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

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
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.
First of all, where did you hear that and who spoke about 'the reason'?
Secondly, you get me the structural drawings for the towers and I will get you an FEA done. NIST have access to these drawings so there shouldn't be a problem unless they have something to hide that is. You have seen what happened when NIST finally released the WTC7 drawings. Their analysis is now in shreds and their credibility is shot.
Let me know how quickly NIST get back to you on the towers drawings issue.
 

Mark Fitzpatrick

New Member
First of all, where did you hear that and who spoke about 'the reason'?
Secondly, you get me the structural drawings for the towers and I will get you an FEA done. NIST have access to these drawings so there shouldn't be a problem unless they have something to hide that is. You have seen what happened when NIST finally released the WTC7 drawings. Their analysis is now in shreds and their credibility is shot.
Let me know how quickly NIST get back to you on the towers drawings issue.
"Analysis in shred and credibility shot"? Not hardly. While there are plenty of nits to pick with the details of the NIST reports their fundamental conclusions still stand and have never been debunked. Certainly no one has come even close to presenting a prima facie case for CD. If only there was an organized and well funded group of professionals who could do their own analysis and publish their findings for critical review,... (he said, bringing us back on-topic).
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
First of all, where did you hear that and who spoke about 'the reason'?
Secondly, you get me the structural drawings for the towers and I will get you an FEA done. NIST have access to these drawings so there shouldn't be a problem unless they have something to hide that is. You have seen what happened when NIST finally released the WTC7 drawings. Their analysis is now in shreds and their credibility is shot.
Let me know how quickly NIST get back to you on the towers drawings issue.
As I recall it was either Tony or yourself who said it would have to be independent (during our Skype discussion). I might have misunderstood.

Aren't there plenty of FEA model building/analyzing type things you can do with the available blueprints?

But the basic question here is why AE911 don't fund research at all, especially when there are questions that seem like they could be easily answered with a relatively small investment.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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???
That's not the point though. If you want to start a "why didn't NIST spend money on testing for explosive residue", then there are already several you can add to. The question here is why don't AE911?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That's not the point though. If you want to start a "why didn't NIST spend money on testing for explosive residue", then there are already several you can add to. The question here is why don't AE911?
We have gone down that road many times. . . if we are going to criticize a rather small organization with assets at the most in the $100k or lower million . . . it is only fair to point out the almost unlimited funding and resources of the primary investigating agencies who did IMO a very poor job . . . that being said (in comparison who is the worst performer?) . . . I agree that the primary reason for AE911's existence is the full and unlimited investigation of anything 911 . . . especially from an engineering prospective . . . this in my opinion has not been accomplished by anyone . . . they (AE911) need to stand up and be accountable . . . doing something imaginative and reasonable to support or refute the findings of NIST, etc . . . If they don't . . . they deserve the same criticism I have dumped upon NIST and the 911 Commission !!! They (AE911 ) are no better . . . and arguably worse . . .
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
We have gone down that road many times. . . if we are going to criticize a rather small organization with assets at the most in the $100k or lower million . . . it is only fair to point out the almost unlimited funding and resources of the primary investigating agencies who did IMO a very poor job . . . that being said . . . I agree that the primary reason for AE911's existence is the full and unlimited investigation of anything 911 . . . especially from an engineering prospective . . . this in my opinion has not been accomplished by anyone . . . they (AE911) need to stand up and be accountable . . . doing something imaginative and reasonable to support or refute the findings of NIST, etc . . .
Sure you can point out NIST's failings (as you see them), but that does not change one iota the question of AE911 not spending any money on research.

AE911's finances are public knowledge, at least as of 2011, they had an income of $492,036, and they ended the year with $79,896 in cash (promised to the PR campaign called "building what?)

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/2011-261532493-08da7dec-9-1-pdf.5175/
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Sure you can point out NIST's failings (as you see them), but that does not change one iota the question of AE911 not spending any money on research.

AE911's finances are public knowledge, at least as of 2011, they had an income of $492,036, and they ended the year with $79,896 in cash (promised to the PR campaign called "building what?)

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/2011-261532493-08da7dec-9-1-pdf.5175/
I think we agree . . . I would love to challenge AE911 to propose and fund research proposals from interested qualified engineers and scientists who would report and publish their findings for public review . . . I would even consider contributing to such promising projects . . . It has become very apparent the US authorities have no stomach for anything and wish it would all go away . . . not unlike Agent Orange, Gulf War Syndrome, etc . . . where they were finally shamed into doing something . . .
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here's my exchange with AE911 so far:

 
The topic here is why AE911 don't fund any research. Not why other people don't. Please stay on topic.
Caireen started it by asking the question , getting back to topic Im guessing the reason is that Ae911truth already did a study on the nanothermite and yet it got no media or scientific attention , the only other scientist to do a test of the dust was funded by jref members and some truthers. So it has become like both sides on the internet having to fund these studies and no scientific community or other organisation.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Caireen started it by asking the question , getting back to topic Im guessing the reason is that Ae911truth already did a study on the nanothermite
I don't think AE911 actually funded that study, and it was not an independent study.

The idea is that AE911 should pay an independent lab to conclusively determine what the chips are. If they show up as nanothermite, then it's game over for the government.

So why not?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So I spoke to David Slesinger this morning, he was very polite, I explained who I was (he had not heard of Metabunk), and asked him why wouldn't AE911 fund the Basile study. We discussed it for a while, and he basically said he though that it might be a good idea, and he would bring it up.

He said he felt the issue of controlled demolition was settled because the top of a building cannot crush the bottom. I said there was some significant debate about this, and that to persuade more people it would be a good idea to have an independent study produce more authoritative answers, one way or another, and the same thing with the red/grey chips.
 

SR1419

Senior Member
he though(t) that it might be a good idea, and he would bring it up.
12 years on...and no one has brought it up before??

yes, it might be a good idea to try and prove your claims.

Although, I wonder if at this point it is more in their interest to maintain the status quo of dissent given the veritable cottage industry they have crafted for themselves..
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Geez, if my entire existence was focussed on this issue and I only had to come up with a few grand to independently prove the most important discovery in the history of the movement, I'd sit on my hands too. Not!

Seriously, the most plausible explanation for their current reluctance to get that testing done is that some of them (most likely Kevin Ryan and the Bentham paper authors) already know the chips aren't a match for nanothermite. We know they ran some tests back in 2009, and likely they realized their nanothermite conclusion was wrong. Rather than implode the 'Truth Movement' they chose to avoid such talk and keep plugging on about a 'new investigation, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean™'

Maybe their identities are so intertwined with this movement that even when they see glaring problems they just can't deal with them. It's not as though 9/11 Truth in the main is a very rational group, y'know. It seems to operate a lot like a typical cult, to be honest. It certainly couldn't be called a scientific movement.

That said I hope Basile raises enough money for more tests. I'm confident that nothing nefarious will be discovered, and perhaps it will settle people down off this nanothermite hype.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
12 years on...and no one has brought it up before??

yes, it might be a good idea to try and prove your claims.

Although, I wonder if at this point it is more in their interest to maintain the status quo of dissent given the veritable cottage industry they have crafted for themselves..
I think it was just that there was more focus elsewhere. Most people in the organization seem to feel the science is settled and conclusive on the side of controlled demolition, and so they think the focus should be on publicity. I made the point that they lack independent conclusive reports.

And this one in particular (presence of nanothermite) would be such a game changer that it seems silly not to do it.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
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".
Sorry I didn't check this thread until today.

NIST isn't a political lobby group like AE911Truth. In a fire investigation of unknown origin, the source of the fire is investigated. In the case of the towers and WTC 7, the source of the fires were known.
There would be no approval to investigate for explosive residues in a house fire, accelerants maybe, because that would be a waste of resources. It's the same with the WTC investigations - the fire sources and accelerants were known, the task was to reconstruct the physics of the collapses to the best of their abilities.
I think early on RJ Lee did a study of the WTC dust, and no suspicious explosive chemicals were identified, and none have been since. The notion of nanothermite is probably something that wouldn't have entered anyone's mind - for good reason.
The nanothermite hypothesis is a very novel and imaginative idea - however clever it is, I don't think it's ever been used for controlled demolition in world history - the very idea that red/gray flakes (resembling some type of primer paint, frankly) would arouse suspicions at NIST is hard to imagine; let alone the idea that a thinly painted layer of something could do any damage.

So no, I wouldn't expect NIST to test for nanothermite, nor high explosives. There wasn't, and still isn't any really great reason to do so. The only reason I see at this point for doing further testing of the red/gray chips is to satisfy 9/11 Truthers who have become obsessed with the nanothermite hypothesis.
Since that testing won't be terribly expensive, it behooves AE911Truth to step up and provide the funding for such testing.

