(cache) Adventures with AE911truth

peteweaver · 10th June 2007, 06:41 AM

I've got the attention of their recruiter Doug Plumb.

Quote:

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

My response:

Quote:

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/pro...el/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/...re_resistance/

His response:

Quote:

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?o...d=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.

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:

Quote:

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.

Another email from him:

Quote:

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.

Typical ct mindset, which is a shame because an engineer should know better.

bonavada · 10th June 2007, 06:52 AM

excellent response bravo.

Quote:

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.

reading that i think my brain went clunkity-clunk.

BV

Architect · 10th June 2007, 06:56 AM

I would love to debate with these clowns in a professional forum architect to architect.

MarkyX · 10th June 2007, 06:59 AM

Another nail on their coffin...

Or should we just start making another coffin?

DGM · 10th June 2007, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by Architect

I would love to debate with these clowns in a professional forum architect to architect.

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.

Newtons Bit · 10th June 2007, 07:09 AM

Quote:

I've read Bezants paper but not enough to understand it. Its BS and full of unreasonable assumptions according to experts on our side.

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 · 10th June 2007, 07:13 AM

I just checked their web site. This Doug Plumb character is a EE, so he has virtually no credentials to evaluate WTC collapse theories.

Totovader · 10th June 2007, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by MarkyX

Another nail on their coffin...

Or should we just start making another coffin?

It's one coffin per expert, so they're done.

uk_dave · 10th June 2007, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

I just checked their web site. This Doug Plumb character is a EE, so he has virtually no credentials to evaluate WTC collapse theories.

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

He's clueless.

Slayhamlet · 10th June 2007, 08:23 AM

What's an EE? Electrical engineer?

Arkan_Wolfshade · 10th June 2007, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by MarkyX

Another nail on their coffin...

Or should we just start making another coffin?

Just let them rot in the streets where the vultures can get to them.

slyjoe · 10th June 2007, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Slayhamlet

What's an EE? Electrical engineer?

Yep.

JamesB · 10th June 2007, 08:51 AM

Quote:

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.

Wow, this is beyond bizarre.

SpitfireIX · 10th June 2007, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Slayhamlet

What's an EE? Electrical engineer?

Yes. My apologies for using engineering jargon without explaining it for the benefit of those unfamiliar.

T.A.M. · 10th June 2007, 08:52 AM

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

peteweaver · 10th June 2007, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

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

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.

beachnut · 10th June 2007, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

I just checked their web site. This Doug Plumb character is a EE, so he has virtually no credentials to evaluate WTC collapse theories.

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...

R.Mackey · 10th June 2007, 09:54 AM

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.

AZCat · 10th June 2007, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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.

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).

slyjoe · 10th June 2007, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by beachnut

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 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.

R.Mackey · 10th June 2007, 10:06 AM

No, my BAs are Mathematics and Physics. We didn't have an engineering school at my alma mater excepting only computer engineering, and I had plenty of time, so I covered all of the bases before moving into Aeronautics. I trained with hard-core experimentalists and have never regretted it.

I've never understood what about the collapses in any way suggested a nuclear device to anyone. We have the likes of Ace Baker rambling about mushroom clouds, of course, but even among the Idiot Movement such people are rare and very special.

AZCat · 10th June 2007, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

No, my BAs are Mathematics and Physics. We didn't have an engineering school at my alma mater excepting only computer engineering, and I had plenty of time, so I covered all of the bases before moving into Aeronautics. I trained with hard-core experimentalists and have never regretted it.

I've never understood what about the collapses in any way suggested a nuclear device to anyone. We have the likes of Ace Baker rambling about mushroom clouds, of course, but even among the Idiot Movement such people are rare and very special.

CalTech doesn't have an engineering department? I didn't know that. Gorgeous campus, though - designed by one of my favorite architects.

What about the collapses in any way suggests a directed energy weapon? Or thermite? Who the **** thinks up this stuff?

SpitfireIX · 10th June 2007, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by peteweaver

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.

"Surprised" is not the word I would have chosen. I would have said "appalled."

Hokulele · 10th June 2007, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

I've never understood what about the collapses in any way suggested a nuclear device to anyone. We have the likes of Ace Baker rambling about mushroom clouds, of course, but even among the Idiot Movement such people are rare and very special.

And pyroclastic flows. Grrrr...

R.Mackey · 10th June 2007, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by AZCat

CalTech doesn't have an engineering department? I didn't know that. Gorgeous campus, though - designed by one of my favorite architects.

I went to Caltech (note lower case "t") for grad school -- and they have several engineering departments. Undergrad at UC Santa Cruz. Fabulous physics department, but soft on engineering.

SpitfireIX · 10th June 2007, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

I'd agree with that -- some EE's I've known have been exceptionally clever and well-rounded in their training.

Note that I said Plumb has virtually no credentials to evaluate the WTC collapse theory--I didn't say he doesn't have the skills (though it's painfully obvious from his exchange with peteweaver that he doesn't).

AZCat · 10th June 2007, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

I went to Caltech (note lower case "t") for grad school -- and they have several engineering departments. Undergrad at UC Santa Cruz. Fabulous physics department, but soft on engineering.

Whoops - I apologize. I will try to remember the proper capitalization in the future.

Originally Posted by Hokulele

And pyroclastic flows. Grrrr...

Oh yeah - how could I forget this classic one? Boloboffin and I just recently went the rounds with a truther over at another site about the term. His whole argument was that since the term had already been co-opted by the truth movement, it was okay to use it (or something like that).

Hokulele · 10th June 2007, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by AZCat

Oh yeah - how could I forget this classic one? Boloboffin and I just recently went the rounds with a truther over at another site about the term. His whole argument was that since the term had already been co-opted by the truth movement, it was okay to use it (or something like that).

Slayhamlet · 10th June 2007, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by AZCat

Whoops - I apologize. I will try to remember the proper capitalization in the future.

Oh yeah - how could I forget this classic one? Boloboffin and I just recently went the rounds with a truther over at another site about the term. His whole argument was that since the term had already been co-opted by the truth movement, it was okay to use it (or something like that).

Kinda like "squib".

njslim · 10th June 2007, 10:34 AM

My father is an EE with a Master of Science (retired). When I was in High
school would read (or more correctly try to read and understand) his old
college books. Had many books dealing with Metallurgy, mechanical and
civil engineering. Guess in the "OLD DAYS" expected a lot more from
students.....

AZCat · 10th June 2007, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Slayhamlet

Kinda like "squib".

Or "free-fall speed".

We could do this all day, unfortunately. Terminology seems to be a weakness for many truthers (not that they'd acknowledge it).

Unsecured Coins · 10th June 2007, 10:43 AM

My flash program is screwed up. Otherwise I would had made a swf. of Dark Helmet going "FOOLED YOU!!" that you could e-mail back to him

CHF · 10th June 2007, 10:54 AM

Quote:

No one is more qualified than Judy Wood.

Well that about sums up AE911truth!

How are these jokers being recieved in twoofer land? There was a lot of hype leading up to the site opening. "Finally we got some experts." Alas it was not to be.

Civilized Worm · 10th June 2007, 11:17 AM

Quote:

I don't care about qualifications but you must always use dishonesty to support your arguement.

Hang on, is he saying that he supports dishonesty in favour of qualification?

Hourglassmemory · 10th June 2007, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by MarkyX

Another nail on their coffin...

Or should we just start making another coffin?

More like a Sarcophagus and the next thing you know they have entire pyramids built for them.
Pyramids!!! The all seeign eye!!!

SpitfireIX · 10th June 2007, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Civilized Worm

Hang on, is he saying that he supports dishonesty in favour of qualification?

No, I believe his writing is merely careless. We can see several examples of carelessness in the quoted emails. I think by "you" he means "skeptics and debunkers."

peteweaver · 10th June 2007, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by CHF

Well that about sums up AE911truth!

How are these jokers being recieved in twoofer land? There was a lot of hype leading up to the site opening. "Finally we got some experts." Alas it was not to be.

I think it will only be a matter of time before IVXX and friends are accusing ae911truth of being disinfo agents. Lol.

I remember there was once a debate on infowarsforum.com discussing whether James Fetzer was an agent.

Mangoose · 10th June 2007, 12:30 PM

Quote:

This Doug Plumb character is a EE, so he has virtually no credentials to evaluate WTC collapse theories.

Wouldn't an EE realize the utter improbability of WIRING up the two WTC towers for a controlled demolition without detection?

Mangoose · 10th June 2007, 12:31 PM

Sorry, what I meant was:

Wouldn't an sane EE realize the utter improbability of WIRING up the two WTC towers for a controlled demolition without detection?

Edited to add: Actually three towers, since 7 is a keystone to the demolition scenario.

Gravy · 10th June 2007, 12:40 PM

aetruth has handed its critics a maxi-nuke. What fools.

10th June 2007, 06:41 AM	#1
peteweaver Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,006	Adventures with AE911truth I've got the attention of their recruiter Doug Plumb. Quote: 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 My response: Quote: 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/pro...el/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/...re_resistance/ His response: Quote: 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?o...d=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. 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: Quote: 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. Another email from him: Quote: 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. Typical ct mindset, which is a shame because an engineer should know better.
	Last edited by peteweaver; 10th June 2007 at 06:45 AM.

