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: mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: 9/11 Required Reading: "500 Days"
Date: 13 Nov 2012 13:44:47 -0500
Lines: 197
Approved: jmcad...@shell.core.com
Message-ID: <a5c415dd-3c1a-4166-8f86-a05b6ff4add6@s12g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>
References: <5071a65e@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <fba60ba2-0fcf-4d5f-9add-bdbabfdf370c@c2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 <9a34743d-9891-406c-a01c-27e5c9500743@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <222036c9-58d4-4f5c-86b7-5289a772af2b@b19g2000vbt.googlegroups.com> <12175028-c53f-42a6-88e3-c9150c911a56@ez26g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: s12g2000vbw.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.228.157.43; posting-account=j6NPUAoAAAC9KUDIlxo2HDrcC9qwJ827
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:46:23 +0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.2
Path: ha8ni329068wib.1!nntp.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!94.232.116.13.MISMATCH!feed.xsnews.nl!border-3.ams.xsnews.nl!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newspeer1.nac.net!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.mccarragher.com!news.grnet.gr!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.albasani.net!mcadams.posc.mu.edu!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Nov 12, 7:01=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 7:20=A0pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> 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.com> wrot=
e:
>
> > > > > On Nov 9, 10:20=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 9, 12:08=A0pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> w=
rote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 9, 12:28=A0am, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> w=
rote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 11/8/2012 2:20 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.n=
et> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcas=
t.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 ex=
ample from Nat
> > > > > > > > > Geo, and your theory of trusses, so I'll let Mainframe we=
igh in on that or
> > > > > > > > > see if you can clarify.
>
> > > > > > > > >>> It is said that oxygen fires are hotter, and when somet=
hing 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. =A0Some 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. =A0The steel stays inta=
ct. =A0I would think
>
> > > > > > > > I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
>
> > > > > > > > > these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be s=
uch that a Nat
> > > > > > > > > Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. =A0Are y=
ou saying the Nat
> > > > > > > > > Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? =A0And w=
hat if the trusses
> > > > > > > > > were compromised? =A0Wouldn't the greater and main steel =
beams just remain
> > > > > > > > > intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
>
> > > > > > > > > CJ
>
> > > > > > > =A0 =A0There is some truth in the question of the trusses fal=
ling while
> > > > > > > leaving the main beams there. =A0But the building was planned=
 to stay up
> > > > > > > while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the j=
et fuel.
>
> > > > > > =A0 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 som=
e beams
> > > > > > > were cut, as in the twin towers' case. =A0The main beams were=
 thick and
> > > > > > > solid and the same theory worked for them too. =A0A few of th=
em might
> > > > > > > be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they wo=
uld
> > > > > > > continue holding up the building...as was planned. =A0The kin=
d of fall
> > > > > > > that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main suppor=
ts and
> > > > > > > many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond thei=
r normal
> > > > > > > load bearing point.
>
> > > > > > =A0 Weakened by fire.
>
> > > > > =A0 Nope, won't do.
>
> > > > =A0 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.
>
> > > Like some of the steel showing cuts that he posted?
>
> > > > >=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 s=
teel
> > > > can be heated enough to bend.
>
> > > Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
>
> > > > > as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. =A0I guess he has
> > > > > wider orders than we figured.
>
> > > > =A0 You spend a lot of time guessing and little time enlightening
> > > > yourself. If you read something on a truther site you like the soun=
d
> > > > of you believe it, thats all. Believe all the stupid things you lik=
e,
> > > > it`s a free country.
>
> > > No steel beamed building has ever collapsed prior to 9/11. =A0Many bu=
ildings
> > > have burned on every floor for a lot longer and none of the steel was
> > > compromised.
>
> > > > >=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 ordinary wood f=
ire
> > > > can heat steel to the point it can be bent.
>
> > > > > =A0http://www.serendipity.li/wot/temperatures_of_structural_steel=
.htm
>
> > > > =A0 Cite something from that work that supports the proposition tha=
t the
> > > > steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
>
> > > One could fill up all the bandwidth here on that. =A0The greater ques=
tion
> > > 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 demolit=
ion?
>
> > > > > > > =A0 =A0To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical c=
ould be used
> > > > > > > and it would make the steel paper thin and full of holes, jus=
t by
> > > > > > > setting it off against the steel. =A0Here's an example of ste=
el from the
> > > > > > > WTC:
>
> > > > > =A0 =A0http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/15/the-mysteri=
ous-
> > > > > collaps...
>
> > > > > > > =A0 =A0Page down a bit to find the picture of the steel.
>
> > > > > Chris
>
> > =A0 =A0An interesting note to all this is that the FBI never put up a
> > wanted poster for Bin Laden that accused him of bringing down the WTC
> > buildings. =A0Here's the poster for Bin Laden, accusing him of other
> > crimes, but not 9/11...:)http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-lad=
en
>
> =A0 =A0So?

  ROTFLMAO!!

   Who but poor little buddy would have no clue about what is meant by
that...:)

   Well litle fella, it means that they were unable to develop any
evidence proving that Bin Laden was guilty of the crime of mass
murder.  For the crimes they had proof on, they listed them.   Get yer
finger outa yer nose fer a minute and think!

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