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

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You'll never get AE members and sycophants who think they are the next best thing to sliced bread and that Gage is a hero for standing up for the truth... to admit that they are not interested in the truth as they claim. They are interested in and do is about:

1. Casting doubt and discrediting the details of the official account and the entire over arching narrative
2. Mining quotes and articles, youtubes and so forth, linking (referencing) to them, publishing them support #1
3. Gathering signatures on their petition as a means to establish some form of credibility (appeal to authority)
4. Selling various materials they produce which assembles their case (the stuff they mined and gathered from others)
5. Promoting their CD thesis at various venues from street events to AIA conventions
6. Avoiding conducting or supporting research especially when it contradicts their thesis
7. discrediting those who support any aspect of the official explanation as dis info agents and government apologists and shills
8. and last but not least propping up the illusions that they (their licensed professional petition signers) have rigorously studied the destruction of the buildings of the WTC and concur with their thesis... that they speak on their behalf.
I think that's an overly general characterization. There are lots of members of AE911 who simply think they are correct.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I think that's an overly general characterization. There are lots of members of AE911 who simply think they are correct.
I think my language was unclear. The list applies to what AE does not what the members and sycophants think. In fact the member et al don't believe that the list applies to AE's activities or agenda. They've largely been deceived... Smoke and mirrors... the cornerstone to PR, spin and marketing.

I changed the post.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Research scientific evidence.
But you have missed out quite a few words between research and scientific - and two commas. Your yellow highlights then make your three words read totally differently. Its always been AE911's focus on only using science as the basis for their site's output. They have always rejected any circumstantial evidence such as financial prior knowledge and the like. Research to them means a lot of boring spadework to prise drawings and documents using FOIA requests. But it is always science based research.

As many here have already said, a huge % of their income last year was specific fund raising to cover a large campaign of awareness that members supported. If the board had diverted funds raised in that way to spend on different projects the members would have had a legitimate complaint to lay before them. As I understand it much of their ordinary regular income is required for day to day expences, and I would imagine that the usual small business 'cashflow' issues means that even booking flights and hotels far enough in advance of a proposed awareness tour would make a prudent finance controller resist many approaches for funds that fall outside of normal business with them.

I have read others input in here, who are close to AE911, and who have indicated that if modest sums are requested for research then it is usually granted. I am personally aware of one such where a FOIA request was granted and funds were provided to buy large storage hard-drives for the FOIA data to be loaded into and posted back. Chump change of course but not if many different people amongst the thousands of members make similar requests for assistance.

Some time ago I exchanged emails with Mark Basile following JREF 'experts' demands for his tests to be independent and also in inert atmosphere. The impression I got was that he did intend to go that way but was wary about the use of the word 'independent'. I felt that he would try to even avoid any assistance or affiliation with a recognised 'truther' organisation in order to have an arms length answer to any subsequent bias accusations.

His own site also seems to indicate this too.( www.markbasile.org ) Much of the input in Metabunk is based on the quite small sum quoted to allow him to proceed and criticism of AE911 for not coughing up. I think that the criticism is misplaced and that in fact funds would be released in a heartbeat if MB asked. Of course I have no basis for this opinion other than an impression gained in email exchanges, and reading his site, but the difficulty in the raising of funds for MB's test would seem to fit in with my view. In any case, he already has $4k towards his $5k estimate so the point will eventually become academic. Perhaps you would like to 'chip' in ( pun intended).
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But you have missed out quite a few words between research and scientific - and two commas. Your yellow highlights then make your three words read totally differently.


I'm sorry, but what do you think that means, if not that part of their mission is to research scientific evidence?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I have read others input in here, who are close to AE911, and who have indicated that if modest sums are requested for research then it is usually granted.
Who? Where?

I am personally aware of one such where a FOIA request was granted and funds were provided to buy large storage hard-drives for the FOIA data to be loaded into and posted back. Chump change of course but not if many different people amongst the thousands of members make similar requests for assistance.
Buying a hard drive is not research.

What section of their tax return would that expenditure fall under?
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Buying a hard drive is not research.
Now you are being a tad foolish and people here aren't stupid. A huge amount of research into masses of documents and drawings requires access to those documents. And the easiest way of doing that is to load them into a hard-drive at source under the FOIA request, and then USB the data into your own computer so that they can be read efficiently and disseminated to a team involved in that research. So the purchase of equipment to enable the research to proceed is part of that research. Sorry to be pedantic but if you seriously meant to release that sentence then I feel its justified.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Now you are being a tad foolish and people here aren't stupid. A huge amount of research into masses of documents and drawings requires access to those documents. And the easiest way of doing that is to load them into a hard-drive at source under the FOIA request, and then USB the data into your own computer so that they can be read efficiently and disseminated to a team involved in that research. So the purchase of equipment to enable the research to proceed is part of that research. Sorry to be pedantic but if you seriously meant to release that sentence then I feel its justified.
What was the research that was done?
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
For those who think AE911 needs to fund research since it is in their mission statement that is a non-sequitur.

I don't know precisely how much funding has been allotted out of donations over the years but I do know that volunteer research is done by a significant numbers of AE911 petition signers. That in and of itself meets their mission statement. It does not matter whether or not it is something which requires funding.

In areas that have required funding, I do know they have funded FOIAs on occasion and that they are going to provide some funding for lab costs for Mark Basile.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
For those who think AE911 needs to fund research since it is in their mission statement that is a non-sequitur.

I don't know precisely how much funding has been allotted out of donations over the years but I do know that volunteer research is done by a significant numbers of AE911 petition signers and that in and of itself meets their mission statement. It does not matter whether or not it is something which requires funding.
I could believe they don't legally need to.

The question is why they don't, since it would seem to apparently to be in keeping with their entire mission. Citizen science is all very well, but an independent professional report on something like the chips, or the broader statements on WTC7 collapse speed, would go a very long way to making your case.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
I could believe they don't legally need to.

The question is why they don't, since it would seem to apparently to be in keeping with their entire mission. Citizen science is all very well, but an independent professional report on something like the chips, or the broader statements on WTC7 collapse speed, would go a very long way to making your case.
David Chandler's WTC 7 collapse speed analysis caused the NIST to check for it themselves and agree that it was in free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds of its fall. So I don't see where another study would be needed there.

If you are talking about how the free fall could occur that has been discussed as being worthy of a research grant. However, I do think the NIST is responsible for explaining the free fall as being possible within their theory, because on face value it is not.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
David Chandler's WTC 7 collapse speed analysis caused the NIST to check for it themselves and agree that it was in free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds of its fall. So I don't see where another study would be needed there.

If you are talking about how the free fall could occur that has been discussed as being worthy of a research grant. However, I do think the NIST is responsible for explaining the free fall as being possible within their theory, because on face value it is not.
No, I'm talking about you, AE911, commissioning an independent study to verify some of your bolder assertions about WTC7 not being possible to collapse the way it did.

And Chandler did not make NIST check anything, they just gave a more detailed profile of the collapse rate, rather than the average. We can start a thread on that if you like.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Explaining what scientific research AE911 had funded would be entirely on topic.
Thus far most research for papers and the like has been voluntary. The only time you need to pay is if you don't have the expertise in-house. You do realize that Zdenek Bazant's papers were not funded don't you? I told you FOIAs were funded at times and some smaller end items. You seem to think they should do things like the NIST FEAs which would cost major dollars and very few people have those resources and we also see what happened in the NIST case. They left out critical features and were wrong.

Since you are adamant, I would like to see your suggestions for AE911 projects, with your reason the project would need to be paid for, and a cost estimate for each project.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I told you FOIAs were funded at times and some smaller end items. You seem to think they should do major things and I have said they don't actually have the money for that at this point. It may come though. They are not against it in any way.

