"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> 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

"Somewhere in the region..."   Right--if you define the region as 
"six inches or less."

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, 

I wish I had seen that. It sounds funny.  Everyone else might 
wish they had seen it, too, because you're the only one who did.  
Are there several different official stories?  Who declared them 
official?

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.

That is an alarmingly goofy misconstruction. In one building, 
thirty(?) floors dropped about 12 feet onto the one below it.  
Even if that hundred thousand ton segment hit the next floor 
flat, it would have crushed that floor's supports.
 

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

The thermite story is based on misology.  The fools who contrived 
it probably feel real physical pain in the face of rational 
argument or fact.

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. 

 
No official story claimed that.  There is absolutely no evidence 
of any melting of the construction steel due to the fire or 
anything else.  There's evidence of softening and consequent 
distortion, and nothing else is needed to explain the collapse.

Are you aware of the fact that something a few degrees above 
"room temperature" can cause steel to melt?  If so, maybe you 
know that kinetic energy has to go somewhere in a collision, so 
it changes to heat. (If not, ask Alexa Cameron to explain to you 
how a depleted uranium projectile works.) There's no doubt that 
in places during that collapse the amount of heat generated was 
sufficient to melt small pieces of various metals.

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.

Yes...it adds weight like concrete boots add weight to a DMF's 
carcass to sink it after the guy got the whack penalty.