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

[gerrycan]

@Tony Szamboti

Use your influence to make this experiment happen.

It is imperative that AE911 drive the research so that the outcome cannot be criticized.

It will only cost $2000.

Don't you think that the involvement of ae911 will cause many people to just dismiss the findings? Personally, I think that it is disgraceful that you need to call on a charitable organisation to do what should have been done by NIST.
Do you see that there may be a problem within your federal agencies that is highlighted by the fact that you are calling on ae911 to do their job for them?

 

[Landru]

Don't you think that the involvement of ae911 will cause many people to just dismiss the findings? Personally, I think that it is disgraceful that you need to call on a charitable organisation to do what should have been done by NIST.
Do you see that there may be a problem within your federal agencies that is highlighted by the fact that you are calling on ae911 to do their job for them?

No.

 

[Mick West]

I only know that they said they would pay for the lab costs. I don't know anything about the timing.

Well, I guess we'll see. This thread will still be here in a year.

It would seem though that once the decision is made, there should be little to stop it happening within a month or two.

 

[Mick West]

Don't you think that the involvement of ae911 will cause many people to just dismiss the findings? Personally, I think that it is disgraceful that you need to call on a charitable organisation to do what should have been done by NIST.
Do you see that there may be a problem within your federal agencies that is highlighted by the fact that you are calling on ae911 to do their job for them?

No. If AE911 pays an independent lab or group to perform and interpret the tests, then who can argue with that?

 

[gerrycan]

No. If AE911 pays an independent lab or group to perform and interpret the tests, then who can argue with that?

Presumably, you. You do seem to be slightly opposed to the obvious.

 

[Mick West]

Presumably, you. You do seem to be slightly opposed to the obvious.

I would not argue with it specifically because AE911 was involved. I'd see what the science says.

So now you are saying that AE911 should not fund independent research because people would question it? That's just ludicrous.

Come Gerry. Don't defend them just because they are on your side. Look to the reality of the situation.

They could clear some things up, and yet they prefer not to. So clearly they prefer the status quo.

 

[Alienentity]

Don't you think that the involvement of ae911 will cause many people to just dismiss the findings?

It depends who carries out the study and whether it's done without interference. I don't think the findings would be dismissed if they were carried out by an independent scientist or lab.

Which is more than I can say for the disgraceful behavior of Kevin Ryan in his personal attacks against poor Dr Millette. So far, it is AE911Truth which is showing tremendous bad faith in this process all round.
They accuse NIST of fraud, the government of mass murder, yet attack an independent study merely because it doesn't sip from the same vat of koolaid they do.

That's why they don't do science - the scientific truth is actually against their positions.

 

[FireOfficer1822]

Presumably, you. You do seem to be slightly opposed to the obvious.

Im sorry but can you post this "obvious" that any of us are opposed to ? I would welcome any independent research or even a reasonable answer to the topic of this thread. If you wish to bring action against someone or to challenge someone in court , the burden of proof falls to you .Gerrycan, question to you: Do you acknowledge the legal fact that the burden of proof falls to the accuser and not the
defendant ?

 

[Alienentity]

So now you are saying that AE911 should not fund independent research because people would question it? That's just ludicrous.

This is truly the saddest excuse I've come across. It is a contemptible position, and truly a coward's approach. I'm not saying that Gerry is such a person, I'm commenting only on the position he's taking in this discussion.

 

[Mick West]

Im sorry but can you post this "obvious" that any of us are opposed to ? I would welcome any independent research or even a reasonable answer to the topic of this thread. If you wish to bring action against someone or to challenge someone in court , the burden of proof falls to you .Gerrycan, question to you: Do you acknowledge the legal fact that the burden of proof falls to the accuser and not the
defendant ?

Gerry is referring to me not agreeing with him that a new investigation is mandated by some omissions he found in the the NIST WTC7 report, discussed at length in this rather long thread, which contains the "obvious" material he is referring to.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/critical-errors-and-omissions-in-wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/

Off topic for this thread though. The question being why AE911 don't fund research.

 

[Redwood]

It is pretty hard to understand how anyone can see the first two views of the collapse shown in this 30 second clip and say the north façade fell at a different rate than the rest of the upper section of the building.

Tony, it's not clear to me what you mean by "the north façade fell at a different rate than the rest of the upper section of the building." By the "rest of the of the upper section of the building", I assume you mean the fall of the East Mechanical Penthouse, which these videos omit, and the West Penthouse. But we can't see their fall after they disappear through the roof, so there's no way to measure it.

If you mean the lower part of the façade vs. the upper part, they obviously fell at the same rate, since they didn't split apart. I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing what you're getting at.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

Gerry is referring to me not agreeing with him that a new investigation is mandated by some omissions he found in the the NIST WTC7 report, discussed at length in this rather long thread, which contains the "obvious" material he is referring to.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/critical-errors-and-omissions-in-wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/

Off topic for this thread though. The question being why AE911 don't fund research.

