47 votes

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Brings Truth to College Campuses

Focusing on youth as the hope for our future and for continuing the fight for the truth about 9/11, Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth(AE911) is bringing the documentary film "9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out" to college campuses across the nation.

The film was recently broadcast on Colorado PBS, earning high praise for both the film and the PBS station's courage in running it.

In a new 10 minute personal video message from Gage, he recalls 9/11 and remembering at first believing the official story. He urges America to restore critical thinking skills.

Contact form HERE to email Richard and have the film come to your campus.

Key points:

- Talks about Patriot Act, NDAA, other new police powers which are a direct result of 9/11

- Demonstrates, explains the idea of free-fall acceleration in simple terms

- Why is it important? Because if we educate ourselves it could prevent the next 9/11

VIDEO: Up Close and Personal, 10 Minutes with Richard Gage

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I think the college campuses are a great place to start..

A lot of open minds on campus....

I like the 'Up Close and Personal' video with Richard Gage, although I personally would extend the Newton's 3rd Law of Motion example to the impossibility of 'planes' melting into concrete-reinforced steel buildings too. Oh wells. It is what it is...

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?


9-11 Actors:

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

No.7's picture

+1 bump


The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson



What would the Founders do?

Excellent move.

The youth I believe can have better bullshit meters, they should pick up on these facts and testimonies easily as truths.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

The world they live in has been directly shaped by 9/11.

We are moving to an open, unapologetic totalitarian society, in which we are nothing more than gears and cogs supporting the lifestyles of the super-rich. They control the paychecks and can threaten the families of the most patriotic cops and military. Only 9/11 truth can set us free, even if it is a generational war.

They are ready to cull millions from the population in order to lock in control, and gun owners, Constitutionalists, and Truthers will be the first to go to the death camps. If you go, you will not return.

Gage is planting the seed of truth and liberty in those who will follow us. The fight will go on without us if it must.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

jrd3820's picture

You said it perfectly

The world they live in has been directly shaped by 9/11. I was 16 that day and two years later I saw a large number of my high school graduating class leave for some part of the military or another. I have lost numerous friends since then. I remember traveling before TSA, but barely, my younger sister does not remember what it is like to not have TSA people groping you your way through security. These young people need to have answers and a lot of them want answers. College campuses are a hotbed of libertarian activity, the problem is some of them do not even realize it yet.

“I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells. Fantasy is a necessary ingredient in living.”
― Dr. Seuss




Richard Gage always says there were "isolated, low-level office fires" and then shows pictures of tiny fires. But what if he showed this video instead which shows massive fires?


If you listen to the firefighters they are expressing concern that the building is buckling and could collapse.

Showing that video would not support his case so he doesn't show it. I fear that if 9/11 Truth ever breaks into the mainstream it will be pretty short lived because people will just bring up issues like this and show how the truth movement cherry picks the information the present.

SteveMT's picture

The building was buckling, but from what? Not heat.

Remember, the soon-to-be-killed brave woman standing in the hole of WTC1.
The Woman At The Edge Of The Abyss

There is no heat in that hole sufficient to melt ASTM E119 certified steel. She would not be standing there if there was.

"We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all."

You are cherry picking. You

You are cherry picking. You failed to include the audio from the fireman who had gone to the floors with the greatest fires, and he clearly says that we "can knock it out with only two lines."!!!!! And how did those people stand in the windows and signal for help if the fires were SO intense?

The fires were not hot enough, and did not burn long enough to explain the complete structural failures we saw that day.

The analogy with the car

The analogy with the car crashing into the truck was convincing to me. I never realized it before, but seriously, how could the collapsing of the very top of the tower cause the rest of the tower to collapse so perfectly? That sealed it for me brother. It was obviously a controlled demolition.

its not obvious...

if it was "OBVIOUS" you would think a lot more of the 160,000 civil engineers in the american society of civil engineers would agree. If it was obvious you would think they would spontaneously come to the truth themselves, but it is not obvious. It may appear obvious to you but it does not appear that way to most other people.

I was also convinced by the car/truck analogy for quite a while. But it is not an accurate model of what happened. It was not a car crashing into a truck, it was part of a building losing support. What you can see from the video is that the top part of the building is rotated nearly 20 degrees off center as it starts to fall. This means that the weight of the top part of the building is not centered and therefor is not being supported by the entire structure. The weight becomes focused on one corner, which cannot support it. This then lead to progressive collapse of the building.

But perhaps you are right. Maybe many thousands of pounds of high-tech explosives where strategically placed throughout the building? Lets have an independent investigation and put all the information on the table and see how it shakes out.

but please realize that it is not obvious and it is much more complicated that most in the truth movement give it credit for.

