Is there a group of engineers that does not support the conspiration theories? If there is I would be glad to sign up.
It's not like there's any organized group on this topic. In the engineering world, the collapse happened because of the impact and fires, and the narrative set forth by NIST is so far the best supported one to date. Structural as well as fire safety engineers, tall structure architects, and other construction and safety experts don't appear to feel the need to organize against some fringe group using distortions and pseudoscience to peddle their delusions. It's sort of like geologists vs. Flat Earthers: Where's the group of geoscientists who are organized against
that?
But you can get a sense of who's actually, openly siding with the fires plus impact narrative (and therefore opposing the conspiracy peddler's fantasies) by finding engineers who've actually discussed or done work on the topic. Truthers dismiss the
NIST 9/11 research team as "government employees" (or worse), but a rational individual should note their stance on the issue above and beyond their employment. Their mandate was to study the collapse, not support someone else's idea of what was involved, and truthers have yet to come up with a better argument than "employment" to support their implication of collusion in the supposed conspiracy.
It should be noted that no one from NIST has "whistleblown" regarding any supposed slanting or coverup. No, I'm sorry, that "Bob the Builder" idiot in that one thread here doesn't count.
The
participants in the initial FEMA "Building Performance Study" (link is to PDF; page 3 lists the team members) should also be considered. Their work has been superceded by the NIST report, but the FEMA BPS provided the foundation for people to approach the collapse. Plus, as far as I know, it's still the only work detailing the damage to some of the peripheral buildings (WTC 4, 5, and 6, Bankers Trust, World Financial Center, etc.; I'm amenable to correction on that if I'm wrong).
Outside of NIST and FEMA are
the engineers and fire safety experts who've talked to Popular Mechanics for their article and book. They've directly spoken on specific conspiracy fantasies, and have yet to meet substantial rebuttal from the conspiracy fantasists (no, stupid dismissals about the publishers doesn't cut it. Nor does Hoffman's attempt at critique (I've never seen a "critique" contain so many points of agreement, and have so little support for their contradictory claims)).
Others have ignored (as far as I can tell) the conspiracy fantasies, and have instead done direct work on elements of the collapse. The
Purdue team that simulated the impacts is one example of this. The above listed University of Edinburgh researchers are others. MIT Civil and Environmental Engineering professors Oral Buyukozturk and Oguz Gunes have lectured on the Twin Towers collapse before (here's a
link to a pdf of their PowerPoint presentation used at their lecture). Other MIT academics have written
essays on the collapse, but while they're far from being actual studies, they're far better supported and far more rigorous than anything from the truther's side.
Debunking 9/11 has some links to journal articles near the bottom of
this link. And I know I haven't even scratched the surface of scholars and others who've researched and spoken about the collapses from a rational standpoint. There are more writings from just MIT on the subject, our posting member named Architect has mentioned Arup's company, I think Ryan Mackey has mentioned some other groups who've done studies on isolated elements... the list goes on.
Anyway, the ultimate point here is that you'll probably have no luck finding an organization created simply to oppose the engineering fantasies from the 9/11 "Truth" movement. There's not really any need for one, just like there's no real need for one opposing, say, Ptolemaic cosmology. The default position is already established, and the objections to the central thesis are disproven.
