9/11 AE911Truth AIA Building 7 Resolution 15-6 Richard Gage wtc 7
Saturday, May 16th, the American Institute of Architects will hold a vote on Resolution 15-6 in Atlanta.
“Thousands of members of the architecture and engineering professions, including 55 sponsors of this resolution, believe the NIST investigation did not adhere to the principles of the scientific method and as a result the conclusions of the NIST investigation are fatally flawed.”
May 2, 2015 – Telephone Interview – Transcribed May 15, 2015
Quick 15 Minute Q&A with Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth on the upcoming AIA convention campaign this weekend.
Where are you?
RG: We’re in London right now! I will be in a theatrical performance written by Peter Neathey which has played in London about 20 times, it’s called “7 Seconds” — I play Richard Gage and conduct a live presentation of the evidence for Building 7’s key demolition features. It’s a couple hours long.
You’re in London right now as apart of your tour, correct?
RG: Yeah, we started in Reykjavik on the 11th of April and we went to Copenhagen where we were with Neils Harrit on the stage with around 150 people in attendance. Later on we presented in front of around 950 people in Amsterdam at Delft Technical University—largely students—which was great. Then we’re off to Paris, Lavon, and then onto Vienna, Rome, and Budapest. Then we go straight back to Atlanta where the conference is going on with the American Institute of Architects.
Let’s get into this AIA stuff — how did the 55 sponsors come to be?
RG: We have more than 100 AIA members counted among our 2,300 architects and engineers. We realized we could sponsor a resolution, so we got 50 of them to sign the resolution which calls for a new investigation into Building 7. The good news about this is that they have to accept it due to our sponsors, which they did, and on May 16th in a session with 300 delegates a vote will be held. We will have the opportunity to present the evidence for Building 7 and why the NIST investigation is flawed.
So you get to present in front of these 300 delegates before the vote? That’s great.
RG: Yes! We have 3 presenters and they get 2 minutes each, but we’re a little disappointed that we do not get to actually show Building 7 coming down…we will have to describe it.
Is the voting anonymous? People have been saying that if it is, there would be a better chance of it passing.
RG: Well it’s a visual vote, it’s very open as to who is voting for what and how many voted and did not for each resolution. It could go both ways. Originally the AIA leadership from the top down bought hook line and sinker of the NIST report. We don’t know what the level of openness or discussion was, so among these 300 mid level members I think we would rather have an open vote. I don’t think they are going to feel any pressure that might intimidate them in voting openly for the resolution.
What happens if it passes?
RG: I guess it could be amended, but it would be an adopted resolution in writing on their website. I don’t know what happens after that, certainly a lot of discussion and hullabaloo will ensue if it passes!
Some say that this could be used to discredit the truth movement by having it rejected by the AIA, which would discredit AE911Truth and the overall message that Building 7 was a demolition and needs to be re-investigated because the NIST report is fraudulent — what do you think about that?
RG: I think that’s a risk that we take, you know? Anytime we speak the truth about 9/11 we run the risk of the Powers That Be discrediting or at least trying to discredit us. This is one of those risks and we thought it would be worth taking. At least at the minimum we are bringing the truth about Building 7’s uniform, 7 second, symmetrical, free fall collapse, suddenly, on the afternoon of 9/11 at 5:20—which was not hit by an airplane—after witnesses hear explosions. So that information will be given to at least 300 mid level members in this open meeting and that is unprecedented. Now, if they choose to vote down the resolution I don’t know what else we could do, but we are presenting at Georgia Tech that night, so hopefully more come to learn more about the controversy.
My good friend goes to SDSU for Mechanical Engineering and his class was assigned to do a report on building failures and his group chose Building 7 — all of their minds have been blown…they’re confused as to how it collapsed so symmetrically! Ever since your C-SPAN video and Rudy Dent things seem to have reignited. How’s it going since Rudy has jumped on board? He’s a former Fire Marshall, 9/11 survivor and FDNY first responder. He’s very articulate and his original interview has over 1 million views on youtube.
RG: (Laughter) Yeah that’s a phenomenon! And we’re just delighted to have Rudy on board of course, he saw Building 7 go down with his own eyes and he was on the towers’ pile where he lost brothers. He is quite a force for speaking the truth out there. The video with LeAnn Macadoo who interviewed him is very powerful. We have enjoyed having him on our conference calls and we’re strategizing and forming new ways of getting to the fire fighters that haven’t been able to speak out yet because of their own internal battles going on. It’s been great. I have to go in about 60 seconds, but you can call me anytime.
No problem, one more question before I let you go — recently your ‘Solving the Mystery of WTC 7′ video on youtube was removed, which was at over 1 million views as your most popular video. None of your other videos were touched and it was just taken off your youtube channel — do you know anything about that?
RG: I sure do. We’ve been in a series of communications with Google from our attorneys and now they have hired attorneys. We want them to act responsibly and legally with respect to the arbitrary removal of our video. So far it is not going as well as we want it to, they won’t even tell us specifically what copyright infringement or spam or commercially deceptive content they have claimed. Obviously they are acting illegally and arbitrarily, but we do believe eventually somehow we will get justice and force them to put it back up. They haven’t taken the new one down, but of course we lost the view count which was well over 1 million.
I tried to e-mail you about it when it happened, so I am glad you noticed. Just having a million views gives credibility and helps the video go viral through different youtube channels, so the fact that it was censored is not very cool.
RG: They’re just not responsive. A few times they have sent us some lame responses saying basically there’s nothing we can do and stating their non-descriptive problems, so we’re still continuing that battle too.
Coming up on 15 minutes, I’ll let you go now, thanks for this interview and we’ll be in contact later. Have a great tour!
RG: Okay. Thank you, Goodbye.
To those in the Atlanta area, Richard Gage, AIA, will be giving his live multimedia presentation 9/11: Blueprint for Truth at Georgia Tech, Saturday, May 16, after the AIA Convention.
Former Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney will be joining Mr. Gage at Georgia Tech on Saturday evening.
PS. I had an interview lined up with a Honorary AIA member and Vice President in regards to how the delegation process works and some questions about resolutions, but he cancelled last minute. If I get in touch with him I will share the information here.
“We are a professional – not a political – organization. But in this case, if we vote “no” on this resolution, we are making a political decision, not a professional one. Thank you very much.” – Daniel Barnum, FAIA
Those were the closing remarks from the lead sponsor of AIA Resolution 15-6, Daniel Barnum, FAIA. Seconds later, the AIA delegates cast their votes. The unfortunate outcome was that an overwhelming majority made the political decision. Resolution 15-6, which called upon the AIA to support a new WTC 7 investigation, was voted down 3,892 to 160, garnering 4% of the delegates’ votes.
The vote came after a number of impassioned statements from supporters and opponents. It was evident that those who opposed the resolution did not fully understand the official explanation of WTC 7’s destruction for which they claimed such adamant support. One architect from New York stated that diesel fuel fires were responsible for WTC 7’s destruction, an explanation that even NIST itself has disavowed.
Resolution 15-6 met the same fate as all but one of the substantive resolutions considered. Even in terms of percentages, the outcome was not that different, with the other four losing resolutions garnering between 6% and 26% of the votes and one being tabled. This does not mitigate our disappointment—nor does it excuse the delegates for their failure to accept their moral and ethical responsibility as architects—but it does illuminate something that we learned: it is difficult to pass even most slightly controversial resolution at the AIA National Convention.
However, that does not signal to us that we should give up on reaching out to the AIA membership. We are pleased to have gained the signatures of another 150 AIA members, seven of whom are fellows of the Institute. We will continue and intensify our outreach efforts with ever more creative and incisive strategies.
We would like to thank everyone who supported and contributed to our AIA resolution campaign. We were able to spark an unprecedented level of dialogue at the convention and gain a much deeper understanding of how we can successfully awaken the architecture community. Thank you.