Like I asked Soup...Have you seen and examined their evidence?
If they are claiming to have evidence of tons of explosives used then it should be examined.
Did you examine their evidence in a lab and conclude it is false evidence?
Why should I need examine it in a lab ... did they ???
Hell no !!!
Anybody with even the slightest bit of genuine scientific knowledge (and integrity) can easily see their claims are bunk ... you most certainly do not need "examine" them.
Nothing they say has real world validity, they have no real evidence of hundreds of tons of explosives, sherbert, Fairy Dust or anything.
If they had
why have they not provided it before now ... everybody and their dog knows that the longer they wait the less influence it would have.
Year on year less people are interested in this, they couldn't even get just over $2,000 together for their idiotic light campaign, just two thousand dollars from all these "professional" level people ... yeah right !!!
Nobody turned up to that event ... nobody was interested in what nutjobs think and they were soundly ignored, they only have a ONE MINUTE video from what was built up to be "the" surprise national news event of the year", what a bunch of morons.
Honestly, most twoofy groups could not organize a piss-up in a brewery !!!
creative, this is what you do not understand, Gages Gaggle do not have "evidence", they have some speculative "claims" ... now we all know you have no understanding of scientific methodology, but those who do understand it know for a fact that Gage does NOT have proper scientific evidence or proof ... it FAILS on all normal and accepted standards of scientific proof ... period !!!
REAL scientists and researchers do NOT put their findings up on the internetwebbything ... they publish in JOURNALS ... proper ones, not made-up ones like Jones' site.
This is established practice ... you cannot escape or dodge that they have utterly, utterly failed in that.
The WTC collapses were the SINGLE MOST STUDIED ENGINEERING FAILURES in history.
Engineers and relevent scientists world-wide looked at it ...
Engineers and relevent scientists world-wide presented their findings for peer-review in the relevent scientific and engineering Journals and to the relevent Societies, many of which I have often linked.
Now I know that by being such dry technical and academic works they are above and beyond the understanding of many ... but they have been fully ACCEPTED by the real scientific and engineering communities worldwide ... whom DO understand them ... and they AGREE with them.
Not one professional body of real experts anywhere on this planet agree with Gage or the twoof claims ... not one !!!
Gage, Jones and Co. have NEVER presented their claims for the rigourous scrutiny of real science, instead presented only for a LAY audience ...that is shady.
Now I know you will counter with they are just trying to get a new investigation ... but here's the thing, new investigation or not ... there has been NOTHING ... nothing whatsoever preventing them from presenting a paper to a real Journal ...
ever !!!
They could
still have been presenting papers and proper scientific presentations in the meantime, from all this supposed body of professionals do not tell me it has been impossible for at least a handful of them to get together and do their own FEA or multiphysics presentation at the same time as garnishing public support.
NOTHING has
ever been preventing them ... so why haven't they done so, they are
supposed to be engineers'n'stuff afterall ???
At the end of the day
all you have are untutored opinions from lay people whom are just regurgitating what Gage ... an architect, speaking well out his comfort zone are telling you happened, and you do not see it !!!
Yet it is not that these people do not already know that you present science to ... well science ... presenting purely for random people on the internet is NOT science !!!
Gage and Gaggle can "claim" all they want they have evidence of hundreds of tons of explosives ... but a "claim" is not evidence or proof, if they had such they SHOULD already have shown it ... to real science.
They haven't done that, and their little PowerPoints are NOT articulate, credible or anywhere NEAR approaching how real science is presented.
What they
have done is throw around a few sciency-sounding buzzwords to fool people with very little to zero understanding of the scientific method and telling them it is "evidence".
It's NOT !!!
Truly it isn't ... it is junk low-level stuff poorly presented.
But because
you have no understanding of how proper science is conducted you fell for it ... and believe it because it fits whatever particular bias or mistrust you have.