Tweet $1,000 Prize to Charity of Choice Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is offering credentialed building professionals a 9/11 Debate Challenge — an opportunity to publicly endorse the National Construction Safety Team Act Report 1A (NCSTAR 1A), titled Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) and published in November 2008 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). By issuing this 9/11 Debate Challenge, AE911Truth hopes to further educate fellow building professionals and the public about NIST's collapse initiation hypothesis and its assertion of subsequent structural failures. AE911Truth, as the "Challenger of NIST," trusts that such a debate with the "Champion of NIST," whoever that may be, will allow the evidence for the explosive controlled demolition of WTC 7 to be presented side by side with videos and other forensic evidence obtained from NIST's own files. Why is AE911Truth issuing a 9/11 Debate Challenge? Ever since 2006, when AE911Truth founder Richard Gage, AIA, started a petition calling for a new, independent investigation of the WTC destruction on 9/11, detractors have claimed that the "small minority" of architects and engineers who have signed it — 2,216 to date, and counting — "do not represent" the prevailing sentiment of either the architectural or engineering professions. AE911Truth has insight to offer. Building professionals have been shown to be almost completely uninformed about the WTC 7 evidence, which is not readily available from the media and industry associations. For instance, of the several hundred architects attending the Chicago AIA convention in June 2014 who were asked if they knew that a third tower was destroyed on 9/11, most said "No!" — though it was the third-worst structural failure in modern history (third only to WTC 1 and WTC 2 earlier that day). Those who are unaware of the evidence, whose views are not informed, and who may make statements that side with the government's version of events are merely reiterating "hearsay" and expressing opinions based on incomplete or invalid information. Many professionals and academicians have shown that, for a variety of acknowledged and unacknowledged reasons, they are simply not open to hearing about an alternative theory of what happened at the WTC, and so they remain uninformed. Of those professionals who become aware of and open-mindedly examine the WTC evidence, either through their own research or through an outreach effort on the part of 9/11 truth activists, it has been repeatedly discovered that "controlled demolition" is the conclusion that they reach. Even after obtaining the knowledge of the explosive WTC evidence, many professionals have acknowledged that they cannot sign the petition due to real or imagined peer, professional, or even governmental pressures. And so their agreement with the evidence for controlled demolition is notably absent from public view. In an effort to enlighten fellow professionals and other citizens, AE911Truth has come up with the following challenge: A $1,000 challenge is hereby offered for a team comprised of a LICENSED high-rise architect and a LICENSED structural engineer and/or an active FULL professor of either of these disciplines to publicly defend the integrity of the NIST NCSTAR 1A final report on WTC 7, in a debate exchange format, with members of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth team. The challenge will be won by the team that has convinced more than 50 percent of the audience to either agree or disagree with this statement: "The key questions raised by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have been adequately addressed by NIST, and a new investigation regarding the destruction of WTC 7 would continue to support NIST's conclusions that WTC 7 was destroyed by a fire-induced, gravity-only progressive collapse. Yes or no?" Proposed by AE911Truth, the 9/11 Debate Challenge has been endorsed by the AE board of directors. Wayne Coste, P.E., a licensed professional engineer, explains the rationale behind the challenge: "We believe that we speak for the engineering community in calling for significant corrections to the NIST NCSTAR 1A final report on WTC 7 that would invalidate its conclusions. This belief is supported by our inability to find professionals willing to put their reputations on the line by publicly supporting that report in the face of all of the evidence. While we have heard of 'expert' presenters supporting the official story, they have never shared a stage with a representative of AE911Truth presenting 'the rest of the story.' That's why we are now making the challenge official, and are offering a monetary prize payable to a charity of the winner's choice." Elaborating on Coste's comments, Gage notes, "In the past, debates have occurred where our opponents were not technical professionals. Consequently, they were allowed to skim over facts or develop explanations that were not consistent with either building structures, the laws of physics, or the evidence. In those cases, their misstatements have led to no professional repercussions. As a result, we feel it is appropriate to restrict this challenge to those who have 'skin in the game.'" The challenge will be limited to a debate about WTC 7. This will keep the discussion focused and allow time to adequately address the key issues — namely, the November 2008 update of NCSTAR 1A (NIST's final report on WTC 7), free-fall acceleration, symmetry, compactness of the pile, extreme temperatures, eyewitnesses, foreknowledge, and other evidence for controlled demolition. Depending on AE911Truth's success in finding someone qualified to be the Champion of NIST's WTC 7 final report, it is possible that a separate challenge may be issued for a debate on the destruction of the WTC 1 and WTC 2. It will be more difficult for an architect or engineer to support the official NIST investigation into the Twin Towers, however, because NIST does not even address the physical evidence of their destruction or aftermath. Rather, its NCSTAR reports for WTC 1 and WTC 2 cover the timeline only up to their "initiation of collapse," without even attempting to explain the physical features of their destruction, which the evidence shows can only be attributable to explosives and incendiaries. World Trade Center Building 7 descended symmetrically in just 6.5 seconds. Required Credentials for the Champions of NIST: The debate is open to any high-rise architect and structural engineer team currently LICENSED in any state within the United States or in any province in Canada, including any active FULL PROFESSOR of either of these disciplines at an accredited architectural or engineering school. Location: The debate will be held on the campus of a college or university that has an accredited architectural or engineering school and that is within an hour's drive of a major metropolitan area. Moderator: A debate moderator who is acceptable to both parties will be chosen. Audience: Attendance at the 9/11 Debate Challenge will be open to students, faculty, and the general public. The doors will be closed once the debate has begun. All members of the audience who have listened to the entire debate may vote. The debate will be recorded for later broadcast. Format: The event, including questions from the audience, is anticipated to last about 90 minutes. Each proponent will open with a five-minute introduction.

Each side will choose in advance five specific points to discuss. They should include an explanation either of the completeness or the shortcomings of the NCSTAR 1A final report, as well as such key topics as free-fall acceleration, symmetrical destruction, compactness of the pile, extreme heat, Appendix C of the FEMA report on WTC 7, and additional points of evidence.

Point #1 (by the Champion of NIST): 3 minutes

Rebuttal (by the Challenger of NIST, AE911Truth): 3 minutes

Counter rebuttal (by the Champion of NIST): 3 minutes

Final rebuttal (by the Challenger of NIST, AE911Truth): 3 minutes

Point #2 (by the Challenger of NIST, AE911Truth): 3 minutes And so on. In total, five points will be debated, each point for a total of 12 minutes, and the total debate time will be 60 minutes. The audience will then have 20 minutes to ask questions.

The two sides will then close with final remarks lasting five minutes each.

In conclusion, this "deciding question" will be posed by the moderator to the assembled audience: "The key questions raised by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have been adequately addressed by NIST, and a new investigation regarding the destruction of WTC 7 would continue to support NIST's conclusions that WTC 7 was destroyed by a fire-induced, gravity-only progressive collapse. How many say 'Yes'? How many say 'No'?" A show of hands will be counted by the moderator. Judging: If more than 50 percent of the audience agrees that a new investigation is not warranted, the Champion of NIST wins. Otherwise, the Challenger of NIST, AE911Truth, wins. Awarding of Charity Donation: If the Champion of NIST team prevails, its members will designate a charity of their choice for the $1,000 donation. Otherwise, AE911Truth retains the honorarium in anticipation of another Champion of NIST stepping up to the plate. Scheduling: AE911Truth will accept one proposal for a 9/11 Challenge Debate in 2014, and three for 2015. A minimum lead time of four weeks will be required to make arrangements for each debate. Proposals: Proposals from Champions of NIST should be emailed to us [ HERE ] and should contain the following information: Full name and title, daytime and evening phone numbers, email address, city and state (or province) of work or residence of each team member Professional biography/curriculum vitae of each team member Professional license number and state (or province) of registration of each team member Proposed college or university venue, with a letter from the administration confirming the venue's availability for an audience of 100 to 200 and for at least three possible dates Estimate of cost for auditorium rental Estimate of costs (paid separately by each team) for transportation, accommodations, etc. Any and all sincere Champions of NIST are welcome to submit a proposal. AE911Truth looks forward to seeing qualified building professionals who support the official WTC narrative step up and publicly defend it. Let the debate begin! < Prev Next >