> > 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?
I guess you didn't see my text just before. I said "I tend to use
softening and weakening interchangably, in case you see me using one
or the other, assume both."
Please don't attempt to instruct me in obvious things, I'm like most
people and get irritated. I will try not to insult you the same
way.
> >> 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.
I'm doing just fine with it...of course, you have to know how to get
the most out of it. In any event, I won't insult your platform.
Everyone to their own.
> > 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.
Yep. I see that a person or two has made good use of it by replying
to my comments where I wasn't aware they were doing it. But S'OK now.
> > 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
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
Try to get off the baloney. You and I have argued this before and you have always gotten backup from me while providing precious little yourself. I don't claim that thermite made the cuts (but then I'm also not a 'truther'), only that it seems odd that they would waste time and materials doing a diagonal cut instead of a straight cut. Diagonal takes longer and is a longer line. Also I wonder why they would use a diagonal cut when as soon as they get to the end it will fall on someone. The straight cut can be pushed over when ready, or at the least would trake a moment to wobble and give people a chance to get out of the way.
> > >> 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.
This isn't the same forum where you insult everyone you have to argue against. I suggest you grow up and debate properly and provide backup when asked. Of course, you'll do what you want, just rtying to help.
> > > 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.
Oh but it does. It will happen on one story buildings...:) Just
pointing out that you don't think things through.
> > > 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?
> On Nov 16, 6:49 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> 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.
> Try to get off the baloney. You and I have argued this before and you
> have always gotten backup from me while providing precious little
> yourself. I don't claim that thermite made the cuts (but then I'm also
> not a 'truther'), only that it seems odd that they would waste time and
> materials doing a diagonal cut instead of a straight cut.
Who do you think owes you answers for everything you think is "odd"?
> Diagonal takes
> longer and is a longer line. Also I wonder why they would use a diagonal
> cut when as soon as they get to the end it will fall on someone. The
> straight cut can be pushed over when ready, or at the least would trake a
> moment to wobble and give people a chance to get out of the way.
All you are doing is showing that I was right when I said Truther
claims about thermite being used 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.
> This isn't the same forum where you insult everyone you have to argue
> against.
Stop clinging to nonsense like this and I`ll stop pointing it out.
> I suggest you grow up and debate properly and provide backup
> when asked. Of course, you'll do what you want, just rtying to help.
I don`t have to provide backup, my ideas are established, planes and fire are evident. Your ideas are fantasies, they can`t be shown in any meaningful way.
> > > > 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.
> Oh but it does. It will happen on one story buildings...:) Just
> pointing out that you don't think things through.
Why are you responding to Tony Marsh in a response to me?
> > > > 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,
> > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
You need to look at it before the building fell. Like any building that would fall, it would not look like a controlled demolition, it would fall all sorts of ways sideways, without the dust being any major factor of the fall. The tape went there because it was deemed impossible by NatGeo, and we see it was easily done. And when one has thermite in the ground dust, why would you want to go where the cutting torches went?????
> > 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's bad thinking when it conveniently makes the point of discussion
invalid.
> > 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?
If that was the case, it would have gone down fast, but it didn't, it
burnt for a good while.
> 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?
You don't know where it might have been planted, and in what type of enclosure, and I am sure they would have had devices, and would not be thinking of fire. And if it did, it would have just come down sooner.
And why would the demolitionists care if it came down sooner? They would just want it to come down.
> 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.
It doesn't burn for months. Something caused havoc with clean up crew
and fire folk because of how long this stuff appeared to them, like
'molten steel'.
> 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.
Whaaaa????
> 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.
No, it's quite plain. The buildings fell the way they shouldn't have, and things like explosions, dust plumes, happened like a super demolition would, and what was found that they never hoped would be or didn't think of, was the themates found at ground zero.
> > > > > > > > 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.
Find us a demolition or any building fall that had that explosive dust
look.
> > 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?
One can spend all day on the net finding stuff on that.
> > > > 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.
> On Nov 16, 6:49 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> 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.
> Try to get off the baloney. You and I have argued this before and you
> have always gotten backup from me while providing precious little
> yourself. I don't claim that thermite made the cuts (but then I'm also
> not a 'truther'), only that it seems odd that they would waste time and
> materials doing a diagonal cut instead of a straight cut. Diagonal takes
> longer and is a longer line. Also I wonder why they would use a diagonal
> cut when as soon as they get to the end it will fall on someone. The
> straight cut can be pushed over when ready, or at the least would trake a
> moment to wobble and give people a chance to get out of the way.
Gee, I wonder why Controlled Demolition uses diagonal cuts instead of horiziontal. I wonder why lumberjacks use diagonal cuts on trees instead of horizontal cuts.
>>>>> 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.
> This isn't the same forum where you insult everyone you have to argue
> against. I suggest you grow up and debate properly and provide backup
> when asked. Of course, you'll do what you want, just rtying to help.
>>>> 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.
> Oh but it does. It will happen on one story buildings...:) Just
> pointing out that you don't think things through.
>>>> 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.
Two separate sentences. Two different things.
When you lose an argument just start conflating.
>>>>> 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?
> On Nov 16, 6:48 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/16/2012 3:33 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>>> 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?
> I guess you didn't see my text just before. I said "I tend to use
> softening and weakening interchangably, in case you see me using one
> or the other, assume both."
> Please don't attempt to instruct me in obvious things, I'm like most
> people and get irritated. I will try not to insult you the same
> way.
So correcting you is insulting you? Then be prepared to be insulted often. You come into a newsgroup and then don't want to debate because your feelings will be hurt?
>>>> 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.
> I'm doing just fine with it...of course, you have to know how to get
> the most out of it. In any event, I won't insult your platform.
> Everyone to their own.
>>> 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.
> Yep. I see that a person or two has made good use of it by replying
> to my comments where I wasn't aware they were doing it. But S'OK now.
>>> 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.
> On Nov 16, 3:35 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> 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.
> 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,
You babble a lot, but you never SHOW me what you are talking about.
So what if one method is more expensive than another. If you're going to do it, do it right.
> 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
You've never actually seen a cutter applied. All you ever do is speculate and guess.
> 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
No, it doesn't.
You cut from the side. Does the tree fall on the lumberjack?
> 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.
> (MF here) the opposite video of a beam being in fire for more than
> a day is here. To skip forward, go to 4:35:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw >>> 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
>>> 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
Iron? Show that this iron was the same quality steel as in the beams.
>>> 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
> 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. 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?
>> This I think is what MF was trying to show you.
>>>>>>>> Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
>>>>>>>> various modes,
>>>>>>> Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
>>>>>>> can be heated enough to bend.
>>>>>> Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
>>>>> Apparently you were asleep also.
>>>> It wasn't convincing as the steel wasn't the same as in the building, and
>>>> the jet fuel wouldn't have been that way in the building.
>>> And besides, you`d rather pretend it was explosives.
>> 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.
When the decided that the planes caused the collapse there was no need to look for secondary causes.
>>>> 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.
There you go again misusing words. No one claimed "burn an I-beam."
That experiment did not use jet fuel.
>> 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.
Yeah, some buildings do not collapse immediately. So what?
>>>>>>>> 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
Maybe they didn't look for it.
> 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.
No one said 9/11 was an accident.
They were the result of intense fires.
> On Nov 16, 3:35 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/16/2012 12:48 PM, Bud wrote:
>>> 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?
> Ask Curt.
>> 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 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.
> You need to look at it before the building fell.
No I don`t, and it wasn`t the way the building fell that got you
jumping on this bandwagon.
> Like any building that
> would fall, it would not look like a controlled demolition, it would fall
> all sorts of ways sideways, without the dust being any major factor of the
> fall. The tape went there because it was deemed impossible by NatGeo, and
> we see it was easily done. And when one has thermite in the ground dust,
> why would you want to go where the cutting torches went?????
That "thermite in the dust" is nonsense. Where has it gone, other
than bantered about by Truthers?
> > > 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's bad thinking when it conveniently makes the point of discussion
> invalid.
It`s bad thinking to jump to amazing and extraordinary possibilities
without first ruling out more mundane explanations. You are never
going to be able to show that those columns were cut by thermite, so
what is the point of speculating that as the cause?
> > > 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?
> If that was the case, it would have gone down fast, but it didn't, it
> burnt for a good while.
You don`t even understand the point I just made was, do you? The
sparks the Truther take to be thermite are right below where the plane
hit. Coincidence? Was the plane aimed to hit above it? What if the
plane struck below it?
> > 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?
> You don't know where it might have been planted, and in what type of
> enclosure, and I am sure they would have had devices, and would not be
> thinking of fire.
<snicker> Look at you scrambling to rehabilitate a very bad idea.
"It was thermite, so anything I has to have happened for it to be
thermite must have happened".
> And if it did, it would have just come down sooner.
> And why would the demolitionists care if it came down sooner? They would
> just want it to come down.
I have no idea what you are talking about "sooner". It came down
when it reached the point where it could no longer stand.
> > 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.
> It doesn't burn for months. Something caused havoc with clean up crew
> and fire folk because of how long this stuff appeared to them, like
> 'molten steel'.
It doesn`t matter if people thought it was steel, if it looked like
steel to them or if they took it to be molten steel? None of this can
establish that the molten metal these people saw was steel.
And if you look at you thermite burn videos you would see that the
steel melted by the thermite hardens in seconds. It wouldn`t even stay
liquid long enough for it to be the metal seen flowing out of the
Tower.
> > 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.
> Whaaaa????
What don`t you understand? When these building are made a lot of
cutting and welding goes on. This activity might very well cause small
spheres of molten metal. See image on this page...
These would find there way throughout the building, in nooks and
crannies. Why would you think they could only be the product of a
thermite burn?
> > 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.
> On Nov 16, 10:50 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 6:49 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> 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.
>> Try to get off the baloney. You and I have argued this before and you
>> have always gotten backup from me while providing precious little
>> yourself. I don't claim that thermite made the cuts (but then I'm also
>> not a 'truther'), only that it seems odd that they would waste time and
>> materials doing a diagonal cut instead of a straight cut.
> Who do you think owes you answers for everything you think is "odd"?
>> Diagonal takes
>> longer and is a longer line. Also I wonder why they would use a diagonal
>> cut when as soon as they get to the end it will fall on someone. The
>> straight cut can be pushed over when ready, or at the least would trake a
>> moment to wobble and give people a chance to get out of the way.
> All you are doing is showing that I was right when I said Truther
> claims about thermite being used 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.
>> This isn't the same forum where you insult everyone you have to argue
>> against.
> Stop clinging to nonsense like this and I`ll stop pointing it out.
>> I suggest you grow up and debate properly and provide backup
>> when asked. Of course, you'll do what you want, just rtying to help.
> I don`t have to provide backup, my ideas are established, planes and
> fire are evident. Your ideas are fantasies, they can`t be shown in any
> meaningful way.
>>>>> 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.
>> Oh but it does. It will happen on one story buildings...:) Just
>> pointing out that you don't think things through.
> Why are you responding to Tony Marsh in a response to me?
>>>>> 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 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.
Stick it. You don't make rules here. Diagonal cuts are wasteful of time and money, something every demolition company is aware of. Diagonal cuts are longer and use more time and more gas. As well, the upper part of the beam will come down on top of someone with a diagonal cut, at least a straight cut will cause a pause for a moment to push the beam in one direction or another. You might also want to think about the drippings on the Outside of the box beam. A cutting torch wouldn't make so much on the outside once it got started. None of that is clear proof, but it applies for decision makers.
> You need to look at it before the building fell. Like any building that
> would fall, it would not look like a controlled demolition, it would fall
> all sorts of ways sideways, without the dust being any major factor of the
> fall. The tape went there because it was deemed impossible by NatGeo, and
> we see it was easily done. And when one has thermite in the ground dust,
> why would you want to go where the cutting torches went?????
> > > 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's bad thinking when it conveniently makes the point of discussion
> invalid.
> > > 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?
> If that was the case, it would have gone down fast, but it didn't, it
> burnt for a good while.
> > 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?
> You don't know where it might have been planted, and in what type of
> enclosure, and I am sure they would have had devices, and would not be
> thinking of fire. And if it did, it would have just come down sooner.
> And why would the demolitionists care if it came down sooner? They would
> just want it to come down.
The controlled demolition was obviously meant ot be kept from the
public. The heat from burning jet fuel is not enough to set off
thermite. You need something like Magnesium, that burns white hot.
> > 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.
> It doesn't burn for months. Something caused havoc with clean up crew
> and fire folk because of how long this stuff appeared to them, like
> 'molten steel'.
If it is thought to be aluminum, then back that up with something
besides your opinion. If it were aluminum pushed into a corner, then
it lasted a long time. Tell me, did it look like this. Skip forward
to 7:10:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
> > 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.
Nope. Won't do. Cutting torches use oxygen and acetylene, and
welding rods aren't made of nano-thermite. The iron micro-spheres are
a product of the nano-thermite, not from the iron in the steel. View
this at 7:10:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
> > 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.
> No, it's quite plain. The buildings fell the way they shouldn't have, and
> things like explosions, dust plumes, happened like a super demolition
> would, and what was found that they never hoped would be or didn't think
> of, was the thermates found at ground zero.
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> Find us a demolition or any building fall that had that explosive dust
> look.
All controlled demolition buildings have that 'look'. And the
towers were a combination of explosives andnano-thermite, an
incendiary chemical. Many explosions heard by firemen and reported
have been shown.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 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?
> > This I think is what MF was trying to show you.
> > > > > > > > Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> > > > > > > > various modes,
> > > > > > > Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
> > > > > > > can be heated enough to bend.
> > > > > > Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
> > > > > Apparently you were asleep also.
> > > > It wasn't convincing as the steel wasn't the same as in the building, and
> > > > the jet fuel wouldn't have been that way in the building.
> > > And besides, you`d rather pretend it was explosives.
> > 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...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
> > I guess you didn't see my text just before. I said "I tend to use
> > softening and weakening interchangably, in case you see me using one
> > or the other, assume both."
> > Please don't attempt to instruct me in obvious things, I'm like most
> > people and get irritated. I will try not to insult you the same
> > way.
> So correcting you is insulting you? Then be prepared to be insulted
> often. You come into a newsgroup and then don't want to debate because
> your feelings will be hurt?
Oh don't be silly. I made a statement so you can understand my
words, and you decided you didn't like that style and attempted to
correct me to suit YOUR wants. I then made it clear that I don't swing
that way. I'm here to debate the topic and not each other or our
style, let's get at it, eh?
> >>>> 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.
> > I'm doing just fine with it...of course, you have to know how to get
> > the most out of it. In any event, I won't insult your platform.
> > Everyone to their own.
> >>> 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.
> > Yep. I see that a person or two has made good use of it by replying
> > to my comments where I wasn't aware they were doing it. But S'OK now.
> >>> 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.
> > On Nov 16, 3:35 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> 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.
> > 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,
> You babble a lot, but you never SHOW me what you are talking about.
> So what if one method is more expensive than another. If you're going to
> do it, do it right.
> > 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
> You've never actually seen a cutter applied. All you ever do is
> speculate and guess.
> > 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
> No, it doesn't.
> You cut from the side. Does the tree fall on the lumberjack?
> > 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.
> > (MF here) the opposite video of a beam being in fire for more than
> > a day is here. To skip forward, go to 4:35:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw > >>> 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
> >>> 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
> Iron? Show that this iron was the same quality steel as in the beams.
> >>> 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
> > 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. 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?
> >> This I think is what MF was trying to show you.
> >>>>>>>> Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> >>>>>>>> various modes,
> >>>>>>> Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
> >>>>>>> can be heated enough to bend.
> >>>>>> Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
> >>>>> Apparently you were asleep also.
> >>>> It wasn't convincing as the steel wasn't the same as in the building, and
> >>>> the jet fuel wouldn't have been that way in the building.
> >>> And besides, you`d rather pretend it was explosives.
> >> 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.
> When the decided that the planes caused the collapse there was no need
> to look for secondary causes.
> >>>> 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.
> There you go again misusing words. No one claimed "burn an I-beam."
> That experiment did not use jet fuel.
> >> 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.
> Yeah, some buildings do not collapse immediately. So what?
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,
> You babble a lot, but you never SHOW me what you are talking about.
> So what if one method is more expensive than another. If you're going to
> do it, do it right.
You seem to make things up just to support your viewpoint. Now, if you think carefully, you will realize that most companies that accomplish work do so with a careful eye on costs. If it saves money, that puts more money into the bottom line. You'd have to show me where cutting horizontal would make sense to a business, and that diagonal was "doing it right". saying just anything to support a viewpoint is 'babbling' to me.
Correcting that tendency could be a boon for you...:)
> > 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
> You've never actually seen a cutter applied. All you ever do is
> speculate and guess.
As a matter of fact, I was given some training in the service in
using an oxy-acetylene cutting torch. And what are YOUR credits in
that area? No doubt another question that will go unanswered.
> > 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
> No, it doesn't.
> You cut from the side. Does the tree fall on the lumberjack?
LOL! Not a good example, since lumberjacks are taught to run like
hell yelling 'timber' when a tree begins to fall. It gicves them time
to do that, whereas cutting a beam diagonally would let the upper part
of the beam slip at fall at the moment the last 'thread' was cut.
This is logical thinking 101.
> > 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.
> > (MF here) the opposite video of a beam being in fire for more than
> > a day is here. To skip forward, go to 4:35:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw > >>> 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
> >>> 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
> Iron? Show that this iron was the same quality steel as in the beams.
You really need to learn the meaning and usage of the word
'please'. First, the micro-spheres do not come from the steel beams.
Second, they are a product of using nano-thermite. Here's an
explanation again:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html
On Nov 17, 6:31 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 11/16/2012 10:44 PM, mainframetech wrote:
I have not replied to or looked at all the preceding versions of
this post. It makes for confusion and extra work having to reply to
the same comment many times. In the service of sensible time use, I'm
putting all answers and queries here. It would be of use for us all
to learn the ability to put all our thoughts into the most recent post
on a topic and not splatter out to multiple versions...:) Individuals
will, of course, make their own decisions and be judged accordingly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
> >> This I think is what MF was trying to show you.
> >>>>>>>> Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> >>>>>>>> various modes,
> >>>>>>> Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
> >>>>>>> can be heated enough to bend.
> >>>>>> Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
> >>>>> Apparently you were asleep also.
> >>>> It wasn't convincing as the steel wasn't the same as in the building, and
> >>>> the jet fuel wouldn't have been that way in the building.
> >>> And besides, you`d rather pretend it was explosives.
> >> 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.
> When the decided that the planes caused the collapse there was no need
> to look for secondary causes.
Ah, but there was. The NFPA 921 guidelines specified that when
terrorist activity is suspected, a full check for explosives should be
made. But of course, that would give the secret away, that
explosives (and incendiaries) were used.
Why is that? Do they say inconvenient things for your case? As
long as one keeps in mind the failings of witnesses, they often make a
wonderful aid in determining what happened. In this case, they help to
prove that there were explosions in the WTC buildings, including the
lobbies and basements. However, we have videos that show some
explosions both visually and aurally, as shown above and in the WTC7
collapse videos. We should keep in mind that the Warren Commission
thought witnesses were a valuable aid to their theorizing as to who
was the guilty party, and how the heinous act was accomplished.
> >>>> 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.
> There you go again misusing words. No one claimed "burn an I-beam."
> That experiment did not use jet fuel.
So you believe that setting a fire under a beam is NOT burning it?
I think it IS burning it. I believe you're aware of what my point was
and understrood my words. Please try to allow others to have their
own style and not attempt to have them act and speak as YOU would
like. So your attempt to change my style had gotten you out of
commenting on the experiment under discussion...please try to stick to
the topic at hand. The age-old admonishment of forums (as I'm sure
you know) is 'debate the topic and not the person'.
> >> 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.
> Yeah, some buildings do not collapse immediately. So what?
they don't? Please name one steel framed building that collapsed of
its own accord due to fire, other than the WTC buildings.
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> > On Nov 16, 10:50 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 16, 6:49 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> 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.
> >> Try to get off the baloney. You and I have argued this before and you
> >> have always gotten backup from me while providing precious little
> >> yourself. I don't claim that thermite made the cuts (but then I'm also
> >> not a 'truther'), only that it seems odd that they would waste time and
> >> materials doing a diagonal cut instead of a straight cut.
> > Who do you think owes you answers for everything you think is "odd"?
> >> Diagonal takes
> >> longer and is a longer line. Also I wonder why they would use a diagonal
> >> cut when as soon as they get to the end it will fall on someone. The
> >> straight cut can be pushed over when ready, or at the least would trake a
> >> moment to wobble and give people a chance to get out of the way.
> > All you are doing is showing that I was right when I said Truther
> > claims about thermite being used 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.
> >> This isn't the same forum where you insult everyone you have to argue
> >> against.
> > Stop clinging to nonsense like this and I`ll stop pointing it out.
> >> I suggest you grow up and debate properly and provide backup
> >> when asked. Of course, you'll do what you want, just rtying to help.
