Richard Gage on CSPAN

MileHighMadness said:
I have a BS/MS in Civil Engineering from Purdue University. I'm a licensed PE/SE in numinous states. I have designed some multi-story steel buildings, but bridge design is my first love.
Click to expand...

Multistory. Does that include highrises? By your own criteria, bridge design doesn't really cut it.
 
ergo said:
Multistory. Does that include highrises? By your own criteria, bridge design doesn't really cut it.
Click to expand...

Don't shift the burden of proof. You say you count 14 licensed structural or civil engineers on the first page. That's equivalent to somewhat less than a single engineering firm among the hundreds in the United States. The point has been made that few appropriately qualified engineers have signed the petition. It has been supported by reference to the list of signatories.

You note further there are "lots of other credentials relevant to an understanding of structural design and behaviour." That amounts to a judgment call on your part whether that "relevant" understanding is a suitable qualification. What is the foundation of your own expertise that allows you to judge that?
 
ergo said:
Multistory. Does that include highrises? By your own criteria, bridge design doesn't really cut it.
Click to expand...

LOL...when you have taken (and passed) the 16-hour structural engineering exam, then and only then can you critique my knowledge of structural systems. BTW...I now work as a volunteer for NCEES, writing test questions for the SE national exam.
 
ergo said:
Take your own advice then, bud.
Click to expand...

To be clear...I have taken and passed the 16-hour national NCEES structural engineering exam. It is considered one of the toughest professional exams in the country. The passing rate runs from 20% to 40% on a given year. I did well enough on the exam, that the NCEES ask me to write and review test problems for their future exams. :cool:
 
ergo said:
Take your own advice then, bud.
Click to expand...

If he has a PE/SE license, then he has passed the exam. If you knew anything about the field, you'd have been able to infer that.

Again, what are your qualifications that would enable you to pass judgment on others' specific professional knowledge in this field?
 
This is the first I've heard Gage and I'm not "into" 911 conspiracy stuff. But what struck me was he references thermite as "cutting through steel like a hot knife through butter" a couple times - and - references the "hotels in Las Vegas we've all seen" as an example of controlled demolition.

My difficulty is in pairing these two statements. As far as I know, thermite takes time - there's a heat transfer which doesn't happen immediately. On the surface, this would seem to me to create conditions different from that of hotels being demolished by explosives in Las Vegas.

Has this been addressed by Gage or others? I mean the difference between a cutting charge of explosives and thermite - it sure seems you'd get a different effect as the steel heats and softens, rather than the physical "kick" you get with explosives.

Have they done any experiments with thermite and a steel column showing their mechanism could work?
 
MileHighMadness said:
To be clear...I have taken and passed the 16-hour national NCEES structural engineering exam. It is considered one of the toughest professional exams in the country. The passing rate runs from 20% to 40% on a given year. I did well enough on the exam, that the NCEES ask me to write and review test problems for their future exams. :cool:
Click to expand...

I think you already stated that. :) But good for you.

What I'm suggesting here is that by your own criteria -- your lack of experience on highrises -- you have disqualified yourself from having a relevant opinion on the subject. If you protest this, then you have to concede that others with your training and education may also have enough knowledge to have an informed opinion. Moreover they offer their real names, locations and credentials. You're just an anonymous internet poster whose word we have to take.

Would love to see some contributions from you to the technical discussions here. Funny that you've so far had nothing to offer on those subjects.
 
ergo said:
What I'm suggesting here is that by your own criteria -- your lack of experience on highrises...
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. Unless you're prepared to establish otherwise, you're not competent or qualified to judge whether he has appropriate knowledge of the relevant structural systems. Since it's the third time I've raised this point and the third time you've ignored it, it's safe to say you aren't able to provide a suitable foundation for your judgment. Hence I reject it.

