Re: Why is Mike Rivero (WRH) lying to you?
Yes, it is sad when a normally reliable researcher lies about what was printed in a publication.
Rivero is angry that PM mentioned his site in connection with faulty interpretations of seismographs. This anger is probably what caused him to lie about what Popular Mechanics actually wrote.
After all, how do you get from what PM actually said:
"The fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel. It didn't need to."
To what Rivero claims it said:
"The fire was hot enough to melt steel. This raging inferno causing steel to melt is what brought the towers down."
without lying? There is no room for interpretation or mistakes.
Rivero rages against the straw man of 'fire just ain't hot enuff to melt steel' when the article concedes that and says it isn't necessary for the collapse of the towers. His entire response is based upon a lie he cooked up.
Having built a decent reputation, he is now too proud to admit mistakes. He was on C-SPAN and has made the rounds of various radio talk shows.
Why, Mike, why?
Why are you lying to us?