> > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > >> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > >>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > >>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
> > > > > > I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
> > > > > > Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
> > > > > > see if you can clarify.
> > > > > >>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
> > > > > >>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
> > > > > >>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
> > > > > >>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
> > > > > >>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
> > > > > >>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
> > > > > >> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
> > > > > > The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
> > > > > > fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
> > > > > I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
> > > > > > these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
> > > > > > Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
> > > > > > Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
> > > > > > were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
> > > > > > intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
> > > > > > CJ
> > > > There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
> > > > leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
> > > > while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
> > > They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
> > > were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
> > > > As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
> > > > it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
> > > > were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
> > > > solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
> > > > be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
> > > > continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
> > > > that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
> > > > many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
> > > > load bearing point.
> > > Weakened by fire.
> > Nope, won't do.
> Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
> hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
> needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
> mustered.
Like some of the steel showing cuts that he posted?
> > Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> > various modes,
> Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
> can be heated enough to bend.
Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
> > as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
> > wider orders than we figured.
> You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
> yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
> of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
> it`s a free country.
No steel beamed building has ever collapsed prior to 9/11. Many buildings have burned on every floor for a lot longer and none of the steel was compromised.
> > Read this article showing that the
> > softening point of steel could not have been reached:
> You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
> can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
> Cite something from that work that supports the proposition that the
> steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
One could fill up all the bandwidth here on that. The greater question would be, no matter how the building was compromised, how did it fall straight down in a time that could be counted as a controlled demolition?
> > > > To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
> > > > and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
> > > > setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
> > > > WTC:
> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > >>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
> > > > > > > I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
> > > > > > > Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
> > > > > > > see if you can clarify.
> > > > > > >>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
> > > > > > >>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
> > > > > > >>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
> > > > > > >>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
> > > > > > >>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
> > > > > > >>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
> > > > > > >> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
> > > > > > > The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
> > > > > > > fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
> > > > > > I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
> > > > > > > these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
> > > > > > > Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
> > > > > > > Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
> > > > > > > were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
> > > > > > > intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
> > > > > > > CJ
> > > > > There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
> > > > > leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
> > > > > while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
> > > > They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
> > > > were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
> > > > > As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
> > > > > it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
> > > > > were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
> > > > > solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
> > > > > be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
> > > > > continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
> > > > > that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
> > > > > many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
> > > > > load bearing point.
> > > > Weakened by fire.
> > > Nope, won't do.
> > Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
> > hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
> > needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
> > mustered.
> Like some of the steel showing cuts that he posted?
What about them?
> > > Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> > > various modes,
> > Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
> > can be heated enough to bend.
> Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
Apparently you were asleep also.
> > > as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
> > > wider orders than we figured.
> > You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
> > yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
> > of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
> > it`s a free country.
> No steel beamed building has ever collapsed prior to 9/11.
Apples are different than oranges.
> Many buildings
> have burned on every floor for a lot longer and none of the steel was
> compromised.
Any building that has intense fire for a long period of time will
have it`s steel compromised.
"There was structural damage to horizontal steel beams and floor
sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Under extreme fire
exposure the beams and girders sagged and twisted and cracks appeared
in the concrete floors."
> > > Read this article showing that the
> > > softening point of steel could not have been reached:
> > You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
> > can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
> > Cite something from that work that supports the proposition that the
> > steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
> One could fill up all the bandwidth here on that. The greater question
> would be, no matter how the building was compromised, how did it fall
> straight down in a time that could be counted as a controlled demolition?
> > > > > To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
> > > > > and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
> > > > > setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
> > > > > WTC:
> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > >>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
> > > > > > > I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
> > > > > > > Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
> > > > > > > see if you can clarify.
> > > > > > >>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
> > > > > > >>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
> > > > > > >>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
> > > > > > >>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
> > > > > > >>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
> > > > > > >>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
> > > > > > >> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
> > > > > > > The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
> > > > > > > fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
> > > > > > I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
> > > > > > > these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
> > > > > > > Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
> > > > > > > Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
> > > > > > > were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
> > > > > > > intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
> > > > > > > CJ
> > > > > There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
> > > > > leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
> > > > > while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
> > > > They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
> > > > were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
> > > > > As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
> > > > > it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
> > > > > were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
> > > > > solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
> > > > > be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
> > > > > continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
> > > > > that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
> > > > > many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
> > > > > load bearing point.
> > > > Weakened by fire.
> > > Nope, won't do.
> > Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
> > hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
> > needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
> > mustered.
> Like some of the steel showing cuts that he posted?
> > > Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> > > various modes,
> > Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
> > can be heated enough to bend.
> Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
> > > as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
> > > wider orders than we figured.
> > You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
> > yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
> > of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
> > it`s a free country.
> No steel beamed building has ever collapsed prior to 9/11. Many buildings
> have burned on every floor for a lot longer and none of the steel was
> compromised.
> > > Read this article showing that the
> > > softening point of steel could not have been reached:
> > You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
> > can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
> > Cite something from that work that supports the proposition that the
> > steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
> One could fill up all the bandwidth here on that. The greater question
> would be, no matter how the building was compromised, how did it fall
> straight down in a time that could be counted as a controlled demolition?
> > > > > To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
> > > > > and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
> > > > > setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
> > > > > WTC:
> > > > > Page down a bit to find the picture of the steel.
> > > Chris
An interesting note to all this is that the FBI never put up a
wanted poster for Bin Laden that accused him of bringing down the WTC
buildings. Here's the poster for Bin Laden, accusing him of other
crimes, but not 9/11...:)
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden
> On Nov 10, 10:13 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/9/2012 10:20 PM, Bud wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 12:08 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 9, 12:28 am, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/8/2012 2:20 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
>>>>>> I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
>>>>>> Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
>>>>>> see if you can clarify.
>>>>>>>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
>>>>>>>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
>>>>>>>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
>>>>>>>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
>>>>>>>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
>>>>>>>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
>>>>>>> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
>>>>>> The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
>>>>>> fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
>>>>> I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
>>>>>> these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
>>>>>> Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
>>>>>> Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
>>>>>> were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
>>>>>> intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
>>>>>> CJ
>>>> There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
>>>> leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
>>>> while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
>>> They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
>>> were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
>> Size and speed were not major differences. The huge amount of jet fuel
>> burning on bare steel is the major difference.
> How does this jet fuel find it's way to climb 'on' top of this steel?
What's this "climb on top" crap. It drips down, it spills down, it splashes.
>>>> As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
>>>> it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
>>>> were vut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
>>>> solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them migfht
>>>> be cpompromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
>>>> continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
>>>> that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
>>>> many of the peripheral supports were weakened far betong their normal
>>>> load bearing point.
>>> Weakened by fire.
>>>> To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
>>>> and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
>>>> setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
>>>> WTC:
> On Nov 10, 10:13 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/9/2012 10:20 PM, Bud wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 12:08 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 9, 12:28 am, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/8/2012 2:20 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
>>>>>> I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
>>>>>> Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
>>>>>> see if you can clarify.
>>>>>>>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
>>>>>>>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
>>>>>>>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
>>>>>>>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
>>>>>>>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
>>>>>>>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
>>>>>>> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
>>>>>> The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
>>>>>> fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
>>>>> I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
>>>>>> these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
>>>>>> Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
>>>>>> Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
>>>>>> were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
>>>>>> intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
>>>>>> CJ
>>>> There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
>>>> leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
>>>> while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
>>> They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
>>> were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
>> Size and speed were not major differences.
> Try running it by a physics professor that a plane going three times
> faster that is 20% heavier would make little difference in the kinetic
> energy expended on the building.
They did. It was calculated before the construction started and the difference was not critical.
The calculations were only for the IMPACT.
Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.
The above graphic from Chapter 1 of FEMA's Report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. 1 Flight 11 and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity.
property Boeing 707-320 Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons
max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs
empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs
wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft
wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2
length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft
cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph
Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.
LINK
Statements by Engineers
Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.
John Skilling
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4
The Richard Roth Telegram
On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. 5
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...
At the time the Twin Towers were built, the design approach of moving the support columns to the perimeter and the core, thereby creating large expanses of unobstructed floor space, was relatively new, and unique for a skyscraper. However, that approach is commonplace in contemporary skyscrapers.
