The movement behind 9/11

Published: Thursday, March 4, 2010

Updated: Thursday, March 4, 2010 00:03

The most interesting thing about being a journalist is being able to watch the stories you cover develop and grow. The fall semester of my junior year, I took a semester off from school to cover a story that I could not afford to miss. I had been researching the events of September 11, 2001 and felt compelled to take the time to interview eye witnesses, emergency first responders, firefighters, the families of the victims and professionals in various fields to discover for myself the true nature of events that unfolded that day.

During the semester I came across a group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and eventually volunteered with them for the semester as a verifier for their petition signers. At the time, between 300-400 degreed architects and engineers were signatories of the petition.

On Feb. 19, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) held a press conference in San Francisco at the Marines' Memorial Club & Hotel to announce that they have recently surpassed a total membership of 1,000 degree architects and engineers. These architects and engineers are demanding a new investigation with subpoena power into the collapse of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 on 9/11.

AE911Truth has gathered evidence that they claim disproves the government's official theory proposed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that the towers experienced a gravitational collapse. A petition demanding that Attorney General Eric Holder convene a grand jury and conduct a new investigation was submitted to the office of every member of the U.S. Congress. Simultaneous press conferences were held in 47 cities across the globe. Recently AE911Truth concluded an official meeting with 12 members of the Japanese parliament to review the evidence of the event that sparked the global War on Terror.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth was founded in 2006 by Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects. Since then, AE911Truth has been vocal in its criticism of both official reports by NIST into the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7. NIST published their final report for towers 1 and 2 in 2005, and WTC 7 in the summer of 2008.

AE911Truth was a major presence during the revisionary periods of the various reports. Its successful petitioning efforts helped lead to the discovery that WTC 7 fell at free-fall speed for a period of over 2.5 seconds. Not noted in NIST's revision was the clear implication that this feat defies the laws of physics if a gravitational collapse did indeed occur.

Gage addressed some of the key forensic and physical evidence supporting a controlled demolition collapse during the press conference. All three coloccur with near zero resistance such as a controlled demolition collapse rather than a gravitational collapse.

Multi-ton steel ejections were also calculated to be ejected at speeds of over 60 mph and over 600 feet. Gage also addressed the complete pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete and metal decking from both the Twin Towers and the lack of debris found at their base.

Combined with the fact that the blast radius base was 1,200 feet and that no floors were found “pancaked” on top of each other, the “pancake theory” holds little water. In addition, molten metal was found at all three sites after 9/11, as reported by firefighters and news reports during the weeks after. Yet, lead NIST investigator John Gross has gone on record denying any such existence of molten metal. If NIST were to acknowledge these reports, jet fuel fires would be nowhere near hot enough to account for metal to have not just weakened, but melted.

In another recent development, a former physics professor Steven Jones discovered nanoparticles of detonation material in multiple samples of WTC dust, coining the discovery “the loaded gun.”

AE911Truth has received remarkable coverage internationally while being blacked out by American media. Gage recently concluded tours to various universities throughout Europe, Australia and Japan and he has been featured on major media outlets in dozens of countries.

While there are many lingering (and discomforting) questions surrounding the events of 9/11, Gage and AE911Truth contend that the science behind the collapses is not one of them. In an interview with the Washington Times on February 23, Gage closed with strong words: “Government officials will be notified that ‘Misprision of Treason,’ U.S. Code 18 (Sec. 2382), is a serious federal offense, which requires those with evidence of treason to act,” Gage said. “The implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the forthcoming Khalid Shaikh Mohammed trial.”

When I first began to follow this story I slowly began to understand the enormity of the implications, and the inevitability of this information getting out to the public. A year and a half later, it appears that the story has broken in the media.

Sukenik is a member of the class of 2010.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

Facebook Comments
Site Comments

Brad Edwards

Sat Mar 6 2010 13:29

To Dan:Dan: "I would like to know how the claims of ae911truth and Dr Jones have been addressed? Ignoring the facts presented by these and other independent researchers is not addressing them, it is just ignoring them. For example; Claiming the red-gray chips discovered in dust are paint or occurred by other means is not addressing them. Addressing them would consist of obtaining samples, finding the chips and subjecting them to the same testing. Remember, NIST refused to test for explosives or accellerants despite being required to by fire investigation standards."Dan, you are making several common errors. First, you are repeating claims and assertions without demonstrating that they are even valid to begin with. First, you apparently are unaware that many independent studies of the chemical composition of the dust, all finding NO signatures of any explosives, were conducted both before NIST was ever charged with investigating the building collapses and during their investigation. It started with an urgent investigation by the City of New York in October 2001 SPECIFICALLY to determine what was IN the dust to ascertain the health effects on fireman, police, and construction workers.Second, other "independent researchers" have extensively examined Jones claims about paint chips and found his claims to be severely wanting. Why don't you know that? Are you just reading sources that support "Truther" claims? Try the discussions on JREF. Just because people make claims doesn't actually mean they are valid or that some agency is required to investigate them. And you should know that Jones has papers on his website that have claims that have been rejected easily BUT Jones refuses to retract them.Dan: "NIST now admits that freefall occured for over 2 seconds for 105 feet. The attempt to cover up this information is blatant and found in open documents. The freefall was not mentioned in any of the WTC7 preliminary reports. When it was pointed out to them during their technical conference, they were forced to put it in. However, if you read the statement of changes from WTC7 draft report to the final report, this important change is somehow missing, yet the change is there. Why does NIST's computer model not reflect this freefall? In fact, their computer model looks nothing like the actual destruction of the building. It isn't even close. NIST cannot just claim freefall occurred and walk away and stand by their findings. Freefall PROVES demolition and this needs to be addressed. Ignoring it is not addressing it. Denying the existence of evidence is not addressing it."NIST NEVER covered-up a freefall portion of the WTC 7 collpase. It is a completely unsupported claim demonstrated to be false. They never were "forced" to put it in. So, why are you repeating it, Dan? Again, this just shows you are falling victim to confirmation bias, willing to accept claims without doing any work to determine if those claims are even valid. The specific freefall period was in a period of time that DID NOT CHANGE when the period was broken down into a smaller timescale. AND the collapse mechanism explains CLEARLY WHY and HOW a period of free fall happened, and WHY it is not even an issue. This has been discussed quite extensively and is just another claim by "Truthers" that is totally meaningless/Dan: "The final report by NIST on the twin towers doesn't even cover the "collapse". It stops at the "initiation of collapse" and only claims total "collapse" as "inevitable". This is absurd."According to whom and why? This is a real old red herring of the 9/11 Truth Movement, reflecting desperation rather than informed knowledge. First, as you SHOULD HAVE known, Dan, that the massive engineering knowledge of the structures of WTC 1 and WTC 2, made it obvious that ONCE collpase initiation started the energy was far in excess of that needed to result in total collapse. Second, even if it were necessary to model the collapse - which it WAS not - the computer capability to do that just was not available. It is probably the most stupid of all "Truther" claims and was roundly trounced years ago. But here you are still repeating it? Why, Dan?Dan: "There is definately an "official story" Mr Roberts because we are fighting two wars on the basis of that "official story", We had thousands of our troops killed, 10's of thousands mamed and injured, and 100's of thousand of Iraqi and Afghan people killed because of this official story. I suggest you try a little research of your own. Start with David Ray Griffin's book, "The Mysterious Collapse of WTC7 and why the NIST report is unscientific and false." Also google, Bush Science A new standard for deception. Also google Active Thermitic Residue found in the dust of the WTC Disaster. I am presuming, from your confidence in the "official stories" you have read the 9/11 Commission report and the NIST reports. This is pretty basic research. As for Gabriel, he is coming along just fine as a journalist....

Dan Koch

Sat Mar 6 2010 10:11

To Brad Edwards,

I would like to know how the claims of ae911truth and Dr Jones have been addressed? Ignoring the facts presented by these and other independent researchers is not addressing them, it is just ignoring them. For example; Claiming the red-gray chips discovered in dust are paint or occurred by other means is not addressing them. Addressing them would consist of obtaining samples, finding the chips and subjecting them to the same testing. Remember, NIST refused to test for explosives or accellerants despite being required to by fire investigation standards.