Here's the problem. You say Gage's list of signatories is suitably populated by qualified and experienced individuals. But on the other hand, other people are saying there aren't enough qualified signatories to matter. Whom should I believe? The other people in this case are themselves suitably qualified. You are not. Hence it seems more intellectually defensible to believe the appropriately qualified people on the matter of who else might be qualified to offer reasoned judgment.

I don't think you've quite realized that you can't just beg the question of your own ability to judge appropriately here.
 
ergo said:
Would love to see some contributions from you to the technical discussions here. Funny that you've so far had nothing to offer on those subjects.
Click to expand...

Odd of you to say. I clicked on "Find other posts by..." for him and there were a number of contributions to technical subjects -- 14 on the first page!
 
MileHighMadness said:
ergo...if you carefully go thru the petition, you will see there are not a lot of Civil (Structural) Engineers who have signed it...that's the key number.
Click to expand...
[...]
ergo said:
What I'm suggesting here is that by your own criteria -- your lack of experience on highrises -- you have disqualified yourself from having a relevant opinion on the subject.
Click to expand...
Where did he specify that criteria, ergo? Can you please show us?
 
ergo said:
I think you already stated that. :) But good for you.

What I'm suggesting here is that by your own criteria -- your lack of experience on highrises -- you have disqualified yourself from having a relevant opinion on the subject. If you protest this, then you have to concede that others with your training and education may also have enough knowledge to have an informed opinion. Moreover they offer their real names, locations and credentials. You're just an anonymous internet poster whose word we have to take.

Would love to see some contributions from you to the technical discussions here. Funny that you've so far had nothing to offer on those subjects.
Click to expand...

Tony Sz. knows who I am...so does Chris Mohr. I have exchanged emails with Tony Sz. and did a detailed technical review of his computer model of building 7 and the girder walkoff at column 79. Needless to say, he didn't like my comments.

Do you want to know who I am? And willing to do a little research...try 1976 NFL draft...Minnesota Vikings...14th round pick...401 pick overall.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
This is the first I've heard Gage and I'm not "into" 911 conspiracy stuff. But what struck me was he references thermite as "cutting through steel like a hot knife through butter" a couple times - and - references the "hotels in Las Vegas we've all seen" as an example of controlled demolition.

My difficulty is in pairing these two statements. As far as I know, thermite takes time - there's a heat transfer which doesn't happen immediately. On the surface, this would seem to me to create conditions different from that of hotels being demolished by explosives in Las Vegas.

Has this been addressed by Gage or others? I mean the difference between a cutting charge of explosives and thermite - it sure seems you'd get a different effect as the steel heats and softens, rather than the physical "kick" you get with explosives.

Have they done any experiments with thermite and a steel column showing their mechanism could work?
Click to expand...

You are correct…you need special shape charges to cut thru steel members for Controlled Demolition. Thermite works too slowly and you need tons of it to cut thru the large support columns used in the three WTC buildings.

Jonathan Cole did some experiments with thermite (which can be seen on YouTube), but was only able to cut a small notch in a light weight rolled steel beam, and melt some bolts on a horizontal surface.

I have challenged AETruth over the years to build a full size mockup of column 79 in building 7. And then use thermite to cut thru it like butter (like Gage says), and post the results on YouTube.
 
MileHighMadness said:
You are correct…you need special shape charges to cut thru steel members for Controlled Demolition. Thermite works too slowly and you need tons of it to cut thru the large support columns used in the three WTC buildings.
Click to expand...

My response to the "hot knife through butter" analogy has been to say that thermite is like laying a hot knife on a stick of frozen butter. It may eventually melt its way down to the butter dish, but put on a pot of tea while you're waiting. Shaped charges for demolition are, in contrast, like hitting the stick of butter with a hot axe -- fast, clean, and very effective.
 
JayUtah said:
My response to the "hot knife through butter" analogy has been to say that thermite is like laying a hot knife on a stick of frozen butter. It may eventually melt its way down to the butter dish, but put on a pot of tea while you're waiting. Shaped charges for demolition are, in contrast, like hitting the stick of butter with a hot axe -- fast, clean, and very effective.
Click to expand...

I like that...great analogy

Shape charges also leave a copper coating on the cut edge of the steel member. None of that was found at any of the three WTC sites.
 
JayUtah said:
My response to the "hot knife through butter" analogy has been to say that thermite is like laying a hot knife on a stick of frozen butter. It may eventually melt its way down to the butter dish, but put on a pot of tea while you're waiting.
Click to expand...

Ah, but supernanothermite, on the other hand....
;)

Some of you might find the analysis of Gage's organization from an insider perspective interesting.

"Richard and the Board did not understand how businesses operate, profit or non-profit." (p. 203) "Richard Gage, AIA must absolutely be removed as CEO. More accurately, Richard Gage should not have managerial control of business operations. Richard is inexperienced. He possesses no business acumen. He lacks vision; as he has admitted, on many occasions, he is incapable of seeing the big picture! That alone is a red flag for leadership. . . . . Richard belongs on the stage. He has charisma and charm which, together with his passion for the cause, makes him a great spokesman. He should be nothing more than a figurehead." (page 210)
Click to expand...

Of course, Box Boy isn't letting his cash cow out of his control.
 
ergo said:
Not sure how you arrive at your opinion here, but it's completely wrong, and this has even been discussed on this forum.

How many people did you call? How many times did you call the "unreachable" people"? And where did you get their phone numbers from? :roll eyes:
Click to expand...

I called and emailed a random 15, and stopped because I could not reach people or the people I did reach were not qualified. Six of the people were civil engineers: Two had only undergraduate degrees and had done no technical analysis, simply signed and certainly gave no indication they had researched the issues. Two were unreachable by email and phone (the information was not valid), a fifth email just bounced). I did reach one person who claimed a PhD, but also had done no analysis, just signed. I could not get a single argument from him or idea. He didn't seem to have a clue. My sense is he was anti-goverment.

No need to role your eyes. I have two 911 Truth lists, one being the infamous 1900 list as it was called back then, and if you have a copy, pick a letter of the alphabet, and I'll send you on this forum the first couple of names I have on my list.

Then, we can play a game. You pick another letter of the alphabet, and I'll contact the 1-3-5-7-9-11-13-15th names and report back here what I find per name so you can check.

ergo said:
There are plenty of civil engineers who have signed the petition. You somehow missed all those?
Click to expand...

"Plenty" is not my issue because "plenty" is not what Gage kept claiming on CSPAN. Gage said 2200, not "plenty." There simply is not anywhere near 2200 architects and engineers who have signed the 1900 list. Counting undergraduate degrees and ignoring the fact that an architect is not qualified to determine how a building fell, you have maybe 500 names. As for civil engineers, you have maybe 15, of which only four have PhDs, and the only one of those four that did any analysis is that professor in Canada. His paper, however does not explain what he thinks, but seeks to highlight the error made in one area in one paper that came out of Northwest University (Bezant).


ergo said:
They know exactly what they're signing because it's written in plain English. And there is a verification team that checks out their information.
Click to expand...

Right. And what they are signing contains no statement of fact that would indicate support for the 911 position that the WTC was blown in a controlled demolition by the US government. This is the claim. The signers don't say, "I believe WTC fell from from explosives." They say they would like a new 911 investigation. BTW, so would I. The way it is worded, I could have signed the thing based on my dislike for George Bush. LOL.

ergo said:
Your ideas here are completely misinformed. This has already been discussed ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

ergo said:
So what I bring that is new is "I have the list." You can't BS me.
Click to expand...
 
MileHighMadness said:
Shape charges also leave a copper coating on the cut edge of the steel member. None of that was found at any of the three WTC sites.
Click to expand...

Using different chemistry and different geometry, that's even how metals are sometimes clad. The deposition is not only unavoidable, in some cases it's desired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom