> On Nov 14, 4:57 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 7:19 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.
>>>>>> 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.
If nano-thermite caused explosions then why should any unexploded nano-termite be found in dust? Maybe it was created by the crash and fires.
>>> "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."
> 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.
Stop talking about the beams. It was the trusses which failed and the floors collapsed.
>>>>>>>> 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.
> Yep, it says: "Poster Revised November 2001" A few months after
> 9/11...:)
So you think they should have had "proof" of Bin Laden`s involvement
by then? Like what, a video of him briefing the bombers?
This idea is like all your ideas, bad every way you look at it. If
Al Qeada wasn`t involved in the attack, what would prevent the
government that was involved from putting the crime on Bin Laden in
that poster? Actually it not being on there speaks to Al Qeada *not*
being framed for a crime it didn`t commit. If they had included it
then Truthers could say "Hey, how could they have had any proof of Bin
Laden`s involvement"? And you don`t seem to understand that in real
terms it doesn`t matter whether it is on there or not, if was captured
he wasn`t getting released. A lot of times if a person is caught they
hold them on old warrants or lesser crimes while a case is made on
other crimes they are a suspect in. They only need a reason to put
before a judge that can justify holding the suspect, they don`t have
to list all the crimes they intend on prosecuting them for eventually.
> > > 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.
> Naah, that would mean that we're all in trouble...:)
> > > > > > > > > > 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...:)
I found the counter argument that everybody was out to get Lee
Harvey Oswald uncompelling.
> > > > 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.
Thats just a Truth factoid you guys banter about, it doesn`t mean
anything. Science is based on reproducible results, and you just can`t
get independent confirmation of that finding.
But I did show that Curt was wrong when he said that the steel in
office fires is "uncomprimised". And it shows that Truther sites that
say that steel is not weakened in office fires to be lying.
> > > "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.
It was a demonstration.
> The fire was out in the open and
> the wind was whipping the fire which raises the temperature.
I showed you wind on 9-11, pay attention.
> Large
> weights were put in the middle of the beam.
What do you think beams do in a building?
> As well, jet fuel was
> mostly burned off when the planes hit the buildings,
Meaningless claim.
>and what was left
> wouldn't sit in a pool, but would leak away to lower floors and out
> the hole in the building.
Where is your computer model showing this?
> 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.
Meaningless claim. Always making absolute claims based on your
figuring and supposing. Shooting blanks.
> 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.
When the reach the point where they can longer support the load they
fail.
> > > > > 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?
Looks like you can`t cite anything from that work that supports the
contention that the steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
I didn`t think you could.
> > > > 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?
> 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,
> > 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. Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> > various modes, as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
> > wider orders than we figured. Read this article showing that the
> > softening point of steel could not have been reached:
> Again, stop your trick of biasing the argument by misusing words. We were
> not talking about MELTING or SOFTENING of steel. We were talking about
> structural WEAKENING of steel. Do not use the terms interchangeably. Stick
> to the point being debated.
Softening of steel can mean weakening of steel. If you want to use the terms differently from each other, then define them as you understand them. What temperatures do you mean for each state of steel? Are you assuming structural steel for high rise buildings? What effect will happen when each temperature is reached?
As well, it's not necessary to insult a debater by accusing them of a 'trick of biasing' and 'misusing words' with NO explanation of what you're talking about. I wasn't even aware that I was being spoken to or about, since I spend most of my time in the alt.conspiracy.jfk forum. I wasn't aware that someone was using both forums in the headers of many of these messages. Now that I am aware, I will check more often that decent treatment of posters is maintained where my name is involved. This type of attack should be monitored, which I had thought was the case in this newsgroup. I had understood that you debate the point and not the person.
> >>> 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
> Several metals, especially iron, are affected by temperature. If you lower
> the temperature of steel it strengthens the magnetic properties, such as
> super cooled magnets. Conversely, temperature sensitivity varies, but when
> a magnet is heated to a temperature known as the Curie point, it loses all
> of its magnetism, even after cooling below that temperature. If you heat
> up steel it weakens. Which makes it more malleable. Japanese sword makers
> use this property to fold the metal into hundreds of layers.
That's nice. Now at what temperature does 'weakening' and 'softening' occur to your understanding? And have you seen this experiment on a steel I-beam that shows that it need not soften or weaken over more than a day of direct fire on it, with also materials such as gypsum wallboard and similar things found in an office building? For speed, go forward to 4:40 to follow the demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YuDKUCALtU
I've seen a demonstration of jet fuel in a pool causing an overhead I-beam to bend in the middle with a lot of weight on it in less than 4 minutes. This was a case where the steel bent and allowed the weight to fall into the fire below. Was it 'softening' or 'weakening'? Here's the experiment:
Of course, for many reasons the jet fuel did not do the same in the WTC fires, or the buildings would have fallen down in a few minutes or broken at the point of the plane strike like the experiment, instead of lasting about an hour each before falling similar to a controlled destruction.
Remember, the jet fuel was largely burned off as the planes hit the buildings, and then the remainder washed down to the lowest level a liquid could find, though only a few floors down. So something was incorrectly set up in the experiment.
> 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.
I would have to interject some truth here. While a large amount of jet fuel was involved with each plane, much of it was blown over the side of the buildings when the planes hit, as is proven by the large balls of flame upon the strikes. After the initial loss of fuel, what was left didn't just stay in one spot and cook steel beams, it did as most liquids do and slithered away in all directions, pouring to lower levels and sometimes out of the hole made by the planes. As NIST guessed, the fuel would burn off in a few minutes: "But here we note from the recent NIST report that:
“The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes”
and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a
given location.
(NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.)"
> How does this jet fuel find it's way to climb 'on' top of this steel?
It doesn't. Even if it were true that jet fuel fires caused the softening of steel and the collapse of the 2 twin towers, they wouldn't have fallen straight down into their own footprints. Because the fires were only seen on a few floors, the major amounts of building above and below the plane strikes and fire areas were not affected by fire of ANY kind.
Those parts of the building contained massive steel beams and supports that were made to hold up the whole building and they wouldn't simply 'let go' and allow the buildings to fall as if there were NO supports present at all. More than likely, the upper part of the buildings would let go at a weak point, probably where a plane went through, and the building top would fall in that direction. And when that major chunk of building fell, it would produce much less dust than the real situation, which collapsed every floor.
> > >> 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:
> But I did show that Curt was wrong when he said that the steel in
> office fires is "uncomprimised". And it shows that Truther sites that
> say that steel is not weakened in office fires to be lying.
mainframetech also seems to be confused about the meaning of the word "obvious." The sentence doesn't say "obviously with no damage," it says there is "no obvious damage." That merely means that the damage wasn't apparent on the surface. Deep structural damage often doesn't manifest itself to the naked eye until it's too late. Everything surrounding this sentence, including the very paragraph it concludes, speaks to the damage suffered by this building in the fire, which necessitated its (eventual) total destruction.
> > > > > > > > > > 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...
Why go there when this will take you there and tell you what they
said. Now if this thermite can cut differently than your NatGeo team
claimed it does, one should certainly be thinking their little I beam
on a jet fuel 'campfire' would be a little suspect, eh?
> > > > > > 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.
Well the explosives are one commodity that is just pushed to the side,
'conveniently'. Some I believe even before the plane(s) hit. I guess
this magic jet fuel has great powers besides this 'burning like no
other inciderant' could, has explosive powers as well? I am sure MF
can give the the replay on the Explosives video you must have
conveniently missed?
> > 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.
I think I am on record for stating fires in other buildings don't
compromise the steel, that have burned much longer. Either the fires
were inferior fires, or you need to answer why steel would not be
compromised in them. I don't think that's quite in your interest, is
it? I think MF had a comeback for that. Did you read it, and will
you comment on it?
> > > > > > 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 you are incapable of anything but lame one-liners.....
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.
I only like one. The steel wasn't compromised in that fire. The only
important question is, why wasn't it?
It should be a
> simple thing for you to come up with 10 major things, being you are so
> good at this thinking stuff.
Well, while your 'thinking' think why when buildings generally fall,
the fall not like a CD, but with where the compromise is in the
building, whether it be tumbling over sideways completely or less of a
tumble? Why wouldn't 'compromised-by-fire' in any building, or in
this case the WTC's, just get this fire where it burned hot enough for
a few beams to compromise and fall with just those beams, instead of
having to have all of them comprise basically at the same time, before
it could fall straight down?
> > > > 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.
And yet, you can't put your finger on why all these buildings of
history seem to stand up in fires with steel beams. Lots of
buildings, and why doesn't 'everyone' seem to know that?
> > > Check the Meridian fire we had here in Philly...
I think the heat inflcted trauma elsewhere, but for the sake of the
moderators, I will refrain from exactly where.
> >and if it did, it wouldn't
> > have come straight down like the WTC's did.
> You think it would have floated up?
I think you should do some research on how buildings fall, many videos
to choose from. And some on CD's not going so good, and how they
fell. You won't even have to read, just look.
> > > "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.
> On Nov 11, 5:45 pm, wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> I would have to interject some truth here. While a large amount of jet
> fuel was involved with each plane, much of it was blown over the side of
> the buildings when the planes hit, as is proven by the large balls of
> flame upon the strikes.
What makes you think you can`t make a huge fireball with a
relatively small amount of fuel mist?
> After the initial loss of fuel, what was left
> didn't just stay in one spot and cook steel beams, it did as most liquids
> do and slithered away in all directions, pouring to lower levels and
> sometimes out of the hole made by the planes. As NIST guessed, the fuel
> would burn off in a few minutes: "But here we note from the recent NIST
> report that:
> “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes”
> and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a
> given location.
> (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.)"
> > How does this jet fuel find it's way to climb 'on' top of this steel?
> It doesn't.
It`s the fumes that burn.
> Even if it were true that jet fuel fires caused the
> softening of steel and the collapse of the 2 twin towers, they wouldn't
> have fallen straight down into their own footprints.
<snicker> Truthers apparently think these building should have
floated up.
> Because the fires
> were only seen on a few floors, the major amounts of building above and
> below the plane strikes and fire areas were not affected by fire of ANY
> kind.
You live in a world where Willie Coyote can suspend himself in
midair indefinately, as long as he doesn`t realize he is in thin air.
> Those parts of the building contained massive steel beams and supports
> that were made to hold up the whole building and they wouldn't simply 'let
> go' and allow the buildings to fall as if there were NO supports present
> at all.
It`s called structural failure.
> More than likely, the upper part of the buildings would let go at
> a weak point, probably where a plane went through, and the building top
> would fall in that direction.
This is silly. The building parts, and the connections (rivets,
welds, ect) cannot withstand the torquing involved. The joints and
connections must fail, the stress is way beyond what they can
withstand.
> And when that major chunk of building fell,
> it would produce much less dust than the real situation, which collapsed
> every floor.
It produced the exact amount of dust such building produce when they
fall.
> > > >> 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 11, 5:45 pm, wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> I would have to interject some truth here. While a large amount of jet
> fuel was involved with each plane, much of it was blown over the side of
> the buildings when the planes hit, as is proven by the large balls of
> flame upon the strikes. After the initial loss of fuel, what was left
> didn't just stay in one spot and cook steel beams, it did as most liquids
> do and slithered away in all directions, pouring to lower levels and
> sometimes out of the hole made by the planes. As NIST guessed, the fuel
> would burn off in a few minutes: "But here we note from the recent NIST
> report that:
As I said the fuel went flying when the plane stopped. And it dripped down and pooled on the intact floors. SHOW me the fuel pouring out of the holes you are talking about. Don't just speculate.
> “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes”
> and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a
> given location.
> (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.)"
Yeah, 20 minutes is enough to weaken the steel.
>> How does this jet fuel find it's way to climb 'on' top of this steel?
> It doesn't. Even if it were true that jet fuel fires caused the
> softening of steel and the collapse of the 2 twin towers, they wouldn't
Stop saying softening. Weakening is what we were talking about. Stick to the subject.
> have fallen straight down into their own footprints. Because the fires
It is not impossible for tall buildings to fall straight down into their own footprints. In fact it is more likely if the cause of the collapse is pancaking.
> were only seen on a few floors, the major amounts of building above and
> below the plane strikes and fire areas were not affected by fire of ANY
> kind.
So what. They will collapse because of the weight above them which they can no longer support.
> Those parts of the building contained massive steel beams and supports
> that were made to hold up the whole building and they wouldn't simply 'let
> go' and allow the buildings to fall as if there were NO supports present
> at all. More than likely, the upper part of the buildings would let go at
Yes they would. And other buildings have fallen in a similar manner.
> a weak point, probably where a plane went through, and the building top
> would fall in that direction. And when that major chunk of building fell,
> it would produce much less dust than the real situation, which collapsed
> every floor.
The floors did not collapse because of the damage the plane crash did, which they were designed to withstand.
Otherwise they would have collapsed immediately.
>>>>> 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 11, 5:44 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/10/2012 10:07 PM, mainframetech 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. Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
>>> various modes, as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
>>> wider orders than we figured. Read this article showing that the
>>> softening point of steel could not have been reached:
>> Again, stop your trick of biasing the argument by misusing words. We were
>> not talking about MELTING or SOFTENING of steel. We were talking about
>> structural WEAKENING of steel. Do not use the terms interchangeably. Stick
>> to the point being debated.
> Softening of steel can mean weakening of steel. If you want to use the
> terms differently from each other, then define them as you understand
> them. What temperatures do you mean for each state of steel? Are you
> assuming structural steel for high rise buildings? What effect will happen
> when each temperature is reached?
> As well, it's not necessary to insult a debater by accusing them of a
> 'trick of biasing' and 'misusing words' with NO explanation of what you're
> talking about. I wasn't even aware that I was being spoken to or about,
> since I spend most of my time in the alt.conspiracy.jfk forum. I wasn't
> aware that someone was using both forums in the headers of many of these
> messages. Now that I am aware, I will check more often that decent
> treatment of posters is maintained where my name is involved. This type
> of attack should be monitored, which I had thought was the case in this
> newsgroup. I had understood that you debate the point and not the person.
Weakening means the steel loses strength.
Softening means pliable, bendable.
Melting means becoming liquid.
The exact temperature depends mainly on temperature. I have posted URLs which give the exact temperatures for each condition depending on the type of steel. Some are totally unrelated to 9/11, but many have an anti-Truther bias.
In case you are a newbie, I have been posting here much longer than most people. I used to crosspost in the Nuthouse, but since Comcast dropped the newsgroups I can only post directly to the McAdams server.
A lot of people don't even bother editing out the second newsgroup, but I try to do so.
I didn't realize that I had used your real name and it I did so accidentally I apologize. It was not intentional or an attempt to OUT you to your colleagues.
>>>>> 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
>> Several metals, especially iron, are affected by temperature. If you lower
>> the temperature of steel it strengthens the magnetic properties, such as
>> super cooled magnets. Conversely, temperature sensitivity varies, but when
>> a magnet is heated to a temperature known as the Curie point, it loses all
>> of its magnetism, even after cooling below that temperature. If you heat
>> up steel it weakens. Which makes it more malleable. Japanese sword makers
>> use this property to fold the metal into hundreds of layers.
> That's nice. Now at what temperature does 'weakening' and 'softening'
> occur to your understanding? And have you seen this experiment on a steel
You can find a lot of these answers on the Web.
Some common types of steel lose 10% of their strength at 450 C (840 F), and 40% at 550 C (1022 F). At temperatures above 800 C ( 1475 F), it has lost 90% of its strength.
Other types of steel are made to stand higher temperatures before losing 10% of their strength, but they are much more expensive (and are weaker at room temperature).
And there are types which actually get stronger, up to 450 F (but then get a lot weaker at higher temperatures).
At 1000 Deg F, steel will have lost 80 to 90% of it's strength, or of it's ability to support a strucrural load.
The other significant factor is the load or stress on the structure. The higher the load or stress the lower the temperature at which the steel will fail.
> I-beam that shows that it need not soften or weaken over more than a day
> of direct fire on it, with also materials such as gypsum wallboard and
> similar things found in an office building? For speed, go forward to 4:40
> to follow the demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YuDKUCALtU
> I've seen a demonstration of jet fuel in a pool causing an overhead
> I-beam to bend in the middle with a lot of weight on it in less than 4
> minutes. This was a case where the steel bent and allowed the weight to
> fall into the fire below. Was it 'softening' or 'weakening'? Here's the
> experiment:
> Of course, for many reasons the jet fuel did not do the same in the WTC
> fires, or the buildings would have fallen down in a few minutes or broken
> at the point of the plane strike like the experiment, instead of lasting
> about an hour each before falling similar to a controlled destruction.
And there is a big difference between one beam failing and entire floors.
> Remember, the jet fuel was largely burned off as the planes hit the
No.
> buildings, and then the remainder washed down to the lowest level a liquid
> could find, though only a few floors down. So something was incorrectly
> set up in the experiment.
> > > > > > > > > > > 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...
> Why go there when this will take you there and tell you what they
> said.
Why go anywhere else when this source tells you how those angle cuts
were made. See, you don`t get to go to thermite until you`ve shown
that those cuts could not have been made by a cutting torch.
> Now if this thermite can cut differently than your NatGeo team
> claimed it does, one should certainly be thinking their little I beam
> on a jet fuel 'campfire' would be a little suspect, eh?
Bad thinking, as usual. I don`t have to rule out magic first, not
when there are more reasonable possibilities available.
It might be, this is the kind of nonsense he likes to cling to.
Some points that couldn`t possibly occur to you, with you head all
filled with nonsense...
Is the idea that the plane just happened to hit right above where
the thermite was planted?
Thermite is activated by heat, how could it not ignite with intense
fires in the area for about 45 minutes prior to it going off?
The molten metal seen pouring out of the building is aluminum, a
common metal used to make office furniture and airplanes that melts at
a much lower burning temperature.
The spheres of metal found in the dust could have been made during
the construction of the towers, when welding and cutting torches were
used.
This "It looks that way to me" approach can`t establish anything,
meaning you are doomed to spin you wheels forever never getting
anywhere. I think you might find this a plus.
> > > > > > > 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.
> Well the explosives are one commodity that is just pushed to the side,
> 'conveniently'.
Along with magic pixie dust.
> Some I believe even before the plane(s) hit. I guess
> this magic jet fuel has great powers besides this 'burning like no
> other inciderant' could, has explosive powers as well? I am sure MF
> can give the the replay on the Explosives video you must have
> conveniently missed?
I bet it can`t establish that there were explosions before the
planes hit. And what could possibly be the reason to have this
immensely complex plot if you were going to tip your hand by having
explosions before the plane hit? And what purpose could an explosion
that early serve?
> > > 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.
> I think I am on record for stating fires in other buildings don't
> compromise the steel, that have burned much longer.
Pay attention, the steel was compromised in all the buildings where
the fires burned hotter than 600 degrees.
> Either the fires
> were inferior fires, or you need to answer why steel would not be
> compromised in them.
It was compromised. I linked to the Meridian fire which showed the
steel warped by heat.
> I don't think that's quite in your interest, is
> it?
Those fires have very little in common with the 9-11 event, it`s
like looking at apples to tell you about oranges. I thought I
explained this to you.
> I think MF had a comeback for that. Did you read it, and will
> you comment on it?
Like I`m supposed to know what you are referring to?
> > > > > > > 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 you are incapable of anything but lame one-liners.....
They have the same effect as reason on 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.
> I only like one.
When challenged to think you can`t. You couldn`t even come up with
the easy one, "planes".
> The steel wasn't compromised in that fire. The only
> important question is, why wasn't it?
> >>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>> 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.
> If nano-thermite caused explosions then why should any unexploded
> nano-termite be found in dust? Maybe it was created by the crash and fires.
Nano-thermite does not have to cause explosions. It can do both
depending on how it's used. The nano-thermite that was found in the
dust of the WTC was in dust form itself. It was microscopic, along
with tiny micro-spheres of iron, which also shouldn't be present in
the dust unless something broke down the steel in the buildings. Nano-
thermite can be made to explode or to have an incendiary effect.
Here's an example demonstration working with the stufff. A lot less
of it can bring down larger buildings than NIST, FEMA or Popular
Mechanics suggested. But then their goal is to prove that the
buildings did NOT come down by controlled demolition. To skip ahead
in the video, go to 4:55:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
> >>> "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
> So what. Same conditions as the towers.
Nope. Not the same conditions.
> > 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
> Not true.
> You can see it splashing out. The plane is going about 500 MPH and
> suddenly stops. The fuel would keep on going.
Watch the video and you will se that a lot of fuel is blasted out
of the building upon impact. That wastes the fuel, and the remainder
then burns off more quickly.
> > 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
> "The hole"? What "the hole"? Show me "the hole."
You can't figure out that the 'hole' is the hole that the plane made
going into the building? It didn't disappear.
> > little 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 begun to slow
> > down, yet the buildings stayed up, until they came down as if their
> > 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,
> > > > > > > > > > > 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...
> Why go there when this will take you there and tell you what they
> said. Now if this thermite can cut differently than your NatGeo team
> claimed it does, one should certainly be thinking their little I beam
> on a jet fuel 'campfire' would be a little suspect, eh?
> > > > > > > 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.
> Well the explosives are one commodity that is just pushed to the side,
> 'conveniently'. Some I believe even before the plane(s) hit. I guess
> this magic jet fuel has great powers besides this 'burning like no
> other inciderant' could, has explosive powers as well? I am sure MF
> can give the the replay on the Explosives video you must have
> conveniently missed?
> > > 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.
> I think I am on record for stating fires in other buildings don't
> compromise the steel, that have burned much longer. Either the fires
> were inferior fires, or you need to answer why steel would not be
> compromised in them. I don't think that's quite in your interest, is
> it? I think MF had a comeback for that. Did you read it, and will
> you comment on it?
> > > > > > > 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 you are incapable of anything but lame one-liners.....
> 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.
> I only like one. The steel wasn't compromised in that fire. The only
> important question is, why wasn't it?
> It should be a> simple thing for you to come up with 10 major things, being you are so
> > good at this thinking stuff.
> Well, while your 'thinking' think why when buildings generally fall,
> the fall not like a CD, but with where the compromise is in the
> building, whether it be tumbling over sideways completely or less of a
> tumble? Why wouldn't 'compromised-by-fire' in any building, or in
> this case the WTC's, just get this fire where it burned hot enough for
> a few beams to compromise and fall with just those beams, instead of
> having to have all of them comprise basically at the same time, before
> it could fall straight down?
> > > > > 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.
> And yet, you can't put your finger on why all these buildings of
> history seem to stand up in fires with steel beams. Lots of
> buildings, and why doesn't 'everyone' seem to know that?
> > > > Check the Meridian fire we had here in Philly...
> I think the heat inflcted trauma elsewhere, but for the sake of the
> moderators, I will refrain from exactly where.
> > >and if it did, it wouldn't
> > > have come straight down like the WTC's did.
> > You think it would have floated up?
> I think you should do some research on how buildings fall, many videos
> to choose from. And some on CD's not going so good, and how they
> fell. You won't even have to read, just look.
> > > > "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
> >>>>>>>>> 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.
> > I would have to interject some truth here. While a large amount of jet
> > fuel was involved with each plane, much of it was blown over the side of
> > the buildings when the planes hit, as is proven by the large balls of
> > flame upon the strikes. After the initial loss of fuel, what was left
> > didn't just stay in one spot and cook steel beams, it did as most liquids
> > do and slithered away in all directions, pouring to lower levels and
> > sometimes out of the hole made by the planes. As NIST guessed, the fuel
> > would burn off in a few minutes: "But here we note from the recent NIST
> > report that:
> As I said the fuel went flying when the plane stopped. And it dripped
> down and pooled on the intact floors. SHOW me the fuel pouring out of
> the holes you are talking about. Don't just speculate.
There's no speculation involved unless you don't believe the natural
laws of physics, at least at the Newtonian level. Fluid flows
downward in the direction of gravity. When the planes hit the 2
towers (never mind WTC7 for now) you can see in any video, and there
are many, that there was more than one floor affected and
compromised. What fuel was left inside the buildings after the
initial flash of fuel flowed downward wherever it could and no
speculation is neeeded That's what a liquid in a gravity environment
does. Under the obvious damaqge to many floors seen in videos, we can
easily determine the course of any fuel left. However, NIST has given
a time of burning in minutes for the remaining fuel.
Now if we take building 7, which was not hit by any plane, and only
by some debris from one of the twin towers, there is no large load of
jet fuel to be thrown into the building, and so the fires (what
started those?) seen on a few floors must be office furniture or the
diesel fuel in a few tanks for generators. The fires burned out
altogether while the building stayed erect without any difficulty in
WTC7 before it was brought down, which can be seen in the following
link:
http://www.911conspiracy.tv/7_WTC.html
Note the many shots of the building before collapse and that
windows have no fire in them. Note too, on one side of the building
the black puffs of smoke that appear in certain windows just as the
building falls. That is not puffs caused by the compression of air as
the building falls, it happens the instant the building begins to
move, and no compression could have been started. I suspect those to
be weakening explosions within the building. If it had been
compression, why would obnly those few windows burst out, and not many
more around the building?
> > “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes”
> > and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a
> > given location.
> > (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.)"
> Yeah, 20 minutes is enough to weaken the steel.
So easy to say, but then what do you say to explain the experiment
where the I-beam was left in flame for over a day with no harm to it?
Here it is again. Go forward to 4:40 to skip the logic and setup
text:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YuDKUCALtU
> >> How does this jet fuel find it's way to climb 'on' top of this steel?
> > It doesn't. Even if it were true that jet fuel fires caused the
> > softening of steel and the collapse of the 2 twin towers, they wouldn't
> Stop saying softening. Weakening is what we were talking about. Stick to
> the subject.
My definition of the 2 for this purpose is that they are
synonymous. Although you can show 2 different meanings, I'm using
them for the same reason. The weakening of the steel through
softening, not melting. And please don't be giving orders so that you
can have things said the way you like. If my posts don't please you,
don't read them. Put me in your killfile.
> > have fallen straight down into their own footprints. Because the fires
> It is not impossible for tall buildings to fall straight down into their
> own footprints. In fact it is more likely if the cause of the collapse
> is pancaking.
Here are many examples of 'falling' of buildings, you'll see
practically none that fell into their own footprint except from
controlled demolition. That type of fall is not common at all:
http://tinyurl.com/ah28ogx
Note the levels stacked on each other like pancakes, which you will
NOT see in any pictures of any twin tower or WTC7 debris. Those
building were reduced to dust, not floor layers.
> > were only seen on a few floors, the major amounts of building above and
> > below the plane strikes and fire areas were not affected by fire of ANY
> > kind.
> So what. They will collapse because of the weight above them which they
> can no longer support.
Why can they no longer support the qweight? Not the plane affected
floors, but all the other floors that afre used to supporting the
whole building for years? Wouldn't they slow down the fall by
resisting? Yet thetre was no resistance, which only happens when the
main supports are taken out or cut. The buildings would normally
collapse by falling to the weakened side, which didn't happen:
http://tinyurl.com/ah28ogx
> > Those parts of the building contained massive steel beams and supports
> > that were made to hold up the whole building and they wouldn't simply 'let
> > go' and allow the buildings to fall as if there were NO supports present
> > at all. More than likely, the upper part of the buildings would let go at
> Yes they would. And other buildings have fallen in a similar manner.
> > a weak point, probably where a plane went through, and the building top
> > would fall in that direction. And when that major chunk of building fell,
> > it would produce much less dust than the real situation, which collapsed
> > every floor.
Please show backup for that statement. Of steel frame buildings
that fell as if there was NO supports present at all, straight down
into their own footprint, and not from controlled demolition.
Buildings that fell in a "similar manner". Thanks!
> The floors did not collapse because of the damage the plane crash did,
> which they were designed to withstand.
> Otherwise they would have collapsed immediately.
Where do you think the weak point was? the floors where fire was?
That was somewhere in the middle, from the videos. What's the
difference? Except for controlled demolition, there is NO way for ALL
floors to be weakened at once and fall into its own footprint. It
would be bound to fall to one side or another, especially when 3
buildings fall on the same day, with and without planes hitting them:
http://tinyurl.com/ah28ogx
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>> 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. Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> >>> various modes, as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
> >>> wider orders than we figured. Read this article showing that the
> >>> softening point of steel could not have been reached:
> >> Again, stop your trick of biasing the argument by misusing words. We were
> >> not talking about MELTING or SOFTENING of steel. We were talking about
> >> structural WEAKENING of steel. Do not use the terms interchangeably. Stick
> >> to the point being debated.
> > Softening of steel can mean weakening of steel. If you want to use the
> > terms differently from each other, then define them as you understand
> > them. What temperatures do you mean for each state of steel? Are you
> > assuming structural steel for high rise buildings? What effect will happen
> > when each temperature is reached?
> > As well, it's not necessary to insult a debater by accusing them of a
> > 'trick of biasing' and 'misusing words' with NO explanation of what you're
> > talking about. I wasn't even aware that I was being spoken to or about,
> > since I spend most of my time in the alt.conspiracy.jfk forum. I wasn't
> > aware that someone was using both forums in the headers of many of these
> > messages. Now that I am aware, I will check more often that decent
> > treatment of posters is maintained where my name is involved. This type
> > of attack should be monitored, which I had thought was the case in this
> > newsgroup. I had understood that you debate the point and not the person.
> Weakening means the steel loses strength.
> Softening means pliable, bendable.
> Melting means becoming liquid.
> The exact temperature depends mainly on temperature. I have posted URLs
> which give the exact temperatures for each condition depending on the
> type of steel. Some are totally unrelated to 9/11, but many have an
> anti-Truther bias.
Thank you for the definitions as you use them. I tend to use
softening and weakening interchangably, in case you see me using one
or the other, assume both.
> In case you are a newbie, I have been posting here much longer than most
> people. I used to crosspost in the Nuthouse, but since Comcast dropped
> the newsgroups I can only post directly to the McAdams server.
> A lot of people don't even bother editing out the second newsgroup, but
> I try to do so.
I've been posting in the conspiracy newsgroup for a few years now.
I use Google Groups, which seems more powerful than the various
newsgroup software I've seen or heard about. I started in the
misc.health.alternative group for a while and finally got out due to
all the drug company shills working the board there. My real world
name is Chris and my handle is mainframetech, and using either is fine
by me. I was more concerned with what was being said to me that I
couldn't 'hear'. It's OK now that I realize that this thread is
copied into 2 different newsgroups. I don't know who did that. I use
Windows 7 for now, and although I've used Unix and Linix in the past,
I would not use them anymore unless paid an exorbitant amount of
money...:)
> I didn't realize that I had used your real name and it I did so
> accidentally I apologize. It was not intentional or an attempt to OUT
> you to your colleagues.
No problem. As noted above, my concern what was being said to me
that I couldn't 'hear', but the problem is solved now. I'm not
bothered by my name 'Chris' or 'mainframetech' being used at all.
> >>>>> 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
> >> Several metals, especially iron, are affected by temperature. If you lower
> >> the temperature of steel it strengthens the magnetic properties, such as
> >> super cooled magnets. Conversely, temperature sensitivity varies, but when
> >> a magnet is heated to a temperature known as the Curie point, it loses all
> >> of its magnetism, even after cooling below that temperature. If you heat
> >> up steel it weakens. Which makes it more malleable. Japanese sword makers
> >> use this property to fold the metal into hundreds of layers.
> > That's nice. Now at what temperature does 'weakening' and 'softening'
> > occur to your understanding? And have you seen this experiment on a steel
> You can find a lot of these answers on the Web.
Of course, but meanings and usage differ on the web.
> Some common types of steel lose 10% of their strength at 450 C (840 F),
> and 40% at 550 C (1022 F). At temperatures above 800 C ( 1475 F), it has
> lost 90% of its strength.
> Other types of steel are made to stand higher temperatures before losing
> 10% of their strength, but they are much more expensive (and are weaker
> at room temperature).
> And there are types which actually get stronger, up to 450 F (but then
> get a lot weaker at higher temperatures).
> At 1000 Deg F, steel will have lost 80 to 90% of it's strength, or of
> it's ability to support a strucrural load.
> The other significant factor is the load or stress on the structure. The
> higher the load or stress the lower the temperature at which the steel
> will fail.
> > I-beam that shows that it need not soften or weaken over more than a day
> > of direct fire on it, with also materials such as gypsum wallboard and
> > similar things found in an office building? For speed, go forward to 4:40
> > to follow the demonstration:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YuDKUCALtU
> > I've seen a demonstration of jet fuel in a pool causing an overhead
> > I-beam to bend in the middle with a lot of weight on it in less than 4
> > minutes. This was a case where the steel bent and allowed the weight to
> > fall into the fire below. Was it 'softening' or 'weakening'? Here's the
> > experiment:
> > Of course, for many reasons the jet fuel did not do the same in the WTC
> > fires, or the buildings would have fallen down in a few minutes or broken
> > at the point of the plane strike like the experiment, instead of lasting
> > about an hour each before falling similar to a controlled destruction.
> And there is a big difference between one beam failing and entire floors.
> > Remember, the jet fuel was largely burned off as the planes hit the
> No.
> > buildings, and then the remainder washed down to
> On Nov 15, 11:35 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 14, 9:38 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 14, 4:57 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> One more thing you can go nowhere with, eh? Here, let me help you...
>> Why go there when this will take you there and tell you what they
>> said.
> Why go anywhere else when this source tells you how those angle cuts
> were made. See, you don`t get to go to thermite until you`ve shown
> that those cuts could not have been made by a cutting torch.
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. You don't seem to understand how the burden of proof works. You make a claim, you prove it. You don't just make up a claim and say it is true if no one can disprove it.
>> Now if this thermite can cut differently than your NatGeo team
>> claimed it does, one should certainly be thinking their little I beam
>> on a jet fuel 'campfire' would be a little suspect, eh?
> Bad thinking, as usual. I don`t have to rule out magic first, not
> when there are more reasonable possibilities available.
You should not let him get away with the false premise.
The NATGEO team did not CUT, SOFTEN, or MELT the steel beam. The intense heat WEAKENED the steel beam and it BUCKLE, not BROKE, not TORE.
>> This I think is what MF was trying to show you.
> It might be, this is the kind of nonsense he likes to cling to.
> Some points that couldn`t possibly occur to you, with you head all
> filled with nonsense...
> Is the idea that the plane just happened to hit right above where
> the thermite was planted?
Who said that? And which professsional demolition company plants explosives only on ONE floor. Never happened.
> Thermite is activated by heat, how could it not ignite with intense
> fires in the area for about 45 minutes prior to it going off?
I guess the idea is that it is shielded and then set off by remote control.
And if the explosives are on a lower floor then they would not be ignite by intense fires on the floors above.
> The molten metal seen pouring out of the building is aluminum, a
> common metal used to make office furniture and airplanes that melts at
> a much lower burning temperature.
> The spheres of metal found in the dust could have been made during
> the construction of the towers, when welding and cutting torches were
> used.
What "spheres"? SHOW me these "spheres." Truthers are talking about pools of molten metal.
> This "It looks that way to me" approach can`t establish anything,
> meaning you are doomed to spin you wheels forever never getting
> anywhere. I think you might find this a plus.
>>>>>>>> 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.
>> Well the explosives are one commodity that is just pushed to the side,
>> 'conveniently'.
> Along with magic pixie dust.
Certainly seemed like magic pixie dust to the Native Americans who had never seen explosives before.
Imagine putting two household chemicals together and blowing up an entire building.
>> Some I believe even before the plane(s) hit. I guess
>> this magic jet fuel has great powers besides this 'burning like no
>> other inciderant' could, has explosive powers as well? I am sure MF
>> can give the the replay on the Explosives video you must have
>> conveniently missed?
> I bet it can`t establish that there were explosions before the
> planes hit. And what could possibly be the reason to have this
> immensely complex plot if you were going to tip your hand by having
> explosions before the plane hit? And what purpose could an explosion
> that early serve?
How exactly said there were explosions before the planes hit? Was there live news coverage the day before documenting these explosions.
In controlled demolitions they may cut several connecting beams before they blow up the building. To assure that the building falls in the right direction, such as away from the adjacent building.
>>>> 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.
>> I think I am on record for stating fires in other buildings don't
>> compromise the steel, that have burned much longer.
> Pay attention, the steel was compromised in all the buildings where
> the fires burned hotter than 600 degrees.
>> Either the fires
>> were inferior fires, or you need to answer why steel would not be
>> compromised in them.
> It was compromised. I linked to the Meridian fire which showed the
> steel warped by heat.
>> I don't think that's quite in your interest, is
>> it?
> Those fires have very little in common with the 9-11 event, it`s
> like looking at apples to tell you about oranges. I thought I
> explained this to you.
>> I think MF had a comeback for that. Did you read it, and will
>> you comment on it?
> Like I`m supposed to know what you are referring to?
> On Nov 14, 9:38 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 14, 4:57 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> One more thing you can go nowhere with, eh? Here, let me help you...
> Why go there when this will take you there and tell you what they
> said. Now if this thermite can cut differently than your NatGeo team
> claimed it does, one should certainly be thinking their little I beam
> on a jet fuel 'campfire' would be a little suspect, eh?
>>>>>>> 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.
> Well the explosives are one commodity that is just pushed to the side,
> 'conveniently'. Some I believe even before the plane(s) hit. I guess
Like what? Like the day before? To make it easier to blow up the next day? Can you show me some footage of these earlier explosions?
> this magic jet fuel has great powers besides this 'burning like no
> other inciderant' could, has explosive powers as well? I am sure MF
> can give the the replay on the Explosives video you must have
> conveniently missed?
>>> 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.
> I think I am on record for stating fires in other buildings don't
> compromise the steel, that have burned much longer. Either the fires
> were inferior fires, or you need to answer why steel would not be
They were secondary fires, not directly caused by jet fuel.
> compromised in them. I don't think that's quite in your interest, is
> it? I think MF had a comeback for that. Did you read it, and will
> you comment on it?
>>>>>>> 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 you are incapable of anything but lame one-liners.....
> 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.
> I only like one. The steel wasn't compromised in that fire. The only
> important question is, why wasn't it?
> It should be a
>> simple thing for you to come up with 10 major things, being you are so
>> good at this thinking stuff.
> Well, while your 'thinking' think why when buildings generally fall,
> the fall not like a CD, but with where the compromise is in the
> building, whether it be tumbling over sideways completely or less of a
> tumble? Why wouldn't 'compromised-by-fire' in any building, or in
> this case the WTC's, just get this fire where it burned hot enough for
> a few beams to compromise and fall with just those beams, instead of
> having to have all of them comprise basically at the same time, before
> it could fall straight down?
>>>>> 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.
> And yet, you can't put your finger on why all these buildings of
> history seem to stand up in fires with steel beams. Lots of
> buildings, and why doesn't 'everyone' seem to know that?
>>>> Check the Meridian fire we had here in Philly...
> I think the heat inflcted trauma elsewhere, but for the sake of the
> moderators, I will refrain from exactly where.
>>> and if it did, it wouldn't
>>> have come straight down like the WTC's did.
>> You think it would have floated up?
> I think you should do some research on how buildings fall, many videos
> to choose from. And some on CD's not going so good, and how they
> fell. You won't even have to read, just look.
>>>> "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.
>> But I did show that Curt was wrong when he said that the steel in
>> office fires is "uncomprimised". And it shows that Truther sites that
>> say that steel is not weakened in office fires to be lying.
> mainframetech also seems to be confused about the meaning of the word
> "obvious." The sentence doesn't say "obviously with no damage," it says
> there is "no obvious damage." That merely means that the damage wasn't
> apparent on the surface. Deep structural damage often doesn't manifest
> itself to the naked eye until it's too late. Everything surrounding this
> sentence, including the very paragraph it concludes, speaks to the damage
> suffered by this building in the fire, which necessitated its (eventual)
> total destruction.
> /sm
None of the public could see the obvious structural failure of the walkways at the Hyatt Regency until after they collapsed due to poor design and incompetence.
> On Nov 15, 11:44 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/15/2012 1:50 PM, mainframetech 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. Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
>>>>> various modes, as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. I guess he has
>>>>> wider orders than we figured. Read this article showing that the
>>>>> softening point of steel could not have been reached:
>>>> Again, stop your trick of biasing the argument by misusing words. We were
>>>> not talking about MELTING or SOFTENING of steel. We were talking about
>>>> structural WEAKENING of steel. Do not use the terms interchangeably. Stick
>>>> to the point being debated.
>>> Softening of steel can mean weakening of steel. If you want to use the
>>> terms differently from each other, then define them as you understand
>>> them. What temperatures do you mean for each state of steel? Are you
>>> assuming structural steel for high rise buildings? What effect will happen
>>> when each temperature is reached?
>>> As well, it's not necessary to insult a debater by accusing them of a
>>> 'trick of biasing' and 'misusing words' with NO explanation of what you're
>>> talking about. I wasn't even aware that I was being spoken to or about,
>>> since I spend most of my time in the alt.conspiracy.jfk forum. I wasn't
>>> aware that someone was using both forums in the headers of many of these
>>> messages. Now that I am aware, I will check more often that decent
>>> treatment of posters is maintained where my name is involved. This type
>>> of attack should be monitored, which I had thought was the case in this
>>> newsgroup. I had understood that you debate the point and not the person.
>> Weakening means the steel loses strength.
>> Softening means pliable, bendable.
>> Melting means becoming liquid.
>> The exact temperature depends mainly on temperature. I have posted URLs
>> which give the exact temperatures for each condition depending on the
>> type of steel. Some are totally unrelated to 9/11, but many have an
>> anti-Truther bias.
> Thank you for the definitions as you use them. I tend to use
> softening and weakening interchangably, in case you see me using one
> or the other, assume both.
Incorrect. Any metal can weaken, but it does not soften until it weakens enough. Try bending steel that has not weakened. As it weakens more and more you will see that it easier and easier to bend. If you keep bending it back and forth it will become so weak that it breaks. Then touch the tip where it broke. It will be hot. You did not melt the steel with jet fuel. All you did was bend it.
Have you ever see the Uri Geller trick of melting a spoon by rubbing it? How come you can't do that with your silverware? Because many magic tricks depend on understanding how science works.
What's that candy that says melts in your mouth, not in your hand?
>> In case you are a newbie, I have been posting here much longer than most
>> people. I used to crosspost in the Nuthouse, but since Comcast dropped
>> the newsgroups I can only post directly to the McAdams server.
>> A lot of people don't even bother editing out the second newsgroup, but
>> I try to do so.
> I've been posting in the conspiracy newsgroup for a few years now.
> I use Google Groups, which seems more powerful than the various
> newsgroup software I've seen or heard about. I started in the
That's your problem right there, using Google Groups.
> misc.health.alternative group for a while and finally got out due to
> all the drug company shills working the board there. My real world
> name is Chris and my handle is mainframetech, and using either is fine
> by me. I was more concerned with what was being said to me that I
> couldn't 'hear'. It's OK now that I realize that this thread is
> copied into 2 different newsgroups. I don't know who did that. I use
It's called crossposting and some people find it annoying.
> Windows 7 for now, and although I've used Unix and Linix in the past,
> I would not use them anymore unless paid an exorbitant amount of
> money...:)
>> I didn't realize that I had used your real name and it I did so
>> accidentally I apologize. It was not intentional or an attempt to OUT
>> you to your colleagues.
> No problem. As noted above, my concern what was being said to me
> that I couldn't 'hear', but the problem is solved now. I'm not
> bothered by my name 'Chris' or 'mainframetech' being used at all.
>>>>>>> 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
>>>> Several metals, especially iron, are affected by temperature. If you lower
>>>> the temperature of steel it strengthens the magnetic properties, such as
>>>> super cooled magnets. Conversely, temperature sensitivity varies, but when
>>>> a magnet is heated to a temperature known as the Curie point, it loses all
>>>> of its magnetism, even after cooling below that temperature. If you heat
>>>> up steel it weakens. Which makes it more malleable. Japanese sword makers
>>>> use this property to fold the metal into hundreds of layers.
>>> That's nice. Now at what temperature does 'weakening' and 'softening'
>>> occur to your understanding? And have you seen this experiment on a steel
>> You can find a lot of these answers on the Web.
> Of course, but meanings and usage differ on the web.
Start by looking on the Web.
The examples I gave you took only a couple of seconds to find. Do NOT rely on Google's NOT function. It does NOT operate correctly.
>> Some common types of steel lose 10% of their strength at 450 C (840 F),
>> and 40% at 550 C (1022 F). At temperatures above 800 C ( 1475 F), it has
>> lost 90% of its strength.
>> Other types of steel are made to stand higher temperatures before losing
>> 10% of their strength, but they are much more expensive (and are weaker
>> at room temperature).
>> And there are types which actually get stronger, up to 450 F (but then
>> get a lot weaker at higher temperatures).
>> At 1000 Deg F, steel will have lost 80 to 90% of it's strength, or of
>> it's ability to support a strucrural load.
>> The other significant factor is the load or stress on the structure. The
>> higher the load or stress the lower the temperature at which the steel
>> will fail.
>>> I-beam that shows that it need not soften or weaken over more than a day
>>> of direct fire on it, with also materials such as gypsum wallboard and
> > On Nov 15, 11:35 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 14, 9:38 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 14, 4:57 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> >>> One more thing you can go nowhere with, eh? Here, let me help you...
> >> Why go there when this will take you there and tell you what they
> >> said.
> > Why go anywhere else when this source tells you how those angle cuts
> > were made. See, you don`t get to go to thermite until you`ve shown
> > that those cuts could not have been made by a cutting torch.
> Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. You don't seem to understand how the burden
> of proof works. You make a claim, you prove it. You don't just make up a
> claim and say it is true if no one can disprove it.
Right, that is why the Truther claims that those cuts in the steel
were made by thermite are meaningless.
> >> Now if this thermite can cut differently than your NatGeo team
> >> claimed it does, one should certainly be thinking their little I beam
> >> on a jet fuel 'campfire' would be a little suspect, eh?
> > Bad thinking, as usual. I don`t have to rule out magic first, not
> > when there are more reasonable possibilities available.
> You should not let him get away with the false premise.
> The NATGEO team did not CUT, SOFTEN, or MELT the steel beam. The intense
> heat WEAKENED the steel beam and it BUCKLE, not BROKE, not TORE.
> >> This I think is what MF was trying to show you.
> > It might be, this is the kind of nonsense he likes to cling to.
> > Some points that couldn`t possibly occur to you, with you head all
> > filled with nonsense...
> > Is the idea that the plane just happened to hit right above where
> > the thermite was planted?
> Who said that? And which professsional demolition company plants
> explosives only on ONE floor. Never happened.
> > Thermite is activated by heat, how could it not ignite with intense
> > fires in the area for about 45 minutes prior to it going off?
> I guess the idea is that it is shielded and then set off by remote control.
> And if the explosives are on a lower floor then they would not be ignite
> by intense fires on the floors above.
> > The molten metal seen pouring out of the building is aluminum, a
> > common metal used to make office furniture and airplanes that melts at
> > a much lower burning temperature.
> > The spheres of metal found in the dust could have been made during
> > the construction of the towers, when welding and cutting torches were
> > used.
> What "spheres"? SHOW me these "spheres." Truthers are talking about
> pools of molten metal.
> > This "It looks that way to me" approach can`t establish anything,
> > meaning you are doomed to spin you wheels forever never getting
> > anywhere. I think you might find this a plus.
> It's more fun that way.
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >> Well the explosives are one commodity that is just pushed to the side,
> >> 'conveniently'.
> > Along with magic pixie dust.
> Certainly seemed like magic pixie dust to the Native Americans who had
> never seen explosives before.
> Imagine putting two household chemicals together and blowing up an
> entire building.
Imagine Native Americans having household chemicals.
> >> Some I believe even before the plane(s) hit. I guess
> >> this magic jet fuel has great powers besides this 'burning like no
> >> other inciderant' could, has explosive powers as well? I am sure MF
> >> can give the the replay on the Explosives video you must have
> >> conveniently missed?
> > I bet it can`t establish that there were explosions before the
> > planes hit. And what could possibly be the reason to have this
> > immensely complex plot if you were going to tip your hand by having
> > explosions before the plane hit? And what purpose could an explosion
> > that early serve?
> How exactly said there were explosions before the planes hit?
> Was there
> live news coverage the day before documenting these explosions.
> In controlled demolitions they may cut several connecting beams before
> they blow up the building. To assure that the building falls in the
> right direction, such as away from the adjacent building.
> >>>> 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.
> >> I think I am on record for stating fires in other buildings don't
> >> compromise the steel, that have burned much longer.
> > Pay attention, the steel was compromised in all the buildings where
> > the fires burned hotter than 600 degrees.
> On Nov 15, 11:40 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/15/2012 1:50 PM, mainframetech 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.
>>> I would have to interject some truth here. While a large amount of jet
>>> fuel was involved with each plane, much of it was blown over the side of
>>> the buildings when the planes hit, as is proven by the large balls of
>>> flame upon the strikes. After the initial loss of fuel, what was left
>>> didn't just stay in one spot and cook steel beams, it did as most liquids
>>> do and slithered away in all directions, pouring to lower levels and
>>> sometimes out of the hole made by the planes. As NIST guessed, the fuel
>>> would burn off in a few minutes: "But here we note from the recent NIST
>>> report that:
>> As I said the fuel went flying when the plane stopped. And it dripped
>> down and pooled on the intact floors. SHOW me the fuel pouring out of
>> the holes you are talking about. Don't just speculate.
> There's no speculation involved unless you don't believe the natural
> laws of physics, at least at the Newtonian level. Fluid flows
> downward in the direction of gravity. When the planes hit the 2
> towers (never mind WTC7 for now) you can see in any video, and there
> are many, that there was more than one floor affected and
> compromised. What fuel was left inside the buildings after the
> initial flash of fuel flowed downward wherever it could and no
> speculation is neeeded That's what a liquid in a gravity environment
> does. Under the obvious damaqge to many floors seen in videos, we can
> easily determine the course of any fuel left. However, NIST has given
> a time of burning in minutes for the remaining fuel.
Forget NIST. YOU said the jet fuel poured out of the hole created by the impact of the plane. SHOW me. You fail.
And I just said that gravity caused the jet fuel to pool on the intact floor below the impact point. Do you even realize that there are different fuel compartments?
> Now if we take building 7, which was not hit by any plane, and only
> by some debris from one of the twin towers, there is no large load of
> jet fuel to be thrown into the building, and so the fires (what
What about the spillage of jet fuel after the impact on the tower?
> started those?) seen on a few floors must be office furniture or the
> diesel fuel in a few tanks for generators. The fires burned out
> altogether while the building stayed erect without any difficulty in
> WTC7 before it was brought down, which can be seen in the following
> link:
> http://www.911conspiracy.tv/7_WTC.html
Which is why it took much longer for it to collapse.
> Note the many shots of the building before collapse and that
> windows have no fire in them. Note too, on one side of the building
> the black puffs of smoke that appear in certain windows just as the
> building falls. That is not puffs caused by the compression of air as
> the building falls, it happens the instant the building begins to
> move, and no compression could have been started. I suspect those to
> be weakening explosions within the building. If it had been
> compression, why would obnly those few windows burst out, and not many
> more around the building?
Where are the flashes of light from the explosives? Oh I see, you've never witnessed a controlled demolition so you can only speculate.
I suggest that you buy the Nova show KABOOM! or make friends with a real researcher who can make a copy of the DVD for you.
>>> “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes”
>>> and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a
>>> given location.
>>> (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.)"
>> Yeah, 20 minutes is enough to weaken the steel.
> So easy to say, but then what do you say to explain the experiment
> where the I-beam was left in flame for over a day with no harm to it?
> Here it is again. Go forward to 4:40 to skip the logic and setup
> text:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YuDKUCALtU
Sure, you can leave an I-beam in a building for 200 years and it won't melt. So what?
>>>> How does this jet fuel find it's way to climb 'on' top of this steel?
>>> It doesn't. Even if it were true that jet fuel fires caused the
>>> softening of steel and the collapse of the 2 twin towers, they wouldn't
>> Stop saying softening. Weakening is what we were talking about. Stick to
>> the subject.
> My definition of the 2 for this purpose is that they are
> synonymous. Although you can show 2 different meanings, I'm using
> them for the same reason. The weakening of the steel through
You are misusing words to try to confuse people and bias the debate. Please stick to the point. I already stipulated that the burning jet fuel did not melt the steel. Did you already stipulate that the burning jet fuel melted the aluminum skins of the planes? When you put hot charcoal into an aluminum foil pan does that melt it?
> softening, not melting. And please don't be giving orders so that you
> can have things said the way you like. If my posts don't please you,
> don't read them. Put me in your killfile.
I don't use a killfile. I am not afraid to debate anything. Nor am I afraid to tell people when they are not being fair in a debate.
>>> have fallen straight down into their own footprints. Because the fires
>> It is not impossible for tall buildings to fall straight down into their
>> own footprints. In fact it is more likely if the cause of the collapse
>> is pancaking.
> Here are many examples of 'falling' of buildings, you'll see
> practically none that fell into their own footprint except from
> controlled demolition. That type of fall is not common at all:
> http://tinyurl.com/ah28ogx
Selection bias. I can also cherry pick buildings which fell intact on their sides. Not the same criteria.
> Note the levels stacked on each other like pancakes, which you will
> NOT see in any pictures of any twin tower or WTC7 debris. Those
> building were reduced to dust, not floor layers.
Because the towers were open floor concept and turned into dust.
>>> were only seen on a few floors, the major amounts of building above and
>>> below the plane strikes and fire areas were not affected by fire of ANY
>>> kind.
>> So what. They will collapse because of the weight above them which they
>> can no longer support.
> Why can they no longer support the qweight? Not the plane affected
> floors, but all the other floors that afre used to supporting the
> whole building for years? Wouldn't they slow down the fall by
The lower floors were weakened to the point that they could not stand the weight of the floors above then bearing down.
> resisting? Yet thetre was no resistance, which only happens when the
> main supports are taken out or cut. The buildings would normally
Not true. You don't need to cut or take out supports for a building to collapse.
>>> Those parts of the building contained massive steel beams and supports
>>> that were made to hold up the whole building and they wouldn't simply 'let
>>> go' and allow the buildings to fall as if there were NO supports present
>>> at all. More than likely, the upper part of the buildings would let go at
>> Yes they would. And other buildings have fallen in a similar
> On Nov 15, 12:40 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/14/2012 9:40 PM, mainframetech 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.
>>>>>>>> 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.
>> If nano-thermite caused explosions then why should any unexploded
>> nano-termite be found in dust? Maybe it was created by the crash and fires.
> Nano-thermite does not have to cause explosions. It can do both
> depending on how it's used. The nano-thermite that was found in the
> dust of the WTC was in dust form itself. It was microscopic, along
> with tiny micro-spheres of iron, which also shouldn't be present in
> the dust unless something broke down the steel in the buildings. Nano-
> thermite can be made to explode or to have an incendiary effect.
> Here's an example demonstration working with the stufff. A lot less
> of it can bring down larger buildings than NIST, FEMA or Popular
> Mechanics suggested. But then their goal is to prove that the
> buildings did NOT come down by controlled demolition. To skip ahead
> in the video, go to 4:55:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
>>>>>> 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.
>>> 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
>> So what. Same conditions as the towers.
> Nope. Not the same conditions.
>>> 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
>> Not true.
>> You can see it splashing out. The plane is going about 500 MPH and
>> suddenly stops. The fuel would keep on going.
> Watch the video and you will se that a lot of fuel is blasted out
> of the building upon impact. That wastes the fuel, and the remainder
> then burns off more quickly.
>>> 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
>> "The hole"? What "the hole"? Show me "the hole."
> You can't figure out that the 'hole' is the hole that the plane made
> going into the building? It didn't disappear.
You failed to SHOW me the hole and SHOW me the jet fuel pouring out of the hole. Do you even know where the jet fuel is stored on the plane? You think the fuel tanks were in the tail?
>>> little 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
>> Not an hour. 9:03 to 9:59.