Professional cowardice is nothing new

Go on record supporting 9/11 truth and see what happens to your career. There are no doubt many people who disbelieve the official story yet think it better to remain silent, just like Nazi Germany.

As for your argument about the upper blocks being off center, non-starter. First, you only raise a point which further undermines the official story, the rotation by nearly 20 degrees of an upper block. The law of conservation of angular momentum dictates that is should have kept on rotating and tilting over, unless stopped by an equal and opposite external force. Instead it disintegrated before our eyes, and halted its rotation, which could only be accomplished through explosive force.

Finally I hardly think you can speak for "most of the truth movement," or imply it does not appreciate complexity. You are merely employing the old and worn tricks of a low-life lawyer who wants to say "Are you sure you saw the man shoot her? Isn't it more complex then that?" No it is not more complex than that. The man shot her.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

sharkhearted's picture

Yeah...what happened to all of that angular momentum??

Both twin towers actually began in an asymmetrical 'collapse"...cleverly disguised to begin just below the crash zones.

But in both cases, all of that incredible angular momentum that would have caused these immense blocks of buildings...one a 30 story block...one a 40 story block...weighing approximately 30,000 tons and 40,000 tons, respectively...to topple over to the ground....suddenly neutralizes...(as wells as "pulverizes")...in mid air.


Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.


I acknowledge your point about cowardice. Perhaps all the ASCE members or some percentage of them believe differently but are afraid to say so. Certainly possible. We live in a society that is very hostile to divergent opinion. No doubt. This doesnt change the fact that many engineers have made reasonable arguments on the other side and it does little good to just dismiss them without looking into it.

Regarding the rotation. I think that the issue is more complicated than you suggest. I dont know the answer, but many engineers, such as Bazant et al, have performed intensive mathmatical and techinical analysis that they believe demonstrate that the behavior of the upper block is consistent with progressive collapse. Thats why I say people should have caution. There should be a new investigation and a rigorous evaluation of this analysis. People in the truth movement, physicists and mathematicians should analyze bazants findings and refute them scientifically.

To just continue this same song of saying it violates laws of physics or saying only explosives could do it, without undergoing the effort of providing a countervailing scientific analysis that shows why explosives are necessary leaves the truth movement in the realm of belief and not fact.

We could go back and forth forever on this topic. It is very difficult to convince someone of something when they firmly believe something different. Maybe you are right and explosives brought the whole things down.

I just think a little more humility on the issue would be appropriate. People present this topic like they KNOW the truth. In reality people have questions about observations that dont make sense. They are SEARCHING for truth. People who are searching for truth should be more tolerant of other likeminded searchers.

sharkhearted's picture

Refute BAZANT scientifically??

This has already been done. On what planet do you live?

Discussion of "Why the Observed Motion History of World Trade Center Towers is Smooth," by Jia-Liang Le and Z.P. Bazant


Anders Björkman Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"


James Gourley Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"


The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis - The 116th Peer-reviewed Paper Published in Journal of 9/11 Studies


NIST and Dr. Bazant - Simultaneous Failure - Journal of 9/11 Studies


Bazant and Zhou Explaining the Collapses With Elastic Dynamic Analysis


Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

You go boy! I love you

You go boy! I love you Sharkhearted! Stay fierce and bold!

sharkhearted's picture

Thank you, my friend!


Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

SteveMT's picture

Irrelevant, IMO.

Office fires, no matter how intense they are, don't collapse steel buildings.

If they did, we'd have some serious structual issues

that haven't been addressed over a many great years. If they could, I would imagine, buildings would be much more stout in response to that threat. They aren't though.

It's almost as if, engineers aren't really concerned that fires could bring down buildings huh? :)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Firefighters learn to expect partial collapses and

cave-ins. "Collapse" doesn't mean global, dead-level demolition style collapse at free-fall speed. So you are fitting words to your agenda. Moreover, you conveniently leave out the context that the firefighters had just seen two unprecedented global collapses earlier that day. Why wouldn't they expect the previously impossible?

And talk about cherry-picking information, you conspicuously do not address the countdown heard over the firefighters radio because there is no spin room there. You are as transpatent as any other cheap, standard issue disinfo agent. Nothing about the molten steel, or impossible physics of free-fall acceleration through 95,000 tons of steel. Just a video showing nothing in which you spin that the fires were big, not small, ignoring the fact that no fires of any size could have caused this kind of collapse.

It is getting so that the disinfo tactics are now so well known to us that we can now spot them as further evidence that Gage is right, and has been all along.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

did you hear a countdown?

