Trussbolt failiures and flame cutters

[pomeroo]

Did I use his name in my post?

I notice that you haven't acknowledged that there is no disagreement between the Popular Mechanics book and the NIST Report.

 

[RedIbis]

I notice that you haven't acknowledged that there is no disagreement between the Popular Mechanics book and the NIST Report.

Excuse me? NIST dismissed PM's "pancake collapse." That ground has been covered.

 

[R.Mackey]

Mark Loizeaux flatly denies claiming he saw "molten steel." Another lie by conspiracy liars.

That doesn't surprise me. I haven't seen his denial, though if he did, somebody should inform the "Truth Movement" about it.

Not that, even if he had claimed to see molten steel, or if he still believed that he did, it would prove anything.

Human eyes can usually tell whether a fire is large, or whether an aircraft hit a certain five-sided office building. Human eyes are, however, much worse at distinguishing molten steel from molten copper, or pulverized concrete from pulverized wallboard at a distance of 300 meters. It is what it is.

 

[pomeroo]

I'll write you a book. In the meantime, keep researching. There are better researchers than myself, military personnel, architects, engineers, all talking about this. I'd give you a list of resources, but you appear to have your mind made up.

Here's a sweeping claim you can attempt to shoot down.

I say that in almost six years of screaming, the 9/11 fantasy movement has produced much bogus science, a minefield of distorted, cherry-picked quotes, and a blizzard of outright falsehoods--but not a shred of real evidence.

I say that the fantasists have not produced anything that supports their pernicious and baseless myths. Their snake oil cannot stand the slightest scrutiny.

 

[TjW]

Point out where I said "I'm just asking questions."

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not some 17 yo kid with a collection of conspiracy dvds.

So when you say:

I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. I'm interested in the official story and I hold it up to scrutiny.

How is that substantively different from JAQ about the official story?

If your intention is to actually impress people here, you will need a narrative that is consistent with the known facts.

If you're content to be just another twoofer, continue as-is. I believe you've got most of the Twoofer bingo points already, and I'm sure you can easily pick up the others.

Oh, and congratulations on having had your eighteenth birthday.

 

[stateofgrace]

I'll write you a book. In the meantime, keep researching. There are better researchers than myself, military personnel, architects, engineers, all talking about this. I'd give you a list of resources, but you appear to have your mind made up.

No, just a summary will do, any chance you are going to offer one up ?

 

[pomeroo]

That doesn't surprise me. I haven't seen his denial, though if he did, somebody should inform the "Truth Movement" about it.

Not that, even if he had claimed to see molten steel, or if he still believed that he did, it would prove anything.

Human eyes can usually tell whether a fire is large, or whether an aircraft hit a certain five-sided office building. Human eyes are, however, much worse at distinguishing molten steel from molten copper, or pulverized concrete from pulverized wallboard at a distance of 300 meters. It is what it is.

He told me this over the phone, adding that he was in no position to see the molten metal and would not have been able to judge whether it was steel or not.

 

[RedIbis]

C'mon guys, I expected more than just ad hominem, juvenile attacks.

I maintain the initial claim is the gov't's. It was quite early in the day when they pinned this on OBL and AQ.

I work from there.

 

[stateofgrace]

C'mon guys, I expected more than just ad hominem, juvenile attacks.

I maintain the initial claim is the gov't's. It was quite early in the day when they pinned this on OBL and AQ.

I work from there.

No, you brought up..................

There are a range of theories. Please don't assume that I will give you the regular "twoofer answers."

Your challenge will be supporting the official story. The question is not what caused molten metal or steel. The real question is: Is it possible that gravity driven collapse can cause molten metal or steel? Has it ever happened before?

I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. I'm interested in the official story and I hold it up to scrutiny.

I'm sure you guys aren't going to like hearing this but I thought this would be the hardest part of the "Inside Job" theory. The towers are the most difficult to discuss because collapse is very technical.

I wish you luck on the Pentagon, WTC 7, Flight 93, timelines of principles, the hijackers, NORAD timelines, terror drills, what the Commission Report does and doesn't say, PNAC, the money trail, Whitman and the EPA, and on and on...

Now, where is your summary?

 

[RedIbis]

No, just a summary will do, any chance you are going to offer one up ?

In all due respect, what is the logic of this line of thinking?

It is quite common to ask for a narrative of "what really happened." As if, if you don't have a narrative, the existing one must be true.

That is not the way crime is solved.

I won't know what happened until any story, official or otherwise, stands up to scrutiny.

A huge lie like this is being attacked from many angles.

 

[R.Mackey]

He told me this over the phone, adding that he was in no position to see the molten metal and would not have been able to judge whether it was steel or not.

That's quite amusing. Our old pal Dr. Griffin says that Mark Loizeaux said there was molten steel... and here's his reference:

The quotations from Loizeaux and Tully are in Bollyn, "New Seismic Data Refutes Official Explanation." Bollyn said (e-mail of 27 October 2005) that these statements were made to him personally during telephone interviews with Tully and Loizeaux, probably in the summer of 2002. Bollyn added that although he is not positive about the date of the telephone interviews, he is always "very precise about quotes."

Source: Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Note 3-152, page 357.

So... two phone conversations. One with Ron Wieck, one with Chris Bollyn, and they have totally different answers. Hmm, I wonder if someone could be mistaken about this?

RedIbis, scratch another molten steel "witness" off the list. That exhausts the supply of technical folks who've supposedly made the claim. You're down even further than I thought.

 

[cmcaulif]

He told me this over the phone, adding that he was in no position to see the molten metal and would not have been able to judge whether it was steel or not.

here is his statement:

Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,
==========================

Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
Tel: 1-410-667-6610
Fax: 1-410-667-6624
www.controlled-demolition.com

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/msg/dfef90067070254e?dmode=source

 

[RedIbis]

That's quite amusing. Our old pal Dr. Griffin says that Mark Loizeaux said there was molten steel... and here's his reference:



Source: Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Note 3-152, page 357.

So... two phone conversations. One with Ron Wieck, one with Chris Bollyn, and they have totally different answers. Hmm, I wonder if someone could be mistaken about this?

RedIbis, scratch another molten steel "witness" off the list. That exhausts the supply of technical folks who've supposedly made the claim. You're down even further than I thought.

Did I quote them? No.

Good book, though. Are you enjoying it?

 

[stateofgrace]

In all due respect, what is the logic of this line of thinking?

It is quite common to ask for a narrative of "what really happened." As if, if you don't have a narrative, the existing one must be true.

That is not the way crime is solved.

I won't know what happened until any story, official or otherwise, stands up to scrutiny.

A huge lie like this is being attacked from many angles.

Stop avoiding it, you said you would write me a book and you will not offer up a basic summary? Are you sure you are not just making it up as you go along?

I have bolded the only factual thing you have said in your desperate attempt to avoid answering a simple request.

A simple summary that is all I request from you, go on give it your best shot.

ETA, you have now claimed it is a hugh lie, What is a hugh lie? please include it in your summary.

 

[RedIbis]

Simple. right...

 

[R.Mackey]

Did I quote them? No.

Good book, though. Are you enjoying it?

"Good" in what sense? I've never seen anything with more factual errors, not even dime-store science fiction.

Look for my review of the NIST chapter soon.

 

[stateofgrace]

Simple. right...

Yes, it appears you are.

Now summary, any chance?

 

[RedIbis]

"Good" in what sense? I've never seen anything with more factual errors, not even dime-store science fiction.

Look for my review of the NIST chapter soon.

If you don't mind, what's an example of a factual error in the book?

I'm aware of the airphone issue. He apologized and I believe later editions will be corrected.

 

[R.Mackey]

If you don't mind, what's an example of a factual error in the book?

I'm aware of the airphone issue. He apologized and I believe later editions will be corrected.

The airfone issue is not in the NIST chapter and thus outside the scope of my study. However, I will give you three:

1. On page 150, he makes the claim (embellishing the words of Eric Douglas, appearing in the "Journal" for 9/11 Studies) that the NIST impact models selected the most severe cases "because, and only because" they were the only ones that led to a collapse.

2. On page 157, he echoes Eric Hufschmid in stating that the fires in the WTC Towers were not hot enough to break windows.

3. On page 192, he claims that 99.7% of the structural steel was shipped off to Asia "before it could be properly examined."

All three of these statements are easily disproven, bald-faced lies.

Let me ask the converse: Name one major claim that he makes that is correct. Don't search too hard.

 

[GT/CS]

An Italian researcher has pretty well proven that the "molten metal" came from batteries that were stored in the a corner on the 81st floor. They were UPSs for bank computers. They melted and pooled then ran out the window when the bulding listed. I'll find the link and post it.

Sorry, haven't been here long enough to post a link.
11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2