If you study the FACTS about the 9/11 terror attacks it's clear
that Bush's family was involved, that the so-called muslims who
"piloted"
the planes were drug-addled gambling libertines, and that the only
way to get those planes to their targets with the kind of accuracy
we saw was using autopilot technology. Oh, and the 3 WTC buildings
collapsed because of an explosive called thermate, not fires or planes;
thermate left a precise chemical signature at all 3 sites.

So today's "big scare" is more than likely manufactured,
not unlike the Miami-group scare.

Why? It's an age-old ploy to get you to approve of a police state.

Watch this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

Regensburg wrote:
> If you study the FACTS about the 9/11 terror attacks it's clear
> that Bush's family was involved, that the so-called muslims who
> "piloted"
> the planes were drug-addled gambling libertines, and that the only
> way to get those planes to their targets with the kind of accuracy
> we saw was using autopilot technology. Oh, and the 3 WTC buildings
> collapsed because of an explosive called thermate, not fires or
> planes; thermate left a precise chemical signature at all 3 sites.
>
> So today's "big scare" is more than likely manufactured,
> not unlike the Miami-group scare.
>
> Why? It's an age-old ploy to get you to approve of a police state.
>
> Watch this:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

Part of this strategy included the maintenance of a state of continual
warfare, which Goldstein discussed in the third chapter. The three major
powers were not fighting this perpetual war for victory, they were fighting
to keep a state of emergency always present as the surest guarantee of
authoritarianism.

Orwell, 1984


To quote Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials:

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in
England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all,
it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a
simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or
no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same in any country.
Les


--
Remove Frontal Lobes to reply direct.

http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/hxflyers/

http://armsofmorpheus.blogspot.com/

http://www.xenu.net/

http://www.venganza.org/index.htm

Les Hemmings a.a #2251 SA

Regensburg wrote:
> If you study the FACTS about the 9/11 terror attacks it's clear
> that Bush's family was involved, that the so-called muslims who
> "piloted"
> the planes were drug-addled gambling libertines, and that the only
> way to get those planes to their targets with the kind of accuracy
> we saw was using autopilot technology.

Which all of those planes had.

> Oh, and the 3 WTC buildings
> collapsed because of an explosive called thermate,

No, because of gravity.

> not fires or planes;
> thermate left a precise chemical signature at all 3 sites.

No, it didn't. The buildings left some chemicals, which could
have come from multiple sources.

In article <1155227364.955607.187030 [at] i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Regensburg" <z444y [at] yahoo.com> smoked some dope, sniffed a chemtrail,
wet the bed, howled at the moon and scribbled:

> If you study the FACTS about the 9/11 terror attacks it's clear
> that Bush's family was involved, that the so-called muslims who
> "piloted"
> the planes were drug-addled gambling libertines, and that the only
> way to get those planes to their targets with the kind of accuracy
> we saw was using autopilot technology. Oh, and the 3 WTC buildings
> collapsed because of an explosive called thermate, not fires or planes;
> thermate left a precise chemical signature at all 3 sites.
>
> So today's "big scare" is more than likely manufactured,
> not unlike the Miami-group scare.
>
> Why? It's an age-old ploy to get you to approve of a police state.

The fact is, a 9-year-old child could have flown the planes into the
buildings; thermate doesn't exist; there was no "chemical trail"; the
planes caused major structural damage, finished off by the raging fires
where the planes hit.

It is ignoramusus like "Regensburg," who have no knowledge of aviation,
structures or anything else useful, who fuel the idiotic conspiracy
notions, such as "chemtrails", lunar landing hoaxes, "9/11
conspiracies", etc., ad nauseum, who are the real threat to freedom.

The same bunch was involved in Dale Earnhardtes death....

I think he/she meant Thermite.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article <1155227364.955607.187030 [at] i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Regensburg" <z444y [at] yahoo.com> smoked some dope, sniffed a chemtrail,
> wet the bed, howled at the moon and scribbled:
>
> > If you study the FACTS about the 9/11 terror attacks it's clear
> > that Bush's family was involved, that the so-called muslims who
> > "piloted"
> > the planes were drug-addled gambling libertines, and that the only
> > way to get those planes to their targets with the kind of accuracy
> > we saw was using autopilot technology. Oh, and the 3 WTC buildings
> > collapsed because of an explosive called thermate, not fires or planes;
> > thermate left a precise chemical signature at all 3 sites.
> >
> > So today's "big scare" is more than likely manufactured,
> > not unlike the Miami-group scare.
> >
> > Why? It's an age-old ploy to get you to approve of a police state.
>
> The fact is, a 9-year-old child could have flown the planes into the
> buildings; thermate doesn't exist; there was no "chemical trail"; the
> planes caused major structural damage, finished off by the raging fires
> where the planes hit.
>
> It is ignoramusus like "Regensburg," who have no knowledge of aviation,
> structures or anything else useful, who fuel the idiotic conspiracy
> notions, such as "chemtrails", lunar landing hoaxes, "9/11
> conspiracies", etc., ad nauseum, who are the real threat to freedom.

blackbrandon [at] gmail.com wrote:
> I think he/she meant Thermite.
>

No, the Jonesists are saying "Thermate",

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate


Apparently the use of Thermate has left evidence the size of a penny,
that must be handled with plastic gloves, although there is no issue
with setting it directly on a conference table while handling it, and
it is apparently safe to simply carry it in your pocket.

So, a group of people have actually been taken into custody,
actually in possession of liquid explosives? Or is something else the case?

Here's product info I'm getting from my pyromaniac, ex-military engineer
colleague:

http://www.mrel.com/FIXOR.html

Les Hemmings wrote:

> Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in
> England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all,
> it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a
> simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a
> fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or
> no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
> That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked,
> and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
> to danger. It works the same in any country.
> Les

"Bush said during a visit to Green Bay, Wis., that the foiled plot was
a "stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists.""

Funny how Bush failed to remind us that
he himself is a fascist or that his behavior
is very similar to that of a dictator. And
then there was grandpa Prescott Bush,
who helped the Nazis come to power.

Pot kettle black, Mr Bush.

Regensburg wrote:
> If you study the FACTS about the 9/11 terror attacks it's clear
> that Bush's family was involved, that the so-called muslims who
> "piloted"
> the planes were drug-addled gambling libertines, and that the only
> way to get those planes to their targets with the kind of accuracy
> we saw was using autopilot technology. Oh, and the 3 WTC buildings
> collapsed because of an explosive called thermate, not fires or planes;
> thermate left a precise chemical signature at all 3 sites.
>
> So today's "big scare" is more than likely manufactured,
> not unlike the Miami-group scare.
>
> Why? It's an age-old ploy to get you to approve of a police state.
>
> Watch this:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

Keep the laffs coming Sweetwater.

--

<^}})<
/\/\

See why we must wage war on terror and against whom we must wage it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614& q=Obsession%3A+What+The+War+on+Terror+Is+Really+About&hl=en

Fester wrote:
> Regensburg wrote:

> > Why? It's an age-old ploy to get you to approve of a police state.
> >
> > Watch this:
> > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

> See why we must wage war on terror and against whom we must wage it:

Are you speaking of the totalitarian terrorist Bush?

jmcgill wrote:
> blackbrandon [at] gmail.com wrote:
> > I think he/she meant Thermite.
> >
>
> No, the Jonesists are saying "Thermate",
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate
>
> Apparently the use of Thermate has left evidence the size of a penny,

No actually, the evidence consisted of huge pools of
molten iron under each building. For those of you
who are unfamiliar with science concept, jet fuel
and office furniture do not burn hot enough to melt steel,
which doesn't matter anyway because the molten iron
lacked elements found in the structural steel used
in the buildings. It did have elements markers indicating
it was from thermite.

oconnell [at] slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:

> No, it didn't. The buildings left some chemicals, which could
> have come from multiple sources.

Incorrect. That possibility has been accounted for. Watch the video.

Regensburg wrote:

> No actually, the evidence consisted of huge pools of
> molten iron under each building. For those of you
> who are unfamiliar with science concept, jet fuel
> and office furniture do not burn hot enough to melt steel

I have personally melted steel enough to work it, in a forge made from a
coffee can and fueled with propane. I have made steel red hot with only
a hammer, and have welded this way. Any blacksmith, any ironworker,
will tell you there is a problem with your basic assumption.

In article <1155281970.896141.245940 [at] h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
z444y [at] yahoo.com says...

> No actually, the evidence consisted of huge pools of
> molten iron under each building. For those of you
> who are unfamiliar with science concept, jet fuel
> and office furniture do not burn hot enough to melt steel,

Horsepucky. With a good draft, wood burns hot enough to melt steel.
With a good draft, kerosene burns hot enough to melt steel. With a good
draft, paper burns hot enough to melt steel.

It's hard to give much credit to conspiracy theories that reject such
basic facts. Perhaps the people who cooked them up simply have no real-
world experience with melting metal?

--
josh [at] phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:57:35 -0700, Joshua Putnam <josh [at] phred.org>
wrote:

>In article <1155281970.896141.245940 [at] h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>z444y [at] yahoo.com says...
>
>> No actually, the evidence consisted of huge pools of
>> molten iron under each building. For those of you
>> who are unfamiliar with science concept, jet fuel
>> and office furniture do not burn hot enough to melt steel,
>
>Horsepucky. With a good draft, wood burns hot enough to melt steel.
>With a good draft, kerosene burns hot enough to melt steel. With a good
>draft, paper burns hot enough to melt steel.
>
>It's hard to give much credit to conspiracy theories that reject such
>basic facts. Perhaps the people who cooked them up simply have no real-
>world experience with melting metal?

People managed to melt metals with wood or coal fires for centuries
before modern technology came along. Perhaps the conspiracy geeks
aren't aware of that. <G>

Regensburg wrote:
> jmcgill wrote:
> > blackbrandon [at] gmail.com wrote:
> > > I think he/she meant Thermite.
> > >
> >
> > No, the Jonesists are saying "Thermate",
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate
> >
> > Apparently the use of Thermate has left evidence the size of a penny,
>
> No actually, the evidence consisted of huge pools of
> molten iron under each building. For those of you
> who are unfamiliar with science concept, jet fuel
> and office furniture do not burn hot enough to melt steel,
> which doesn't matter anyway because the molten iron
> lacked elements found in the structural steel used
> in the buildings. It did have elements markers indicating
> it was from thermite.

I haven't seen anyone provide any proof that a) there were pools of
ANYTHING underneath the WTC. b) that said pools were iron or c) that
said pools (if they existed) were molten for any length of time. The
only evidence someone posted here once was a video of a fireman
complaining that it was "red hot" in the rubble of the Towers. I
mentioned that most fire sites remain hot for weeks after the event and
that the fireman in the video makes no mention of pools, molten or
otherwise.

John Baker wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:57:35 -0700, Joshua Putnam <josh [at] phred.org>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <1155281970.896141.245940 [at] h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> >z444y [at] yahoo.com says...
> >
> >> No actually, the evidence consisted of huge pools of
> >> molten iron under each building. For those of you
> >> who are unfamiliar with science concept, jet fuel
> >> and office furniture do not burn hot enough to melt steel,
> >
> >Horsepucky. With a good draft, wood burns hot enough to melt steel.
> >With a good draft, kerosene burns hot enough to melt steel. With a good
> >draft, paper burns hot enough to melt steel.
> >
> >It's hard to give much credit to conspiracy theories that reject such
> >basic facts. Perhaps the people who cooked them up simply have no real-
> >world experience with melting metal?
>
> People managed to melt metals with wood or coal fires for centuries
> before modern technology came along. Perhaps the conspiracy geeks
> aren't aware of that. <G>

You could fill volumes with the things conspiracy geeks aren't aware
of! :)

Joshua Putnam wrote:

> Horsepucky. With a good draft, wood burns hot enough to melt steel.
> With a good draft, kerosene burns hot enough to melt steel. With a good
> draft, paper burns hot enough to melt steel.

By your logic, wood stoves would be melting everywhere.

edrhodes [at] hotmail.com wrote:

> I haven't seen anyone provide any proof that a) there were pools of
> ANYTHING underneath the WTC.

Did you both to look anywhere?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

edrhodes [at] hotmail.com wrote:

> You could fill volumes with the things conspiracy geeks aren't aware
> of! :)

Watch this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

Regensburg wrote:
> Joshua Putnam wrote:
>
> > Horsepucky. With a good draft, wood burns hot enough to melt steel.
> > With a good draft, kerosene burns hot enough to melt steel. With a good
> > draft, paper burns hot enough to melt steel.
>
> By your logic, wood stoves would be melting everywhere.

What part of 'With a good draft' don't you understand?

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article <1155227364.955607.187030 [at] i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Regensburg" <z444y [at] yahoo.com> smoked some dope, sniffed a chemtrail,
> wet the bed, howled at the moon and scribbled:
>
> > If you study the FACTS about the 9/11 terror attacks it's clear
> > that Bush's family was involved, that the so-called muslims who
> > "piloted"
> > the planes were drug-addled gambling libertines, and that the only
> > way to get those planes to their targets with the kind of accuracy
> > we saw was using autopilot technology. Oh, and the 3 WTC buildings
> > collapsed because of an explosive called thermate, not fires or planes;
> > thermate left a precise chemical signature at all 3 sites.
> >
> > So today's "big scare" is more than likely manufactured,
> > not unlike the Miami-group scare.
> >
> > Why? It's an age-old ploy to get you to approve of a police state.
>
> The fact is, a 9-year-old child could have flown the planes into the
> buildings; thermate doesn't exist; there was no "chemical trail"; the
> planes caused major structural damage, finished off by the raging fires
> where the planes hit.
>
> It is ignoramusus like "Regensburg," who have no knowledge of aviation,
> structures or anything else useful, who fuel the idiotic conspiracy
> notions, such as "chemtrails", lunar landing hoaxes, "9/11
> conspiracies", etc., ad nauseum, who are the real threat to freedom.

What nonsense. The only threat to freedom is the government. Period.

Regensburg wrote:
> Les Hemmings wrote:
>
> > Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in
> > England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all,
> > it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a
> > simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a
> > fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or
> > no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
> > That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked,
> > and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
> > to danger. It works the same in any country.
> > Les
>
> "Bush said during a visit to Green Bay, Wis., that the foiled plot was
> a "stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists.""
>
> Funny how Bush failed to remind us that
> he himself is a fascist or that his behavior
> is very similar to that of a dictator.

And how many politicians (of any country) are going to be honest? It's
not like you can get the humps to vote for you if you told the truth
and said "Vote for me so I can screw you."

The US government is at war alright. It's at war with American
citizens.

Regensburg writes:

> By your logic, wood stoves would be melting everywhere.

Perhaps you missed the words "with a good draft."

In fact, with a good draft, iron will melt, which is why furnaces must
be lined with refractories instead. Iron has been fused for millennia
using only fuels such as wood.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:05mod29r5cli1879g8kapc98c516f5glua [at] 4ax.com...
> Regensburg writes:
>
>> By your logic, wood stoves would be melting everywhere.
>
> Perhaps you missed the words "with a good draft."
>
> In fact, with a good draft, iron will melt, which is why furnaces must
> be lined with refractories instead. Iron has been fused for millennia
> using only fuels such as wood.
>

You need a forced draught to melt iron, a natural draught
is not enough. In times gone by this was achieved with
a set of bellows, these days its down with a mechanicaly
operated blower. There's a reason we refer to the iron
smelters as Blast Furnaces

You dont use wood either, it includes too many impurities,
traditionally charcoal was used until displaced by coke.

Keith



----== 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 =----

"Regensburg" <z444y [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155288737.510794.155580 [at] i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com.. .
>
> Joshua Putnam wrote:
>
>> Horsepucky. With a good draft, wood burns hot enough to melt steel.
>> With a good draft, kerosene burns hot enough to melt steel. With a good
>> draft, paper burns hot enough to melt steel.
>
> By your logic, wood stoves would be melting everywhere.
>

You've all missed the point

You dont have to melt steel to bring down a building. Steel loses
its strength LONG before it melts. At 600 C most steels have only
half the strength they possess at room temperature. At 800 C
they have no load bearing capability at all.

Keith



----== 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 =----

Keith W wrote:

>
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:05mod29r5cli1879g8kapc98c516f5glua [at] 4ax.com...
>> Regensburg writes:
>>
>>> By your logic, wood stoves would be melting everywhere.
>>
>> Perhaps you missed the words "with a good draft."
>>
>> In fact, with a good draft, iron will melt, which is why furnaces must
>> be lined with refractories instead. Iron has been fused for millennia
>> using only fuels such as wood.
>>
>
> You need a forced draught to melt iron, a natural draught
> is not enough. In times gone by this was achieved with
> a set of bellows, these days its down with a mechanicaly
> operated blower. There's a reason we refer to the iron
> smelters as Blast Furnaces

With that height, you'd get more of a draught (wish you Yaks could spell)
than anything forced!

> You dont use wood either, it includes too many impurities,
> traditionally charcoal was used until displaced by coke.
>
> Keith
>
>
>
> ----== 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 =----

Regensburg wrote:
> Joshua Putnam wrote:
>
>> Horsepucky. With a good draft, wood burns hot enough to melt steel.
>> With a good draft, kerosene burns hot enough to melt steel. With a good
>> draft, paper burns hot enough to melt steel.
>
> By your logic, wood stoves would be melting everywhere.

Wood stoves are designed to keep the draft to a minimum, so your wood
lasts long enough to cook, or get to sleep.

Clearly, you have never seen a smith work on a homemade forge.

Regensburg wrote:
> edrhodes [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> I haven't seen anyone provide any proof that a) there were pools of
>> ANYTHING underneath the WTC.
>
> Did you both to look anywhere?
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586
>

It's simply perfect that you trotted out Jones again.

We've heard what Jones thinks. You need something else. Something
compelling, and preferably, independent from Jones and the ST911 bunch.

It is a mistake to assume that everyone who disagrees with you, has not
given an ear to Jones. Not everyone who looks into Jones winds up a
Jonesist, and the Jonesists would do well to come up with some
persuasive argument to make their case to these people.

What usually happens is the person who is not persuaded gets insulted,
or else simply gets a reference back to Jones and ST911.

On 11 Aug 2006 03:00:48 -0700, "Chris Hayes" <hayes12 [at] fadmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>> In article <1155227364.955607.187030 [at] i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Regensburg" <z444y [at] yahoo.com> smoked some dope, sniffed a chemtrail,
>> wet the bed, howled at the moon and scribbled:
>>
>> > If you study the FACTS about the 9/11 terror attacks it's clear
>> > that Bush's family was involved, that the so-called muslims who
>> > "piloted"
>> > the planes were drug-addled gambling libertines, and that the only
>> > way to get those planes to their targets with the kind of accuracy
>> > we saw was using autopilot technology. Oh, and the 3 WTC buildings
>> > collapsed because of an explosive called thermate, not fires or planes;
>> > thermate left a precise chemical signature at all 3 sites.
>> >
>> > So today's "big scare" is more than likely manufactured,
>> > not unlike the Miami-group scare.
>> >
>> > Why? It's an age-old ploy to get you to approve of a police state.
>>
>> The fact is, a 9-year-old child could have flown the planes into the
>> buildings; thermate doesn't exist; there was no "chemical trail"; the
>> planes caused major structural damage, finished off by the raging fires
>> where the planes hit.
>>
>> It is ignoramusus like "Regensburg," who have no knowledge of aviation,
>> structures or anything else useful, who fuel the idiotic conspiracy
>> notions, such as "chemtrails", lunar landing hoaxes, "9/11
>> conspiracies", etc., ad nauseum, who are the real threat to freedom.
>
>What nonsense. The only threat to freedom is the government. Period.

The only threat to the government is peace.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

In article <1155288737.510794.155580 [at] i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
z444y [at] yahoo.com says...
>
> Joshua Putnam wrote:
>
> > Horsepucky. With a good draft, wood burns hot enough to melt steel.
> > With a good draft, kerosene burns hot enough to melt steel. With a good
> > draft, paper burns hot enough to melt steel.
>
> By your logic, wood stoves would be melting everywhere.

Put a good draft in one and it will, been there, done that, melted the
back out of a potbelly stove while boosting the draft with a blower.

--
josh [at] phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Bicycle Touring Books List:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/tourbooks.html>

> >What nonsense. The only threat to freedom is the government. Period.
>
> The only threat to the government is peace.

The only threat to peace is freedom. No, wait...

Joshua Putnam writes:

> Put a good draft in one and it will, been there, done that, melted the
> back out of a potbelly stove while boosting the draft with a blower.

Are you one of those people who pours liquid oxygen on an outdoor
grill?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Joshua Putnam wrote:

> Put a good draft in one and it will, been there, done that, melted the
> back out of a potbelly stove while boosting the draft with a blower.

Sounds like a hillbilly's tall tale to me.

Joshua Putnam <josh [at] phred.org> wrote in
news:MPG.1f464a70b478b605989727 [at] news.zhonka.net:

> In article <1155288737.510794.155580 [at] i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> z444y [at] yahoo.com says...
>>
>> Joshua Putnam wrote:
>>
>> > Horsepucky. With a good draft, wood burns hot enough to melt
>> > steel. With a good draft, kerosene burns hot enough to melt steel.
>> > With a good draft, paper burns hot enough to melt steel.
>>
>> By your logic, wood stoves would be melting everywhere.
>
> Put a good draft in one and it will, been there, done that, melted the
> back out of a potbelly stove while boosting the draft with a blower.
>

A couple of lumps of coal will do nicely too!

--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA

The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid
are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
-- Bertrand Russell

Chris Hayes wrote:

> The US government is at war alright. It's at war with American
> citizens.

Yeah, but it used to be petty stuff, like the guy who got
$1 million from Comcast wrote a law that lets Comcast
get a $1 billion tax credit (link www.ctj.org/corpfed04an.pdf ).

The whole tenor of it has changed. Now it's about
setting up a police state.

Do you realize the US military has set up 800 concentration
camps that can hold about 18 million people?

No wonder American cops are arresting people en masse at
demonstrations. They want to know who they're gonna
put in the gas chambers.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> In fact, with a good draft, iron will melt, which is why furnaces must
> be lined with refractories instead. Iron has been fused for millennia
> using only fuels such as wood.

Such conditions did not exist in the WTC 1 & 2buildings,
which burned for a mere 30 minutes and 1 hour respectively,
and certainly not in WTC 7 which no plane ever hit.

"Regensburg" <z444y [at] yahoo.com> wrote in news:1155313972.437043.321630
[at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>
> Chris Hayes wrote:
>
>> The US government is at war alright. It's at war with American
>> citizens.
>
> Yeah, but it used to be petty stuff, like the guy who got
> $1 million from Comcast wrote a law that lets Comcast
> get a $1 billion tax credit (link www.ctj.org/corpfed04an.pdf ).
>
> The whole tenor of it has changed. Now it's about
> setting up a police state.
>
> Do you realize the US military has set up 800 concentration
> camps that can hold about 18 million people?
>
> No wonder American cops are arresting people en masse at
> demonstrations. They want to know who they're gonna
> put in the gas chambers.
>

Why, last I heard they were arresting people who posted messages like that
on USENET.

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."

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

Regensburg wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> In fact, with a good draft, iron will melt, which is why furnaces must
>> be lined with refractories instead. Iron has been fused for millennia
>> using only fuels such as wood.
>
> Such conditions did not exist in the WTC 1 & 2buildings,
> which burned for a mere 30 minutes and 1 hour respectively,

You make it sound as if the fire was somebody burning trash in a
wastebasket or something. Also, you seem to be trying to make the
case for some other cause besides crash damage and fires from jet fuel
and other fuels, but you show no real evidence for other causes, and
choose to attack the idea of the commonly accepted cause.

> and certainly not in WTC 7 which no plane ever hit.

No plane hit the building, but it certainly had more debris fall on it
than any other building in history.

How many buildings were destroyed on 9/11? Just 3? Or more than 3?

What was the nature and extent of damage to other buildings that were
also not hit by airplanes? Was the damage severe, or was it superficial?