Thus far most research has been voluntary. The only time you need to pay is if you don't have the expertise in-house. So what are you suggesting aside from the nanothermite lab cost I already told you they were going to fund?
I think the most useful would be to get professional opinions on various claims. That could be fairly cheap. For example, get demolition experts to say how they might demolish the towers, or get structural engineers to analyse a claim about the rate of fall. Or canvass a poll of pilots on the impact speed.

In more depth, you might suggest some particular FEM or similar studies to disprove specific NIST points. Now you claim to have done so yourself in your letter, but how about getting those results independently certified? What would that take?

One extreme suggestion would be to reach out to some universities, and see if you can get a particular analysis assigned as course work, like "Why did the WTC fall so fast", and see what the various answers are.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
I think the most useful would be to get professional opinions on various claims. That could be fairly cheap. For example, get demolition experts to say how they might demolish the towers, or get structural engineers to analyse a claim about the rate of fall. Or canvass a poll of pilots on the impact speed.
These things have been done to some degree. See the 911 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out film for structural, thermal, chemical, and demolition issues. See Pilots for 911 Truth for approach and impact speed effects on control issues.

In more depth, you might suggest some particular FEM or similar studies to disprove specific NIST points. Now you claim to have done so yourself in your letter, but how about getting those results independently certified? What would that take?
I am not the only person who verified that, if included in the analyses, the NIST structural feature omissions would make their hypothesis impossible. If a court room is necessary a wholly separate set of independent analyses can be done and fund raising will have to be done for it. That would probably cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $40,000 to $50,000.

One extreme suggestion would be to reach out to some universities, and see if you can get a particular analysis assigned as course work, like "Why did the WTC fall so fast", and see what the various answers are.
This sounds like a massive FEA project you are proposing. Even NIST did not do this type of FEA. In reality it is only the first several stories which need to be looked at and that has been done by several capable people and papers have been written pro and con on collapse continuation. The pro continuation group which the NIST report relies on (Zdenek Bazant and his graduate students) were shown to have embellished things to favor their argument and thus were fraudulent. The scientific reality says they should have arrested in a one or two story fall.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
These things have been done to some degree. See pilots for 911 Truth for impact speed.
Yeah, but that's a sample of pilots who think 9/11 was an inside job. You need a representative sample of all pilots for perspective.


This is a massive project requiring an FEA if one were to try and simulate it. Even NIST did not do this type of FEA. In reality it is only the first several stories which need to be looked at and that has been done by several capable people and papers have been written pro and con on collapse continuation. The pro continuation group (Zdenek Bazant and his graduate students) were shown to have embellished things to favor their argument and thus were fraudulent. The scientific reality says they should have arrested in a one or two story fall.
People have done limited FEA's in their spare time at work. What's the smallest study that would be useful?
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Yeah, but that's a sample of pilots who think 9/11 was an inside job. You need a representative sample of all pilots for perspective.




People have done limited FEA's in their spare time at work. What's the smallest study that would be useful?
You can't disqualify the pilots at Pilots for 911 Truth for the subjective reason you stated.

There have been several people who independently verified that, if included in the analysis, the structural feature omissions in the NIST WTC 7 report would have made their collapse initiation hypothesis impossible.

It seems to me that anyone continuing to complain, and insist more needs to be done, after what I have said here, are "men who doth protest too much".
 
Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
You can't disqualify the pilots at Pilots for 911 Truth for the subjective reason you stated.

There have been several people who independently verified that the structural feature omissions in the NIST WTC 7 report would have made their collapse initiation hypothesis impossible if included.

It sounds to me that anyone continuing to complain, in the way you have been here after I explained what has been done, and continuing to try and say more should be done are "men who doth protest too much".
There are many Pilots who flat out disagree with PFT. Who is correct? How do you know?
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
There are many Pilots who flat out disagree with PFT. Who is correct? How do you know?
Really? Can you quote them and their reasons for disagreeing?

I know the Pilots for 911 Truth are right in what they are saying about the approach and impact speed causing serious control problems because of my background as a mechanical engineer in the aerospace industry. The dynamic air pressure is too great at 500 mph at sea level in an airliner like the 767-200 for human piloted control.
 
Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Really? Can you quote them and their reasons for disagreeing?

I know the Pilots for 911 Truth are right in what they are saying about the approach and impact speed causing serious control problems because of my background as a mechanical engineer in the aerospace industry. The dynamic air pressure is too great at 500 mph at sea level for human piloted control.
Sorry I don't save quotes or references. Several posting on JREF and one or two on Debate Politics have disputed some of PFT's "facts" about 9/11.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The idea is not to carry out the various proposals for research here in the thread, but to discuss the notion of AE911 funding such a proposal.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
The idea is not to carry out the various proposals for research here in the thread, but to discuss the notion of AE911 funding such a proposal.
If you aren't trying to say just what, then the answer is that they have funded research by paying for FOIAs and are going to fund the lab tests for Mark Basile's study.
 

Redwood

Active Member
Another thing that AE911T could be doing, but isn't, is interviewing firefighters and others who they claim have testified to hearing "explosions", presumably demolition charges. This wouldn't be "scientific research", but would certainly be necessary research if they were ever to achieve their wish of a new investigation.

The only expense would be a video set-up and maybe a room rental. To repeat, if truthers are serious, this will absolutely have to be done at some time, and should have been done years ago.

Any lawyer will tell you that you never ask a question of a witness in open court unless you already know the answer. Usually, you know the answer because you've already interviewed the witness. Imagine the embarrassment if you were to ask your witness about "explosions", and he replies that he was talking about the sound made when people who jumped from the upper floors hit the ground!

AFAIK, no truther has ever interviewed, or even attempted to interview, one of these witnesses. Instead, we get endless recycling of selected news footage from that terrible day.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Another thing that AE911T could be doing, but isn't, is interviewing firefighters and others who they claim have testified to hearing "explosions", presumably demolition charges. This wouldn't be "scientific research", but would certainly be necessary research if they were ever to achieve their wish of a new investigation.

The only expense would be a video set-up and maybe a room rental. To repeat, if truthers are serious, this will absolutely have to be done at some time, and should have been done years ago.

Any lawyer will tell you that you never ask a question of a witness in open court unless you already know the answer. Usually, you know the answer because you've already interviewed the witness. Imagine the embarrassment if you were to ask your witness about "explosions", and he replies that he was talking about the sound made when people who jumped from the upper floors hit the ground!

AFAIK, no truther has ever interviewed, or even attempted to interview, one of these witnesses. Instead, we get endless recycling of selected news footage from that terrible day.
Unless you are willing to donate the money for it you have to realize that AE911Truth cannot do all things.

Dylan Avery did interview firefighters who were in the North Tower several years ago. Why don't you go and interview them to see if they meant something other than "explosion"?

Aside from that the Oral Histories are archives of interviews with 503 firefighters and emergency personnel who were on the scene. Graeme MacQueen did an extensive study of these Oral Histories. There are quite a significant number who talk about explosions and flashes.
 
Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Unless you are willing to donate the money for it you have to realize that AE911Truth cannot do all things.

Dylan Avery did interview firefighters who were in the North Tower several years ago. Why don't you go and interview them to see if they meant something other than "explosion"?

Aside from that the Oral Histories are archives of interviews with 503 firefighters and emergency personnel who were on the scene. Graeme MacQueen did an extensive study of these Oral Histories. There are quite a significant number who talk about explosions and flashes.
Tony,
I listened to Graham MacQueen's presentation about FDNY testimony and pointed out to him that he completely ignored that many things in the building would be exploding since they were on fire. Further there would be a range of loud noises people would describe as "explosion" and this would not be limited to a bomb. In fact one of the FDNY brass on the scene specifically referred to explosions as that of electrical equipment. What MacQueen needed to do is interview some of the FDNY and ask what they thought the explosion sounds came from.
 
Last edited:

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Tony,
I listened to Graham MacQueen's presentation about FDNY testimony and pointed out to him that he completely ignored that many things in the building would be exploding since they were on fore. Further there would be a range of loud noises people would describe as "explosion" and this would not be limited to a bomb. In fact one of the FDNY brass on the scene specifically referred to explosions as that of electrical equipment. What MacQueen needed to do is interview some of the FDNY and ask what they thought the explosion sounds came from.
Jeffrey, I think many of us here have become accustomed to your tendency towards unsupported conjecture being enough to satisfy your need to know what happened. However, that is not true of everyone and I think they will find a much more sophisticated discussion of the issue in Graeme MacQueen's paper on the Oral Histories.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Jeffrey, I think many of us here have become accustomed to your tendency towards unsupported conjecture being enough to satisfy your need to know what happened. However, that is not true of everyone and I think they will find a much more sophisticated discussion of the issue in Graeme MacQueen's paper on the Oral Histories.
Thank you for the comment. You have made your feelings about my thinking known. And it should be noted that Graham is a co author with you on the discredited Missing Jolt paper. NB. And although he is a very decent fellow (I like him) he has no expertise in engineering or physics and has a background a professor of theology. Your comments are off topic.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Thank you for the comment. You have made your feelings about my thinking known. And it should be noted that Graham is a co author with you on the discredited Missing Jolt paper. NB. And although he is a very decent fellow (I like him) he has no expertise in engineering or physics and has a background a professor of theology. Your comments are off topic.
His name is spelled Graeme and he did not do the engineering calculations and logic in the Missing Jolt. I did that work with civil engineering Professor Robert Korol, who is mentioned in the paper for his assistance. The paper has not been discredited. Zdenek Bazant even tried with a disingenuous and error riddled attempt in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and was unsuccessful. So you have no business saying that. See Professor Korol's separate treatment of the issue in a published paper which I have attached here.

I actually think you are a quite likeable fellow myself. However, this is a serious issue and your willingness to accept conjecture as a solution to what actually occurred needs to be pointed out.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
His name is spelled Graeme and he did not do the engineering calculations and logic in the Missing Jolt. I did that work with civil engineering Professor Robert Korol, who is mentioned in the paper for his assisstance. The paper has not been discredited and you have no business saying that. See Professor Korol's separate treatment of the issue in a published paper which I have attached here.

I actually think you are a quite likeable fellow myself. However, your acceptance of conjecture in this situation needs to be pointed out.
Tony this is completely OT... I can say/write whatever I want. And by the way what DID Graeme do on the missing jolt? I've read several critiques of your MJ paper. They can be found online. Nuff said.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Tony this is completely OT... I can say/write whatever I want. And by the way what DID Graeme do on the missing jolt? I've read several critiques of your MJ paper. They can be found online. Nuff said.
Some of us realize that you do in fact write "whatever you want" unconstrained by reality. The critiques of the Missing Jolt that you mention have the same problem and are not valid.

Graeme was involved in the contextual writing of the Missing Jolt and the measurements of the fall of the upper section (which were simultaneously done by David Chandler). I did the engineering work with Professor Bob Korol. It is proven that the falling upper section of the North Tower never decelerated, as a natural collapse would demand of it. See the short video by Chandler on the issue
Actually, this material is not off topic, as it is research done by signatories of the Architects & Engineers for 911 truth petition to Congress for a new investigation into the events of Sept. 11, 2001 in NYC.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Actually, this material is not off topic, as it is research done by signatories of the Architects & Engineers for 911 truth petition to Congress for a new investigation into the events of Sept. 11, 2001 in NYC.
Did AE911 fund it? The problem here is the work seems just to be the "some guy on the internet" level. What you need it to get some independent experts to weigh in. Otherwise you have significant biases.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Okay, about 3 months after the fact, I finally got to reading through all of these posts.

The gist of it seems to be: MetaBunkers insisting that since AE911 claims to be raising $$$$ for "research" they ought be doing some.

