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/2009-08-22/letter-aia-president-richard-gage-aia
4] ibid
5] Stahl,
http://www.architectmagazine.com/architecture/architects-shy-from-truther-conspiracy-theory_2.aspx pg. 2
6] ibid pgs. 1 & 3
7] ibid pgs. 2 – 3
8]
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/riba-comes-under-fire-for-hosting-‘bonkers’-9/11-talk/5020382.article
9] ibid
10] ibid
11] ibid
12]
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=24814132&postcount=14
13]
http://www.asce.org/Press-Releases/2005/Civil-Engineers-Comment-on-NIST-WTC-Report-Recommendations/
14] Stahl op. cit, pg. 2
15] ibid
16]
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces...?pid=DEC_10_NSRD_GCTPL2.US24PR&prodType=table
17]
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8464531&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-Engineering/Architects.htm
141,200 professional architects (Except Landscape and Naval) 2008
http://web.archive.org/web/20110721201448/http://bls.gov/oco/ocos038.htm
“In 2008, engineers held about 1.6 million jobs.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20110721201443/http://bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#emply
Landscape Architects 21,600 2010 ring/Landscape-architects.htm
19]
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167821
