Truthers, Fire melts steel again!

basketcase · May 1, 2007

One of the claims of the truthers as to why 9/11 was an inside job is based on the question of how fire could melt steel. This bridge collapse in Oakland must have been another government conspiracy.

Flip through the pictures of what happened when a tanker truck caught on fire beneath an overpass as see what happened to the structural steel supports.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=14&f=/chronicle/archive/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL
You can clearly see how the hear and the stress on the beams caused them bend and fail. (#3 and 5 give a good view)

Any response by the truthers out there (except to change the topic)?

Aardvark154 · May 1, 2007

basketcase said:
One of the claims of the truthers as to why 9/11 was an inside job is based on the question of how fire could melt steel. This bridge collapse in Oakland must have been another government conspiracy.

Flip through the pictures of what happened when a tanker truck caught on fire beneath an overpass as see what happened to the structural steel supports.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=14&f=/chronicle/archive/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL
You can clearly see how the hear and the stress on the beams caused them bend and fail. (#3 and 5 give a good view)

Any response by the truthers out there (except to change the topic)?

Paging Rosie, Paging Rosie.

No, Not our TERB, Rosie rather that "brilliant" woman from The View. I don't see anything on the internet indicating that this was discussed either yesterday or today on the program. No doubt because to quote one of Rosie's pals its "an inconvenient truth."

papasmerf · May 1, 2007

Didn't anyone notice the secondary explosions?

Asterix · May 1, 2007

What a shame. Hdog would have loved rehashing all this and entertaining us with his latest conspiracy theories. Too bad he kind of went a little nutty and got himself booted.

papasmerf · May 1, 2007

Asterix said:
What a shame. Hdog would have loved rehashing all this and entertaining us with his latest conspiracy theories. Too bad he kind of went a little nutty and got himself booted.

Give Woody and TOV a chance to post.

onthebottom · May 1, 2007

In the words of Kelso.... BURN....

Now that's a pun.

OTB

Asterix · May 1, 2007

onthebottom said:
In the words of Kelso.... BURN....

Now that's a pun.

OTB

Thanks for letting us know, likely I would have missed it.

onthebottom · May 1, 2007

alienencounters said:
certainly they (truthers) will demand testing for thermite.

LOL

I can't wait to hear how the Israelis were celebrating.

OTB

papasmerf · May 1, 2007

alienencounters said:
And why the N.I.S.T. report didn't cover this in their report on the trade center collapses.

Cause the overpass was still up?

papasmerf · May 1, 2007

alienencounters said:
if its a conspiracy then they already had the answers, no?

No they can only discuss what has happened

papasmerf · May 1, 2007

alienencounters said:
if the truthers won't limit themselves to fact, the gov't doesn't have to.

Truth be told the NTSB has known for years that an accident might occur somewhere and there might be damage to something.

papasmerf · May 1, 2007

They should have banned volatile liquids from all highways

onthebottom · May 1, 2007

crickets from the crazies..... ah the peace....

OTB

spheroyds · May 5, 2007

Don't disagree fire can eventually weaken steel structures...

...how much time would it take for WTC massive size though?

- a quick google pulled this up...
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/911-Bombs-Not-Planes10nov05.htm
- professor believes freefall speed not indicative of fire as the cause

basketcase said:
One of the claims of the truthers as to why 9/11 was an inside job is based on the question of how fire could melt steel. This bridge collapse in Oakland must have been another government conspiracy.

Flip through the pictures of what happened when a tanker truck caught on fire beneath an overpass as see what happened to the structural steel supports.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=14&f=/chronicle/archive/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL
You can clearly see how the hear and the stress on the beams caused them bend and fail. (#3 and 5 give a good view)

Any response by the truthers out there (except to change the topic)?

basketcase · May 5, 2007

Finaly, someone doubts and speaks up.

A simple understanding of facts would show that the steel beams in the WTC were much thiner than the ones in the overpass, therfore they would burn much faster. For collapse to occur, all that needed to happen was for enough beams to weaken so that the weight of all the floors above comes crashing down.

As for the prof, continue your google search and see all the refutations of this guy's ideas. He might know physics but he needs to learn some engineering.

spheroyds · May 6, 2007

Prof and other straw man arguments...

Ok, since we are on the 9/11 topic, willing to look at both sides so long as we don't get into "straw man" arguments.

what happened to building 7 of wtc?

spheroyds · May 6, 2007

...then there is NIST and former employee on fire theory

http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/letter.html

lookingforitallthetime · May 6, 2007

basketcase said:
A simple understanding of facts would show that the steel beams in the WTC were much thiner than the ones in the overpass, therfore they would burn much faster. For collapse to occur, all that needed to happen was for enough beams to weaken so that the weight of all the floors above comes crashing down.

Makes sense to me.

The fact steel beams in the WTC were coated with fire resistant material lends credence to the fact there were concerns of fire in the design.

The force of impact from the planes crashing into the building and causing the fire resistant material to fall from the beams is a logical hypothesis.

Asterix · May 6, 2007

lookingforitallthetime said:
Makes sense to me.

The fact steel beams in the WTC were coated with fire resistant material lends credence to the fact there were concerns of fire in the design.

A sprayed on asbestos coating that was largely blown off upon impact from the planes, on several floors. The beams didn't need to melt, or even to buckle. All that was required was that they were softened by the fire sufficiently, to bend and sag downwards until they became disengaged from the clips holding them to the exterior walls. Really all this has been hashed through on the board before, and anyone wanting to reargue should probably try the search function first.

Aardvark154 · May 6, 2007

spheroyds said:
what happened to building 7 of wtc?

"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately ten stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This was caused by falling debris from WTC 1 also there were numerous fires in WTC 7 and pressurized oil lines. There is a Medical expression that fits here: "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses not Zebras." Support every wild eyed conspiracy theory you care to subscribe to, that doesn't make them true.

Truthers, Fire melts steel again!

Well-known member

New member

New member

Sr. Member

New member

Never Been Justly Banned

Sr. Member

Never Been Justly Banned

New member

New member

New member

New member

Never Been Justly Banned

Stop and smell the roses

Well-known member

Stop and smell the roses

Stop and smell the roses

New member

Sr. Member

New member