NIST now admits that freefall occured for over 2 seconds for 105 feet. The attempt to cover up this information is blatant and found in open documents. The freefall was not mentioned in any of the WTC7 preliminary reports. When it was pointed out to them during their technical conference, they were forced to put it in. However, if you read the statement of changes from WTC7 draft report to the final report, this important change is somehow missing, yet the change is there. Why does NIST's computer model not reflect this freefall? In fact, their computer model looks nothing like the actual destruction of the building. It isn't even close. NIST cannot just claim freefall occurred and walk away and stand by their findings. Freefall PROVES demolition and this needs to be addressed. Ignoring it is not addressing it. Denying the existence of evidence is not addressing it.

The final report by NIST on the twin towers doesn't even cover the "collapse". It stops at the "initiation of collapse" and only claims total "collapse" as "inevitable". This is absurd. The North Tower was struck around the 98th floor, leaving 12 floors above it or just over 10% of the buildings mass. How can 10% of the mass destroy the remaining 90% with only gravity? Where is the "jolt" that we should see when the top half supposedly crashes into the lower half? Where is all the steel decking? None can be found. Why didn't the collapse slow as its energy dissipates breaking up the lower portion? How did a multi-ton steel column from middle section of the tower end up two football fields away lodged in the winter garden? Why were 70% of the questions submitted by the victims family steering committee not answered or even asked in many cases? Why did Dick Cheney tell Tim Russert in an interview days after 9/11 that he arrived in the PEOC shortly after 9am, corroborated by witnesses, but the 911 commission said he didn't get the until just before 10am? Why was Norm Mineta's testimony omitted?

There is definately an "official story" Mr Roberts because we are fighting two wars on the basis of that "official story", We had thousands of our troops killed, 10's of thousands mamed and injured, and 100's of thousand of Iraqi and Afghan people killed because of this official story. I suggest you try a little research of your own. Start with David Ray Griffin's book, "The Mysterious Collapse of WTC7 and why the NIST report is unscientific and false." Also google, Bush Science A new standard for deception. Also google Active Thermitic Residue found in the dust of the WTC Disaster. I am presuming, from your confidence in the "official stories" you have read the 9/11 Commission report and the NIST reports. This is pretty basic research. As for Gabriel, he is coming along just fine as a journalist. Objectivity and gathering ALL the facts are important so I believe you should practice what you preach.

Brad Edwards

Fri Mar 5 2010 09:19

Gabriel has taken a first step as a journalist but has only gone halfway. It remains for him to do research on why the claims of AE911Truth, Richard Gage, Steven Jones, and many others have been thoroughly addressed - repeatedly - and rejected. A good journalist will want the other side of the story and want to apply a lot of critical thinking to ALL claims, facts, and evidence, no matter WHO makes them.

Gabriel would find that the claims of the AE911Truth side rest on a few key premises: that there is an "official story", which is "being questioned" and that there are many "unanswered questions." With some time doing more research, Gabriel might begin to question the validity of both those premises and learn the extent of independent evidence - evidence neither originating with, nor controlled by, the "government", and that so-called "unanswered" questions have been repeatedly addressed and answered for the last eight years.

As a journalist, Gabriel needs to be as objective as possible; he cannot afford to be an advocate or let himself be influenced by anyone. He has much more work to do.

Tom Theimer

Thu Mar 4 2010 18:10

Gabriel Sukenik has his priorities straight.
9/11 is the most important issue of our time!
The event of 9/11 with its reverberations and implications must not be ignored.
It is people like Sukenik who are heroes in my book.
Articles like this are what keep civilizations alive.

Kim Olfano

Thu Mar 4 2010 11:48

You really did a thorough job researching and reporting on "the movement behind 9/11." I found it very interesting to hear about the different steps people are taking, and how we're moving forward from this tragedy. My twin sister and I share a birthday on September 11th and lived in NYC for 10 years. This story really hits home for me. Thank you for writing about this.

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now