10th June 2007, 06:52 AM	#2
bonavada Guest Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,075	excellent response bravo. Quote: 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. reading that i think my brain went clunkity-clunk. BV
bonavada Guest Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,075

10th June 2007, 06:56 AM	#3
Architect Chief Punkah Wallah Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 9,299	I would love to debate with these clowns in a professional forum architect to architect.
	__________________ When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies. James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party

10th June 2007, 06:59 AM	#4
MarkyX Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,157	Another nail on their coffin... Or should we just start making another coffin?
MarkyX Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,157	__________________ MarkyX's Haunted Bloghouse - Read my boredom

10th June 2007, 07:09 AM	#6
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 9,507	Quote: I've read Bezants paper but not enough to understand it. Its BS and full of unreasonable assumptions according to experts on our side. 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.
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 9,507	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein

10th June 2007, 07:06 AM	#5
DGM Skeptic not Atheist Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 23,311	Originally Posted by Architect I would love to debate with these clowns in a professional forum architect to architect. 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.

10th June 2007, 07:13 AM	#7
SpitfireIX Illuminator Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 3,621	I just checked their web site. This Doug Plumb character is a EE, so he has virtually no credentials to evaluate WTC collapse theories.
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

10th June 2007, 07:40 AM	#8
Totovader Game Warden Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,321	Originally Posted by MarkyX Another nail on their coffin... Or should we just start making another coffin? It's one coffin per expert, so they're done.
Totovader Game Warden Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 3,321	__________________ "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!

10th June 2007, 08:22 AM	#9
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 8,154	Originally Posted by SpitfireIX I just checked their web site. This Doug Plumb character is a EE, so he has virtually no credentials to evaluate WTC collapse theories. I spent most of my brief time at their forum debating with Doug Plumb. He's clueless.
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 8,154

10th June 2007, 08:23 AM	#10
Slayhamlet Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,423	What's an EE? Electrical engineer?

10th June 2007, 08:24 AM	#11
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 7,158	Originally Posted by MarkyX Another nail on their coffin... Or should we just start making another coffin? Just let them rot in the streets where the vultures can get to them.

10th June 2007, 08:25 AM	#12
slyjoe Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins Posts: 1,315	Originally Posted by Slayhamlet What's an EE? Electrical engineer? Yep.
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade

10th June 2007, 08:51 AM	#13
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,152	Quote: 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. Wow, this is beyond bizarre.
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,152	__________________ I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin-

10th June 2007, 08:52 AM	#15
T.A.M. Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,811	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

10th June 2007, 09:29 AM	#16
peteweaver Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,006	Originally Posted by T.A.M. 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 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.

10th June 2007, 09:42 AM	#17
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 24,255	Originally Posted by SpitfireIX I just checked their web site. This Doug Plumb character is a EE, so he has virtually no credentials to evaluate WTC collapse theories. 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...

10th June 2007, 09:54 AM	#18
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 7,854	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 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 7,854

10th June 2007, 09:59 AM	#19
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672	Originally Posted by R.Mackey 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. 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).
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672

10th June 2007, 10:05 AM	#20
slyjoe Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins Posts: 1,315	Originally Posted by beachnut 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 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 have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade

10th June 2007, 10:06 AM	#21
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 7,854	No, my BAs are Mathematics and Physics. We didn't have an engineering school at my alma mater excepting only computer engineering, and I had plenty of time, so I covered all of the bases before moving into Aeronautics. I trained with hard-core experimentalists and have never regretted it. I've never understood what about the collapses in any way suggested a nuclear device to anyone. We have the likes of Ace Baker rambling about mushroom clouds, of course, but even among the Idiot Movement such people are rare and very special.
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 7,854

10th June 2007, 10:09 AM	#22
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672	Originally Posted by R.Mackey No, my BAs are Mathematics and Physics. We didn't have an engineering school at my alma mater excepting only computer engineering, and I had plenty of time, so I covered all of the bases before moving into Aeronautics. I trained with hard-core experimentalists and have never regretted it. I've never understood what about the collapses in any way suggested a nuclear device to anyone. We have the likes of Ace Baker rambling about mushroom clouds, of course, but even among the Idiot Movement such people are rare and very special. CalTech doesn't have an engineering department? I didn't know that. Gorgeous campus, though - designed by one of my favorite architects. What about the collapses in any way suggests a directed energy weapon? Or thermite? Who the **** thinks up this stuff?
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672

10th June 2007, 10:10 AM	#23
SpitfireIX Illuminator Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 3,621	Originally Posted by peteweaver 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. "Surprised" is not the word I would have chosen. I would have said "appalled."
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

