View Single Post
Old 28th September 2008, 09:58 PM   #154
Downsitting Citizen
Gravy's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Originally Posted by mchapman View Post
You disappoint me. I was expecting maybe a link to a pentagon document, or perhaps a news story but no.....your source is a post on an internet forum.

I think that tells us everything we need to know about Mark Roberts' "research".
I provided a source for one explanation of why there might be few cameras outside the Pentagon, and I confirmed that he worked at the Pentagon (which was widely known at BAUT anyway). This isn't an issue that interests me in the least, nor does it affect in any way what happened at the Pentagon, so I spent no more time on it.

Many times I've encouraged truthers to do their own research about this, since it does interest them. If you are one of those people, I encourage you to satisfy your curiosity to the best of your ability.

So what exactly was Bill Manning so upset about?
In your haste to find a mistake by me you skipped over the answer to your question on page 16 of that May, 2006 paper of mine. (Note that this also refutes your claim that I seem to think the destruction of steel was "fine.")

The quote from Fire Engineering is, as usual, taken out of context. Its author, Bill Manning, was justifiably angry that more steel was not preserved, because he wanted fire safety engineers like himself to be able to study it in order to better answer these questions:

"Can the fire service really handle high rise fires adequately? What part did lightweight steel trusses, some reported to have been in excess of 50 feet long, play in the collapse? How effective was the modern sprayed-on steel "fireproofing" employed at the WTC? How relevant to today's fires are the criteria established for the ASTM E-119 fire resistance test developed in the 1920's? When should the defend-in-place strategy for the WTC be used and not used for large high-rise fires? What can be done to make communication by radio possible in high-rise buildings?" (Fire Engineering, February, 2002)

Manning’s concern was saving lives in high rise fires. The FEMA and NIST reports addressed these issues, of course, but Manning’s concerns were perhaps more specific. He did not, and does not, support the “controlled demolition” theory, or any conspiracy theory, at all.
You can read Manning's June, 2002 Fire Engineering editorial in which he states his gratitude that the investigation was expanded far beyond FEMA's cursory job – something that virtually everyone involved agreed needed to be done.

You could also have found this information with a quick internet search. You could have asked Bill Manning these questions yourself. Why didn't you?

Did you not ask the guy who was involved in the decision to destroy the steel why that decision was made?
I have already pointed you to the resources to answer this question. I created my website so that I do not have to answer the same questions over and over. I hope you find it a valuable resource.
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top