Principal Electrical Engineer for WTC: "Fuel and Planes Alone Did NOT Bring the Towers Down"

[CGowen]

Richard F. Humenn, PE was the Senior Project Design Engineer for electrical systems for the entire World Trade Center, and he had 60 people working under him. In other words, he was the guy in charge of all electrical at the WTC. A retired licensed professional engineer, he was certified by the States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington, D.C.

Humenn stated to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

On September 11, I watched the live TV broadcast of the progressive collapse of the World Trade Towers with disbelief, as the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel.

I viewed the presentation of Richard Gage and other related material, which compels me to believe that the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down. I, therefore, support the proposal to form an international group of professionals to investigate all plausible causes for the virtual freefall and the almost total destruction of the WTC structures.

Humenn also recently gave a two-hour recorded interview to an attorney and former law school professor (a transcript of the interview will soon be posted to AE911Truth.org). In that interview, Humenn expressed his opinion that the Twin Towers were intentionally demolished. (He stated that he could not believe the U.S. government could have done such a thing; however, he was not asked about rogue elements within the government).

Few engineers have as much first-hand knowledge of the Twin Towers as Humenn, so his opinion carries some weight. As he explains, "Though an electrical engineer by trade, I was also very familiar with the structures and their conceptual design parameters."


http://www.911blogger.com/node/13840

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Mr. Humenn has been retired for 10 years.

He was an electrical engineer, not a structural engineer. His former wife died two years ago, and the man is in his seventies.

The vampires of AE911Truth have no decency and no shame.

[Twist_U_Up]

2. Are you suggesting that 70 yr olds are incapable of rational thought?

WTF does his wifes passing have anything to do with ? An electrical engineering degree that is more than you have.

Kill the messenger.
Transparent.

[AZCat]

3. An electrical engineering degree (and license)...

is no bulwark against stupidity.

[mhatrw]

43. Which engineering degree is? n/t

[AZCat]

45. None of them.

I have known degreed idiots in many disciplines. I have also known brilliant, knowledgeable people with no degree or license. I don't imagine my experience is unique.

[mhatrw]

48. Absolutely not. n/t

[wildbilln864]

5. yep...

the usual suspects. :shrug:
If you can't argue the points, attack the one making them. It's so transparent imo. :hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Are you suggesting that some are not? n/t

[Twist_U_Up]

27. I`m suggesting that you smeared a retiree without proof.

Your willingness to defend the OCT with outright slander is nauseating.
Innuendos are easy to sling around.But can you back it up?

I call your bluff bolo. I believe that if you had evidence of this slander your putting forth you would have included it by now.

Put up or shut up time Bolo.
What ya got ?

[Bolo Boffin]

29. You might want to work on Richard Gage.

That is, if he's talking to plane deniers like yourself, Twist.

Get that transcript out, and we'll see.

Right now, he's an electrical engineer speaking out of his field. He's been retired 10 years. There's no slander here. Everything I have said is verifiable, Twist.

[Twist_U_Up]

38. "That is, if he's talking to plane deniers like yourself, Twist."

You mark one post I have ever made or any position I have stood behind regarding no planes boffin and I wont call you a bold face Liar.
Put up or shut up.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. You won't call me a bold face liar in any event, Twist

Since it's against DU rules.

On edit: Will this do?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=150164&mesg_id=195011

2nd edit: Another:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192599&mesg_id=192725

[Twist_U_Up]

41. I believe the OP was about the Towers....Pentagons an obvious lie

Im biting my tongue......

[Bolo Boffin]

42. Denying Flight 77 makes you a plane denier, Twist

Which is what I said you were.

[CGowen]

15. It was not only the Gage presentation, he also looked at "other related material" n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

21. David Ray's latest opus? n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

18. And your credentials are..............????

You're not even an engineer of any kind, are you? What are your credentials besides being a Bible College graduate and local actor.

Please enlighten us all... this should be interesting..

BTW: My father turned 70 today, and his mind is still sharp as ever. My grandfather, who died a year ago a few weeks shy of his 90th birthday, still had all his wits about him too...

[Bolo Boffin]

22. My credentials matter not.

Mr. Humenn was an electrical engineer. I can understand his pride in a building he worked to maintain, but he is not an authority in structural matters.

Are you suggesting that he is?

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. What a joke!

Your credentials don't matter, you're free to spout whatever you want, whenever you want, with no background or training, yet you can disparage or question someone else's credentials because he's "only an electrical engineer"...

So, by your own logic and thinking, since you have no engineering degree, license, or experience, NOTHING you say or think, in terms of 9-11 theories, has any relevance whatsoever, right?

[Bolo Boffin]

26. It depends.

The things I am saying ARE backed up by relevant experts in the field -- more than that. The things I am saying about these buildings are the clear consensus of relevant experts in the field. So in that sense, my credentials matter not, but the things I am saying do matter.

Mr. Humenn is speaking outside his field of expertise, against the clear consensus of relevant experts in the field. That is why his opinion about 9/11 doesn't matter.

[Ghost in the Machine]

30. So, would it be safe to say

that you feel that the only relevant experts are the ones that you agree with and who support your world view?

It seems that there are also experts who agree that there is something not right with the way these buildings fell, but since you don't agree with them and they don't conform to your world view, they are irrelevant, right? Nothing they say matters because *you* disagree with them...

Thanks for letting me pick your brain a little more, bolo... I find it interesting, and I do like seeing both sides of the issue...

PEACE!

Ghost

[Bolo Boffin]

31. Not exactly.

Experts speaking in their field of expertise have a strong presumption of authority.

Experts speaking in their field of expertise on a subject with a high degree of consensus among the majority of experts in that field have the highest possible presumption of authority.

Whether I agree with them or not is beside the point. They agree with each other, and they have spent a lifetime studying the discipline and holding each other accountable in an open, verifiable way.

Mr. Humenn is not an expert in the field in which he is speaking. Neither is Richard Gage. When both promote an alternate interpretation against the firm and broad consensus of actual experts in the field, then there can be a strong presumption of their not knowing what they are talking about.

And when their not knowing what they are talking about in this field can be easily demonstrated by anyone who can read and think critically, then this presumption should be accepted as the fact that it is.

Let me show you a crucial difference here. James Quintiere is currently questioning the NIST report. He is listed by 9/11 Truth Movement activists as a scientist who does so. He is the former head of NIST's Fire Science division, and is currently teaching at a prestigious engineering school. However, when the Truth Movement uses him as an example of someone questioning 9/11, they shoot themselves in the foot.

Because Dr. Quintiere does not think the collapses were controlled demolition. In fact, he believes that the failure of the structures happened because the fires burned so fiercely that they overcame the fireproofing. NIST's theory explains the loss of fireproofing as happening during impact.

Both Dr. Quintiere and NIST get to the same place. They are just getting there by different routes. This is like evolutionary biologists arguing over various facts of a theory of evolution. None of them deny the fact of evolution.

Yet, like creationists, the Truth Movement uses this legitimate controversy to introduce a specious argument, something no reputable expert in the field would argue. And they do so with the same telling deficiencies of creationists.

My world view is about "Can you demonstrate what you say?" The mistakes I make are usually because I don't understand the experts, not because the experts haven't done their homework. Richard Gage has most manifestly not done his homework, and that's something even someone with my educational background can determine.

ETA: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3430112&postcount=81

[Twist_U_Up]

39. Then you would have determined John Gross(NIST) is a liar too.

something about having your cake and eating it too.

[William Seger]

4. "I viewed the presentation of Richard Gage and other related material..."

"... which compels me to believe that the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down."

Yes, Gage is very compelling, if you uncritically believe his "facts." It's really a shame that Humenn didn't make any effort to determine if Gage was talking bullshit. Same with Gage, really, when he got sucked in by Griffin's bullshit. Actually, same thing goes for Griffin. How many people have to get sucked in before the bullshit turns into "truth?"

> "Few engineers have as much first-hand knowledge of the Twin Towers as Humenn, so his opinion carries some weight."

That's complete nonsense; he was an electrical engineer. The structural engineer who designed the building doesn't agree with him at all! AE911Truth claims to have structural engineers who do agree with him, but for some strange reason, not a one of them can give a technical explanation that could published in a technical journal. You'd think that someone who was really qualified to have an expert opinion could do that, if he's so sure of it. Humenn's opinion carries no weight at all, except among those who desperately want nothing but their own speculations confirmed.

[wildbilln864]

6. which facts specifically are in question? nt

:popcorn:

[William Seger]

10. Glad you asked

This is interesting: It seems even Gage doesn't care too much anymore for the crap that Humenn found so "compelling": http://ae911truth.info

[wildbilln864]

16. I asked what facts you found questionable.

I didn't ask bolo. You claimed you viewed the presentation. What facts are you referring to? Bolo's speculation? Is that your evidence?

[William Seger]

17. Well, you know...

... if just about anybody on this board asked for that, I'd be glad to give several examples. But you are never interested in any details, wildbill; all you ever do is kick old threads, link to pages that you then won't defend, and say "me too" whenever someone posts something you like. So first, give me a reason why I should waste time typing stuff that you'll just ignore?

[wildbilln864]

24. that didn't stop you from replying to my post #6 did it!

But that's okay. I don't really care if you don't know what you were talking about and need someone else's blog opinions to try to prove your statements. I just wanted to point that out and I have. Have a great day.

[William Seger]

28. Oh, I didn't say I wasn't going to reply to you

I was asking why anyone should take you seriously enough to waste time typing stuff you're just going to ignore.

[wildbilln864]

33. Sorry but I often ignore bullshit.

:shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

34. Just to be clear...

this is not unintentionally ironic, is it?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

7. From the guy who gave us this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x194434#194469

:rofl:

[CGowen]

8. I would like to know who these guys are ..

I approached the chiefs. The chiefs were assured by the engineers of the building that
there was no way that the buildings would come down. They actually said that the
buildings could take--withstand ten airplanes hitting it, and there was no way that the buildings could come down."

"http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf

Wasn't this Van Romero guy thinking the same, when he watched the towers collapse?
And he knew something about explosives, but he changed his opinion...


http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html

[William Seger]

9. I'd like to know if they still think that

Whoever they were, I think it's safe to infer that they were thinking only in terms of how the structure had the ability to distribute the static loads from the destroyed columns. If it hadn't been for the fire, they would have been right. Or, the fire without the structural damage would not likely have caused a collapse. We now know much more about the dynamic situation that developed after the plane crashes. The challenge to AE911Truth is to prove the collapse couldn't happen the way the NIST analysis indicates. So far, they haven't gotten much past, "Oh, I doubt that!" and a few fairly insignificant quibbles. (And judging by Gage, Grabbe, and the ones who have been posting on JREF, they never will.}

Van Romero's early remarks about it looking like a controlled demolition have always seemed strange to me, since there had never been a top-down demolition. Regardless of his first impressions, we now know that the collapses actually began with a slow inward bending of perimeter columns, and then complete buckling. I don't care who says it, there's no way in hell that buckling can be attributed to explosives.

[CGowen]

11. I thought they criticize NIST for not looking at the collapse and accuse them of

stopping at initiation.

[William Seger]

12. Grabbe does

... while ignoring that several qualified people have done independent analyses.

[CGowen]

13. but you were talking about NIST......n/t

[William Seger]

14. Yes, I was

... and I said the challenge for AE911Truth is to disprove the NIST analysis, and you are correct that it only covers the initiation. Whether or not that's where they're focusing is not my concern. Short of finding direct evidence of explosives or thermite being used, that's the only hope that AE911Truth has for challenging the "official story." Grabbe certainly hasn't changed my mind about the "collapse should have stopped" argument being a dead end as a technical challenge, nor has Gordon Ross (who is the only "truther" I know of who at least made a serious attempt).

[leftofthedial]

19. well, *obviously* he wouldn't know what he was talking about

we all know that these wacky engineer types who actually designed part of the joint would naturally just latch on to whatever crazy theory was floating around. He's probably making money spouting this goofy, completely ill-informed nonsense. There is NO WAY IN HELL that anything george bush didn't tell us happened happened. Period. His word is final and rational end of story.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Let us pay attention to what Mr. Humenn says.

"the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel."

"the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down."

This is true. Nothing in any official or scholarly study of the buildings denies this at all.

There was more to the story. The fires from the jet fuel burned out quickly, but they started massive office fires over several floors. Because the fireproofing was stripped away at impact, the structure couldn't survive those fires.

The buildings did survive the plane impacts and the jet fuel fires. There was more that they had to deal with, however.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

35. several floors and that was it

the office fires did NOT bring down the WTCs

[wildbilln864]

36. you are so right.

:hi:

[truedelphi]

37. Santa Claus said they did!

And the Easter bunny can help you understand how vast amounts of cement pulverized into dust particles because of those fires.

[mhatrw]

44. Bullshit.

The fires from the jet fuel burned out quickly, but they started massive office fires over several floors. Because the fireproofing was stripped away at impact, the structure couldn't survive those fires.

Where is the physical evidence showing that the fireproofing was stripped away at impact? Where is the physical evidence showing that even a single piece of the structure was ever heated past 600 C?

[hack89]

46. Unless you are prepared to disregard the entire science of fire engineering

it is easy to determine how hot the fires burned. Fire science is not a new science - there is a huge body of empirically derived data on how buildings and materials burn. Here is a good paper on the science of the WTC fires - note the wealth of references.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

For the WTC fires, NIST actually conducted controlled burns to fine tune their models:

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm#fire

I think you will find this study interesting - they used the smoke plumes to calculate how energy the fires had to generate to create the gigantic smoke plumes. A gigawatt energy is a hot fire, don't you think?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC_total__rept.pdf

Taken in total, it is clear why the scientific community has no problems accepting that the fires were sufficiently hot enough. It is interesting that the truth movement has not been able to counter this real science and are left to simply whine about the lack of physical evidence.

[mhatrw]

47. So why doesn't any physical evidence collected show any

exposure to temperatures above 250 C?

[hack89]

49. Because only a tiny fraction of the steel was examined.

Look - in science, if something has been observed 99 times acting a certain way, then one can be certain the 100th time it will act the same way. Fires are the same - we know how buildings burn and we know how structures react to heat. Go back and look at my links - that wealth of scientific knowledge they embody is why only the truth movement is surprised that the WTC fell due to a combination of structural damage and fires.

The truth movement is fundamentally anti-science. Their ignoring the science behind the fires is a prime example.

[mhatrw]

50. NIST's study was fundamentally anti-science.

The physical evidence NIST itself picked to examine because it was in the vicinity of the biggest observed fires failed to show ANY exposure to ANY temperatures above 250 C. Rather than continuing to examine the best available evidence (the metal itself), NIST simply ignored the physical evidence in favor of computer models that they could backwards engineer to get any result they wished.

[Bolo Boffin]

51. The factual inaccuracies in that paragraph are chronic in your posting history, mhatrw.

In the future, we could number your standard factual inaccuracies. That way, you could just post the number and save yourself so much cut-and-paste time.

[Fainter]

52. In Other Words, You Got Nothing. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

53. In other words, I'm not getting sucked into trollery today. n/t

[Fainter]

54. Still Non-Responsive To Mhatrw's Post. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

55. Nothing slips past you, Fainter.

:eyes:

[hack89]

56. So you don't think fire science is a real field of study?

What evidence do you have that the WTC fires were unique and burned differently then expected? Can you show studies that undermine the physics of the WTC fires as detailed in my links?

[mhatrw]

57. The collapses were unique in the history of "fire science."

When has any steel framed high-rise ever collapsed within a couple of hours because of any office fire in the entire history of the world? So, tell me, why the unique collapses of the WTC towers if their fires were the same as any other office fires?

The physical evidence that NIST itself examined undermine the "physics" of the WTC fires as detailed in your links. Which evidence is more scientific -- "fire science" speculations (all working backwards from the assumption these fires somehow must have caused the collapses) that do nothing more than guesstimate possible temperature ranges the steel was exposed to in two uniquely constructed towers or the actual recovered WTC steel?

When your child is sick, how do you take his temperature? Do you use examine videos of your child and then construct a computer model from them using "human temperature science" or do you use a thermometer?

[AZCat]

58. None of the buildings that collapsed on September 11th...

did so just because of office fires.

Your analogy is flawed. The child is available for measurements during the period of interest, while the steel from the WTC towers was not.

[mhatrw]

59. Why wasn't the WTC steel available even for a simple visual inspection to

determine which, if any, pieces had been exposed to temperatures above 250 C?

Was Ground Zero the scene of a crime or not?

[AZCat]

60. Available to whom?

And how would a "simple visual inspection" demonstrate the exposure temperature of the steel? I'm all ears.

On Edit: I see you glossed over the obvious mistake you made. I can tell you're committed to accuracy. :eyes:

[mhatrw]

61. Read the NIST report.

I don't have time to educate the utterly ignorant on the very basics.

[AZCat]

62. That's what I thought.

You don't fucking know.

On Edit: You still don't clarify to whom the steel must be made available. I know that doing so would expose your precious arguments to scrutiny, but that's what we do here in the real world.

[mhatrw]

63. You are only demonstrating your complete ignorance.

How did NIST determine that only three pieces of the well over than 200 pieces of WTC steel they examined had ever been exposed to any temperatures over 250 C either pre- or post-collapse?

Anybody who has EVER read the NIST report should know information this like the back of his hand. So why doesn't an "expert" like you have a clue?

[Make7]

64. Should I take that to mean that you have finally read the NIST report?

I seem to recall having a discussion with you a while ago where you had little to no idea what was in the NIST report regarding their WTC plane impact times. Would you consider the statements you made at that time as "demonstrating your complete ignorance"?

- Make7

[mhatrw]

65. Oh, Jesus, just how many wrestlers are on this OCT tag team?

Deep into a severe sub-thread thrashing of AZCat, Make7 rides to the "rescue" by completely the changing the subject!

Impressive! But the misdirection would have been complete had you searched for, sourced and posted a carefully selected, baiting excerpt of the utterly tangential, 18 month old thread you referenced (complete with your trademark elegant formatting, of course).

I know, I know. That's a lot to expect for just 10 cents a post. ;-)

Perhaps your time would be better spent informing AZCat about the test NIST used to determine if any pieces of WTC steel had ever been exposed to temperatures above 250 C? Or are you clueless about this as well?

[Make7]

66. So then should I assume that you haven't read the NIST report?

Do you think not knowing something in the NIST report makes one "utterly ignorant"?

I only replied to your post because I found it ironic that you were saying someone else was demonstrating their "complete ignorance" because you believe they don't know some information that is in the NIST report. Of course you have demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the NIST report yourself (the thread I mentioned being an obvious example), so if we apply that logic to you.... what does that make you? "Utterly ignorant"? "Demonstrating your complete ignorance"? Something else?

- Make7

[mhatrw]

67. Blah, blah, blah.

Translation: "I have nothing whatsoever to add to this thread, but 18 months ago on a completely different thread about a completely different topic, I once scored a minor point. And I remember this just as if it happened yesterday!"

Thanks for the elegant formatting, though. That should be worth an extra nickle, at least.

[Make7]

72. Let me see if I am understanding your viewpoint correctly.

When you believe someone else doesn't know some of the information in the NIST report they are "utterly ignorant".

When you don't know some of the information in the NIST report it is "a minor point".

- Make7

[AZCat]

68. I think that's a fair assumption.

See, in mhatrw's world, anybody who hasn't read the cherry-picked portions he has and interprets them the way he does has not read the NIST report - which means (according to his standards) they are "utterly ignorant". mhatrw forgets that he and I have gone round-and-round about this particular point before. I am well aware of the point he is trying to make and that his reading of the NIST report is flawed. He, of course, doesn't listen to me (obviously) and seems to think that recycling the same claims several months later is "okay" - that they're somehow revalidated by the passage of time.

Fucking pathetic.


On Edit: And to my continued amusement, mhatrw seems to think that his avoidance of my questions is a "severe...thrashing".

[mhatrw]

69. There is little profit in arguing with a complete buffoon.

You don't know the very basics of NIST's physical survey of the WTC metal. You don't even know how NIST tested to see if the steel it recovered had ever been exposed to temperatures above 250 C. And that is fucking pathetic.

[AZCat]

70. Your reply is typical of those with no argument.

I have long ago given up hope of having a productive discussion with you. We have discussed this before and you displayed then (as now) your woeful ignorance of both the NIST report and basic logic. Trying to pretend that I haven't read the relevant portions of the NIST report and that I don't understand them just makes you look like a bigger idiot every time. Get a fucking clue (please - for society's sake).

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

73. What was the test NIST used to determine whether WTC metal had

ever been exposed to temperatures above 250 C?

[AZCat]

75. Read the NIST report.

I don't have time to educate the utterly ignorant on the very basics.

[mhatrw]

76. Answer the question, if you can.

What test did NIST used to determine if the WTC metal it examined had ever been exposed to temperatures above 250 C?

