AE911Truth Watch

[ref]

Back to being serious, do you count people who haven't sent in their credentials to be verified yet? By my count a couple of days ago, there were about 50 who are "pending hardcopy or other verification."

I use the member figure given on their front page. I guess that includes the unverified members.

 

[ref]

Yes, but it looks like they would hit 1,000 A&Es in early- to mid-2009 (or late 2009 - too hard to tell), assuming linear growth. That's an important milestone, even if it doesn't happen by 9/11/2008.

So let me ask you this - in your opinion, where/when will it stop? 1,000? 2,000?

Their rate since December has been 0,72 new members per day. Assuming similar growth continues, it will take them (1000-304)/0,72 = 967 days to reach 1000 members. That's approx. 2,65 years and late 2010.

My personal opinion is, they will never reach 1000. Their organization will cease to exist as it is before that milestone. But if they did reach 1000, it doesn't change anything. They would still be believing in false theories.

 

[boloboffin]

I use the member figure given on their front page. I guess that includes the unverified members.

Which is funny, because on the front page, it says that names won't be listed until they get verification, and then on the members pages, they go ahead and list them with asterisks.

 

[X]

I use the member figure given on their front page. I guess that includes the unverified members.

Do they remove members who want out or were faked to begin with yet?
I think that might affect the actual numbers.

 

[Drs_Res]

Do they remove members who want out or were faked to begin with yet?
I think that might affect the actual numbers.

No.

 

[ref]

Do they remove members who want out or were faked to begin with yet?
I think that might affect the actual numbers.

Yes they do, but that always seems to take a looooong time. Plus they do not (want to) recognize the fakes, until they are pointed out to them. Sometimes not even then.

ETA: Since December I have noticed their member count drop on three occasions. So they sometimes really do remove members.

 

[Drs_Res]

Yes they do, but that always seems to take a looooong time. Plus they do not (want to) recognize the fakes, until they are pointed out to them. Sometimes not even then.

ETA: Since December I have noticed their member count drop on three occasions. So they sometimes really do remove members.

Then I stand corrected. Thank you.

 

[beachnut]

Yes, but it looks like they would hit 1,000 A&Es in early- to mid-2009 (or late 2009 - too hard to tell), assuming linear growth. That's an important milestone, even if it doesn't happen by 9/11/2008.

So let me ask you this - in your opinion, where/when will it stop? 1,000? 2,000?

That is scary, so many so called professionals are lacking rational thought and logic, skipped knowledge and facts and evidence to believe dumb ideas of 9/11 truth. Why are they not smart enough to see Gage lacks evidence? Are people really sending him money? A sucker is born every second.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes, but it looks like they would hit 1,000 A&Es in early- to mid-2009 (or late 2009 - too hard to tell), assuming linear growth. That's an important milestone, even if it doesn't happen by 9/11/2008.

So let me ask you this - in your opinion, where/when will it stop? 1,000? 2,000?

2000 electrical engineer cant be wrong about structural engineering.

 

[Christopher7]

Weak, as opposed to weakened by heat from fires. Next.

Correct, my bad.

 

[Christopher7]

I think it's quite clear that Mr. Chapin is talking about steel testing that UL did at the request of the NIST for the purposes of their investigation, which was quite obviously post-collapse.

Wrong

Loring Knoblauch, CEO of UL, to Ryan 11-15-04
“We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on and it did fine.”

UL tested components/samples/assemblies with all the required fireproofing, before the Trade Towers were built.
There were NO samples from the Trade Towers.
Where does it say that UL had done any testing post 9/11 ?

Kevin Ryan to Dr. Gayle, 11-11-04
Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements.

Ryan is clearly talking about the samples UL tested before the Trade Towers were built.

Ryan is simply lying when he says that the UL certifies structural steel. He's an ignorant, lying, liar.

Mr. Ryan's suggestion that the UL certified steel that went into the towers has nothing to do with that whatsoever, and is in fact in direct contradiction with the statement he received from the head of the building safety and fire testing department.

For those of you with reading impairments;

“the samples we certified” modifies and clarifies the statement;

“the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings.”

 

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by C7
What have you debunked so far?

Originally Posted by applecorped
everything.

Originally Posted by C7
Could you be a little more specific?

Why?

[FONT=&quot]I did not find any problems in the first 28 pages, did you?[/FONT]

 

[thebestodb]

I have a question in regards to the 45 degree angle cut.
Is it not possible to get a large beam and see if it's possible to make that cut with a torch on the bottom. I would imagine it would need to be bent and then cut.
Certainly this can be duplicated or attempted.

 

[Minadin]

Ryan is clearly talking about the samples UL tested before the Trade Towers were built.

I know, that's what makes him a LIAR.

 

[thebestodb]

If we can get an Idea for how big that piece might have been, I might be able to do this experiment myself.

 

[DGM]

I have a question in regards to the 45 degree angle cut.
Is it not possible to get a large beam and see if it's possible to make that cut with a torch on the bottom. I would imagine it would need to be bent and then cut.
Certainly this can be duplicated or attempted.

You can angle the cut in from the sides and get most of the way through. If the column has any height to it at all gravity would bend it over with no trouble. We do this sort of thing all the time. Go visit a demolition site you'll see plenty of examples.


PS I'm an iron worker. (mostly retired to running the company now)

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Are you saying the Hobbits brought down the towers?

They did it once before...

 

[WildCat]

I have a question in regards to the 45 degree angle cut.
Is it not possible to get a large beam and see if it's possible to make that cut with a torch on the bottom. I would imagine it would need to be bent and then cut.
Certainly this can be duplicated or attempted.

You mean, like in this video starting at the 1:15 mark?

 

[thebestodb]

yeah, maybe we can do better than that obviously poor video quality. Lets GO HIGH DEF.

 

[Drs_Res]

Tell you what, let's worry about the content. You have a clean up worker talking about 45 or so degree angle cuts used to remove the steel.