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
LINK
Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered
One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. 7 Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.
There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 8 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 9
References
> On Nov 10, 10:07 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 10:20 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 12:08 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 9, 12:28 am, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/8/2012 2:20 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
>>>>>> I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
>>>>>> Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
>>>>>> see if you can clarify.
>>>>>>>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
>>>>>>>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
>>>>>>>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
>>>>>>>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
>>>>>>>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
>>>>>>>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
>>>>>>> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
>>>>>> The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
>>>>>> fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
>>>>> I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
>>>>>> these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
>>>>>> Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
>>>>>> Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
>>>>>> were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
>>>>>> intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
>>>>>> CJ
>>>> There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
>>>> leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
>>>> while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
>>> They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
>>> were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
>>>> As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
>>>> it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
>>>> were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
>>>> solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
>>>> be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
>>>> continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
>>>> that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
>>>> many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
>>>> load bearing point.
>>> Weakened by fire.
>> Nope, won't do.
> Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
> hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
> needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
> mustered.
Ah, ok, so if you didn't see something it didn't exist.
Guess you think all those special effects, stunts and magic tricks are real because you can't see how they are done.
>> Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
>> various modes,
> Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
> can be heated enough to bend.
Were you the one who uploaded the NATGEO video?
>> as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
>> wider orders than we figured.
> You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
> yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
> of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
> it`s a free country.
Same with you and your debunker sites.
>> Read this article showing that the
>> softening point of steel could not have been reached:
> You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
> can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
Ordinary? Is that why the steel grates holding the wood logs keep collapsing and needing to be replaced?
>>>> To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
>>>> and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
>>>> setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
>>>> WTC:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
> > > > > > > > I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
> > > > > > > > Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
> > > > > > > > see if you can clarify.
> > > > > > > >>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
> > > > > > > >>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
> > > > > > > >>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
> > > > > > > >>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
> > > > > > > >>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
> > > > > > > >>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
> > > > > > > >> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
> > > > > > > > The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
> > > > > > > > fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
> > > > > > > I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
> > > > > > > > these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
> > > > > > > > Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
> > > > > > > > Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
> > > > > > > > were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
> > > > > > > > intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
> > > > > > > > CJ
> > > > > > There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
> > > > > > leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
> > > > > > while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
> > > > > They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
> > > > > were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
> > > > > > As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
> > > > > > it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
> > > > > > were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
> > > > > > solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
> > > > > > be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
> > > > > > continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
> > > > > > that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
> > > > > > many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
> > > > > > load bearing point.
> > > > > Weakened by fire.
> > > > Nope, won't do.
> > > Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
> > > hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
> > > needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
> > > mustered.
> > Like some of the steel showing cuts that he posted?
> > > > Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> > > > various modes,
> > > Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
> > > can be heated enough to bend.
> > Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
> > > > as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
> > > > wider orders than we figured.
> > > You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
> > > yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
> > > of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
> > > it`s a free country.
> > No steel beamed building has ever collapsed prior to 9/11. Many buildings
> > have burned on every floor for a lot longer and none of the steel was
> > compromised.
> > > > Read this article showing that the
> > > > softening point of steel could not have been reached:
> > > You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
> > > can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
> > > Cite something from that work that supports the proposition that the
> > > steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
> > One could fill up all the bandwidth here on that. The greater question
> > would be, no matter how the building was compromised, how did it fall
> > straight down in a time that could be counted as a controlled demolition?
> > > > > > To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
> > > > > > and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
> > > > > > setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
> > > > > > WTC:
> > > > > > Page down a bit to find the picture of the steel.
> > > > Chris
> An interesting note to all this is that the FBI never put up a
> wanted poster for Bin Laden that accused him of bringing down the WTC
> buildings. Here's the poster for Bin Laden, accusing him of other
> crimes, but not 9/11...:)http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden
> > On Nov 10, 10:07 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 9, 10:20 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 9, 12:08 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 9, 12:28 am, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/8/2012 2:20 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>> On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
> >>>>>> I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
> >>>>>> Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
> >>>>>> see if you can clarify.
> >>>>>>>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
> >>>>>>>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
> >>>>>>>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
> >>>>>>>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
> >>>>>>>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
> >>>>>>>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
> >>>>>>> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
> >>>>>> The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
> >>>>>> fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
> >>>>> I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
> >>>>>> these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
> >>>>>> Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
> >>>>>> Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
> >>>>>> were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
> >>>>>> intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
> >>>>>> CJ
> >>>> There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
> >>>> leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
> >>>> while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
> >>> They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
> >>> were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
> >>>> As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
> >>>> it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
> >>>> were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
> >>>> solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
> >>>> be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
> >>>> continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
> >>>> that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
> >>>> many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
> >>>> load bearing point.
> >>> Weakened by fire.
> >> Nope, won't do.
> > Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
> > hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
> > needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
> > mustered.
> Ah, ok, so if you didn't see something it didn't exist.
Still struggling with your reading comprehension I see.
"But since I saw planes hit and saw fires you are going to have to
show that something else was needed."
Can you show that something else was needed, Tony?
> Guess you think all those special effects, stunts and magic tricks are
> real because you can't see how they are done.
Theres a new one, the Twin Towers were brought down by magic.
> >> Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> >> various modes,
> > Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
> > can be heated enough to bend.
> Were you the one who uploaded the NATGEO video?
Is that the one where the guy is screwing a chicken?
> >> as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
> >> wider orders than we figured.
> > You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
> > yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
> > of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
> > it`s a free country.
> Same with you and your debunker sites.
Many conspiracy mongers seem to think all ideas are the same.
> >> Read this article showing that the
> >> softening point of steel could not have been reached:
> > You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
> > can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
> Ordinary? Is that why the steel grates holding the wood logs keep
> collapsing and needing to be replaced?
> >>>> To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
> >>>> and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
> >>>> setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
> >>>> WTC:
> > On Nov 10, 10:13 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 11/9/2012 10:20 PM, Bud wrote:
> >>> On Nov 9, 12:08 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 9, 12:28 am, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/8/2012 2:20 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>> On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
> >>>>>> I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
> >>>>>> Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
> >>>>>> see if you can clarify.
> >>>>>>>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
> >>>>>>>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
> >>>>>>>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
> >>>>>>>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
> >>>>>>>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
> >>>>>>>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
> >>>>>>> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
> >>>>>> The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
> >>>>>> fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
> >>>>> I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
> >>>>>> these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
> >>>>>> Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
> >>>>>> Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
> >>>>>> were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
> >>>>>> intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
> >>>>>> CJ
> >>>> There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
> >>>> leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
> >>>> while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
> >>> They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
> >>> were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
> >> Size and speed were not major differences.
> > Try running it by a physics professor that a plane going three times
> > faster that is 20% heavier would make little difference in the kinetic
> > energy expended on the building.
> They did. It was calculated before the construction started and the
> difference was not critical.
> Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on
> 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of
> jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.
> The above graphic from Chapter 1 of FEMA's Report shows the sizes of a
> 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. 1 Flight 11
> and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly
> wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size,
> weight and fuel capacity.
> property Boeing 707-320 Boeing 767-200
> fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons
> max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs
> empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs
> wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft
> wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2
> length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft
> cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph
> Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would
> actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly
> smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The
> 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000
> gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the
> capacity of a 707.
> LINK
> Statements by Engineers
> Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have
> stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand
> jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on
> many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing)
> 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack
> indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner
> impacts, but also of ensuing fires.
> John Skilling
> John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade
> Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were
> designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision
> of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
> Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all
> the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would
> be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building
> structure would still be there. 3
> A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could
> have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed
> greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
> The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed
> collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707DC 8) traveling at 600
> miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in
> only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage
> to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants
> not in the immediate area of impact. 4
> The Richard Roth Telegram
> On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters
> to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was
> structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated
> by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to
> protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire
> State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at
> Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin
> Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following
> details. 5
> THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON,
> SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER
> MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE
> COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
> ...
> 4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL
> BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY
> THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE
> SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS
> HEIGHT.
