9/11 Required Reading: "500 Days" - alt.assassination.jfk

The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
alt.assassination.jfk
Message from discussion 9/11 Required Reading: "500 Days"
From: Bud <sirsl...@fast.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: 9/11 Required Reading: "500 Days"
Date: 18 Nov 2012 09:07:27 -0500
Lines: 603
Approved: jmcad...@shell.core.com
Message-ID: <0456f1ac-356a-4805-90a5-d0ffddb4bf56@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
References: <5071a65e@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <fba60ba2-0fcf-4d5f-9add-bdbabfdf370c@c2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 <1f18566d-9413-43ab-b5b5-ab0c621898a6@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 <854a8769-ce2e-40c1-a5a4-a600e6199da5@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>
 <a67403bd-e583-446e-93c8-2886bdb19a77@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 <5685dc04-ddf9-4e6f-b031-084cfb74db5f@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> <f69c541d-8c11-4bf5-b9a7-fe19bfddca2f@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com; posting-host=108.16.121.168; posting-account=m9ygJAoAAADodrMzQHwCTY_pcLb5nd8z
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 22:19:18 +0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.3
Path: s9ni4391pbb.0!nntp.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nrc-news.nrc.ca!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!mcadams.posc.mu.edu!panix3.panix.com!not-for-mail
Bytes: 25357
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Nov 17, 4:03=A0pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 12:48=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 11:35=A0pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 14, 9:38=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 14, 4:57=A0pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 11, 7:19=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 11, 5:49=A0pm, wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 11, 1:59=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 10, 10:07=A0pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.c=
om> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 9, 10:20=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 9, 12:08=A0pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yaho=
o.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 9, 12:28=A0am, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcas=
t.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/8/2012 2:20 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@c=
omcast.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 comprom=
ising example from Nat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Main=
frame weigh in on that or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > see if you can clarify.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and wh=
en something is burning at
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short te=
rm fires, it must be looked
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> at as improbable that these fires were having t=
hat type of theorized
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> impact. =A0Some of these other fires where 'no =
fire has ever brought down a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affecte=
d 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 ho=
t enough to burn down in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fires, and before 9/11, none had. =A0The steel st=
ays intact. =A0I 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. =
=A0Are you saying the Nat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? =
=A0And what if the trusses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > were compromised? =A0Wouldn't the greater and mai=
n steel beams just remain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > CJ
>
> > > > > > > > > > > =A0 =A0There is some truth in the question of the tru=
sses falling while
> > > > > > > > > > > leaving the main beams there. =A0But the building was=
 planned to stay up
> > > > > > > > > > > while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including a=
ll the jet fuel.
>
> > > > > > > > > > =A0 They did stay up when the planes hit them, even tho=
ugh the planes
> > > > > > > > > > were bigger than they figured, and were going much fast=
er.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > 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. =A0The main be=
ams were thick and
> > > > > > > > > > > solid and the same theory worked for them too. =A0A f=
ew of them might
> > > > > > > > > > > be compromised, but the way they were interconnected,=
 they would
> > > > > > > > > > > continue holding up the building...as was planned. =
=A0The kind of fall
> > > > > > > > > > > that was experienced could only happen if ALL the mai=
n supports and
> > > > > > > > > > > many of the peripheral supports were weakened far bey=
ond their normal
> > > > > > > > > > > load bearing point.
>
> > > > > > > > > > =A0 Weakened by fire.
>
> > > > > > > > > =A0 Nope, won't do.
>
> > > > > > > > =A0 Of course you are not going to accept reality. But sinc=
e I saw planes
> > > > > > > > hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that someth=
ing 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?
>
> > > > > > =A0 What about them?
>
> > > > > What about them??!! =A0Look for yourself, and decide how the cuts=
 were made
> > > > > and how it had nothing to do with the building fire cutting them.=
 =A0Maybe
> > > > > MF will repost it for you.
>
> > > > =A0 One more thing you can go nowhere with, eh? Here, let me help y=
ou...
>
> > > > =A0http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
>
> > > Why go there when this will take you there and tell you what they
> > > said.
>
> > =A0 Why go anywhere else when this source tells you how those angle cut=
s
> > 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.

>=A0Like 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 th=
e
> fall. =A0The tape went there because it was deemed impossible by NatGeo, =
and
> we see it was easily done. =A0And when one has thermite in the ground dus=
t,
> 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?

> > >=A0Now 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?
>
> > =A0 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.
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D5d5iIoCiI8g
>
> > =A0 It might be, this is the kind of nonsense he likes to cling to.
>
> > =A0 Some points that couldn`t possibly occur to you, with you head all
> > filled with nonsense...
>
> > =A0 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?

> > =A0 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".

>=A0And if it did, it would have just come down sooner.
> And why would the demolitionists care if it came down sooner? =A0They wou=
ld
> 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.

> > =A0 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. =A0Something 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.


> > =A0 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...

   http://www.weldmyworld.com/blog/2010/09/welding-safety-tips-the-hazards-=
of-welding-sparks.html

  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?

> > =A0 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.

  I explained it plainly. You going nowhere again.

>=A0The 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.

  You are shooting blanks, you aren`t going anywhere with this
nonsense.

> > > > > > > > >=A0Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> > > > > > > > > various modes,
>
> > > > > > > > =A0 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?
>
> > > > > > =A0 Apparently you were asleep also.
>
> > > > > It wasn't convincing as the steel wasn't the same as in the build=
ing, and
> > > > > the jet fuel wouldn't have been that way in the building.
>
> > > > =A0 And besides, you`d rather pretend it was explosives.
>
> > > Well the explosives are one commodity that is just pushed to the side=
,
> > > 'conveniently'.
>
> > =A0 Along with magic pixie dust.
>
> Find us a demolition or any building fall that had that explosive dust
> look.

  I have no idea what you are talking about. Why do you think that
concrete that falls from a great distance won`t pulverize?

> > >=A0Some I believe even before the plane(s) hit. =A0I guess
> > > this magic jet fuel has great powers besides this 'burning like no
> > > other inciderant' could, has explosive powers as well? =A0I am sure M=
F
> > > can give the the replay on the Explosives video you must have
> > > conveniently missed?
>
> > =A0 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.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DLNNhnoV-EOo&feature=3Drelmfu

  There is nothing there about explosions before the planes hit.

> > > > >=A0The other
> > > > > experiment was shown by MF to be incorrect.
>
> > > > =A0 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.
>
> > =A0 Pay attention, the steel was compromised in all the buildings where
> > the fires burned hotter than 600 degrees.
>
> You using command words is like a toddler talking to a dog. =A0Which stud=
es
> have shown won't compromise steel.

  Any study will show that sufficient heat will compromise steel.

>=A0Which is known buildings that have had
> fires burn like in Venezuela for 17 hours without compromising steel as
> well as many other buildings engulfed in much more major fires.

  Are you talking about the refinery fire?

> > > =A0Either the fires
> > > were inferior fires, or you need to answer why steel would not be
> > > compromised in them.
>
> > =A0 It was compromised. I linked to the Meridian fire which showed the
> > steel warped by heat.
>
> "in them". =A0You need to get to the others before you can proceed
> there. =A0See how that works, Cochese?

  I showed the steel was compromised in the Meridian fire. You seem to
think this doesn`t happen.

> > > =A0I don't think that's quite in your interest, is
> > > it?
>
> > =A0 Those fires have very little in common with the 9-11 event, it`s
> > like looking at apples to tell you about oranges. I thought I
> > explained this to you.
>
> You haven't seemed to explain that, and now you use this great fruit
> analogy that makes no sense.

  You are unfamiliar with the saying "apples and oranges"? It means
two different things. You haven`t a clue what the difference are,
though, do you? I mean actually thinking about such things might harm
the silly game playing.

> > > =A0I think MF had a comeback for that. =A0Did you read it, and will
> > > you comment on it?
>
> > =A0 Like I`m supposed to know what you are referring to?
>
> > > > > > > > > as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. =A0I guess he ha=
s
> > > > > > > > > wider orders than we figured.
>
> > > > > > > > =A0 You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enligh=
tening
> > > > > > > > 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.
>
> > > > > > =A0 =A0Apples are different than oranges.
>
> > > > > Maybe the steel in the WTC's were inferior. =A0Ha.
>
> > > > =A0 =A0Usually I would attempt to do your thinking for you,
>
> > > But you are incapable of anything but lame one-liners.....
>
> > =A0 They have the same effect as reason on you.
>
> > > =A0but I think it
>
> > > > would be fun to see you display that stellar thinking ability you`v=
e
> > > > been blessed with. Lets see you list all the differences you can co=
me
> > > > up with between the the WTC event and the Madrid fire.
>
> > > I only like one.
>
> > =A0 When challenged to think you can`t. You couldn`t even come up with
> > the easy one, "planes".
>
> Enough planes might make a building topple over.

  Why would you even compare the Madrid fire to the 9-11 event if you
can`t even figure out what the difference are between the two?

> > > =A0The steel wasn't compromised in that fire. =A0The only
> > > important question is, why wasn't it?
>
> > =A0 It was compromised in the Madrid fire. The only question is why
> > don`t you realize this?
>
> The steel structure maintained it self after many many hours of
> burning. =A0What is one supposed to realize?

  That the strength of the steel in the Madrid fire was compromised,
just not to the point where it failed.

> > > =A0It should be a> simple thing for you to come up with 10 major thin=
gs, 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? =A0Why wouldn't 'compromised-by-fire' in any building, or in
> > > this case the WTC's, just get this fire where it burned hot enough fo=
r
> > > 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, befor=
e
> > > it could fall straight down?
>
> > =A0 Great answer. When challenged to come up with differences between
> > the Madrid fire and the 9-11 event you are stumped. I could come up
> > with 10 easily, but all you can do is mumble nonsense.
>
> I think MF showed a collage of pics how buildings fall. =A0Take a look.
> And when you can't answer what I wrote, sidestep and make a childish
> remark. =A0Sweet.

  You are running. Why bring up the Madrid fire if you what you don`t
understand the differences between that and the 9-11 event?

> > > > > > > =A0Many buildings
> > > > > > > have burned on every floor for a lot longer and none of the s=
teel was
> > > > > > > compromised.
>
> > > > > > =A0 Any building that has intense fire for a long period of tim=
e will
> > > > > > have it`s steel compromised.
>
> > > > > Provably untrue.
>
> > > > =A0 No, it`s true. Intense heat weakens steel. Everyone seems to kn=
ow
> > > > 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.
>
> > =A0 Of course I can. The fires weren`t sufficient in those to cause
> > collapse.
>
> And of course one should respond with 'great answer'.

  So simple it doesn`t show on your radar. No ninjas.

> > =A0 You should really try to think of the differences between those
> > fires and the 9-11 event if you want to come up with the answers to
> > these types of questions. The difference in construction between box
> > beam construction and truss. How higher buildings use different
> > materials to conserve weight. How a plane could cause structural
> > damage. How a plane could strip away fire proofing materials. How a
> > plane might gather up all the office materials together for a bonfire.
> > How spraying a mist of flammable liquid over a large area, lighting
> > all combustibles at once over a large area might make a different fire
> > than those other buildings had. How the Twin Towers were designed with
> > the outer wall being load bearing, when in most building you can take
> > the facade off without effecting the structure. How the Towers were
> > built to have maximum floor space, which mean long expanses without
> > vertical support. You might even want to try reading the NIST report,
> > that will tell you more than reading those silly Truther sites.
>
> According to you, you just made even a greater reason that the buildings
> should have comedown sideways, with the lack of beams in the outer
> portions. =A0If the ones designed without all that with beams located mor=
e
> throughout fall sideways, what does this leave with your scenario?

  It`s hard for me to decipher your point here. I don`t think you
understand that failure occurs instantaneously. 6 people are carrying
a the coffin with a 400 pound body. One person faints, leaving the
others to bear the coffin. Another drops. When the weight becomes more
than the remaining bearers can bear, it drops. As soon as one person
drops off, the others instantly get a share of the load. In a
building, there are connections (clips, rivits, welds, ect).  The load
many of the members were bearing was increased due to the damage the
plane made. The fire weakened many of the remaining. Once these
connections start failing it`s an instantaneous transfer of weight and
failure all around the floor and it drops.

> > > =A0Lots of
> > > buildings, and why doesn't 'everyone' seem to know that?
>
> > =A0 Perhaps some failings of yours?
>
> > > > > > =A0 Check the Meridian fire we had here in Philly...
>
> > > > > > =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Meridian_Plaza
>
> > > > > And the building still didn't come down,
>
> > > > =A0 But the heat inflicted trauma on the steel.
>
> > > I think the heat inflcted trauma elsewhere, but for the sake of the
> > > moderators, I will refrain from exactly where.
>
> > =A0 Do you deny the steel was traumatized by the heat in the Meridian
> > fire?
>
> You can get steel to traumatize if you smack it hard enough.

  Can`t speak to the point, eh? Too much reality intruding on your
fantasies?

> > > > >and if it did, it wouldn't
> > > > > have come straight down like the WTC's did.
>
> > > > =A0 You think it would have floated up?
>
> > > I think you should do some research on how buildings fall, many video=
s
> > > to choose from. =A0And some on CD's not going so good, and how they
> > > fell. =A0You won't even have to read, just look.
>
> > =A0 I know how gravity works, they have to fall down.
>
> But nothing like the WTC's did.

  You think they should go up?

> > > > > > =A0 "There was structural damage to horizontal steel beams and =
floor
> > > > > > sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Under extreme fire
> > > > > > exposure the beams and girders sagged and twisted and cracks ap=
peared
> > > > > > in the concrete floors."
>
> > > > > > > > >=A0Read this article showing that the
> > > > > > > > > softening point of steel could not have been reached:
>
> > > > > > > > =A0 You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinar=
y wood fire
> > > > > > > > can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
>
> > > > > > > > > =A0http://www.serendipity.li/wot/temperatures_of_structur=
al_steel.htm
>
> > > > > > > > =A0 Cite something from that work that supports the proposi=
tion that the
> > > > > > > > steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
>
> > > > > > > One could fill up all the bandwidth here on that. =A0The grea=
ter question
> > > > > > > would be, no matter how the building was compromised, how did=
 it fall
> > > > > > > straight down in a time that could be counted as a controlled=
 demolition?
>
> > > > > > =A0 Structural failure is structural failure.
>
> > > > > This debating is like apples and oranges.
>
> > > > =A0 Trying to reason with a Truther is like debating an apple.
>
> > > Speaking in analogies of fruit is generally fruitless, except for Bud=
.
>
> > =A0 You prove the point. There is no talking to you folks, you are best
> > ignored. It isn`t like you are doing anything, going anywhere,
> > accomplishing anything.
>
> If it looks like a CD, falls like a CD, and the evidence points to a
> CD...it's a CD.

  A controlled demolition is a structural failure. This event was a
structural failure of a different kind, so they should look somewhat
similar.

> CJ
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