> > I don`t have to provide backup, my ideas are established, planes and
> > fire are evident. Your ideas are fantasies, they can`t be shown in any
> > meaningful way.
> >>>>> 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.
> >> Oh but it does. It will happen on one story buildings...:) Just
> >> pointing out that you don't think things through.
> > Why are you responding to Tony Marsh in a response to me?
> >>>>> 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
> On Nov 17, 4:03 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> 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.
> Stick it. You don't make rules here. Diagonal cuts are wasteful of
> time and money, something every demolition company is aware of. Diagonal
> cuts are longer and use more time and more gas. As well, the upper part
> of the beam will come down on top of someone with a diagonal cut, at least
> a straight cut will cause a pause for a moment to push the beam in one
> direction or another. You might also want to think about the drippings on
Nonsense. Exactly when do you think the cuts are made? Are you talking about when the beams were in place in the towers? And no one saw them doing it? In real controlled demolitions they carefully cut beams which are still connected. So they don't fall.
If you mean cutting the beams as part of the cleanup after 9/11 then that has nothing to do with preparations for the attack.
> the Outside of the box beam. A cutting torch wouldn't make so much on the
> outside once it got started. None of that is clear proof, but it applies
> for decision makers.
>> You need to look at it before the building fell. Like any building that
>> would fall, it would not look like a controlled demolition, it would fall
>> all sorts of ways sideways, without the dust being any major factor of the
>> fall. The tape went there because it was deemed impossible by NatGeo, and
>> we see it was easily done. And when one has thermite in the ground dust,
>> why would you want to go where the cutting torches went?????
>>>> 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's bad thinking when it conveniently makes the point of discussion
>> invalid.
>>>> 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?
>> If that was the case, it would have gone down fast, but it didn't, it
>> burnt for a good while.
>>> 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?
>> You don't know where it might have been planted, and in what type of
>> enclosure, and I am sure they would have had devices, and would not be
>> thinking of fire. And if it did, it would have just come down sooner.
>> And why would the demolitionists care if it came down sooner? They would
>> just want it to come down.
> The controlled demolition was obviously meant ot be kept from the
> public. The heat from burning jet fuel is not enough to set off
> thermite. You need something like Magnesium, that burns white hot.
>>> 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.
>> It doesn't burn for months. Something caused havoc with clean up crew
>> and fire folk because of how long this stuff appeared to them, like
>> 'molten steel'.
> If it is thought to be aluminum, then back that up with something
> besides your opinion. If it were aluminum pushed into a corner, then
The color. The color is characteristic of molten aluminum. And the temperatures never got high enough to melt steel.
>>> 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.
> Nope. Won't do. Cutting torches use oxygen and acetylene, and
> welding rods aren't made of nano-thermite. The iron micro-spheres are
> a product of the nano-thermite, not from the iron in the steel. View
> this at 7:10:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
>> Whaaaa????
>>> 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.
>> No, it's quite plain. The buildings fell the way they shouldn't have, and
>> things like explosions, dust plumes, happened like a super demolition
>> would, and what was found that they never hoped would be or didn't think
>> of, was the thermates found at ground zero.
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>> Find us a demolition or any building fall that had that explosive dust
>> look.
> All controlled demolition buildings have that 'look'. And the
> towers were a combination of explosives andnano-thermite,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 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.
> Stick it. You don't make rules here.
It`s not my rule, it used by thinking people everywhere. You don`t
get to move on to "Aliens with lazer guns did it" until you can rule
out all the other more mundane and plausible explanations, even if you
really, really like the idea that it was done by aliens.
> Diagonal cuts are wasteful of
> time and money, something every demolition company is aware of. Diagonal
> cuts are longer and use more time and more gas. As well, the upper part
> of the beam will come down on top of someone with a diagonal cut, at least
> a straight cut will cause a pause for a moment to push the beam in one
> direction or another. You might also want to think about the drippings on
> the Outside of the box beam. A cutting torch wouldn't make so much on the
> outside once it got started. None of that is clear proof, but it applies
> for decision makers.
Look at you scratching around for reasons to reject information that
goes against your very bad ideas. Don`t you realize that your noise
has done no damage to the idea that those beams were cut with cutting
torches as part of the clearing of debris?
> > You need to look at it before the building fell. Like any building that
> > would fall, it would not look like a controlled demolition, it would fall
> > all sorts of ways sideways, without the dust being any major factor of the
> > fall. The tape went there because it was deemed impossible by NatGeo, and
> > we see it was easily done. And when one has thermite in the ground dust,
> > why would you want to go where the cutting torches went?????
> > > > 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's bad thinking when it conveniently makes the point of discussion
> > invalid.
> > > > 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?
> > If that was the case, it would have gone down fast, but it didn't, it
> > burnt for a good while.
> > > 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?
> > You don't know where it might have been planted, and in what type of
> > enclosure, and I am sure they would have had devices, and would not be
> > thinking of fire. And if it did, it would have just come down sooner.
> > And why would the demolitionists care if it came down sooner? They would
> > just want it to come down.
> The controlled demolition was obviously meant ot be kept from the
> public. The heat from burning jet fuel is not enough to set off
> thermite. You need something like Magnesium, that burns white hot.
> > > 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.
> > It doesn't burn for months. Something caused havoc with clean up crew
> > and fire folk because of how long this stuff appeared to them, like
> > 'molten steel'.
> If it is thought to be aluminum, then back that up with something
> besides your opinion.
The fact that aluminum melts at the temperature the fires were known
to attain tells you it`s aluminum. Or lead, or some other metal that
has a low enough melting point that these fires could attain it. You
see once again you have to rule out the mundane before you can advance
to the fantastic.
> If it were aluminum pushed into a corner, then
> it lasted a long time. Tell me, did it look like this. Skip forward
> to 7:10:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
No metal flows from those cuts he is making, it solidifies as soon
as it is a short distance from the thermite.
> > > 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.
> Nope. Won't do. Cutting torches use oxygen and acetylene, and
> welding rods aren't made of nano-thermite. The iron micro-spheres are
> a product of the nano-thermite, not from the iron in the steel. View
> this at 7:10:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
Nothing there about the spheres being tested and shown to be nano-
thermite.
> On Nov 17, 6:31 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/16/2012 10:44 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> I have not replied to or looked at all the preceding versions of
> this post. It makes for confusion and extra work having to reply to
> the same comment many times. In the service of sensible time use, I'm
> putting all answers and queries here. It would be of use for us all
> to learn the ability to put all our thoughts into the most recent post
> on a topic and not splatter out to multiple versions...:) Individuals
> will, of course, make their own decisions and be judged accordingly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>> This I think is what MF was trying to show you.
>>>>>>>>>> Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
>>>>>>>>>> various modes,
>>>>>>>>> Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easily steel
>>>>>>>>> can be heated enough to bend.
>>>>>>>> Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
>>>>>>> Apparently you were asleep also.
>>>>>> It wasn't convincing as the steel wasn't the same as in the building, and
>>>>>> the jet fuel wouldn't have been that way in the building.
>>>>> And besides, you`d rather pretend it was explosives.
>>>> 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.
>> When the decided that the planes caused the collapse there was no need
>> to look for secondary causes.
> Ah, but there was. The NFPA 921 guidelines specified that when
> terrorist activity is suspected, a full check for explosives should be
> made. But of course, that would give the secret away, that
> explosives (and incendiaries) were used.
Don't cite a 2011 document telling me what they should have done in 2001. Show me the guidelines published in NFPA 921 BEFORE 9/11.
> Why is that? Do they say inconvenient things for your case? As
Read Loftus. Witnesses are unreliable.
> long as one keeps in mind the failings of witnesses, they often make a
> wonderful aid in determining what happened. In this case, they help to
> prove that there were explosions in the WTC buildings, including the
Your hearsay is not evidence. If you want to show me some evidence I am happy to look at it. I am not impressed by hearsay.
> lobbies and basements. However, we have videos that show some
> explosions both visually and aurally, as shown above and in the WTC7
> collapse videos. We should keep in mind that the Warren Commission
And yet you have never shown me any video of separate explosions on different floors as we see in controlled demolitions.
> thought witnesses were a valuable aid to their theorizing as to who
> was the guilty party, and how the heinous act was accomplished.
>>>>>> 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.
>> There you go again misusing words. No one claimed "burn an I-beam."
>> That experiment did not use jet fuel.
> So you believe that setting a fire under a beam is NOT burning it?
> I think it IS burning it. I believe you're aware of what my point was
No, you continually misuse words. Heating something to weaken it is not burning. Burning means to consume. Convert a solid to vapor.
> and understrood my words. Please try to allow others to have their
> own style and not attempt to have them act and speak as YOU would
No, I will not allow you to have your own style and misuse words.
> like. So your attempt to change my style had gotten you out of
> commenting on the experiment under discussion...please try to stick to
> the topic at hand. The age-old admonishment of forums (as I'm sure
> you know) is 'debate the topic and not the person'.
I made no ad hominem. I did not call you a drug addict or alcoholic.
I pointed out your rhetorical errors.
>>>> 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
> On Nov 17, 6:31 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/16/2012 10:45 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.
>>>>>>>>>>> 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,
>> You babble a lot, but you never SHOW me what you are talking about.
>> So what if one method is more expensive than another. If you're going to
>> do it, do it right.
> You seem to make things up just to support your viewpoint. Now, if you
> think carefully, you will realize that most companies that accomplish work
> do so with a careful eye on costs. If it saves money, that puts more
You are the one making things up. You want me to believe that all businesses do things the wrong way just to save money and make more profit. I am not yet that cynical. Give me another 65 years.
> money into the bottom line. You'd have to show me where cutting
> horizontal would make sense to a business, and that diagonal was "doing it
> right". saying just anything to support a viewpoint is 'babbling' to me.
> Correcting that tendency could be a boon for you...:)
You have yet to describe when and who was doing this cutting of the steel beams. Do you mean AFTER 9/11 when the beams were on the ground horizontally?
>>> 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
>> You've never actually seen a cutter applied. All you ever do is
>> speculate and guess.
> As a matter of fact, I was given some training in the service in
> using an oxy-acetylene cutting torch. And what are YOUR credits in
> that area? No doubt another question that will go unanswered.
You have yet to explain when and where and by whom you are claiming the beams were cut. SHOW me the beams you are talking about.
>>> 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
>> No, it doesn't.
>> You cut from the side. Does the tree fall on the lumberjack?
> LOL! Not a good example, since lumberjacks are taught to run like
> hell yelling 'timber' when a tree begins to fall. It gicves them time
> to do that, whereas cutting a beam diagonally would let the upper part
> of the beam slip at fall at the moment the last 'thread' was cut.
> This is logical thinking 101.
No need or time to run like Hell when they know they have cut it correctly. You've never been in the real world, have you?
>>> 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
>>>>> 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.
> On Nov 17, 6:31 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/16/2012 10:45 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Nov 16, 3:35 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> 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.
>>> 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,
>> You babble a lot, but you never SHOW me what you are talking about.
>> So what if one method is more expensive than another. If you're going to
>> do it, do it right.
>>> 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
>> You've never actually seen a cutter applied. All you ever do is
>> speculate and guess.
>>> 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
>> No, it doesn't.
>> You cut from the side. Does the tree fall on the lumberjack?
>>> 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.
>>> (MF here) the opposite video of a beam being in fire for more than
>>> a day is here. To skip forward, go to 4:35:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw >>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>> Iron? Show that this iron was the same quality steel as in the beams.
>>>>> 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
> On Nov 17, 6:30 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> 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?
>>> I guess you didn't see my text just before. I said "I tend to use
>>> softening and weakening interchangably, in case you see me using one
>>> or the other, assume both."
>>> Please don't attempt to instruct me in obvious things, I'm like most
>>> people and get irritated. I will try not to insult you the same
>>> way.
>> So correcting you is insulting you? Then be prepared to be insulted
>> often. You come into a newsgroup and then don't want to debate because
>> your feelings will be hurt?
> Oh don't be silly. I made a statement so you can understand my
> words, and you decided you didn't like that style and attempted to
> correct me to suit YOUR wants. I then made it clear that I don't swing
> that way. I'm here to debate the topic and not each other or our
> style, let's get at it, eh?
I don't care what your style is, you need to conform to orderly rules of debate.
>>>>>> 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.
>>> I'm doing just fine with it...of course, you have to know how to get
>>> the most out of it. In any event, I won't insult your platform.
>>> Everyone to their own.
>>>>> 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.
>>> Yep. I see that a person or two has made good use of it by replying
>>> to my comments where I wasn't aware they were doing it. But S'OK now.
>>>>> 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