> ...
> 5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL
> STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
> HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY
> AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...
> At the time the Twin Towers were built, the design approach of moving
> the support columns to the perimeter and the core, thereby creating
> large expanses of unobstructed floor space, was relatively new, and
> unique for a skyscraper. However, that approach is commonplace in
> contemporary skyscrapers.
> Frank Demartini's Statement
> Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade
> Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded
> on January 25, 2001.
> The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That
> was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably
> could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is
> like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid --
> and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It
> really does nothing to the screen netting.
> Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has
> been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North
> Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at
> World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to
> assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
> LINK
> Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered
> One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that
> structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. 7
> Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to
> withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated
> dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected
> during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake
> occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds.
> Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not
> throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was
> probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns
> at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could
> have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.
> There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even
> greater measure of
> On Nov 11, 7:20 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 5:49 pm, wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 11, 1:59 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 10, 10:07 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 9, 10:20 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 9, 12:08 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 9, 12:28 am, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/8/2012 2:20 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
>>>>>>>>> I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
>>>>>>>>> Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
>>>>>>>>> see if you can clarify.
>>>>>>>>>>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
>>>>>>>>>>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
>>>>>>>>>>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
>>>>>>>>>>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
>>>>>>>>>>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
>>>>>>>>>>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
>>>>>>>>> The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
>>>>>>>>> fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
>>>>>>>> I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
>>>>>>>>> these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
>>>>>>>>> Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
>>>>>>>>> Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
>>>>>>>>> were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
>>>>>>>>> intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
>>>>>>>>> CJ
>>>>>>> There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
>>>>>>> leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
>>>>>>> while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
>>>>>> They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
>>>>>> were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
>>>>>>> As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
>>>>>>> it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
>>>>>>> were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
>>>>>>> solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
>>>>>>> be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
>>>>>>> continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
>>>>>>> that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
>>>>>>> many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
>>>>>>> load bearing point.
>>>>>> Weakened by fire.
>>>>> Nope, won't do.
>>>> Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
>>>> hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
>>>> needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
>>>> mustered.
>>> Like some of the steel showing cuts that he posted?
>>>>> Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
>>>>> various modes,
>>>> Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
>>>> can be heated enough to bend.
>>> Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
>>>>> as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
>>>>> wider orders than we figured.
>>>> You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
>>>> yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
>>>> of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
>>>> it`s a free country.
>>> No steel beamed building has ever collapsed prior to 9/11. Many buildings
>>> have burned on every floor for a lot longer and none of the steel was
>>> compromised.
>>>>> Read this article showing that the
>>>>> softening point of steel could not have been reached:
>>>> You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
>>>> can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
>>>> Cite something from that work that supports the proposition that the
>>>> steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
>>> One could fill up all the bandwidth here on that. The greater question
>>> would be, no matter how the building was compromised, how did it fall
>>> straight down in a time that could be counted as a controlled demolition?
>>>>>>> To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
>>>>>>> and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
>>>>>>> setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
>>>>>>> WTC:
>>>>>>> Page down a bit to find the picture of the steel.
>>>>> Chris
>> An interesting note to all this is that the FBI never put up a
>> wanted poster for Bin Laden that accused him of bringing down the WTC
>> buildings. Here's the poster for Bin Laden, accusing him of other
>> crimes, but not 9/11...:)http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden
> So?
>> Chris
The very first thing the CIA and FBI did after 9/11 was round up all the bin Laden family and associates here in the US and give them protection.
> On Nov 12, 7:01 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/11/2012 1:59 PM, Bud wrote:
>>> On Nov 10, 10:07 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 9, 10:20 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 9, 12:08 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 9, 12:28 am, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/8/2012 2:20 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
>>>>>>>> I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
>>>>>>>> Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
>>>>>>>> see if you can clarify.
>>>>>>>>>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
>>>>>>>>>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
>>>>>>>>>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
>>>>>>>>>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
>>>>>>>>>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
>>>>>>>>>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
>>>>>>>> The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
>>>>>>>> fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
>>>>>>> I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
>>>>>>>> these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
>>>>>>>> Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
>>>>>>>> Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
>>>>>>>> were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
>>>>>>>> intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
>>>>>>>> CJ
>>>>>> There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
>>>>>> leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
>>>>>> while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
>>>>> They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
>>>>> were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
>>>>>> As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
>>>>>> it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
>>>>>> were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
>>>>>> solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
>>>>>> be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
>>>>>> continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
>>>>>> that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
>>>>>> many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
>>>>>> load bearing point.
>>>>> Weakened by fire.
>>>> Nope, won't do.
>>> Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
>>> hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
>>> needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
>>> mustered.
>> Ah, ok, so if you didn't see something it didn't exist.
> Still struggling with your reading comprehension I see.
> "But since I saw planes hit and saw fires you are going to have to
> show that something else was needed."
> Can you show that something else was needed, Tony?
You didn't ask me and I didn't offer any theory about that. I am the guy who said it was the fires weakening the steel.
You like Quixote creating monsterous enemies out of windmills to make yourself look like the people's hero slaying the monsters.
Even when we are on the same side I don't want you handling the ball because you fumble it.
>> Guess you think all those special effects, stunts and magic tricks are
>> real because you can't see how they are done.
> Theres a new one, the Twin Towers were brought down by magic.
Still struggling with your reading comprehension I see.
I never said anything like that.
>>>> Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
>>>> various modes,
>>> Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
>>> can be heated enough to bend.
>> Were you the one who uploaded the NATGEO video?
> Is that the one where the guy is screwing a chicken?
>>>> as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
>>>> wider orders than we figured.
>>> You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
>>> yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
>>> of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
>>> it`s a free country.
>> Same with you and your debunker sites.
> Many conspiracy mongers seem to think all ideas are the same.
>>>> Read this article showing that the
>>>> softening point of steel could not have been reached:
>>> You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
>>> can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
>> Ordinary? Is that why the steel grates holding the wood logs keep
>> collapsing and needing to be replaced?
> What are you talking about?
You claimed that an ordinary wood fire would could heat steel to the point where it can be bent. Then why doesn't that happen every day in ordinary home fireplaces with steel grates?
> "Softening is done to reduce strength or hardness..."
>>>>>> To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
>>>>>> and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
>>>>>> setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
>>>>>> WTC:
> > On Nov 12, 7:01 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 11/11/2012 1:59 PM, Bud wrote:
> >>> On Nov 10, 10:07 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 9, 10:20 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 9, 12:08 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Nov 9, 12:28 am, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 11/8/2012 2:20 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
> >>>>>>>> I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
> >>>>>>>> Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
> >>>>>>>> see if you can clarify.
> >>>>>>>>>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
> >>>>>>>>>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
> >>>>>>>>>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
> >>>>>>>>>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
> >>>>>>>>>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
> >>>>>>>>>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
> >>>>>>>>> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
> >>>>>>>> The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
> >>>>>>>> fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
> >>>>>>> I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
> >>>>>>>> these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
> >>>>>>>> Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
> >>>>>>>> Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
> >>>>>>>> were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
> >>>>>>>> intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
> >>>>>>>> CJ
> >>>>>> There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
> >>>>>> leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
> >>>>>> while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
> >>>>> They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
> >>>>> were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
> >>>>>> As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
> >>>>>> it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
> >>>>>> were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
> >>>>>> solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
> >>>>>> be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
> >>>>>> continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
> >>>>>> that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
> >>>>>> many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
> >>>>>> load bearing point.
> >>>>> Weakened by fire.
> >>>> Nope, won't do.
> >>> Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
> >>> hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
> >>> needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
> >>> mustered.
> >> Ah, ok, so if you didn't see something it didn't exist.
> > Still struggling with your reading comprehension I see.
> > "But since I saw planes hit and saw fires you are going to have to
> > show that something else was needed."
> > Can you show that something else was needed, Tony?
> You didn't ask me and I didn't offer any theory about that.
I know, you rarely respond with anything that speaks to something
I`ve said.
> I am the guy
> who said it was the fires weakening the steel.
No, that was the Haya people nearly 2000 years ago.
> You like Quixote creating monsterous enemies out of windmills to make
> yourself look like the people's hero slaying the monsters.
> Even when we are on the same side I don't want you handling the ball
> because you fumble it.
Oh yeah? You are like the boy who cried "Wolf", and the second
Little Pig.
> >> Guess you think all those special effects, stunts and magic tricks are
> >> real because you can't see how they are done.
> > Theres a new one, the Twin Towers were brought down by magic.
> Still struggling with your reading comprehension I see.
> I never said anything like that.
I didn`t think you`d mind if I played with your strawman.
> >>>> Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> >>>> various modes,
> >>> Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
> >>> can be heated enough to bend.
> >> Were you the one who uploaded the NATGEO video?
> > Is that the one where the guy is screwing a chicken?
> >>>> as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
> >>>> wider orders than we figured.
> >>> You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
> >>> yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
> >>> of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
> >>> it`s a free country.
> >> Same with you and your debunker sites.
> > Many conspiracy mongers seem to think all ideas are the same.
> >>>> Read this article showing that the
> >>>> softening point of steel could not have been reached:
> >>> You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
> >>> can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
> >> Ordinary? Is that why the steel grates holding the wood logs keep
> >> collapsing and needing to be replaced?
> > What are you talking about?
> You claimed that an ordinary wood fire would could heat steel to the
> point where it can be bent.
Hell, I even showed it.
> Then why doesn't that happen every day in
> ordinary home fireplaces with steel grates?
Distance from the fire and lack of force. Anything else you need
explained to you?
> > "Softening is done to reduce strength or hardness..."
> >>>>>> To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
> >>>>>> and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
> >>>>>> setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
> >>>>>> WTC:
> > On Nov 11, 7:20 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 11, 5:49 pm, wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 11, 1:59 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 10, 10:07 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 9, 10:20 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Nov 9, 12:08 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Nov 9, 12:28 am, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 11/8/2012 2:20 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
> >>>>>>>>> I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
> >>>>>>>>> Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
> >>>>>>>>> see if you can clarify.
> >>>>>>>>>>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
> >>>>>>>>>>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
> >>>>>>>>>>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
> >>>>>>>>>>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
> >>>>>>>>>>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
> >>>>>>>>>>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
> >>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
> >>>>>>>>> The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
> >>>>>>>>> fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
> >>>>>>>> I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
> >>>>>>>>> these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
> >>>>>>>>> Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
> >>>>>>>>> Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
> >>>>>>>>> were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
> >>>>>>>>> intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
> >>>>>>>>> CJ
> >>>>>>> There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
> >>>>>>> leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
> >>>>>>> while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
> >>>>>> They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
> >>>>>> were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
> >>>>>>> As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
> >>>>>>> it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
> >>>>>>> were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
> >>>>>>> solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
> >>>>>>> be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
> >>>>>>> continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
> >>>>>>> that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
> >>>>>>> many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
> >>>>>>> load bearing point.
> >>>>>> Weakened by fire.
> >>>>> Nope, won't do.
> >>>> Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
> >>>> hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
> >>>> needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
> >>>> mustered.
> >>> Like some of the steel showing cuts that he posted?
> >>>>> Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> >>>>> various modes,
> >>>> Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
> >>>> can be heated enough to bend.
> >>> Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
> >>>>> as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
> >>>>> wider orders than we figured.
> >>>> You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
> >>>> yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
> >>>> of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
> >>>> it`s a free country.
> >>> No steel beamed building has ever collapsed prior to 9/11. Many buildings
> >>> have burned on every floor for a lot longer and none of the steel was
> >>> compromised.
> >>>>> Read this article showing that the
> >>>>> softening point of steel could not have been reached:
> >>>> You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
> >>>> can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
> >>>> Cite something from that work that supports the proposition that the
> >>>> steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
> >>> One could fill up all the bandwidth here on that. The greater question
> >>> would be, no matter how the building was compromised, how did it fall
> >>> straight down in a time that could be counted as a controlled demolition?
> >>>>>>> To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
> >>>>>>> and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
> >>>>>>> setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
> >>>>>>> WTC:
> >>>>>>> Page down a bit to find the picture of the steel.
> >>>>> Chris
> >> An interesting note to all this is that the FBI never put up a
> >> wanted poster for Bin Laden that accused him of bringing down the WTC
> >> buildings. Here's the poster for Bin Laden, accusing him of other
> >> crimes, but not 9/11...:)http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden
> > So?
> >> Chris
> The very first thing the CIA and FBI did after 9/11 was round up all the
> bin Laden family and associates here in the US and give them protection.
The California Redwood is the tallest and longest lived of all
trees. Now neither one of us has addressed my question.
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
> > > > > > > > > I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
> > > > > > > > > Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
> > > > > > > > > see if you can clarify.
> > > > > > > > >>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
> > > > > > > > >>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
> > > > > > > > >>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
> > > > > > > > >>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
> > > > > > > > >>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
> > > > > > > > >>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
> > > > > > > > >> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
> > > > > > > > > The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
> > > > > > > > > fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
> > > > > > > > I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
> > > > > > > > > these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
> > > > > > > > > Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
> > > > > > > > > Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
> > > > > > > > > were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
> > > > > > > > > intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
> > > > > > > > > CJ
> > > > > > > There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
> > > > > > > leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
> > > > > > > while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
> > > > > > They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
> > > > > > were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
> > > > > > > As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
> > > > > > > it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
> > > > > > > were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
> > > > > > > solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
> > > > > > > be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
> > > > > > > continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
> > > > > > > that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
> > > > > > > many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
> > > > > > > load bearing point.
> > > > > > Weakened by fire.
> > > > > Nope, won't do.
> > > > Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
> > > > hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
> > > > needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
> > > > mustered.
> > > Like some of the steel showing cuts that he posted?
> > > > > Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> > > > > various modes,
> > > > Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
> > > > can be heated enough to bend.
> > > Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
> > > > > as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
> > > > > wider orders than we figured.
> > > > You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
> > > > yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
> > > > of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
> > > > it`s a free country.
> > > No steel beamed building has ever collapsed prior to 9/11. Many buildings
> > > have burned on every floor for a lot longer and none of the steel was
> > > compromised.
> > > > > Read this article showing that the
> > > > > softening point of steel could not have been reached:
> > > > You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
> > > > can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
> > > > Cite something from that work that supports the proposition that the
> > > > steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
> > > One could fill up all the bandwidth here on that. The greater question
> > > would be, no matter how the building was compromised, how did it fall
> > > straight down in a time that could be counted as a controlled demolition?
> > > > > > > To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
> > > > > > > and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
> > > > > > > setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
> > > > > > > WTC:
> > > > > > > Page down a bit to find the picture of the steel.
> > > > > Chris
> > An interesting note to all this is that the FBI never put up a
> > wanted poster for Bin Laden that accused him of bringing down the WTC
> > buildings. Here's the poster for Bin Laden, accusing him of other
> > crimes, but not 9/11...:)http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden
> So?
ROTFLMAO!!
Who but poor little buddy would have no clue about what is meant by
that...:)
Well litle fella, it means that they were unable to develop any
evidence proving that Bin Laden was guilty of the crime of mass
murder. For the crimes they had proof on, they listed them. Get yer
finger outa yer nose fer a minute and think!
> On Nov 12, 9:45 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/12/2012 8:06 PM, Bud wrote:
>>> On Nov 12, 7:01 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/2012 1:59 PM, Bud wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 10, 10:07 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 9, 10:20 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 9, 12:08 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 9, 12:28 am, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/8/2012 2:20 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
>>>>>>>>>> Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
>>>>>>>>>> see if you can clarify.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
>>>>>>>>>>>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
>>>>>>>>>>>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
>>>>>>>>>>>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
>>>>>>>>>>>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
>>>>>>>>>>>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
>>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
>>>>>>>>>> The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
>>>>>>>>>> fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
>>>>>>>>> I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
>>>>>>>>>> these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
>>>>>>>>>> Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
>>>>>>>>>> Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
>>>>>>>>>> were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
>>>>>>>>>> intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
>>>>>>>>>> CJ
>>>>>>>> There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
>>>>>>>> leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
>>>>>>>> while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
>>>>>>> They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
>>>>>>> were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
>>>>>>>> As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
>>>>>>>> it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
>>>>>>>> were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
>>>>>>>> solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
>>>>>>>> be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
>>>>>>>> continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
>>>>>>>> that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
>>>>>>>> many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
>>>>>>>> load bearing point.
>>>>>>> Weakened by fire.
>>>>>> Nope, won't do.
>>>>> Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
>>>>> hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
>>>>> needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
>>>>> mustered.
>>>> Ah, ok, so if you didn't see something it didn't exist.
>>> Still struggling with your reading comprehension I see.
>>> "But since I saw planes hit and saw fires you are going to have to
>>> show that something else was needed."
>>> Can you show that something else was needed, Tony?
>> You didn't ask me and I didn't offer any theory about that.
> I know, you rarely respond with anything that speaks to something
> I`ve said.
>> I am the guy
>> who said it was the fires weakening the steel.
> No, that was the Haya people nearly 2000 years ago.
>> You like Quixote creating monsterous enemies out of windmills to make
>> yourself look like the people's hero slaying the monsters.
>> Even when we are on the same side I don't want you handling the ball
>> because you fumble it.
> Oh yeah? You are like the boy who cried "Wolf", and the second
> Little Pig.
>>>> Guess you think all those special effects, stunts and magic tricks are
>>>> real because you can't see how they are done.
>>> Theres a new one, the Twin Towers were brought down by magic.
>> Still struggling with your reading comprehension I see.
>> I never said anything like that.
> I didn`t think you`d mind if I played with your strawman.
>>>>>> Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
>>>>>> various modes,
>>>>> Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
>>>>> can be heated enough to bend.
>>>> Were you the one who uploaded the NATGEO video?
>>> Is that the one where the guy is screwing a chicken?
>>>>>> as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
>>>>>> wider orders than we figured.
>>>>> You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
>>>>> yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
>>>>> of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
>>>>> it`s a free country.
>>>> Same with you and your debunker sites.
>>> Many conspiracy mongers seem to think all ideas are the same.
>>>>>> Read this article showing that the
>>>>>> softening point of steel could not have been reached:
>>>>> You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
>>>>> can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
>>>> Ordinary? Is that why the steel grates holding the wood logs keep
>>>> collapsing and needing to be replaced?
>>> What are you talking about?
>> You claimed that an ordinary wood fire would could heat steel to the
>> point where it can be bent.
> Hell, I even showed it.
>> Then why doesn't that happen every day in
>> ordinary home fireplaces with steel grates?
> Distance from the fire and lack of force. Anything else you need
> explained to you?
>>> "Softening is done to reduce strength or hardness..."
>>>>>>>> To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
>>>>>>>> and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
>>>>>>>> setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
>>>>>>>> WTC:
The FBI often has no forensically acceptable hard evidence of someone's involvement in a crime but nevertheless knows without a doubt that this person was involved. Prosecution of important gangland figures often hangs fire for years because they cannot be caught red-handed, captured confessing on tape or otherwise incriminated in a way that would stand up in court. They had to get Al Capone on a tax-evasion charge, rather than, say, his role in the St. Valentine's Day Massacre.
Here's more from the 911myths page.
<quote on>
The Cole situation is a complex one, with others claiming they only confessed after torture, charges being made and dropped, suspects escaping from custody and being rearrested. What's notable, however, is despite the solid focus on al Qaeda, and the naming of bin Laden in an indictment for others, he's never been personally indicted for the attack and it doesn't appear on his FBI "most wanted" poster.
Browse through the FBI's "Most Wanted" terrorists and you'll find this approach, using just one indictment, is very much the norm. Even the "big names" like Ayman al-Zawahiri, Anas al-Liby or Adam Gadahn are only tied to single indictments.
Why? Well, practicality may have played a part. You only need one indictment to bring a suspect to trial, after all. Rex Tomb appeared to suggest as much when he was asked about bin Laden's wanted poster by the Washington Post:
Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on
...
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
> > > > > > > > > > I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
> > > > > > > > > > Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
> > > > > > > > > > see if you can clarify.
> > > > > > > > > >>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
> > > > > > > > > >>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
> > > > > > > > > >>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
> > > > > > > > > >>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
> > > > > > > > > >>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
> > > > > > > > > >>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
> > > > > > > > > >> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
> > > > > > > > > > The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
> > > > > > > > > > fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
> > > > > > > > > I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
> > > > > > > > > > these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
> > > > > > > > > > Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
> > > > > > > > > > Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
> > > > > > > > > > were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
> > > > > > > > > > intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
> > > > > > > > > > CJ
> > > > > > > > There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
> > > > > > > > leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
> > > > > > > > while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
> > > > > > > They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
> > > > > > > were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
> > > > > > > > As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
> > > > > > > > it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
> > > > > > > > were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
> > > > > > > > solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
> > > > > > > > be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
> > > > > > > > continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
> > > > > > > > that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
> > > > > > > > many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
> > > > > > > > load bearing point.
> > > > > > > Weakened by fire.
> > > > > > Nope, won't do.
> > > > > Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
> > > > > hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
> > > > > needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
> > > > > mustered.
> > > > Like some of the steel showing cuts that he posted?
> > > > > > Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> > > > > > various modes,
> > > > > Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
> > > > > can be heated enough to bend.
> > > > Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
> > > > > > as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
> > > > > > wider orders than we figured.
> > > > > You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
> > > > > yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
> > > > > of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
> > > > > it`s a free country.
> > > > No steel beamed building has ever collapsed prior to 9/11. Many buildings
> > > > have burned on every floor for a lot longer and none of the steel was
> > > > compromised.
> > > > > > Read this article showing that the
> > > > > > softening point of steel could not have been reached:
> > > > > You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
> > > > > can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
> > > > > Cite something from that work that supports the proposition that the
> > > > > steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
> > > > One could fill up all the bandwidth here on that. The greater question
> > > > would be, no matter how the building was compromised, how did it fall
> > > > straight down in a time that could be counted as a controlled demolition?
> > > > > > > > To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
> > > > > > > > and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
> > > > > > > > setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
> > > > > > > > WTC:
> > > > > > > > Page down a bit to find the picture of the steel.
> > > > > > Chris
> > > An interesting note to all this is that the FBI never put up a
> > > wanted poster for Bin Laden that accused him of bringing down the WTC
> > > buildings. Here's the poster for Bin Laden, accusing him of other
> > > crimes, but not 9/11...:)http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden
> > So?
> ROTFLMAO!!
> Who but poor little buddy would have no clue about what is meant by
> that...:)
I just like to see one of you guys try to complete a thought once in
a while. Now that you have I see it is nothing more than the usual
supposing and figuring, based on nothing.
> Well litle fella, it means that they were unable to develop any
> evidence proving that Bin Laden was guilty of the crime of mass
> murder.
You do have a penchant for making meaningless claims. I don`t
suppose it would worthwhile to ask you to back this up.
And did you look at the date on that poster?
> For the crimes they had proof on, they listed them. Get yer
> finger outa yer nose fer a minute and think!
It seems I have to do the thinking for both of us.
> > On Nov 12, 9:45 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 11/12/2012 8:06 PM, Bud wrote:
> >>> On Nov 12, 7:01 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 11/11/2012 1:59 PM, Bud wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 10, 10:07 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Nov 9, 10:20 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Nov 9, 12:08 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Nov 9, 12:28 am, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 11/8/2012 2:20 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
> >>>>>>>>>> I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
> >>>>>>>>>> Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
> >>>>>>>>>> see if you can clarify.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
> >>>>>>>>>>>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
> >>>>>>>>>>>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
> >>>>>>>>>>>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
> >>>>>>>>>>>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
> >>>>>>>>>> The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
> >>>>>>>>>> fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
> >>>>>>>>> I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
> >>>>>>>>>> these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
> >>>>>>>>>> Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
> >>>>>>>>>> Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
> >>>>>>>>>> were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
> >>>>>>>>>> intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
> >>>>>>>>>> CJ
> >>>>>>>> There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
> >>>>>>>> leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
> >>>>>>>> while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
> >>>>>>> They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
> >>>>>>> were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
> >>>>>>>> As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
> >>>>>>>> it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
> >>>>>>>> were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
> >>>>>>>> solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
> >>>>>>>> be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
> >>>>>>>> continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
> >>>>>>>> that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
> >>>>>>>> many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
> >>>>>>>> load bearing point.