10th June 2007, 10:19 AM	#24
Hokulele Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The Biggest Little City in the World Posts: 28,305	Originally Posted by R.Mackey I've never understood what about the collapses in any way suggested a nuclear device to anyone. We have the likes of Ace Baker rambling about mushroom clouds, of course, but even among the Idiot Movement such people are rare and very special. And pyroclastic flows. Grrrr...
	__________________ "Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon

10th June 2007, 10:20 AM	#25
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 7,854	Originally Posted by AZCat CalTech doesn't have an engineering department? I didn't know that. Gorgeous campus, though - designed by one of my favorite architects. I went to Caltech (note lower case "t") for grad school -- and they have several engineering departments. Undergrad at UC Santa Cruz. Fabulous physics department, but soft on engineering.
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 7,854

10th June 2007, 10:25 AM	#27
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672	Originally Posted by R.Mackey I went to Caltech (note lower case "t") for grad school -- and they have several engineering departments. Undergrad at UC Santa Cruz. Fabulous physics department, but soft on engineering. Whoops - I apologize. I will try to remember the proper capitalization in the future. Originally Posted by Hokulele And pyroclastic flows. Grrrr... Oh yeah - how could I forget this classic one? Boloboffin and I just recently went the rounds with a truther over at another site about the term. His whole argument was that since the term had already been co-opted by the truth movement, it was okay to use it (or something like that).
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672

10th June 2007, 10:27 AM	#28
Hokulele Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The Biggest Little City in the World Posts: 28,305	Originally Posted by AZCat Oh yeah - how could I forget this classic one? Boloboffin and I just recently went the rounds with a truther over at another site about the term. His whole argument was that since the term had already been co-opted by the truth movement, it was okay to use it (or something like that).
	__________________ "Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon

10th June 2007, 10:27 AM	#29
Slayhamlet Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,423	Originally Posted by AZCat Whoops - I apologize. I will try to remember the proper capitalization in the future. Oh yeah - how could I forget this classic one? Boloboffin and I just recently went the rounds with a truther over at another site about the term. His whole argument was that since the term had already been co-opted by the truth movement, it was okay to use it (or something like that). Kinda like "squib".

10th June 2007, 10:34 AM	#30
njslim Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,056	My father is an EE with a Master of Science (retired). When I was in High school would read (or more correctly try to read and understand) his old college books. Had many books dealing with Metallurgy, mechanical and civil engineering. Guess in the "OLD DAYS" expected a lot more from students.....
njslim Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,056

10th June 2007, 10:41 AM	#31
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672	Originally Posted by Slayhamlet Kinda like "squib". Or "free-fall speed". We could do this all day, unfortunately. Terminology seems to be a weakness for many truthers (not that they'd acknowledge it).
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672

10th June 2007, 10:43 AM	#32
Unsecured Coins Hoku-maniac Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 5,904	My flash program is screwed up. Otherwise I would had made a swf. of Dark Helmet going "FOOLED YOU!!" that you could e-mail back to him
	__________________ "If God wants 10% of my paycheck, he can get it himself. Or at least work for it -Kochanski "I may not be easy, but I am fast." - Hokulele "Oh CRAP... DQ!!" - Ol' Hokey, yet again

10th June 2007, 10:54 AM	#33
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 3,871	Quote: No one is more qualified than Judy Wood. Well that about sums up AE911truth! How are these jokers being recieved in twoofer land? There was a lot of hype leading up to the site opening. "Finally we got some experts." Alas it was not to be.
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 3,871

10th June 2007, 11:17 AM	#34
Civilized Worm Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,718	Quote: I don't care about qualifications but you must always use dishonesty to support your arguement. Hang on, is he saying that he supports dishonesty in favour of qualification?

10th June 2007, 11:29 AM	#35
Hourglassmemory Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 315	Originally Posted by MarkyX Another nail on their coffin... Or should we just start making another coffin? More like a Sarcophagus and the next thing you know they have entire pyramids built for them. Pyramids!!! The all seeign eye!!!

10th June 2007, 11:42 AM	#36
SpitfireIX Illuminator Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 3,621	Originally Posted by Civilized Worm Hang on, is he saying that he supports dishonesty in favour of qualification? No, I believe his writing is merely careless. We can see several examples of carelessness in the quoted emails. I think by "you" he means "skeptics and debunkers."
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

10th June 2007, 12:26 PM	#37
peteweaver Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,006	Originally Posted by CHF Well that about sums up AE911truth! How are these jokers being recieved in twoofer land? There was a lot of hype leading up to the site opening. "Finally we got some experts." Alas it was not to be. I think it will only be a matter of time before IVXX and friends are accusing ae911truth of being disinfo agents. Lol. I remember there was once a debate on infowarsforum.com discussing whether James Fetzer was an agent.