Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:12:50 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
<manic_mandy@hotmail.com> licked the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil, and
wrote:

In news:tokm929fo0m4d6ip8f539ctcvkhf7jujo2@4ax.com,
Widdershins <sinistre@liripipe.com> typed:

Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:49:38 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
<manic_mandy@hotmail.com> licked the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil, and
wrote:

In news:Xns97EA553D9CA9Fthathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4,
John Griffin <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> typed:

[...]

Taking you seriously, how thick would a coat of your "thermite
anti-corrosion paint" need to be on an inch-thick steel beam to
raise the temperature of interior of the beam by one hundredth of
a degree?  (You said something earlier about the laws of physics,
so you should enjoy figuring that out.)

I couldn't tell you the exact amount, but what tends to happen in
thermite reactions from what I've seen and read is it creates such a
high temperature that fairly small quantities once combined with
molten steel tends to burn holes clean through fairly thick steel.
One imagines it would also have a tendency to destroy welds in
overlapping joints to since molten steel and thermite would very
likely build up in those areas. Obviously that should be enough to
cause a catastrophic collapse.

I've never seen so much hand-waving and purveying of bad information.
Do you just pull this shit out of your asa just before you post?

ITEM: 1. Because of the sheer size of the building, the support
girders were *not* solid I beams. They were in a lattice pattern;
strong enough to do the job, but not solid.

I know, but they were somewhere in the region of 6 ins thick possibly more
in some places

Where is your citation for this "fact?"

ITEM: 2. Steel can be softened at the relatively low temperature of
1100 degrees F. or less. Thermite is not requuired. Melting is not
required. The inegrity of steel can be compromised at temperatures
well below those required to melt it, or even make it glow.

It was originally claimed in the official story that molten metal dripped
down weakening all the supports, so we are not talking localised weakening
as a result of heat because as we all know the entire buildings collapsed,
which means whatever caused that was not a localised effect since there was
(for one reason or another or a combination of factors) a catastrophic
failure of practically every support in those buildings, this is an
undeniable fact was observed by millions live on TV and is a matter of
historical record.

The peels of molten stool were never reported by the demolition
contractor who lead the way into the building after it was cool enough
to enter. When directly queried by a credophile, who was espousing the
same garbage you seem to be, he said, directly, there were no pools of
molten steel in the basements of the structures.

The thermite theory is based on the fact that jet fuel alone doesn't burn at
a high enough temperature to melt steel, so if you had molten steel dripping
down those girders as has been claimed in the official story and documented
that must have been caused by some form of secondary reaction. That doesn't
necessarily indicate thermite of course, but whatever secondary reaction
caused that obviously appears to have had an effect of monumental
proportions and of couse it does add weight to the contolled demolition
theory.

There are two problems with this: 1. There is no credible witness to
the melting/motlen steel. 2. The steel in the areas of the buildings
that were struck by the airplanes didn't have to be heated to the 
melting point in order for the structure s to fail. All that was 
required was for the supports to be compromised enough to bend
and break. I believe I have already explained that the hardness of
steel can be compromised well below its melting point. Once the steel
becomes weakened, the structure begins to collapse. The weight of the
collapsing material was sufficient to cause the failure of the support
structure below it.

As the upper floors fell onto the ones below, the supporting structure
was overloaded, and it failed.

It doesn't take a genius to figure this out; all it takes is a minimal
science education. Before you ask; I am a blacksmith. I know from 
experience how ferrous metals behave when they are heated.

Conclusion: There was no thermite. It wasn't necessary. There were
no peels of molten stool. You were right about the temperatures in the
building. Nevertheless, the temperatures were sufficient to compromise
the integrity of the support beams.

This educational moment was brought to you by



Widdershins

The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging.