Insurance companies for American and United Airlines notified about controlled demolition evidence

9/11 Blogger
Mark Graham

(Sacramento, CA)  9/11 Truth activist Mark Graham sent a letter to the 12 insurance companies for the airline defendants sued by Larry Silverstein informing them about evidence of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 and offering to put them in touch with building experts who could provide expert testimony.

In 2004 Larry Silverstein, who owned Building 7 and had signed a 99 year lease on the Twin Towers just six weeks before 9/11, sued United and American Airlines ¹ and companies providing security at the airports (the "airline defendants").  Silverstein claimed that the airline defendants ² had been negligent in allowing the hijackers to board and hijack the planes and fly them into the Twin Towers.  He claimed that the plane crashes and fires "proximately caused the total destruction" of the Twin Towers, Building 7 and the other buildings in the World Trade Center.  (Complaint in Case 1:08-cv-03722-AKH Document 1 Filed 04/17/08, page 2)  ³

No mention has been made of the fact that it would have been impossible for those plane crashes and fires to have destroyed the buildings or the abundant evidence of controlled demolition.  The defense attorneys could make an affirmative defense of this argument and exculpatory evidence.

Graham sent his letter via certified mail to the heads of 12 insurance companies who insured the airline defendants including Lloyd’s of America, Travelers Cos, Swiss Re, Zurich American, Global Aerospace and U.S. Aircraft Insurance Group and to their attorneys.
As Graham’s letter pointed out, Silverstein’s theory that the plane crashes and fires destroyed these buildings, which also happens to be the U.S. government’s theory, has not been tested in court via expert testimony, scientific facts and evidence.  Nor has Silverstein’s theory been proven in the official building reports.  It has been proven to be fraudulent by 9/11 Truth activists yet it has been assumed true by the parties and the Court. ^{5 6}

Silverstein has already recovered $4 billion from his own insurance companies.  He is seeking $8.4 billion from the airline defendants for the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings and lost business income.

On September 5 Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that there will be a trial in these lawsuits.
On November 21 Judge Hellerstein ruled that United Airlines, whose flight 175 crashed into the South Tower, was not responsible for the destruction of Building 7.  That opinion followed a simple principle:  a defendant should not be held legally and financially liable for damage that he did not cause.  (“Judge Rules United Not Liable for 9/11 Collapse”, by Reuters, published in the New York Times)  Similarly, the airline defendants should not beheld legally and financially liable for damage that they did not cause.
Graham’s letter framed the issue like this:

There is exculpatory scientific evidence, including expert testimony, proving two separate claims.  Potential settlements ⁴ should take these claims and supporting evidence into account.  The defense attorneys should make an affirmative defense based on these claims and this evidence.  The claims are:

#1)  That it was impossible for the impact of the hijacked airplanes and the resulting fires to destroy the Twin Towers and / or Building 7 of the World Trade Center.  This would have been against the laws of physics.  It could not have occurred and did not occur.

#2)  That the cause of the building collapses was the detonation of explosive demolition charges in a timed sequence placed in the buildings that destroyed the steel columns supporting the buildings.  This is known as “controlled demolition” and it is an organized, systematic process for deliberately for taking down steel framed skyscrapers.

It follows that even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the airline defendants were negligent in allowing the hijackers to board and hijack Flight 11 and Flight 175 and fly them into the Twin Towers starting fires in the Twin Towers those plane impacts and fires did not cause or even contribute to the total destruction of the Twin Towers.

Exculpatory evidence is evidence that would absolve of liability, exonerate, or clear of blame, as in a defendant in a lawsuit. 
Those of us in the 9/11 Truth movement are familiar with the evidence that controlled demolition using explosives caused the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7.  The letter named some of this evidence and referred to the NIST final report on Building 7 and the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth website.

Assuming that American Airlines Flight 11 caused or contributed to the destruction of floors 93 through 110, or 18 floors of the North Tower and that controlled demolition caused the destruction of floors 1 through 92, American Airlines should be held liable for no more than 18 / 110 or about 16.4 per cent of the value of the property damage to the North Tower.

Assuming that United Airlines Flight 175 caused or contributed to the destruction of floors 77 through 110, or 34 floors of the South Tower, and that controlled demolition caused the destruction of floors 1 through 76, United Airlines should be held liable for no more than 34 / 110 or about 31 per cent of the value of the property damage to the South Tower. 
As Graham wrote, “Legal and financial liability for the damage to the floors below should be properly assigned to those who planned and carried out the controlled demolitions.  I do not know who those individuals are.  They are as yet publicly unidentified terrorists.”
If the airline defendants make the affirmative defense that they were not responsible for the total destruction of these buildings because controlled demolition took them down it would surely surprise a lot of people and call into question the official conspiracy theory of the government and mass media that blames Arab hijackers for all of the damage.

                                                            ###

The Unanswered Questions of 9/11

Global Research
James Corbett

In his latest weekly address to the nation, President Obama asserts that America’s questions about 9/11 have been answered. If only it were so.

The questions of 9/11 have only continued to pile up higher since that fateful day, and despite official platitudes we are no closer to having those questions answered today then we were when they first arose. In fact, for some of the most important 9/11 questions, the government’s own documents and records that could conceivably answered them have been destroyed, meaning we may never have answers.

The unanswered questions of 9/11 are too numerous to enumerate, but they include:

-Why has NIST classified the data that they used to make their computer animation of the WTC7 collapse? Would knowledge of how NIST believes the building collapsed really “jeopardize public safety“?

-Why did the DIA destroy more than 2.5 terabytes of data on their Able Danger investigation that reportedly identified four of the alleged hijackers years in advance of the attack? Why did the Pentagon buy up and burn the entire first print run of Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer’s book on the program?

-Why did the SEC destroy their records on the 9/11 insider trading question, presumably the most important investigation in the agency’s history?

-Why did the alleged “mastermind” of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, confess not only to plotting 9/11 “from A to Z” but also confess to masterminding numerous crimes that he could not have committed?

-Why did Osama bin Laden repeatedly deny any involvement in the attacks until a series of mistranslated and otherwise manipulated videos came along appearing to portray him as taking credit for those attacks?

-Why was the report of US State Department official Frank Taylor supposedly proving the case for Al Qaeda’s role in 9/11, which NATO used to justify its invasion of Afghanistan, presented in a classified briefing? Why is that report still classified to this day?

-Why did the 9/11 commission rely so heavily on the confessions extracted through torture which even the Senate’s Armed Services committee points out is specifically used to extract false confessions?

-Why did the CIA destroy 92 videotapes of their illegal torture sessions after being specifically ordered by a court not to do so? Why did the courts eventually absolve the CIA of any culpability for this crime?

-Why did Donald Rumsfeld announce a new “war” on September 10, 2001? What was the reason for the 2.3 trillion missing dollars which the Pentagon had lost up until that point, what did Rumsfeld’s “war on bureaucracy” hope to achieve, how was that “war” hindered when the budget analyst office in the Pentagon was destroyed the following morning, and where are the public records into this accounting scandal?

-Why did Rumsfeld go into a regularly scheduled meeting with a CIA officer in his office on the morning of 9/11, after both of the Twin Towers had been struck by airplanes and it had been determined that “America was under attack.” Why did the highest ranking official in the US military remain in that meeting and unavailable for contact even by his highest staff members as the worst attack on US soil in history continued to unfold? Why did he suddenly come out for a photo op on the Pentalawn after the explosion instead of helping to coordinate the defense of the nation?

-Why is there such a massive discrepancy between the 9/11 commission’s official finding of the time of entry of Dick Cheney into the Presidential Emergency Operation Center on the morning of 9/11 and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta’s testimony of the timing of that arrival?

-Why did the US government contract with Ptech, an enterprise architecture software firm, to install its backdoor access software on some of the most sensitive databases in the US government? Why did they continue to use Ptech even after it was discovered that its sweetheart investor was a specially designated global terrorist on the Treasury’s own terror list? Why did they declare that there was nothing untoward in the software mere hours after raiding Ptech’s offices in 2002? And what was Ptech doing in the basement of the Pentagon on 9/11? What interoperability tests was it running on the link between FAA and NORAD systems on 9/11, and how did that interfere with the FAA and NORAD’s response?

-And, perhaps most tellingly of all, how did four highjacked aircraft fly so wildly off course for such lengthy periods of time without being confronted by a single fighter interceptor, and why did the Pentagon admittedly and on the record lie to the American public about the timing of its response that day?

These and many, many questions like them have been asked by the victims’ family members, the first responders, members of the US military, American congressmen and women, intelligence agents, foreign dignitaries and heads of state, and concerned members of the public across America and around the globe. And still, 11 years after the events themselves, the American president has the gall to suggest that all questions have been answered and it is time for Americans to move on.

See our GRTV Feature 9/11 Video



On the contrary, Mr. President. Those who are concerned with 9/11 truth and justice will continue to fight on, to answer the questions that your government cannot and will not answer, whether those answers come now, 11 years from now, or generations from now. Those who fight for 9/11 truth will not give up until these questions have been answered. Echoing the words of those brave souls in the wake of that other great American tragedy, the OKC bombing:

“We search for the truth. We seek justice. The courts require it. The victims cry for it. And God demands it.”

For more on the unanswered questions of 9/11 truth, please watch the latest episode of The Corbett Report podcast, “The Meaning of 9/11 Truth“:

New 9/11 truth documentary among 'most watched' on PBS this week

Digital Journal
Victoria N. Alexander

Richard Gage will appear at College Park tomorrow.

"9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out" is getting public attention and casting doubt on the scientific validity of the U.S. government's investigation into the WTC tragedy. PBS is the first major network to air the program.

Just days away from the 11th anniversary of the World Trade Center tragedy and months away from the U.S. presidential election, a game-changing 9/11 documentary is ranking number three among "most watched" documentaries on PBS and number one among "most shared." Available for free onlineAugust 18th - September 4th, the documentary could have a significant effect on public opinion. [Update: PBS has extended viewing indefinitely.] Both the Republicans and Democrats, as equally staunch defenders of the official story, stand to be affected if the public's suspicion of government corruption grows deeper.

An earlier report on Digital Journal found that the claims made in the documentary can be verified by reading the government reports themselves. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency charged with the investigation, did not provide any data -- no measurements or estimates -- of the mass or energy that would be required to bring down the buildings in about ten seconds. Normally a scientific report would present all the data that is used to construct a theory. The omission of data is a red flag to anyone familiar with scientific procedure. It appears that the investigators may have intentionally produced reports that the scientific community would reject.

According to the experts appearing in Explosive Evidence, the scientific community did reject the reports immediately, but it has taken a very long time for this message to reach the public. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the producers of the documentary, have been trying to educate the public for a number of years. The PBS broadcast of their work represents a major step forward for them.

While most people have probably heard that a scientific investigation has been conducted and that the building collapses were explained, few have probably looked at the NIST reports themselves. Links to the NIST reports can be found in the above mentioned Digital Journal article. NIST provides no data whatsoever on the actual collapse sequence itself.

The new attention to the issue could be significant for the U.S. presidential election. Prior to the publication of the reports in 2005 and 2008, almost half the population was suspicious of the official story of 9/11, according to several opinion polls. Since then the 9/11 tragedy has been used to direct the policies that have led to the enormous increases in military spending and to a loss of civil liberties in the U.S. and worldwide.

Expert Group Rejects World Trade Center Reports

ENGINEERS POINT TO EVIDENCE OF SCIENTIFIC FRAUD, CALL FOR INDEPENDENT 9/11 INVESTIGATION

AE911Truth

A new 9/11 documentary featuring dozens of experts in architecture, engineering, and other fields has been released and is coming to the Clinton Street Theatre in Portland, OR on Saturday, May 26th at 8:00PM.  Confidently contradicting official US government explanations, these experts argue that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 (WTC 7) were not brought down on September 11, 2001, by the fires ignited by the jetliner impacts, but rather by explosive controlled demolition. The 43 architects, engineers, physicists, chemists and others interviewed in the film represent more than 14,000 concerned citizens and 1,700 architects and engineers from around the world who have signed a petition demanding a new, independent investigation. The film details scientific forensic evidence that the group claims was omitted or misrepresented by the official reports. Official reports blame the unprecedented destruction of all three modern skyscrapers on fires and on the removal of insulation by the jetliner impacts. No jetliner crashed into WTC 7.

The documentary will be introduced by David Fura, a local supporter of the group that released the film, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth). The film is being introduced in 30 cities on a tour of the US by the film's director/producer, Richard Gage, AIA who also founded and directs the nonprofit organization AE911Truth, based in Berkeley, California.

The 95-minute documentary features cutting-edge forensic evidence from forty-three technical experts, who expose the fraudulence of the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) reports about the destruction of all three WTC high-rises. These include the third-worst structural failure in modern history: the symmetrical free-fall destruction of 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11/01.

The startling conclusions brought forth by these experts have profound implications.

Gage declares, “The official story about the attacks of September 11, 2001, falls apart when you look squarely at the facts, omitted in the official reports, and apply fundamental scientific principles to interpret them. After nearly ten years, don’t we all need and deserve to know the truth?”

According to Gage, the film includes interviews with family members of 9/11 victims, who explain why they are still not happy with the answers they've been given about what really happened on 9/11: "The family members in this film exhort their fellow citizens to join them in seeing what these experts have to say."

Several of the film's experts bear PhD's, including renowned biologist Lynn Margulis, now deceased. Margulis was a National Medal of Science winner who, along with the other experts in this film, describes unscientific aspects of the US government's studies of the engineering failures at the World Trade Center. The complete, symmetrical failure of WTC 7 was especially baffling to engineers at the time. According to experts interviewed in the film, the official reports by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and later by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) assume their own conclusions, exclude relevant evidence, and failed to draw reasonable conclusions from the evidence that was examined. Dr. Margulis for instance discusses how the scientific method should have been applied to the evidence of high-temperature incendiaries found in the WTC dust by an international group of scientists.

Regarding WTC Building 7, materials engineer Kathy McGrade says in the film, "The symmetry is the smoking gun."

Structural engineer Ron Brookman notes: "The destruction of evidence was a criminal act in itself.... It was already being carted away and destroyed when the FEMA investigators got there about a month after September 11."

The cross-country tour began in San Diego and Beverly Hills May 21 and 22 and ends in San Francisco in July 2012.

  Visit 911ExpertsSpeakOut.org now to view the Trailer and see the Premiere Schedule.

  Contact for Info/Interviews: Tania Torres, eso-info@ae911truth.org 925-939-9002

 

Free Presentation of “Blueprint for Truth” Coming to a Library Near You

The Portland Action Group of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is bringing a presentation to your local library.  Neighborhood screenings of the two hour film, "Blueprint for Truth: Architecture of Destruction," provide a perfect opportunity for those who may have missed architect Richard Gage at the Moreland Theater last month.  "Blueprint for Truth" is a professional production of Richard Gage's live presentation and will be shown at seven Portland-area public libraries within two months.



Architect Richard Gage appeared at the Moreland Theater
in Portland, OR on February 19th

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) consists of more than 1600 degreed architects and engineers and 14,000 affiliates calling for a new investigation into the events of September 11th, 2001.  This position is informed by rigorous analysis of the evidence surrounding the complete annihilation of the three World Trade Center buildings.

AE911Truth identify key points where evidence contradicts the official story provided by governmental agencies like FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technologies).  This information will prove to be a valuable resource once the best path is determined for obtaining justice on behalf of the victims, the victims’ families and all who were affected by the events of 9/11.

"The Portland Action Group is unique among local organizations in our strict focus on the hard evidence behind the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers" says action group member J.T. Waldron.  "By bringing this evidence into neighborhood libraries, we can offer a convenient, no-cost entry point for those unfamiliar with the evidence uncovered by AE911Truth."

Here is the schedule for library showings of “Blueprint for Truth”:

Local Contact:

David Fura

503-481-8692

PortlandAE911Truth@yahoo.com

www.PortlandAE911Truth.org

Richard Gage to Appear in Portland, Oregon

1,600 Architects & Engineers Deliver 9/11 Explosive Evidence

Engineers for 9/11 Truth, will be returning to Portland . Gage will be delivering the evidence for explosive demolition in the compelling dynamic multi-media presentation “9/11: Blueprint for Truth - Re-Examining the Destruction of the Three World Trade Center Skyscrapers.” The presentation will take place at the Moreland Theater in southeast Portland at 2 pm on Sunday, February 19.

The Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth.org) have examined in great detail the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11 and are calling for a new independent investigation. They have found that the evidence and eyewitness testimony is completely at odds with the official explanation of events. Such an investigation will ensure that the evidence
ignored by prior building reports by governmental agencies like FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technologies) is properly considered and that the truth sought by victim family members is finally delivered.

“My introduction to the problems with the official 9/11 narrative occurred several years after 9/11,” says Mr. Gage. “I was listening to the radio and heard Dr. David Ray Griffin describe how over 100 first responders reported explosions on 9/11.” Adds Mr. Gage: “I was shocked that this vital information was not being considered by the official investigations or reported by the media. As I looked into
these matters further, I discovered that this was only the tip of the iceberg.”

The Portland Action Group of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is sponsoring this event and is proud to carry on the work begun by the family members of the 9/11 victims in seeking a new investigation.

ALSO:
Monday, Feb 20, at PCC Sylvania, Noon-2:30pm

In the Cedar Room of the College Center (CC Building), next to the cafeteria

(12000 SW 49th Ave. Portland, OR 97219)

A guest appearance by San Francisco Bay Area architect Richard Gage, AIA

(Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth)
Co-sponsored by PCC 911 Studies

Local Contact:
David Fura
503-481-8692
PortlandAE911Truth@yahoo.com
www.PortlandAE911Truth.org

New 9/11 Eyewitness Evidence of Bombs at WTC

Ten years later, some—like Randy—still believe in Sept. 11 conspiracy theories

TucsonWeekly
Randy Serraglio

After the sustained media frenzy of the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, most people are probably ready to move on. I offer this question as a starting point for the next 10 years: "Sure, but move on to what?"

Based on the past 10 years, we can expect more wars that have little to do with Sept. 11, but will sacrifice the lives of far more Americans than the 3,000 who died that day, as well as the lives of many, many more foreign civilians. Our government will continue to justify and codify torture as an indispensable element of U.S. foreign policy and subvert the civil liberties upon which this nation was founded. And we'll face the harsh reality that such actions cause suffering and resentment that generate more terrorism.

Excuse me for jumping to the conclusion that we're moving in the wrong direction.

Here's an alternative: Why not start with a real investigation of the events of Sept. 11? I mean a full-on, independent criminal investigation, with prosecutors, subpoenas and the whole nine yards, not the half-assed, politically constrained nonsense churned out by the 9/11 Commission. I think we owe the victims of this massive crime nothing less.

