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

[gerrycan]

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.

I can confirm this and would like to personally thank ae911 for the help and support that we received and continue to receive, in order to facilitate our continuing research. Without their support this research would not have got past the point of internet debates, and it is because of them that this effort has progressed to the stage that it is at now.
I have every faith that ae911 will continue to support research initiatives such as this whilst continuing the important outreach work that it performs. It is just a pity that such an organisation is needed to do the job that US federal agencies failed to do.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I can confirm this and would like to personally thank ae911 for the help and support that we received and continue to receive, in order to facilitate our continuing research. Without their support this research would not have got past the point of internet debates, and it is because of them that this effort has progressed to the stage that it is at now. I have every faith that ae911 will continue to support research initiatives such as this whilst continuing the important outreach work that it performs. It is just a pity that such an organisation is needed to do the job that US federal agencies failed to do.

It is a shame that private citizens have had to expend time, effort, and more of their money, to force the U.S. federal agencies involved, that they already support with their tax money, to do what they should have done and were publicly mandated to do in the first place. That is to produce an honest and accurate report which conforms to observations and explains the evidence.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

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.

You don't know, you are assuming and asserting it was an attempt to deceive. You don't know the intent... Although I don't accept NIST's work, I have no idea whether they are incompetent, made errors which no one picked up (incompetent)... or actually realized that there was another cause, and created a fake one and tried to pass it off and had to cook the books to do so.

So... why doesn't AE do some research to demonstrate what DID happen? Gerry et al are asking for a response from NIST about missing details they believe destroy walk off. That is a separate matter and could nullify their walk off explanation. Gerry et al believe that NIST would be then obligated to come up with another explanation.. presumably with no book cooking.

And AE still is doing no research to come up with that credible explanation. What they do do is marketing and fear mongering about CD and the inside job false flag... of course with not a shred of affirmative evidence...

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You don't know, you are assuming and asserting it was an attempt to deceive. You don't know the intent... Although I don't accept NIST's work, I have no idea whether they are incompetent, made errors which no one picked up (incompetent)... or actually realized that there was another cause, and created a fake one and tried to pass it off and had to cook the books to do so.

So... why doesn't AE do some research to demonstrate what DID happen? Gerry et al are asking for a response from NIST about missing details they believe destroy walk off. That is a separate matter and could nullify their walk off explanation. Gerry et al believe that NIST would be then obligated to come up with another explanation.. presumably with no book cooking.

And AE still is doing no research to come up with that credible explanation. What they do do is marketing and fear mongering about CD and the inside job false flag... of course with not a shred of affirmative evidence...

Your points are ridiculous here. AE911 does marketing of research done by volunteer researchers and they support that research when needed if possible. They do not have the resources to do the type of 20 million dollar study that the NIST did. However, that is not necessary to find evidence which contradicts the present official story. To name just a few

- The photographic evidence shows the fires were out in the northeast corner at floors 12 and 13 of WTC 7 when the building collapsed.

- The symmetric free fall of the WTC 7 exterior cannot be explained with an east side interior structural failure starting things off.

- There are structural feature omissions that make the NIST WTC 7 collapse initiation theory impossible when included.

And yes, the structural feature omissions which made their theory plausible, when it wouldn't have been otherwise, had to have been done intentionally by someone at NIST in regards to WTC 7. It is extraordinarily naïve to think otherwise, given the circumstances. If you want to talk specifics, we can, because that will show me to be right here.

 

[Mick West]

I can confirm this and would like to personally thank ae911 for the help and support that we received and continue to receive, in order to facilitate our continuing research.

How much funding did they give you?

 

[Mick West]

Your points are ridiculous here. AE911 does marketing of research done by volunteer researchers and they support that research when needed if possible. They do not have the resources to do the type of 20 million dollar study that the NIST did. However, that is not necessary to find evidence which contradicts the present official story. The photographic evidence shows the fires were out in the northeast corner at floors 12 and 13 when the building collapsed. The symmetric free fall of the exterior cannot be explained with an east side only structural failure. There are structural feature omissions that make the NIST collapse initiation theory impossible when included.

There's plenty of ground between $0 and $20 Million. They question here is why they spend nothing on research, when research is the first thing they list on their tax return.

And if you want to discuss specifics of NIST, there are other threads for that.

 

[gerrycan]

How much funding did they give you?

I don't know. I confine myself to researching the technical aspects. Email them and ask.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

There's plenty of ground between $0 and $20 Million. They question here is why they spend nothing on research, when research is the first thing they list on their tax return.

And if you want to discuss specifics of NIST, there are other threads for that.

Mick has nailed it here. The independent researchers.. are not spending huge sums to do their studies. Ergo there is no reason that AE can't do at least THAT level and probably then some. The reason is... I suspect they don't want to fund research which most likely will pull the rug out from under their marketing CD as the cause.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

I don't know. I confine myself to researching the technical aspects. Email them and ask.

How could you not know if AE gave you a research grant?

 

[Mick West]

I don't know. I confine myself to researching the technical aspects. Email them and ask.

