MarineMax service
 

On Mon, 28 May 2007 17:57:07 -0500, KLC Lewis wrote:


Hiway overpasses built of steel reinforced concrete, that is. Not
exactly the same thing is it?

You might want to look at the following pictures. It doesn't look like
the steel held up very well.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/art.../a/2007/04/29/
BAGVOPHQU46.DTL

MarineMax service
 

On Mon, 28 May 2007 17:57:07 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

... diesel will
definitely burn hot enough to weaken steel. There have been numerous
incidents where tanker trucks have caught fire following an accident
and caused the structural collapse of a highway overpass.


Hiway overpasses built of steel reinforced concrete, that is. Not exactly
the same thing is it?



Quite so: concrete clad steel has a much better fire-rating than bare
steel. Stout timber columns have better resistance than bare steel,
for that matter.
But the achilles heel of concrete reinforced with steel is at the
fixings. Bare steel.....

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

MarineMax service
 

On Mon, 28 May 2007 17:57:07 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:36:31 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

Diesel fuel burns at temperatures high enough to soften steel and cause
buildings to fall into their own footprints? From now on, I weld with
diesel.

You can believe what you want, and weld with it also, but diesel will
definitely burn hot enough to weaken steel. There have been numerous
incidents where tanker trucks have caught fire following an accident
and caused the structural collapse of a highway overpass.


Hiway overpasses built of steel reinforced concrete, that is. Not exactly
the same thing is it?


Steel is steel, heat it hot enough, it weakens. The evidence is there
for all to see.

MarineMax service
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 May 2007 17:57:07 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:36:31 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

Diesel fuel burns at temperatures high enough to soften steel and cause
buildings to fall into their own footprints? From now on, I weld with
diesel.

You can believe what you want, and weld with it also, but diesel will
definitely burn hot enough to weaken steel. There have been numerous
incidents where tanker trucks have caught fire following an accident
and caused the structural collapse of a highway overpass.


Hiway overpasses built of steel reinforced concrete, that is. Not exactly
the same thing is it?


Steel is steel, heat it hot enough, it weakens. The evidence is there
for all to see.


Exactly so. Thermite would do it -- diesel would not. The evidence is there
for all to see.

MarineMax service
 

On Mon, 28 May 2007 22:18:32 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

Thermite would do it -- diesel would not.

Nonsense.

MarineMax service
 

On Mon, 28 May 2007 22:18:32 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 May 2007 17:57:07 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:36:31 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

Diesel fuel burns at temperatures high enough to soften steel and cause
buildings to fall into their own footprints? From now on, I weld with
diesel.

You can believe what you want, and weld with it also, but diesel will
definitely burn hot enough to weaken steel. There have been numerous
incidents where tanker trucks have caught fire following an accident
and caused the structural collapse of a highway overpass.

Hiway overpasses built of steel reinforced concrete, that is. Not exactly
the same thing is it?

Steel is steel, heat it hot enough, it weakens. The evidence is there
for all to see.

Exactly so. Thermite would do it -- diesel would not. The evidence is there
for all to see.

No - thermite wouldn't do it. Thermite's advantage is that the heat
has to be contained to reach temperature - like in welding rails or
specialized shapes. It thermite is exposed, the heat disappates and
the reaction disappears. I would think a welder would know that.

Next thing, "Truthers" will be claiming that WTC 7 and the the Towers
were brought down by tachyon beams routed through the deflector dish
of an Klingon War Bird who were hired by the Bush Administration so he
could have a pretext to go to war with Iraq.

Morons.

MarineMax service
 

On Mon, 28 May 2007 17:21:26 +0000, Larry wrote:

Bruce wrote in
:

On Mon, 28 May 2007 05:14:42 +0000, Larry wrote:

HK wrote in
om:

Yep, it's the Jew-hating, Crazy Larry of old, back to haunt us.



Anytime someone questions their Wall or genocide....**** happens.

Larry

Larry, I'm old enough that I watched the new reel films of the
liberation of some of the camps. I read the photo essays published in
the news magazines at the time the camps were liberated. Do you really
believe that all that stuff was faked?

While this thread has nothing to do with WW2 and is about CURRENT ISRAELI
influence in my government, we always bring up The Holocaust. The WALL
is TODAY separating Palestinians from the land The State of Israeli wants
to separate them from. It has nothing to do with WW2, Nazis, Auchwitz,
which is used, always, to deflect attention away from starving
Palestinian children and Israeli genocide going on TODAY. The only thing
this has to do with the Jewish religion is the fact that Israel is an
APARTHEID state, which the world in all other places has said is an
abomination, itself. WW2 was a long time ago. My comments here are
about CURRENT EVENTS...9/11, Iraqi and Afghan wars, and the reason
America attacked Israel's enemies....not ours.

I apologize, I misunderstood your statement. For some reason I took
"Anytime someone questions their Wall or genocide....**** happens."
to refer to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem and WW-II camps.


I believe that one of the burdens placed on the prosecution in all
western nations is to prove that a crime actually has been committed.
Yet, in none of the trials, that I have read about, has there been any
mention that the prosecution could not prove the crime had been
committed.

As per my comment above.


This paragraph wasn't aimed at current events, but I find it relevant to
this discussion. No prosecutions will take place over the events of 9/11
because NO INVESTIGATIONS WERE ALLOWED! Why? Why have all the
architectural investigators been repelled from inspecting the steel that
was so RUSHED AWAY and SCATTERED across the planet? What are they
hiding? Look at any of the investigations of the aftermath.
We were in
a terrible hurry to dispose of all evidence of the towers, the pentagon,
the plane parts in Pennsylvania....so that no forensics could ever be
done on the parts that may reveal any kind of hanky-panky going on to
cause them. Why? What was their hurry? It was 4000F in the basement of
the towers. The firefighters' shoes melted! They certainly weren't
looking for survivors! Why the rush? Why couldn't we even let the
rubble COOL? Again, what were we HIDING? The civil and building
engineers begged them to let them figure out the REAL reason for the
collapses.

Larry, Quite the contrary, there were investigations and studies made
I have listed several below with comments:

http:://www.civil.usyd.edu/wtc.shtml
(University of Sydney, Australia)

The author is a senior lecturer in engineering

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...g_june2305.htm
(National Institute of Standards and Technology)

Referred to as "of the most detailed examination of a building failure
ever conducted"

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r..._april0505.htm
(Latest Findings from NIST World Trade Center Investigation Released,
issued 5 April 2005)

Possible the final report.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
(States opposition view that fire did not cause collapse)

The authors list their names and make no statement of competency.

It just depends on whether one prefer studies by qualified people that
openly state their qualifications or by people who make no statement
whatsoever about their qualifications.

They also were interested in why a huge commercial jet with
9000+ pounds of human body parts, huge loads of freight, seats, massive
jet engines, monsterous wheels and carriages, some with exotic metals
that take 6000F to melt them....could fit through a 16' hole in the
pentagon and simply VANISH! How did the wings fold up flat, then
vaporize? Why did it EXPLODE, not burn like thousands of gallons of jet
fuel does for DAYS AND DAYS in other jet plane crashes? Where'd the
plane go at the pentagon??

your comments on the aircraft. I watched a Boeing KB-50 catch fire
during maintenance at Yokota AB in the 1950's. The 4 inch line from
the aft refueling tank was ruptured by an operating electric motor
falling on it which broke the line releasing roughly a thousand
gallons of JP-4 which the running DC motor ignited. This in turn
ignited JP-4 in the forward refueling tank and ave-gas in the wing
tanks.

It took just about 5 minutes for the airplane to collapse on the
parking ramp and by the time the fire trucks arrived, probably 10
minutes after the fire started there was nothing recognizable as an
aircraft except for the engines and the landing gear struts.

Since the airplane I saw burn was sitting on the ramp and the ones
that hit the WTC would have been traveling at maybe 400 FPS, or more
I would expect the disintegration of the aircraft to have been much
worse in the WTC case.


So, with all the evidence rushed off, some within minutes of the event by
government bureaucrats in long lines on the lawn of the Pentagon, there
can be no proper forensic investigations, no prosecutions, no trial by
our peers, NADA. Every other crime scene is secured to prevent
tampering, massive evidence collected and analyzed, THEN the site
removed. Why not the ones on 9/11?? What are they HIDING?....in that
big blue box the Air Force enlisted people hauled off under a blue tarp
at the Pentagon? Where'd it go??

Larry

Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeatgmaildotcom)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

MarineMax service
 

Next thing, "Truthers" will be claiming that WTC 7 and the the Towers
were brought down by tachyon beams routed through the deflector dish
of an Klingon War Bird who were hired by the Bush Administration so he
could have a pretext to go to war with Iraq.

Morons.

There seem to be two unstated
propositions floating about he

1.) The laws of physics REQUIRE that the
official explanation be accepted; and

2.) The laws of physics PROHIBIT any
alternative explanation.

So far, nothing posted is within
lightyears of proving either, much less
both, of the propositions. In fact, they
are probably not provable. So we are
reduced to counting numbers of
proponents for each view with weights
calculated for academic degrees and
numbers of papers published? Doesn't
have the ring of "science" somehow.

Name-calling, ridicule, etc. seem
pathetic recourse.

Chuck

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

MarineMax service
 

On Tue, 29 May 2007 17:27:43 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
(States opposition view that fire did not cause collapse)

One of the most telling statements regarding the competence of the
rebuttal argument is contained in the following exchange about the
diesel fuel system in the building:

Report: One gallon would be consumed and the other 2 gallons would
continue to circulate through the system.

Rebuttal: This is odd. Why pump 3 gallons when only 1 is needed?

Clearly the "experts" have no clue about the workings of a diesel
engine but believe themselves competent to disagree with a team of
professional investigators.

MarineMax service
 

Bruce wrote in
:

Larry, Quite the contrary, there were investigations and studies made
I have listed several below with comments:

http:://www.civil.usyd.edu/wtc.shtml
(University of Sydney, Australia)

The author is a senior lecturer in engineering

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...g_june2305.htm
(National Institute of Standards and Technology)

Referred to as "of the most detailed examination of a building failure
ever conducted"

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r..._april0505.htm
(Latest Findings from NIST World Trade Center Investigation Released,
issued 5 April 2005)

Possible the final report.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
(States opposition view that fire did not cause collapse)



All government controlled and funded. Isn't that convenient?! Why were
all the independent investigations, at no cost to the government, by
really intense and highly trained metallurgical and structural engineers
prohibited? They did everything they could to make sure any
investigation was loaded by the government bureaucrats to make the
outcome of the "investigation" pre-determined. What a SHAM.

Larry
--
Grade School Physics Factoid:
A building cannot freefall into its own footprint without
skilled demolition.