Dr Millette did his testing for a bargain rate because he wanted to present the study to forensic scientists; his tests showed that the chips are not thermitic. If AE911Truth isn't satisfied (Kevin Ryan is almost foaming at the mouth with ad homs for Millette) you'd think they'd be eager to prove him wrong! What gives?
I've yet to hear a 9/11 Truther answer that question without deflecting somewhere else... it's almost as if you don't really want to know the answer...
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Here's my exchange with AE911 so far:

Sorry I didn't check this thread until today.

NIST isn't a political lobby group like AE911Truth. In a fire investigation of unknown origin, the source of the fire is investigated. In the case of the towers and WTC 7, the source of the fires were known.
There would be no approval to investigate for explosive residues in a house fire, accelerants maybe, because that would be a waste of resources. It's the same with the WTC investigations - the fire sources and accelerants were known, the task was to reconstruct the physics of the collapses to the best of their abilities.
I think early on RJ Lee did a study of the WTC dust, and no suspicious explosive chemicals were identified, and none have been since. The notion of nanothermite is probably something that wouldn't have entered anyone's mind - for good reason.
The nanothermite hypothesis is a very novel and imaginative idea - however clever it is, I don't think it's ever been used for controlled demolition in world history - the very idea that red/gray flakes (resembling some type of primer paint, frankly) would arouse suspicions at NIST is hard to imagine; let alone the idea that a thinly painted layer of something could do any damage.

So no, I wouldn't expect NIST to test for nanothermite, nor high explosives. There wasn't, and still isn't any really great reason to do so. The only reason I see at this point for doing further testing of the red/gray chips is to satisfy 9/11 Truthers who have become obsessed with the nanothermite hypothesis.
Since that testing won't be terribly expensive, it behooves AE911Truth to step up and provide the funding for such testing.

Dr Millette did his testing for a bargain rate because he wanted to present the study to forensic scientists; his tests showed that the chips are not thermitic. If AE911Truth isn't satisfied (Kevin Ryan is almost foaming at the mouth with ad homs for Millette) you'd think they'd be eager to prove him wrong! What gives?
I've yet to hear a 9/11 Truther answer that question without deflecting somewhere else... it's almost as if you don't really want to know the answer...
Hmmmm . . . why would anyone test for explosives or accelerants??? maybe because it was a terrorist act . . . and terrorists are well known for staging an initial attack to draw in first responders and then traping them in a second or third attack, explosion, fire, etc . . . it is not like someone had placed a bomb in the Towers before or anything . . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The topic is AE911, not NIST.

New topics on new threads please.
I agree AE911 should do any testing of the original materials as possible . . . maybe they could get some original evidence from the authorities . . .
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Hmmmm . . . why would anyone test for explosives or accelerants??? maybe because it was a terrorist act . . . and terrorists are well known for staging an initial attack to draw in first responders and then traping them in a second or third attack, explosion, fire, etc . . . it is not like someone had placed a bomb in the Towers before or anything . . . .
You clearly think it's imperative to test for them, so why not put some pressure on AE911Truth to cough up a few grand and do it?
Or do you like being impotent?
You guys don't trust anything the government does, but you're asking it to do something for you which can be done for little money.
There are no good excuses left for 9/11 Truthers who believe in nanothermite.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You clearly think it's imperative to test for them, so why not put some pressure on AE911Truth to cough up a few grand and do it?
Or do you like being impotent?
You guys don't trust anything the government does, but you're asking it to do something for you which can be done for little money.
There are no good excuses left for 9/11 Truthers who believe in nanothermite.
I don't believe in the Thermite theory personally . . . I do think it was negligent for NIST and the 911 Commission not to do extensive investigation to eliminate the use of explosives, accelerants, and the involvement of additional cooperative terrorist groups in 911 through testing, etc. I would be willing to contribute to several levels of investigation (including supporting AE911 need for testing but only if the evidence for testing came from the original evidence held by the authorities ). I would also support additional simulations, modeling and reenactment of events to include proving pilots could accomplish the required maneuvers to do what they seemed to have done on 911 . . . I would want to drag the people responsible for national security in front of the public and have them held responsible for gross negligence instead of the promotions and praise they received . . .
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The topic here is AE911, and why they don't fund research. "NIST did a poor job" is not an answer, and is off topic, so posts along those lines have been removed, and will continue to be removed.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Another thing AE911Truth refuses to fund and show experimentally is a steel highrise building being demolished, whilst on fire, by thermate, thermite and/or nanothermite, in a way that exactly duplicates the fall of WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7.

They have almost no real-world data to support their wild theories and accusations. It's time for them to demonstrate the techniques they postulate.
The burden of proof lies with them, not with skeptics of their ideas.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Another thing AE911Truth refuses to fund and show experimentally is a steel highrise building being demolished, whilst on fire, by thermate, thermite and/or nanothermite, in a way that exactly duplicates the fall of WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7.

They have almost no real-world data to support their wild theories and accusations. It's time for them to demonstrate the techniques they postulate.
The burden of proof lies with them, not with skeptics of their ideas.
With a budget of at best 500k . . . how would someone control the demolition of a high rise steel reinforced structure much less get permission to set one on fire . . . would need cooperation of authorities even the Federal Government would have trouble getting. . .
 

Alienentity

Active Member
With a budget of at best 500k . . . how would someone control the demolition of a high rise steel reinforced structure much less get permission to set one on fire . . . would need cooperation of authorities even the Federal Government would have trouble getting. . .
Why is it that they can always come up with an apologist for their failure to produce any real experimental evidence in support of their theories?

Why is the burden of proof always in reverse?
 

Alienentity

Active Member
I'd be fine with truthers just saying 'We don't necessarily believe everything the government, NIST or other supporters of the mainstream story have come up with, but we can't prove otherwise.'

But they go too far in their certainty that it was controlled demolition. They really don't have the science and data to back up that belief. That's what's egregious to me and most other skeptics.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Let's put it another way: AE911Truth and their supporters like to say that the 'official story' is wrong because no steel buildings, or no steelframe highrises have ever collapsed due to fire.

Yet when we use exactly the same argument in reverse, as I just did, they are excused. Should not the burden of proof require them to prove the claim that thermate/nanothermite can demolish a steelframe highrise in the same manner as seen on 9/11?

We could also demand that they fly a jet into the building first, to simulate the actual conditions of 9/11. Of course nobody is ever going to be able to duplicate the collapses of 9/11 on an experimental basis. But I think it's instructive to point out that they're asking for others to do what is clearly not possible. I don't think that's fair and honest in the slightest.

Without hard data of such an experiment, they should stop pretending their hypothesis is based in fact at all, and simply admit it's conjecture.
Or do the experiments and prove the hypothesis! Either way is fine.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Why is it that they can always come up with an apologist for their failure to produce any real experimental evidence in support of their theories?

Why is the burden of proof always in reverse?
Reality is not an apology . . . there are several things I think are within their reach and they could certainly become a clearing house for individuals who might volunteer to attempt simulations, etc connecting concepts to people with the expertise and resources to accomplish them with people who would be willing to compile, analyze and publish . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I'd be fine with truthers just saying 'We don't necessarily believe everything the government, NIST or other supporters of the mainstream story have come up with, but we can't prove otherwise.'

But they go too far in their certainty that it was controlled demolition. They really don't have the science and data to back up that belief. That's what's egregious to me and most other skeptics.
The only response is we are too small and too poor to do anything worth while . . . so we just raise money and maintain a public forum to keep the questions in front of the public . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Let's put it another way: AE911Truth and their supporters like to say that the 'official story' is wrong because no steel buildings, or no steelframe highrises have ever collapsed due to fire.

Yet when we use exactly the same argument in reverse, as I just did, they are excused. Should not the burden of proof require them to prove the claim that thermate/nanothermite can demolish a steelframe highrise in the same manner as seen on 9/11?
This seems like rather an extreme argument. The question here is not about asymmetric standards of evidence (and you examples are not even really that), but about why AE911 does not fund at least the (relatively) cheap and easy research that could answer some of the questions they posit.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
This seems like rather an extreme argument. The question here is not about asymmetric standards of evidence (and you examples are not even really that), but about why AE911 does not fund at least the (relatively) cheap and easy research that could answer some of the questions they posit.
I'm just putting the burden of proof in the correct context. Truthers are making the claims, let them prove the claims experimentally. Or as I suggest, back off the claims.

Harrit et al. feel entitled to claim that the red chips are thermitic, yet seem unwilling to assist others to test the hypothesis. Case in point was Kevin Ryan not letting Dr. Millette test the Harrit team samples.
Another terribly ironic thing (demonstrating the never ending hypocrisy of this group of truthers) was a comment Steven Jones made during a lecture he gave in 2012, where he complained that USGS won't let them have dust samples, Dr Barnett won't let them have samples of the eutectic erosion on steel, and NIST won't let them have the data for the WTC 7 model.