> Close enough to an hour - 56 minutes...:)
>>> and the temperature was lowering back down. The office furnniture
>>> burns with less heat than the jet fuel, and had also begun to slow
>>> down, yet the buildings stayed up, until they came down as if their
>>> 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?
> > > > > > > > > > > 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...
> Why go there when this will take you there and tell you what they
> said. Now if this thermite can cut differently than your NatGeo team
> claimed it does, one should certainly be thinking their little I beam
> on a jet fuel 'campfire' would be a little suspect, eh?
> > > > > > > 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.
> Well the explosives are one commodity that is just pushed to the side,
> 'conveniently'. Some I believe even before the plane(s) hit. I guess
> this magic jet fuel has great powers besides this 'burning like no
> other inciderant' could, has explosive powers as well? I am sure MF
> can give the the replay on the Explosives video you must have
> conveniently missed?
An interesting story is that NIST was asked if explosives were
involved in the collapses and they replied 'NO'. They were then asked
if they checked for explosives, and the answer was again 'NO'. It's
in the NFPA guidelines that explosives should be checked for if
terrorist activity is suspected. It wasn't done although terrorism
was blamed for the collapses.
> > > 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.
Nope, won't do. I'm on record as presenting a different
experimental video showing the exact opposite result when trying to
burn an I-beam with gypsum board and other office items for more than
a day, without effect on the I-beam.
> I think I am on record for stating fires in other buildings don't
> compromise the steel, that have burned much longer. Either the fires
> were inferior fires, or you need to answer why steel would not be
> compromised in them. I don't think that's quite in your interest, is
> it? I think MF had a comeback for that. Did you read it, and will
> you comment on it?
The comeback is the many high rise fires that burned longer than the
WTC towers, yet none fell as did the towers. Oddly, they fell after
the fires had died down and the buildings had stayed up for about an
hour after the planes hit.
> > > > > > > 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 you are incapable of anything but lame one-liners.....
Typical ad hominem comment ignored.
> 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.
> I only like one. The steel wasn't compromised in that fire. The only
> important question is, why wasn't it?
> It should be a
> simple thing for you to come up with 10 major things, being you are so
> good at this thinking stuff.
While you're busy making work for others that you won't do yourself,
there is one important difference...they didn't find nano-thermite
anywhere around the Madrid fire. It was found (with micro-spheres of
iron, a bad sign) all around the WTC area in the dust. It is next to
impossible for that stuff to be on the streets of NYC by accident.
> Well, while your 'thinking' think why when buildings generally fall,
> the fall not like a CD, but with where the compromise is in the
> building, whether it be tumbling over sideways completely or less of a
> tumble? Why wouldn't 'compromised-by-fire' in any
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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...
> >> Why go there when this will take you there and tell you what they
> >> said.
> > Why go anywhere else when this source tells you how those angle cuts
> > were made. See, you don`t get to go to thermite until you`ve shown
> > that those cuts could not have been made by a cutting torch.
> Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. You don't seem to understand how the burden
> of proof works. You make a claim, you prove it. You don't just make up a
> claim and say it is true if no one can disprove it.
An interesting point about the diagonal cut on the standing support
beam is that it is more costly in time and materials to cut beams on
the diagonal. The cut is longer, especially on the thick box shaped
beams in the WTC, some of which were up to 5 inches thick. As well,
the drippings are on the outside of the beam, and not the inside where
they would be if the cutter were applied in the more natural
situation. Also, a diagonal cut as pictured would mean that the upper
portion of the cut would suddenly come flying down to do damage to the
cutter. That is not some final proof, but it should be considered for
folks trying to decide if it has import or not. Many of the things
said in the attendant text are things that would need proving too.
> >> Now if this thermite can cut differently than your NatGeo team
> >> claimed it does, one should certainly be thinking their little I beam
> >> on a jet fuel 'campfire' would be a little suspect, eh?
> > Bad thinking, as usual. I don`t have to rule out magic first, not
> > when there are more reasonable possibilities available.
> You should not let him get away with the false premise.
> The NATGEO team did not CUT, SOFTEN, or MELT the steel beam. The intense
> heat WEAKENED the steel beam and it BUCKLE, not BROKE, not TORE.
> >> This I think is what MF was trying to show you.
> > It might be, this is the kind of nonsense he likes to cling to.
> > Some points that couldn`t possibly occur to you, with you head all
> > filled with nonsense...
> > Is the idea that the plane just happened to hit right above where
> > the thermite was planted?
> Who said that? And which professsional demolition company plants
> explosives only on ONE floor. Never happened.
True. It only occurs on buildings with one floor...:)
> > Thermite is activated by heat, how could it not ignite with intense
> > fires in the area for about 45 minutes prior to it going off?
> I guess the idea is that it is shielded and then set off by remote control.
> And if the explosives are on a lower floor then they would not be ignite
> by intense fires on the floors above.
When dealing with nano-thermite or any incendiary in that familiy,
you need a very high temperature to set it off. Normal fire won't do
it. If you had some magnesium you could do it however. Here's an
example. Skip forward to 6:15 to see it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4EdYVybDS0
> > The molten metal seen pouring out of the building is aluminum, a
> > common metal used to make office furniture and airplanes that melts at
> > a much lower burning temperature.
> > The spheres of metal found in the dust could have been made during
> > the construction of the towers, when welding and cutting torches were
> > used.
> What "spheres"? SHOW me these "spheres." Truthers are talking about
> pools of molten metal.
Truthers bend facts or believe rumors. I like facts and evidence,
so I beg off being called such a name. The 'micro-spheres' are made
of iron. They were also found in the dust in the WTC area along with
the nano-thermite and are also not normally found there. Here is a
complete explanation of them:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html
> > This "It looks that way to me" approach can`t establish anything,
> > meaning you are doomed to spin you wheels forever never getting
> > anywhere. I think you might find this a plus.
> It's more fun that way.
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >> Well the explosives are one commodity that is just pushed to the side,
> >> 'conveniently'.
> > Along with magic pixie dust.
> Certainly seemed like magic pixie dust to the Native Americans who had
> never seen explosives before.
> Imagine putting two household chemicals together and blowing up an
> entire building.
> >> Some I believe even before the plane(s) hit. I guess
> >> this magic jet fuel has great powers besides this 'burning like no
> >> other inciderant' could, has explosive powers as well? I am sure MF
> >> can give the the replay on the Explosives video you must have
> >> conveniently missed?
> > I bet it can`t establish that there were explosions before the
> > planes hit. And what could possibly be the reason to have this
> > immensely complex plot if you were going to tip your hand by having
> > explosions before the plane hit? And what purpose could an explosion
> > that early serve?
> How exactly said there were explosions before the planes hit? Was there
> live news coverage the day before documenting these explosions.
> In controlled demolitions they may cut several connecting beams before
> they blow up the building. To assure that the building falls in the
> right direction, such as away from the adjacent building.
> >> But I did show that Curt was wrong when he said that the steel in
> >> office fires is "uncomprimised". And it shows that Truther sites that
> >> say that steel is not weakened in office fires to be lying.
> > mainframetech also seems to be confused about the meaning of the word
> > "obvious." The sentence doesn't say "obviously with no damage," it says
> > there is "no obvious damage." That merely means that the damage wasn't
> > apparent on the surface. Deep structural damage often doesn't manifest
> > itself to the naked eye until it's too late. Everything surrounding this
> > sentence, including the very paragraph it concludes, speaks to the damage
> > suffered by this building in the fire, which necessitated its (eventual)
> > total destruction.
> > /sm
> None of the public could see the obvious structural failure of the
> walkways at the Hyatt Regency until after they collapsed due to poor
> design and incompetence.
While it is possible to 'compromise a building's structural elements, the buildings did not fall, which differentiates them from the WTC buildings. As well, there were NO nano-thermite and iron micro-spheres found in the dust from the other fires.
Buit all this arguing about fires causing the loss of the 3 towers is wasted if you're a believer in the 'official' story presented by NIST.
Here's their statement on the subject, including jet fuel:
“The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.)"
Note that the twin towers stayed up another 40 minutes after the fires started, and that means they were cooling to some degree. The WTC7 building stayed up after the debris hit it for at least 6 hours until intentionally brought down by controlled demolition. Which BTW, take weeks and sometimes months to prepare.
