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: gwmccros...@gmail.com
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: 9/11 Required Reading: "500 Days"
Date: 15 Nov 2012 23:33:59 -0500
Lines: 356
Approved: jmcad...@shell.core.com
Message-ID: <4293fdab-14bd-4dd2-8445-e3fb3a0b339b@googlegroups.com>
References: <11900574-8715-4b07-b18f-fad66ec3f29e@s12g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>
 <1f18566d-9413-43ab-b5b5-ab0c621898a6@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 <57598ded-7667-4104-889e-30e79b0c13f5@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> <66bc46e0-40eb-4ec8-95ae-4787d238f534@q5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <66bc46e0-40eb-4ec8-95ae-4787d238f534@q5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.212.72.11;
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:00:00 +0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.3
Path: s9ni7983pbb.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.mccarragher.com!news.grnet.gr!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!news.albasani.net!mcadams.posc.mu.edu!panix3.panix.com!not-for-mail
Bytes: 10366
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:44:36 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Nov 14, 9:40=A0pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>=20
> > On Nov 14, 4:57=A0pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> >
>=20
> >
>=20
> >
>=20
> >
>=20
> >
>=20
> >
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > On Nov 11, 7:19=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > > > On Nov 9, 12:08=A0pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.co=
m> wrote:
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 9, 12:28=A0am, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.ne=
t> wrote:
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > On 11/8/2012 2:20 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comca=
st.net> wrote:
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > >> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > >>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@co=
mcast.net> wrote:
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 11/3/2012 3:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Longer does not equal hotter.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure what you mean by this steel compromisin=
g example from Nat
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > > Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainfram=
e weigh in on that or
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > > see if you can clarify.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > >>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when s=
omething is burning at
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > >>> length as opposed to some of these WTC short term f=
ires, it must be looked
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > >>> at as improbable that these fires were having that =
type of theorized
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > >>> impact. =A0Some of these other fires where 'no fire=
 has ever brought down a
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > >>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by=
 all this inferno type
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > >>> fire that was engulfing the whole buildings.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > >> I have no idea what you THINK you mean by that.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > > The gist is that buildings of steel do not get hot en=
ough to burn down in
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > > fires, and before 9/11, none had. =A0The steel stays =
intact. =A0I would think
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > > these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to =
be such that a Nat
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > > Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. =A0A=
re you saying the Nat
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > > Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? =A0A=
nd what if the trusses
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > > were compromised? =A0Wouldn't the greater and main st=
eel beams just remain
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > > intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > > > > > > CJ
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > > > > =A0 =A0There is some truth in the question of the trusses=
 falling while
>=20
> > > > > > > > > leaving the main beams there. =A0But the building was pla=
nned to stay up
>=20
> > > > > > > > > while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all t=
he jet fuel.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > > > =A0 They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though =
the planes
>=20
> > > > > > > > were bigger than they figured, and were going much faster.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > > > > As long as the outside 'cage' of supports was intact to s=
ome degree,
>=20
> > > > > > > > > it would be kept up and supporting the building even when=
 some beams
>=20
> > > > > > > > > were cut, as in the twin towers' case. =A0The main beams =
were thick and
>=20
> > > > > > > > > solid and the same theory worked for them too. =A0A few o=
f them might
>=20
> > > > > > > > > be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, the=
y would
>=20
> > > > > > > > > continue holding up the building...as was planned. =A0The=
 kind of fall
>=20
> > > > > > > > > that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main su=
pports and
>=20
> > > > > > > > > many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond =
their normal
>=20
> > > > > > > > > load bearing point.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > > > =A0 Weakened by fire.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > > =A0 Nope, won't do.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > =A0 Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I =
saw planes
>=20
> > > > > > hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something =
else was
>=20
> > > > > > needed. And that you will never do with the flimsy nonsense you=
`ve
>=20
> > > > > > mustered.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > Like some of the steel showing cuts that he posted?
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > =A0 What about them?
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > What about them??!! =A0Look for yourself, and decide how the cuts wer=
e made
>=20
> > > and how it had nothing to do with the building fire cutting them. =A0=
Maybe
>=20
> > > MF will repost it for you.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > >=A0Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
>=20
> > > > > > > various modes,
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > =A0 Poor little Chrissy was sleeping when I showed him how easi=
ly steel
>=20
> > > > > > can be heated enough to bend.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > =A0 Apparently you were asleep also.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > It wasn't convincing as the steel wasn't the same as in the building,=
 and
>=20
> > > the jet fuel wouldn't have been that way in the building. =A0The othe=
r
>=20
> > > experiment was shown by MF to be incorrect.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > > as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. =A0I guess he has
>=20
> > > > > > > wider orders than we figured.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > > > =A0 You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlighteni=
ng
>=20
> > > > > > yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the =
sound
>=20
> > > > > > of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you=
 like,
>=20
> > > > > > it`s a free country.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > =A0 LOL! =A0Poor little buddy read a WCR and he liked it so much he
>=20
> > believed it...:)
>=20
>=20
>=20
>   I found the counter argument that everybody was out to get Lee
>=20
> Harvey Oswald uncompelling.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > > > > No steel beamed building has ever collapsed prior to 9/11.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > =A0 =A0Apples are different than oranges.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > Maybe the steel in the WTC's were inferior. =A0Ha.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > =A0 Nope. =A0Not until they were attackedby nano-thermite, which waqs
>=20
> > found everywhere in the WTC dust. =A0It is not possible for that stuff
>=20
> > to be in the dust unless it was in the building as it collapsed.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>   Thats just a Truth factoid you guys banter about, it doesn`t mean
>=20
> anything. Science is based on reproducible results, and you just can`t
>=20
> get independent confirmation of that finding.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > > > > =A0Many buildings
>=20
> > > > > have burned on every floor for a lot longer and none of the steel=
 was
>=20
> > > > > compromised.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > =A0 Any building that has intense fire for a long period of time wi=
ll
>=20
> > > > have it`s steel compromised.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > Provably untrue.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > =A0 Check the Meridian fire we had here in Philly...
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > > =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Meridian_Plaza
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > And the building still didn't come down, and if it did, it wouldn't
>=20
> > > have come straight down like the WTC's did.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > =A0 Here's a clip from that fire: "Despite this extraordinary exposure,
>=20
> > the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage"
>=20
> > From:http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/compare/iklim_merid=
ien...
>=20
>=20
>=20
>   But I did show that Curt was wrong when he said that the steel in
>=20
> office fires is "uncomprimised". And it shows that Truther sites that
>=20
> say that steel is not weakened in office fires to be lying.
>=20


mainframetech also seems to be confused about the meaning of the word 
"obvious." The sentence doesn't say "obviously with no damage," it says 
there is "no obvious damage." That merely means that the damage wasn't 
apparent on the surface. Deep structural damage often doesn't manifest 
itself to the naked eye until it's too late. Everything surrounding this 
sentence, including the very paragraph it concludes, speaks to the damage 
suffered by this building in the fire, which necessitated its (eventual) 
total destruction.

/sm
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
