Transcript of Richard Humenn's AE911Truth Interview

[ozeco41]

The more Gage produces the more clear it becomes, there are no truthers left.

You know my position. Nearly all we are seeing are trolls and I choose to not feed trolls. We have been calling trolls "truthers" for a couple of years and lost the distinction.

I am only convinced of two genuine truthers contributing here recently. T Sz and d.w.

Both of them seem to genuinely believe their delusions. Both will attempt to go through the motions of reasoned discussion.

Further a field than this forum - or any such forums - there can no longer be many genuine truthers. The cynical charlatans like Gage hanging in there with his core team must know the weight of evidence against them. And the paucity of evidence for them plus zero pro CD argument in the AE911 setting.

The Pilots4Truth setting even sillier - they don't even make any claims other than anomaly nit picking.

All the rest of the technical claims chasing truth movement moribund or deceased. And there has never been much interest in the socio political claims distinct from technical claims. CD at WTC couldn't have been an 'inside job' because there was no CD. The fatal flaw in the AE911 strategy "we want a political investigation because there was CD". Self defeating.

 

[DGM]

Further a field than this forum - or any such forums - there can no longer be many genuine truthers.

Do they actually have any forums left? MM said a while back that this was not the place to discuss the truth, I asked him where would be the place to do this? He never replied.

As far as I can see. There are no sites for the supposed true "truthers".

 

[ozeco41]

Do they actually have any forums left? MM said a while back that this was not the place to discuss the truth, I asked him where would be the place to do this? He never replied.

As far as I can see. There are no sites for the supposed true "truthers".

I'm sure you are right but cannot say from personal knowledge - I've never followed truther sites. 911Forum is determinedly neutral but there is only one truther still posting occasionally there.

YouTube also a venue that I won't go near - but what truther activity remains seems to be there and, at risk of offending some valiant missionaries who venture there, it is beneath intellectual contempt as a discussion medium.

If we are dealing with Grade 7 problems there is no point trying it on a medium which limits you to grade 2 or 3 standards. Even forums such as this are barely good enough for conduct of reasoned debate at the level the more complex 9/11 problems require. And it is very rare to get up to that level these days.

The last example of a serious topic I think was "Tony's New Paper" which IMO warranted the Grade 7 treatment - but Tony and responding members made sure it stayed at Grade 5 "Whack-A-Mole".

It was great fun BUT the real questions were left un addressed. Too hard.

 

[DGM]

I'm sure you are right but cannot say from personal knowledge - I've never followed truther sites. 911Forum is determinedly neutral but there is only one truther still posting occasionally there.

YouTube also a venue that I won't go near - but what truther activity remains seems to be there and, at risk of offending some valiant missionaries who venture there, it is beneath intellectual contempt as a discussion medium.

If we are dealing with Grade 7 problems there is no point trying it on a medium which limits you to grade 2 or 3 standards. Even forums such as this are barely good enough for conduct of reasoned debate at the level the more complex 9/11 problems require. And it is very rare to get up to that level these days.

The last example of a serious topic I think was "Tony's New Paper" which IMO warranted the Grade 7 treatment - but Tony and responding members made sure it stayed at Grade 5 "Whack-A-Mole".

It was great fun BUT the real questions were left un addressed. Too hard.

I agree, that's why I advocate to move these "complex questions" out of CT into science. No one really seems interested past the CT aspect.

 

[ozeco41]

I agree, that's why I advocate to move these "complex questions" out of CT into science. No one really seems interested past the CT aspect.

Not a bad argument BUT...

Few "truther side" would follow and if they did it would bring "woo" into the science areas - defeating the original goal of quarantining woo.

And, complex though the issues are, there would be little contention from the no 9/11 interest science folk. So few of them would test out people like us to help sharpen our understanding. And I doubt that many of those true science folk would be interested in Grade 7 9/11 stuff - they have a lot of genuine science across grades 5-6-7-8.

(All those numbers arbitrary naturally - used for illustrative purposes only.)

 

[jaydeehess]

Electrical Engineer, huh? Unfortunately for him, 9/11 was not an electrical problem...

Having subject matter expertise in one field does not given one a free pass to pretend expertise in another field.

Don't I know it. My first attempt at plumbing got my house wet, though luckily I was working on water supply rather than waste drainage.

 

[Matthew Cline]

You know my position. Nearly all we are seeing are trolls and I choose to not feed trolls. We have been calling trolls "truthers" for a couple of years and lost the distinction.

I am only convinced of two genuine truthers contributing here recently. T Sz and d.w.

yankee451 has his own website, with multiple CT articles he's written. Seems rather far to go for a simple troll.

 

[ozeco41]

yankee451 has his own website, with multiple CT articles he's written. Seems rather far to go for a simple troll.

Sure but he is not serious here - merely playing games. And the psychology of CT based delusion is not always simple.

I never said "simple" troll BTW

But still he's transparently not serious here unless you count grade school level "argument" as serious. The mocking trivialities are obvious.

I've never read his CT arguments but unless he is grades better than he displays here he is not even up to R Gage AE911 standard.

If you want to you could name one article and provide the link and I'll look it over. I would be amazed if there is any substance in it.

BTW If you do could you put in on one of "his" threads so we don't go way off topic here.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

I was impressed by the level of detail and information that was presented in the DVD.

You're not very smart then are you Richard?

 

[Orphia Nay]

And I question too, why the tower started collapsing from the top down, why not at the point of impact? That didn't make sense to me at all.

He concludes with that? Really?

That's exactly where the collapses did begin.

He must be blind as well as stupid.

 

[ozeco41]

He concludes with that? Really?

That's exactly where the collapses did begin.

He must be blind as well as stupid.

Almost certainly an engineer in name only - remember the root of the word means "ingenious"

There are quite a lot of them - what I call "technician engineers" - can follow rote learned technical procedures copied from a manual. Stuck in the "Nine Dots" if you want another metaphor.

They usually become lost instantaneously when confronted with anything out of the routine and which requires them to go back to basic principles.

In most firms there is enough routine work to keep them usefully employed - often have good social skills and the team carries them without it being too obvious BUT...

...analysis of WTC collapses is IMO at least two orders of complexity more demanding than application of standard methods.

And most of the intelligent non-engineers posting here can do it better than engineers with these sorts of limitations.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Mental illness is a terrible thing especially when the afflicted are unaware of their condition

Well, he's very old. Could be senility, or just general loss of mental facilities due to age.

"Richard Humenn (RH): I worked for Joseph R. Loring & Associates from 1957 to 1996 – some 40 years."
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...lusive-interview-with-richard-humenn-pee.html

Let's say he was 20 when he started working there. That means he was born in 1937 or thereabouts. He's got to be approaching 80 at least.

 

[ozeco41]

...He's got to be approaching 80 at least.

Be careful there





Age could be a factor but my previous post comments go to basic thinking styles. The style doesn't change - may get slower - until seriously affected by dementia.

Now what was I going to say next.....

 

[Orphia Nay]

Be careful there





Age could be a factor but my previous post comments go to basic thinking styles. The style doesn't change - may get slower - until seriously affected by dementia.

Now what was I going to say next..... [qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/scratch.gif[/qimg]

You don't show any signs of age other than wisdom.

Humenn, on the other hand can't even see the collapses beginning at the points of impact.

 

[ozeco41]

You don't show any signs of age other than wisdom.

Flattery will get....

Humenn, on the other hand can't even see the collapses beginning at the points of impact.

That possible the extreme example but look at all the points of observation or engineering comment. For NONE of them does he show the slightest sign of having seen consequences or anything flowing from the observation. Astonishing.

Wait...are we being too naive..

Silly me - Is he simply parroting a written script?

Zero intellectual input into the content Dickie wanted??

 

[Orphia Nay]

On September 11th I was watching live TV from my kitchen and saw the whole thing. I saw the repetition of the actual incidents and thereafter I was in a state of shock because it was unbelievable to me, knowing the strength of the structures, that a single incident of a plane impacting and fuel burning would be the reason for the towers to collapse. I just did not believe it. It was like a dream. A nightmare.

After watching the DVD from the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth I was compelled to look into the matter in much more detail in my mind and in my memory

He watched the AE911T DVD in 2009.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...lusive-interview-with-richard-humenn-pee.html
(same link I posted earlier)

"He began publicly questioning the official 9/11 story in 2009 after watching 9/11: Blueprint for Truth"

It didn't occur to him that 9/11 was an "inside job" until 2009.

He just swallowed Dick Gage's load of BS whole.

 

[Georgio]

Ignore it till Georgio makes a claim - if he ever does.

I don't have any claims to make! I posted the transcript because I was interested in what people here thought of what Humenn was saying.

He's also wrong about the lights in the lobby...zoning/isolation.

Could you elaborate on how that affects Humenn's claim? I'm afraid I don't know what zoning or isolation means.

Regarding the core columns seen standing after the collapse - is it known why these core columns didn't stay standing there?

 

[SpitfireIX]

With this video, I just want to remind everyone that you're watching the death of over a thousand people. This fact is what motivates me to fight the callous ignorance on display from AE911 and others. I think that sometimes gets lost in the technical discussions.

+1

Anger about conspiracists' [Rule10]ing on the graves of the victims/heroes of Pearl Harbor, Apollo, September 11, and any number of assassinations is what led me to begin studying conspiracy theories in depth, and what keeps me doing my best to expose them for the lies and fantasies that they are.

 

[GlennB]

Regarding the core columns seen standing after the collapse - is it known why these core columns didn't stay standing there?

They'd been stripped of horizontal support and were being impacted towards the base by a huge and growing pile of debris.

 

[fitzgibbon]

I lost a good friend that day.

One point that's worth making. The fight now is only to keep them from duping the gullible. No one else is ever going to fall for this.

It already failed in that respect.

The gullible will 'err be with us. It might be an idea to start collating the various 'truther' assertions into numerical categories that could be easily referred to for the benefit of the newb 'truther'. Easy reference as to why their 'newly-found' pet theory isn't newly found and why it holds water like a sieve.

Just a thought

Fitz