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

[Svartbjørn]

LOL.. yes you guys are right, I hit B instead of M, my apologies.. what I get for not proof reading after I hit the submit button

 

[Mick West]

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.

I'm mostly referring to open sourcing the data (the models). Although it would be ideal if there was some public domain software too. If not then whatever is most common.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I'm mostly referring to open sourcing the data (the models). Although it would be ideal if there was some public domain software too. If not then whatever is most common.

While we were able to ascertain from released drawings that the NIST omitted pertinent structural features from their WTC 7 initiation analysis, I am not sure if you realize that many of the drawings have not been released and the NIST has not yet released their model.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

While a good bit of structural information was given in a scattered way in the reports on the twin towers, none of the twin tower structural, erection, or shop drawings have ever been made available to the public. The core column sizes and grades were released in 2007 as SAP2000 data and it was modeled and made open source by Dr. Lon Waters.

 

[Mick West]

While we were able to ascertain from released drawings that the NIST omitted pertinent structural features from their WTC 7 initiation analysis, I am not sure if you realize that many of the drawings have not been released and the NIST has not yet released their model.

Are you saying this is why AE911 don't fund any research along these lines?

What's your opinion on them funding analysis of the chips?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Are you saying this is why AE911 don't fund any research along these lines?

What's your opinion on them funding analysis of the chips?

AE911 is essentially a marketing arm to spread the word about the research of a large number of citizen investigators, who have individually and in small groups produced a large number of technical papers on the WTC collapses showing the present official account is non-explanatory, and that a new investigation is needed.

They have used their fund raising ability to provide funding in certain areas of research, such as the issue of the red/gray chips found in the dust, and I think they should help out there.

 

[Grieves]

Man, thought I'd try my hand at getting back into the swing of things here, then I read this thread.
Seriously, guys?
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth is an awareness campaign. It's an effort to emphasize the fact that intelligent and educated individuals with pertinent experience question the official story surrounding 9/11, something that a great deal of effort has been put into hiding from popular notice, and to encourage/promote new and more thorough investigations into the events of/surrounding that day. Conducting, orchestrating, overseeing or funding complex chemical testing/other major research endeavors isn't part of their mandate so far as I can tell. This discussion you're all having here is like asking why MADD, who adamantly espouse having breath alcohol ignition interlock devices installed on all cars, aren't researching, developing, and constructing such devices themselves, given the arguably massive donations they receive. Nationwide Insurance's donation to MADD alone in 2013 was greater than the entire AE911 budget. Surely some of that money could go directly toward advancing the science of toxicity testing, instead of just promoting the science, putting out advertisements/billboards, and paying their own staff? Clearly MADD is motivated purely by self-interest and profit.

 

[George B]

Man, thought I'd try my hand at getting back into the swing of things here, then I read this thread.
Seriously, guys?
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth is an awareness campaign. It's an effort to emphasize the fact that intelligent and educated individuals with pertinent experience question the official story surrounding 9/11, something that a great deal of effort has been put into hiding from popular notice, and to encourage/promote new and more thorough investigations into the events of/surrounding that day. Conducting, orchestrating, overseeing or funding complex chemical testing/other major research endeavors isn't part of their mandate so far as I can tell. This discussion you're all having here is like asking why MADD, who adamantly espouse having breath alcohol ignition interlock devices installed on all cars, aren't researching, developing, and constructing such devices themselves, given the arguably massive donations they receive. Nationwide Insurance's donation to MADD alone in 2013 was greater than the entire AE911 budget. Surely some of that money could go directly toward advancing the science of toxicity testing, instead of just promoting the science, putting out advertisements/billboards, and paying their own staff? Clearly MADD is motivated purely by self-interest and profit.

Points well made . . . but there already exists much research and funding on safety and alcohol abuse etc . . . what would be the source for funding research to prove or disprove the issues around 911 . . . seems they are it . . . seems reasonable they could collect and contract persons or groups to conduct testing . . . in fact if they did they would attract more attention and funding. . . . I would contribute to well structured research . . .

 

[Mick West]

Man, thought I'd try my hand at getting back into the swing of things here, then I read this thread.
Seriously, guys?
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth is an awareness campaign. It's an effort to emphasize the fact that intelligent and educated individuals with pertinent experience question the official story surrounding 9/11, something that a great deal of effort has been put into hiding from popular notice, and to encourage/promote new and more thorough investigations into the events of/surrounding that day. Conducting, orchestrating, overseeing or funding complex chemical testing/other major research endeavors isn't part of their mandate so far as I can tell.

