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.

[AJM8125]

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?

:dl:

[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%20Ray&authorName=Griffin

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

then comment on 9/11
;)

[AJM8125]

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:rolleyes:

... 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%20Ray&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%20Ray&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://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

[ergo]

Dude.

2006 is thataway. <=====

http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures/20039.jpg

[AJM8125]

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.:rolleyes:

[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]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures/20039.jpg

<-----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.

[Dog Town]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures/20039.jpg

How cute, Bush derangement syndrome!

Politics is that way ===>

[Lenbrazil]

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..

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]

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%20Ray&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]

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

[beachnut]

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%20Ray&authorName=Griffin

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

then comment on 9/11
;) I see for you the earth is still flat, and thinking for yourself means posting idiotic lies out of ignorance.
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]

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


too many comebacks... can't choose just one

[Dave Rogers]

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

http://www.911speakout.org/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=David%20Ray&authorName=Griffin

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

then comment on 9/11
;)

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]

Physics and the scientific method trump individual opinion and belief.

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?

[twinstead]

Actually, objective and rational trump bat crap crazy any day too.

[Edx]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures/20039.jpg

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]

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.

It seems the NWO Blind-O-Matictm only works on rational, intelligent people and qualified professionals. Somehow the formula they came up with has no effect on ideologues, bat crap crazies, and idiots.

Some more R&D time was needed, I'm sure.

[Architect]

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

Indeed. Remind me what your own training in structural engineering and the design of tall buildings might be?

The reason we have 12 (hopefully properly informed) jurors sitting on any jury is because consensus is important; it is the foundation of democracy.

Well, 15 in my country, and we accept a majority rather than a unanimous verdict. But tell me, do you have a point?

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

Indeed. Like, say, believing Prisonplanet in contrast to structural engineering papers and the like.


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.


I think you mean structural engineering. Why are you hanging your hat on physics?


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


Unfortunately for you, that would be those of us actually trained in the scientific method and in areas such as structural design.

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

http://www.911speakout.org/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=David%20Ray&authorName=Griffin

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

then comment on 9/11
;)

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]

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?

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]

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
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?


:o

[twinstead]

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.



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

[Architect]

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

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?

[Miragememories]

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?

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

[twinstead]

MM, you are accusing innocent people of mass murder, albeit in a mostly civil way. Sometimes that is even worse though.

[Architect]

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.

[enik]

Would you consider going over to the 911 physics forum, signing up, and discussing the failures of WTC #1?

[Architect]

JREF is fine by me, thanks.

[Grizzly Bear]

MM<<snip>>.
I'm responding here because I don't want to interfere with the thread you've posted but I wouldn't expect a significant discussion to take place. When you're criticizing the demonstrations of the experts they cite, regardless of how politely you word it, they consider it an ad hom attack against an authoritative source. This is always how it's been taken by people I've made an effort to have this sort of exchange with:\

Although I wish the best in the exchange and hope it can be productive

[Architect]

Ah, no, he's complaining that I'm being unprofessional because I'm disagreeing with a fellow professional.

I find this quite funny as one of the roles of the Professional Practice Committee which I sit on is to consider the performance of other architects. I can assure you that I wouldn't use the incompetent tag if I wasn't happy to stand up in front of 10 other architects at the RIBA in London and explain, in front of Gage, why he's a disgrace to the profession.

Gage always says that the time for debate is over. He's wrong - there are important discussions to be ahd about the fire performance of tall structures and how best to protect them. His debate, however, will never get off the groudn because it is simply unsubstantiated and poorly reasoned rubbish. And I think Gage knows it.

[Miragememories]

Ah, no, he's complaining that I'm being unprofessional because I'm disagreeing with a fellow professional.

I find this quite funny as one of the roles of the Professional Practice Committee which I sit on is to consider the performance of other architects. I can assure you that I wouldn't use the incompetent tag if I wasn't happy to stand up in front of 10 other architects at the RIBA in London and explain, in front of Gage, why he's a disgrace to the profession.

Gage always says that the time for debate is over. He's wrong - there are important discussions to be ahd about the fire performance of tall structures and how best to protect them. His debate, however, will never get off the groudn because it is simply unsubstantiated and poorly reasoned rubbish. And I think Gage knows it.
You derive too much confidence from sitting in the majority position.

MM

[Architect]

Well feel free to wander over to the thread I created and explain my technical errors. You seem gey reluctant to do so thus far.

[Miragememories]

Well feel free to wander over to the thread I created and explain my technical errors. You seem gey reluctant to do so thus far.

"gey reluctant"?

What is your first language anyway?

MM

[DGM]

"gey reluctant"?

What is your first language anyway?

MM
What, you don't know? I thought you were some kind of "investigoogle" ninja?


:)

[Grizzly Bear]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6495652&postcount=46
"gey reluctant"?

What is your first language anyway?

http://209.161.37.11/dictionary/gey

Definition of GEY: very, quite

[tsig]

"gey reluctant"?

What is your first language anyway?

MM

I'd guess Scottish.

[Architect]

I'd guess Scottish.

Not quite. Tha ghaidhlig agamsa. But I now live in a Scots speaking area.

[Architect]

"gey reluctant"?

What is your first language anyway?

MM

Like I said, wee man, feel free to wander over to the thread where you've been called out. Unless you're feart.

[twinstead]

Scotts is the closest language to English, and a delightful throwback to late Old and Middle English.