jerry irvine is a lying coward

DOT never claimed they did not receive the documents from me, only that they did not receive copies from Jerry. Hence my speculation and doubt after the fact. Speculation and doubt on my part, before I faxed the now infamous package and cover letter, resulted from my ability to timely communicate via telephone with DOT and Jerry's inability to do so, for whatever reason; as plainly stated in the letter. Other than what has been said on RMR, questionable at best, I have seen nothing on paper or print that causes me to question or disprove that understanding. Speculation may get my attention, but decisions are based on fact.

Fred

Reply to
WallaceF
Loading thread data ...

DOT never claimed they did not receive the documents from me, only that they did not receive copies from Jerry. Hence my speculation and doubt after the fact. Speculation and doubt on my part, before I faxed the now infamous package and cover letter, resulted from my ability to timely communicate via telephone with DOT and Jerry's inability to do so, for whatever reason; as plainly stated in the letter. Other than what has been said on RMR, questionable at best, I have seen nothing on paper or print that causes me to question or disprove that understanding. Speculation may get my attention, but decisions are based on fact.

Fred

Reply to
WallaceF

DOT never claimed they did not receive the documents from me, only that they did not receive copies from Jerry. Hence my speculation and doubt after the fact. Speculation and doubt on my part, before I faxed the now infamous package and cover letter, resulted from my ability to timely communicate via telephone with DOT and Jerry's inability to do so, for whatever reason; as plainly stated in the letter. Other than what has been said on RMR, questionable at best, I have seen nothing on paper or print that causes me to question or disprove that understanding. Speculation may get my attention, but decisions are based on fact.

Fred

Reply to
WallaceF

DOT never claimed they did not receive the documents from me, only that they did not receive copies from Jerry. Hence my speculation and doubt after the fact. Speculation and doubt on my part, before I faxed the now infamous package and cover letter, resulted from my ability to timely communicate via telephone with DOT and Jerry's inability to do so, for whatever reason; as plainly stated in the letter. Other than what has been said on RMR, questionable at best, I have seen nothing on paper or print that causes me to question or disprove that understanding. Speculation may get my attention, but decisions are based on fact.

Fred

Reply to
WallaceF

DOT never claimed they did not receive the documents from me, only that they did not receive copies from Jerry. Hence my speculation and doubt after the fact. Speculation and doubt on my part, before I faxed the now infamous package and cover letter, resulted from my ability to timely communicate via telephone with DOT and Jerry's inability to do so, for whatever reason; as plainly stated in the letter. Other than what has been said on RMR, questionable at best, I have seen nothing on paper or print that causes me to question or disprove that understanding. Speculation may get my attention, but decisions are based on fact.

Fred

Reply to
WallaceF

The DOT did not claim to have lost ANY correspondence. they said there was NO record of them receiving said correspondence.

The reason for that is because said correspondence was never sent to the DOT, that's why they never received it.

More lies from jerry.

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

Damn!!! another conspiracy against Jerry.

Reply to
Phil Stein

Jerry "Big Fine" Irvine wrote:

Reply to
RayDunakin

Gee, they only "lose" things that Jerry claims were submitted, and none of the other manufacturers have mentioned any problems with DOT losing their stuff. I wonder why that could be?

Reply to
RayDunakin

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

No others disclose events on rmr.

I do not see rmr piling onto Gary for his DOT fine(s) or for shipping reloads for years before they were approved.

There is clearly a double standard. Just as it was applied with the AT by Ellis, AT by RCS, AT in NV, AT in UT variances.

All seamlessly certified by TRA and NAR.

Jerry

"However as Aerotech has shown us time and time again, compliance is voluntary. They do not volunteer."

- Jerry Irvine

"But, your excessive delay problem really has one cause: the company that makes the motor. I have sworn off all Aerotech motors until they get the delay problem fixed. They have been the cause of the death of many rockets lately, both with their reloadable and single-use motors. This is a hard thing to do, since Aerotech has virtually a monopoly on HP motors, but I am going to work with Vulcan and Kosdon motors until Aerotech fixes their crap."

- Craig Utley

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

That's complete bullshit!

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

No one but jerry has problems.

Gary has legitimate DOT papers, unlike jerry.

Approval from who? according to you(jerry), reloads are exempt as pads.

All the companies you(jerry) mentioned, have all of the proper Federal, State, County and local permits and licenses needed to make and ship motors and propellant reloads legally. YOU(jerry) do not have ANY legitimate Federal, State, County or local permits licenses or approvals to make and ship rocket motors or propellant, Never, Ever!

That's how it works when you have all the proper AND legitimate paperwork.

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

First off, where does it state that in the document? Secondly, if they only tested sugar-cube-sized pieces, how could they possibly have determined that

3.3" diameter pieces must be classified as Class B explosives?
Reply to
RayDunakin

Gary was not fined. Aerotech was notified of "possible" violations, and after further examination it was determined that no violation occurred and no fines were assessed.

BTW, why would you complain about AT allegedly doing something without approval? I thought you wanted everyone to "live the lifestyle" and "walk the walk".

We're talking about DOT here Jerry, not TRA/NAR. Don't change the subject.

Reply to
RayDunakin

That's where the "ten years experience classifying explosives" that the DOT regs call for comes in. (I always wondered what one was supposed to do for the first nine years!)

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

TB-700.2

With a device that drops a mass from a height.

I assume your questions were real and not mere baiting?

I have suggested NAR S&T perform those tests on all consumer propellants and thus become a competent authority approved testing lab for the DOT. They declined.

IEAS is "thinking about it".

We'll see. I am skeptical.

Jerry

"Actually, the stuff Jerry posts can be pretty reasonable, compared to the posters trying to flame him all the time..."

- dave w

"I've heard nothing but good about the actual USR motors"

- Al Gloer

"Yeah, it's amazing that an organziation, let alone two would put up such an amount of cash to fight the BATFE only to roll over when they won."

- Joel Corwith

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

*

You just did! *

WTW TTL re ATF

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.