A lot of the groundwork for such an investigation has already been laid by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a group devoted to the scientific study of the physical evidence of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

I spoke with Peter Morse, a Tucson engineer with a lot of experience in the construction of large, steel-framed buildings and a former board member of AE 9/11 Truth. Like 1,600 other colleagues in the group, Peter hardly fits the profile of "conspiracy theorist" that is so commonly used to dismiss anyone who questions the official story of Sept. 11. The group is packed with luminaries and true experts, including National Medal of Science winners, a professor emeritus of physics at Brigham Young University, and the former director of Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative.

It's a highly qualified group, but most of them came to the issue through simple common sense. Like Peter, they watched video, read the official explanation of the towers' collapse, scratched their heads and asked, "How could that have happened?" The closer they looked, the clearer it became that the government's fanciful theories were unsupportable, and the more these professionals were drawn, however reluctantly, into the fight to establish the truth. "It goes against the psyche of engineers in general to invite conflict," as Peter put it. "But we took an oath to protect the public."

If you want to talk conspiracy theories, the official explanation for the collapsing towers is a whopper. It posits that skyscrapers specifically designed to withstand the hottest fires and direct impacts from airplanes somehow succumbed to those stresses and collapsed at virtually free-fall speed, straight down into their own footprints. Never before had such a thing occurred—despite other skyscrapers hit by planes and beset by fires far hotter than those present at the World Trade Center—but on Sept. 11, it happened three times in eight hours.

The alternative case carefully constructed by AE 9/11 Truth researchers is startling. A straight-down, nearly free-fall collapse means that the structures met virtually no resistance on the way down, and all of the reinforced steel support columns must have failed completely and simultaneously. This simple physical law disproves the preposterous theories put forth by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the author of the official collapse story.

Subsequent testing of WTC dust samples established the presence of thermite, a high-powered incendiary that cuts through a steel beam like a lightning bolt through a stick of butter. This evidence is hard proof of the most-likely collapse scenario, one that was completely ignored by NIST, which did not even test for explosives, despite eyewitness testimony of more than 100 New York City firefighters who heard and saw explosions on Sept. 11.

I remember network news anchor Peter Jennings, mesmerized by video of the collapse, observing, "Almost like a controlled demolition." Indeed, thousands of buildings have collapsed straight down at virtually free-fall speed over the years, and every one of them resulted from controlled demolition.
I'd say Mr. Jennings' journalistic instincts were correct. Kudos to Peter Morse and the rest of the patriotic citizens of AE 9/11 Truth for picking up where he left off. Check out their website for yourself at www.ae911truth.org.

When a formal criminal investigation determines who planted those explosives and why, then maybe our nation can start figuring out where it's headed in the next 10 years.

From Britain: RIBA, AIA and Aaronovitch Attack Gage, Fail to Refute His Findings

Notice the similar, frumpy, hackneyed tactics by those professionals protecting the official story of 9/11.   No attempt to address or dispute the evidence presented by architect Richard Gage, but instead an immediate accusation of being "anti-semitic".  The lady doth protest too much.  Who instructed the British RIBA and other trade groups to use the tactic of slandering and libeling Richard Gage, AIA instead of using their expertise to refute Gage's findings?

This is a clear indication that they cannot refute Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, regardless of any spin to come out of the so-called debunkers,  Honest assessments by outside observers indicate that Gage has scored a substantial victory for the 9/11 Truth movement.

Here is a great example by 9/11 Truth advocate and artist, Scootle Royal (Wake Up American Slobs).

Scootle Royale
Debunking the Debunkers

It seems the heads of the Britain and America's top architectural organizations are annoyed that Gage got to talk at the Royal Institute of British Architects, accusing him of using RIBA's name to give credibility to a 'bonkers' conspiracy theory. The Randi-crowd are of course using this fact to argue that Gage is crazy.

I live in Wiltshire, which is a four hour, sixty pound train journey via multiple changes and a tube ride away from Cambridge, but only 45 minutes away from Bristol. So while I couldn't attend Gage's talk at Cambridge University last saturday, I was able to see him in Bristol on tuesday. I had intended to stick around meet him afterwards but the Q&A dragged on too long and I didn't want to miss the last train home so I had to leave early. Anyway, I can assure you there was no 'conspiracy theory' in his presentation. In fact he's even taken out Larry Silverstein's 'pull it' comment. When asked about this in the Q&A he said he took it out because he was fed up with arguing with people over what 'pull it' meant, prefering instead to stick to the science.

Now assuming the presentation I saw was the same as the one given to RIBA in London, I know David Aaronovitch is talking crap when he says "What they mean is that George Bush and the Zionists brought down the towers. The RIBA let itself out to a conspiracy theory organisation whose theories are utterly insane."

The only theory that is utterly insane is NIST's thermal expansion theory. At one point in the presentation I saw, after outlining the thermal expansion theory, Gage said something like "There are so many things wrong with this, but for the sake of time I will only list twelve!" and then went on a rapid fire tirade simply on why the idea of heated floor beams remaining rigid, breaking numerous bolts and studs in unison and pushing against a girder, instead of just sagging, is ludicrous. If Aaronovitch, who attended the RIBA lecture, accepts the official story of 9/11, then that is what he endorses!

Video: Architect Richard Gage of AE911Truth interviewed on Irish TV

The NEW RememberBuilding7 Television Ad

9/11 Family Group Releases TV Ad Calling for World Trade Center Building 7 Investigation

9/11 Blogger

NEW YORK CITY — The NYC Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN) is launching a television ad campaign on Election Day in New York City calling for an investigation into the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7, the third building to collapse on 9-11. Building 7 came down at 5:20 in the afternoon although it had not been hit by an aircraft.

The ad, which is entitled “BuildingWhat?” and can be viewed at BuildingWhat.org, will air 350+ times from November 2 through November 10 and is estimated to be seen by millions of viewers in the New York Metropolitan Area, reaching core target audiences multiple times. The ad will appear on thirteen channels including MSNBC, CNN, Comedy Central, HGTV, Logo TV, Bio TV, Versus TV, MSG, Sports NY, VH1, HLN, CNBC and Bravo.

NYC CAN’s goal is to generate public pressure on the New York City Council to open an investigation into the destruction of Building 7, which until 9-11 housed the City’s Emergency Operations Center, also known as “Mayor Giuliani’s bunker.”

“We’ve been educating the City Council about Building 7 and the need for a new investigation for the past six months,” said Bob McIlvaine, father of Bobby McIlvaine and one of the 9/11 family members who appear in the ad. “We are asking them now to do something about it.”

Patricia Perry, mother of NYPD officer John Perry, opens the ad saying, “Most people don’t know that a third tower fell on September 11^th.” Footage of Building 7’s destruction begins to play while other 9/11 family members explain that 1,200 architects and engineers have examined the evidence and disagree with the official report issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which concluded that office fires brought down Building 7. This would mark the first and only time in history that fire has caused a steel-framed skyscraper to collapse. The ad closes by asking viewers to go to BuildingWhat.org to learn more.

The “BuildingWhat?” campaign is also being sponsored by the group of architects and engineers referred to in the ad. According to their website, www.AE911Truth.org, they now number 1,346 verified architectural and engineering professionals who have put their professional reputations on the line to publicly voice their disagreement with NIST’s findings.

“The most irrefutable evidence is the free fall descent of the building,” said Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer in the aerospace industry. “You can’t go from zero movement to free fall acceleration instantaneously without an external force simultaneously removing all of the columns in the lower part of the building. If the upper structure has to do any work crushing what’s below it, it’s going to slow down.” According to Mr. Szamboti, NIST acknowledges in its report that the building underwent free fall, but it does not explain how.

For more information and to view the TV ad, go to: www.BuildingWhat.org

NIST FOIA Acquisition Includes Video of CNN's Unambiguous Account of Explosion Prior to WTC Demo