I answered it. There is really nothing more to discuss on this.

It's in their mission statement (which I helped to write)
It's on their tax forms
They raise money and have no research allocations in their budget, but they do have salaries, overhead, marketing and marketing material production costs, travel expenses.

They don't because... for the third time, the results would put them out of business and expose their deception or stupidity... Kinda reminds me of the hole Chris Christi is in.

 

[gerrycan]

So now you are saying that AE911 should not fund independent research because people would question it? That's just ludicrous.

No, the research is as valid, I just see a reluctance to accept the obvious. The fact of the matter is that AE911 has, and will continue to fund this type of research as per their charter.

 

[gerrycan]

Im sorry but can you post this "obvious" that any of us are opposed to ? I would welcome any independent research or even a reasonable answer to the topic of this thread. If you wish to bring action against someone or to challenge someone in court , the burden of proof falls to you .Gerrycan, question to you: Do you acknowledge the legal fact that the burden of proof falls to the accuser and not the
defendant ?

I welcome the debate. Here's the evidence that we have http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf
If this is off topic for this thread, we can debate it elsewhere.

 

[Mick West]

No, the research is as valid, I just see a reluctance to accept the obvious. The fact of the matter is that AE911 has, and will continue to fund this type of research as per their charter.

So why are we even having this discussion? Why didn't you just post the examples of the research they have funded?

What are they?

 

[Mick West]

Chaps, remember you can all start new threads if you want to have a new discussion about a specific claim of evidence.

 

[Redwood]

Redwood said: ↑
I'm baffled by the Truther focus on the period of freefall of the North Facade of WTC 7 Given that WTC 7 has undergone internal collapse as indicated by the fall of the East Penthouse, 6 seconds later the West Penthouse, and other evidence, I can't see the point of continuing an analysis past the point that the North Facade falls, too. What's the point? But hey, I'm not a structural engineer, just a dumb retired industrial chemist.

It seems to me that Truthers need to show the significance of the 2.25 seconds of freefall. Proposal: run a simulation of just the fall of the North Facade. In your simulation, minimize the internal collapse damage as much as you think you can get anyone to believe. Now, start the collapse of the North Facade and do parallel simulations from there: With, and without, demolition charges causing it to speed up to freefall. What difference do the demolition charges make?

Do you think that the NIST simulation illustrates the collapse realistically?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe NIST was tasked with explaining why it collapsed, not explaining every detail. I believe that NIST's explanation is that floor collapses in the lower northeast part of WTC 7 underneath the East Mechanical Penthouse led to buckling of the columns there, and the fall of the E.M.P. through the roof.

As far as I can see, once the E.M.P. has fallen, total destruction of the building is inevitable, and as Rabbi Hillel said, after that, all is mere commentary. As I am not a structural engineer, I do not feel competent to comment on NIST's floor collapse explanation other than to mention that I've seen the video shot by CBS reporter Vince DeMentri shortly before the collapse and it shows fires in the lower northeast part of the building that look pretty nasty, so it seems plausible to me.

 

[Mick West]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe NIST was tasked with explaining why it collapsed, not explaining every detail. I believe that NIST's explanation is that floor collapses in the lower northeast part of WTC 7 underneath the East Mechanical Penthouse led to buckling of the columns there, and the fall of the E.M.P. through the roof.

As far as I can see, once the E.M.P. has fallen, total destruction of the building is inevitable, and as Rabbi Hillel said, after that, all is mere commentary. As I am not a structural engineer, I do not feel competent to comment on NIST's floor collapse explanation other than to mention that I've seen the video shot by CBS reporter Vince DeMentri shortly before the collapse and it shows fires in the lower northeast part of the building that look pretty nasty, so it seems plausible to me.

New topics in new posts please. I know y'all don't like this restrictive format. But you are here.

 

[FireOfficer1822]

I answered it. There is really nothing more to discuss on this.

It's in their mission statement (which I helped to write)
It's on their tax forms
They raise money and have no research allocations in their budget, but they do have salaries, overhead, marketing and marketing material production costs, travel expenses.

They don't because... for the third time, the results would put them out of business and expose their deception or stupidity... Kinda reminds me of the hole Chris Christi is in.

Unless someone has a different answer or conclusion I don't see much debate left in this topic. I think it is pretty conclusive that there is little evidence to support any desire for an actual finding of truth on their part on a whole. The key tenant seems to be CD but with the burden of proof laying on the feet of the accuser (a any competent lawyer would know and advise them) if there were any real interest they would break the bank to provide that probable cause for a new investigation. I think it is quiet simply as Jeffery stated.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

When one learns ... and I don't follow AE911T anymore... that they spend tens of thousands for billboard campaigns and none for research it speaks volumes... or it's as plain as the nose on your face.

