Richard Gage’s structural engineers
- Thread starter Lenbrazil
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ae911truth richard gage
I disagree Gage keeps sighting the total number of A's and E's but only 2% of them are the right type of engineer, thus this is a foil to his appeal to false authority. It is also important to point out that most of the SE's don't seem to have expertise in structures like the WTC towers.
"What matters is the validity of their arguments."
I did include a column on their arguments and pointed out only 2 even attempted to critique the NIST Report. Several did make idiotic points like saying the towers should have fallen like trees. Perhaps I will focus on that in a future post.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
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
I have hilited a few words I would like you to clarify for me.
Where was this PYROCLASTIC cloud?
And Where was this excessive residual heat at?
Thanks.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
I see for you the earth is still flat, and thinking for yourself means posting idiotic lies out of ignorance.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
Finished reading (years ago). Total nonsense, the squibs were funny.
The stuff you posted only fools a few fringe idiots with no knowledge, inability to do physics, no math, and if they are engineers they wasted their money.
Gage has not expert engineers, if he did he would not be spewing lies and begging for donations from people too stupid to figure out 911.
eromitlab
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 919
too many comebacks... can't choose just one
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
An invitation I can hardly pass up.
OK, I've studied those websites and the works of those authors. I find their arguments to be without merit, and see no reason to doubt that the 9/11 attacks were the work of Islamic fundamentalists, nor that they were aided by no more than inter-departmental barriers and lack of focus on terrorism within the USA.
Got anything better?
Dave
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2010
- Messages
- 3,831
I completely agree with you. Could you provide me with some published scientific articles, in real, respectable journals that substantiate any of the nonsense you subscribe to?
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
Yes, according to you guys they intentionally made stupid mistakes in order for a small fringe minority to stand up and point it out, but for some reason no one else can see it.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Indeed. Remind me what your own training in structural engineering and the design of tall buildings might be?
Well, 15 in my country, and we accept a majority rather than a unanimous verdict. But tell me, do you have a point?
Indeed. Like, say, believing Prisonplanet in contrast to structural engineering papers and the like.
I think you mean structural engineering. Why are you hanging your hat on physics?
Unfortunately for you, that would be those of us actually trained in the scientific method and in areas such as structural design.
I'm a qualified architect with a proven track record in the design of tall structures. Why the heck would I want to read those Noddy sources?
Miragememories
Banned
How do we know you are a qualified architect?
Anyone here can make that claim.
It is not like people here haven't been proven to lie, so buttressing an argument by claiming professional authority is a valid concern.
It is too easy to argue that the a person has no case because they aren't a professional, especially when the so-called expert
does not have to establish their claimed credentials.
MM
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
How do we know any of the AE engineers are who they say? Besides what have they actually done? For my money (If I paid AE) I would expect results from 1300+ engineers. So far my son could produce what they have (and he's 12)
Are you happy with AE?
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
I always take qualifications of people here on both sides of the issue with a grain of salt. It's why I'm waiting for a large group of bona fide experts to support that the collapses that day were 'fishy'. Until then, it's just a bunch of folks arguing on an internet forum, and IMO the commonly-held narrative of 9-11 stands
Now MM, I thought you'd have a longer memory. I think you'll find that ol' Bill tried this about 2 years ago, and the answer remains the same:
Because the first time a Truther raised this, I took the time and trouble to prove my credentials to the Mods. ARB and RIBA numbers, employer details, and response from my work email address amongst other things. Do you want the name of the Mod concerned, so you can ask them if this is true?
I should also add that another poster here has been in my office and is familiar with my work, including a mere £28.5m project we rattled together in 2008/9.
Notwithstanding this, MM, I think that the technical posts I've made do rather testify to said experience. Rather more, in fact, than those ranmblings of in incompetent box-crusher with experience in gym halls and commercial structures.
Now, are you going to apologise like a man or just hand-wave away as normal?
Last edited:
Miragememories
Banned
Apologize for what?
Stating a legitimate concern?
Get over yourself.
We know who Gage and and his group are since they are up front and on the record.
As any writer of speculative fiction can tell you, writing piles of techno-crap doesn't prove you are a professional, nor does it prove you are competent at what you profess to be expert at.
The unprofessional belligerence expressed in your posts when addressing other professionals, "those ranmblings of in incompetent box-crusher with experience in gym halls and commercial structures", not to mention poor proof reading skills, is very telling.
MM
MM
You cast doubt on my professional qualifications. I've explained that my bona fides have been proven to the Mods some considerable time ago. You're aware of this because Bill Smith and others have raised the same point in the past, in threads you've also been involved in.
I'm more than happy to provide the same details to the Mods again - ARB registration details, RIBA membership number, details of past employers sufficient to check my track record in delivering relevant projects, and so on. Proof that I sit on the professional practice committee of my institute? No problem. Just say the word. Likewise, why don't you just ask Rolfe. She's been to my office. She can name the £28.5m project I mentioned earlier.
The truth is that you know fine I'm a qualified architect, and you're just hand-waving to distract attention. Likewise you know that Gage's CV has no projects of particular relevance to the debate at hand concerning the WTC . He designed gymn halls and low rise commercial structures. Whoopee do.
Incidentally, we do know who Gage and his group are. And most of them aren't professionals in this field. Nice own goal there, MM. And yes, I will call him incompetent. If he doesn't like it then he can make a complaint to the RIBA about unprofessional conduct. Unfortuantely for him, however, there would be a hearing where he'd have to justify the crap he calls his theory. And really, peer review is going to kill his argument stone dead.
But I tell you what. You're seem to be suggesting that I write "techno-crap". Well, put up or shut up: show me any substantive errors I've made in my technical posts regarding the design, construction, and failure of WTC 1 and 2. I'll even start a separate thread for you, just give me ten minutes.
On a final note, I'm not sure that complaining about poor proof reading (especially when speaking about someone who doesn't have English as a first language) really helps when you're trying to discuss technical issues. But feel free to ignore that advice.
Last edited: