Message from discussion 9/11 Required Reading: "500 Days"
Received: by 10.180.104.38 with SMTP id gb6mr89042wib.4.1352438942020;
Thu, 08 Nov 2012 21:29:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: 9/11 Required Reading: "500 Days"
Date: 9 Nov 2012 00:29:01 -0500
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
X-Original-Trace: 8 Nov 2012 18:50:30 -0500, 126.96.36.199
X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1352438941 188.8.131.52 (8 Nov 2012 23:29:01 -0500)
X-Original-Trace: 8 Nov 2012 23:29:01 -0500, 184.108.40.206
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 11/8/2012 5:20 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.
You didn't bother to read the links I uploaded. The floors are held in
place by steel trusses. Once the steel trusses give way the floor falls.
The weight of that floor falling causes the floor below it to fall. And
so on and so on and so on.
Without the fireproofing the trusses got so hot from the burning jet
fuel which had pooled on the floor that the steel trusses weakened and
sagged, pulling away from the walls.
>>> 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
Leave "burn down" out of this. No one ever said burn down. The floors
collapse and triggered a pancaking.
> 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?
No, once a floor collapses it brings down the whole building.