Is Richard Gage breaching the AIA Code of Ethics & Bylaws?

[Oystein]

Maybe this is the mind of a 50-year-old married guy speaking here, but I would have never thought of this. Could it work?

I would have thought it's the last and only chance left to a 50-year-old married guy to pick up chicks

 

[JayUtah]

I think this is all well argued (not just the part I quoted), although the conclusion may be too sweeping -- at least in this context. It's up to AIA and other professional associations to decide how stringently to enforce their codes in an attempt to protect their reputations and/or the public.

Agreed. The AIA has enjoined Gage from using their identity in connection with his presentations, though not from identifying himself as an AIA member. This seems to be their level of comfort.

 

[JayUtah]

Furthermore, as I noted, the Aerospace America forum lacks the standard disclaimer that posts are opinions of their posters only and do not reflect the positions of the AIAA. A rational reader might therefore reasonably conclude that AIAA did indeed support this viewpoint.

Correct, and that may occur even with a disclaimer. If one seeks to associate one's name with an organization, that association is likely to stick more tightly than a separate disclaimer. If I read "Richard Gage, AIA" I'm inclined to respect that association in what he says, even if somewhere else he notes "My views do not represent nor are endorsed by the AIA," and further elsewhere the AIA notes, "The comments of individual members do not reflect the views of the organization as a whole or any other members." Prominent juxtaposition trumps fine print every time.

However much can be accomplished by informal means. Someone from the AIA could simply call him up and ask him politely to remember that he doesn't speak for the group. I tend to pay attention when things like that because I've learned that stronger sactions are likely warming up on the runway if I don't heed the gentle request.

With respect to Mr. Gage, I think he is being careful not to cross the line. He is a member of AIA, and unless they decide to throw him out for whatever reason he can certainly represent himself as such.

Yes, that's true. If they aren't going to throw him out, then he does have a right to represent that membership. Good standing is good standing, regardless of the mistaken impression it may end up conveying.

between the beef jerky guy and a foundation-jacking concern perhaps...

But see, I find both those useful.

...and if they did not, I would work to replace their board members with more sane individuals.

Or failing that, I would resign. Because if it came to that, I'd recognize that I was the odd man out, and that my views no longer represented, or were represented by, the organization. The key concept for me is that Gage can say what he wants, but he cannot fairly associate his claims with an organization to which he belongs unless that organization consents.

 

[LSSBB]

Mr. Gage appears at AIA conferences once in a while, but he lurks in the vendor areas, between the beef jerky guy and a foundation-jacking concern perhaps, and so long as he pays his bill he has that right as well.

does he give away empty boxes as promo items?

Something devoid of actual content would be quite fitting, actually.

 

[chrismohr]

I agree with those who suggest that he's running a very fine line.

Let me therefore pose an interesting challenge.

I say that Mr. Gage's grasp of the architectural and technical issues around the collapse of WTC1 and 2 is incompetent; he has failed to present the material in a professional manner and falls far short of the standards we would expect of an architect.

If this were untrue, then Mr. Gage could report me to the RIBA for unprofessional conduct, and possible the ARB too (they have a slightly different, consumer-protection locus).

However, in my hearing I would be able to lead evidence that substantiates my claim. I am therefore willing to wager that Mr. Gage will not make a formal complaint, on the basis that the resulting egg on face and publicity will rather dent whatever reputation he believes he has.

Go ahead Gage, make my day. Make a complaint.

I doubt very much that Gage will take you up on your challenge, because his attitude is probably to let people say whatever they want about him or anything else without turning them in to the authorities. For that matter I doubt he would trust authorities in such an issue anyway. In the unlikely event I'm wrong and he does lodge a formal complaint against you, it would certainly put my debate with him to shame, if only because people actually have something to lose.

 

[Architect]

Indeed; it's hard to write one sentence that works for all. The point I was making earlier is that if one assumes that an architect is also automatically a highly skilled structural engineer, one may indeed err greatly. Architecture does not inevitably encompass that science. Frank Gehry, for example, works almost strictly in the artistic realm and relies upon an army of civil and structural engineers, using the CATIA integrated engineering software packages, to realize his designs. Other more pedestrian architects can rely upon formulaic structural systems such as the standard steel bays and avoid knowing intimately how structural systems work.

An architect may also understand structural systems well enough to speak authoritatively as a forensic structural engineer, but it doesn't arise naturally out of the typical credentials. I live in a state where structural engineering requires a separate license, and one's PE license or architect's license does not satisfy that.

I would agree with this.

There is a broad spectrum in architecture ranging from design-led professionals through to the more technical "here's how you build it" brigade down to what I would call the small GP practices. This starts at university level; at my own, structures was only compulsory for the first two years and thereafter was an elective subject. Building fabric performance and fire safety were likewise optional.

One you qualify, this specialism tends to continue. So,for example, I was a senior associate with a large UK practice with a strong commercial property track record that moved into progressively taller structures. It was years before we built up the skills to start doing the complex stuff. You Mancunians know from previous discussions the ones I'm talking about, and it's rather more impressive than anything Gage has done.

We also have to be clear about the role of the architect. We develop the overall design and can-ordinate the likes of structural and servicing input. We are required to understand sufficient of each to permit us to do that effectively and efficiently, but we do not do the detailed nuts and bolts work. So, for example, I have worked with Arup a lot over the years.

The medical equivalent is the difference between a GP and a consultant surgeon. I don't want the former doing surgery on me, although he will understand the general scope of work done, and I wouldn't want the surgeon to try and play anaesthetist.

As I've said before, this is where Gage's implict appeal to self authority must be treated with considerable scepticism. He therefore stands or fails solely on the robustness of the technical material he presents. And frankly, as the tower of boxes show, the man is not competent to do so authoritavely.

 

[Architect]

I doubt very much that Gage will take you up on your challenge, because his attitude is probably to let people say whatever they want about him or anything else without turning them in to the authorities. For that matter I doubt he would trust authorities in such an issue anyway. In the unlikely event I'm wrong and he does lodge a formal complaint against you, it would certainly put my debate with him to shame, if only because people actually have something to lose.

I doubt he'll do it because he knows a jury of his professional peers will highlight the inadequacy of his technical case and a decision that I did not act unprofessional or unreasonably in calling his technical judgement in this field incompetent rather holes his boat below the waterline. He can claim it was an establishment fix, but he still loses.

Personally, I'd also be calling in some favours from the Arup team to back up my oft-voiced criticism of CD theories. Since they're amongst the top three or four in the world, I'd love to see him muster a credible attack.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Link to related thread, for posterity's sake.

AIA Speaks on AE911Truth and Richard Gage: "No Relationship Whatsoever"