Received: by 10.66.90.8 with SMTP id bs8mr487730pab.24.1353005406314; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:50:06 -0800 (PST) From: mainframetech Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk Subject: Re: 9/11 Required Reading: "500 Days" Date: 15 Nov 2012 13:50:04 -0500 Lines: 171 Approved: jmcad...@shell.core.com Message-ID: <85cb9e8b-c6b7-4db2-b41d-0c9d60825dae@v9g2000yql.googlegroups.com> References: <5071a65e@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <5097d2b3$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <11071fab-faec-4013-96c2-f28568366159@p22g2000vby.googlegroups.com> <509ff01a$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> Return-Path: X-Original-To: aa...@panix.com Delivered-To: aa...@panix.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: v9g2000yql.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.228.157.43; posting-account=j6NPUAoAAAC9KUDIlxo2HDrcC9qwJ827 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/5.0),gzip(gfe) Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:31:00 +0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.1 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.1 X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1353005405 166.84.1.1 (15 Nov 2012 12:50:05 -0500) X-Original-Trace: 15 Nov 2012 12:50:05 -0500, 166.84.1.1 Path: s9ni13525pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news.glorb.com!us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.albasani.net!mcadams.posc.mu.edu!panix1.panix.com!not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Nov 11, 5:44=A0pm, Anthony Marsh wrote: > On 11/10/2012 10:07 PM, mainframetech wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 9, 10:20 pm, Bud wrote: > >> On Nov 9, 12:08 pm, mainframetech wrote: > > >>> On Nov 9, 12:28 am, Jason Burke wrote: > > >>>> On 11/8/2012 2:20 PM, curtjester1 wrote: > > >>>>> On Nov 6, 1:00 am, Anthony Marsh wrote: > >>>>>> On 11/4/2012 6:56 PM, curtjester1 wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Nov 3, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh wro= te: > >>>>>>>> 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 bu= rning 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 theori= zed > >>>>>>> impact. =A0Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever brou= ght down a > >>>>>>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this infe= rno 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 d= own in > >>>>> fires, and before 9/11, none had. =A0The steel stays intact. =A0I w= ould 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. =A0Are you saying = the Nat > >>>>> Geo experiment was in comparison to the trusses? =A0And what if the= trusses > >>>>> were compromised? =A0Wouldn't the greater and main steel beams just= remain > >>>>> intact, while 'THEY" just fell? > > >>>>> CJ > > >>> =A0 =A0 There is some truth in the question of the trusses falling wh= ile > >>> leaving the main beams there. =A0But the building was planned to stay= up > >>> while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fuel. > > >> =A0 =A0They did stay up when the planes hit them, even though the plan= es > >> 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. =A0The main beams were thick a= nd > >>> solid and the same theory worked for them too. =A0A few of them might > >>> be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would > >>> continue holding up the building...as was planned. =A0The kind of fal= l > >>> 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. > > >> =A0 =A0Weakened by fire. > > > =A0 =A0Nope, won't do. =A0Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel a= nd its > > various modes, as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. =A0I guess he h= as > > wider orders than we figured. =A0Read this article showing that the > > softening point of steel could not have been reached: > > Again, stop your trick of biasing the argument by misusing words. We were > not talking about MELTING or SOFTENING of steel. We were talking about > structural WEAKENING of steel. Do not use the terms interchangeably. Stic= k > to the point being debated. > > Softening of steel can mean weakening of steel. If you want to use the terms differently from each other, then define them as you understand them. What temperatures do you mean for each state of steel? Are you assuming structural steel for high rise buildings? What effect will happen when each temperature is reached? As well, it's not necessary to insult a debater by accusing them of a 'trick of biasing' and 'misusing words' with NO explanation of what you're talking about. I wasn't even aware that I was being spoken to or about, since I spend most of my time in the alt.conspiracy.jfk forum. I wasn't aware that someone was using both forums in the headers of many of these messages. Now that I am aware, I will check more often that decent treatment of posters is maintained where my name is involved. This type of attack should be monitored, which I had thought was the case in this newsgroup. I had understood that you debate the point and not the person. > > > =A0http://www.serendipity.li/wot/temperatures_of_structural_steel.htm > > >>> =A0 =A0 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. =A0Here's an example of steel from = the > >>> WTC: > > > =A0 =A0http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/15/the-mysterious- collaps... > > >>> =A0 =A0 Page down a bit to find the picture of the steel. > > > Chris > > Several metals, especially iron, are affected by temperature. If you lowe= r > the temperature of steel it strengthens the magnetic properties, such as > super cooled magnets. Conversely, temperature sensitivity varies, but whe= n > a magnet is heated to a temperature known as the Curie point, it loses al= l > of its magnetism, even after cooling below that temperature. If you heat > up steel it weakens. Which makes it more malleable. Japanese sword makers > use this property to fold the metal into hundreds of layers. That's nice. Now at what temperature does 'weakening' and 'softening' occur to your understanding? And have you seen this experiment on a steel I-beam that shows that it need not soften or weaken over more than a day of direct fire on it, with also materials such as gypsum wallboard and similar things found in an office building? For speed, go forward to 4:40 to follow the demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3YuDKUCALtU I've seen a demonstration of jet fuel in a pool causing an overhead I-beam to bend in the middle with a lot of weight on it in less than 4 minutes. This was a case where the steel bent and allowed the weight to fall into the fire below. Was it 'softening' or 'weakening'? Here's the experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DKl0tHx36RRQ Of course, for many reasons the jet fuel did not do the same in the WTC fires, or the buildings would have fallen down in a few minutes or broken at the point of the plane strike like the experiment, instead of lasting about an hour each before falling similar to a controlled destruction. Remember, the jet fuel was largely burned off as the planes hit the buildings, and then the remainder washed down to the lowest level a liquid could find, though only a few floors down. So something was incorrectly set up in the experiment. Chris