Oh jeezus that made me laugh. LMFAO!



You gotta know 1 thing, the fires were only fed by the fuel for a few minutes, not 56 and 102 respectively. The fuel burned off FAR sooner than that, in fact 95% was used up in the original
crash and explosion, it did not continue to burn. You aren't really trying to make the argument that fuel burns forever right? The truck you have as an example never blew up, the fuel burned for hours and hours as it was just sitting there under the bridge. Since the circumstances are completely different we can't really use the truck accident as precedent for what happened to the towers. And it does NOTHING to explain WTC #7.

As far as explosions go, here is proof in thuis video I dug up. you hear the explosions go off. I did not watch the whole thing so I am not sure what all is covered, but you sure can hear the explosion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

Just watch the first minute and let me know what you think.

FWIW when demo charges go boom, they don't make a big hollywood explosion, they make a very defined fast loud crack sound, no fire involved like you see in hollywood.


My biggest question for you right now is why? There have been other high rises tht have burned for 30 hours with flames much more intense than those of the WTC. I gave you pictures of these " Towering Infernos". Yet these buildings after burning for 15 times longer than WTC and completely gutting the building so that the only thing left is the steel. Yet these buildings did not fall, why? Did the people who built the Trade center buildings do a bad job? I mean were the engineers who designed them have a bad design that could not withstand some smaller fires? And for the most part those are smaller fires, the amount of smoke has nothing to do with it, ever seen a hay bale burn...shitloads of smoke, looks like a house was on fire.

Then we have WTC building # 7. by all accounts it should never have fallen, there were no large fires, the interior of the building was completely intact, therefore the core was unharmed. Sure there was a gash in the facade, but that did not affect its integrity at all, you could remove every wall in the building and it would not fall because these buildings are supported by the CORE of the building...massive multiple steel columns that could withstand a 800C fire for weeks and not deform. How? well because metal conducts heat, and it will conduct it over its whole area, so 1 small fire affecting 1 beam does not make 500 feet of the beam soften and melt. the beam is able to conduct that heat away from the point of the fire.

Its almost believable that the towers fell because of the planes, they did a good job of making that one Almost legit. good enough for the masses of sheep anyway. But they really fucked up with building #7, its a blatant demolition and the only people who refute it are those that are either Shills, sheep ,Uneducated or just plain brainwashed. C'Mon dude look at that building fall!! These aren't buildings made out of brick or cement, they have fire suppression systems in them, fire sprinklers you know? The steel is all covered with a spray mixture of concrete and asbestos ( Yes it still had the asbestos in them), its terribly difficult to get that spay on fire retardant off. Asbestos is one of the best fire proofing materials known to man and ALL the beams are coated in it. This makes them VERY VERY fire resistant.Yet somehow it fell, I don't buy it, I never will. All the evidence points to something sinister in our country, a pervasive evil lurking in the highest offices of our Republic!

__________________
It is far easier to ignorantly control others than it is to wisely control yourself.

Good. Humor is good. Did you actually read it? It will come up again later.

Gas burns faster than jet A. It is basically kerosene.

Nah... I am a clever duck.

Oh... I see... you didn't bother to read my post or look at my evidence. You are clearly misinformed. 21 minutes. That is all it took.

We aren't really addressing any coincidental circumstance other than the effects of heat on steel. The rest of the facts I laid out are really in opposition.

So... we are going back to regular ordinance and dropping the thermite argument?

Will do.

No... there is (obscurable) flash and are ear piercingly loud.

I will get back to that. Still got to get over this little stumbling block where you do not actually read my posts and stick to disproven statements. Foundations and whatnot.

What accounts are these? Because every account I read said they were expecting it to fall. Fires raged unchecked in that building for 7 hours.

Not logical.

A very interesting argument... that I will address again later.

I know. All far too advanced to get into without addressing these core facts again.

I didn't suggest that the same thing happened to the bridge as the wtc. I simply laid out the following facts...

1. The truck struck the guard rail at 3:41 am

2. The 6 i-beams became weakened and collapsed under its own weight in only 21 minutes. I sourced all of this.

3. The truck was carrying 8600 lbs of unleaded.

4. The jets had about 20,000 lbs of jet A.

5. Structural steel looses half of its rigidity at 1000F.

6. Towers 1 and 2 burned for 102 and 56 minutes respectively.

7. There was nothing else on the road.

8. The building was full of stuff.


I have not waged an argument yet. I would ask that you quit trying to anticipate one. I assure you, you have no idea where I am going.

__________________

1. I can agree with you there.
2. Your sources either didn't give the amount of I beams that deformed, or I missed so i can't agree with ya there.
3. 8,600 GALLONS, again you have the facts wrong.
4. Maybe more than that, most of it vaporized and burnt up in the big fireball, look at jets that have crashed on the ground, the fuel doesn't burn for very long before it is used up.
5. actually its 800C which is 1400 F
6. agreed, hardly enough time to affect the THOUSANDS of steel beams, remember the whole of each building came down at near freefall speed which could only happen if nearly all of the thousands of steel beams on every floor simultaneously deformed.
7. sure, just a small intensely burning tank of 8,600 GALLONS of fuel ( 64,000 lbs of fuel which is 3 times the planes carried according to YOU, 1 gallon of unleaded weighs about 8 lbs)
8. Define full. You mean packed to the gills stuffed full, or just normal office furniture, steel filing cabinets, paperwork, computers, chairs and the like full? Define stuff, You mean cotton doused with dynamite and gasoline , oily rags, perhaps a giant 50 million bottle collection of everclear? Or do you mean every day ordinary office furniture like you would find anywhere else?

__________________
It is far easier to ignorantly control others than it is to wisely control yourself.

I read your posts, are you saying the fire for the truck only burned for 21 minutes, or are you saying the metal deformed in 21 minutes, please make it clear, its important.

Take a 500 gallon drum of fuel and cut the top off, light it on fire. How long will it burn? Now take the 500 gallon drum of fuel and atomize it into a vapor in the air and light it on fire, how long will it burn? I won't even ask you which burns longer because there is only 1 answer and from your posts i can tell your a educated person. You should know that our government makes shit up all the time to use as an excuse to go to war, just like they have now admitted that the whole incident that got us into the Vietnam war was a completely made up incident. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261

And I have now said that it was TWO types of devices that were used to take the buildings down, I have said this from the beginning. Thermite to weaken the main structure, and cutting charges to get the momentum going for it to fall. I really do read your posts, but I don't think you reciprocate at all.

__________________
It is far easier to ignorantly control others than it is to wisely control yourself.

Sweet.

My bad... I have just been looking at the pics so long I know.



Now I feel like a prick for being... well a prick and suggesting you weren't reading.

You are absolutely correct... sorry. Tired. Gallons of course, for both.

Yes... I mislabeled the units.

Source? I know mine wasn't fair because it was in a real book... but I found this...

http://books.google.com/books?id=gEl...over#PPA265,M1

Again, I am simply stating facts. You are incorrectly asserting them into an argument I am not waging.


Again... I used the wrong measure for both. That also was sourced.

Fair question, I meant typical office environment.

__________________

Ok you got gallons and lbs mixed up, fair enough, you've been up all night devising an argument to make that's going to blow my socks off right?

__________________
It is far easier to ignorantly control others than it is to wisely control yourself.

Ah hello ... there were reports of melted steel at the WTC site. Unless you are still harping on your bridge ...

When did I say metals don't weaken under heat? It depends on the size of the metal and whether or not they been treated with a fireproof material which was done at the WTC. So don't have a cow because you can't comprehend the difference between what happen at the bridge and the WTC.

You haven't stop.

Only in your whacked out mind.

You are making an attempt to side step the issue which is 911 ... nothing more ...

Yeah ... well I'm telling you about the rebar ... which is way different than the steel in those buildings ... and the crayons suit you ... really.

Sorry but your interpretation of what I said and what I actually said are obviously two different things. So once again you are blowing it out your ass ... what did I tell you folks!

Well you missed my comment about corporate media and in your whacky mind convinced yourself that I said the aircraft parts were planted ... how you got that only the bushwhacked know ... but for the rest of us ... it's more proof of how you make shit up.

And for the upteen time ... this thread is about 911 ... not about some bridge where a couple of sections fell ... and whether you understand or not the event does not dismiss what happen on 911 case close.

I was able to figure you are irrational in your first post.

No ... I'm denying the steel came down the way they say it did ... what part of that don't you get?

I didn't see any "squished" metal ... but the bent metal was due to the fire weakening the rebar and concrete plus the weight of the asphalt and concrete on the bridge. The crayons characterizes your simple mind.

Oh really? ... and when did she/he do that? ... it's obvious you don't see the same things us regular folks see ... so you will have to specify for the folks at home and me.

As far as I'm concerned No gets it. And she/he has been very articulate in her/his post. Plus No is able to scope out some awesome pictures. Thanks so much for those constructions pictures No... you see folks ... see all the massive steel involved? And unlike the rebar in a bridge ... all that steel is coated with fireproof material so that blow oloso bullshit about rust and aluminum causing the traces of thermite. Like I said before ... looking at those pictures there is no way on God's green earth that those buildings came down due to fire and plane impact ... no way ... at best there would be damage to the upper floors ... but no way are those buildings going to come down in seconds ... only after burning for less than 2 hours... no way. Not without help. That is why I am simply amazed how stupid some people are to believe such bullshit.

Refer to it anyway you'd like ... we all pretty much know how delusional you are. Knock yourself out.

__________________
Our Beautiful Ladies ...
Keep Them Safe Keep Them SECRET!
911 ... inside job!

You tell em Grow!

__________________
It is far easier to ignorantly control others than it is to wisely control yourself.

wow im getting in to this real late but Im an ironworker and have worked with steel my entire life.

Structural steel melts at roughly 2500F, and uncontrolled burn MAX temperatures reach about 1400F. Not nearly enough to melt steel. The temp of your material can only be as high as the temp of the burn applied. Steel does loose some strength at around 1000F but not enough for it to deform and collapse. If that were so, OSHA would not allow these materials to be used for high rise construction. Plus everything is covered in fire proofing. The "Official Report" said the fire proofing was "blown off" on impact, which is obviously a LIE. To reach temps high enough to melt steel you need a controlled burn aided by a compressed gas. Like your stove... Its made of steel yet it doesn't deform under the controlled "blue flame" burn of natural gas... Which is way hotter then a nasty uncontrolled burn.

No high rise in history has fallen due to fire..... On 9/11, three towers smoldered for 90 minutes....then fell... and everyone bought it. Does anyone know the sign of an unhealthy fire?... its smoke.

If anyone believes fire brought those towers down is a helpless puppet....Hell most of the jet fuel went up in flames immediately upon impact, hence the gigantic fireball....

Those buildings were designed to withstand several airplane impacts, its like a mesh of 3-4" thick steel tubes.

Peace out, Educate yourselves, Dont get caught up in the media.

__________________

Time will tell.

... oh and I mean that the bridge took 21 minutes to collapse due to heat.

Hush now Grow, the adults are talking...






The problem with my apparent argument is that heat fatigue isn't what brought that bridge down.

The steel melted.

In 21 minutes.

"Engineers estimated that the flames reached close to 3,000 degrees -- hot enough to melt the green steel frame and bolts of the I-580 overpass. "

But wait... what is that nonsense? What temp does gas burn at?

How is this possible? Are they mad? Perhaps here is a clue...

"No sign of the truck remained by daybreak. A Caltrans worker held up his thumb and forefinger an inch apart to describe how big the tanker was by then."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGK8PI1CI1.DTL

So... let me get this straight... since we know that gas does NOT burn at 3000 deg... that would have to mean that something else capable of reaching that temperature must have been on fire... Perhaps the truck? Perhaps the road itself?

So in 20 minutes a faster burning fuel manages to ignite a truck/road fire so hot that it reaches 3000 degrees.


Ooh... lookey there... they say that steel looses half its rigidity at 1000 too.

It really does all come full circle. The first argument I waged. House fires get hot enough to incinerate bone.

Office fires begun in an explosive ball of fuel do so quicker.



I don't think any of that was too devastating.

__________________