28 Jun 2006 09:46:21 -0700, "BornN2BS" <nirrad01@gmail.com> licked
the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil, and wrote:

Widdershins wrote:

27 Jun 2006 03:02:15 -0700, "BornN2BS" <nirrad01@gmail.com> licked
the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil, and wrote:

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'll try to write this really slowly so you can understand. It will be
OK if you move your lips as you read it:

Temperatures high enough to melt steel DID NOT HAVE TO BE PRESENT!!
(Sorry  for shouting, but it seems too be the only way this illiterate
cretin can be reached.) The steel's temperature only had to be raised
to 700 degrees F. to have its strength compromised enough to allow the
weight of the building to cause it to collapse.

Let go of the phantom of molten steel on the floors where the planes
hit. Didn't happen. Terry Loiseaux (sp) was the head of the job that
demolished the remains of the building. You remember; Controlled
Demolition. He entered the ruin as soon as it was reasonably safe
to do so. He weas asked point blank in e-mail about the "pools of
molten steel." He flat out stated  there weren't any. This from a guy
who was there. If you have any problem, contact him.

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?

Because the information is credible?



Widdershins

If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.

You're avoiding the question. If this is such a non-issue, then why are
you wasting your precious time arguing about something you consider a
foregone conclusion? This event happened almost five years ago. How
long have you been at it? Are you being paid to defend the original
story? What are the motivating factors for you?

Instead of responding to my points, you fling all kinds of accusations
around. Tactic s of a kook. IIRC it was you who insisted the the 
melting of the steel support structure was required for the buildings
to collapse.

I am motivated by the truth coming to light and justice being served.
If and when these two objectives are completed to my satisfaction, I
will no longer have any interest in threads such as this. What is
troubling to many is why you and your kind have an interest in this
thread to begin with. Perhaps you can enlighten some of us directly,
without the belittling and namecalling that you so deftly hide behind.

Oh! The irony! 

My interest is to make the conspiraqcy theorists back up their onager
claims with a little bit of fact. It must really frost your ass to
have you little fanstasy shaken so.

If you have any more than unverified conjecture and name-calling,
I'll be happy to continue this threadwith you.



Widdershins


General nuisance, and proud member of the Skepticult.
Member #159-904378-909
My inner child is a mean little fucker