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: Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: 9/11 Required Reading: "500 Days"
Date: 12 Nov 2012 19:01:16 -0500
Lines: 134
Approved: jmcad...@shell.core.com
Message-ID: <50a06e2d$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
References: <5071a65e@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <fba60ba2-0fcf-4d5f-9add-bdbabfdf370c@c2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <5097d2b3$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <b2594b4d-c601-4f8b-8189-28f35b9ec9e0@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <k7hik3$obd$5@dont-email.me> <11071fab-faec-4013-96c2-f28568366159@p22g2000vby.googlegroups.com> <c5ef1f1b-8596-4523-b643-d6196e1c6d94@c20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> <eaab2929-8f97-4ac7-bd56-5e858b89f2da@r7g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> <1aea46f7-cc35-448b-a6b7-2c7b176abb99@q4g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1aea46f7-cc35-448b-a6b7-2c7b176abb99@q4g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.3
Path: q13ni257988wii.0!nntp.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.albasani.net!mcadams.posc.mu.edu!panix3.panix.com!not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 11/11/2012 1:59 PM, Bud 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.

Ah, ok, so if you didn't see something it didn't exist.
Guess you think all those special effects, stunts and magic tricks are 
real because you can't see how they are done.

>
>>   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.
>

Were you the one who uploaded the NATGEO video?

>> 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.
>

Same with you and your debunker sites.

>>   Read this article showing that the
>> softening point of steel could not have been reached:
>
>    You need to pay attention, I showed you that an ordinary wood fire
> can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
>

Ordinary? Is that why the steel grates holding the wood logs keep 
collapsing and needing to be replaced?

>>   http://www.serendipity.li/wot/temperatures_of_structural_steel.htm
>
>    Cite something from that work that supports the proposition that the
> steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
>

Softened is the wrong term. Weakened.

>>>>     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:
>>
>>     http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/15/the-mysterious-
>> collaps...
>>
>>>>     Page down a bit to find the picture of the steel.
>>
>> Chris
>
>
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
