Carlitos is right Tony. If AE911 Truth devoted even $10,000/year to hire independent scientists to report on one aspect after another of their claims, and they got support from the scientific community in this way, they might get some traction. That one billboard in Times Square could have financed a number of reports and standard tests etc at a few thousand dollars a pop. Some of us would be happy to work together with you to suggest studies and people to do them so you get buyin here as well.
In the 1980s, when I was publishing articles exposing torture in Central America, I studied carefully the accounts from Jesuit priests who had credibility as they reported on the abuse suffered by their own congregants. The eyewitness accounts were too numerous and universal and carefully collected to ignore. I took those reports, flew to Washington and showed them to Republican congresspeople, two of whom voted against contra aid for the Nicaraguan terrorists after talking with me.
YOU NEED OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS from institutions outside your movement. You and AE911 Truth are spending way too much on publicity and almost nothing on analysis. You want an independent investigation, get AE911 Truth to hire a series of independent mini-investigations, one after another. Even I did that for you with the Jim Millette study.
I know, it's none of my business how AE911 spends its money, but I can't take your claims seriously when you don't get them independently verified outside your cocoon of fellow activists.
The forensic work has already been done. The calibration tests gave the fires a very short window of failure opportunity. We don't need any more tests to demonstrate that the official explanation is corroborated only by itself--like the turtle who holds up the world:
Q: What's under the turtle who holds the world up?
A: Another turtle.
Q: What's under that?
A: It's turtles all the way down.
It's a ridiculous theory with no real-world underpinning, no forensic corroboration, and for which their own lab tests disconfirm it.
1100C gas temperatures for 10-20 minutes in any given location simply is not enough energy to cause the things we saw. In order for the NIST theory of collapse to be true, we must presuppose a thermodynamic miracle. There just isn't enough energy for paper, plastic, wood, carpet, kerosine, and all the other hydrocarbon sources combined to do the kinds of damage necessary.
Why not just say the buildings had the "cold explosion flu". The first two got it from the planes, then they spread it to building 7. That's at least a coherent theory. All the high temperature stuff, you could just say "side effects of CBF." Still coherent. At least.
There is an energy gap. That's the real problem with the NIST explanation when you get done poking holes in it like a straw through wet tissue paper: it doesn't address the expressions of energy. The tonnes of pulverized concrete, molten metal, the molten concrete that coated weapons in a basement armory, vaporized lead, the silicate microspheres as well as the iron ones, the NASA data indicating surface temperatures of thousands of degrees C lasting weeks, the "meteorite" artifact, the WPI steel, oh, you know. All those little things NIST investigators considered insignificant to the investigation of one of the most significant events in American history.
This isn't rocket surgery. The data is there.