But the point here is that it would seem to be incredibly helpful to their cause if they could confirm the chips were nanothermite, which they claim could be done with just $2,000 (remaining to be raised out of $5,000). So it would seem to be very much in line with their mandate, which is currently:

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/about-us.html

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is a non-profit non-partisan organization of architects, engineers and affiliates dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing facts about the complete destruction of all three World Trade Center high-rises on September 11, 2001.

Our organization is devoted to:

■ Dispelling misinformation and disinformation with scientific facts and forensic evidence

■ Educating and motivating thousands of architects and engineers as well as the public at large

■ Obtaining a truly independent WTC investigation with subpoena power

■ Achieving mainstream media coverage for our cause

Content from External Source

Wouldn't this research be "exposing the falsehoods and to revealing facts"? Is it not "scientific facts and forensic evidence"? Would it not help with "motivating"? Would it not give cause for a new investigation? Would it not create massive mainstream media coverage?

So why don't they do it?

 

[Alienentity]

Man, thought I'd try my hand at getting back into the swing of things here, then I read this thread.
Seriously, guys?
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth is an awareness campaign. It's an effort to emphasize the fact that intelligent and educated individuals with pertinent experience question the official story surrounding 9/11, something that a great deal of effort has been put into hiding from popular notice, and to encourage/promote new and more thorough investigations into the events of/surrounding that day. Conducting, orchestrating, overseeing or funding complex chemical testing/other major research endeavors isn't part of their mandate so far as I can tell. This discussion you're all having here is like asking why MADD, who adamantly espouse having breath alcohol ignition interlock devices installed on all cars, aren't researching, developing, and constructing such devices themselves, given the arguably massive donations they receive. Nationwide Insurance's donation to MADD alone in 2013 was greater than the entire AE911 budget. Surely some of that money could go directly toward advancing the science of toxicity testing, instead of just promoting the science, putting out advertisements/billboards, and paying their own staff? Clearly MADD is motivated purely by self-interest and profit.

Holy smokes. You're trying to compare AE911Truth to MADD? I wish AE911Truth were 25% as mature, systematic and focussed as MADD is, that would be wonderful.
Go to the MADD webpage for your country. Look at the way it's organized - the Mission Statement is very simple: Stop Drunk Driving. Drunk driving is a well studied (around the globe) public health problem, it's not a fringe issue, it's not an unsupported idea in scientific literature.

Look at the various services MADD offers and compare to AE911Truth. There is no comparison, they are completely different organizations. MADD offers

• 
  

  
  [*]Victim/Survivor Services – Comprehensive program of support and resources for individuals who have lost a loved one or suffered a serious injury as a result of an impaired-driving crash.
  [*]Youth Services – Specialized programming for elementary and high school students to educate them about the dangers of mixing alcohol and/or drugs with driving.
  [*]Public Awareness and Education – Campaigns to reach out to the public about the dangers of impaired driving and how they can help improve safety on our roads, waterways and trails.
  [*]Public Policy – Promotion of legislative best practices in impaired driving countermeasures, at both the federal and provincial/territorial levels, to address the impaired driving problem in Canada.
  [*]Technology – Partnering with international traffic safety organizations, automobile manufacturers and technology companies to explore technological solutions to stop impaired driving.
  

  Content from External Source

Most importantly, MADD are not hostile to mainstream scientific bodies, in fact they work hand-in-hand with them, unlike AE911Truth. AE911Truth eschews normal scientific channels, such as established journals, leading institutions in engineering and forensics and the like, and instead emphasizes non-standard and unrecognized publications.

MADD is participating in studies directly, with universities sometimes. I can list some of that activity. AE911Truth works with no university engineering department, forensics department or any other technical college to develop methodology for studying the issues. In fact AE911Truth's main points are IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION to mainstream academia and studies on the matter.

In 2013 to 2014 MADD will be conducting research in the Canadian school system, for example, through Environics Research Group. This is the kind of research which is essential to the mission statement of MADD. Now, let's look at the mission statement of AE911Truth

Our mission is to research, compile, and disseminate scientific evidence relative to the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, calling for a truly open and independent investigation and supporting others in the pursuit of justice.

Content from External Source

Funny that at least two of their leading spokespersons are openly accusing NIST of fraud. Because AE911Truth's actual mission is to oppose mainstream evidence and facts regarding the 9/11 tragedies, they are in fact hostile and dismissive of all empirical studies which don't fit their agenda.

