The bedrock of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is our petition demanding a new and independent investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.
In May, this petition surpassed the remarkable milestone of 3,000 architects and engineers. As we announced then, we are marking this significant achievement with the upcoming publication of 3,000 Architects & Engineers: In Their Own Words, a handsomely designed document that will list every signatory along with his or her statement of support, academic degree, and technical biography.
In the meantime, we would like to honor and highlight just a few of the architects and engineers who most recently added their voices to the call for a new investigation and propelled us to the 3,000 milestone. We encourage you to share these testimonials with any architects and engineers you may know and ask them to also sign the AE911Truth petition.
“An unbiased and scientific analysis is required due to inconsistencies on many fronts.”
— James Watkins, B.S. Civil Engineering. Engineer in Training (EIT) and eight-year army veteran (Iraq 2007 – 2009, Afghanistan 2009 – 2010).
“The NIST model [of WTC 7] does not represent the reality of the collapse. Therefore, NIST model assumptions were wrong somewhere. In addition to that, the collapse of one major column would not cause the whole building to collapse, and if it did, it will not collapse symmetrically.”
— Amin Talha, architect with 30 years of experience managing the construction of institutional, commercial, and residential high-rise buildings and single-family dwellings.
“Real investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board, Chemical Safety Board, etc., are thorough and to the highest ethical and professional standards — using all available evidence to arrive at logical, science-based conclusions. This type of investigation has yet to occur for the events of 9/11. The current dubious conclusions of the 9/11 investigation require cherry-picked evidence, a secret model that is off limits to peer review, and exclusion of contradictory evidence. The process used was anything but scientific.”
— Daniel Lambesis, chemical engineer with over 30 years of experience in the chemical industry.
“The manner of free-fall collapse of all the structures required removal of all structural support and the horizontal expelled matter required an introduced horizontal force.”
— Frankie Lee, P.E., engineering consultant with over 30 years of experience on construction-related projects and 20 years of working as a civil engineer.
“The official version of the events of 9/11 never made sense to me but, for some reason, I chose to ignore or dismiss my suspicions for 16 years. I am ready now to throw my weight behind the call for a new investigation.”
— Kevin Giambrone, P.E., structural engineer with expertise in bridges.
“[T]here are so many inconsistencies in the official reports on the tragic event and so many gaps, especially in the collapse of WTC 7, that only a new, independent investigation can confirm or delete suspicions and remove existing ambiguities. I therefore fully agree with the request to have the events re-examined independently.”
— Joerg Schneider, Professor Emeritus of Structural Engineering at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, former President of the Joint Committee on Structural Safety (JCSS), and Vice President of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE).