While defenders of AE911 make the argument that purchasing a USB hard drive is what was meant by "doing research."
 

vooke

Active Member
Funniest thread by far. Took hours to get through it. Salient points
1. No Evidence whatsoever of any research is carried out by AE911
2. Overwhelming evidence that they don't do no research

This OT but is there any other independent research into 911 other than NIST's? AE911 may not be alone in this
 

Ronald Wieck

New Member
But you have missed out quite a few words between research and scientific - and two commas. Your yellow highlights then make your three words read totally differently. Its always been AE911's focus on only using science as the basis for their site's output. They have always rejected any circumstantial evidence such as financial prior knowledge and the like. Research to them means a lot of boring spadework to prise drawings and documents using FOIA requests. But it is always science based research.

As many here have already said, a huge % of their income last year was specific fund raising to cover a large campaign of awareness that members supported. If the board had diverted funds raised in that way to spend on different projects the members would have had a legitimate complaint to lay before them. As I understand it much of their ordinary regular income is required for day to day expences, and I would imagine that the usual small business 'cashflow' issues means that even booking flights and hotels far enough in advance of a proposed awareness tour would make a prudent finance controller resist many approaches for funds that fall outside of normal business with them.

I have read others input in here, who are close to AE911, and who have indicated that if modest sums are requested for research then it is usually granted. I am personally aware of one such where a FOIA request was granted and funds were provided to buy large storage hard-drives for the FOIA data to be loaded into and posted back. Chump change of course but not if many different people amongst the thousands of members make similar requests for assistance.

Some time ago I exchanged emails with Mark Basile following JREF 'experts' demands for his tests to be independent and also in inert atmosphere. The impression I got was that he did intend to go that way but was wary about the use of the word 'independent'. I felt that he would try to even avoid any assistance or affiliation with a recognised 'truther' organisation in order to have an arms length answer to any subsequent bias accusations.

His own site also seems to indicate this too.( www.markbasile.org ) Much of the input in Metabunk is based on the quite small sum quoted to allow him to proceed and criticism of AE911 for not coughing up. I think that the criticism is misplaced and that in fact funds would be released in a heartbeat if MB asked. Of course I have no basis for this opinion other than an impression gained in email exchanges, and reading his site, but the difficulty in the raising of funds for MB's test would seem to fit in with my view. In any case, he already has $4k towards his $5k estimate so the point will eventually become academic. Perhaps you would like to 'chip' in ( pun intended).

My own experiences with Dick ("Send Me Money") Gage and his group are somewhat relevant here.

When I was hosting 'Hardfire', Gage and I engaged in an e-mail correspondence that led to his televised debate with Mark Roberts, the one that featured Gage's memorable use of cardboard boxes to explain the behavior of 110-story skyscrapers. Evidently the problems associated with scaling have never arisen in any of the structures he has designed, the largest of those structures being a gymnasium. Gage was sufficiently alarmed at my bias against 9/11 conspiracy theories to demand that we find him a neutral host, so we accommodated him with something better: we persuaded John Clifton, a twoofer, to moderate. Whether that gesture helped is up to the viewer to decide.

Following the debate, I attempted to arrange debates featuring the members of Gage's group who self-identified as structural engineers. I contacted most of them and found no takers. One of them, an engineer based in New Jersey (whose name I will withhold as he struck me as a decent sort) stated flatly that he could not presume to discuss the collapse of WTC 7 without doing much more study than he had devoted to the subject. An exception was Tony Szamboti, my favorite twoofer, who displayed courage and sincerity in facing NASA aerospace scientist Ryan Mackey in a spirited joust over the "missing jolt." Tony had expected David Chandler to join him, but Chandler, who had taken his act to the JREF and had been shredded by the physicists and engineers posting there, decided at the
last minute not to show up for the debate because he had to mark homework papers.