Nobody could be mislead by MADD's mission statement. They want to end drunk driving. AE911Truth wants to prove that there was an inside job, that the WTC buildings were collapsed by controlled demolition. We all know this. But their mission statement says nothing about it.
Thus AE911Truth is essentially a deceptive organization at the core. It fraudulently purports to be pursuing a scientific approach when in fact it is openly hostile to that approach.

Any comparison to MADD is so superficial as to be meaningless.

 

[Mick West]

Missed that bit:

Our mission is to research, compile, and disseminate scientific evidence relative to the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, calling for a truly open and independent investigation and supporting others in the pursuit of justice.

Content from External Source

So the suggestion that they are purely an "awareness campaign" is nonsense. They claim that research is part of their mission. Yet they refuse to fund the research they claim would blow the whole thing wide open.

 

[George B]

Missed that bit:

Our mission is to research, compile, and disseminate scientific evidence relative to the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, calling for a truly open and independent investigation and supporting others in the pursuit of justice.

Content from External Source

So the suggestion that they are purely an "awareness campaign" is nonsense. They claim that research is part of their mission. Yet they refuse to fund the research they claim would blow the whole thing wide open.

Maybe they mean they are researching "if evidence exists" not doing original research. . .

 

[Trigger Hippie]

2.4% of MADD's revenue is spent on administrative costs.

33% of AE911Truth's revenue is spent on salaries and employee compensation. Half of which seems to go to the president.

MADD's awareness campaign materials are free.

AE911Truth's don't seem to be.

 

[Alienentity]

Maybe they mean they are researching "if evidence exists" not doing original research. . .

Funny thing is, Kevin Ryan, one of the principals of AE911Truth, recently wrote an article about Dr James Millette's red chip study, where he tried to dismiss Millette as a 'NIST contractor'.

It seems AE911Truth is actually mandated to discredit any research which counters their fixed conclusion that the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition, whether by ad hominem attack (Ryan's attack on Millette) or by proclaiming fraud by NIST. Nowhere do they consult with any leading engineering or forensics school in the USA for support in these attacks.

Quite the opposite from MADD which in fact works closely with leading universities around the world.

 

[Alienentity]

I would be happy to endorse AE911Truth if they were competent, scientific and professional. But they are not.

Just taking one of the cornerstone issues of AE911Truth, the 'Active Thermitic' paper which they promote - the principal authors of the paper said that more research would be undertaken to determine the nature of the organic matrix, the gray layer, and to compare the chips to known nanothermite using FTIR and other tests.
None of this has been published in almost 5 years since they said they would do this.

Yet AE911Truth, which is demonstrably ultra-critical of anything NIST (or Dr James Millette for that matter) has ever done, hasn't said boo about this glaring lack of due diligence on the part of Harrit et al. Not only that but as Mick has pointed out time and time again, AE911Truth has not only ignored this issue but failed to provide even a paltry amount of money towards fixing the gaps in knowledge.
Put it this way: if AE911Truth had committed a mere 0.1% of their estimated gross revenues over 4 years (about $1.2 million) they could have set aside almost $5000.00 to pay an independent lab for this 'much needed' and 'important' new study of the chips.

Is one-tenth-of-one-percent too much to ask of them? Apparently it is. I think this lack of effort can best be described as pathetic.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Man, thought I'd try my hand at getting back into the swing of things here, then I read this thread.
Seriously, guys?
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth is an awareness campaign. It's an effort to emphasize the fact that intelligent and educated individuals with pertinent experience question the official story surrounding 9/11, something that a great deal of effort has been put into hiding from popular notice, and to encourage/promote new and more thorough investigations into the events of/surrounding that day. Conducting, orchestrating, overseeing or funding complex chemical testing/other major research endeavors isn't part of their mandate so far as I can tell. This discussion you're all having here is like asking why MADD, who adamantly espouse having breath alcohol ignition interlock devices installed on all cars, aren't researching, developing, and constructing such devices themselves, given the arguably massive donations they receive. Nationwide Insurance's donation to MADD alone in 2013 was greater than the entire AE911 budget. Surely some of that money could go directly toward advancing the science of toxicity testing, instead of just promoting the science, putting out advertisements/billboards, and paying their own staff? Clearly MADD is motivated purely by self-interest and profit.

It looks like you struck a nerve.

 

[Pete Tar]

It looks like you struck a nerve.

It looks like you think a competent point of comparison has been made. It hasn't. Contain your sneering glee.

 

[Alienentity]

It looks like you struck a nerve.

Tony, have you never wondered why AE911Truth can't spend 0.1% of their income to complete the research that Harrit et al. said was needed? Why the reluctance to learn the truth?

