Richard Gage’s structural engineers

[Lenbrazil]

From my blog

I decided to look over the credentials and statements of the structural engineers (SEs), in AE911T. There are only 30, 19 in the US and 11 in Canada, Australia and Western Europe. Anders Björkman who used to claim to be an SE is now more accurately classified as a “Naval architect & Marine engineer”

[...]

Only 14 of them claimed to have experience with buildings and only one, Steven Merritt, cited tall buildings. Paul A. Thomas claims to have designed “concrete & steel structures to 240 ft. height” but worked mostly for “Mining & Industrial clients”.


Surprisingly only 3 mentioned NIST but only one or two seem to have read the report. The aforementioned Mr. Arey from Chicago simply said “The collapse was too neat to be ascribed to the official story and what was described in NIST report. A new investigation is warranted”, so I doubt he actually read it. His inability to spell out from an engineering perspective why he thinks the towers were CDed is yet another reason to doubt he really is an SE.


[...]

More and a handy chart here:
http://lies-of-the-truth-movement.blogspot.com/2010/10/richard-gages-structural-engineers.html

 

[dtugg]

Doesn't one of his US structural engineers believe that nuclear weapons destroyed the WTC?

 

[leftysergeant]

Seems to me that it more likely an experienced engineer will give himself a .44 Mag lobotomy than endorse Gage's theories without serious modifications.

 

[TJM]

Doesn't one of his US structural engineers believe that nuclear weapons destroyed the WTC?

LOL

His bio has been deleted - IIRC he had his mini-nuke theory up on the thief's site, now it empty except for the standard disclaimer:

Disclaimer: The personal views expressed by Supporters in their Bio's, Personal 9/11 Statements, and/or other locations on our website, are not necessarily those of AE911Truth.org, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc., its Board Members, employees, volunteers, other supporters, or any other people officially or unofficially associated or affiliated with AE911Truth.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=999621

License expired 2008. Nice.

 

[BigAl]

From my blog

Only 14 of them claimed to have experience with buildings and only one, Steven Merritt, cited tall buildings. Paul A. Thomas claims to have designed “concrete & steel structures to 240 ft. height” but worked mostly for “Mining & Industrial clients”.


More and a handy chart here:
http://lies-of-the-truth-movement.blogspot.com/2010/10/richard-gages-structural-engineers.html

I bet the tallest structures built by people in "Mining & Industrial" were smokestacks and other structures that have no relation to much taller buildings that were occupied and built to fire codes.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Richard Gage’s structural engineers wouldn't happen to be connected to the cardboard industry, would they?

 

[Miragememories]

"I decided to look over the credentials and statements of the structural engineers (SEs), in AE911T. There are only 30, 19 in the US and 11 in Canada, Australia and Western Europe. Anders Björkman who used to claim to be an SE is now more accurately classified as a “Naval architect & Marine engineer”

[...]

Only 14 of them claimed to have experience with buildings and only one, Steven Merritt, cited tall buildings. Paul A. Thomas claims to have designed “concrete & steel structures to 240 ft. height” but worked mostly for “Mining & Industrial clients”.


Surprisingly only 3 mentioned NIST but only one or two seem to have read the report. The aforementioned Mr. Arey from Chicago simply said “The collapse was too neat to be ascribed to the official story and what was described in NIST report. A new investigation is warranted”, so I doubt he actually read it. His inability to spell out from an engineering perspective why he thinks the towers were CDed is yet another reason to doubt he really is an SE.
[...]"

I see a lot of vague innuendos and unsupported assumptions.

30 structural engineers, professionally trained and qualified in structural engineering.

How could you possibly know that out of that number, "only one or two seem to have read the report" [NIST]?

You are doing nothing but surmising and smearing based on virtually zero research.

MM

 

[Lenbrazil]

I see a lot of vague innuendos and unsupported assumptions.

30 structural engineers, professionally trained and qualified in structural engineering.

Actually a few of those don't seem to be legit SE and many of them specialize in structures quite different from the WTC, it like citing a podiatrist concerning a heart problem or a pest control veterinarian concerning a sick horse.

How could you possibly know that out of that number, "only one or two seem to have read the report" [NIST]?

Because they are appealing to their authority as SE's to give credence to their belief the fire and impact damage induced collapse theory is incorrect and the NIST Report is the definitive account in support of that theory. Thus the logical assumption is they would say what is wrong with it in their statements if they had read it and found it lacking.

You are doing nothing but surmising and smearing based on virtually zero research.

I based it on their own statements, which I agree were "based on virtually zero research"

MM

 

[twinstead]

MM I'm confused why you appear take the word of folks on AE911T no questions asked, yet lead me to believe you think the contributers to the NIST and the other publications (Purdue, etc) are incompetent.

It really sounds like confirmation bias to me.

 

[Oystein]

I am not too happy about this kind of analysis. It does't really matter what degrees these people have or not have. What matters is the validity of their arguments.
It is also not important how many have signed this or that list, or how many of these have degrees in what fields.
The characterisation of a few engineers from the list by Lenbrasil is cursery at best.

However, it is much better than the usual argument often used by twoofers, and never criticized by MM, that "1300 architects and engineers" have signed the petition, without specifying what kinds of engineers.


By the way, I scrolled down the list, and only counted about 900 signers from the fields of engineering and architecture, not all of them degreed and licensed, not all of them actually architects or engineers. And then a long list of (unverified) supporters who could be anything from students to frauds, headed by DRG.

 

[atavisms]

You don't need to be an engineer to sit on a jury. And 30 engineers signing singing such a thing should be deeply disturbing to ALL! (much less over 1300) http://www.ae911truth.org/ (the number grows every week)
why?? common sense. LOOK!!!

Appeals to authority are for idiots who cannot think for themselves because they lack the proper education.

The reason we have 12 (hopefully properly informed) jurors sitting on any jury is because consensus is important; it is the foundation of democracy. At the same time it is also potentially dangerous when people are misinformed yet believe they are getting the truth from their news sources.

Physics and the scientific method trump individual opinion and belief. We can all agree the world is flat because that is what we have been told. but that does not make it so.

The facts of 9/11 (1100 people unaccounted for, 100s of tons of pulverized concrete, 1400 people blasted to tiny bits, disassembled superstructures (1&2) with 800" foot radial debris fields, pyroclastic clouds, squibs, excessive residual heat, molten metal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM, WTC7s implosion, the hairrit study (etc etc) all reveal the obvious to any informed observer/

Please study:
http://911research.wtc7.net/

http://www.911speakout.org/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=David Ray&authorName=Griffin

http://911review.com/articles/ryan/index.html

then comment on 9/11

 

[TJM]

You don't need to be an engineer to sit on a jury. And 30 engineers signing singing such a thing should be deeply disturbing to ALL! (much less over 1300) http://www.ae911truth.org/ (the number grows every week)
why?? common sense. LOOK!!!

Appeals to authority are for idiots who cannot think for themselves because they lack the proper education.

You know AE911truth is based on one gigantic appeal to authority, don't you?

 

[leftysergeant]

Appeals to authority are for idiots who cannot think for themselves because they lack the proper education.

And that is exactly the category of persons to whom AE911T address their crap.

At the same time it is also potentially dangerous when people are misinformed yet believe they are getting the truth from their news sources.

That sums up Gage's followers.

The facts of 9/11 (1100 people unaccounted for...

is not anomlous when they get sliced, diced, crushed and incinerated

...100s of tons of pulverized concrete...

is a miscalculation and is easily disproven when you actually look at the tons upon tons of it in the debris pile.

,,,1400 people blasted to tiny bits...

is not unusual when you fire a hundred tons or so of frag through an office building and then grind a lot of people between moving slabs of concrete.

... disassembled superstructures (1&2) with 800" foot radial debris fields..

is not unusual when all the energy created was sufficient to move it that far but no farther.

pyroclastic clouds, squibs, excessive residual heat...

did not exist.

[/QUOTE] molten metal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM...[/QUOTE]

was observed only in an area where tons of lead-acid batteries and a pile of aluminum scrap was subjected to intense fires and under WTC 6 where a pistol range with millkions of rounds of ammo caught fire.

WTC7s implosion..

after being hit by the equivalent ofa serious artillery barrage

... the hairrit study (etc etc) all reveal the obvious to any informed observer/...

That Harrit and Jones are batcrapcrazy? Yes.

Please study:
http://911research.wtc7.net/

http://www.911speakout.org/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=David Ray&authorName=Griffin

http://911review.com/articles/ryan/index.html

then comment on 9/11

Did that. It's BS.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The facts of 9/11 (1100 people unaccounted for, 100s of tons of pulverized concrete, 1400 people blasted to tiny bits, disassembled superstructures (1&2) with 800" foot radial debris fields, pyroclastic clouds, squibs, excessive residual heat, molten metal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM, WTC7s implosion, the hairrit study (etc etc) all reveal the obvious to any informed observer/

Please study:
http://911research.wtc7.net/

http://www.911speakout.org/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=David Ray&authorName=Griffin

http://911review.com/articles/ryan/index.html

then comment on 9/11

Dude.

2006 is thataway. <=====

 

[Oystein]

...
The facts of 9/11 (
1100 people unaccounted for,
100s of tons of pulverized concrete,
1400 people blasted to tiny bits,
disassembled superstructures (1&2) with 800" foot radial debris fields,
pyroclastic clouds, squibs, excessive residual heat, molten metal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM,
WTC7s implosion, the hairrit study...

Those I highlighted are not really facts
The others have not the relevance you think they have

"1100 people unaccounted for" and "1400 people blasted to tiny bits" are really the same fact. Which is closely related to "100s of tons of pulverized concrete" (which is, by the way, only like 0.1% of all the concrete to start with). You see, each tower had about 500.000.000.000 Joules of potential energy to spend on bending steel, breaking concrete and ripping apart people. If you suggest that wasn't enough energy, and wanted to add more using of thermate/thermite, you'd need 200 tons of that.
Didn't happen, sorry. Harrit is deluded and Jones is a fraud

ETA: "800" foot radial debris fields" is quite at odds with the oft-heard claim "fell into their footprints" - something said by AE911T engineers even.
Can't you guys make up youre mind?

ETA2: Please study:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64

 

[ergo]

Dude.

2006 is thataway. <=====

 

[TJM]

Thermite is a better one.

 

[Dog Town]

Appeals to authority are for idiots who cannot think for themselves because they lack the proper education.

Yes, we know. Now stop doing it! It could make you look like an idiot.

 

[Lenbrazil]

30 engineers signing singing such a thing should be deeply disturbing to ALL! (much less over 1300) http://www.ae911truth.org/ (the number grows every week)
why?? common sense. LOOK!!!

Appeals to authority are for idiots who cannot think for themselves because they lack the proper education.

Amazing that immediately after making an "Appeal to authority" you say that such tactics "are for idiots who cannot think for themselves because they lack the proper education". In your case you were correct. And remember polls sponsored by truthers show they on average have lower educational levels that people who accept the "OCT".

Also you got it wrong appeals to authority are normally only considered fallacies when they are to false authorities. This what AE911T does since out of the 1300 or so A's and E's in its ranks only 28 or so are are SE's, only half of whom seem to have expertise relating to buildings, and perhaps only one of whom has expertise with highrises and only 2 of who seem to have read the NIST report. 28 - 30 is a very small number since there are tens of thousands just in the US.

 

[leftysergeant]

[qimg]http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures/20039.jpg[/qimg]

<-----Back there, somewhere, is an explanation of "accelerants," "Class B" and "class A" fires. Find it and read it. None of the debunkers are saying that Class B fuels brought down the towers. The structural damage and the Class A fires did.

Try to keep up.