Press Item

Feb 21, 2009  
New theory from experts in the 9/11 truth group
— Jen Strano

New theory from experts in the 9/11 truth group

By Jen Strano '09, Staff Writer

Conspiracy theories are in the air and have always been a part of history's most perplexing and unsolved events. Everything from the Kennedy Assassination to the Manhattan Project has a thread of conspiracies trailing behind it. How can we tell fact from fiction? Do we stop ourselves from believing in something just because it sounds unbelievable?

I am not a conspiracy theorist; however, when I heard that a group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth was giving a presentation called "9/11: Blueprint for Truth" at MIT last May, I decided to research this team and what they had to say.

Every architect and engineer affiliated with the organization is 100 percent accredited and many are experts in building demolition. In other words, they are not crazy, unemployed skinheads who feel the need to make outrageous accusations without backing it up with evidence. It needs to be said that this is not a radical leftist group with an agenda. They do not attack the Bush Administration at all. Their purpose is to simply look at science.

There are currently 556 members in this group asking Congress for a new investigation into the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11. That's right: three towers. Many individuals have never heard about the collapse of Building 7.

The official story is that the three towers collapsed as a result of fire and structural damage. The AE group asserts that controlled demolition was used to bring down all three towers. They state that the three towers fell at nearly free-fall speed, something fire cannot and has not ever done before. The group explains how fire damage could not have created all the molten metal seen in the pictures and reported by the first responders.

This group also asserts that officials never tested for controlled demolition or explosives. But independent investigators as well as the EPA did and have found evidence of both.

In November 2008, Mr. Harold Saive from Gainesville, Florida, wrote to the FBI and urged it to consider the AE group's work. Mr. Michael J. Heimbach, the assistant director of the FBI counterterrorism division, responded back that his team was looking into it, and he stated that "Mr. Gage provides an interesting theory, backed by thorough research and analysis."

My question for individuals who are interested is, can a theory be incorrect and still be backed by thorough research and analysis? If the Architects and Engineers team is correct that controlled demolition was involved, then where do we go from here? I am not taking their side; however, I have researched extensively and cannot find any evidence debunking their theories.

Individuals with whom I have discussed the matter become very angry at the mention of such an argument. No one seems to want to talk about it. I understand how 9/11 is a sensitive subject, but what's the harm in having a dialectic argument about something, after which we can, hopefully, find truth? Medieval philosopher Pierre Abelard once said "The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth."

For more information please visit ae911truth.org.