Yet they refused Dr Millette their own dust samples. Seems like they want a little too much from everybody else. If they weren't so hooked on grandstanding and fingerpointing, they might do well to admit that their research is preliminary and inconclusive, and their results so far have not been replicated.
They'd be far more credible were they to follow that principle [...]
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The topic is not NIST, it is AE911. An more mention of NIST out of context here will be deleted and result in time-outs.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm just putting the burden of proof in the correct context. Truthers are making the claims, let them prove the claims experimentally. Or as I suggest, back off the claims.
Right. Hence the questions about about testing the chips, or making their own computer models. Suggesting they fly a plane into a building is just rhetorical, and distracts from the issue because it can be taken as non-rhetorical.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Mick, your comments here show that you seem to think open source FEA software could be used to model the WTC buildings and demonstrate whether or not something was possible.

I am assuming you mean FEA software that is free to download and use. Is that true? If so, what software do you have in mind, as I would like to get a copy.
 

Elfenlied

Member
Why don't they fund research? Maybe because there's little to be gained, the fact that they payed for the research would discredit the findings. There is a bias (often justified) against studies funded by "controversial" groups or industries. Such organizations may like to see specific research done, but know that the results they hope for would have more credibility if they were not involved in any way.
Look at all the studies funded by tobacco firms, they have become one of the main arguments used against the industry.

Btw, in a thread that contravenes just about every rule or recommendation given in the Posting Guidelines, off-topic posts should come as no surprise. Or does this qualify as metadebunking?
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member
Why don't they fund research? Maybe because there's little to be gained?
Therein lies the point of the entire thread. If there is little to nothing to be gained by conducting another test, then why are groups like AE911 screaming from the mountain top that more tests need to be done, and why are they conducting fund raisers to pay for more tests when all they need do is use a little of their own capital? When a reputable third party is used (not your own labs, but one that has no interest in the outcome of the results) then any bias.. perceived or real.. goes out the window. The group funding the research has nothing to fear as far as reprisal goes. The more independent research that is conducted, the more sources of information you have to pull data from. The more data sets you have, the more accurate your experiment results become.

A group that makes a half million dollars a year pushing for the truth behind 9/11 to be revealed to the world should be jumping at the chance to do -exactly- that.. not trying to raise less than one percent of what they make a year to try to fund research. The whole point of this -entire- thread is that a group whose total existence is based around getting to the bottom of what they see as a huge hole in the 9/11 investigation is making money hand over fist, but still begging for handouts instead of taking the money they're making annually and using -that- to fund reputable and independent third party research. It doesnt make any sense -unless- the group's making a killing off of what they're doing and doesnt want the gravy train to stop.

Dont get me wrong, Ive got no problem with people making money.. or lots of it.. what I have a problem with is people making a boat load of money off of 'finding the truth' when they may or may not be interested in the truth OR already know the truth and want to keep the cash flow coming in.

*edited to correct billion to million.. derp
 
Last edited:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Therein lies the point of the entire thread. If there is little to nothing to be gained by conducting another test, then why are groups like AE911 screaming from the mountain top that more tests need to be done, and why are they conducting fund raisers to pay for more tests when all they need do is use a little of their own capital? When a reputable third party is used (not your own labs, but one that has no interest in the outcome of the results) then any bias.. perceived or real.. goes out the window. The group funding the research has nothing to fear as far as reprisal goes. The more independent research that is conducted, the more sources of information you have to pull data from. The more data sets you have, the more accurate your experiment results become.

A group that makes a half billion dollars a year pushing for the truth behind 9/11 to be revealed to the world should be jumping at the chance to do -exactly- that.. not trying to raise less than one percent of what they make a year to try to fund research. The whole point of this -entire- thread is that a group whose total existence is based around getting to the bottom of what they see as a huge hole in the 9/11 investigation is making money hand over fist, but still begging for handouts instead of taking the money they're making annually and using -that- to fund reputable and independent third party research. It doesnt make any sense -unless- the group's making a killing off of what they're doing and doesnt want the gravy train to stop.

Dont get me wrong, Ive got no problem with people making money.. or lots of it.. what I have a problem with is people making a boat load of money off of 'finding the truth' when they may or may not be interested in the truth OR already know the truth and want to keep the cash flow coming in.
I don 't think they have a half billion dollar budget . . . it is more like less than a million . . .
 
Top