Did they fund your group at all?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

There's plenty of ground between $0 and $20 Million. They question here is why they spend nothing on research, when research is the first thing they list on their tax return.

And if you want to discuss specifics of NIST, there are other threads for that.

I am amazed that you and others here continue to harp on AE911's spending on research when you have been shown that the NIST omitted pertinent structural features in their report on WTC 7, that when included would have rendered their theory impossible.

One would think you would be clamoring for the investigation to be re-opened.

Instead, you and some others have the unmitigated gall to complain that the much less funded volunteer organization doesn't do enough. It doesn't get any worse perception wise for anyone honest who is reading this.

 

[Mick West]

I am amazed that you and others here continue to harp on AE911's spending on research when you have been shown that the NIST omitted pertinent structural features in their report on WTC 7, that when included would have rendered their theory impossible.

One would think you would be clamoring for the investigation to be re-opened.

Instead, you and some others have the unmitigated gall to complain that the much less funded volunteer organization doesn't do enough. It doesn't get any worse perception wise for anyone honest who is reading this.

But the issue here is not NIST. It's not about complaining. It's about asking why AE911 don't fund research, when it very clearly would be in the interest of their stated mission.

Please do not attempt to shift the topic again.

 

[gerrycan]

How could you not know if AE gave you a research grant?

That wasn't the question. As far as research goes, the guys i research this with are all involved through a sense of social justice and seek no other reward than a fair and open investigation into wtc7 that takes into account elements that are omitted from the current one. That is the first step toward a real investigation.

 

[gerrycan]

Did they fund your group at all?

No.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

That wasn't the question. As far as research goes, the guys i research this with are all involved through a sense of social justice and seek no other reward than a fair and open investigation into wtc7 that takes into account elements that are omitted from the current one. That is the first step toward a real investigation.

Good enough motivation for me.

 

[Mick West]

Does anyone know of any research that AE911 has funded, ever?

 

[gerrycan]

Does anyone know of any research that AE911 has funded, ever?

Why don't you just ask them?

 

[Mick West]

Why don't you just ask them?

I'll take that as a "no" from you.

 

[gerrycan]

I'll take that as a "no" from you.

You can take it as a " I am not here to speak on behalf of ae911 " instead. Have you asked them the question yet? I believe there is a facility to contact them. I believe that you used it before and got a reply fairly quickly. Note the difference between their response time and that of the OIG.

 

[Mick West]

You can take it as a " I am not here to speak on behalf of ae911 " instead. Have you asked them the question yet? I believe there is a facility to contact them. I believe that you used it before and got a reply fairly quickly. Note the difference between their response time and that of the OIG.

The question was if anyone knows of any research that AE911 has funded. I simply assumed that since there were several people here who are familiar with AE911 then one of you might know. The fact that you don't is possibly an indicator as to the amount of funding they research.

 

[Mick West]

Tony is marked as "Banned" because he got 10 warnings in a row. Quite impressive. But I think I'll change that system, as it seem a bit random.

 

[gerrycan]

The question was if anyone knows of any research that AE911 has funded. I simply assumed that since there were several people here who are familiar with AE911 then one of you might know. The fact that you don't is possibly an indicator as to the amount of funding they research.

The fact that I would rather not talk as to the financial side of ae911 indicates nothing more than my respect for what they do. They publish their books for all to see. The fact that you take this as whatever indicator you wish, only illustrates how disingenuous you are prepared to be in order to try and make some hollow point. You should credit those on both sides of this debate with a shred of intellectual rigor and show some yourself.

 

[gerrycan]

Tony is marked as "Banned" because he got 10 warnings in a row. Quite impressive. But I think I'll change that system, as it seem a bit random.

So he is banned, or only marked as banned?

 

[Mick West]

The fact that I would rather not talk as to the financial side of ae911 indicates nothing more than my respect for what they do. They publish their books for all to see. The fact that you take this as whatever indicator you wish, only illustrates how disingenuous you are prepared to be in order to try and make some hollow point. You should credit those on both sides of this debate with a shred of intellectual rigor and show some yourself.

So WHY specifically do you think they don't fund research, when it would be in their interest to fund research?

 

[Mick West]

So he is banned, or only marked as banned?

He's unbanned now, on probation. The system banned him for accumulated warnings.

 

[gerrycan]

So WHY specifically do you think they don't fund research, when it would be in their interest to fund research?

When did I say that they didn't? See above re being disingenuous please, and stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[Mick West]

When did I say that they didn't? See above re being disingenuous please, and stop putting words in my mouth.

Then put words in your own mouth. Clarify the situation. Do you know of any research they have funded?

 

[Hitstirrer]

Do you know of any research they have funded?

Define' research'. In my experience it can cover a huge field and not all within a laboratory. Even digging deeply into the depths of google can be classified as research.

 

[Mick West]

Define' research'. In my experience it can cover a huge field and not all within a laboratory. Even digging deeply into the depths of google can be classified as research.

I'll take anything that you consider to be research. Have they funded some google research? Have they funded anything besides marketing?

 

[Alienentity]

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.

That's not what Richard Gage says. You're contradicting him. He says the buildings were brought down by explosive controlled demolition.

He needs to prove this scientifically, which he has not done.

I can't believe you're supporting an organization which still, on it's main page highlighting WTC 7 makes has these points:

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

What scientific basis is there for linking the dust clouds with controlled demolition? Has AE911Truth ever commissioned an professional study to back up this central claim? This is the kind of blatant, unsupported snake oil you should be embarrassed by.

Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional

This is one of the most dishonest and misleading statements of AE911Truth. Danny Jowenko looked at a video of the collapse, without audio track! He did no in-depth professional investigation, he did not conduct interviews with witnesses, he did not talk to FDNY experts. Meanwhile the assessments of America's top demolitions experts who actually WERE at Ground Zero, helping with the cleanup, and who were present to look for any possible signs of controlled demolition, are omitted. Completely ignored.

AE911Truth is not a group you should be lending your image, name or any credence to. They refuse to even spend a pitifully small amount of money to conclusively verify whether the chips are thermitic or not. In fact they're still using Marc Basile as having verified the claim, yet Dr. Millette's findings are cynically and dishonestly swept under the carpet. That is deception. You wanna throw around the word 'fraud', as you do? Look at this definition ' intentional misrepresentation or concealment of an important fact upon which the victim is meant to rely, and in fact does rely, to the harm of the victim'

AE911Truth is engaging in several forms of intentional misrepresentation, not least Gage's refusal to follow a key part of the mission statement. Some would justifiably identify this as fraudulent.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That's not what Richard Gage says. You're contradicting him. He says the buildings were brought down by explosive controlled demolition.

He needs to prove this scientifically, which he has not done.

I can't believe you're supporting an organization which still, on it's main page highlighting WTC 7 makes has these points:

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

What scientific basis is there for linking the dust clouds with controlled demolition? Has AE911Truth ever commissioned an professional study to back up this central claim? This is the kind of blatant, unsupported snake oil you should be embarrassed by.

Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional

This is one of the most dishonest and misleading statements of AE911Truth. Danny Jowenko looked at a video of the collapse, without audio track! He did no in-depth professional investigation, he did not conduct interviews with witnesses, he did not talk to FDNY experts. Meanwhile the assessments of America's top demolitions experts who actually WERE at Ground Zero, helping with the cleanup, and who were present to look for any possible signs of controlled demolition, are omitted. Completely ignored.

AE911Truth is not a group you should be lending your image, name or any credence to. They refuse to even spend a pitifully small amount of money to conclusively verify whether the chips are thermitic or not. In fact they're still using Marc Basile as having verified the claim, yet Dr. Millette's findings are cynically and dishonestly swept under the carpet. That is deception. You wanna throw around the word 'fraud', as you do? Look at this definition ' intentional misrepresentation or concealment of an important fact upon which the victim is meant to rely, and in fact does rely, to the harm of the victim'

AE911Truth is engaging in several forms of intentional misrepresentation, not least Gage's refusal to follow a key part of the mission statement. Some would justifiably identify this as fraudulent.

Controlled demolition does not need to be proven to show a new investigation is warranted. All that is needed there is to show the report is in error and invalid.

 

[Mick West]

It sounds like you should be talking to Richard.

I'd be happy to. I'd like to hear his explanation of those things.

 

[Mick West]

Controlled demolition does not need to be proven to show a new investigation is warranted. All that is needed there is to show the report is in error and invalid.

But we are not talking about just a new investigation here. AE911 say:

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.

And most relevant to funding:

And if you really wanted to call for a new investigation, don't you think that proving nanothermites was used would be incredibly compelling? Vastly more so than "the flanges were reinforced".

Why not do something that so obviously would support your cause?

 

[gerrycan]

But we are not talking about just a new investigation here. AE911 say:

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.

And most relevant to funding:

And what bit of this are you claiming ae911 do not do?

 

[Mick West]

And what bit of this are you claiming ae911 do not do?

Research scientific evidence. Specifically though in the context of spending money on research. Seeing as it's on their tax return.

 

[gerrycan]

Research scientific evidence. Specifically though in the context of spending money on research. Seeing as it's on their tax return.

Why should they pay when people like us are willing to do it for nothing?

 

[Mick West]

Why should they pay when people like us are willing to do it for nothing?

Because you need independent research to be convincing. We know you are convinced 9/11 was controlled demolition (if not then please clarify).

 

[gerrycan]

Because you need independent research to be convincing. We know you are convinced 9/11 was controlled demolition (if not then please clarify).

You are aware of the evidence that we have put forward to ae911 and the OIG. You were unable to debunk it. If you think that's changed, let me know. The evidence is more than enough to invalidate NISTs WTC7 report and validate the call for a new investigation.

 

[Mick West]

You are aware of the evidence that we have put forward to ae911 and the OIG. You were unable to debunk it. If you think that's changed, let me know. The evidence is more than enough to invalidate NISTs WTC7 report and validate the call for a new investigation.

That's not the point, is it?

The question here is why AE911 don't fund research when it would be in their interest to fund research. Can you directly answer that question, and not try to change the topic.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

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

AE911T is interested in and is about:

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