houlepn@attglobal.net wrote:

BornN2BS wrote:

Bryan Olson wrote:

BornN2BS wrote:

houlepn@attglobal.net wrote:

BornN2BS wrote:

Why do you think that the WTC fires *must* have been much
cooler that typical residential fires are?

This was misquoted as I never posted such a statement and is another
lame attempt to discredit me. For future reference I don't use the *
symbol as a modifier, or to place emphasis on a word in a given
sentence. I do find it most interesting that you chose this misquoted
material to question whether or not I am a human.

I see no quotation of you there. You seem to know English,
so what are you talking about?  Do you need a lesson in how
quotations are marked?
--
--Bryan

BornN2BS wrote:

Why do you think that the WTC fires *must* have been much
cooler that typical residential fires are?

I  was not responding to you Bryan. The above was used in a context
which implied that I made the statement. The poster went on to falsely
lambaste me using the misquotation as a foundation from which to launch
another in a series of personal attacks.

I did not lambast you at all. I did not even quote you at all.
The sentence that you mistankenly construe as a quotiation
is actually a *question*. It ends with a question mark and it is
the last sentence in the post. It is not a foundation from which
to launch anything. It is an attempt to get you to either retract
some questionable claims or accept their logical consequences.

Read the post again. It has the following structure: [You claim that
P. But Q follows from P. Hence, do you think that Q?] This should
not reasonably be construed as a claim that you said "Q".

Again : You claimed that the WTC fire wasn't hot enough to weaken
steel. But typical residential fires get into the 500-650 degree C
range. This is a premise that I presented with supporting reference
and that you did not contest. 600C is enough to significantly weaken
structural steel. Does it not follow from this and your earlier claim
that the WTC fire would have been cooler than many typical
residential fires are? If you think something to be true, ought you
not also believe what logically follows from it to be true as well?

Now will you clarify this apparent inconsistency among your
stated beliefs and their consequences?

This is a challenge to your willingness to argue rationally,
not a personal attack.

I accept your challenge and I applaud your calm and rational approach.
My argument is that the WTC towers did not collapse as a result of
damage caused by planes and the resulting fires.

First of all, I don't claim to hold a degree in engineering or related
fields of study. My opinions are based not only on the visual evidence
and eye witness accounts, but also political and economic factors as
well.

IMO, it is quite possible that weakening of the infrastructure created
by the impacts, in conjunction with the heat generated by the fires,
was sufficient enough to cause structural failures on the affected
floors of the WTC towers. But, for both towers to completely collapse
as a result of damage so high up on the structures did not obey the
laws of physics. In addition, there were numerous reports of at least
one loud explosion near ground level before the first tower collapsed.
I was watching along on TV. The CNN news anchors were verbally startled
by an explosion that rocked the WTC area just before the first tower
fell. They emphatically confirmed this on live TV with a reporter close
to ground zero. As the massive cloud of dust engulfed lower Manhatten,
the  explosion was likewise shrouded in a cloud of mystery. The same
cloud hung over the Pentagon attack when vital accounting records were
destroyed by a low flying jet that punched a relatively small hole in a
freshly reinforced section of concrete, while hardly damaging the lawn.

Why the transcripts of various 9/11 broadcasts does not reflect the
entire dialogue is beyond me. I can say, without a doubt, that the
official record was altered. People close to ground zero gave similar
accounts of explosions. This was not thoroughly investigated by the
media in the aftermath of 9/11, nor were the numerous shortcomings of
the Defense Department and the official story. Instead of feasting upon
the veritable smorgasborg of coincidences and failures, the media
largely turned a blind eye to the difficult questions.

The massive pile of debris at ground zero was carted away in record
time, and an assault on Afghanistan was quickly organized while a
pipeline was covertly constructed. Then, somehow it seemed logical to
go to war with Iraq against the wishes of the UN and the majority of
tax paying Americans.

As you can see, the role that the fires played in the WTC towers on
9/11 are not that important to me in the overall scheme of things. I do
not, however, mean to discredit you in any way, shape, or form. To the
contrary, I respect your opinion immensely due to the fact that I sense
an unusual degree of respect in your post. For that, I thank you kind
sir. I cannot adequately express the urgent need for all sides to
engage in intelligent debates on the subject of 9/11. If we can all
treat each other with respect and keep our emotions in check, a great
resource of information is at our fingertips.