Another conversation with an engineer

Here’s a conversation I had with a grunt from the ironically named Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth


On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:54 PM, yankee451 .



My name is Steve De’ak and I am trying to hire an engineer who will assist with creating a finite element analysis for several projects.


1 – determine whether or not dense metal projectiles weighing ~1000 lbs and measuring 12×60 inches, striking in opposite directions at trajectories of 10 degrees or less could have caused the gashes at Shanksville, as demonstrated in this video.  Only one projectile would detonate in this scenario.


2 – Determine whether dense-metal projectiles weighing ~1000 lbs and measuring 12×60 inches, striking at glancing oblique trajectories could have caused the bending, twisting and sheer damage to the left sides of both towers at the WTC.  Please see attached photos and related article.


3 – Create a predictive model of the interaction between a section of wing from a 767 as it collides with a wall panel built to the specifications of the WTC, as described in this video:



I am not endorsed by AE911T but I am seeking assistance from any and all engineers and I am willing to pay the market rate.


Please let me know your thoughts, and thank you,


Steve De’ak

To: yankee451 .


Subject: Re: Seeking Engineers


my thought on this–i see wings slamming into the outer wall & simultaneously being dragged (until ripped free ?) into the hole made by the fuselage. you are concentrating on the left side, i assume, because of the angle of impact–i think that, unless this angle was sharply acute or a glancing blow, the wings folding back against attachment to body would cause this…BR

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Steve De’ak

Aluminum sheeting is not strong enough to “pull” and twist steel columns, as MIT, Purdue, R. Mackey and NIST know all too well.


I focused on the left side because that is where the columns are bent (on both towers).  Note the cleanly sheared columns on the right side.  Why would they be bent on the left cleanly cut on the right?  Because dense-metal penetrating warheads require gravity to assist for maximum penetration e.g. 40-70 degrees for the 12×60 inch, 900 lb JASSM warhead.  And as you can see, the left side impacts were an UPWARD trajectory as opposed to the DOWNWARD trajectory on the right.


I believe an accurate FEA will prove this is what happened.  If you can provide one, or know someone who can please send them my way.  I have yet to meet an engineer who will touch this, and I suspect this is because they know I’m right; else why not take my money and prove me wrong?


I am offering market rates, that’s thousands of dollars for a simple math problem.  If you know any engineers with the computer horsepower, the math chops and the balls to speak the truth, please send them my way.




Steve De’ak

From: bowen roberts

Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 7:32 AM

To: Steve De’ak

Subject: Re: Seeking Engineers


i see your point, tho i’m sure alum sheeting is not the entire wing structure-internal steel framework of considerable mass at speed. have you contacted, directly, any of the accredited engineers listed on the a&e site ?                     you’re saying that there looks to be an explosive ‘assist’ at the moment of impact–not likely coordinated from an outside source using a fired missile. the idea of specially outfitted 757s (?) is not w/o merit–nor is external, electronic detonation.

BTW–the pics are very good–have not failed to raise MORE ??? in my mechanically oriented mind. i’ll pass this on. have you signed the petition ?


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Steve De’ak

No, not saying an explosive assist was used at impact.  The JASSM can be configured as an aerostable slug, without detonation, or detonating after impact.  It uses kinetic energy to penetrate, and it is capable of sensing whether it is penetrating rock, concrete, dirt or steel, timing the detonation accordingly.  This is why you’ll see several bent columns followed by an inward-blasting hole.  Both towers have that pattern.


What I’m saying is for the “wing” gashes small dense-metal projectiles were used, and that’s the only piece I’m trying to prove at the moment.  For the large, 30-foot fuselage hole, I believe they used a combination of larger missiles such as Tomahawks in airburst right on the face of the towers and internal explosions and cables.  Even the big Tomahawks couldn’t “push in” those big column trees like that – they had to have an assist from the inside to do that.  If I was tasked with cutting the hole in the towers, I’d pre-score the impact point from the inside, remove strategic bolts, attach cables to the big wall panels I wanted to bend-inwards, attach the other end of the cables to large weights, and at the moment of impact, drop the weights down an elevator shaft.


But let’s just focus on the wing gashes for now.


I’ve hit up about one third of the AE engineers, but you’re the only one who’s given me the time of day.


I can supply more photos and more supporting information when it comes time for the FEA.


Thanks for the repartee – much obliged.



To: Steve De’ak

Subject: Re: Seeking Engineers



i think you’re going beyond practicality. in my view the work was done by common, everyday construction workers. there was expert overview, but the mechanics HAD to fall w/in normal construction parameters–there was NOT a building full of expert, AWARE techs. the work was done by people unaware of the results–this means ‘simplicity’. there may be very hi-tech methods to accomplish the obvious results, but that didn’t happen because it was not necessary. very few of those involved in rigging the buildings had a clue as to what they were actually doing–a new product for an old process & even an experienced construction worker would merely follow the instructions & put in his 8 for the day–this is my area of ‘expertise’, almost 30 years–it’s not a question of what COULD work but rather what WILL work. i would be willing to guarantee that no one stretched cables or coordinated impact of projectiles a the moment of aircraft impact. precuts work for me to some extent, but actual impact area would be near impossible to predict even with a specially outfitted plane–at the calculated speed & at aprox. sea level. see what the planes manufacturer has to say. i think you’re over thinking unnecessarily. the KISS principal is the clearest, cleanest, most easily hidden approach–& effective as well

a&e is all about a REAL, independent investigation–we get that, you can cover these questions. we need, right now, for folks to know that the official line is impossible–this is the useful path to discovery of HOW & WHO. i’m still looking for engineers in my locale to sign on–i will pass on your concerns at every opportunity–stick wq/it & let me know what turns up…BR


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Steve De’ak



I appreciate your perspective but after a decade of obsessively studying every available theory out there, one of the most important aspects of the crime is rarely if ever considered; namely the impact holes.  The gashes in the towers and at Shanksville can only be explained by missiles, and with an FEA I can prove it.


Most investigations begin by examining the scene of the crime, but most truthers begin with the assumption the jets were real, as did I for many years.  But after getting NOWHERE with that assumption, I tried to clear out all my presumptions and begin again with new eyes.  By starting at the beginning, and by carefully examining the crime scene and comparing it to known technology, there are very few ways to explain the gashes – only one actually.  Missiles also fit the KISS principal better than any other option – USA has extremely accurate missiles and with pre-planted laser beacons the margin error would be reduced to near zero.  The question is not what COULD or WILL work, but what DID work.


The problem most people have with accepting this option is the fact it implicates the media as well as the government, military and academia, and not just of the USA, but of most of the world.  Frankly I don’t think about the implications any more, as no one should who is genuinely interested in solving this caper, however if one only considers options that don’t implicate the above institutions, they’ll never consider what’s staring them in the face.  Samuel Clemens said it is easier to fool someone than it is to convince someone they’ve been fooled.


The idea that construction workers somehow planted explosives requires explosives that can account for the damage, and after examining all known ordinances, I can confidently say none exist except missiles – sure some truthers like to toss-out “top-secret” technology to explain the gashes, but this is like claiming Unicorns were responsible and ultimately only protects the most-likely suspects.  But when examined with an open mind, only something physically striking the towers can explain it.  That means this was a top-down operation involving the media, governments, military and academia of any nation not actively calling foul, and that’s too much for most people to consider.


When you say they would have used the “clearest, cleanest, most easily hidden approach”, I agree, just as I agree with you when you say “the work was done by people unaware of the results”.  With an operation run from the top, EVERYONE would simply follow orders, and with compartmentalization no one would be the wiser.  But because the implications are too difficult for most people to digest, I prefer to start with just the wing-gashes at the WTC and the hole in the ground at Shanksville.  Missiles, and only missiles can account for them, and that means this was NOT a rogue operations, because rogue elements don’t get access to satellite guidance systems.


As far as the cables bending those big columns – again, that’s the easiest explanation for how they did it.  If you disagree, fine – feel free to come up with a better explanation for the missing floors in the impact hole.  Those big wall panels would be difficult to bend inward with three-acres of concrete floor behind each panel, even if the jet WAS real – and airburst explosions do not bend steel columns like that – something big had to hit them, in which case why didn’t it damage the columns below the impact point too?  OR – something pulled them from the inside.


But all of this is moot – I’m looking for an engineer who is willing to put my money where his mouth is.  You’d think it would be easy to throw money at someone to prove me wrong.



From: bowen roberts

Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:34 AM

To: Steve De’ak

Subject: Re: Seeking Engineers


sorry,steve, but you’re wrong on several points–i personally know 2 people who watched the planes hit & penetrate–not saying they were w/o explosive assist, but that did happen. shanksville has ‘0’ to do w/it–easy to make a hole in the ground & a missile in no way is required to do so. if you are honestly sincere in your efforts then you should actually follow the links at a&e–you will learn that there IS ordinance capable of these feats. i know construction workers & techniques–nuf said on that.

you’re not looking for the Truth of the matter, you’re looking for an engineer willing to manufacture a way to prove you right–for money you may find 1–a&e works for truth at no profit & repeated tests by many have already made your ‘missile only’ theory untrue. I the case of the pentagon a missile makes sense, but, a&e is dealing with getting an investigation–they have debunked the official story en toto.

you could email David Chandler, Kevin Ryan, or John Bursill–good luck on finding your compliant engineer…BR



Sorry Bowen, but I’m examining the evidence, not relying on hearsay. I have spoken to many people who have friends who saw stuff, but when pressed their stories fall apart.  And besides, it is impossible for a hollow aluminum jet to sever 37 steel box columns and a half-dozen spandrels as well as wipe-out the three concrete floors backing each exterior panel.  MIT tried to calculate how a jet did it, but threw in the towel.  Purdue didn’t do it – neither did NIST.  No one can prove the impossible, but I can prove what IS possible if I could find an engineer willing to speak the truth.  I’m betting AE911T isn’t the place.


What is it about my forming a hypothesis and offering to pay good money to prove or disprove it that so offends people?  How does that translate into “not looking for the Truth in the matter?”  How exactly would I manipulate the parameters when we all know what the parameters are, and I’m not the guy crunching the numbers?  The construction of the towers, of jets and of missiles are well-known, as is the photographic evidence of the damage, so I’m not sure how you think I’d be trying to reach a predetermined outcome when all the parameters and math will be open to public scrutiny.  I am the only one who stands to lose if I’m wrong, so why so prickly?


I will continue to search for someone who is capable of proving or disproving my hypothesis.  Either way the rocket-sled slices, it will be a victory for Truth, which to me sounds like something you’d prefer not to be involved with.


Sure, I could and will email Kevin Ryan, David Chandler, et al – as well as continue petition engineering firms with engineers who already believe a jet can do the impossible.  I will offer them a chance to make mincemeat out of my projects.  There is only one reason why someone wouldn’t jump on the chance to take my money to prove me wrong – I think you know what that reason is.


Steve De’ak

well, my lady’s aunt had an apartment w/direct view–an old lady, just looking out at manhatten–sw the 1st hit. sharp old girl, would not consider telling tales.  & a sort of cousin-in-law was on the street, also saw 1st hit. if you’re considering ‘hologram’, then also consider yourself ‘out-to-lunch’. i questioned this for a bit until enuf very reliable people shared w/me, so most definately there were planes. that’s why i say ‘explosive assist’–which is also a comfortable effective way to get results. i’m personally quite sure after studying the plans that a 757 could penetrate w/o assist, i’ve the mechanical experience to make book on that. the ‘pulled’ columns still pose interest & i would like to have the physics layed out on that, but my 1st impression of ‘drag by mass & velocity’ is my 1st choice. at 65 i know the truth of ‘fact is stranger than fiction’.  the 2000 professionals with a&e ARE the experts you say you’re looking for–it’s obvious you haven’t viewed their work. like i said before–you’re looking for someone you can pay to support your theory. i’ll bring this up on the next conference call–maybe Richard can shed some light–have you emailed him ? BTW  you need to be looking for a physicist, & so far the several from MIT who have spoken out don’t seem to follow your bent. single minded obsession doesn’t solve crime–open minded investigation does–if you find someone to help you ‘prove’ your theory, my opinion is, they will be stealing your money & setting you up to be debunked & ridiculed….BR

You responded to a request for an engineer who can produce a model for one of my projects.  Instead of offering your expertise, you offer your opinion, and you know what they say about those.

To: Steve De’ak
Subject: Re: Seeking Engineers

 same goes for yours, only i DO stand on practical experience, a solid grasp of physics, & logic–you’ve yet to display anything removed from fantasy–do the work, learn the necessary math, review what experts ALREADY know, then come back with a substantive argument. right now you’re trying to get agreement w/zip. you have access to those experts right now at a&e & you dismiss their opinions because they do not advance yours–my bet is that if you open your mind & use reason rather than ego you may learn what you need to advance or reject this theory. i can (& have) worked up a dozen or so scenarios that are reasonable/logical as to the mechanics involved–simplicity always comes out on top–KISS principle/Akums razor–do the work…BR

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Steve De’ak

Whatever practical experience and physics you may have, it is clearly not enough to solve even my simple math problems.

I am quite capable of learning the skills to do this work but we’re not made of time, and since I’m going to be building my house for the next few years, I figured I’d hire-out for the gig.  But like everything, if you want something done right, do it yourself, eh?

Thanks for your opinions, however myopic, I’m glad you didn’t recommend anyone…I shudder to think who an intellectually-stunted blowhard like yourself would send my way.

Big Kiss,


To: Steve De’ak
Subject: Re: Seeking Engineers


you don’t read well, i DID recommend but you’ve rejected these–myopic ?-i’ve done & continue to do the work–tomorrow, on the conference call, i will bring up this subject–you may have (if you have any sense at all)  contacted someone on this call–i’ll give your email address if anyone is interested–you seem to have the opinion that a&e is bogus–some of these folks have been on this since day 1, now 2000 professional accredited architects & engineers–everything from skyscrapers to hi-tech explosives, you want someone w/numbers, here they are–this myopic blowhard has no trouble understanding their technical points, possibly you could also–don’t call us, we’ll call you–adios…BR

Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 10:10 PM
To: ‘bowen roberts’
Subject: RE: Seeking Engineers

 You don’t write well – makes it difficult to read, but I considered your suggestion to contact Kevin Ryan et al to be a “go fly a kite” comment.  Yes, I consider AE to largely be controlled opposition – anyone who believes a hollow aluminum jet can slice through dozens of steel columns, spandrels and concrete floors without slowing down is either lying or a fool, especially engineers who wield their credentials like bludgeons.

Loading Facebook Comments ...

6 thoughts on “Another conversation with an engineer

  1. This engineer (http://www.commitment-reason-competence.com) is outraged by the insulting overgeneralization of this page’s headline. Others probably will be too. Here are a few sober reminders for Steve and the readers.

    1. Many engineering professionals believe the official myth that attributes the twin towers’ destruction to the impact of hijacked airplanes piloted by Osama bin Laden’s fanatics. They may be fairly described as brainwashed, but not at all as cowards. They simply have not bothered thinking much about 9/11 and are confident that if the twin towers were destroyed by a controlled demolition, many groups would have had enough competence and interests to denounce it: the American Society of Civil Engineers and its foreign counterparts, firefighters’ unions, anti-war organizations, Amnesty International, Muslim governments, the John Birch Society, socialist governments, etc. Many are willing to accept the reality of the criminal controlled demolitions when given a rough analysis of the video evidence.

    2. The fact that some 9/11-aware engineers, like this one, do not support Steve’s project does not mean that they are brainwashed cowards. They may simply have other 9/11 priorities. Some may, like this one, understand the paramount importance and danger of the 9/11 censorship. Even assuming that Steve’s project would succeed and demonstrate another important 9/11 subconspiracy, it would not meaningfully contribute to enhancing 9/11 Truth. The same watchdogs who have refused to bark over something as trivial and as pivotal as the video resemblance between Building 7’s destruction and a controlled demolition will in no way bark about an inherently much more complex technical finding. The same pseudo-scientific bully pulpits that have ridiculed and demonized the theory of Building 7’s criminal controlled demolition, like Popular Mechanics, will have no trouble ridiculing and demonizing it. In other words, Steve’s project is interesting and important, but not essential, and activists who yearn to fix and save the world will stay away from it, focusing instead on a streamlined version of 9/11 emphasizing the alarming censorship by the above-mentioned watchdogs.

    3. Once the 9/11 censorship is out of the way, Steve’s problem will advantageously become one more subject for a ninelevenology PhD thesis.

    4. In the meantime, this engineer respectfully and firmly urges Steve to stop using demeaning epithets against engineers, especially those who affirm 9/11’s essence. If he wishes to use offensive and insulting terms, may he direct them at the 9/11 censors, who are so numerous and have wreaked so much evil against humanity over the last decade: ACLU directors, NRA directors, state governors, NYC civil engineering professors, Fidel Castro, top Palestinian leaders, etc.

    5. More detailed information has been available for three years at http://www.global-Platonic-theater.com.


    • Daniel – you are absolutely correct.

      I am my own worst enemy when my temper gets the best of me. Alas I am only human.

      I’ll changed the title to something less offensive.

      Thank you for snapping me out of it, and please accept my apologies.


    • Now that my mea culpa is done, this researcher has some comments for Daniel and the readers.

      The engineer Daniel mentioned was responding to my request for help, but instead of helping, he responded as most of the AE911T denizens have, with condescension and ridicule. AE911T were the first to refuse to endorse this project and have treated me with nothing but disdain since I first contacted them. Why? Well, for the likely reason that if they did endorse it we would probably have been easily able to fund it. They spend $85K a year on Gage, plus all his living expenses, so I’m sure they could raise all the moneys needed even without relying on a fundraising site. Now, why wouldn’t they want to perform such an attention-grabbing test? At the very least the mainstream media wouldn’t be able to keep their hands off it, thereby raising more awareness in the public. It’s just a test after all – it could go either way, being just an under-educated layperson, I have no idea which way it would go, does Daniel?

      Read the feedback from the so-called truth movement to see comments from other members of the gang to see how well I was treated. They don’t want be associated with the taint of the no-planers, but if these so called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth were so concerned about no-planers making the “truth movement” look bad, this test is the perfect vehicle to shut them up for good, vindicate themselves and use it as a basis for unifying the whole, infighting movement. If they really believed what they were pushing, they should have gleefully endorsed the project. Perhaps they know very well what the results of the test would be, just as every engineering firm I have approached does. There would be no reason not to take some crackpot’s money to provide a model to make him and the whole truth movement look foolish.

      I have no right to disparage all engineers and David was right for bringing that to my attention, but it’s obvious to a barnyard animal the AE911T clique is a money-making scam designed to direct the curious researcher away from the truth.

      Rocket sleds in the desert would be a stunt that would be impossible for the mainstream to ignore, and it could well be the spark that could start a revolution of awareness, whichever way the rocket sled slices. But we can’t have that, can we?



  3. If the AE911T are so sure jet airliners collided with the 2 WTCs (and Pentagon) maybe one of them can explain how a 757 or 767 can fly at close to “sea level at speeds” greater than 500 mph, well past their designed structure capabilities and well past how much thrust power they could produce to accomplish this feat. According to the pilots for 911 truth movement this is physically impossible. Even if they could fly that fast at close sea level, these experienced pilots tried in simulators to replicate these flights and all failed 100% of the time.

    The stars must have been way out of line on Sept 11 2001. Many of the laws of physics were temporarily suspended. Planes were flying around faster than they are capable of, three steel building crashed to earth from fire which has never happened before or since. Four jet airliners dissolved into the structures, without leaving a trace. So even though the laws of physics were violated men and women of science still believe it happened. Just sad sad sad!

    Steve, I wish you all the luck fighting against the blind of reason. I am demonized and scoffed at, every time I try to show people out right facts of 911 they still roll their eyes and call me a nut! Sometimes I find it very hard watching people bury their heads in the sand not wanting to accept that there are powerful people in this world that only look at the rest of us as pions and they are never going to let us into their clubhouse. Not that I would ever want to.

  4. Hello Steve,
    I looked through your site here and watched your video explaining the need for this test you describe, using part of a wing, part of a wall built to the same specifications as the WTC walls and a rocket sled. I don’t see what this test would prove to the people that blindly believe the official story. The only test that could possibly change their minds is a test that flew an actual plane, of the same, exact kind that was used on 911, into a wall from the towers, at the exact same speed of the planes posited on 911. Nothing short of this, if even this, will make anything click for these people.

    Using part of a plane wing from a plane, like the 911 WTC planes, bolted or affixed to a rocket sled, hitting a wall that is exactly like the WTC walls will simply not work. There is just too much for them to say is different than what happened on 911, and then it’s another argument that strays off course from the intended purpose. I wish we could do such a test just like it happened on that day, but that is impossible and would only create more frustration, especially after spending so much money.

    Those of us that don’t believe the official story will never understand how others can’t see what we see. I’ll continue talking to people and trying to open their minds to the truth, but I think it’s important we get away from trying prove it happened or didn’t happen any certain way, because we will never have 911 to do over again and no matter how we try, we will just leave doubts for people that already doubt us.

    I do agree that flight 93 would be the easiest supposed crash we could replicate, but even that would have its limits in proving anything to believers of the official story. I’ve had plenty of discussions, arguments and them calling me names sessions with these believers to know they will pick holes in any test that doesn’t recreate 911 exactly. Even then, many of them would find cause to disagree with the findings.

    I do hope the truth comes out and the guilty parties are brought to justice in my lifetime. I do think that the many rights we’re losing, our politician’s greed and our government’s continued neglect of its duties will help us, in the long run.

    Good health to you and yours,

    Rob Ford

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *