Dr. Leroy Hulsey, chair of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
Dr. Richard Gage, chair of “Architects & Engineers for 9/ 11 Truth”
Dear Dr. Richard Gage and Dr. Leroy Hulsey,
Thank you for your genuine concern for the future education of the next generation of children, as expressed in your You Tube video below:
9/11 truth – the Next Generation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrByZ3WFoMw
You note in your YouTube video interview (with Josh Sigurdson) that you will be working with Dr. Leroy Hulsey – Professor Chairman of the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Alaska, to do a two-year, three-hundred-thousand dollar computer study (which NIST was tasked to do by Congress but did’n’t do).
Your efforts are very much appreciated by the Next Generation. However, they can’t help thinking that the thousands of dollars spent on a computer study – of WTC Building 7’s collapse, would be better spent on a study of the Twin Tower building’s collapse instead. For example, a group of infants at school compared your proposed computer study to the story of “The Three Billy Goats Gruff”. They then argued: “Why is the ignorant troll monster going after the Baby Building 7, when he should have more of a backbone and go after the mummy and daddy Twin Tower buildings instead?” The children seem to have a point. Many older intellectuals are now wondering the same: “Why all the ‘A&E for 9/11 Truth’ obsession with Building 7’s collapse – a relatively subsidiary building collapse on 9/11 – that even the BBC can’t be bothered to check their propaganda for accuracy about it, and Larry Silver-Mean-spirited-Cockroach even admits to having had it “pulled”?
Do “Architects & Engineers for 9/ 11 Truth” enjoy ignoring the big “elephant in the room” – i.e. the two daddy and mummy-sized buildings of the World Trade Centre?
Even the troll in the story “The Three Billy Goats Gruff” ignored the baby goat (i.e. the personification of Building 7) to go after the “meat and potatoes” of the criminal investigation instead – i.e. the adult-sized mummy and daddy Twin Towers. Many New Generation infants are now wondering if you’re just a cowardly disinformation troll – that quickly goes after the weakest ‘straw man’ argument – the baby problem of them all – perhaps just as a diversionary tactic – to avoid the most important questions of 9/11 concerning the Twin Tower’s collapse, for example:
The Straw Man – COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of an internet forum:
Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues (i.e. Steve De’ak’s 9/11 Crash Test Project)
… Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues (i.e. collapse of WTC Building 7) which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group, or theme. This is also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gambit.
[Source: The Gentleperson’s Guide To Forum Spies http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm]
The thousands of dollars spent at the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Alaska (with Professor Leroy), would be better spent on Steve De’ak’s 9/11 Crash Test Project. Dr. Jim Fetzer initially hopes for a computer simulation of Steve’s Crash Test Project, stating the following:
In order to properly conduct the experiment, it would be necessary to calculate the strength of the resistance of steel to the aluminum tail that would be propelled into it at high speed. That means those numbers could be used to construct a computer model of the experiment, which should be done in any case. It’s cheaper, faster and more reliable than doing the actual crash test and would be required to validate the outcome. So let’s do that first and then consider whether or not it’s really necessary to actually conduct the crash test. We know from the laws of material science that, in collisions, more dense objects prevail over less dense. Steel is overwhelmingly more dense than aluminum. Do a simulation and it will be obvious why there is no need to spend the time, money and effort that would be required to conduct the test.
You don’t need to replicate the NIST required computer study (the one they were asked to do by Congress but neglected to do) – because Steve De’ak has already written a kick-ass speech to Congress – explaining the benefits of his more important 9/11 Crash Test Project.
Steve De’ak gasps in horror at the ignorance of your interviewer named Josh Sigurdson. Steve can’t believe Josh actually uttered the following statement (which he actually did):
“ I see the explosion happen before the plane hits – but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a force of nature at work there, when a plane comes towards a building at that speed, or a missile or whatever you want to call the plane. When it comes towards the building at that speed and it comes this close, and it ends up causing, you know, a minor explosion before it hits a millisecond beforehand, but with that said, what is Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s next big endeavour?” – Josh S.
Steve can’t believe that someone can be THAT ignorant of Newton’s Laws, he says:
“…I’m surprised because the last I checked Newton’s laws of motion, the equal and opposite reaction part of the collision occurs instantaneously on impact”
Therefore, Steve De’ak believes Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s next big endeavour should be to engage with him for his 9/11 Crash Test Project.
Dr Gage’s so-called “egg theory” of how the planes behaved on 9/11 is now in serious dispute. For example, when a group of nursery children were asked the question: “Will a boiled hen’s egg bend the steel of an egg cutter?”, most were able to instantly reply, “No way – it’s not a Super Egg, silly!!”” Their hypothesis was then proven to be correct in multiple “egg versus steel egg-cutter” science experiments based on the Scientific Method. Therefore, we couldn’t reasonably be expected to teach these wise/intelligent Next Generation children the seemingly less enlightened concepts proposed by Dr. Gage, as follows – regarding jet planes versus concrete reinforced steel:
“…it’s not a clean airplane cookie cutter outline, as some say, but a very highly orthogonal structured series of breakpoints around the main – the larger portion of the wings where the fuel was and the fuselage, whereas the tail and the wings clearly were sliced by the steel at the ends and the top – like an egg through an egg slicer – the structural steel columns being the egg slicer, the planes lighter wings and tail being a lighter egg – so there’s a combination of things going there – it’s kind of complex.” – Dr. Richard Gage
Nursery children compare Gage’s “main of a plane” to the inner yolk core of an egg. They hypothesize that even the strong part of the egg (i.e. the core/main part of a jet-plane) wouldn’t be able to make any significant impact on the steel blades of an egg-cutter (or steel Twin Tower building). This belief of theirs is supported by renowned 9/11 Truth scientists such as Dr. Jim Fetzer, Dr. Morgan Reynolds, Dr. David Griscom and Dr. Judy Wood.
Dr. Jim Fetzer says that we should just throw an aluminium beer can at a wall – to better understand the impact of an aluminium plane against a Twin Tower – which would be minimal to say the least – and nothing like a Roadrunner cartoon type of crash impact. Many nursery children agree with Dr. Fetzer and say that an aluminium beer can (i.e. a jet plane) can never beat a brick wall (i.e. a Twin Tower building structure).
Clearly, the Science community is doing a disservice to the Next Generation of school children – by ignoring the major scientific anomalies concerning the plane’s impact on 9/11. Many school children now believe that the only reason the COINTELPRO fake “9/11 truth movement” is ignoring the “no planes” theory, is because “no planes” equals “no Muslim hijackers”, and no Muslim hijackers means there shouldn’t be a phony ‘war on terror’ on Muslim countries, with increased islamophobic scapegoating by the real war criminals of false-flag events. They call for an end to the unjust persecution of Muslims worldwide, and the opening of a real criminal investigation concerning 9/11 – via the Scientific Method – such as that proposed by Steve De’ak’s 9/11 Crash Test Project.
Please seriously reconsider how you are spending A&E for 9/11 Truth’s funds – by engaging in Steve De’ak’s highly important “9/11 Crash Test Project” – which doesn’t ignore the proverbial “elephant in the room” – personifying the major “smoking gun” evidence of the plane’s impact on the Twin Tower walls.
We look forward to your reply soon – for the sake of world peace, and the security and education of our Next Generation of children.
Heidi and Grandpa Steve
9/11 Truth Seekers against war criminals