9/11 Conspiracy Theory Up In Smoke? San Fran Crash Melts Steel

[DOCTOR 30]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/29/hig...ion=cnn_latest

One of the big conspiracy theories about the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers is that the fires weren't intense enough to melt the steel. Yet in this story of one mere gasoline truck that crashed and burned hot enough to melt the steel of this highway causing it to collapse.

Odd?

[JD]

LIESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSsssssssssssssssSSssSSS SS

[Murderous]

That crash was a terrorist attack.

Don't let the media misguide you.

[SmokeyTheBear]

its hard to compare apples to oranges. in 9/11 most of the fuel was burned up in the crash being high speed and a large fireball , a tanker full of fuel would likely burn slower and hotter.. if the tanker was driving at 600 miles per hour then maybe..

but hey i'm not a structural engineer.

For the record i think its prob more likely they used shitty steel and to admit that would make america look bad.

Although there are tons of very strange "coincidences" with wtc 1&2 i think its rather ridiculous to think someone planned on bombing at in precise timing of planes crashing into it..

[tony286]

dont think it was a conspiracy, takes brains to pull off a conspiracy lol

[pornguy]

there is a huge difference in the steel that was used in the building of the towers and the bridge.

Also the way they they were being used is an effect.

the only way to truly know, would be rebuild the towers, and repeat the crash.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by pornguy

there is a huge difference in the steel that was used in the building of the towers and the bridge.

Also the way they they were being used is an effect.

the only way to truly know, would be rebuild the towers, and repeat the crash.

Yup the steel they use on bridges is CRAP!!

[Steve Awesome]

I agree on the "shitty steel" idea. As far as all of the fuel being "burned up on impact" that's just not true. Those planes were loaded with enough fuel to fly to the other coast. That's a LOT of fuel. Easily just as much as what was in a tanker truck was what was in one of those planes. The conspiracy theory is so dumb. It's entire premise is that steel won't melt and that the towers collapsed too quickly. The only way to really test the theory is to build another trade center tower, fly a fully fueled jet into it, and see if THAT collapses. I'd bet my last dollar it would.

[BV]

I'm no conspiracy nut but i can tell you that gasoline burns way way way hotter than jet fuel, jet fuel is about similar to diesel fuel which is much less combustible

[milambur]

Not sure, but wasn't that bridge constructed by concrete and steel? Concrete contains large quantities of water that will boil at high temperatures, making the concrete explode. My guess is that happened and then the steel structure wasn't strong enough to hold the bridge on it’s own. I don’t think 9/11 was a conspiracy, but WTC was built to withstand a plane crash and the steel used must have been of much higher durability (should have been at least).

[nikooo]

Originally Posted by pornguy

there is a huge difference in the steel that was used in the building of the towers and the bridge.

Also the way they they were being used is an effect.

the only way to truly know, would be rebuild the towers, and repeat the crash.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Leave it to the GFY scientists to come running and try to draw a parallel to 9/11.

ADG Webmaster

[crockett]

The only Conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks which involved our govt was them covering up how much they fucked up.

[Dirty Dane]

George Bush probably placed bombs and shot missiles on the bridge, so they could cover up 9/11 and say "see, its possible to melt".

[dynastoned]

haha just saw that on the news here this morning. the bart is gonna be fucking packeddd.

[dynastoned]

You can't even compare the two incidents.

Not to mention the steel in the WTC had fire proof coating and the ones used to build the bridge would have a mere paint or galvanized finish.

[DOCTOR 30]

Originally Posted by dynastoned

You can't even compare the two incidents.

Not to mention the steel in the WTC had fire proof coating and the ones used to build the bridge would have a mere paint or galvanized finish.

Good point. I feel the only explanation for the two towers collapsing is intense vibration. Sure they could withstand fire and impact but the vibration of the impact caused support systems to cascade. If you've ever been at the towers you could feel and see them sway in the wind. Very creepy feeling. We would go to the top of the towers and you could hold your flat hand sideways up to any horizontal or vertical line of sight in the distance and see how much the towers would sway.

The steel columns of the towers were immense, just immense. For a fire to melt enough of them to cause a collapse is unrealistic. That fire would have had to have been so hot for so long like days on end.

Something other than the fires caused the towers to collapse and I'm betting the intense vibration of impact coupled with the towers' natural swaying motion was too much stress causing the upper floors to cascade downard. That was enough to cause far more vibration on the second tower. It was like a small earthquake.

[Rochard]

It's a very simple concept kids - fire melts steel. All of the fuel from the plane (or the truck yesterday for that matter) didn't explode and burn out instantly. Some of the steel from the WTC was physically destroyed or otherwise pushed out of the building the moment of impact. I saw the fire rage for hours; The combination of the impact, the explousion, the hours of fire, and the fact that so much of the building was destroyed when the plane hit did the WTC in.

What happened yesterday near the Bay Bridge should serve as a reminder of how open we are to attacks. Any yahoo with a gas tanker can now take out a bridge. Imagine if they focused their attention on the Bay Bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge at the same time. It will kill San Francisco.

[cem]

Originally Posted by tony404

dont think it was a conspiracy, takes brains to pull off a conspiracy lol

good one

[Phoenix]

who fuckin cares...go bomb some school kids in iraq or iran or syria

get some oil..and rasie your dollar again..im losing money here

[LadyMischief]

Jet fuel and regular gasoline don't burn the same way.

[XVNRacer]

The steel in the World Trade Center acted like an enormous heat sink. Any heat that was applied to a given area of the steel frame was soaked up by the immense mass of steel in the entire structure. There wasn't enough heat to warm up the steel frame more than a few degrees overall. Infrared analysis of the many video tapes of the fires taken before the collapse give a pretty good indication of how much heat the structure was subjected to, where, and for how long. The data are consistent with what you'd get from burning jet fuel (which is basically kerosene, much less volatile and cooler burning than ordinary gasoline) and the burning contents of the building. No way the fires could have heated up the steel to anything like what would have been necessary to cause a catastrophic failure of the whole building.

RACER

[Martin]

Yeah 2 huge 110 story steel reinforced buildings turned into dust compared to a section of highway?

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by XVNRacer

The steel in the World Trade Center acted like an enormous heat sink. Any heat that was applied to a given area of the steel frame was soaked up by the immense mass of steel in the entire structure. There wasn't enough heat to warm up the steel frame more than a few degrees overall. Infrared analysis of the many video tapes of the fires taken before the collapse give a pretty good indication of how much heat the structure was subjected to, where, and for how long. The data are consistent with what you'd get from burning jet fuel (which is basically kerosene, much less volatile and cooler burning than ordinary gasoline) and the burning contents of the building. No way the fires could have heated up the steel to anything like what would have been necessary to cause a catastrophic failure of the whole building.

RACER

logic doesnt sit well with this crowd

they like to believe whatever cnn tells them

[shekinah]

Oh my that crash destroyed my birthday

[Miguel T]

I dont know what to believe...

[SPACE GLIDER]

Won't be long before someone comes to the conclusion that this administration staged THIS crash as an excuse for the heat they're getting over solid engineers proclaiming that the WTC collopase simply could not have happened the way they claimed

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by DOCTOR 30

The steel columns of the towers were immense, just immense. For a fire to melt enough of them to cause a collapse is unrealistic. That fire would have had to have been so hot for so long like days on end.

i honestly can't believe that you deluded morons are now reduced to rebutting losing arguments that were never made.

no one said the steel "melted" in the WTC.

[DOCTOR 30]

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

Latest official government explanation.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by DOCTOR 30

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

Latest official government explanation.

let me interrupt your wide open sprint to the finish line for "Dumbest GFY'er of the Year" with this final assessment of the author of the site from the link you posted

Claim - "The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel"

Response - There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength."

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

no one said the steel "melted" in the WTC.

tell that to the molton globs of steel at the base of wtc

Lots of people have said the steel melted. i think what you mean to say is nobody said the building collapsed because of melted steel" although thats not really a very valid statement either.. probably a more vaid statement would be.. "By most sane accounts, the fires caused the beams to weaken , not melt"

I wasn't there and you prob werent either but i know there were several photos and accounts of "molton beams", were talking about a whole new "realm" of heat to turn steel "molton"

but like i said above. why look into the wierd explanations.. if the planes didnt collapse the buildings , whats the only other thing that could ? bombs. so if bombs were planted in wtc someone would have had to plan on collapsing the buildings with bombs at the exact floors and timing that planes just happen to crash into it.. thats beyond silly.

[Dirty F]

A huge fucking plane crashed into the wtc causing HUGE damage to the building. Why do people, conspiracy nuts or not, only talk about the fire which caused the building to collapse or not. A plane!!!! A plane destroyed a few floors!

