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

NoParty

Senior Member.
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 Rodriquez 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.
Thanks for sharing your experiences...I think that they add to the discussion. :)



p.s. Tips for Teens: I think more than a few here, though, will probably feel that phrases like "twoofer"
distract from the content, and would be best left out. Just my overly-polite 2 cents... :oops:
 

Ronald Wieck

New Member
o
Thanks for sharing your experiences...I think that they add to the discussion. :)



p.s. Tips for Teens: I think more than a few here, though, will probably feel that phrases like "twoofer"
distract from the content, and would be best left out. Just my overly-polite 2 cents... :oops:
I'm glad you enjoyed hearing about my experiences.

Regarding my use of "twoofer," well, I don't know what I should call them. A cult that relies exclusively on cherry-picked quotes, bogus "science," and outright lies has nothing whatever to do with truth. It is, in fact, a profanation to call such types "truthers." Randi coined the term "woo-woo" to cover a broad spectrum of irrational beliefs, making the term "twoofer" both obvious and appropriate.

It is worth examining the argument that the people I refer to as "twoofers" are lying, as opposed to merely being mistaken. Back in 2006, it was still possible to maintain that someone screaming that Larry Silverstein had ordered his building to be "pulled" by the FDNY really believed what he was claiming. Ten years have passed. We all get the idea that no demolition professional recognizes "pulling" as industry jargon for using explosives to bring down a building. We all understand that the FDNY does not blow up buildings. We all understand that Silverstein was expressing agreement with the fire department's decision to PULL its operation out of the collapse zone of WTC 7.

A person who continues to peddle the myth that Silverstein was talking about explosives is LYING.
 
Last edited:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Thanks for sharing your experiences...I think that they add to the discussion. :)



p.s. Tips for Teens: I think more than a few here, though, will probably feel that phrases like "twoofer"
distract from the content, and would be best left out. Just my overly-polite 2 cents... :oops:
I agree. The term "truther" can, I feel, be substituted as it shows disagreement with the idea that the person is speaking the truth while also being polite.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
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.
Resurrecting an old post to ask, did Basile ever get around to doing these tests, and if not, why not, and where did the money go?
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Tony, have you addressed the article by Dave Thomas pointing out Chandler's errors?

http://nmsr.org/nmsr911c.htm
David Chandler responded to Dave Thomas with this article http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/Response-to-Dave-Thomas.pdf

and put it on 911Blogger a couple of years ago here http://911blogger.com/news/2014-09-18/refutation-dave-thomas-critique-my-north-tower-analysis

I told Dave Thomas that what he was saying was not viable when he first tried to make the argument that David Chandler's measurement was an average. The reason is that he ignores the columns and has the upper section falling in free fall punctuated by significant impacts when the floors would contact. The upper section cannot fall in free fall between impacts in a natural collapse as it needs to deform and buckle the columns and in a very significant energy absorbing way in the first five to ten stories of the collapse.

All Dave Thomas did was essentially reverse engineer the acceleration values Chandler came up with to be equal to that provided by brief intense impacts and then let the upper section free fall in between so it had no other effect. He provides no basis for his impact duration and of course can't explain how the upper section would be in free fall between impacts in a natural collapse. Thomas's argument at the link you give is not even worth mentioning. It is silly on its face.
 
Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Tony, have you addressed the article by Dave Thomas pointing out Chandler's errors?

http://nmsr.org/nmsr911c.htm
The truth guys will never debate the engineering or physics with a PhD or a working PE who does high rises. Their positions don't stand up and are basically junk science. They are politically driven and anything the gov or the media states is a lie or a cover up. They will never admit when they are wrong and simply play their tune to the naive choir who buy their pitch hook line and sinker.

The only interesting discussions are theoretical about the mechanisms of the initiation and the collapse because there is a paucity/absence of data to use for models and so the "models" are quite theoretical built on what reasonable assumptions. You can come up with other mechanical scenarios by changing to other reasonable assumptions.

There are no proofs... the mechanical and fire science and physics is settled knowledge,,, as is runaway rapidly progressive failure of complex systems... which are in fact too complex to model in detail.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Chandler writes:

If you look at the start of the collapse of the North Tower, the first thing to move is the antenna. The
antenna was supported on the hat truss which capped the 47 core columns. For the antenna to move
downward, along with the roofline, from the very outset, tells us that all 47 core columns were cut.
Since the roofline descends straight down, remaining nearly level (within a few degrees) the cutting of
the columns must have been synchronized. The top block is the first part of the building to be
destroyed. It is about half gone by the time the top section, as a whole, starts moving down the
building.

He's wrong. The antenna drop was related to only the failure of 25'x25 area below which failure... including PART of the hat truss and that involved 3 or perhaps 7 columns

The 3 columns under the hat truss which DID fail where the weakest ones of the core... surrounding shaft 55 and were in direct line of the center of the most mass of the incoming plane. If they weren't damaged by the plane impact... they were among the first to fail just before the top move downward.

When it did descend... there was not much left of the axially alignment of core columns as they had been forced out of position by expanding heated beams. The column to column connections were UNRESTRAINED in any axis/way... simply plate bolted on splices.

The remaining load which had not fallen overwhelmed to column which had to support it. The buckled and induced the slight tilt and lateral movement.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
David Chandler responded to Dave Thomas with this article http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/Response-to-Dave-Thomas.pdf

and put it on 911Blogger a couple of years ago here http://911blogger.com/news/2014-09-18/refutation-dave-thomas-critique-my-north-tower-analysis

I told Dave Thomas that what he was saying was not viable when he first tried to make the argument that David Chandler's measurement was an average. The reason is that he ignores the columns and has the upper section falling in free fall punctuated by significant impacts when the floors would contact. The upper section cannot fall in free fall between impacts in a natural collapse as it needs to deform and buckle the columns and in a very significant energy absorbing way in the first five to ten stories of the collapse.

All Dave Thomas did was essentially reverse engineer the acceleration values Chandler came up with to be equal to that provided by brief intense impacts and then let the upper section free fall in between so it had no other effect. He provides no basis for his impact duration and of course can't explain how the upper section would be in free fall between impacts in a natural collapse. Thomas's argument at the link you give is not even worth mentioning. It is silly on its face.
That is rubbish. The measurements or the motion are not precise enough to show the actual speed/acceleration. What was left of the upper parts in the twin towers has moved laterally and whatever columns remained of the upper section would impact nothing or flimsy slabs which would offer essentially no resistance and therefore there would be no perceptible rate of change of the motion.

Your understanding of how the tops disintegrated and came to translate laterally and descend shows no comprehension of what was going on inside the upper parts of the towers. You have an incorrect fantasy about what happened floating around in your head. It is completely detached from reality.
 

Keith Beachy

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 in an airliner like the 767-200 for human piloted control.
Saw this false statement from years ago. If the planes could not, then no impacts... (FDR shows Flt 77 and 93 hand flown poorly, human control). This is the same for AE911T, there is no science to back up their claims. All the claims are opinions, the same for pilots for truth. Saying the dynamic pressure prevents pilots from flying, or control, is nonsense; you have to show evidence.

Simple research finds pilot for truth claims to be nonsense. Same for AE911T. Bringing up pilots for truth adds no credibility to an argument for AE911T. Both suffer from complete lack of evidence.

Who has the current funding on the IRS form for AE911T... I can't believe one or two gave over 100,000 dollars, wonder if they get a refund when they figure out CD is woo. I was thinking AE911T was a tax scam when I saw donors over 100k.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
...The upper section ... needs to deform and buckle the columns and in a very significant energy absorbing way in the first five to ten stories of the collapse. ...
No.
"The upper section falls" implies that all columns have already buckled.
This happened within less than one story.
No further buckling required.
No further buckling observed. Ok, I should say: not the sort of "every column on every story" fantasy that Chandler/you/Gage/Cole/Truthers insinuate.
 

MicahJava

New Member
o
I'm glad you enjoyed hearing about my experiences.

Regarding my use of "twoofer," well, I don't know what I should call them. A cult that relies exclusively on cherry-picked quotes, bogus "science," and outright lies has nothing whatever to do with truth. It is, in fact, a profanation to call such types "truthers." Randi coined the term "woo-woo" to cover a broad spectrum of irrational beliefs, making the term "twoofer" both obvious and appropriate.

It is worth examining the argument that the people I refer to as "twoofers" are lying, as opposed to merely being mistaken. Back in 2006, it was still possible to maintain that someone screaming that Larry Silverstein had ordered his building to be "pulled" by the FDNY really believed what he was claiming. Ten years have passed. We all get the idea that no demolition professional recognizes "pulling" as industry jargon for using explosives to bring down a building. We all understand that the FDNY does not blow up buildings. We all understand that Silverstein was expressing agreement with the fire department's decision to PULL its operation out of the collapse zone of WTC 7.

A person who continues to peddle the myth that Silverstein was talking about explosives is LYING.
You're stuck in the past, Ron! That was the 2006-2008 truth movement. Those were confused days. People knew something wasn't quite right about the foreknowledge of WTC 7, but couldn't exactly find a coherent explanation.

After the BBC Conspiracy Files episode on WTC 7, which ironically you made a brief appearance on, things became a whole lot clearer. In that program, FDNY Chief Peter Hayden made this statement:

"We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building. And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon? And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.'"

Peter Hayden is quoted yet again on this "engineer" fellow in this 2013 court document: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...3c33b98-9cbf-4b82-b557-6088e207c8f6/1/hilite/

"Chief of Department Peter Hayden consulted with an engineer:

We posed to him the question that considering the structural damage that was obvious to the – to the building on the southwest corner, and the amount of fire damage that was occurring within the building, could we anticipate a collapse and if so, when. He said yes and he gave an approximate time of five to six hours, which was pretty much right on the money because the building collapsed about 5 o’clock that afternoon.
"

Wait, what's that? A person claiming to be an engineer went around predicting the hour of Building 7's collapse? This person appears to be the genesis of the certain foresight of it's collapse. Also, nobody actually knows who this "engineer" was. His name is lost to history, but Shayam Sunder has acknowledged his existence on a couple of occasions.

This quote by another firefighter gives a clue to where this engineer may have come from:

"Someone from the Office of Emergency Management told us that this building was in serious danger of collapse. The consensus was that it was basically a lost cause and we should no lose anyone else trying to save it. Rich, a few other people and I went inside to the stairwells and started yelling up "Drop everything and get out!" It didn't collapse until much later in the afternoon, but we felt it was better to get everybody out."
source: September 11: An Oral History by Dean Murphy

So, there is evidence that the top fire chiefs were told that it was going to collapse. What human being could predict the hour in which a skyscraper would collapse from fire? Nobody. There is no source where a person could obtain that knowledge, no matter how educated or experienced. The three quotes above are examples of foreknowledge and the identity of whoever was leading the fire chiefs decisions on that day should be investigated.

Conspiracy theory: That "engineer" guy knew about the controlled demolition and mislead the fire chiefs into thinking that WTC 7 was as doomed as the Twin Towers. This was done to allow the building to burn and to make the firefighters stay away from the building so they wouldn't figure out a way to extinguish the fires.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Some comments outlining (yet again) the grounds of rebuttal of the nonsense that Tony Szamboti persists in repeating. T Szamboti has been shown many times where the errors are in his claims AND has been presented with sound and true explanations - which he variously ignores or denies.
True that Chandler responded. Also true that his responses were false science padded out with personal attacks on Dave Thomas - who was close to 100% correct.
I told Dave Thomas that what he was saying was not viable when he first tried to make the argument that David Chandler's measurement was an average.
True that you told him. Whether or not you believed your false understanding at that time is no longer relevant. You have since and on many occasions been made well aware of the errors in your claims and the same or related errors in Chandler's. So you cannot rely on your assertions from that time even if you did believe them at the time. Put bluntly you are wrong AND you know that you are wrong. Here's one of the three main reasons why:-
The reason is that he ignores the columns and has the upper section falling in free fall punctuated by significant impacts when the floors would contact.
That is precisely the mechanism of the real event progression stage collapses. So therein lies the FIRST ERROR of the Szamboti and Chandler false claims. Neither of them undertsands the actual real event mechanism. (Or is untruthfully pretending that they do not understand.)
The upper section cannot fall in free fall between impacts in a natural collapse as it needs to deform and buckle the columns and in a very significant energy absorbing way in the first five to ten stories of the collapse.
That is false. The actual collapse mechanism for the progression stage bypassed the columns. Therein lies the SECOND ERROR of the Szamboti and Chandler false claims.
All Dave Thomas did was essentially reverse engineer the acceleration values Chandler came up with to be equal to that provided by brief intense impacts and then let the upper section free fall in between so it had no other effect.
What he did was correctly apply physics calculations to show how the correct model of collapse mechanism matched measurements of the real event. Thereby showing Chandler a couple of his main errors.
He provides no basis for his impact duration and of course can't explain how the upper section would be in free fall between impacts in a natural collapse.
He doesn't/didn't need to explain the real mechanism - it was the extant hypothesis he was building on. Au contraire - both Szamboti and Chandler rely on an unproven false mechanism as their starting point. Since it is not an or the extant hypothesis it is THEIR fantasy which needs proof. Both have failed to explain or support their fantasy mechanism. It cannot be validly explained because it never happened as T Szamboti is well aware. D Thomas was building on the known hypothesis explaining the progression stage of collapse. Adding to it does not require re-proving what is - was then and still is - the extant hypothesis. (It is the same understanding which underpins Mick's model under current development and discussion in another thread.)
Thomas's argument at the link you give is not even worth mentioning. It is silly on its face.
Which is T Szamboti's invariable style when confronted by valid argument which he does not address.. Resort to hand waving and insults.

If anyone needs rigorous proof of any of the fundamental assertions I have made please say. It should all be accepted common ground for debunkers. There is no point IMO repeating the details but links easily provided if anyone is unsure/unclear on any aspect.
 

econ41

Senior Member
No.
"The upper section falls" implies that all columns have already buckled.
This happened within less than one story.
No further buckling required.
No further buckling observed. Ok, I should say: not the sort of "every column on every story" fantasy that Chandler/you/Gage/Cole/Truthers insinuate.
Neat summary Oystein.

Of no consequence but I have reservations about "This happened within less than one story." Minor reservations and of little if any consequence in the current context.

First I'm not clear whether you mean "one storey of falling" OR "the buckling of columns occurred within one storey of column length".

No matter which it all happened within the cascade failure >> transition to "progression" stage.

And IMO the overall process involved several storeys in a complex "3D plus Dynamic" event.

Hence "more than one storey".

However my nit pick pedantry is of no consequence here - your macro overview is more than good enough for purpose.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Neat summary Oystein.
...
First I'm not clear whether you mean "one storey of falling" OR "the buckling of columns occurred within one storey of column length".
...
I didn't intend a nitpick-proof precise statement. The idea was: "for each column that buckled, less than one storey of column length", which shoud roughly translate to "less than one storey descent of the top section's CoG", and realizing I may be slightly out on a limb - the number "1" (story) is not directly derived from specific observations nor specific math; rather an estimated upper bound, to contrast with Tony's "5 to 10". I.o.w., I claim Tony is wrong by an order of magnitude or so.
 

econ41

Senior Member
I didn't intend a nitpick-proof precise statement. The idea was: "for each column that buckled, less than one storey of column length", which shoud roughly translate to "less than one storey descent of the top section's CoG", and realizing I may be slightly out on a limb - the number "1" (story) is not directly derived from specific observations nor specific math; rather an estimated upper bound, to contrast with Tony's "5 to 10". I.o.w., I claim Tony is wrong by an order of magnitude or so.
Understood. My personal goal as you know is to stay at least one leap ahead of contemporary internet explanations in my field of engineering physics -- whilst leaving other areas of professional; expertise to experts from those fields. And one of my targets has for some years been understanding the "initiation stage and transition to progression." It is a process of gradually improving clarity as you are probably aware. Hence my interest in the details of that stage of the collapse mechanism.

There is no doubt that both Tony and D Chandler are wrong and IMO it is not a matter of "an order of magnitude". The base model - their "paradigm" - is wrong. So even if some of their work puts numeric answers within an order of magnitude of the real event --- they are still wrong. Wrong as a basis for extending or building hypotheses - independent of any coincidental numeric proximity to the right answers. "Right answers" for wrong reasons is in my experience one of the most pernicious errors in engineering and no doubt in other fields of applied science.

One sample from the Chandler "rebuttal of the rebuttal" says:
..both Chandler and Szamboti lost in the wrong model. Looking for columns buckling - the false premise of much of Szamboti's work following "Missing Jolt". Reality was that columns were bypassed and did not need to be buckled.

An interesting side issue IMO is that Dave Thomas's rebuttal of Chandler has the proper model - and AFAICS (I haven't identified the actual dates) predates all the artificial controversy about "ROOSD" - both the concept and the linguistic nonsense over the descriptive acronym. There was so much "so near and yet so far" for many people in those earlier times.

Meanwhile the topic of this thread is "Why don't Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Fund Research?" and my comments are directly "on topic" - here's why.

Because any VALID research would falsify their claims---and their political goal of a "New Investigation".
They will NOT get a new investigation of political concerns whilst ever they base their strategy on false technical claims. The foundation of their strategy "CD at WTC" is blatantly and obviously false to any professional called on to advise the politician or stakeholder who may wish to support their political goal.

Silly strategy - if they want further investigation of the political mis/mal/non feasances of 9/11 it is crazy to build the strategy on the basis of false claims for CD and false "engineering explanations" from their leading engineer and applied scientist. The Szamboti/Chandler nonsense may fool a gullible lay audience on forums or Gage's tour presentations. BUT will never fool the informed professionals who advise politicians.

T Sz and D C are two of AE911's leading engineering/physics apologists. That alone should explain one reason why Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth DON'T fund research. If their leaders are so wrong on the basics they must realise that they cannot risk genuine research - it would destroy their claims and strategy.
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
Source for this "reality" -- basis in evidence, etc? Briefly as possible, if you would be so kind.
1) The WTC "Twin Towers" collapsed in two main identifiable stages:
(a) An "initiation stage" from aircraft impact through progressive deterioration (with or without CD help) which allowed the "Top Block" to start falling down; AND
(b) The rapid "progression" to global collapse which followed.

2) My comment was directed at the "progression" or "global collapse" stage;

3) You have had access to at least two explanations of that stage viz:
(a) My words and diagrams explanations which you have variously rejected, ignored or not accepted; AND
(b) Mick's modelling of the "floor stripping" or "ROOSD" sub-mechanism - I'm unsure whether or not you accept Mick's physical modelling of exactly the same process as I have described.

4) This is what happened during that progression stage:

--the falling material did not buckle the columns which were left unbraced and free to topple over - which they did.

5) The mechanism as I have pictured and explained it AND as Mick has modelled it is supported by notable "truthers" such as D Chandler and T Szamboti EXCEPT that Chandler and AFAIK Szamboti require explosive cutting "squibs" to separate/disconnect the truss joists from the columns. I disagree on explosives - the "Massive Overload" was one or two orders of magnitude more than was needed to fail the connections as per my picture.

6) THAT difference aside the mainstream debunker and mainstream truther arguments agree - weight falling down the office space and joists disconnected from columns == columns not buckled.
 

econ41

Senior Member
The top section was tilted, so it was impossible for the columns to line up.
Mick - Cube Radio was responding to a part of my post. And I was explicitly referring to "progression stage". Your reference to "tilt" puts the scenario into the "initiation" stage (or "transition" if you prefer the three stage version) but NOT "progression".

That said you are correct that tilt and missing are related factors. But the sequence and causality is reversed,

For tilt to occur some columns had already failed on the "lower" side. And in failing the top end got closer to the bottom end - lowering that side of the upper portion and causing the tilt.

For that side to go lower means that the column had already buckled (or broken) and the ends already missing.

So "tilt" was a consequence of the same failure mechanism that caused missing column ends.

A consequence and later in sequence - not a prior - earlier happening which became a cause of "column ends missing".
 
