 |
|
Add to My Group
|
July 16, 2007 at 11:01:41
Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement by Alan Miller Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11 SAN FRANCISCO, CA July 16, 2007 -- San Francisco architect Richard Gage, AIA, founder of the group, 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,' announced today the statement of support from J. Marx Ayres, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council. “We are proud to have the support of Marx Ayres, a nationally recognized expert in building energy systems and earthquake damage to building nonstructural systems, in our search for the truth about the events of 9/11.”, said Mr. Gage. “He has signed our petition requesting a reinvestigation of those tragic events and he has now gone even further by providing his personal statement of support for a new investigation of 9/11.” In addition to his work on the California Seismic Safety Commission and National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council, Mr. Ayres also served on the State of California Department of Health Building Safety Board, where he was Chairman of the Mechanical/Electrical Subcommittee. Mr. Ayres has also served as a member of the Building Code Advisory committees for the City of Los Angeles, the California Building Standards Committee, and the International Conference of Building Officials. Mr. Gage, Mr. Ayres, and over 120 other architecture and engineering professionals, have signed a petition posted on the group’s website which questions the official reports of the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) Twin Towers and Building 7 in New York City on 9/11/01, and calls for a new investigation. The group does not speculate as to who and why, Gage says, but instead calls for a new investigation by Congress with subpoena power. He believes a new investigation is the only hope of "fully answering these questions and bringing those responsible to justice." To read Mr. Ayres’s full statement and to learn more about Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, please visit the organization’s website at: http://AE911Truth.org For more information about J. Marx Ayres, please visit his website at http://jmayres.com
J. Marx Ayres
Mr. Ayres is a nationally recognized expert in building air conditioning design and analysis, energy conservation, thermal energy storage, commissioning of HVAC systems, and earthquake damage to building mechanical systems, with over 55 years of experience. Co-founder of one of the largest building engineering firms in Los Angeles, Mr. Ayres has been in responsible charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects, including high rise offices, commercial centers, hospitals and laboratories, hotels and residential buildings, universities and colleges, schools, theaters and entertainment centers, jails and correctional facilities, TV and sound studios, governmental buildings and industrial facilities.
In his statement, Mr. Ayres wrote, “I support the work of Dr. Steven Jones. He has provided a scientific foundation for the collapse of the three World Trade Center (WTC) towers. I read the FEMA September, 2002 report, prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers, and initially accepted their theory of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. As more information became available on the web, I was motivated to research the subject in a more rigorous manner. I have carefully studied the Jones 2006 paper, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?” and concluded that it is a rational step-by-step study that meets the accepted standards for scientific building research. His critical reviews of the FEMA, NIST, and 9/11 Commission reports are correct.”
Mr. Ayres continues, “Steven Jones’ call for a ‘serious investigation’ of the hypothesis that the WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fire, but through the use of pre-positioned “cutter-charges” must be the rallying cry for all building design experts to speak out.”
Dr. Steven Jones is in the forefront of independent scientific researchers investigating the events of 9/11. A former professor of physics at Brigham Young University, his research indicates that the World Trade Center skyscrapers were destroyed not as a result of the impact of airplanes, but rather the result of intentional, controlled demolitions using precisely timed detonations of pre-planted explosives. In fact, one of the skyscrapers, 610 foot tall, 47-story, WTC Building 7, was not even hit by an airplane, yet it disintegrated and fell into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds. It is of interest to note that Building 7 was not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission’s "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” And in the almost six years since 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of Building 7’s collapse.
For more information about Dr. Steven Jones’ research on the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings, please visit Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice website at http://stj911.org/index.html
http://www.PatriotsQuestion911.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 10 comments |
|
Propaganda in the Media
One must think.... if 9/11 was an inside job, wouldn't it make sense for the perpetrators to plant propaganda in the media to distract those who are already suspicious of the "official" version? That's exactly what Steven Jones is for. This becomes obvious when one takes the time to look at the information instead of assuming that Jones is honest. Steven Jones sabotaged Free Energy research in 1989. (Look at the information, all of it!) Jones claims that there was molten metal at Ground Zero. But the "evidence" for this has been shown to be fabricated. There was NO molten metal at Ground Zero. Look at the information: http://www.911researchers.com/node/147 http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt4.html#cheetos Steven Jones was a researcher at Los Alamos Laboratories, where directed energy weapons are developed. So it comes to no surprise that he spends much time attempting to discredit former Professor of Mechanical Engineering Dr Judy Wood and her evidence of directed energy weapons at the World Trade Center. Dr Wood is represented by attorney Jerry Leaphart, and has received communication from the Directed Energy Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory/DEO-PA, at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. The Director of Public Affairs has said Dr Wood's research is "interesting and worthy of further investigation". Wood also received email from NIST, regarding the Request for Correction (RFC) she filed. This email stated NIST needs more time to reply to her RFC. http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_letter.html Wood's RFC is downloadable via the Dept of Commerse website: PDF file One one think..... why hasn't Dr Wood's 9/11 research been discussed in any newspaper or news show? The perpetrators control the media and Steven Jones is pushing propaganda to distract people from Dr Wood's DEW evidence. by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 17, 2007 at 4:31:14 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Disinformation Artist Alert
People trying to discredit Dr. Steven Jones are highly suspect. Judy Wood is a crank, with idiotic "theories" about space beams demolishing the World Trade Center from "orbit." Be very leary of these disinformation tactics, which I explore fully in my article: by johndoraemi (17 articles, 12 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 166 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 17, 2007 at 11:48:02 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: For those with brains...
it should be easy to see who's spreading disinfo. Those using childish comments (like above) is a clear example. Those not providing any evidence to back up their claims (again, like above) is another clear example. Check the links in my other comments. Look at the evidence for yourself instead of blindly trusting some "mild mannered" scientist like S Jones. Don't be fooled by these clowns! Look at the evidence for yourselves! Don't let these clowns discourage you from looking at evidence! by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 18, 2007 at 12:23:16 AM (0+)
|
|
An interesting story....
Nice to know that the establishment is working hard to re-engineer the story of 9/11 into something they want it to be, rather than a truthful one. To get an idea of Jones' views on some things, have a read of this (watch the video as well). Please look at this carefully! by Andrew Johnson (2 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 97 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 17, 2007 at 4:46:01 AM (0+)
|
|
9/11 Truth Movement"
What's the problem with Mr Jones ? Being Australian and residing down here, we're not privy to some things floating around in the U.S. WTC 7 in particular, no matter which way you look at it, needs some serious explaining to satisfy the skeptics(of which I am one) I firmly believe this building's destruction is the smoking gun of 9/11. The excuse we're given, that internal fires weakened the structure so much that it collapsed, (in fact I have yet to see a plausible explanation of why there should have been fires in that building in the first place, it was not struck by aircraft, nor was it of sufficient height to be effected from those strikes,) doesn't fit in with the firemen's reports or what went on in there. Conveiniently, we don't hear much at all of the claims that the FBI's archives were supposed to have been stored there with files and documentation of many pending investigations of Republican illegalities. I've read reports that the control centre controling the 9/11 vent were also contained within WTC 7 and that's the reason for it's destruction, disposing of complicite evidance, what better way then to blow it all up and then cart it away before any forensic studies can be undertaken. Similarly the Strong rooms that were in the basement, containing tons and tons of gold, which by all appearances, mention of also seems to have strangely disappeared into the ether, could your Mr Jones have any doings with any of these matters as well ? Whatever Mr Jones's objective may be, I believe when he says it was deliberately brought down. I fail to see, how such a statement could be construed as misinformation, when there are many experts, foreign and U.S. who have all come to similar conclusions, I must ask the question, What are their motives for doing so, are they too in cahoots with Mr Jones, and if so, what do they expect to gain from such collusion ? by Eddy Schmid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 234 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 17, 2007 at 7:26:34 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The "Art" of Disinfo
A true disinfo artist will mix real, factual infomation with fabrications. Yes, WTC 7 was a controlled demoliton. In fact, it's the most obvious controlled demolition in history. No engineering degree required to see that! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr6_WRPZjIM Steven Jones and his supporters are distracting people from the important information.... the imporant information being the evidence that the WTC was destroyed by directed energy weapons. But hey, what is a former Los Alamos researcher like Steven Jones supposed to do! Jones' job is to lead the "truth movement" to a dead end. Dr Judy Wood, former Professor of Mechanical Engineering from Clemson University, filed an official Request for Correction (RFC) with NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) regarding the 9/11 NIST Report. Dr Wood cites fraud and deception, and shows clear evidence that the WTC was destroyed by a directed energy weapon. Wood is represented by attorney Jerry Leaphart. Leaphart and Wood received communication from See here for an image of the FAX sheet: Here's Dr Wood's Request for Correction (in PDF format), archived on the US Dept of Commerse website: by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 18, 2007 at 12:14:45 AM (0+)
|
|
disinformation
CB_Brooklyn, you seem to be the one spreading disinformation and propaganda. "There was no molten metal"? wtf? Directed energy weapons? Why go to the trouble to make up a fancy story when good old-fashioned thermate and explosives seem to have been used - and there's evidence for them? We should be focusing on the evidence we have, instead of inventing distractions. by Hans Hammar (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 18, 2007 at 8:40:46 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You are being taken in, Hans
Where is the evidence that "thermite" destroyed the WTC? I haven't seen it. Could you provide the links that specifically show this evidence? But how can thermite/explosives explain what happened, anyway? Can thermite/explosives explain the round cylindrical holes in WTC 5 and WTC 6? Can thermite/explosives explain the clean vertical cut on the north wing of WTC 4, where all material on the other side of the cut is missing? Can it explain the WTC 4 cut being in direct path of the South Tower's north wall? Can thermite/explosives explain cars with missing engine blocks and unexploded gas tanks? Can thermite/explosives explain why the front of this police car is toasted while the rear is in pristine condition? Can it explain how the car's plastic red light on top survived? Can it explain how the front of this fire truck got wilted, and where its engine went? Regarding the molten metal.... this evidence has been proven fabricated. See here and here. Steven Jones worked at Los Alamos where directed energy weapons are researched. (See his bio on BYU's site for proof of this.) Greg Jenkins, who did this ambush interview of Dr Wood, has ties to Los Alamos and the NSA. Bob Bowman, former director of the Star Wars program, talks about NORAD standing down and other irrelevancies. What are all these DEW people doing in the Truth Movement anyway? Why do they spend so much time discrediting the DEW evidence? What is their objective? by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 19, 2007 at 2:33:56 AM (0+)
|
|
directed energy weapons hoax
Being opeminded, I spent some time researching directed energy weapons and how they could have been used on 9/11. It now seems implausible to me that DEW were used for several reasons: That kind of capability doesn't exist! DEW is in its infancy, and there's nothing yet that would vaporize a person or a tank, much less enormous skyscrapers. And there's no way yet to get that much power air- or space-borne. The towers' collapses have all the characteristics of explosion demolition, and none that you would expect from DEW. We know from eyewitnesses and video that there were explosions from the basements to the tops; we see squibs; pieces are blown out laterally; beams are glowing hot on the ends. The kind of super-powerful DEW it would take would look much different, and I don't see how it would cut the beams into neat sections, as they were. Let's look at it logically, say apply Occam's Razor, "the simplest solution tends to be the best one." Would you use an unproven untested technology, or do what you know will take buildings down, and rig a thousand pounds of explosives? CB_Brooklyn, let me see if I understand what you're saying. You say, beware of disinformation propaganda from the government, then you provide disinformation propaganda. Is this a roundabout way of outing yourself as a government hack? by Hans Hammar (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Friday, Jul 20, 2007 at 1:31:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: step by step debunk of Hans post
Being opeminded, I spent some time researching directed energy weapons and how they could have been used on 9/11. It now seems implausible to me that DEW were used for several reasons: I am being openminded, and I would suggest you try it. That kind of capability doesn't exist! DEW is in its infancy, and there's nothing yet that would vaporize a person or a tank, much less enormous skyscrapers. And there's no way yet to get that much power air- or space-borne. How do you know? Do you work in a top secret government lab? btw, Dr Wood is not saying anything was "vaporized" on 9/11. She coined the term "dustify" to describe the process. The towers' collapses have all the characteristics of explosion demolition, and none that you would expect from DEW. We know from eyewitnesses and video that there were explosions from the basements to the tops; we see squibs; pieces are blown out laterally; beams are glowing hot on the ends. The kind of super-powerful DEW it would take would look much different, and I don't see how it would cut the beams into neat sections, as they were. The towers did not collapse, they were pulverized, and have very few characteristics of explosive demolition. Eyewittnesses could be mistaken or lying. There's no explosions on video that are characteristic of explosive demolition. I haven't seen evidence of beams "glowing hot" on the ends. You seem to think all the beams were cut into neat sections. They weren't. Most were dustified. Let's look at it logically, say apply Occam's Razor, "the simplest solution tends to be the best one." Would you use an unproven untested technology, or do what you know will take buildings down, and rig a thousand pounds of explosives? Yes, you should look at it logically, and use OR. What can explain all the evidence that Dr Wood shows (linked in my other posts)? Answer: directed energy weapons. Can explosives explain the clean cut in WTC 4, and how it's in a direct path of the South Tower's north wall? Answer: NO. Can explosives explain the round cylidrical holes in WTC 5 and WTC 6? Answer: NO. Can explosives explain those toasted cars, with missing engine blocks, unexploded gas tanks, and other anomalies? Answer: NO. CB_Brooklyn, let me see if I understand what you're saying. You say, beware of disinformation propaganda from the government, then you provide disinformation propaganda. Is this a roundabout way of outing yourself as a government hack? A hypothesis is only valid if it takes into account all the available evidence. Explosives does not explain the evidence. DEW does. Seems like you're the one pushing disinfo. by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Jul 21, 2007 at 1:05:24 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