I have detailed my experience with David Ray Griffin many times. Suffice it to say that he agreed to appear on 'Hardfire' to promote one of his interchangeable books (in this instance, it was "Debunking 9/11 Debunking"), but ducked out when Ryan Mackey released his white paper on Griffin's coverage of the NIST reports. I had asked Ryan to provide me with a few examples of errors and falsehoods in Griffin's book. Mackey was astounded at the sheer volume of error and proceeded to dissect the entire chapter point-by-point:

http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Griffin asked to see Mackey's paper; Mackey sent it to him; Griffin announced that he was ducking out because his dear friend Willie Rodriguez had told him that I was "dishonest."

I sent Gage a link to Mackey's paper and asked him if he would care to go a few rounds with the author. Gage assured me that Mackey would be very easy to refute but his crowded schedule allowed him no time for such frivolities.

So, there it stands. Anyone expecting Gage or his minions to address the actual science behind the building collapses undoubtedly owns many acres of choice swampland.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West The Dumbing Down of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth 9/11 120
M ISO of Former Engineers and Architects Signatories of the A&E for 9/11 Truth Statement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Mick West Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth - 990 Tax Returns, Employee Compensation 9/11 32
lee h oswald WTC: Architects and Engineers, what percentage actually disagree with NIST? 9/11 9
Mick West What Happened When Engineers Forgot The Earth Was Round Flat Earth 1
Katie Seas GeoengineeringWatch.org: Are Climate Engineers Waging Warfare on Texas?, Again? Conspiracy Theories 15
Mick West TFTRH #35 - Mike Santangelo: 9/11 Truth vs. B.S. Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #16: Adam Taylor – Retired 9/11 Truth Activist Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 0
Nada Truther How Big is the Audience at 9/11 Truth Events? 9/11 4
Mick West Has the 9/11 Truth Movement Stagnated? 9/11 129
Mick West Adam Taylor's Withdrawal from the 9/11 Truth Movement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
Mick West How to Prove Satellite Images are Real - Ground Truth Flat Earth 16
Mick West Ground Truth: Verifying Stellarium's Model of The Solar System Flat Earth 2
Mick West AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job 9/11 336
SR1419 NYT article: How the Internet Is Loosening Our Grip on the Truth Practical Debunking 23
Mick West Debunked: 9/11 Truth New York Times Billboard Quote 9/11 53
deirdre Climate Scientist says "Scientists should consider stretching the truth": Stephen Schneider Quotes Debunked 2
TWCobra Pilots for 9/11 Truth-"Simulations" video debunked. 9/11 26
Joe Kerr Debunked: Pilots Doctors and Scientists tell Truth about Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 66
C 9/11 P4T FDR analysis of flight 77 9/11 26
M 9/11 flight Simulations: United 175 9/11 8
SpaceCowboy Pilots For 9/11 Truth Weigh in on Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 132
TWCobra EasyJet 737 incident debunks Pilot for 9/11 truth V-G diagram video 9/11 325
TWCobra Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 truth WTC speeds 9/11 94
Tony Szamboti Pilots for 9/11 Truth claim WTC airplanes would be uncontrollable at observed speeds 9/11 242
Mick West Debunked: Snowden uncovers shocking truth behind Chemtrails [Satire] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
FreiZeitGeist Debate between Pilot Steven Kneussle and Mark McCandish on "The Truth denied" Contrails and Chemtrails 3
David Fraser The Truth Denied: Evidence of deliberate disinformation in CHEMTRAILS KILL Group Contrails and Chemtrails 12
T Understanding Truth Above All Else Conspiracy Theories 14
Joe Newman MKULTRA - Were children involved, and was the focus only to find a truth serum? Conspiracy Theories 7
Mick West buffdaddy3144: Recovering from 9/11 Truth and how it relates to Religion Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Rroval Debunk: imgur: "Boston Truth Revealed" Boston Marathon Bombings 84
N Hi, I am a "truth-seeker" from Indonesia, and I really respect site like this! General Discussion 1
lee h oswald 9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph? 9/11 930
HappyMonday Attribution of Schopenhauer's Three Stages of Truth Quotes Debunked 8
Mick West Truth and lies: Conspiracy theories are running rampant thanks to modern technology General Discussion 3
Related Articles




































Related Articles

Top