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: 14 Nov 2012 21:39:46 -0500
Lines: 194
Approved: jmcad...@shell.core.com
Message-ID: <687f1ff9-684f-4d20-ab3d-0a132672bd8b@k6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
References: <5071a65e@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <fba60ba2-0fcf-4d5f-9add-bdbabfdf370c@c2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 <eaab2929-8f97-4ac7-bd56-5e858b89f2da@r7g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>
 <1aea46f7-cc35-448b-a6b7-2c7b176abb99@q4g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>
 <9a34743d-9891-406c-a01c-27e5c9500743@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <222036c9-58d4-4f5c-86b7-5289a772af2b@b19g2000vbt.googlegroups.com> <7bea204b-85c3-4814-9b22-e94b11612743@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: k6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.228.157.43; posting-account=j6NPUAoAAAC9KUDIlxo2HDrcC9qwJ827
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:07:39 +0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.3
Path: ha8ni3834wib.1!nntp.google.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!94.232.116.13.MISMATCH!feed.xsnews.nl!border-3.ams.xsnews.nl!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!backlog1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.albasani.net!mcadams.posc.mu.edu!panix3.panix.com!not-for-mail
Bytes: 8853
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Nov 14, 4:57=A0pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> 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
>
> > Chris- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/02/osama-bin-laden-photo-fake
>
> CJ

  I tend to believe the Seal Team that said they killed him, and the
president after they checked the DNA.

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