Very often "experts" do not want followers to understand things. The peons are supposed to BELIEVE the experts. Proof is not required.

psik
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Do you have any evidence for these profound assertions?
wouldnt the 'proof' be that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth dont fund research? ie dont provide proof. ?? ( i havent read this thread so forgive me if they have funded research.. if they do let me know and i'll add it to the title)
 

qed

Senior Member
@psikeyhackr My apologies.

I thought you where taking issue with the credentials of experts (as many conspiracy theorist do). I see now that you where taking issue with "experts" such as Chandler, Tony Szamboti, etal.

Thank you @deirdre for the intervention.
 
Last edited:

trevor

Active Member
T Sz and D C are two of AE911's leading engineering/physics apologists. That alone should explain one reason why Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth DON'T fund research. If their leaders are so wrong on the basics they must realise that they cannot risk genuine research - it would destroy their claims and strategy.
Well when they [Richard Gage and Steven Jones. ]purposely leave out the first 10 seconds of the penthouse collapsing before the global collapse, i think that alone shows that it's not "Real research". If it was "real research", they'd study the full aspect of the collapse, not just present their viewers the global collapse. You see, when they show the penthouse collapsing seconds before the entire building comes down, it puts a damper on their argument.

Translation = They're conmen making a living off of donations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Well when they purposely leave out the first 10 seconds of the penthouse collapsing before the global collapse, i think that alone shows that it's not "Real research". If it was "real research", they'd study the full aspect of the collapse, not just present their viewers the global collapse. You see, when they show the penthouse collapsing seconds before the entire building comes down, it puts a damper on their argument.

Translation = They're conmen making a living off of donations.
I have never made a dime off of speaking out about the building collapses in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 and I have actually put money out of my own pocket many times. I work full time as an engineer to support myself.

You have no basis whatsoever for making claims that those who have spoken out are con men looking to enrich themselves off of donations. Why do you indulge yourself in making those types of unsupported claims and smearing of others you know little about? Show some maturity and stop it unless you can prove what you are saying.

Additionally, I do address the fall of the east penthouse of WTC 7 in any presentation I give on the matter. The evidence shows it only fell a few stories into the top of the building and was not related to the fall of the entire building. The evidence is

1. The shock wave from the fall of the penthouse is top to bottom.

2. Windows are only broken from the roof down 15 stories.

3. Daylight is only observed in the top story windows.

4. There is no dust emanating from windows as there would be if the entire east side interior had been falling before the exterior came down the way the NIST report claims (we only see that dust after the exterior starts coming down).

5. There is no deformation of the east side exterior like there would be if the east side interior had come down to cause the east penthouse collapse as claimed in the NIST WTC 7 report.
 
Last edited:

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
...You have no basis whatsoever for making claims that those who have spoken out are con men looking to enrich themselves off of donations. ...
Evidence is supplied by the IRS, the 990s, Gage now takes in over 500,000 a year, and he has no evidence for the CD claim. There is evidence of millions going to people who spread nonsense about 9/11 in books, CDs, and donations which have done nothing to bring out evidence for the silent explosives CD claims of Gage and 9/11 truth CD theory. Zero evidence, lots of donations. Instead of evidence for CD, 9/11 truth uses opinions and simile.

How does Gage make a living? Where is his evidence for CD? How many years can he go without producing evidence, evidence he will never have for CD.

14+ years, no evidence for CD - evidence for a con, ironically no evidence for CD.
Gage could believe his fantasy of CD, does that make him legit? Is AE911T a group built on Gage's delusion, or does he know he is fooling his donors with the slick paranoia of an inside job he can't explain, based on the fantasy of CD.

Is Gage funding the study in Alaska. Or is Gage supporting donations to fund the study?
BTW, the FBI investigates crime, thus the NIST attacks on how they failed to investigate the CD fantasy is not warranted. Go tell the FBI of the CD, and present the non-evidence 9/11 truth has collected over 14 years. If Gage is funding the new study, why has Gage failed to take his overwhelming evidence of CD to the FBI and expose the vast inside job by the people 9/11 truth can't name.
 

trevor

Active Member
I have never made a dime off of speaking out about the building collapses in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 and I have actually put money out of my own pocket many times. I work full time as an engineer to support myself.

You have no basis whatsoever for making claims that those who have spoken out are con men looking to enrich themselves off of donations. Why do you indulge yourself in making those types of unsupported claims and smearing of others you know little about? Show some maturity and stop it unless you can prove what you are saying.

Additionally, I do address the fall of the east penthouse of WTC 7 in any presentation I give on the matter. The evidence shows it only fell a few stories into the top of the building and was not related to the fall of the entire building. The evidence is

1. The shock wave from the fall of the penthouse is top to bottom.

2. Windows are only broken from the roof down 15 stories.

3. Daylight is only observed in the top story windows.

4. There is no dust emanating from windows as there would be if the entire east side interior had been falling before the exterior came down the way the NIST report claims (we only see that dust after the exterior starts coming down).

5. There is no deformation of the east side exterior like there would be if the east side interior had come down to cause the east penthouse collapse as claimed in the NIST WTC 7 report.
Tony, i actually know who you are. I've seen your debate on hardfire. I was speaking mainly towards Richard Gage and Steven Jones. I had to google your name to remember who you were, and if i recall, you're actually a much more bareable CT compared to some of the other guys, so i give you cudo's for that.

I'm glad you take such pride in your research, but feel free to tell your "partners" that they need to be more honest instead of PURPOSELY MISLEADING.

Instead of misquoting people about "explosions" (again, not speaking towards you, but your group in general) Why don't you guys talk about how common explosions occur in fires? Anyone who's even been around a CAMPFIRE knows that there will be..."explosions"...My point is, you guys push strawman argument after strawman argument, which is why you guys have gone 15 years without actually PROVING a single claim of yours to be true. So again, all i ask is for AE911truth to try doing some "Honest" work, instead of pissing on all the graves of firemen and police men by pushing your demolition theory. There are many other things you can push that are much more believable. Demolition isn't one of them.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I was speaking mainly towards Richard Gage and Steven Jones. I had to google your name to remember who you were,
i edited your post to reflect this. the quote you were responding to specifically said Tony, so it did seem like you were accusing him personally.
 

trevor

Active Member
i edited your post to reflect this. the quote you were responding to specifically said Tony, so it did seem like you were accusing him personally.
Oh ok makes sense. I wasn't even aware that he was in this thread. My appologies Tony.
 
@psikeyhackr My apologies.

I thought you where taking issue with the credentials of experts (as many conspiracy theorist do). I see now that you where taking issue with "experts" such as Chandler, Tony Szamboti, etal.

Thank you @deirdre for the intervention.
I am saying that 'experts' must prove their point. They do not get a free pass because they claim to be or are certified as experts.

Do skyscrapers have to hold themselves up or not? So doesn't the steel on every level have to support all of the the weight of the higher levels? So why don't all of the experts agree that we should know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level? Has Chandler, Szamboti, Bazant, Gage or Greening said anything about that? It has only been 15 years. Shouldn't that be obvious to middle school students?

How can a good model be made by anyone without that information?

psik
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I am saying that 'experts' must prove their point. They do not get a free pass because they claim to be or are certified as experts.

Do skyscrapers have to hold themselves up or not? So doesn't the steel on every level have to support all of the the weight of the higher levels? So why don't all of the experts agree that we should know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level? Has Chandler, Szamboti, Bazant, Gage or Greening said anything about that? It has only been 15 years. Shouldn't that be obvious to middle school students?

How can a good model be made by anyone without that information?

psik
so are you sayiing your post was just a random off-topic musing that needs to be deleted for being off-topic?
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
I am saying that 'experts' must prove their point. They do not get a free pass because they claim to be or are certified as experts.

Do skyscrapers have to hold themselves up or not? So doesn't the steel on every level have to support all of the the weight of the higher levels? So why don't all of the experts agree that we should know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level? Has Chandler, Szamboti, Bazant, Gage or Greening said anything about that? It has only been 15 years. Shouldn't that be obvious to middle school students?

How can a good model be made by anyone without that information?

psik
"The steel on every level" is misleading.
The steel columns must be able to support the weight/load from above.
BUT
Any load must be directed to the columns for those columns to support it. Obviously you would agree that if a desk was thrown out a window there would be no expectation that the columns, which had supported that load for however many years the desk was in the tower, should stop the desk from falling.

Similarily, if a floor space containing that desk was destroyed, and was no longer attached to the columns, there would be no expectation that the columns would prevent the debris from falling down to the next floor.

Similarily, if a column is destroyed, or has lost strength due to being heated, it cannot be expected to carry its original design load.

Similarily, columns are designed to carry loads axially. Shift a column's load off axis and it will no longer carry the same weight.

Your statement is so very simplistic as to be tantamount to basically wrong.

Any statement or paper concerning a forensic study of a building collapse MUST include consideration for all of the above, and more.
Yet instead of producing such papers, AE911T chooses to concentrate its efforts on non-technical, simplistic statements not unlike yours here.

The topic of this thread asks why.
 
Last edited:

DougW

Member
Wow - I just read this entire thread - what a roller coaster! Ok to hopefully stay within or near as possible to the topic - did those paint/dust samples ever get studied? Was the 5k raised and did AE911T have any input to the funding? And if they did get studied what was the conclusion?
 

trevor

Active Member
Wow - I just read this entire thread - what a roller coaster! Ok to hopefully stay within or near as possible to the topic - did those paint/dust samples ever get studied? Was the 5k raised and did AE911T have any input to the funding? And if they did get studied what was the conclusion?
Yes, the paint chips have been studied by the truth movement in this paper (Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials)

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4

Basically, they just raise questions, and didn't prove anything again, other then the possible VOCs rise. Kind of another paper that went no where....again. Throughout the paper, jones is pushing the thermite theory the entire time. Turns out Steven Jones left out a very important quote by the people who studied the dust from the towers. The quote kind of defeats the entire purpose of his paper, so you can see why he left it out. "It was most likely due to the thousands of burning computers". This was the response given by the people (not the truthmovement) who studied the dust. Again, the whole paper try's to solve the mystery on the rise of VOC's, so you can see why he left out that some what important quote. It's actually commical how dishonest the authors are.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Wow - I just read this entire thread - what a roller coaster! Ok to hopefully stay within or near as possible to the topic - did those paint/dust samples ever get studied?
Yes. Three "lots" of studies are relevant:
0) The general low standard earlier work by miscellaneous truthers. << Forget this one other than as the initiator of discussion.

1) The Harrit Study which brought the issue to renewed and raised prominence. Comprehensively rebutted - most references on JREF/ISF. Links if needed;

2) The "Millette" study - organised by Chris Mohr - on JREF - funded by JREF now ISF members. Found paint.

3) A purported further study by truthers - intended to be performed by Mark Basille. (Lack of) Progress review reported here on ISF >> http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275738

Put bluntly it was a scam - no testing and the funds not accounted for.

I think this is the study you refer to in this part of your post:
Was the 5k raised and did AE911T have any input to the funding?
I think so and I don't know respectively

And if they did get studied what was the conclusion?
The point is moot - no study performed.

Oystein - a fellow member here - is familiar with the whole topic and the two (three??) key studies - don't be surprised if he comments in better detail than me. Otherwise frame the questions and I'll see what I can do to help --- it's not one of my priority interest areas.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Yes, the paint chips have been studied by the truth movement in this paper (Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials)

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4

Basically, they just raise questions, and didn't prove anything again, other then the possible VOCs rise. Kind of another paper that went no where....again. Throughout the paper, jones is pushing the thermite theory the entire time. Turns out Steven Jones left out a very important quote by the people who studied the dust from the towers. The quote kind of defeats the entire purpose of his paper, so you can see why he left it out. "It was most likely due to the thousands of burning computers". This was the response given by the people (not the truthmovement) who studied the dust. Again, the whole paper try's to solve the mystery on the rise of VOC's, so you can see why he left out that some what important quote. It's actually commical how dishonest the authors are.
OK - good and accurate - as "first stage" BUT there has been a lot of development since that stage trevor.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West The Dumbing Down of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth 9/11 116
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