> > 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.

> >    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.