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: 17 Nov 2012 18:27:46 -0500
Lines: 450
Approved: jmcad...@shell.core.com
Message-ID: <50a7e0fe$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
References: <f344428b-df4d-4c6d-87a4-9337090b1115@f17g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> <6c2c22c0-8433-4dbd-9216-fbff7957082d@r6g2000yqd.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: <6c2c22c0-8433-4dbd-9216-fbff7957082d@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.3
Path: s9ni7987pbb.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!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.albasani.net!mcadams.posc.mu.edu!panix3.panix.com!not-for-mail
Bytes: 20866
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 11/16/2012 10:50 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Nov 16, 6:49 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> 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.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Like some of the steel showing cuts that he posted?
>>
>>>>>>>>     What about them?
>>
>>>>>>> What about them??!!  Look for yourself, and decide how the cuts were made
>>>>>>> and how it had nothing to do with the building fire cutting them.  Maybe
>>>>>>> MF will repost it for you.
>>
>>>>>>     One more thing you can go nowhere with, eh? Here, let me help you...
>>
>>>>>>   http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
>>
>>>>> Why go there when this will take you there and tell you what they
>>>>> said.
>>
>>>>     Why go anywhere else when this source tells you how those angle cuts
>>>> 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.
>>
>>> Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. You don't seem to understand how the burden
>>> of proof works. You make a claim, you prove it. You don't just make up a
>>> claim and say it is true if no one can disprove it.
>>
>>    Right, that is why the Truther claims that those cuts in the steel
>> were made by thermite are meaningless.
>>
>
>    Try to get off the baloney.  You and I have argued this before and you
> have always gotten backup from me while providing precious little
> yourself.  I don't claim that thermite made the cuts (but then I'm also
> not a 'truther'), only that it seems odd that they would waste time and
> materials doing a diagonal cut instead of a straight cut. Diagonal takes
> longer and is a longer line.  Also I wonder why they would use a diagonal
> cut when as soon as they get to the end it will fall on someone.  The
> straight cut can be pushed over when ready, or at the least would trake a
> moment to wobble and give people a chance to get out of the way.
>

Gee, I wonder why Controlled Demolition uses diagonal cuts instead of 
horiziontal. I wonder why lumberjacks use diagonal cuts on trees instead 
of horizontal cuts.

>
>
>>>>>    Now 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?
>>
>>>>     Bad thinking, as usual. I don`t have to rule out magic first, not
>>>> when there are more reasonable possibilities available.
>>
>>> You should not let him get away with the false premise.
>>> The NATGEO team did not CUT, SOFTEN, or MELT the steel beam. The intense
>>> heat WEAKENED the steel beam and it BUCKLE, not BROKE, not TORE.
>>
>>>>> This I think is what MF was trying to show you.
>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
>>
>>>>     It might be, this is the kind of nonsense he likes to cling to.
>>
>    This isn't the same forum where you insult everyone you have to argue
> against.  I suggest you grow up and debate properly and provide backup
> when asked.  Of course, you'll do what you want, just rtying to help.
>
>>>>     Some points that couldn`t possibly occur to you, with you head all
>>>> filled with nonsense...
>>
>>>>     Is the idea that the plane just happened to hit right above where
>>>> the thermite was planted?
>>
>>> Who said that? And which professsional demolition company plants
>>> explosives only on ONE floor. Never happened.
>>
>    Oh but it does.  It will happen on one story buildings...:) Just
> pointing out that you don't think things through.
>
>>>>     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?
>>
>>> I guess the idea is that it is shielded and then set off by remote control.
>>> And if the explosives are on a lower floor then they would not be ignite
>>> by intense fires on the floors above.
>>
>>>>     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.
>>
>>>>     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.
>>
>>> What "spheres"? SHOW me these "spheres." Truthers are talking about
>>> pools of molten metal.
>>
>    No problem.  Here ya go...:)
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html
>

Jones is not very convincing. He does not prove that the chemical 
composition of the spheres matches the steel used in the towers.

>>    At 1:10 of the video Curt linked to....
>>
>>     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
>>
>>>>     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.
>>
>>> It's more fun that way.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>    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.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Did you try it while roasting marshmallows at home?
>>
>>>>>>>>     Apparently you were asleep also.
>>
>>>>>>> It wasn't convincing as the steel wasn't the same as in the building, and
>>>>>>> the jet fuel wouldn't have been that way in the building.
>>
>>>>>>     And besides, you`d rather pretend it was explosives.
>>
>>>>> Well the explosives are one commodity that is just pushed to the side,
>>>>> 'conveniently'.
>>
>>>>     Along with magic pixie dust.
>>
>>> Certainly seemed like magic pixie dust to the Native Americans who had
>>> never seen explosives before.
>>> Imagine putting two household chemicals together and blowing up an
>>> entire building.
>>
>>    Imagine Native Americans having household chemicals.
>>

Two separate sentences. Two different things.
When you lose an argument just start conflating.

>>>>>    Some I believe even before the plane(s) hit.  I guess
>>>>> this magic jet fuel has great powers besides this 'burning like no
>>>>> other inciderant' could, has explosive powers as well?  I am sure MF
>>>>> can give the the replay on the Explosives video you must have
>>>>> conveniently missed?
>>
>>>>     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?
>>
>>> How exactly said there were explosions before the planes hit?
>>
>>    Ask Curt.
>>
>    That there were explosions was proven, at least after the planes
> hit.  Here you can hear many firemenn and others say they heard
> explosions in the buildings before they came down listen carefully to
> the first one:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAoWDcu9r8A
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kanj8gx4E1M
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAotdaET-LU
>
>>> Was there
>>> live news coverage the day before documenting these explosions.
>>> In controlled demolitions they may cut several connecting beams before
>>> they blow up the building. To assure that the building falls in the
>>> right direction, such as away from the adjacent building.
>>
>>>>>>>    The other
>>>>>>> experiment was shown by MF to be incorrect.
>>
>>>>>>     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.
>>
>>>>     Pay attention, the steel was compromised in all the buildings where
>>>> the fires burned hotter than 600 degrees.
>>
>>>>>    Either the fires
>>>>> were inferior fires, or you need to answer why steel would not be
>>>>> compromised in them.
>>
>>>>     It was compromised. I linked to the Meridian fire which showed the
>>>> steel warped by heat.
>>
>>> But not melted, not cut.
>>
>>    And not coated in chocolate.
>>
>>>>>    I don't think that's quite in your interest, is
>>>>> it?
>>
>>>>     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.
>>
>>>>>    I think MF had a comeback for that.  Did you read it, and will
>>>>> you comment on it?
>>
>>>>     Like I`m supposed to know what you are referring to?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>>>>>>> No steel beamed building has ever collapsed prior to 9/11.
>>
>>>>>>>>      Apples are different than oranges.
>>
>>>>>>> Maybe the steel in the WTC's were inferior.  Ha.
>>
>>>>>>      Usually I would attempt to do your thinking for you,
>>
>>>>> But you are incapable of anything but lame one-liners.....
>>
>>>>     They have the same effect as reason on you.
>>
>>>>>    but I think it
>>
>>>>>> would be fun to see you display that stellar thinking ability you`ve
>>>>>> been blessed with. Lets see you list all the differences you can come
>>>>>> up with between the the WTC event and the Madrid fire.
>>
>>>>> I only like one.
>>
>>>>     When challenged to think you can`t. You couldn`t even come up with
>>>> the easy one, "planes".
>>
>>>>>    The steel wasn't compromised in that fire.  The only
>>>>> important question is, why wasn't it?
>>
>>>>     It was compromised in the Madrid fire. The only question is why
>>>> don`t you realize this?
>>
>>> Maybe the resolution of the photo was not good enough.
>>
>>>>>    It should be a> simple thing for you to come up with 10 major things, 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?  Why wouldn't 'compromised-by-fire' in any building, or in
>>>>> this case the WTC's, just get this fire where it burned hot enough for
>>>>> 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, before
>>>>> it could fall straight down?
>>
>>>>     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.
>>
>>>>>>>>>    Many buildings
>>>>>>>>> have burned on every floor for a lot longer and none of the steel was
>>>>>>>>> compromised.
>>
>>>>>>>>     Any building that has intense fire for a long period of time will
>>>>>>>> have it`s steel compromised.
>>
>>>>>>> Provably untrue.
>>
>>>>>>     No, it`s true. Intense heat weakens steel. Everyone seems to know
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>>     Of course I can. The fires weren`t sufficient in those to cause
>>>> collapse.
>>
>>>>     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.
>>
>>> Would sprinklers have made a difference? Better building codes? Less rust?
>>
>>    Thats why NIST looks into these things, to find out.
>>
>    Yep.  Here's a NIST report on the time fires took to die down:
> "The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes?
> and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a
> given location.
> (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.)"
>
>    That left a long time before the 3 towers fell to cool off.
>

In the meantime the trusses were compromised.

>>>>>    Lots of
>>>>> buildings, and why doesn't 'everyone' seem to know that?
>>
>>>>     Perhaps some failings of yours?
>>
>>>>>>>>     Check the Meridian fire we had here in Philly...
>>
>>>>>>>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Meridian_Plaza
>>
>>>>>>> And the building still didn't come down,
>>
>>>>>>     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.
>>
>>>>     Do you deny the steel was traumatized by the heat in the Meridian
>>>> fire?
>>
>>> Traumatized? Afraid?
>>
>>    You think Trauma Units treat people in fear?
>>
>>>>>>> and if it did, it wouldn't
>>>>>>> have come straight down like the WTC's did.
>>
>>>>>>     You think it would have floated up?
>>
>>>>> I think you should do some research on how buildings fall, many videos
>>>>> to choose from.  And some on CD's not going so good, and how they
>>>>> fell.  You won't even have to read, just look.
>>
>>>>     I know how gravity works, they have to fall down.
>>
>>>>>>>>     "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 appeared
>>>>>>>> in the concrete floors."
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>    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.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   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.
>>
>>>>>>>>> One could fill up all the bandwidth here on that.  The greater 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?
>>
>>>>>>>>     Structural failure is structural failure.
>>
>>>>>>> This debating is like apples and oranges.
>>
>>>>>>     Trying to reason with a Truther is like debating an apple.
>>
>>>>> Speaking in analogies of fruit is generally fruitless, except for Bud.
>>
>>>>     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.
>>
>>> When you can't debate, just ignore.
>>
>>    When your opponent doesn`t have a legitimate debating position, just
>> ignore.>> CJ
>
>
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