I have never heard a countdown. The only report of a count-down I have heard of is from Kevin McPadden in Gage's video. Just because 1 person says something doesnt make it true. Who knows what he heard. You would think if there were this countdown going out on all these radios and that it was audible around the area that there would be video or other reports of it. All the oral histories of the firefighters, even the ones that mention secondary explosions do not recall any countdown. Why do you think that is?

Also, tell me more about free-fall collapse? What is your understanding of what happened?

SteveMT's picture

There might as well have been a very loud countdown.

"Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon."


might as well have been does not equal was.

you are speculating as to what the intent of the fireman was. As many firefighters thought the building might come down it is equally as likely that the fireman was simply clearing the area because they thought it would collapse.

The truth movement often presents as fact what is in reality speculation. please be careful not to do this.

lets have a new investigation and put all the information on the table and see where it shakes out.

SteveMT's picture

The government will never have another investigation...

to investigate itself.

1. They know what flew into the Pentagon, but they are not telling; they have all of the videos, too. What is the big secret?

2. The BBC announcing that WTC7 came down before it actually did was another honest mistake, I guess.

9/11: “Honest Mistake” or BBC Foreknowledge of Collapse of WTC 7? Jane Standley Breaks Her Silence

3. Giuliani saying that the WTC1 and WCT2 were both going to collapse was still another:

According to an interview he did with Peter Jennings of ABC News at 1 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, Giuliani said he had been told by officials in his own Office of Emergency Management that the twin towers of the World Trade Center were in danger of imminent collapse.
Giuliani told Jennings:

“We were operating out of there (75 Barclay Street, where they had set up temporary headquarters) when we heard that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse. And it did collapse before we were able to get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out.”

4. "NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f."
But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air.

why don't you increase your own understanding.

why don't you defend your own position, instead of questioning ours.

tell me more about your position,
or do you not even know what your position is?

My position...

Most people in the 9/11 truth movement present the issue as if it is simple and obviously a controlled demolition. They vehemently attack anyone who dares to question this.

My position is that the issue is in fact quite complicated. I dont know the truth but I believe the truth movement will not get anywhere in the long run if people dont start wising up and embrace the complexity. People should try to understand both sides positions before they dismiss either one out of hand. I think the truth movement needs a lot more humility.

I believe there should be a new investigation that puts all the information on the table in an open and transparent way. There are many questions that need to be answered. Most in the truth movement act as if all the questions are answered. But this is not true. We have only questions. Not answers.

sharkhearted's picture

You are misrepresenting the Truth movement in a big way

You are using disinformation-agent psyops sleight of hand craftiness to shift the argument a bit as if to make it appear that we think it is all very "simple."

No...it is indeed very complex.

But the controlled demolition hypothesis is the MOST plausible...even though the government and NIST chose the LEAST plausible one. (Explain THAT anomaly)

After careful observation of the videographic evidence of just Tower 2 alone, even a child could figure it out:


Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.


A. a child could not figure it out. No one has it figured out. There are big time questions but not answers. This is the point I am making. People are presenting CD as fact when it has not been proven. There are questions.

B. people do think it is simple. They think it is CD, open and shut, no need for debate, find the NIST officials and throw them in prison. But it is much more complicated than that.

sharkhearted's picture

The controlled demolition hypothesis

Is the MOST plausible hypothesis....and yet the government chose the LEAST plausible one.

I think any of these expert witnesses from all of the relevant fields will be HAPPY to debate (in person) all of you who raise "objections".

GO TO THE JOURNAL of 911 STUDIES. There you have over a hundred, many peer-reviewed papers which compile PLENTY enough evidence to make a complete case in court.


The evidence is THERE.

And no, the presence of MOLTEN METAL at the cleanup site, and then billions of iron microspheres in the WTC dust is enough right there to have tested for explosives and incendiaries...which NIST never did...a criminal (and incompetent) coverup right there.

And my I remind you there is a sense of urgency...3000 people and first responders are dead.

6000 of our troops have been killed because of that day.

Hundreds of thousands of family members of both are grieving to this day with more questions raised about the events of 9-11...than answered.

TWO-THIRDS of the 30,000 Ground Zero and clean up workers have developed complications because of their brave work after that fateful day.

As far as a new INVESTIGATION...that will never happen, as the government will not prosecute itself.

You may have missed it, but an informal and TRULY INDEPENDENT investigation, has been ongoing for many years now, and it includes many peer reviewed papers and numerous volunteer and grassroots efforts from many specialists in the relevant fields...


It is only a matter of time before all of this information reaches critical mass.

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.