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: Bud <sirsl...@fast.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: 9/11 Required Reading: "500 Days"
Date: 13 Nov 2012 11:13:55 -0500
Lines: 242
Approved: jmcad...@shell.core.com
Message-ID: <3b17b2e6-ea31-4c59-b72c-6e6271d23de7@f17g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
References: <5071a65e@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <fba60ba2-0fcf-4d5f-9add-bdbabfdf370c@c2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 <1aea46f7-cc35-448b-a6b7-2c7b176abb99@q4g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>
 <50a06e2d$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <4874a605-02ed-4ca8-9a74-8e590a2bc7b4@b19g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>
 <50a1a909$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: f17g2000vbz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=108.16.121.168; posting-account=m9ygJAoAAADodrMzQHwCTY_pcLb5nd8z
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:36:04 +0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.2
Path: ha8ni246518wib.1!nntp.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.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, 9:45=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 8:06 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 7:01 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> 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> wro=
te:
> >>>>>>>>> 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 f=
rom 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 mu=
st be looked
> >>>>>>>>>> at as improbable that these fires were having that type of the=
orized
> >>>>>>>>>> impact. =A0Some of these other fires where 'no fire has ever b=
rought down a
> >>>>>>>>>> steel-beamed structure before' were not affected by all this i=
nferno 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 bur=
n down in
> >>>>>>>> fires, and before 9/11, none had. =A0The steel stays intact. =A0=
I would think
>
> >>>>>>> I wonder how steel is formed. Is it by magic?
>
> >>>>>>>> these steel-structured buildings had enough steel to be such tha=
t a Nat
> >>>>>>>> Geo experiment would not get them to compromise. =A0Are you sayi=
ng 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 j=
ust remain
> >>>>>>>> intact, while 'THEY" just fell?
>
> >>>>>>>> CJ
>
> >>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0There is some truth in the question of the trusses fall=
ing while
> >>>>>> leaving the main beams there. =A0But the building was planned to s=
tay up
> >>>>>> while a fully loaded 707 crashed into it, including all the jet fu=
el.
>
> >>>>> =A0 =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 degre=
e,
> >>>>>> it would be kept up and supporting the building even when some bea=
ms
> >>>>>> were cut, as in the twin towers' case. =A0The main beams were thic=
k and
> >>>>>> solid and the same theory worked for them too. =A0A few of them mi=
ght
> >>>>>> be compromised, but the way they were interconnected, they would
> >>>>>> continue holding up the building...as was planned. =A0The kind of =
fall
> >>>>>> that was experienced could only happen if ALL the main supports an=
d
> >>>>>> many of the peripheral supports were weakened far beyond their nor=
mal
> >>>>>> load bearing point.
>
> >>>>> =A0 =A0 Weakened by fire.
>
> >>>> =A0 =A0 Nope, won't do.
>
> >>> =A0 =A0 Of course you are not going to accept reality. But since I sa=
w planes
> >>> hit and saw fires you are going to have to show that something else w=
as
> >>> 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.
>
> > =A0 =A0Still struggling with your reading comprehension I see.
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0"But since I saw planes hit and saw fires you are going to h=
ave to
> > show that something else was needed."
>
> > =A0 =A0Can you show that something else was needed, Tony?
>
> You didn't ask me and I didn't offer any theory about that.

  I know, you rarely respond with anything that speaks to something
I`ve said.

> I am the guy
> who said it was the fires weakening the steel.

  No, that was the Haya people nearly 2000 years ago.

> You like Quixote creating monsterous enemies out of windmills to make
> yourself look like the people's hero slaying the monsters.
> Even when we are on the same side I don't want you handling the ball
> because you fumble it.

  Oh yeah? You are like the boy who cried "Wolf", and the second
Little Pig.

> >> Guess you think all those special effects, stunts and magic tricks are
> >> real because you can't see how they are done.
>
> > =A0 =A0Theres a new one, the Twin Towers were brought down by magic.
>
> Still struggling with your reading comprehension I see.
> I never said anything like that.

  I didn`t think you`d mind if I played with your strawman.

> >>>> =A0 =A0Poor little buddy is now an expert on steel and its
> >>>> various modes,
>
> >>> =A0 =A0 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?
>
> > =A0 =A0Is that the one where the guy is screwing a chicken?
>
> >>>> as well as an expert on the WTC tragedy. =A0I guess he has
> >>>> wider orders than we figured.
>
> >>> =A0 =A0 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.
>
> > =A0 =A0Many conspiracy mongers seem to think all ideas are the same.
>
> >>>> =A0 =A0Read this article showing that the
> >>>> softening point of steel could not have been reached:
>
> >>> =A0 =A0 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?
>
> > =A0 =A0What are you talking about?
>
> You claimed that an ordinary wood fire would could heat steel to the
> point where it can be bent.

  Hell, I even showed it.

> Then why doesn't that happen every day in
> ordinary home fireplaces with steel grates?

  Distance from the fire and lack of force. Anything else you need
explained to you?

> >>>> =A0http://www.serendipity.li/wot/temperatures_of_structural_steel.ht=
m
>
> >>> =A0 =A0 Cite something from that work that supports the proposition t=
hat the
> >>> steel in the Twin Towers wasn`t softened by heat.
>
> >> Softened is the wrong term. Weakened.
>
> > =A0 =A0Both the same.
>
> Wrong. Different words have different meanings.

 I just showed you, pay attention. In regards to steel "softening"
means "weakening".

> You abuse those meanings to push a political agenda.

  You abuse the English language for your own amusement.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > =A0 =A0http://www.efunda.com/processes/heat_treat/introduction/heat_tre=
atmen...
>
> > =A0 =A0"Softening is done to reduce strength or hardness..."
>
> >>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0To accomplish that weakening, an incendiary chemical co=
uld 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 fr=
om the
> >>>>>> WTC:
>
> >>>> =A0 =A0http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/15/the-mysterious=
-
> >>>> collaps...
>
> >>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0Page 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
