stress" brought on by the belief that HIV is harmful", and he has some, well, unorthodox views on cancer (although, in my opinion, he gets enough right there and isn't reckless about the things he goes out on a limb with).

Which of course explains the people getting AIDS who had no previous "psychological stress," etc...?

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by tfk

People need to learn that there are a bunch of fake experts out there. Gage has collected a bunch of them.

If someone puts out a statement saying that they are proving the FDA or NIH or NASA or [whomever] wrong about [anything], then a whole bunch of kooks will eventually show up on the website's doorstep.

Doctors who say that laetrile cures cancer.
Epidemiologists (& a microbiologists or 2 famous for endosymbiotic theory) who assert that AIDS is unrelated to HIV.
Engineers who say that we never went to the moon.
etc.

If the theory's originator wants to turn his idea into a cult, and is minimally organized, then he can simply gather up those who have more credentials than common sense, and away he goes.

Nothing surprising, or even particularly uncommon, about this.

As I've stated before in other threads, every profession has its share of quacks, charlatans, and crackpots, despite the best efforts of universities, licensing authorities, and professional societies to weed them out. That's just a fact of life.

As a side note, I've never heard tell of an engineer who thinks the moon landings were faked, though it's certainly within the realm of possibility.

[Lenbrazil]

I wrote following for another forum:

AIA disowns Richard Gage and few architect want to have anything to do with him.

When peddling his 9/11 claptrap Richard Gage's name is inevitably followed by the initials “AIA” obviously meant to suggest that the AIA (American Institute of Architects) endorses his views and/or that membership in the group is some sort of special honor like being a member of the National Academy of Sciences or Royal Society. But the truth is that full membership in the AIA is open to anyone with a valid US architects license who pays their (tax deductible) dues [1] and the group has fully accepted the “NIST report and recommendations” [2]. Gage obviously knows the former and has acknowledged he was aware of the latter in a letter to the group's president.[3]. The president and board had told him, "We believe that the NIST investigation and the resulting NIST report are valid and credible” [4]. So his use of the acronym is obviously a misleading attempt to beef up his credibility or perhaps he suffers from initial envy and like Fetzer, Jones, Griffin and other prominent truthers wanted the right to string three letters after his name. The group at least once (apparently privately) advised him not to create the impression there was any link between them and his group AE911T [5] But the AIA never AFAIK specifically and publicly disavowed Gage's views.

Not that is until now. Scott Frank, head of media relations for the AIA, told veteran journalist Jeremy Stahl writing for Architect, the group's magazine, “We don’t have any relationship with his organization whatsoever”, “It is somewhat troubling that he sort of portrays the notion that we have a relationship when we certainly do not” and “there is absolutely zero relationship … [between our groups], nor will there ever be in the future.” [6]

Gage recently wrapped up his 'WORLD PREMIERE TOUR “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out” Final Edition', which included an event at the AIA's national HQ in Washington D.C. and tried to make it seem as if this indicated some sort of endorsement of his views but “acknowledged that this was not an official AIA event but a rented space open to all members of the public, adding that he feels he hasn’t been given his proper due by the organization in the past.” [7]

Though this seems to have been the first time the national organization specifically rejected Gage's snake oil. Rick Bell head of the group's NY chapter who witnessed 9/11 said of Gage, “the professional community discredits this guy. 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.” [8] Gary Kohn chairman of KPF, NY's largest architectural firm and 'the AIA’s spokesman in the aftermath of the attacks, called Gage’s theories “ridiculous”' [9]. In response to a controversy over renting one its room for one of Gage's presentation's the Royal Institute of British Architects stated “any perception that this event was associated with the RIBA is regrettable. We will be reviewing our policy on private hire of our building in the light of this event.” [10] The RIBA's former president also criticized the event [11]. While AFAIK they have not specifically said anything specifically about Gage and his gaggle but the chairman Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats (CTBUH) said:

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. [12]

The American Society of Civil Engineers also seems not to have specifically addressed controlled demolition theories but the report they prepared in conjunction with the Structural Engineers Association of NY (SEAoNY), other engineering associations and FEMA concluded that the towers collapsed due to the plane impacts and resulting fires and they later endorsed the far more through report and resultant recommendations prepared by NIST [13].

Despite Gage's Washington event being held at the AIA's headquarters according to Stahl “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.” [14] Despite making about 20 posts none of the truthers who commented on the article disputed this [15]. About 5.6 million people live in the D.C. Metro Area [16] so it is quite remarkable that only 80 (0.0014%) who were mostly members of the choir and no architects showed up. Think of how remarkable that is, Gage keeps pimping how many architects and engineers supposedly back his theories but he held an event at the HQ of the nation's leading architectural association and no architects showed up.

The lack of interest from Gage's colleagues fits with a plateauing of their membership in his organization which has only increased by 20 or so (1.2%) in four months [17]. Though Gage and other truthers incessantly point to the number of architects and engineers who've signed his petition over the last six years, the truth is the numbers are remarkably UNimpressive, the 1200 or so US As & Es represent only about 0.07% of (or 1 in 1500 of) the approximately 1.7 – 1.8 million As & Es in that country and the 4 - 500 or so from the rest of the world and infinitely smaller proportion of those from the rest of the world [18]. By contrast NYC-CAN, another truther organization circulated a similar petition just in NYC and in a few months collected about 80,000 signatures of which they claimed to have certified about 50,000 as being from voters registered in that city but the board of elections only recognized about 30,000, that works out to about 1.2% of the city's registered voters [19]. Besides being circulated for less than 1/6 the time the NYC-CAN petition had to be physically signed unlike the AE911T one which could be “signed” by e-mail, so why did the latter proportionally receive 1/60th the number of takers? The most logical explanation is that As & Es are far LESS likely to believe such nonsense which is why groups like the ASCE, RIBA, CTBUH and AIA do NOT want to associated with Gage and other truthers.

HAT TIP: Screw Loose Change blog & David Thomas, Travis and Oystein at JREF forum


SOURCES
1] http://www.aia.org/join_categories/AIAS076857
2] http://books.google.com/books?id=s7YbPRRrRwkC&pg=PA126
3] http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-2...chard-gage-aia
4] ibid
5] Stahl, http://www.architectmagazine.com/arc...-theory_2.aspx pg. 2
6] ibid pgs. 1 & 3
7] ibid pgs. 2 – 3
8] http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/riba-...020382.article
9] ibid
10] ibid
11] ibid
12] http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...2&postcount=14
13] http://www.asce.org/Press-Releases/2...commendations/
14] Stahl op. cit, pg. 2
15] ibid
16] http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/...prodType=table
17] http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=277
18] Gage's petition:

http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php has the names of 1261 US As & Es but at least 57 are 'retired', 'inactive' 'student' or have expired licenses, presumably the several more are not working as As or Es, the death rate in the US is about 1% year, presumably a similar # retired according to the BLS about 20% lost their jobs 2008 – 10

BLS stats:

113,700 professional architects (Except Landscape and Naval) 2010 http://bls.gov/ooh/Architecture-and-...Architects.htm
141,200 professional architects (Except Landscape and Naval) 2008 http://web.archive.org/web/201107212...co/ocos038.htm
“In 2008, engineers held about 1.6 million jobs.” http://web.archive.org/web/201107212...s027.htm#emply
Landscape Architects 21,600 2010 ring/Landscape-architects.htm

19] http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=167821

[ref]

Originally Posted by Oystein

None of the experts that Gage presents offers original research or original conclusions. Gage had his mind fully made up long before the first architects or engineers showed up. His "experts" follow him, not vice versa.

All the original conclusions were presented in 2001-2002, nothing new since then. At that time all the present truther figures were still happily believing the official story. So they can not offer any original conclusions, they are all just repeating the old, each and every one of them. And none of them started their trutherism, because they themselves had figured it out on their own. Instead, they all first believed the official story and suspected nothing, until they were convinced by some other person's article, some other person's conclusions, and some other person's ideas. Their trutherism was fed to them on a plate. They are all followers of somebody else.

Originally Posted by Oystein

whatever Jim Hoffman is.

Software engineer

[Edx]

Originally Posted by ref

Software engineer

According to A+E thats an engineer!!!

They have to pad out their list somehow