Not by traditional classification, no. But then there are a number of ways to classify organisms.
There is very strong evidence in the genome (and at least not contradicted by fossil evidence) that humans and chimpanzees share a more recent last common ancestor with each other than either does with gorillas. Now -- if you follow a strictly "cladistic" scheme, where you attempt to ensure that each named group includes all the common branches since a given evolutionary divergence -- then if you want to call both chimps and gorillas "apes," then you are required to call humans "apes" as well.
At the same time there are other classification schemes which allow you to recognize that one evolutionary lineage has diverged sufficiently from others in its evolutionary sister group to justify giving it a different name, even at the same taxonomic level. In that case you can call humans something different even while recognizing they form a sister group with chimps exclusive of other apes.
Sorry, I don't mean to be patronizing or pedantic. You may realize all this. But in my defense I often find it impossible to tell in your case as you have a (IMHO bad) habit of pursuing purely semantic debates with undiminished insistence even when you possess sufficient information to know that's all they are.
Sorry, I don't mean to be patronizing or pedantic.
No you weren't. Your post was very good. But as you noted, it depends on the definition of "ape". And as this site indicates (http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/classification/Hominidae.html#Hominidae)
Home 
the word ape still excludes humans.
My original point was to establish that this Humans are apes. QED. is not an argument. Your post was.