InvertedSloth wrote:

BornN2BS wrote:

Bryan Olson wrote:

BornN2BS wrote:

Bullshit detector going crazy!!! There was no softened steel. There is
NOTHING you can post here to explain how fire in the WTC softened ANY
steel.  Pure conjecture that is just another meaningless distraction.

Oh get a clue. That fireproofing foam they put on steel, it's
not just decorative.

Oooooh I must have struck a nerve. All of the cockroaches come crawling
out.

That's funny. *My* post sends *you* into a name-calling rant, and
you think *you* are the one that struck a nerve?

Greetings Mr. Olson. In the absence of the foam you speak of, does
the melting point of steel change?

Of course not. What a silly question.

You should study the properties of
steel and alloys before you parrot such misinformation.

Hey, instead of calling people names and making stuff up,
let's listen to someone who knows what he's talking about:

     Once the plane hit and the fragments of the plane came through
     the building, we know it knocked out floors. We also know that
     it knocked spray-on fireproofing off a lot of the components.
     Once you lose the spray-on fireproofing you have bare steel, and
     once you have bare steel you don't have a fire rating anymore.
     [Charles Thornton; /Nova/ "Why the Towers Fell"; PBS air date
     30 April 2002]

That's this Charles Thornton:

     http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/sec.asp?TRACKID=&CID=123&DID=12516


--
--Bryan

That is all well and good. The impact also blew paper around. The
problem is that the fire was burning at X temperature. Steel starts to
melt at Y temperature. The foam insulation did not change X or Y. The
original story does not make sense, because the heat required to cause
the steel infrasructure to fail simply was not present.

I guess you are a proponent of the original story. Why are you so
compelled to waste your time on usenet quoting documentaries on PBS?