 

[Alienentity]

Tony, if Harrit and Jones said in 2009 that further tests were needed to learn what the matrix was, and to compare with real nanothermite, why do you think they haven't done this?
You're a great conspiracy theorist, what does your conspiracy thinking cap tell you about Harrit and Jones? I would be very suspicious of them if I were you.

 

[Alienentity]

Not only are AE911Truth not funding critical research, Kevin Ryan won't share the dust samples with independent scientists who aren't 9/11 truthers. Is that an 'open' process?
How can the 2009 paper be corroborated if the chips aren't shared? It's not possible to verify the results in that case.

And why hasn't AE911Truth demanded that Harrit et al. present these findings to a forensic science conference in the USA? Who is controlling the directors of AE911Truth and preventing them from asking for this? Maybe Richard Gage is working secretly for the government to lead people off the righteous path, it certainly seems that way. Even some truthers have found evidence that the leadership of AE911Truth have been infiltrated by agents of Homeland Security, maybe that's the reason nothing is happening.

Or is AE911Truth not interested in the best science and just pretending? I'm guessing the latter, but I could be wrong: maybe they are just a shell organization created by the government to put people off the scent.

 

[Grieves]

It looks like you think a competent point of comparison has been made. It hasn't. Contain your sneering glee.

Lets all calm down a little. No sense getting abrasive for the sake of getting abrasive.

Holy smokes. You're trying to compare AE911Truth to MADD? I wish AE911Truth were 25% as mature, systematic and focussed as MADD is, that would be wonderful.
Go to the MADD webpage for your country. Look at the way it's organized - the Mission Statement is very simple: Stop Drunk Driving. Drunk driving is a well studied (around the globe) public health problem, it's not a fringe issue, it's not an unsupported idea in scientific literature.

Look at the various services MADD offers and compare to AE911Truth. There is no comparison, they are completely different organizations. MADD offers

• 
  

  
  [*]Victim/Survivor Services – Comprehensive program of support and resources for individuals who have lost a loved one or suffered a serious injury as a result of an impaired-driving crash.
  [*]Youth Services – Specialized programming for elementary and high school students to educate them about the dangers of mixing alcohol and/or drugs with driving.
  [*]Public Awareness and Education – Campaigns to reach out to the public about the dangers of impaired driving and how they can help improve safety on our roads, waterways and trails.
  [*]Public Policy – Promotion of legislative best practices in impaired driving countermeasures, at both the federal and provincial/territorial levels, to address the impaired driving problem in Canada.
  [*]Technology – Partnering with international traffic safety organizations, automobile manufacturers and technology companies to explore technological solutions to stop impaired driving.
  

  Content from External Source

Most importantly, MADD are not hostile to mainstream scientific bodies, in fact they work hand-in-hand with them, unlike AE911Truth. AE911Truth eschews normal scientific channels, such as established journals, leading institutions in engineering and forensics and the like, and instead emphasizes non-standard and unrecognized publications.

MADD is participating in studies directly, with universities sometimes. I can list some of that activity. AE911Truth works with no university engineering department, forensics department or any other technical college to develop methodology for studying the issues. In fact AE911Truth's main points are IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION to mainstream academia and studies on the matter.

In 2013 to 2014 MADD will be conducting research in the Canadian school system, for example, through Environics Research Group. This is the kind of research which is essential to the mission statement of MADD. Now, let's look at the mission statement of AE911Truth

Our mission is to research, compile, and disseminate scientific evidence relative to the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, calling for a truly open and independent investigation and supporting others in the pursuit of justice.

Content from External Source

Funny that at least two of their leading spokespersons are openly accusing NIST of fraud. Because AE911Truth's actual mission is to oppose mainstream evidence and facts regarding the 9/11 tragedies, they are in fact hostile and dismissive of all empirical studies which don't fit their agenda.

Nobody could be mislead by MADD's mission statement. They want to end drunk driving. AE911Truth wants to prove that there was an inside job, that the WTC buildings were collapsed by controlled demolition. We all know this. But their mission statement says nothing about it.
Thus AE911Truth is essentially a deceptive organization at the core. It fraudulently purports to be pursuing a scientific approach when in fact it is openly hostile to that approach.

Any comparison to MADD is so superficial as to be meaningless.

MADD is a massive organization some 30 years old or more with an incredible amount of mainstream support and an entirely uncontroversial mission. Indeed, the comparison between it and the miniscule, obscure, and popularly reviled AE911truth is limited to them both being organizations with a focus on spreading awareness.

One is spreading awareness around an accepted and understood issue which everyone but drunks and thick-headed uber-libertarians who think they should have the right to get smashed and cause a pile-up whenever they damn well please can get behind. One is spreading awareness of an issue with no popular support whatsoever, quite possibly the most controversial and avoided issue of the new century thus-far, espousing and promoting the consideration of ideas that directly contradict the series of events claimed as fact by the highest authorities in America, the one world Superpower.

Undoubtedly AE911's efforts are considerably less impressive than MADD's. Unquestionably there's things they could be doing but aren't, preferring apparently to focus on the awareness campaign. Surely one could question the distribution of funds in AE911's structure as with any such organization, including MADD. AE911 isn't perfect, I'm not some active supporter of them, and I'd agree there's a lot they're doing that I think is futile and a lot they're not doing that I wish they would, but conducting an investigation isn't their responsibility, and this effort to portray them as crooks and thieves because they don't spend what money they have on conducting an investigation seems shallow and hypocritical to my mind.

2.4% of MADD's revenue is spent on administrative costs.

33% of AE911Truth's revenue is spent on salaries and employee compensation. Half of which seems to go to the president.

33% on salaries? Wow, what bloody crooks.

In 2009 MADD took in $41,006,038 and paid salaries of $20,537,936, over half of their income.

or maybe not so much.

 

[Mick West]

Undoubtedly AE911's efforts are considerably less impressive than MADD's. Unquestionably there's things they could be doing but aren't, preferring apparently to focus on the awareness campaign.

And the questions here is: why? When it would seem so incredibly helpful to their cause to do this research, why do they avoid it? Comparing them to MADD is a diversion.

 

[Grieves]

Not paying for it and avoiding it are the same thing?

 

[Mick West]

Not paying for it and avoiding it are the same thing?

They are not doing it. They could easily do it. Their mandate practically requires them to do it. Call that what you will.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

33% on salaries? Wow, what bloody crooks.

Geez Grieves... you really are quick with sarcasm. A little ironic coming form someone who just wrote, "Lets all calm down a little. No sense getting abrasive for the sake of getting abrasive."

MADD's Salaries, other compensations, employee benefits of $20,537,936 are detailed in Part IX, column (a) lines 5-10. If you look at Part IX, you'll find that the compensation of ALL current officers, directors, trustees, and key employees is 2.4% ($1.5 Million). As opposed to the founder of AE911truth who takes a full 18%. The larger point I was supporting, and the one that ties into the subject of this thread, was to question exactly what AE911Truth does with their money... besides producing and selling videos, banners and brochures.

Richard Gage has said that "building 7 is the smoking gun." For a measly $2000 he has the opportunity to realize the mission of his organization by proving a controlled demolition. All for only 0.5% of AE911truth's yearly revenue.

By comparison, if MADD had the opportunity to finally put an end to drunk driving, do you not believe they would spend 0.5% of their revenue to accomplish it? And if they didn't, I'd be questioning their motives also.

 

[Grieves]

Geez Grieves... you really are quick with sarcasm. A little ironic coming form someone who just wrote, "Lets all calm down a little. No sense getting abrasive for the sake of getting abrasive."

A bit of sarcasm doesn't usually chafe. I'm teasing your argument, not all that similar to a negative presumption as to your character/state of mind. Apologies if you feel slighted though.

Richard Gage has said that "building 7 is the smoking gun." For a measly $2000 he has the opportunity to realize the mission of his organization by proving a controlled demolition. All for only 0.5% of AE911truth's yearly revenue.

Have you considered the legality of a non-profit organization without charity-status making donations with the money that's been donated to them? Have you considered that such a thing may impact their tax-exempt status? The laws surrounding such things are rather complicated. Though I guess the founder should just pay the rest out of pocket, or else he can't really mean what he says?

By comparison, if MADD had the opportunity to finally put an end to drunk driving, do you not believe they would spend 0.5% of their revenue to accomplish it?

If Mark Basile gets his 2000, and the tests he intends to petition come back positive for explosive residue or are blocked/censored by a high authority, will you be convinced of a demolition scenario? Do you believe popular media would spread the word? That renewed and far more thorough investigation would result? Or are you just making this argument for the sake of it?

 

[Mick West]

Have you considered the legality of a non-profit organization without charity-status making donations with the money that's been donated to them? Have you considered that such a thing may impact their tax-exempt status? You're aware of the rules surrounding such things are relatively complicated, yes? Though I guess the founder should just pay the rest out of pocket, or else he can't really mean what he says?

That's a novel argument. They won't fund it because it's relatively complicated?

But really it's NOT complicated. Non-profits just need to show that spending the money will advance the mission of the organization, which this clearly would do. As their mission, right there on their 2011 990 tax form is:



And in practical terms $2,000 is neither here nor there to the tax-man, compared to their overall budget.

 

[Representative Press]

We are talking about an organization run by a guy that repeatedly pointed to the wrong computer model and claimed NIST "couldn't even get their model to look like the collapse."

Come on, they sat Gage down, along with Griffin and Avery, and showed him a test proving that fire can weaken steel. (the key argument these guys had been making that started this BS is that "fires couldn't do that" and he just this when presented with the evidence:

"This test does not refute or even address the overwhelming evidence for explosive controlled demolition" … "This is the reason I say that it is irrelevant, they have experiments like this that show steel weakens in fires, it's easier and more profound for me to say, 'It's irrelevant, you can turn the steel into a noodle, I will still, we still have he evidence of controlled demolition which they do not refute.'"

He has no credibility, he claim that parts of the building being ejected into surrounding buildings is a sign of controlled demolition when it is no such thing.

Isn't what is going on here like a guy who is caught with is hands inside someone else's pants pockets and claiming he has to do it because his hands were cold? Isn't asking why he couldn't just wear gloves or just put his hands in is own pockets really just playing along with absurdity?

[Admin: Off-topic material removed ...]

 

[Grieves]

That's a novel argument. They won't fund it because it's relatively complicated?

I have no idea why they 'won't'. Could be any number of reasons. I'm suggesting one of them may well be that the tax-exempt status of an organization like AE911 is potentially more tenuous than that of your average non-profit, and they might not want to jeopardize that. Mark Basile doesn't yet know precisely how much the tests will cost and has only set a loose goal. It's openly stated on his donation page that "...remaining funds, if any, will go to AE911Truth with full disclosure." I'm no expert in American tax law, but a non-profit donating to a non-profit who may wind up funneling that and other people's money back to that non-profit could be considered a conflict of interest. It may also be entirely possible that Mark Basile doesn't want AE911's money, and would rather the tests are paid for entirely by private citizens.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

A bit of sarcasm doesn't usually chafe. I'm teasing your argument, not all that similar to a negative presumption as to your character/state of mind. Apologies if you feel slighted though.

I appreciate your apology but it's really not necessary. I'm not slighted. I was just pointing out the irony and how amusing I found it.

Though I guess the founder should just pay the rest out of pocket, or else he can't really mean what he says?

I have a suspicion. Richard Gage seems to live and breath the controlled demolition conspiracy of building 7. He founded the AE911T non-profit and in 2011 and it paid him a salary $85,008. I presume it also compensates his travel, lodging, food, and other expenses as he jets around the world promoting the conspiracy. Whether it's "out of his pocket" or through the non-profit, the source of the money is the same: donations and the sale of AE911T brand products.

If Mark Basile gets his 2000, and the tests he intends to petition come back positive for explosive residue or are blocked/censored by a high authority, will you be convinced of a demolition scenario? Do you believe popular media would spread the word? That renewed and far more thorough investigation would result?

No, but it would be a starting point. The next step would be the all important peer review process. Although perhaps some would call that process "blockage/censorship by a higher authority."

Or are you just making this argument for the sake of it?

And you Grieves... do you really believe AE911T should not fund the paint chip/nanothermite research, or are you just making this argument for the sake of it?

 

[Mick West]

I have no idea why they 'won't'. Could be any number of reasons. I'm suggesting one of them may well be that the tax-exempt status of an organization like AE911 is potentially more tenuous than that of your average non-profit, and they might not want to jeopardize that. Mark Basile doesn't yet know precisely how much the tests will cost and has only set a loose goal. It's openly stated on his donation page that "...remaining funds, if any, will go to AE911Truth with full disclosure." I'm no expert in American tax law, but a non-profit donating to a non-profit who may wind up funneling that and other people's money back to that non-profit could be considered a conflict of interest. It may also be entirely possible that Mark Basile doesn't want AE911's money, and would rather the tests are paid for entirely by private citizens.

When I spoke to David Slesinger of AE911 about this, he mentioned none of the above objections.

 

[Alienentity]

I have no idea why they 'won't'. Could be any number of reasons. I'm suggesting one of them may well be that the tax-exempt status of an organization like AE911 is potentially more tenuous than that of your average non-profit, and they might not want to jeopardize that. Mark Basile doesn't yet know precisely how much the tests will cost and has only set a loose goal. It's openly stated on his donation page that "...remaining funds, if any, will go to AE911Truth with full disclosure." I'm no expert in American tax law, but a non-profit donating to a non-profit who may wind up funneling that and other people's money back to that non-profit could be considered a conflict of interest. It may also be entirely possible that Mark Basile doesn't want AE911's money, and would rather the tests are paid for entirely by private citizens.

We're really just pointing to the irony and absurdity of the fact that AE911Truth takes in a nice chunk of cash every year yet doesn't ever seem to make it a priority to do some straightforward research which would prove that nanothermite was used.

My personal viewpoint is that the principal authors of the Bentham paper know the stuff isn't thermitic but don't want to ruin the conspiracy party: partly to avoid embarrassment and partly because they get so much attention (and revenue) from loudly accusing 'them™' of blowing up the towers.

If AE911Truth were doing real science and consulting top engineering and forensics faculties in the USA, this whole conspiracy show would collapse right away. It's always been a smoke and mirrors show, not serious science.

 

[Grieves]

We are talking about an organization run by a guy that repeatedly pointed to the wrong computer model and claimed NIST "couldn't even get their model to look like the collapse."

I get the impression that I can't go to any lengths to point the inaccuracies and inadequacies of the NIST computer-models without getting this post removed, but on the particular subject of this guy's supposedly condemning faux-pas: was the NIST model to which he was referring not a fictional scenario with no basis in reality and which did not in any way resemble the actual collapse? That he was pointing out the wrong model may be true, but I entirely fail to understand why NIST spent several years making a wrong model.

I appreciate your apology but it's really not necessary. I'm not slighted. I was just pointing out the irony and how amusing I found it.

Well, if you didn't actually find the comment crass, it wasn't all that ironic, was it..?

I have a suspicion. Richard Gage seems to live and breath the controlled demolition conspiracy of building 7. He founded the AE911T non-profit and in 2011 and it paid him a salary $85,008. I presume it also compensates his travel, lodging, food, and other expenses as he jets around the world promoting the conspiracy. Whether it's "out of his pocket" or through the non-profit, the source of the money is the same: donations and the sale of AE911T brand products.

No doubt, the man seems to have made something of a career of the matter, and is making an entirely comfortable middle-class salary that does seem somewhat excessive given the size of the organization.

No, but it would be a starting point.

You can lead a horse to water, and all that. Have there been no previous starting points at all to your mind...?

The next step would be the all important peer review process.

Studies have already been conducted concluding that residues indicative of demolition are present in the WTC dust, but these have been called biased and inaccurate, with studies attempting to refute those studies being called the same. A blind study IS the peer review process.

And you Grieves... do you really believe AE911T should not fund the paint chip/nanothermite research, or are you just making this argument for the sake of it?

I think it would be a fine thing if they did, but I don't think it's fair to label them a con because they don't. They are, however more effective they could be doing other things, doing a relatively good job of emphasizing that 9/11 isn't an issue we should be thinking about as old history. I also think thier current message, the whole 'Did you know a third building...?" thing, speaks toward the necessity of such awareness efforts, as it's a fact that to this very day those without at least some experience in the conspiracy-verse are very often completely unaware that there was even such a thing as 'building 7', let alone that its wholesale collapse was rather unorthodox/extremely difficult to explain. I'm not a fan of the AE911T founder, I'm not a supporter of them, I've never bought one of their products. Like you, I can see that there's an element of monetary gain, and like with most any non-profit good intentions often wind up fueling ineffectual bureaucracy. That said, they are what they are, and I don't consider them failures or crooks for not being as good as I want them to be.

 

[Grieves]

When I spoke to David Slesinger of AE911 about this, he mentioned none of the above objections.

What did he have to say?

 

[Alienentity]

What did he have to say?

You're ever so kind to AE911Truth, your empathy is very moving. However, they are making some very testable claims, and so is the pivotal Harrit paper, which is the study we're referring to, right?
When Dr Millette did his study, he found no elemental aluminum, and he was able to identify the composition of the organic matrix (something Harrit et al. did not do).
Yet strangely you do not mention this when referring to evidence.

I can do it, why can't you address both sides of the issue in a sentence? What is the reticence of AE911Truth supporters to test these accusations and claims?
You have not addressed the simple fact that it would require a measly .1% of AE911Truth's revenues over 4 years to accomplish a definitive retesting of their samples by a trusted forensic lab - I doubt that amount equals Richard Gage's meal allowance when he's hopping around accusing the government of mass murder. (btw, he really is accusing them of this, sorry to bring it up but it's true)

Why the kid gloves for the accusers?

 

[Mick West]

What did he have to say?

He said the though it was a good idea, it was something they possibly should do. But he himself considered the matter settled, as it was obvious the building could not collapse the way they did from fire alone. He said he would mention the suggestion (although I'm not sure on the details). I explained who I was.

 

[Mick West]

I get the impression that I can't go to any lengths to point the inaccuracies and inadequacies of the NIST computer-models without getting this post removed, but on the particular subject of this guy's supposedly condemning faux-pas: was the NIST model to which he was referring not a fictional scenario with no basis in reality and which did not in any way resemble the actual collapse? That he was pointing out the wrong model may be true, but I entirely fail to understand why NIST spent several years making a wrong model.

They didn't. It was just a version of the model without impact damage, which resulted in a very different folding of the exterior skin. Gage used this model repeatedly in his presentations instead of the accurate model that included impact damage. It was either highly disingenuous, or a rather significant oversight.

But the question here is why they don't actually fund any research. RP seems to be saying by this that he think's it's because AE911 are either dishonest or lacking in understanding of the science.

 

[Grieves]

You're ever so kind to AE911Truth, your empathy is very moving.

I've not been kind. Only fair. You should consider it.

However, they are making some very testable claims, and so is the pivotal Harrit paper, which is the study we're referring to, right?

To the Mark Basile blind test, actually.

When Dr Millette did his study, he found no elemental aluminum, and he was able to identify the composition of the organic matrix (something Harrit et al. did not do).
Yet strangely you do not mention this when referring to evidence.

I didn't mention quite a bit, as the subject of the thread isn't an examination of the Harrit/Millete/Jones stuff. I only referenced that whole debate loosely here:

Studies have already been conducted concluding that residues indicative of demolition are present in the WTC dust, but these have been called biased and inaccurate, with studies attempting to refute those studies being called the same. A blind study IS the peer review process.

I can do it, why can't you address both sides of the issue in a sentence? What is the reticence of AE911Truth supporters to test these accusations and claims?

I'm not a supporter of AE911T. I'm a defender of them in this instance because the position being taken on them in this thread is unreasonable.

You have not addressed the simple fact that it would require a measly .1% of AE911Truth's revenues over 4 years to accomplish a definitive retesting of their samples by a trusted forensic lab -

I pose to you the same question I posed to Trigger: If the blind tests Mark Basile intends come back positive for evidence of demolition, would you yourself consider that definitive proof that a demolition did indeed occur, or at least evidence sufficient enough to commence a renewed investigation?

I doubt that amount equals Richard Gage's meal allowance when he's hopping around accusing the government of mass murder. (btw, he really is accusing them of this, sorry to bring it up but it's true)

No reason to apologize. It's surely a dark notion to consider, maybe even despicable in a certain light, but it shouldn't be beyond consideration.

It was just a version of the model without impact damage, which resulted in a very different folding of the exterior skin.

So a fictional scenario which did not in any way resemble the actual collapse. S'what I said.

 

[Alienentity]

I've not been kind. Only fair. You should consider it.

You've been extremely kind. I totally disagree with your apologetics. But I note you do not recognize it as such.

I'm not a supporter of AE911T. I'm a defender of them in this instance

Defender, supporter. Whatever. You're very clever at making semantic differences seem like something more.

Dr Millette's study was fair, it falsified the Harrit claim. There actually isn't a need for another study, but if one is so desperately wanted by the folks at AE911Truth they have the means to fund it.
Apologists for them would excuse them from any role in further tests. As you have done repeatedly.

I pose to you the same question I posed to Trigger: If the blind tests Mark Basile intends come back positive for evidence of demolition, would you yourself consider that definitive proof that a demolition did indeed occur, or at least evidence sufficient enough to commence a renewed investigation?

Grieves, the chips contain less than 6% iron oxide an Al combined. They aren't capable of thermitic reactions. Further tests are not going to make them into something they're not already. Test them 100 more times, I don't care. Let's see the results already!

Why has it taken almost 5 years to get the 9/11 truth side to budge? They're the ones who insist on CD at the WTC, yet when it comes to following the scientific process they get cold feet every time. Not a single forensics conference has been attended by the authors of the Harrit paper in order to present the findings, nor has AE911Truth attempted to team up with any respected university to further study the chips.

Yet the apologies continue. Apologies for people who accuse their own government of murdering thousands of civilians on 9/11. If that isn't a kid glove approach, nothing is.

 

[Mick West]

So a fictional scenario which did not in any way resemble the actual collapse. S'what I said.

You asked why they spent years making it. I explained that they didn't. They just did a very reasonable extra couple of runs of the model with different circumstance, to see what they could learn.

The point is that Gage used the wrong one. He either lied, or made a stupid mistake.