> >>>>>>> Weakened by fire.
> >>>>>> Nope, won't do.
> >>>>> Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
> >>>>> hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
> >>>>> needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
> >>>>> mustered.
> >>>> Ah, ok, so if you didn't see something it didn't exist.
> >>> Still struggling with your reading comprehension I see.
> >>> "But since I saw planes hit and saw fires you are going to have to
> >>> show that something else was needed."
> >>> Can you show that something else was needed, Tony?
> >> You didn't ask me and I didn't offer any theory about that.
> > I know, you rarely respond with anything that speaks to something
> > I`ve said.
> >> I am the guy
> >> who said it was the fires weakening the steel.
> > No, that was the Haya people nearly 2000 years ago.
> >> You like Quixote creating monsterous enemies out of windmills to make
> >> yourself look like the people's hero slaying the monsters.
> >> Even when we are on the same side I don't want you handling the ball
> >> because you fumble it.
> > Oh yeah? You are like the boy who cried "Wolf", and the second
> > Little Pig.
> >>>> Guess you think all those special effects, stunts and magic tricks are
> >>>> real because you can't see how they are done.
> >>> Theres a new one, the Twin Towers were brought down by magic.
> >> Still struggling with your reading comprehension I see.
> >> I never said anything like that.
> > I didn`t think you`d mind if I played with your strawman.
> >>>>>> Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> >>>>>> various modes,
> >>>>> Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
> >>>>> can be heated enough to bend.
> >>>> Were you the one who uploaded the NATGEO video?
> >>> Is that the one where the guy is screwing a chicken?
> >>>>>> as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
> >>>>>> wider orders than we figured.
> >>>>> You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
> >>>>> yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
> >>>>> of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
> >>>>> it`s a free country.
> >>>> Same with you and your debunker sites.
> >>> Many conspiracy mongers seem to think all ideas are the same.
> >>>>>> Read this article showing that the
> >>>>>> softening point of steel could not have been reached:
> >>>>> You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
> >>>>> can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
> >>>> Ordinary? Is that why the steel grates holding the wood logs keep
> >>>> collapsing and needing to be replaced?
> >>> What are you talking about?
> >> You claimed that an ordinary wood fire would could heat steel to the
> >> point where it can be bent.
> > Hell, I even showed it.
> >> Then why doesn't that happen every day in
> >> ordinary home fireplaces with steel grates?
> > Distance from the fire and lack of force. Anything else you need
> > explained to you?
> >>> "Softening is done to reduce strength or hardness..."
> >>>>>>>> To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
> >>>>>>>> and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
> >>>>>>>> setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
> >>>>>>>> WTC:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
> > > > > > > > I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
> > > > > > > > Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
> > > > > > > > see if you can clarify.
> > > > > > > >>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
> > > > > > > >>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
> > > > > > > >>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
> > > > > > > >>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
> > > > > > > >>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
> > > > > > > >>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
> > > > > > > >> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
> > > > > > > > The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
> > > > > > > > fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
> > > > > > > I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
> > > > > > > > these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
> > > > > > > > Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
> > > > > > > > Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
> > > > > > > > were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
> > > > > > > > intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
> > > > > > > > CJ
> > > > > > There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
> > > > > > leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
> > > > > > while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
> > > > > They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
> > > > > were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
> > > > > > As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
> > > > > > it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
> > > > > > were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
> > > > > > solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
> > > > > > be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
> > > > > > continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
> > > > > > that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
> > > > > > many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
> > > > > > load bearing point.
> > > > > Weakened by fire.
> > > > Nope, won't do.
> > > Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
> > > hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
> > > needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
> > > mustered.
> > Like some of the steel showing cuts that he posted?
> What about them?
What about them??!! Look for yourself, and decide how the cuts were made and how it had nothing to do with the building fire cutting them. Maybe MF will repost it for you.
> > > > Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> > > > various modes,
> > > Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
> > > can be heated enough to bend.
> > Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
> Apparently you were asleep also.
It wasn't convincing as the steel wasn't the same as in the building, and the jet fuel wouldn't have been that way in the building. The other experiment was shown by MF to be incorrect.
> > > > as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
> > > > wider orders than we figured.
> > > You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
> > > yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
> > > of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
> > > it`s a free country.
> > No steel beamed building has ever collapsed prior to 9/11.
> Apples are different than oranges.
Maybe the steel in the WTC's were inferior. Ha.
> > Many buildings
> > have burned on every floor for a lot longer and none of the steel was
> > compromised.
> Any building that has intense fire for a long period of time will
> have it`s steel compromised.
Provably untrue.
> Check the Meridian fire we had here in Philly...
> "There was structural damage to horizontal steel beams and floor
> sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Under extreme fire
> exposure the beams and girders sagged and twisted and cracks appeared
> in the concrete floors."
> > > > Read this article showing that the
> > > > softening point of steel could not have been reached:
> > > You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
> > > can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
> > > Cite something from that work that supports the proposition that the
> > > steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
> > One could fill up all the bandwidth here on that. The greater question
> > would be, no matter how the building was compromised, how did it fall
> > straight down in a time that could be counted as a controlled demolition?
> > > > > > To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
> > > > > > and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
> > > > > > setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
> > > > > > WTC:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
> > > > > > > > I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
> > > > > > > > Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
> > > > > > > > see if you can clarify.
> > > > > > > >>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
> > > > > > > >>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
> > > > > > > >>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
> > > > > > > >>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
> > > > > > > >>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
> > > > > > > >>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
> > > > > > > >> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
> > > > > > > > The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
> > > > > > > > fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
> > > > > > > I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
> > > > > > > > these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
> > > > > > > > Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
> > > > > > > > Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
> > > > > > > > were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
> > > > > > > > intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
> > > > > > > > CJ
> > > > > > There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
> > > > > > leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
> > > > > > while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
> > > > > They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
> > > > > were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
> > > > > > As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
> > > > > > it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
> > > > > > were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
> > > > > > solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
> > > > > > be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
> > > > > > continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
> > > > > > that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
> > > > > > many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
> > > > > > load bearing point.
> > > > > Weakened by fire.
> > > > Nope, won't do.
> > > Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
> > > hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
> > > needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
> > > mustered.
> > Like some of the steel showing cuts that he posted?
> > > > Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> > > > various modes,
> > > Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
> > > can be heated enough to bend.
> > Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
> > > > as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
> > > > wider orders than we figured.
> > > You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
> > > yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
> > > of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
> > > it`s a free country.
> > No steel beamed building has ever collapsed prior to 9/11. Many buildings
> > have burned on every floor for a lot longer and none of the steel was
> > compromised.
> > > > Read this article showing that the
> > > > softening point of steel could not have been reached:
> > > You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
> > > can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
> > > Cite something from that work that supports the proposition that the
> > > steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
> > One could fill up all the bandwidth here on that. The greater question
> > would be, no matter how the building was compromised, how did it fall
> > straight down in a time that could be counted as a controlled demolition?
> > > > > > To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
> > > > > > and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
> > > > > > setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
> > > > > > WTC:
> > > > > > Page down a bit to find the picture of the steel.
> > > > Chris
> An interesting note to all this is that the FBI never put up a
> wanted poster for Bin Laden that accused him of bringing down the WTC
> buildings. Here's the poster for Bin Laden, accusing him of other
> crimes, but not 9/11...:)http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
> > > > > > > > > I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
> > > > > > > > > Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
> > > > > > > > > see if you can clarify.
> > > > > > > > >>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
> > > > > > > > >>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
> > > > > > > > >>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
> > > > > > > > >>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
> > > > > > > > >>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
> > > > > > > > >>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
> > > > > > > > >> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
> > > > > > > > > The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
> > > > > > > > > fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
> > > > > > > > I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
> > > > > > > > > these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
> > > > > > > > > Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
> > > > > > > > > Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
> > > > > > > > > were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
> > > > > > > > > intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
> > > > > > > > > CJ
> > > > > > > There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
> > > > > > > leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
> > > > > > > while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
> > > > > > They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
> > > > > > were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
> > > > > > > As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
> > > > > > > it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
> > > > > > > were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
> > > > > > > solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
> > > > > > > be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
> > > > > > > continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
> > > > > > > that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
> > > > > > > many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
> > > > > > > load bearing point.
> > > > > > Weakened by fire.
> > > > > Nope, won't do.
> > > > Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
> > > > hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
> > > > needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
> > > > mustered.
> > > Like some of the steel showing cuts that he posted?
> > What about them?
> What about them??!! Look for yourself, and decide how the cuts were made
> and how it had nothing to do with the building fire cutting them. Maybe
> MF will repost it for you.
One more thing you can go nowhere with, eh? Here, let me help you...
> > > > > Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> > > > > various modes,
> > > > Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
> > > > can be heated enough to bend.
> > > Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
> > Apparently you were asleep also.
> It wasn't convincing as the steel wasn't the same as in the building, and
> the jet fuel wouldn't have been that way in the building.
And besides, you`d rather pretend it was explosives.
> The other
> experiment was shown by MF to be incorrect.
I have shown that it is rather easy to heat steel and make it
susceptible to bending. You are on record as not liking this fact, as
it interferes with the very bad ideas you really like.
> > > > > as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
> > > > > wider orders than we figured.
> > > > You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
> > > > yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
> > > > of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
> > > > it`s a free country.
> > > No steel beamed building has ever collapsed prior to 9/11.
> > Apples are different than oranges.
> Maybe the steel in the WTC's were inferior. Ha.
Usually I would attempt to do your thinking for you, but I think it
would be fun to see you display that stellar thinking ability you`ve
been blessed with. Lets see you list all the differences you can come
up with between the the WTC event and the Madrid fire. It should be a
simple thing for you to come up with 10 major things, being you are so
good at this thinking stuff.
> > > Many buildings
> > > have burned on every floor for a lot longer and none of the steel was
> > > compromised.
> > Any building that has intense fire for a long period of time will
> > have it`s steel compromised.
> Provably untrue.
No, it`s true. Intense heat weakens steel. Everyone seems to know
this but Truthers.
> > Check the Meridian fire we had here in Philly...
> > "There was structural damage to horizontal steel beams and floor
> > sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Under extreme fire
> > exposure the beams and girders sagged and twisted and cracks appeared
> > in the concrete floors."
> > > > > Read this article showing that the
> > > > > softening point of steel could not have been reached:
> > > > You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
> > > > can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
> > > > Cite something from that work that supports the proposition that the
> > > > steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
> > > One could fill up all the bandwidth here on that. The greater question
> > > would be, no matter how the building was compromised, how did it fall
> > > straight down in a time that could be counted as a controlled demolition?
> > Structural failure is structural failure.
> This debating is like apples and oranges.
Trying to reason with a Truther is like debating an apple.
> > > > > > > To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
> > > > > > > and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
> > > > > > > setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
> > > > > > > WTC:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
> > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
> > > > > > > > > > > Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
> > > > > > > > > > > see if you can clarify.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
> > > > > > > > > > >>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
> > > > > > > > > > >>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
> > > > > > > > > > >>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
> > > > > > > > > > >>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
> > > > > > > > > > >>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
> > > > > > > > > > >> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
> > > > > > > > > > > The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
> > > > > > > > > > > fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
> > > > > > > > > > I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
> > > > > > > > > > > these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
> > > > > > > > > > > Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
> > > > > > > > > > > Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
> > > > > > > > > > > were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
> > > > > > > > > > > intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
> > > > > > > > > > > CJ
> > > > > > > > > There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
> > > > > > > > > leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
> > > > > > > > > while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
> > > > > > > > They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
> > > > > > > > were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
> > > > > > > > > As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
> > > > > > > > > it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
> > > > > > > > > were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
> > > > > > > > > solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
> > > > > > > > > be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
> > > > > > > > > continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
> > > > > > > > > that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
> > > > > > > > > many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
> > > > > > > > > load bearing point.
> > > > > > > > Weakened by fire.
> > > > > > > Nope, won't do.
> > > > > > Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
> > > > > > hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
> > > > > > needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
> > > > > > mustered.
> > > > > Like some of the steel showing cuts that he posted?
> > > > > > > Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> > > > > > > various modes,
> > > > > > Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
> > > > > > can be heated enough to bend.
> > > > > Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
> > > > > > > as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
> > > > > > > wider orders than we figured.
> > > > > > You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
> > > > > > yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
> > > > > > of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
> > > > > > it`s a free country.
> > > > > No steel beamed building has ever collapsed prior to 9/11. Many buildings
> > > > > have burned on every floor for a lot longer and none of the steel was
> > > > > compromised.
> > > > > > > Read this article showing that the
> > > > > > > softening point of steel could not have been reached:
> > > > > > You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
> > > > > > can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
> > > > > > Cite something from that work that supports the proposition that the
> > > > > > steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
> > > > > One could fill up all the bandwidth here on that. The greater question
> > > > > would be, no matter how the building was compromised, how did it fall
> > > > > straight down in a time that could be counted as a controlled demolition?
> > > > > > > > > To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
> > > > > > > > > and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
> > > > > > > > > setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
> > > > > > > > > WTC:
> > > > > > > > > Page down a bit to find the picture of the steel.
> > > > > > > Chris
> > > > An interesting note to all this is that the FBI never put up a
> > > > wanted poster for Bin Laden that accused him of bringing down the WTC
> > > > buildings. Here's the poster for Bin Laden, accusing him of other
> > > > crimes, but not 9/11...:)http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden
> > > So?
> > ROTFLMAO!!
> > Who but poor little buddy would have no clue about what is meant by
> > that...:)
> I just like to see one of you guys try to complete a thought once in
> a while. Now that you have I see it is nothing more than the usual
> supposing and figuring, based on nothing.
> > Well litle fella, it means that they were unable to develop any
> > evidence proving that Bin Laden was guilty of the crime of mass
> > murder.
> You do have a penchant for making meaningless claims. I don`t
> suppose it would worthwhile to ask you to back this up.
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
> > > > > > > > > I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
> > > > > > > > > Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
> > > > > > > > > see if you can clarify.
> > > > > > > > >>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
> > > > > > > > >>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
> > > > > > > > >>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
> > > > > > > > >>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
> > > > > > > > >>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
> > > > > > > > >>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
> > > > > > > > >> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
> > > > > > > > > The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
> > > > > > > > > fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
> > > > > > > > I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
> > > > > > > > > these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
> > > > > > > > > Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
> > > > > > > > > Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
> > > > > > > > > were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
> > > > > > > > > intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
> > > > > > > > > CJ
> > > > > > > There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
> > > > > > > leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
> > > > > > > while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
> > > > > > They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
> > > > > > were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
> > > > > > > As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
> > > > > > > it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
> > > > > > > were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
> > > > > > > solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
> > > > > > > be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
> > > > > > > continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
> > > > > > > that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
> > > > > > > many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
> > > > > > > load bearing point.
> > > > > > Weakened by fire.
> > > > > Nope, won't do.
> > > > Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
> > > > hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
> > > > needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
> > > > mustered.
> > > Like some of the steel showing cuts that he posted?
> > > > > Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> > > > > various modes,
> > > > Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
> > > > can be heated enough to bend.
> > > Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
> > > > > as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
> > > > > wider orders than we figured.
> > > > You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
> > > > yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
> > > > of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
> > > > it`s a free country.
> > > No steel beamed building has ever collapsed prior to 9/11. Many buildings
> > > have burned on every floor for a lot longer and none of the steel was
> > > compromised.
> > > > > Read this article showing that the
> > > > > softening point of steel could not have been reached:
> > > > You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
> > > > can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
> > > > Cite something from that work that supports the proposition that the
> > > > steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
> > > One could fill up all the bandwidth here on that. The greater question
> > > would be, no matter how the building was compromised, how did it fall
> > > straight down in a time that could be counted as a controlled demolition?
> > > > > > > To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
> > > > > > > and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
> > > > > > > setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
> > > > > > > WTC:
> > > > > > > Page down a bit to find the picture of the steel.
> > > > > Chris
> > An interesting note to all this is that the FBI never put up a
> > wanted poster for Bin Laden that accused him of bringing down the WTC
> > buildings. Here's the poster for Bin Laden, accusing him of other
> > crimes, but not 9/11...:)http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
> > > > > > > > > I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
> > > > > > > > > Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
> > > > > > > > > see if you can clarify.
> > > > > > > > >>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
> > > > > > > > >>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
> > > > > > > > >>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
> > > > > > > > >>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
> > > > > > > > >>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
> > > > > > > > >>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
> > > > > > > > >> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
> > > > > > > > > The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
> > > > > > > > > fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
> > > > > > > > I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
> > > > > > > > > these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
> > > > > > > > > Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
> > > > > > > > > Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
> > > > > > > > > were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
> > > > > > > > > intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
> > > > > > > > > CJ
> > > > > > > There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
> > > > > > > leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
> > > > > > > while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
> > > > > > They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
> > > > > > were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
> > > > > > > As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
> > > > > > > it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
> > > > > > > were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
> > > > > > > solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
> > > > > > > be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
> > > > > > > continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
> > > > > > > that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
> > > > > > > many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
> > > > > > > load bearing point.
> > > > > > Weakened by fire.
> > > > > Nope, won't do.
> > > > Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
> > > > hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
> > > > needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
> > > > mustered.
> > > Like some of the steel showing cuts that he posted?
> > What about them?
> What about them??!! Look for yourself, and decide how the cuts were made
> and how it had nothing to do with the building fire cutting them. Maybe
> MF will repost it for you.
> > > > > Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> > > > > various modes,
> > > > Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
> > > > can be heated enough to bend.
> > > Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
> > Apparently you were asleep also.
> It wasn't convincing as the steel wasn't the same as in the building, and
> the jet fuel wouldn't have been that way in the building. The other
> experiment was shown by MF to be incorrect.
> > > > > as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
> > > > > wider orders than we figured.
> > > > You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
> > > > yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
> > > > of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
> > > > it`s a free country.
LOL! Poor little buddy read a WCR and he liked it so much he
believed it...:)
> > > No steel beamed building has ever collapsed prior to 9/11.
> > Apples are different than oranges.
> Maybe the steel in the WTC's were inferior. Ha.
Nope. Not until they were attackedby nano-thermite, which waqs
found everywhere in the WTC dust. It is not possible for that stuff
to be in the dust unless it was in the building as it collapsed.
> > "There was structural damage to horizontal steel beams and floor
> > sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Under extreme fire
> > exposure the beams and girders sagged and twisted and cracks appeared
> > in the concrete floors."
> > > > > Read this article showing that the
> > > > > softening point of steel could not have been reached:
> > > > You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
> > > > can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
It was cherrypicked and set up. The fire was out in the open and
the wind was whipping the fire which raises the temperature. Large
weights were put in the middle of the beam. As well, jet fuel was
mostly burned off when the planes hit the buildings, and what was left
wouldn't sit in a pool, but would leak away to lower floors and out
the hole in the building. The experiment I saw with jet fuel used a
litle I-beam and it bent in 3 1/2 minutes, but the WTC twin towers
stayed up for about an hour each, long after the fuel was burned off
and the temperature was lowering back down. The office furnniture
burns with less heat than the jet fuel, and had also begn to slow
down, yet the buildings stayed up, until they caqme down as if they
support had disappeared.
> > > > Cite something from that work that supports the proposition that the
> > > > steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
It stated it clearly. Maybe you didn't understand the
calculations?
> > > One could fill up all the bandwidth here on that. The greater question
> > > would be, no matter how the building was compromised, how did it fall
> > > straight down in a time that could be counted as a controlled demolition?
> > Structural failure is structural failure.
Nope. Won't do. The beams in the buildings were able to support
the whole building and then some. If the building was going to
collpase from beam failure, the beams underneath the fire area would
still resist letting the building fall straight down so quickly. The
whole building wasn't on fire, only a few floors in the middle.
> > > > > > > To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
> > > > > > > and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
> > > > > > > setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
> > > > > > > WTC:
> On Nov 11, 7:19 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 5:49 pm, wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 11, 1:59 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 10, 10:07 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 9, 10:20 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 9, 12:08 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 9, 12:28 am, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/8/2012 2:20 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
>>>>>>>>> I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromising example from Nat
>>>>>>>>> Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe weigh in on that or
>>>>>>>>> see if you can clarify.
>>>>>>>>>>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when something is burning at
>>>>>>>>>>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term fires, it must be looked
>>>>>>>>>>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of theorized
>>>>>>>>>>> impact. Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brought down a
>>>>>>>>>>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this inferno type
>>>>>>>>>>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
>>>>>>>>> The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot enough to burn down in
>>>>>>>>> fires, and before 9/11, none had. The steel stays intact. I would think
>>>>>>>> I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
>>>>>>>>> these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such that a Nat
>>>>>>>>> Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. Are you saying the Nat
>>>>>>>>> Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? And what if the trusses
>>>>>>>>> were compromised? Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just remain
>>>>>>>>> intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
>>>>>>>>> CJ
>>>>>>> There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling while
>>>>>>> leaving the main beams there. But the building was planned to stay up
>>>>>>> while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel.
>>>>>> They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the planes
>>>>>> were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
>>>>>>> As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to some degree,
>>>>>>> it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some beams
>>>>>>> were cut, as in the twin towers' case. The main beams were thick and
>>>>>>> solid and the same theory worked for them too. A few of them might
>>>>>>> be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
>>>>>>> continue holding up the building...as was planned. The kind of fall
>>>>>>> that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports and
>>>>>>> many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their normal
>>>>>>> load bearing point.
>>>>>> Weakened by fire.
>>>>> Nope, won't do.
>>>> Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I saw planes
>>>> hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else was
>>>> needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you`ve
>>>> mustered.
>>> Like some of the steel showing cuts that he posted?
>> What about them?
> What about them??!! Look for yourself, and decide how the cuts were made
> and how it had nothing to do with the building fire cutting them. Maybe
> MF will repost it for you.
More nonsense. You are talking about weeks later after the cut the beams to haul them away.
>>>>> Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
>>>>> various modes,
>>>> Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
>>>> can be heated enough to bend.
>>> Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
>> Apparently you were asleep also.
> It wasn't convincing as the steel wasn't the same as in the building, and
> the jet fuel wouldn't have been that way in the building. The other
> experiment was shown by MF to be incorrect.
Yes, the jet fuel in the building would have pooled on the floor.
And the steel does not have to be exactly the same. A difference of 40 degrees is not going to invalidate the experiment.
>>>>> as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
>>>>> wider orders than we figured.
>>>> You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
>>>> yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the sound
>>>> of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you like,
>>>> it`s a free country.
>>> No steel beamed building has ever collapsed prior to 9/11.
>> Apples are different than oranges.
> Maybe the steel in the WTC's were inferior. Ha.
Maybe it was weakened by rust built up by being exposed for 8 months of construction.
>>> Many buildings
>>> have burned on every floor for a lot longer and none of the steel was
>>> compromised.
>> Any building that has intense fire for a long period of time will
>> have it`s steel compromised.
> Provably untrue.
Proven many times.
>> Check the Meridian fire we had here in Philly...
>> "There was structural damage to horizontal steel beams and floor
>> sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Under extreme fire
>> exposure the beams and girders sagged and twisted and cracks appeared
>> in the concrete floors."
>>>>> Read this article showing that the
>>>>> softening point of steel could not have been reached:
>>>> You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
>>>> can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
>>>> Cite something from that work that supports the proposition that the
>>>> steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
>>> One could fill up all the bandwidth here on that. The greater question
>>> would be, no matter how the building was compromised, how did it fall
>>> straight down in a time that could be counted as a controlled demolition?
>> Structural failure is structural failure.
> This debating is like apples and oranges.
> CJ
>>>>>>> To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical could be used
>>>>>>> and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, just by
>>>>>>> setting it off against the steel. Here's an example of steel from the
>>>>>>> WTC:
