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

[Mick West]

The sooner and the more you donate the sooner the study will happen. I take it you'll be very generous.

One wonders why AE911Truth don't fund this. They take in around $500,000 per year.

Update Nov 27 2015: There's now this: http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/

 

[Alienentity]

One wonders why AE911Truth don't fund this. They take in around $500,000 per year.

Astonishing isn't it?

 

[Mick West]

Ryan was listed as the Secretary on the AE911 2011 990 Tax Form:


Does anyone have an idea how much it would cost to do some more definitive tests to identify the material?

 

[hamishsubedei]

One wonders why AE911Truth don't fund this. They take in around $500,000 per year.

do you have access to their accounts ?

 

[Mick West]

do you have access to their accounts ?

Yes. See attached:

 

[hamishsubedei]

yea , total revenue was fractionally higher than total expenses

 

[Mick West]

yea , total revenue was fractionally higher than total expenses

They are a non-profit. What did they spend it on?

 

[Landru]

Staff salaries?

 

[Cairenn]

Billboards? "Did you know a third building fell on 9/11?" I spotted that one in Dallas on I 35 just north of downtown

 

[hamishsubedei]

Billboards, advertising, internet sight, internet advertising etc. Doing something the mainstream media won't do thats get the word out.

 

[Cairenn]

So they don't want the FACTS they just want to push their agenda

 

[hamishsubedei]

they want a new investigation !

 

[Josh Heuer]

One wonders why AE911Truth don't fund this. They take in around $500,000 per year.

Are you suggesting they have around $500,000 a year to blow on whatever they want?
If so, that's very misleading, and obviously far from the truth.

 

[Svartbjørn]

I think what Mick's saying, Josh, is that if the AE911 group has or makes a half million a year they can use a portion of that income to fund research to help prove their assertions. Hiring a well reputed independent third party to conduct investigations and research on their findings would carry a lot more weight than just stating "this is the truth because we say so." By my understanding, thats the very point of view the group disputes in the first place. Personally, I find it a lot easier to take a look at data when its coming from a source that has no distinct bias. I dont have to sit down and filter opinion from data.. the hired company takes the data, runs the tests and publishes the results. It's for that reason that I agree with Mick on this particular subject.. if you've got the money and its that important to you, use some of it to prove your point... Otherwise you're left with the impression that you're just making money off of the situation instead of furthering your cause... very similar to "I dont know, therefore aliens" or "I dont know, therefore mayan doomsday" scenarios.

 

[SR1419]

^ As they say..."put your money where your mouth is..."

 

[Mick West]

They clearly spend half a million dollars a year. This seems to largely be spent on:

A) Richard Gage's salary ($85K), benefits, travel expenses, and payroll taxes
B) Making things to sell, like DVDs.
C) Advertising, promotion, web sites.

Given the vast potential for making your case using verified evidence, it would seem to be a very good use of money to try to get that verified evidence. Particularly when it's something that underlies claims you are making.

They don't even have to spend money, they could simply use some of their publicity money to do a fundraiser, which would have the double benefit of raising awareness, and getting the issue resolved.

The lack of spending any money on research makes it look like they are simply a PR company, and not actually interesting in the truth.

 

[gerrycan]

Almost amusing to watch people request that an organisation which they clearly do not support should provide them with evidence that they will refute if it does not concur with their own view anyway. I bet none of these people are or did make the same call for federal agencies who actually got paid to investigate this properly to carry out these tests.
@Mick West and @Alienentity --- Do you feel that it would have been right and proper for NIST to have these same tests carried out as part of their investigation? (ignoring the convenient changes to their charter that preceded said "investigation".

 

[Mick West]

Nobody is asking them to do it. I'm asking why they don't. Why do you think they don't?

 

[Mick West]

It would be useful here to know how much money we are talking about. Mark Basile is attempting to raise $5,000 for an independent lab test:

http://www.markbasile.org/ (http://archive.is/UOUDo)
http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/proposal/index.htm (http://archive.is/urEhH)

He has $3,000 raised already. So only $2,000 is needed. Which seems well within the general expenditure of AE911. However the flow of funds here seems backwards:
http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/donate/index.htm (http://archive.is/GdEtG)

Mark, Rick, nor any of the Volunteers are not being paid anything.
Web site hosting and updating is donated free by Cosmic internet.
Any remaining funds, if any, will go to AE911Truth with full disclosure.

Content from External Source

So AE911 might end up making money from this.

 

[gerrycan]

Nobody is asking them to do it. I'm asking why they don't. Why do you think they don't?

Perhaps they agree that there are enough gaps in the NIST reports to validate the calls for a new investigation without having to test the dust. After all, as you yourself learned elsewhere on this forum, NIST made a huge mess of their analysis, and should be called on to prove their hypothesis for collapse, something they have not yet done.
Don't you think that NIST should have tested for explosives/residue?

 

[Josh Heuer]

Don't you think that NIST should have tested for explosives/residue?

I almost posted this too. The burden has somehow shifted. But get ready for 'that's off topic'

 

[Svartbjørn]

No one's discussing whether or not to conduct another evaluation gerry/Josh, what's being discussed is the fact that an organization that pulls in 500k a year is trying to raise 5k for another test to be conducted rather than diverting such a proportionately small amount away from their own annual intake. 2k out of 500k is ~.004%. What Im asking is, if its important enough to retest, why not pay out of pocket if you have well more than the amount AE911 is saying that is needed for the tests to be conducted rather than asking for donations.


*edited for small puncutation error.

 

[Landru]

I almost posted this too. The burden has somehow shifted. But get ready for 'that's off topic'

Not only off topic but already discussed in other threads...for hundreds of posts.

 

[Josh Heuer]

Not only off topic but already discussed in other threads...for hundreds of posts.

And it cracks me up. Why aren't AE911 doing the tests that should have already been done by NIST in the first place!
This thread is nothing more than an attempt to discredit AE911.

 

[Landru]

And it cracks me up. Why aren't AE911 doing the tests that should have already been done by NIST in the first place!
This thread is nothing more than an attempt to discredit AE911.

It is not limited to testing dust. What about finding a collapse model?

 

[Mick West]

And this push for independent tests get basically no coverage at all on AE911, have a look at their web site:
http://archive.is/www.ae911truth.org (http://archive.is/RJ6ZE)

There's calls to donate, exhortations to click on their Amazon links (violating Amazon's TOS), and links to their store where you can buy AE911 branded "wake up" coffee. Nothing about doing research.

This thread raises a simple question: why don't AE911 fund research?

Can anyone answer that question? Not deflect it with "why don't you", or "why don't NIST".

Why don't AE911 spend some of their money on research?

 

[Mick West]

It is not limited to testing dust. What about finding a collapse model?

Indeed, and you'd think this would be something they are especially interested in, being architects and engineers. @Tony Szamboti and @gerrycan, you both must surely have suggested such things to Gage. What was his rationale for not doing it?

 

[Josh Heuer]

And this push for independent tests get basically no coverage at all on AE911, have a look at their web site:
http://archive.is/www.ae911truth.org (http://archive.is/RJ6ZE)

There's calls to donate, exhortations to click on their Amazon links (violating Amazon's TOS), and links to their store where you can buy AE911 branded "wake up" coffee. Nothing about doing research.

This thread raises a simple question: why don't AE911 fund research?

Can anyone answer that question? Not deflect it with "why don't you", or "why don't NIST".

Why don't AE911 spend some of their money on research?

Here's a 'why don't' for you...
Why don't you ask them yourself?
I don't see a point to speculating about their expenses.
Seems like a case of 'just asking questions.' Remember that phrase?

 

[Mick West]

Here's a 'why don't' for you...
Why don't you ask them yourself?

And how would I do that? Fill in their "contact" form on their web page? I'll give that a go:



Tony and Gerry are better positioned to ask such a question, and undoubtedly have already asked it, let's see what they say.

 

[Pete Tar]

Here's a 'why don't' for you...
Why don't you ask them yourself?
I don't see a point to speculating about their expenses.
Seems like a case of 'just asking questions.' Remember that phrase?

Given that the question came up in the thread on paint flash-testing, and that the need for a further test to get more accurate and refined results was admitted by those pushing the thermite theory in they first place, this question is an obvious one, so your attempt to paint it as a smear campaign and yet more persecution against poor conspiracy theorists whose cause you seem determined to champion based on trivial perceptions of bias is trollish.

 

[Cairenn]

And it cracks me up. Why aren't AE911 doing the tests that should have already been done by NIST in the first place!
This thread is nothing more than an attempt to discredit AE911.

We have discussed why they didn't to death. If folks disagree they should put their money where their mouth and fingers are and gather the evidence to show that not looking was wrong.

They aren't doing that, they are making money and rabble rousing to support their agendas.

 

[hamishsubedei]

thats a good message mike west hopefully we will get an answer , I'm only for more tests and people testing the dust after all Nist didn't with all the money they had ,why should privately have to fund studies to caused what caused the molten metal at 911?

 

[Cairenn]

Please see the threads discussing the 'molten metal'.

 

[hamishsubedei]

I have and am totally not satisfied with the other explanations.

 

[Cairenn]

So contribute to funding a study. Don't force the government to spend MY tax money to satisfy your whim.

The majority of those with expertise have looked at it and they agree with the government report. And please don't use that 'official report' BS on me. All that is a dodge to minimize the importance of the the report because it doesn't fit into the agendas of some folks.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

why should privately have to fund studies to caused what caused the molten metal at 911?

Because people are not satisfied with the events as recounted by the mainstream media and the mainstream scientists. Would you trust that another government investigation would be up to your standards and meet all your expectations?

I would think sponsoring studies that proved liquid flowing metal or the existence nano explosive would get AE911 Truth a large amount of publicity and sponsorship. But then again, maybe billboards are more effective.

 

[Mark Fitzpatrick]

If only AE911T had access to say a couple of thousand architects and engineers, many of whom might even be willing to volunteer their time. With such access I can not imagine anything that would stop them other than an unwillingness to do so.

 

[Mick West]

I got a response back from AE911, possibly just an automated one, from David Slesinger, asking me to call him. So I called, got voicemail, left him my number.

 

[Mick West]

If only AE911T had access to say a couple of thousand architects and engineers, many of whom might even be willing to volunteer their time. With such access I can not imagine anything that would stop them other than an unwillingness to do so.

The reason I've heard about why they don't build detailed open source FEM models of the WTC buildings, is that they would need it to be independent. This strikes me as a bit of a cop-out, as there's plenty of useful information that can be gleaned from such a model, even if you doubt the motivations of those involved. One can always check it.

 

[George B]

I agree that the 911 group's inability or unwillingness to sponsor or fund some type of significant experimentation, simulation or modeling about WTC:911 events is a very large negative mark against their credibility; however, in my opinion the authorities are no less deficient . . . who has the greater responsibility???