• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Adventures with AE911truth

peteweaver

Graduate Poster
peteweaver
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
1,006
I've got the attention of their recruiter Doug Plumb.

Hi Peter, my name is Doug Plumb and I am helping Richard Gage verify members that have signed onto our site to filter out pranksters.
Could you fax us something that shows your qualifications for verification ? Our fax number is 866 869 1181
Click to expand...
My response:
Doug, I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in joining your organisation.
I'm a trained engineer and I wish to protest against what you are doing.
If you'd read the additional information I'd added with my 'joining up' bit, you'd have seen that I was infact disagreeing with you.

Your organisation seem to be going against established metallurgical convention, and ignores the fundamental principles of bending moments. I object to that most strongly.
You of all people should know what happens to hot rolled martensitic steel when it gets above 300 degrees C, its maleable, and the hotter it gets the softer it gets.
The softer it gets the weaker it gets.

You should know that other steel structures have failed due to fire. For example Piper Alpha, Mumbai High North, the floors above floor 17 of the Windsor tower for instance....
There were even beam failiures in the Cardington fire tests (carried out by the building research establishment), the failiures were arrested by the tensile strength of composite floor slabs, which bore the load and held the structure together at a point where the steel beams were too soft to bear the load.

There is plenty of information about the cardington fire tests here:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...es/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm

You seem to be implying that in a building where tens of thousands of people worked every day, a covert team came in stripped away fire proofing, precut load bearing columns and mounted cutter charges, then put everything back as it was in preparation for the attack. Its preposterous.

THE SERIOUS QUESTION THAT YOU REALLY SHOULD BE ASKING IS NOT HOW DID THE TOWERS FALL, (STRUCTURAL DAMAGE + FIRE ANSWERS THAT ONE), BUT HOW AND WHY, WERE 19 MEN ABLE TO PASS THROUGH AIRPORT METAL DETECTORS CARRYING KNIVES, BOARD AEROPLANES, AND KILL PEOPLE.

That is the serious point, that none of you 'truthers' seem to be missing.

I also object to the way your forum has been taken down because some people have asked questions you do not like.

If you are interested in seeing my qualifications (BTEC Civil Engineering, and City & Guilds Electronic Engineering, admittedly I'm not degree level, but I had to get your attention), I'm happy to photograph them and show you the jpegs, BUT I am NOT interested in joining your organisation.

Yours sincerely Peter Weaver.

P.s. Please check out the following websites:-

http://www.structuralfiresafety.com

http://www.steelinfire.org.uk

http://www.corusconstruction.com/en...ctural_design/fire/steelwork_fire_resistance/
Click to expand...
His response:
Peter,

There were pools of molten metal observed at the site after the collapses. Jet fuel will not do this.

No one is saying that the buildings may have been prewired but people who work in offices never look at what mainainance workers are doing so it is possible. The Oklahoma Murrah building had explosives in it. A navy bomb expert testified that the official version of the OKC bombing was impossible.

Dr. Bill Deagle thinks it was a mini nuke. The conventional explanation does not explain what Judy Woods has uncovered. She gives a talk with photos on her site Google "jane Doe Judy Wood". She is a Phd Structural Engineer and has other related degrees in material science. No one is more qualified than Judy Wood.

You should take a closer look at the actual evidence. http://www.911weknow.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=19

Why does the FEMA report say our report has a "low probability of occurance" and fail to investigate any other hypothesis ? The official versions, NIST or FEMA do not say what the media says that they say.

I will take your name off the list.
Click to expand...


I am particularly amused by his reference to the laughable mini nuke theory.



He also explained in another email why their forum was taken down:
The forum had to be taken down because of pranksers and people lying about their qualifications. Its impossible to have an honest debate with people from your side.
Click to expand...


Another email from him:
I've read Bezants paper but not enough to understand it. Its BS and full of unreasonable assumptions according to experts on our side. He had to work backwards from his conclusions so the math would add up. I'm not a believer in qualifications but if you say you read that paper you are implying that you understood all that math. Having taught technologists math from all over the country I find that highly doubtful. I don't care about qualifications but you must always use dishonesty to support your arguement.

The mini nuke theory explains most of the evidence. The NIST and FEMA reports do not. Nukes have been around since the 40's it would be silly to think advanced forms of nukes have not been developed. Its entirely possible that low yield mini nukes have been created. Nuke technology for building demolition was built in the 50's.

The collapse of wtc7 shows it was a contolled demolition. The FEMA report discredits itself and the NIST report is not an investigation and its conclusions are nothing more than a hypothesis.

I can't have this arguement with you because it will just be a waste of time.
Click to expand...


Typical ct mindset, which is a shame because an engineer should know better.
 
Last edited:
excellent response bravo.

Dr. Bill Deagle thinks it was a mini nuke. The conventional explanation does not explain what Judy Woods has uncovered. She gives a talk with photos on her site Google "jane Doe Judy Wood". She is a Phd Structural Engineer and has other related degrees in material science. No one is more qualified than Judy Wood.
Click to expand...

reading that i think my brain went clunkity-clunk.

BV
 
I would love to debate with these clowns in a professional forum architect to architect.
 
Another nail on their coffin...

Or should we just start making another coffin?
 
Architect said:
I would love to debate with these clowns in a professional forum architect to architect.
Click to expand...
Richard Gage will never debate anyone on these matters. He is in it for profit only and he knows it. I have accused him of this in a private email exchange after which he broke off communication without a single word of defense on his part.
 
I've read Bezants paper but not enough to understand it. Its BS and full of unreasonable assumptions according to experts on our side.
Click to expand...

I think this is the tell. He doesn't have the understanding to do the research himself, because he can't. He's not smart enough to figure it out, but he has the typical CT mindset that "something's wrong", so he trusts whoever will tell him that something is in fact wrong.

The fact that he thinks the Alfred Murrah building had multiple explosive in it is just another example that the guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Any structural engineer can look at the building, knowing that it was constructed with ordinary concrete moment frames, and easily see how that collapse progressed from the failure of one single column.
 
SpitfireIX said:
I just checked their web site. This Doug Plumb character is a EE, so he has virtually no credentials to evaluate WTC collapse theories.
Click to expand...

I spent most of my brief time at their forum debating with Doug Plumb.

He's clueless.
 
No one is saying that the buildings may have been prewired but people who work in offices never look at what mainainance workers are doing so it is possible. The Oklahoma Murrah building had explosives in it. A navy bomb expert testified that the official version of the OKC bombing was impossible.
Click to expand...

Wow, this is beyond bizarre.
 
I will tell you something we all know, but it needs to be said every now and then.

No matter who you are, no matter how many facts you know on 9/11, no matter what your expertese...you WILL NEVER convince a truther that 9/11 happened the way we know it did. I may be wrong, but I am willing to bet that every truther who converted back to reality (we have a few here) did so upon their own reflection of all they had read, not by a single persons arguement.

The key for me, is this...I NEVER argue with a truther, to convince him of squat. As a matter of fact, i will often deliberately debate with he or she in a less effective manner, simply to make them bring forward their own silliness for those WATCHING to see. It is those who sit at ring side that I get into the rign for.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I will tell you something we all know, but it needs to be said every now and then.

No matter who you are, no matter how many facts you know on 9/11, no matter what your expertese...you WILL NEVER convince a truther that 9/11 happened the way we know it did. I may be wrong, but I am willing to bet that every truther who converted back to reality (we have a few here) did so upon their own reflection of all they had read, not by a single persons arguement.

The key for me, is this...I NEVER argue with a truther, to convince him of squat. As a matter of fact, i will often deliberately debate with he or she in a less effective manner, simply to make them bring forward their own silliness for those WATCHING to see. It is those who sit at ring side that I get into the rign for.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

To be honest TAM, I didn't really expect to convert him, I just wanted to show him that there is a great deal of opposition, to his 'truth'. And by talking to him, I've been able to get an insight into how he thinks, I was quite suprised to see that he supports the mini nuke theory.
 
SpitfireIX said:
I just checked their web site. This Doug Plumb character is a EE, so he has virtually no credentials to evaluate WTC collapse theories.
Click to expand...
We had physics and math and stuff. The stuff is the killer. I will agree, the EE may not help in the structure things, but I can do the energy stuff, and in the case of the WTC, energy does a good job showing what is possible. (statics, dynamics, et al)

a double E can do everything, fly faster than sound, leap and fall on his face...
 
I'd agree with that -- some EE's I've known have been exceptionally clever and well-rounded in their training.

Look at me, I only have a little bit of training relevant to structures (a year of FEA from the civil engineering department, and a year of solid mechanics). However, I know experimental design, data analysis, and mathematics well enough to hold my own in nearly any field. If I can't make my own argument, I can almost always understand someone else's.

Always avoid the argument from authority.

As for these folks, pointing out deficiencies in their credentials is hardly the best argument. These people believe in "mini-nukes," for crying out loud.
 
R.Mackey said:
I'd agree with that -- some EE's I've known have been exceptionally clever and well-rounded in their training.

Look at me, I only have a little bit of training relevant to structures (a year of FEA from the civil engineering department, and a year of solid mechanics). However, I know experimental design, data analysis, and mathematics well enough to hold my own in nearly any field. If I can't make my own argument, I can almost always understand someone else's.

Always avoid the argument from authority.

As for these folks, pointing out deficiencies in their credentials is hardly the best argument. These people believe in "mini-nukes," for crying out loud.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, what's your "bach" in - mechanical?

Anyone who believes in the "mini-nuke" theory of 9/11 is not using the resources available. A quick read of the history of the "Plowshare" project will clarify a number of the issues preventing this sort of weapon from being developed. I do not expect any of the members of AE9/11Truth to do this, though - it would present a conundrum of the type most of them do their best to avoid (being forced to choose between a pet theory and reality).
 
beachnut said:
We had physics and math and stuff. The stuff is the killer. I will agree, the EE may not help in the structure things, but I can do the energy stuff, and in the case of the WTC, energy does a good job showing what is possible. (statics, dynamics, et al)

a double E can do everything, fly faster than sound, leap and fall on his face...
Click to expand...

I am assuming you're an EE? When I was an undergrad, we had a BOATLOAD of physics, thermo, math, statistics, etc. We even had people that dropped EE and became math majors because of the math. (I still don't know why we had to do tensors - I never used it after the class).

Granted, minimal structures education, but just the logical reasoning of some of these people boggles my mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom