I am aware of what Mr. Loizeaux saw and did not see. You are right let's make sure if someone makes a type-o that must mean he knows nothing. I copied and pasted it from a place that had the spelling wrong, I don't know how to spell the guy's name off the top of my head. He said he saw a picture of molten steel this is what I was referring to...below is an e-mail attributed to him. Incidentally where I got the wrong spelling and this e-mail is a site that supports the initial story...911 myths.
Yes, and in fact the spelling error makes it rather embarrassingly obvious what you did. You read down the page far enough to find something that would confirm your prejudices, then you stopped reading, and cut-and-pasted the bit that appeared to say what you wanted to believe. And that's what I mean by poor research skills; you stop as soon as you've heard what you want to hear. If you'd read the rest of that page the first time, you'd not only have noticed the spelling mistake, but also the counter-arguments. But you didn't want to see them, so you didn't look.
I never said, the NIST report should be dismissed entirely.
Yes, in fact, you did. You said:
If he can't even tell the truth with something so small as if there actually being reports...why should we believe anything he or NIST says?
Clearly, you're suggesting that everything NIST says should not be believed. Don't you dismiss things you don't believe?
Actually, you're a truther, so maybe you don't.
I believe the FEMA report I referenced (while still lacking) is better then the NIST report. Just my opinion.
And a remarkably foolish one.
If you can look at this video, and honestly say thermite(let alone nano or super thermite) could not have been used, nothing I can say or anyone else for that matter will ever convince you.
Thermite could not feasibly have been installed in the WTC in sufficient amounts to cause it to collapse, given that nobody noticed any such installation taking place. It remains to be proven that thermite
could have been used to cause the WTC to collapse, even though Jon Gold's experiments are a first step towards that; even that is a big step back from proving that thermite
did cause it to collapse.
Which, of course, it didn't; thermite demolitions of high-rise steel structures are purely the product of Steven Jones's over-active imagination.
"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. "
And, once again, you've stopped reading once you saw the bit you wanted to. Did you get to the bit on that page where it says:
"To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There's no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming "molten steel" have built-in implausibilities. There was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within the range of a fire."
If you did, would you actually like to dispute that conclusion, rather than just cherry-picking the evidence? If you didn't, why not?
Dave
member: Some search results to years-old threads on the topics, in order to help you follow Dave's advice and actually look up material to study: