Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth experts demand questions answered by Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Richard Gage AIA, the founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and hundreds of other industry experts' call for a new investigation into the collapse of the WTC twin towers and Building 7 is gaining strength following revelations of falsification and cover-up in relation to the FEMA-funded inquiry into the destruction of the buildings on 9/11.
As we reported earlier, the American Society of Civil Engineers - an organization that was funded by FEMA to investigate the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11 - has been accused of engaging in a cover-up to protect the government, with critics charging the organization falsified conclusions that skyscrapers could not withstand getting hit by airplanes.
In a recent sit-down video interview conducted by Alex Jones, Gage gave a succinct presentation bringing forth the best evidence for controlled demolition being the cause of the three buildings' implosion on September 11.
As Gage highlights during the interview, numerous prominent architects and other industry experts have called for a new investigation into the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7.
These include James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), who last year said that "the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."
"Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another," he added.
Charles Pegelow, BS CE – Civil Engineer with more than 25 years experience in structural design and analysis and project management of construction of major projects, including large steel structures, also added his support to a new inquiry.
Pegelow stated that the "FEMA / Kean Commission Report was a flawed investigation and it needs to be reopened."
Joel S. Hirschhorn, former full professor Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison; senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment; Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources at the National Governors Assoc., has also called for a new investigation to bring out the truth behind 9/11.
The Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth website lists scores of other experts who have added their voice to the call for a fresh inquiry and Gage lists their credentials during the video interview.
Today's fresh controversy, allied to last month's revelations about 9/11 Commission executive director Philip Zelikow's ties to the White House and his efforts to shield the Bush administration from responsibility for the terror attack, only lend new weight to calls for an independent inquiry - complete with subpoena powers - into the terror attacks.
RLCC Comment: Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! once asked for the names of experts who doubted the official 9/11 conspiracy version (the one where the U.S. government was caught completely by surprise rather than at a minimum, turning a blind eye for the sake of the new Perl Harbor to drive through the infamous [Un]Patriot Act). Many names are associated with this group. They are readily available. She should have them on her show to force the debate into the mainstream. She should cover their gatherings with cameras and microphones.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)