...and yet Z thinks they act like scientists.
Last year I wrote at some length about the contrasts between the approach taken by AE911T and that of other professional and scientific organizations. I won't rehash it here, but it's perhaps summarized best by misquoting Sigourney Weaver in
Ghostbusters -- "[AE911T is] more like a game-show host." I don't see much activity from them that I would characterize as scientific; I see a lot of effort put toward rather overt showboating.
Ziggi certainly isn't alone in the venue-shopping game. It's rather common across conspiracy genres. Unable to gain a toehold in legitimate scientific circles, they propose a new "legitimacy" that's coincidentally connected to proving their relevance in the public mind. The conventional narrative has already been published in the customary way and accepted by a near unanimity of the relevant professions. The notion that it must additionally withstand every fringe claim via
mano y mano combat in order to be scientifically valid is a pretty comical proposal. It's a pretty transparent plea for attention from those fringe groups.
I'm reasonably okay with the notion of AE911T as a political action group rather than a professional and/or scientific organization. The right of people to organize themselves toward some political end is one of the most hallowed rights Americans hold dear, and one that should be protected and defended at all costs. But I don't have any confidence in AE911T as a scientific organization.
Perhaps Ziggi is unaware that the AIA want nothing to do with Richard Gage and ae911truth...
Indeed it's difficult to find claims of endorsement or approval that don't turn out to be exaggerations or misrepresentations. When I think of legitimacy in the field of advanced structural design for buildings, I think of ASCE, AIA, and possibly also ASME -- none of which seems to want anything to do with Gage et al. We are still struggling to determine the true nature of the threats to reveal NIST's alleged sins to "the Europeans" for castigation. It seems to be mere bluster. And we were recently treated to the rather unintimidating sight of a card table and hand-drawn posters at a university, played up as some sort of major coup.
AIA's "...and never will be" fairly firmly slams the door on the assertion that AE911T is gaining credibility among the relevant professions. As I have said many times, conspiracism is not about looking for truth or fact; it's about perpetuating the semblance of a conspiracy theory's relevance. That's why the discussion spins in circles, never attempts to establish competence via the customary means, and endorses activities that serve only to emphasize visibility and notoriety. There was a glimmer of hope when they announced their intent to accept a burden of proof on the WTC 7 structural analysis. Whatever comes of it only time will tell. But I would say that
bona fide efforts along those lines do more to serve AE911T's claim to be scientists much more than the popular lecture circuit and coup-counting exercises in web forums.
The reason, I believe, that WTC 7 is the new rock star of the Truth movement is because it lacks sufficient concern to have warranted a lengthy, detailed investigation. And therefore, as has been said and reiterated, it provides the critical vacuum that lets conspiracy theorists do with ambiguity what has been done in other conspiracy genres. When they can demonstrate the willingness to do more than just stir up vague controversy over an also-collapsed, then they might stand a chance of meeting gatekeeper criteria in the real sciences.
