Transcript of Richard Humenn's AE911Truth Interview
- Thread starter Georgio
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ae911truth richard humenn
He was thinking about the 15kV maximum voltage rating on the breakers; maybe he only did the breakers. You use to do the same kind of stuff for Gage, propaganda. Do you think Richard will recover?
Is Georgio a Gage cult member sent out to spread lies about 911? Did they encourage you to go out and spread the junk they have? Is this advertising for Gage? Did you guys do that in A&E? Like Georgio posts videos and runs away, advertising for Gage, or what? Did you do this all over the internet when you were with Gage?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I keep thinking about his statements about the transformers not being found. I watched the video to see if I could get a clue as to what he was getting at. This statement starts around 9:20.
AE did a lot of editing around these statements. Id like to know what he said before the cut at 9:58. He goes from sitting back to sitting up.
AE did a lot of editing around these statements. Id like to know what he said before the cut at 9:58. He goes from sitting back to sitting up.
hehehehe.. I used to drive a VW too and now I drive an Audi...
I don't think Gage will change because lying and deception of the type he engages in is not criminal and there's no way to stop him or shut him up especially as long as his livelihood depends of prevarication.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Similar derail-- Mine was a feisty squirrel. Had been seen using the telephone wires as a highway for months. One day however he decided to transition from phone to residential electrical feeder on the same pole. (lines were too close to begin with) and he managed to complete a cct between the two. Phone in the house went "ding" then both electrical and phones went dead, though not as dead and literally smoking as the squirrel. The former two were repaired, the squirrel not so much
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
A squirrel taught me, with the assistance of a transformer in front of my parent's house, that not every explosion is due to explosives...
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
A pole transformer taught me that with no obvious proximate cause for it to go bang!
Just did so then burned for a bit under an hour.
ozeco41
Philosopher
My "calibrated rat" had been there for some time - across the over-current trip circuit for an 800amp supply which normally never went above 50 amps or so. Until the "big crowd event" when, with Rattie's assistance, the circuit tripped at ~160amps (off an 800>>5 amp current transformer as I said - so Rattie was only taking 3 or so out of the 5 amps needed on the trip circuit.)
It was at the main water supply dam for Sydney - me the resident engineer. I shut down all the lower level dam foundation and gallery drainage - letting it flood for the few hours of the event.
Forgot that the low level 3.3Kv supply was the secondary exciter/activation supply for the hydro power station. Said station was standby primary fast response (<<25 seconds believe it or not) back up for the Sydney - state capital - main grid supply. Without back-up excitation available the big red lights went on in the main control centre. Took me a few beers to live it down.
I've lost my photos of Rattus Mortus et Mouldy.
It was at the main water supply dam for Sydney - me the resident engineer. I shut down all the lower level dam foundation and gallery drainage - letting it flood for the few hours of the event.
Forgot that the low level 3.3Kv supply was the secondary exciter/activation supply for the hydro power station. Said station was standby primary fast response (<<25 seconds believe it or not) back up for the Sydney - state capital - main grid supply. Without back-up excitation available the big red lights went on in the main control centre. Took me a few beers to live it down.
I've lost my photos of Rattus Mortus et Mouldy.
Last edited:
Having just read another interview with Richard Humenn - I notice that what I transcribed as 'dry-tight' in the opening post should have been 'dry-type'. Showing my ignorance, there...
He's quite adamant about the lights in this interview:
What interested me about that was when he says, '...the power was distributed on two of the interior columns'. This would seem to suggest that cutting these columns at any point would result in a total loss of power. Is this wrong? How does this fit in with the zoning and isolation mentioned earlier?
He seems to be suggesting that various sections are isolated and will retain power when one section loses it, but ONLY if the main power cables (in the interior columns) remain operational - like if you cut a branch off a tree it won't 'kill' any other branches, but disrupting the tree-trunk at the base will 'kill' all the branches (except this is a tree where if you cut the trunk at any point then the tree will die), is that how it works? Something like this would appear to be what Humenn is suggesting.
Could someone explain, with reference to the diagrams, why the cutting of the columns, and therefore the power distribution Humenn is referring to, at the point where the plane entered would have no effect on the lobby lights?
I can't post URLs but the interview is easy to find - it's from a site called The Progressive Mind.
He's quite adamant about the lights in this interview:
What interested me about that was when he says, '...the power was distributed on two of the interior columns'. This would seem to suggest that cutting these columns at any point would result in a total loss of power. Is this wrong? How does this fit in with the zoning and isolation mentioned earlier?
He seems to be suggesting that various sections are isolated and will retain power when one section loses it, but ONLY if the main power cables (in the interior columns) remain operational - like if you cut a branch off a tree it won't 'kill' any other branches, but disrupting the tree-trunk at the base will 'kill' all the branches (except this is a tree where if you cut the trunk at any point then the tree will die), is that how it works? Something like this would appear to be what Humenn is suggesting.
Could someone explain, with reference to the diagrams, why the cutting of the columns, and therefore the power distribution Humenn is referring to, at the point where the plane entered would have no effect on the lobby lights?
I can't post URLs but the interview is easy to find - it's from a site called The Progressive Mind.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Yes, They are feeders to one section and one section only.
His statement does not fit with the drawings and layouts I posted earlier.
There is no such thing as "main cables" where he's talking about. If the plane hit the sub-basement...................
You only have to follow the lines from the basement to see the upper parts of the towers are not connected to the lower. If I get a chance, I'll crop the drawing to make it clearer.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
DGM beat me to the post - and I knew he would post and be more specific - so here is my comment anyway.
There are two weaknesses in his statement AND the "tree" analogy is useful.
Weakness #1
If the main vertical power feeds had been cut at near ground level then certainly everything ABOVE that level would lose power. How far DOWN from there would depend on details we don't have. There would almost certainly be vertical zoning which would prevent high level damage disrupting lower down the tower. How far is a matter of detail design. I recall some links to diagrams but I won't venture to interpret the details.
Weakness #2
He says power came up two columns. Nothing to say that those two columns were cut.
Summary - ignore him. If you are discussing with some third party who relies on Humenn's evidence as proof - don't fall for the trick - force the third party to defend their real claim. Arguing about conflicting witness evidence is a routine truther trick when they cannot support their primary claim.
He is almost certainly wrong. Sorry about the "almost" BUT I need to be rigorous and it is his burden to prove he is right not my or "our" burden to prove he is wrong.
There are two weaknesses in his statement AND the "tree" analogy is useful.
Weakness #1
If the main vertical power feeds had been cut at near ground level then certainly everything ABOVE that level would lose power. How far DOWN from there would depend on details we don't have. There would almost certainly be vertical zoning which would prevent high level damage disrupting lower down the tower. How far is a matter of detail design. I recall some links to diagrams but I won't venture to interpret the details.
Weakness #2
He says power came up two columns. Nothing to say that those two columns were cut.
Summary - ignore him. If you are discussing with some third party who relies on Humenn's evidence as proof - don't fall for the trick - force the third party to defend their real claim. Arguing about conflicting witness evidence is a routine truther trick when they cannot support their primary claim.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Does the other interview shed any light on the significance of the transformers? The first interview had a lot of edits, almost like they didn't want you to hear everything he was saying.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
A "tree" would not be a good visual here, I would suggest a vine to be more appropriate. The main vine stays low and feeders branch out from there.
You could use a "tree" if you want to envision it lying on it's side (with it's branches growing up).
Last edited:
I havent read the entire thread, it is so detaily. But based on a couple comments i read i feel i can say this much, whether it helps anything or not:
.
If electric disribution is CLEANLY CUT above its source of origin, all power above the cut goes out...but power below the cut remains.
.
However if the cut causes at least two of the power lines within a cable to contact each other, that are not on the same `leg`, due to the cut, a dead short will occur, resulting in total loss of power both above and below the cut...all the way down to the breaker that the power cable originates from. Anything on that breaker will lose power.
.
If this was a `Duh...no kidding Shakespeare` comment...sorry.
.
If electric disribution is CLEANLY CUT above its source of origin, all power above the cut goes out...but power below the cut remains.
.
However if the cut causes at least two of the power lines within a cable to contact each other, that are not on the same `leg`, due to the cut, a dead short will occur, resulting in total loss of power both above and below the cut...all the way down to the breaker that the power cable originates from. Anything on that breaker will lose power.
.
If this was a `Duh...no kidding Shakespeare` comment...sorry.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
More of less.
Has nothing to do with what he's talking about though.
He's saying the columns could not have been cut by the plane due to the fact he saw the lights still on in the lobby.
It's certainly possible, dare I say probable that they had two sets of risers on opposite sites of the core because each of the sub stations on the 4 mech floors had one sub station on each side of the core... IIRC... and so it makes sense that the risers were adjacent to 2 core columns. That's where they put em.
I didn't study the circuit diagram but there likely was a main distribution power "room" with step down transformers in the sub basement. The feeds came from 7wtc.
Shorting out a riser up top could blow the switch and the step down transformers in the sub basement and since there was an explosion witnessed at the same moment of impact of the plane it would seem to indicate that the place severed the a riser.... The sub stations on the mech floors were 2 story structures opposite the center of the core and each of the long span sides. The plane high close to CL in 1 wtc which is consistent with a riser to 108 north being severed. Very high voltage circuit protect is not very fast to respond to voltage spikes or shorts I am led to believe.
No reason that most of the power would not remain on below the strike... unless the explosion in the basement or the elevator shaft above the lobby caused problems in the other substation down there. I would guess the secondary sub basement electrical explosion took out some more circuit branches.
I didn't study the circuit diagram but there likely was a main distribution power "room" with step down transformers in the sub basement. The feeds came from 7wtc.
Shorting out a riser up top could blow the switch and the step down transformers in the sub basement and since there was an explosion witnessed at the same moment of impact of the plane it would seem to indicate that the place severed the a riser.... The sub stations on the mech floors were 2 story structures opposite the center of the core and each of the long span sides. The plane high close to CL in 1 wtc which is consistent with a riser to 108 north being severed. Very high voltage circuit protect is not very fast to respond to voltage spikes or shorts I am led to believe.
No reason that most of the power would not remain on below the strike... unless the explosion in the basement or the elevator shaft above the lobby caused problems in the other substation down there. I would guess the secondary sub basement electrical explosion took out some more circuit branches.
Does the other interview shed any light on the significance of the transformers? The first interview had a lot of edits, almost like they didn't want you to hear everything he was saying.
All the AE911Truth interview videos seem to have been heavily edited. It's annoying - I would prefer to see the full interviews.
Here's the url for the other interview - http://www.theprogressivemind.info/?p=90310
He talks about the transformers mainly in this paragraph:
And, as we know, remains adamant about the lobby-lights issue.
ozeco41
Philosopher
He is wrong but there is no need or obligation on us to follow truther arse about logic.
The facts seem to be:
A) After the plane struck the lights were still on in the lobby;
THEREFORE
B) Independent of any details about power supply layout - colour of wires - manufacturer of transformers - voltage of the primary feeds - name of the third uncle of the electrician who installed it --- etc etc...
...the only fact that matters is that the damage done by the plane did not cut the power to the lobby.
...and if Humenn wants to make some case saying otherwise it is his - or AE911 - burden of proof to stop relying on lies by innuendo and make a case.
Last edited:
Trojan
Muse
Yes, let's do it, let's surrender our sovereignty to an international consortium and empower them to conduct criminal investigations -- bring on the New World Order!!
