Why don't Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Fund Research?

Mick West said:
You both miss the point:

AE911 Makes a claim
AE911 Could verify or disprove that claim with some research
AE911 Instead says that the government should do the research, knowing that they will not
....
?

Pointing fingers is great. But if you can actually do something about it, and you have the money and the people, then why don't you?
Click to expand...
Why would me or anybody else concerned with getting to the truth about WTC7 do an analysis showing freefall impossible, when we already have an analysis that disproves NISTs assertions to the extent that their analysis does not get to that point of the collapse without falling flat on its face?
Clearly their analysis is flawed before the collapse even initiates, and has been demonstrated to be so.
 
gerrycan said:
Why would me or anybody else concerned with getting to the truth about WTC7 do an analysis showing freefall impossible, when we already have an analysis that disproves NISTs assertions to the extent that their analysis does not get to that point of the collapse without falling flat on its face?
Clearly their analysis is flawed before the collapse even initiates, and has been demonstrated to be so.
Click to expand...

Even assuming NIST's research is terrible and has lots of mistakes, AE911 is making claims that nanothermite was there, and that the rate of descent was impossible.

NIST being wrong does not automatically mean that AE911's assertions are correct.

So why don't AE911 try to demonstrate that their assertions are correct? Surely that would be VASTLY more convincing than pointing out NIST's mistakes.

Why not? Why not demonstrate your more dramatic assertions are correct?
 
Mick West said:
Even assuming NIST's research is terrible and has lots of mistakes, AE911 is making claims that nanothermite was there, and that the rate of descent was impossible.

NIST being wrong does not automatically mean that AE911's assertions are correct.

So why don't AE911 try to demonstrate that their assertions are correct? Surely that would be VASTLY more convincing than pointing out NIST's mistakes.

Why not? Why not demonstrate your more dramatic assertions are correct?
Click to expand...

My assertions re the initiating event at WTC7 remain undebunked by you or anyone else.
 
Mick West said:
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about nano thermite and rapid collapse of Wtc7. Why not pay to demonstrate those assertions.
Click to expand...
ok, so what is it specifically in WTC7 that NIST say led to freefall? - Thermal expansion of long span beams in the NE. This has been demonstrated to be false, and should be dealt with before we can move on to events such as freefall, that NIST and others attribute to that.
 
gerrycan said:
ok, so what is it specifically in WTC7 that NIST say led to freefall? - Thermal expansion of long span beams in the NE. This has been demonstrated to be false, and should be dealt with before we can move on to events such as freefall, that NIST and others attribute to that.
Click to expand...

No, that's backwards, a waste of time. Just demonstrate your assertion. Why not?
 
Jeffrey Orling said:
The topic has been answered... they are a marketing operation promoting CD using talking points and referring to questionable statements made by independent researchers.
Click to expand...

It has not been answered by any current members of AE911. While that's certainly the impression they give, I think many of their members may see it differently.

Gerry and Tony are active and celebrated members of AE911, and I suspect they actually would like some money to be spent on research as well as marketing. However I also suspect they wish to show a united front for the organization, and they probably feel I'm just trying to sow dissent in the ranks.
 
gerrycan said:
It clearly is relevant to the topic. Part of the research that @Redwood is suggesting AE911 undertake is to produce a model of the WTC7 collapse. If the simulation that NIST did was realistic, why would there be a need for anyone else to do an additional simulation?
Very relevant to this topic, just not convenient for redwood, and others to answer, that's all.
Click to expand...
LOL, Redwood is directly to the point. All you want to do is deflect any responsibility from AE911Truth to NIST and the gubmint. That way AE911Truth produces no research, rakes in cash every year, and points the finger for a living. How convenient!

If you're Richard Gage, the tragedy of 9/11 is the gift that just keeps giving!
 
gerrycan said:
ok, so what is it specifically in WTC7 that NIST say led to freefall? - Thermal expansion of long span beams in the NE. This has been demonstrated to be false, and should be dealt with before we can move on to events such as freefall, that NIST and others attribute to that.
Click to expand...
Your guru, Richard Gage, insists that the specifics of the collapse of 7 could ONLY be from controlled demolition. Yet he hasn't spent a dime of the million$ that AE911Truth takes in to produce a model that backs up his claim. Nobody has.

You will never produce a model which backs up your claims, we know that. You don't even have the integrity or courage to try.
 
Alienentity said:
Your guru, Richard Gage, insists that the specifics of the collapse of 7 could ONLY be from controlled demolition. Yet he hasn't spent a dime of the million$ that AE911Truth takes in to produce a model that backs up his claim. Nobody has.

You will never produce a model which backs up your claims, we know that. You don't even have the integrity or courage to try.
Click to expand...
Please stop personally attacking people who are not here to defend themselves.
 
Mick West said:
It has not been answered by any current members of AE911. While that's certainly the impression they give, I think many of their members may see it differently.

Gerry and Tony are active and celebrated members of AE911, and I suspect they actually would like some money to be spent on research as well as marketing. However I also suspect they wish to show a united front for the organization, and they probably feel I'm just trying to sow dissent in the ranks.
Click to expand...
Mick, regardless of your attempt to deny it, it would be naïve to not think you are trying to sow some sort of dissent.

Rather than evading things I will tell you just what AE911's approximate expenses were in the last year that I know of

- $260,000 for billboards and the Rethink 911 campaign
- $85,000 for CEO/spokesman salary
- $40,000 for office manager salary

Richard Gage and his office manager are the only people paid a full time wage and Richard is the spokesman and CEO of the organization and handles all day to day operations with his office manager.

The above amounts to $385,000 out of about $465,000 raised this past year and does not include the overhead of the office or travel for Richard Gage for presentations, speeches, fund raising etc. They have also helped out with funding for legal efforts when necessary. So there is very little left over for doing other things and there is not a lot of sustaining membership donations. It is usually a result of a given campaign such as Rethink 911 in a boom or bust sort of way.

If you already know this then you are being disingenuous. If you didn't I would think that you would now understand that it is a hand to mouth operation and not very capable of "funding research" in the way you imply it should.

I also do have to say that regardless of whether or not you truly understood AE911's financial situation, I find your trying to put the onus on AE911 and take it off of government somewhat disgusting. The NIST report has been shown to be a fraud and it is also disgusting that some here are not insisting on a new investigation. Even though it is left unsaid, it is kind of obvious what is going on.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Mick, regardless of your attempt to deny it, it would be naïve to not think you are trying to sow some sort of dissent.

Rather than evading things I will tell you just what AE911's approximate expenses were in the last year that I know of

- $260,000 for billboards and the Rethink 911 campaign
- $85,000 for CEO/spokesman salary
- $40,000 for office manager salary

Richard Gage and his office manager are the only people paid a full time wage and Richard is the spokesman and CEO of the organization and handles all day to day operations with his office manager.

The above amounts to $385,000 out of about $465,000 raised this past year and does not include the overhead of the office or travel for Richard Gage for presentations, speeches, fund raising etc. They have also helped out with funding for legal efforts when necessary. So there is very little left over for doing other things and there is not a lot of sustaining membership donations. It is usually a result of a given campaign such as Rethink 911 in a boom or bust sort of way.

If you already know this then you are being disingenuous. If you didn't I would think that you would now understand that it is a hand to mouth operation and not very capable of "funding research" in the way you imply it should.

I also do have to say that regardless of whether or not you truly understood AE911's financial situation, I find your trying to put the onus on AE911 and take it off of government somewhat disgusting. The NIST report has been shown to be a fraud and it is also disgusting that some here are not insisting on a new investigation. Even though it is left unsaid, it is kind of obvious what is going on.
Click to expand...

Then why is research in their charter?
 
gerrycan said:
Please stop personally attacking people who are not here to defend themselves.
Click to expand...
I have no choice. Richard Gage is the only fulltime member of AE911Truth, he's the one who travels around doing the presentations, it's his face I see on TV doing interviews. He's made it personal. He wants to be in the limelight, he wants the attention.

What he and you don't get to decide is whether that attention is negative or not. In this case, he refuses to step up, as leader and spokesman, and decision maker, to back up his many claims by producing a model which demonstrates those claims. If he were interested in standard science, not pseudo-science, he would take responsibility for this. He will not.
He has not proved his claims, he merely makes them and expects everyone to simply nod in agreement. That's not how science works.
If he wants to claim that explosive controlled demolition took place, he needs to produce a comprehensive testable theory and a model which demonstrates, using physics, his claims.
He will not do that. In my opinion he lacks fundamental integrity and courage. That's what I see operating here - a profitable career in perpetuity for Richard Gage, with legions of 'believers' who defend his every utterance without criticism. That's not science at all.
 
Alienentity said:
LOL, Redwood is directly to the point. All you want to do is deflect any responsibility from AE911Truth to NIST and the gubmint. That way AE911Truth produces no research, rakes in cash every year, and points the finger for a living. How convenient!

If you're Richard Gage, the tragedy of 9/11 is the gift that just keeps giving!
Click to expand...
NIST is responsible for an accurate report and they have not fulfilled that obligation to date. It is a disgrace that private citizens have had to expend time and their own money to correct this and to have to fight with those who somehow don't want a new investigation.

AE911Truth has been a public outreach to tell the average person that their government is lying to them. That task shouldn't even have to be done. By the way, Richard Gage is making less than he was prior to starting AE911Truth. So your claim that he is raking it in is not accurate.
 
Last edited:
Landru said:
Then why is research in their charter?
Click to expand...
They actually do fund a small amount. It just isn't exactly what some here would have them do, such as a large finite element model like that NIST did. It is disingenuous to even propose that given the financial situation of a grassroots organization that depends on voluntary donations.

The organization is also composed largely of volunteers and research has been done mostly on a volunteer basis.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
NIST is responsible for an accurate report and they have not fulfilled that obligation to date. It is a disgrace that private citizens have had to expend time and their own money to correct this and to have to fight with those who somehow don't want a new investigation.
Click to expand...

Even if this is entirely correct, it does not answer the puzzle as to why AE911 do not do something that so obviously would be in their best interests, if they are actually correct in their assertions.

Look at it another way. What is the downside of proving your case?
 
Mick West said:
So why not reduct that to $160,000 and spend $100,000 on research.
Click to expand...
Most of the money was raised from people who wanted the billboards. I can't tell them how to spend their money.

I do have a problem with those of you here who are not holding the government accountable in the face of clear and incontrovertible evidence of fraud in the NIST WTC 7 report. It kind of smells.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
They actually do fund a small amount. It just isn't exactly what some here would have them do, such as a large finite element model like that NIST did. It is disingenuous to even propose that given the financial situation of a grassroots organization that depends on voluntary donations.

The organization is also composed largely of volunteers and research has been done mostly on a volunteer basis.
Click to expand...

A small amount. How much?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
They actually do fund a small amount. It just isn't exactly what some here would have them do, such as a large finite element model like that NIST did. It is disingenuous to even propose that given the financial situation of a grassroots organization that depends on voluntary donations.
Click to expand...

A financial situation that allows them to spend a quarter of a million dollars a year on ads? They can't spare $5,000 to prove there was nano-thermite?

How about a limited independant study as suggested above, demonstrating the unsupported skin of WTC7 could not fall as rapidly as it did? Or demonstrating any part of ANY of the more bold assertions.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Most of the money was raised from people who wanted the billboards. I can't tell them how to spend their money.
Click to expand...

You could explain to them why independent research would be so important. You could campaign for it. Make the case to them. You are respected in the organization - you could talk to the big donors and explain.

But even then, why not the bits of research that only need small amounts of money, like the chips? That can come from the general fund without any problem.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Most of the money was raised from people who wanted the billboards. I can't tell them how to spend their money.

I do have a problem with those of you here who are not holding the government accountable in the face of clear and incontrovertible evidence of fraud in the NIST WTC 7 report. It kind of smells.
Click to expand...

Was there a meeting where the choice was billboards or research? Or is it on the donation slip as a checkbox?
 
Mick West said:
So why not reduct that to $160,000 and spend $100,000 on research.
Click to expand...

Tony, it would take less than 2% of the billboard ad cost to fund an independent test of the red chips. C'mon, this is just not a plausible excuse.
Does Mr Gage travel 1st class, business class or coach class? Maybe he could save a few bucks by flying coach, and the study could be funded that way. If I were on the board (I'm on two boards now plus I've run a private company for 16 years) I'd immediately get to it.

Another strategy would be for Gage to use his public profile to get an American university engineering dept. to do the FEA model as part of a case study. Why not suggest a curriculum to study the collapse, combining history and engineering?
Does Gage even talk to the heads of engineering programs? Does he solicit any feedback? Is he even interested in working with professionals in that capacity?

I guess working in a cooperative manner with 'the establishment' would damage his 'I'm taking it to the big bad wolf' schtick. So he's taken the belligerent, accusatory route instead. Meh, it's so reminiscent of blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Great for firing up the crowds but terrible for pursuing truth.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Most of the money was raised from people who wanted the billboards. I can't tell them how to spend their money.

I do have a problem with those of you here who are not holding the government accountable in the face of clear and incontrovertible evidence of fraud in the NIST WTC 7 report. It kind of smells.
Click to expand...
Why are you so afraid to put your collective money where your mouths are? You say the chips are nanothermite, and you say an independent study would confirm it.
There's a mere 2% of the billboard campaign between the claim and the proof, yet you find any excuse NOT to do this.

If I didn't know better I'd think you were afraid to find out the truth here. But you know you can't delay the test forever, right? The longer you stall, the worse it's going to be for you when the truth is known. That's how these things play out.
 
Alienentity said:
Why are you so afraid to put your collective money where your mouths are? You say the chips are nanothermite, and you say an independent study would confirm it.
There's a mere 2% of the billboard campaign between the claim and the proof, yet you find any excuse NOT to do this.

If I didn't know better I'd think you were afraid to find out the truth here. But you know you can't delay the test forever, right? The longer you stall, the worse it's going to be for you when the truth is known. That's how these things play out.
Click to expand...
Why not go and put a group together yourself and get the test done? Just make sure that this time you get a lab who have all the right equipment though, as all it took was a phone call the last time to find out that they didn't.
 
And again, they put "our mission is to research..." on their tax return.


The mission statement on your tax return is what you claim you are spending your money on.
 
gerrycan said:
Why not go and put a group together yourself and get the test done? Just make sure that this time you get a lab who have all the right equipment though, as all it took was a phone call the last time to find out that they didn't.
Click to expand...

Off topic Gerry. The topic is why AE911 don't.
 
I'll tell you one thing for certain: if my entire professional reputation was hinging on a $5,000 investment I'd have done it a long time ago.
Just as an example, one of my causes is sustainable local agriculture. I put $30,000 of my own money into farm infrastructure 2 years ago so our CSA could keep going.
And that's not my main business, just a community project I'm involved with.

I know the difference between substance and smoke.

AE911Truth doesn't measure up in integrity or honesty in my view.
 
gerrycan said:
Why not go and put a group together yourself and get the test done? Just make sure that this time you get a lab who have all the right equipment though, as all it took was a phone call the last time to find out that they didn't.
Click to expand...
LOL, nice try. Firstly, that's not the topic of the thread. Secondly, last time an independent study was commissioned and the results were not to your liking, AE911Truth leaders dismissed it.
If you guys pay for the study, you can't turn around and claim a conflict of interest against you. :)

[...]
 
gerrycan said:
Contrary to what you have stated, I do not talk for ae911.
Click to expand...
I said "Gerry and Tony are active and celebrated members of AE911"

If that's inaccurate, then clarify what your relationship is. Then please explain, from your perspective, why you think AE911 don't fund research.
 
Mick West said:
I said "Gerry and Tony are active and celebrated members of AE911"

If that's inaccurate, then clarify what your relationship is. Then please explain, from your perspective, why you think AE911 don't fund research.
Click to expand...
The group of researchers that I am a part of have been and remain independent in nature. Personally though, I do support ae911 100%, but I would not say that I was a "celebrated" member of ae911. Whenever I have approached ae911 for help and support when researching, they have always been very open and supportive, as per their charter. I applaud and respect that.
 
gerrycan said:
The group of researchers that I am a part of have been and remain independent in nature. Personally though, I do support ae911 100%, but I would not say that I was a "celebrated" member of ae911. Whenever I have approached ae911 for help and support when researching, they have always been very open and supportive, as per their charter. I applaud and respect that.
Click to expand...

You don't think their charter would tally with funding research though?
 
gerrycan said:
Yes, I think that it should, and that it does. They are however, architects and engineers, not chemists.
Click to expand...

So why is Mark Basile connecting his chip research proposal to them? Promising to give leftover funds to them? If the money can go in that direction, why not the other direction?

And why is there all this stuff about nanothermite on their site?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Oystein
Debunking resource: Engineers Assess the Truth in AE911Truth (Scott & Hamburger, 2021)
Replies
36
Views
8K
Jeffrey Orling
Jeffrey Orling
Mick West
Sean Kirkpatrick's Interview With Daniel Lavelle at The Guardian [Transcript]
Replies
26
Views
3K
MapperGuy
M
Mick West
The Dumbing Down of AE911Truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
3 4 5
Replies
188
Views
55K
econ41
econ41
John J.
Is "Improved Instrumental Techniques...", Nolan, Vallee, Jiang, Lemke 2022 a useful paper?
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
Z.W. Wolf
Z.W. Wolf
NorCal Dave
Meta Materials From UFOs
2 3 4
Replies
134
Views
23K
Gary C
Gary C

Latest posts

Back
Top