[DOCTOR 30]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

i honestly can't believe that you deluded morons are now reduced to rebutting losing arguments that were never made.

no one said the steel "melted" in the WTC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Dirty Franck

A huge fucking plane crashed into the wtc causing HUGE damage to the building. Why do people, conspiracy nuts or not, only talk about the fire which caused the building to collapse or not. A plane!!!! A plane destroyed a few floors!

i knew ole franck would be in here

[Dirty F]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

i knew ole franck would be in here

Yeah so its time for you to fuck off you fucking lunatic. Go hunt aliens or something.

[DOCTOR 30]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

let me interrupt your wide open sprint to the finish line for "Dumbest GFY'er of the Year" with this final assessment of the author of the site from the link you posted

Claim - "The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel"

Response - There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength."

Yes, we have Mr. Fucking Wizard here with his knucklewalking commentary.

Read the facts bub instead of your Mr. Whoopee explanations of the world.

Cereal boxes are not a great source for news and analysis so toss the Lucky Charms and get a brain case in the homo sapiens range.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4

http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm

http://architecture.about.com/librar...c-collapse.htm

Just another few links on both sides of the argument.

[borked]

Originally Posted by XVNRacer

The steel in the World Trade Center acted like an enormous heat sink. Any heat that was applied to a given area of the steel frame was soaked up by the immense mass of steel in the entire structure. There wasn't enough heat to warm up the steel frame more than a few degrees overall. Infrared analysis of the many video tapes of the fires taken before the collapse give a pretty good indication of how much heat the structure was subjected to, where, and for how long. The data are consistent with what you'd get from burning jet fuel (which is basically kerosene, much less volatile and cooler burning than ordinary gasoline) and the burning contents of the building. No way the fires could have heated up the steel to anything like what would have been necessary to cause a catastrophic failure of the whole building.

RACER

What, someone did infrared analysis of a video tape??

Never knew that regular video stored heat signatures for later analysis.

Never laffed so hard!

[borked]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

so if bombs were planted in wtc someone would have had to plan on collapsing the buildings with bombs at the exact floors and timing that planes just happen to crash into it.. thats beyond silly.

no, no, no, no - yiou've been misled - bombs were placed on ALL floors, but only those on the floors that were directly hit were detonated. You know, that's what that fireman was doing looking down the sewer grate - he was shouting to his buddies which floors to blow

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I saw the fire rage for hours; The combination of the impact, the explousion, the hours of fire, and the fact that so much of the building was destroyed when the plane hit did the WTC in.

8:45 a.m. (all times are EDT): A hijacked passenger jet, American Airlines Flight 11 out of Boston, Massachusetts, crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Center.

9:03 a.m.: A second hijacked airliner, United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston, crashes into the south tower of the World Trade Center.

10:05 a.m.: The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses.

10:28 a.m.: The World Trade Center's north tower collapses.

The South Tower collapsed in just over an hour, and the North Tower in under two hours.

The scene was replayed non-stop for hours, but the Twin Towers did not burn for hours.

And what about WTC 7?

4:10 p.m.: Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex is reported on fire.

5:20 p.m.: The 47-story Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex collapses. Other nearby buildings in the area remain ablaze.

In just over an hour after a fire is reported in WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, it collapses, yet other buildings were on fire and didn't collapse.

Hmmm....

ADG Webmaster

[scottybuzz]

Originally Posted by Dirty Franck

Yeah so its time for you to fuck off you fucking lunatic. Go hunt aliens or something.

i just choked a little from laughing too hard.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Dirty Franck

Yeah so its time for you to fuck off you fucking lunatic. Go hunt aliens or something.

so you believe aliens are here and can be hunted

gotcha

[borked]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

And what about WTC 7?

The direct effects of earthquakes can damage buildings in several ways. They can cause the ground underneath to fail, thereby undermining foundations. This is particularly likely on unstable land, such as in areas that have been reclaimed from the sea. The huge Minato Mirai development in Yokohama, Japan, for example, is built on land reclaimed from Yokohama Bay. To help counter this, the foundations of the buildings built there go through the landfill and are anchored firmly to the basement rock beneath.

If I'm not mistaken - all that land the buildings were built on was landfill... ok, the WTC foundations went down to bedrock 70 feet below ground level, but given that building 7 was the last to be completed 17 years later, methinks they may have been a little lax in their foundation structure...

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfil...%20History.pdf