[AZCat]

78. It appears you missed the reference to your earlier post (#61).

I'm not surprised.

[Make7]

74. I'm not so sure. 'mhatrw' knows this information "like the back of his hand."

In one of his posts in this thread he asked: "How did NIST determine that only three pieces of the well over than 200 pieces of WTC steel they examined had ever been exposed to any temperatures over 250 C either pre- or post-collapse?"

However just a few posts earlier he claimed: "The physical evidence NIST itself picked to examine because it was in the vicinity of the biggest observed fires failed to show ANY exposure to ANY temperatures above 250 C."

Three pieces? None? You would think someone that has read the NIST report could at least relay the information in it somewhat consistently within a 24 hour period of time.

If his intention is to convince people he knows this information, I must say that he has an interesting way of going about it...

- Make7
NIST NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D&E

[mhatrw]

77. Three pieces of 236 showed ANY exposure to temperatures above 250 C.

For one of these three pieces, NIST determined that the exposure was post-collapse. The initial test NIST used to determine this was a simple visual inspection of the primer. None of the examined pieces showed exposure to temperatures above 600 C.

Less than one percent of the metal pieces NIST examined showed any pre-collapsed exposure to temperatures above 250 C. Zero percent of the metal pieces NIST examined showed any exposure to temperatures above 600 C.

And, yes, I know this like the back of my hand. I was testing AZCat, who obviously does not. But thanks for riding to his rescue again!

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

82. I wasn't lying and you are breaking forum rules by accusing me of this.

Here's what I said: "Why wasn't the WTC steel available even for a simple visual inspection to determine which, if any, pieces had been exposed to temperatures above 250 C? Was Ground Zero the scene of a crime or not?"

If you weren't completely ignorant about the NIST test to determine if any pieces had been exposed to temperatures above 250 C (a simple visual inspection to see if the primer had cracked), my point would have been clear. What I want to know is why no investigators were allowed to forensically investigate Ground Zero. What I want to know is why of all the metal of both towers that was ever investigated, only two pieces showed any signed of ever being heated over 250 C before the towers collapsed.

[AZCat]

83. Bullshit.

You can get that post deleted, but it doesn't change the facts. You posted something that was untrue and now you're trying to back away from it. Fucking bullshit, but I've come to expect that from a liar like you mhatrw.

[mhatrw]

84. Somebody is a sore loser. n/t

[Make7]

80. Should I assume when you post incorrect information it's intentional mhatrw?

Edited subject line to specify who I was responding to.

Let me get this straight - you knowingly posted factually inaccurate information in multiple replies to hack89 so you could "test" AZCat, even though he wasn't participating in the sub-thread yet?

From now on I guess everyone should just assume that you are deliberately posting false information in order to show that you know more than other people... or something like that...

- Make7

[mhatrw]

81. Cute. Nice fancy formatting as well!!!

Yes, two of 236 pieces showed (possible) pre-collapse exposure to temperatures above 250 C according to NIST. Any OCT lover could have picked this nit in response to my slight overstatement where and when I made it, but nobody did for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who takes the time to actually read the sub-thread in question. Even you.

I've argued these same points for about two years now. If you care to pick nits with me because I occasionally round something under one percent to zero percent for argumentative effect, please do so in the context of where and when I slightly overstate my case.

[Make7]

85. Obvious? Yes. 'Boloboffin' pointed it out in posts #51 and #53.

It is surprising that you seem to have trouble getting your facts straight even after arguing these same points for about two years. And after all that time you should also know why people find your argument inadequate, but you persist in misrepresenting the facts apparently so someone will come along to explain it to you once again. Perhaps people here have grown tired of your take on this particular issue. Maybe one of the newer posters will debate you on it - although if they read this sub-thread, the chances of that may be diminished somewhat.

- Make7

[mhatrw]

86. I don't think 'boloboffin' capitalizes his name.

In any case, y'all aren't tired in the least. In fact, you're the very definition of indefatigable -- even if just to be tiresome.

[SDuderstadt]

87. This is unintended irony, right?

you calling someone else tiresome?

[quickesst]

32. I am often...

amused by some of the comments from the collective oct, but at the same time, I am often a little disappointed at the willingness to follow them down the garden path, which usually leads to nowheresville, only to begin the journey anew in another thread. Oh well, part of forum life, I suppose. Thanks.
quckesst