Tony, I did not write that you said it was all about Gage... I wrote it... and I stand by it.

I would say there is some cart before the horse thinking by some here.

AE911Truth was started to do public outreach and share what had been learned by volunteer researchers. If the word isn't spread then what good is the research.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Unless someone has a different answer or conclusion I don't see much debate left in this topic. I think it is pretty conclusive that there is little evidence to support any desire for an actual finding of truth on their part on a whole. The key tenant seems to be CD but with the burden of proof laying on the feet of the accuser (a any competent lawyer would know and advise them) if there were any real interest they would break the bank to provide that probable cause for a new investigation. I think it is quiet simply as Jeffery stated.

You are apparently ignoring the omissions made by the NIST in the WTC 7 report. This is more than sufficient to cause a re-opening of the investigation and oversight would be needed to ensure pertinent features aren't omitted again. Let's see what happens when the omitted features are included.

 

[FireOfficer1822]

You are apparently ignoring the omissions made by the NIST in the WTC 7 report. This is more than sufficient to cause a re-opening of the investigation and oversight would be needed to ensure pertinent features aren't omitted again. Let's see what happens when the omitted features are included.

You are simply deflecting from the question. pointing out the flaws stated in the paper linked a bit ago does nothing to demonstrate a criminal negligence , or a controled demolition (the basis for the demand of a new investigation) changes neither the lack of a prima facia case or the topic of this thread which is : Why isn't AE911 funding research to prove their claims. I asked gerrycan, ill ask you ask well : Do you recognize the legal fact that the burden of proof lays with the accuser ?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You are simply deflecting from the question. pointing out the flaws stated in the paper linked a bit ago does nothing to demonstrate a criminal negligence , or a controled demolition (the basis for the demand of a new investigation) changes neither the lack of a prima facia case or the topic of this thread which is : Why isn't AE911 funding research to prove their claims. I asked gerrycan, ill ask you ask well : Do you recognize the legal fact that the burden of proof lays with the accuser ?

The omissions in the NIST WTC 7 report are evidence of either an intention to deceive or extreme coincidental incompetence. Either way it causes the investigation to be re-opened.

The other investigation which should be opened would pertain to those involved in getting rid of the steel before it could be examined. Can you say Rudy?

 

[Alienentity]

FO1822, further to your comment, I would say to Tony and AE911Truth that if they have proof of a massive fraud that they launch a lawsuit against NIST. I know it's a bit OT but it is another aspect of their continual attempts to reverse the responsibilities.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

I would say there is some cart before the horse thinking by some here.

AE911Truth was started to do public outreach and share what had been learned by volunteer researchers. If the word isn't spread then what good is the research.

Well OK... but the research done by others... or the ideas they presented and used for outreach turned out not to be vetted and in fact in many cases is simply not true. Effectively AE911t was disseminating false information... and using it to call for new research. Gerry has taken the tack to find technical flaws in the official story and that could be the basis for a redo on the investigation. But AE is really doing a lot of false advertising instead of fact checking, fundamental research of vetting the research they use which HAS been disputed.

Spread the facts and better yet discover them (a prerequisite).

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Well OK... but the research done by others... or the ideas they presented and used for outreach turned out not to be vetted and in fact in many cases is simply not true. Effectively AE911t was disseminating false information... and using it to call for new research. Gerry has taken the tack to find technical flaws in the official story and that could be the basis for a redo on the investigation. But AE is really doing a lot of false advertising instead of fact checking, fundamental research of vetting the research they use which HAS been disputed.

Spread the facts and better yet discover them (a prerequisite).

I would think you realize that the discovery of the omissions have shown that any previous suspicions about the report were justified.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

FO1822, further to your comment, I would say to Tony and AE911Truth that if they have proof of a massive fraud that they launch a lawsuit against NIST. I know it's a bit OT but it is another aspect of their continual attempts to reverse the responsibilities.

Let's see what the Dept. of Commerce Inspector General does first.

 

[FireOfficer1822]

Tony you are still avoiding both of my questions.

 

[Alienentity]

Let's see what the Dept. of Commerce Inspector General does first.

I hope to God AE911Truth doesn't use David Chandler's nanothermite rockets as part of the 'evidence'. That would just be sad.

As I've said before, I really hope they do launch a lawsuit. It will be nothing if not entertaining to see them expose their pseudo-science to some real scrutiny, before a more critical public.

 

[Alienentity]

Tony you are still avoiding both of my questions.

Yup.

 

[Alienentity]

Tony, most of your replies should be in another thread, they do nothing but deflect from the OP.

AS Mick has pointed out, the indie study of the chips could be completed soon for a modest cost. I would strongly advise AE911Truth to get this work done before they start making further accusations and trying a lawsuit. It would be in their best interests, even if they don't realize it.
And yours too - maybe if the penny dropped you folks could move onto more productive things in life.

Why doesn't AE911Truth want to really know the truth about the chips, and about WTC 7? That is the question (it really is;look at the OP!)

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

I would think you realize that the discovery of the omissions have shown that any previous suspicions about the report were justified.

I thought it was bunk years ago... so do some research and tell us what actually happened.

 

[Redwood]

Where would the testing sample (dust) come from, where is it kept?
Who supplies the material to be tested?

While one always prefers a clear chain of custody of evidence, I don't think it's much of a problem here. Harrit, Gage, and Jones allege that their putative nanothermite is a high tech creation, beyond the means of anyone other than an ultra-sophisticated operation.

I agree, if their stuff is actual nanothermite. Specifically, they allege that what appears to be platelets of aluminum silicate is actually nano-thin platelets of elemental aluminum protected by nano-layers of elemental (?) silicon. Producing such would be a super high tech operation, indeed.

But really, all AE911T really needs to do is to show that these chips, which look to the rest of the world as mere primer paint spalled from steel, are possibly nanothermite, is to demonstrate that they produce an anomalous exothermic reaction under an inert atmosphere. All that is required is a few optical microphotos, electron microscope images, and some calorimetry tests done under argon or nitrogen. Compared to the cost of their billboards, it's chump change. And the upside is that a positive result will have chemists all over the world wanting to examine these chips.

 

[Redwood]

Back to why doesn't AE911T fund research: It's apparent that their emphasis on the period of freefall of the North Face of WTC 7 has gotten them nowhere. In the six years or so since Chandler's discovery, it has gained no traction amongst engineers, scientists, or the general public.

Perhaps this is because that once the two penthouses have fallen and the North Face begins to fall, it's obvious to everyone that the building is at least wrecked beyond repair, and placing demolition charges in the north perimeter columns is pointless, even if it were somehow brought down by deliberate destruction.

The potential benefits for AE911T to do a simulation of the fall of the North Face are obvious. Unless the putative conspiracy placed demolition charges gratuitously, for no reason other than to mess with the minds of anyone who would question the "official story", they must have had a reason. Perhaps, if demolition charges hadn't been placed, some small portion of the building might have survived. Who knows; a little research may show that SEC files on Enron were stored there, providing a motive!

So at this point, there is no reason for AE911T not to do a simulation of the collapse of the North Face, with and without demolition charges, and good reason to do so. At the very least, it'll look good on everyone's resume.

 

[Cairenn]

I wonder if Tony has ever heard of the Innocent Project? What they do is do the research and get help for those they feel are wrongly convicted.

 

[FireOfficer1822]

I have accepted the fact that no answer will be forth coming and consider the matter closed.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Letter to U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General concerning structural feature omissions in the NIST WTC 7 Report

Tony you are still avoiding both of my questions.

You mean your questions as far as the burden of proof being on the accuser and your contention that CD needs to be proven before a new investigation can be shown to be warranted?

I didn't think I avoided them at all. It sounds like my answers just weren't what you erroneously seem to think is required.

The burden of proof has already been satisfied by the discovery of the structural feature omissions in the WTC 7 report. It is clear evidence of an attempt at deception and proves the existing report to be inaccurate and non-explanatory.

There is no need to prove controlled demolition before it is shown that a new investigation is required. The omissions proof shows the WTC 7 report is inaccurate and non-explanatory and needs to be redone.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I wonder if Tony has ever heard of the Innocent Project? What they do is do the research and get help for those they feel are wrongly convicted.

In case you haven't noticed, no individual person has been accused of anything yet. The omissions evidence shows that somebody involved in the NIST WTC 7 report tried to deceive the public. It is up to the investigation to determine just who that was. However, what can be stated right now is that the NIST WTC 7 report is inaccurate and non-explanatory, due to those omissions, and needs to be redone.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I thought it was bunk years ago... so do some research and tell us what actually happened.

It is the government's responsibility to tell us what happened in an accurate way that does not omit structural features and conforms to observation. That has not yet been done. The WTC 7 investigation needs to be re-opened, the analysis redone, and the report re-written.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Just to be clear and show that the above three comments are relevant to this thread, the structural feature omissions, which prove the NIST WTC 7 report was an attempt to deceive and that it is inaccurate and non-explanatory, were discovered due to research done by AE911Truth and its affiliates.

In light of the public exposure of these structural feature omissions, honesty would demand asking when the government's WTC 7 investigation is going to be re-opened. Comments to the contrary, or attempts to stonewall or divert from the issue, have to be taken as evidence of a level of dishonesty.