Transcript of Richard Humenn's AE911Truth Interview

[ozeco41]

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!!

It is astonishing how many of these making truther claims seem to not comprehend that they are attacking the foundations of constitutional democracy.

And that aside from the utter stupidity of wanting an investigation with no legitimate basis for criticism of the significant findings of the already comprehensive investigations.

"I don't understand it and don't want to believe it" from a minority fringe group is no basis for re-investigation by anyone.

 

[beachnut]

When addressing specific points please include a full explanation or a link. Thanks everyone.

/watch?v=wMKReas0WNc

... The plane, the fuel and the fire that emanated was not sufficient to bring those towers down alone.

Why support liars by posting their lies? 911 truth is a movement based on lies, born in ignorance. Where are your comments? Why are you failing to make a stand? Are all 911 truth followers like you, spreading lies, SPAMMING the internet with woo? Making no comment? Falling for lies so silly it makes no sense.

Why can't a skeptic like you comment on the tripe you post? This is a skeptics forum, and you spam it with lies about 911. Why? Where is your comment.

 

[Georgio]

This is a skeptics forum, and you spam it with lies about 911. Why? Where is your comment.

I honestly don't understand why you would want me to make any claims or comments before I have properly absorbed all the information on the subject in hand. I posted the Humenn and Dusterwald interview transcripts because there are qualified skeptics on this forum who can provide meaningful refutations for the statements that the qualified people in the videos make - and I want to hear both sides of the argument before I make up my mind as to whether there's really a case for controlled demolition or not. And I'll be posting transcripts of other interview videos for the same reason unless a moderator asks me not to.

...and if Humenn wants to make some case saying otherwise it is his - or AE911 - burden of proof

I agree. I'm going to contact AE911Truth soon to try and get clarification from Humenn on this, unless someone knows of an interview in which he's done it already?

 

[The Big Dog]

He talks about the transformers mainly in this paragraph:

WTF?

"Yes, there was a simulated test done of the accident that happened to the Empire State Building where a 707 hit the Empire State Building and did severe damage at that point."

A 707 hit the Empire state Building? This guy is a complete idiot.

 

[beachnut]

I honestly don't understand why you would want me to make any claims or comments...?

Why would you post a comment, SPAM is cool. Copy and paste lies from 911 truth and post at a skeptic forum. Spread lies without thinking about it. You can't make up your mind on 911 after 12 years, gather lies and post them. Sounds great;, super.

911 truth CD fantasy would be Pulitzer material if true. Guess what? They are Conspiracy Nuts, and Gage is fraud, making 500k/yr selling lies. There is no Pulitzer.

A proxy for 911 truth. 12 years stuck in woo, stuck posting woo.

Which CD fantasy has you fooled. The silent explosives, or the thermite paint, mixed now with plastique. What will it be next year? A nuke, oops already done. Can't be 19 terrorists in aircraft, make up lies. Sounds great. 12 years

... hear both sides of the argument before I make up my mind as to whether there's really a case for controlled demolition or not...?

Did you listen to both sides on Bigfoot? Is there a Bigfoot?

CD is a fantasy, there are not two sides to fantasy, it is one sided woo.

... And I'll be posting transcripts of other interview videos for the same reason unless a moderator asks me not to. ...

More lies. Sounds anti-intellectual, go for it. You are allowed to post lies without comment, unable to figure out 911; what else can we do when fooled by fraud?

... I'm going to contact AE911Truth soon to try and get clarification from Humenn on this, ...?

Wow, AE911LIES? They don't do answers, they do woo. Fraud = AE911.

 

[DGM]

All the AE911Truth interview videos seem to have been heavily edited. It's annoying - I would prefer to see the full interviews.

It's clear why they edit like they do. This guy is rambling and they don't want people to think he's not a focused professional.

And, as we know, remains adamant about the lobby-lights issue.

He believes what he does. I'm fairly good at reading an engineering diagram (I sort of have to be) and I have no idea where he bases his opinion from (I do but, it wouldn't be nice to say)

For the record: No B-707 hit the Empire State building (It was a B-25) and no one "ran any simulations" for the "Twins"(the technology didn't exist at the time).

 

[ozeco41]

I honestly don't understand why you would want me to make any claims or comments before I have properly absorbed all the information on the subject in hand....

I comprehend that you do not have the level of expertise needed to form your own conclusions based on available evidence. Unfortunately "asking questions" on this and similar forums you will meet the challenge to make a claim.

The base reason is quite fundamental There is a wealth of professional opinion to support the main features of the "Official Version" which says "No CD". No one from the truth movement has EVER put forward an hypothesis to falsify the default hypothesis "No CD". Read that again until you comprehend (x) What it means; and That it is true.

It is well established fact that organisations such as AE911Truth are anything but truthful. That they deliberately utter untruths. The interview with Humenn is typical. It is false engineering, false claims and false conclusions.

Your problem is should you believe me and others like me OR do you believe the agenda pushers. And you have no basis on which to choose.

The base problem is exposed by your next comments:

I posted the Humenn and Dusterwald interview transcripts because there are qualified skeptics on this forum who can provide meaningful refutations for the statements that the qualified people in the videos make...

Yes there are qualified people here. To us qualified people it is obvious that the people making the video are either unqualified or lying. That doesn't help you.....much.

You have already been fed a lot of specific information rebutting the details of Humenn's transcript PLUS my comments that it is all a bucket of garbage or similar.

Here is your next problem:

and I want to hear both sides of the argument before I make up my mind as to whether there's really a case for controlled demolition or not....

There are not "two sides to the argument". There is only one side, one coherent hypothesis - stated multiple ways BUT saying "No CD". There is no "argument" from the truther camp, there is nothing but unsupported nonsense claims from the pro CD "side". Now if you cannot see that simple point you still have a big problem. How do you address it? Sooner or later you will have to accept that people like me are (a) Honest; and (b) Know what we are talking about. AND people like me are telling you that AE911 and its representatives are not honest, don't know what they are talking about and are deliberately trying to mislead you.

There is no way that I or most others are going to pore over the videos, guess as to what bits concern you then rebut them all. The rebuttal has been done many times. Why should we re-research and re-write it all custom build to save you doing your own research.

However there may be a "middle ground" compromise which could help you.

If you post a video and pick one specific item that concerns you..explicitly state your question about that specific issue..some of us will probably offer help. Many will still treat you with disdain because you are still behaving like a typical truther. Try to break the habit. Just one or two points where Humenn or AE911 are shown to be wrong would be a big step froward for you. Proof that they are lying should be even more persuasive.

And I'll be posting transcripts of other interview videos for the same reason unless a moderator asks me not to.

Then try asking precise questions and you may get answers.

I agree. I'm going to contact AE911Truth soon to try and get clarification from Humenn on this, unless someone knows of an interview in which he's done it already?

Practice being specific - what is "this"? What is "it"?

 

[Georgio]

I comprehend that you do not have the level of expertise needed to form your own conclusions based on available evidence. Unfortunately "asking questions" on this and similar forums you will meet the challenge to make a claim.

I am using this forum to try to gain the level of expertise needed to render any claims I make meaningful. Isn't it an educational forum?

You have already been fed a lot of specific information rebutting the details of Humenn's transcript

And I thank you for them as they were helpful and enabled me to focus my research.

There is no way that I or most others are going to pore over the videos, guess as to what bits concern you then rebut them all. The rebuttal has been done many times. Why should we re-research and re-write it all custom build to save you doing your own research.

...kindness?

If you post a video and pick one specific item that concerns you..explicitly state your question about that specific issue..some of us will probably offer help.

I prefer posting transcripts of videos so they are easily quotable in responses. Also, I find it a much more efficient way of absorbing all the information by re-reading a transcript than by re-watching a video.

Many will still treat you with disdain because you are still behaving like a typical truther.

Oh, not a problem!

Practice being specific - what is "this"? What is "it"?

The statement that the plane penetrating the core columns would lead to global power failure. I will email AE911Truth and ask if Humenn has specified the exact mechanism by which he thinks the lights in the lobby should have gone off if the plane hit the core columns.

 

[ozeco41]

The statement that the plane penetrating the core columns would lead to global power failure. I will email AE911Truth and ask if Humenn has specified the exact mechanism by which he thinks the lights in the lobby should have gone off if the plane hit the core columns.

Mmmm...

Best of luck with that one.

Why are you disregarding all the advice you have already been given?

Why are you presuming that all of us here are wrong and that you will get honest answers from AE911?

Do you expect an answer?

Keep us informed of progress. If there is any it will be slow.

 

[beachnut]

I am ...
The statement that the plane penetrating the core columns would lead to global power failure. I will email AE911Truth and ask if Humenn has specified the exact mechanism by which he thinks the lights in the lobby should have gone off if the plane hit the core columns.

When we know CD is a fantasy, your questions become a snipe hunt.

Why is a power failure important? What statement? You are chasing a Gish Gallop of nuts making statements Gage uses to get donations, and fool gullible people.

Are you in doubt the planes hit? What happens with 77 and 93?

What will Gage say? Who cares, he is a fraud, fooling only a few nuts who send him money so he can continue asking for a new investigation forever, and ever. He is a cult leader, and his followers are unable to think for themselves.

All of Gage's junk has you fooled.

 

[Georgio]

Why are you disregarding all the advice you have already been given?

I apologize for the slightly belligerent tone of my last response. I will be taking your advice to be more specific about problems I have with people's statements.

I sent the email to AE911Truth on the 8th of February. I got a response saying that Humenn would be contacted about the lobby-lights question.

Why is a power failure important?

Not sure. Is the plane penetrating all the way to the core columns needed for NIST's and others' collapse scenarios to work? That's what I think he's getting at - something like if the plane didn't get to the columns then the structure couldn't have weakened as much as it is supposed to have done by fire.

It seems important to me because Humenn was involved in the design and construction of the buildings. I instinctively want to listen to him, not believe him without question, just listen to him carefully, because of this. And I have no reason to question his honesty or integrity.

 

[jaydeehess]

WTF?

"Yes, there was a simulated test done of the accident that happened to the Empire State Building where a 707 hit the Empire State Building and did severe damage at that point."

A 707 hit the Empire state Building? This guy is a complete idiot.

Of course it was a B-25 which , when fully loaded , weighed in at about the same as just the fuel on board a 767. It was also travelling, iirc, at 125 mph compared to the 500 mph that the planes hitting the WTC towers

 

[jaydeehess]

I apologize for the slightly belligerent tone of my last response. I will be taking your advice to be more specific about problems I have with people's statements.

I sent the email to AE911Truth on the 8th of February. I got a response saying that Humenn would be contacted about the lobby-lights question.


Not sure. Is the plane penetrating all the way to the core columns needed for NIST's and others' collapse scenarios to work? That's what I think he's getting at - something like if the plane didn't get to the columns then the structure couldn't have weakened as much as it is supposed to have done by fire.

It seems important to me because Humenn was involved in the design and construction of the buildings. I instinctively want to listen to him, not believe him without question, just listen to him carefully, because of this. And I have no reason to question his honesty or integrity.

I'm not sure that NIST or anyone else stated that compromise of the core columns was required for collapse. It was a combination of impact and heat damage that initiated the collapse which in turn led to progressive, and total, collapse. How much, or how little, impact damage was required before collapse initiation would occur was not studied afaik.

This guy demonstrates often, how little he actually knows about the collapses or what research was done. Apparently he is operating on personal incredulity rather than employing his engineering education.

 

[ozeco41]

Not sure. Is the plane penetrating all the way to the core columns needed for NIST's and others' collapse scenarios to work? That's what I think he's getting at - something like if the plane didn't get to the columns then the structure couldn't have weakened as much as it is supposed to have done by fire.

He's already got you trapped by his backwards logic.

Reality is that both towers collapsed. And no-one has proved CD. So no matter what anomalous operation of lights he claims he is either wrong OR hasn't understood the anomaly.

What is your objective? Is it decide whether or not there was CD? If it isn't that what is it?

It seems important to me because Humenn was involved in the design and construction of the buildings. I instinctively want to listen to him, not believe him without question, just listen to him carefully, because of this. And I have no reason to question his honesty or integrity.

That is not true. You come here for advice and we have already told you that he is not being truthful and that AE911 is a dishonest organisation.

What you are saying is that you do not believe us at this stage and want to pursue for yourself whether or not he is truthful. Given your relative lack of knowledge in this arena I explained the problem you face in my earlier post. Unless you personally develop the technical and logic skills so you can judge for yourself you will sooner or later have to rely on some other person's judgement.

And remember my advice to be specific? Both these items - clarity of your objective and clarity of why you still give Humenn the benefit of doubt are examples of the need to be clear with your thinking.

 

[jaydeehess]

I don't know about his honesty or integrity but I do see that the veracity of his claims is demonstrably incorrect as shown above in several posts that point out the errors in his understanding of events.
For instance his latest faux pas:

there was a simulated test done of the accident that happened to the Empire State Building where a 707 hit the Empire State Building and did severe damage at that point.

That is extremely incorrect as the accident at the ESB predates the creation of the 707 in the first place.

 

[tsig]

WTF?

"Yes, there was a simulated test done of the accident that happened to the Empire State Building where a 707 hit the Empire State Building and did severe damage at that point."

A 707 hit the Empire state Building? This guy is a complete idiot.

I missed that episode of the Twilight Zone.

 

[beachnut]

...
I sent the email to AE911Truth on the 8th of February. I got a response saying that Humenn would be contacted about the lobby-lights question.

Big waste of time, it means nothing. Physics can be used to see Flt 11 and Flt 175 did damage the core, it is engineering, don't need hearsay opinions from someone who knows less than zero about the WTC structure; and that is what Humenn has, zero knowledge, less than zero because he makes up lies about the structure. Did you read NIST before falling for lies from AE911 fraud pushers?

 

[ozeco41]

I don't know about his honesty or integrity but I do see that the veracity of his claims is demonstrably incorrect ...

Well picked.

I was focussed on the truther arse about logic trap - Georgio like a lot of debunkers prepared to play within the limits of the truthers false logic.

 

[Georgio]

Did you read NIST...

I haven't read the NIST reports yet, no. I'm currently reading the WTC7 report.

Physics can be used to see Flt 11 and Flt 175 did damage the core

But if the core columns being weakened by a plane or an engine hitting them, to the extent that wiring within them was disturbed, is a necessary criterion for anyone's model of the initiation of the tower's collapse (I don't know whether it is or not), and there is a way to tell that this happened or didn't happen by observing some other effect, namely the lobby-lights being on or off, then it is an important piece of the puzzle that needs to be clarified. And surely the man who designed and built the lighting system is a sensible person to ask about it?

 

[DGM]

I haven't read the NIST reports yet, no. I'm currently reading the WTC7 report.

Unless you can really understand them there is no point. They were not written for the layman.

But if the core columns being weakened by a plane or an engine hitting them, to the extent that wiring within them was disturbed, is a necessary criterion for anyone's model of the initiation of the tower's collapse (I don't know whether it is or not), and there is a way to tell that this happened or didn't happen by observing some other effect, namely the lobby-lights being on or off, then it is an important piece of the puzzle that needs to be clarified. And surely the man who designed and built the lighting system is a sensible person to ask about it?

It's backward logic. How would he be able to gauge damage to the core through the wiring? The feeds are flexible and insulated. The column could bend making it useless and the feed would be fine.

His logic is ass-backward and designed to support his belief (although I doubt it's intentional).