"Widdershins" <sinistre@liripipe.com> wrote in message
news:5sfo9295epnj5uo0vcreqe352qvv40a4ug@4ax.com...

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:08:01 -0700, "H. Bosch"

<hbosch@charter.net>

licked the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil, and wrote:

"Widdershins" <sinistre@liripipe.com> wrote in

message

news:ltvn92lsfm2lovqd2qo6rqc78igieg9nj0@4ax.com...

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.

Damn it Widdy I have been following these threads

and I

refute your statement that there was "no peels of
molten stool" the entire thread is full of stool

molten

or otherwise.  It is amazing how little basic

science

is known by these self important semi-intelligent
conspiracy fools.  It is much easier to run ones

mouth

than it is to think (even a tiny bit).

Regards Harry.

Alright, Harry. You busted me! If it's stool you

want, I'll

express some to you. Would you trather it were sent

to

the office, or would you like it on your front porch.

I can

arrange to have it delivered in a burning paper bag.


Widdy

Blackadder: Do you know what irony is, Baldric?

Baldric: It's like silvery or goldie, but made from

iron.

Please Widdy, I see enough stool in these conspiracy
threads.  You have nailed the hit on the head with
these Kooks.

Regards Harry.