Author Topic: Controlled Demolition strikes again (Read 624 times)

SAS_KID · « **Reply #15 on:** April 30, 2007, 09:55:55 AM »

It wasn't steel that melted... it was part of the freeway that was "draped" across the interchange.

WilldCrd · « **Reply #16 on:** April 30, 2007, 10:00:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
That'd be even better, considering how it was jet fuel in the WTC incident. But don't worry, the 9/11 conspiracists never let anything as prosaic as science get in their way.

Science is SOOOOOO overrated
If scientists were sooooo smart then how come every few years they have to "rewrite" the so called book??

Maverick · « **Reply #17 on:** April 30, 2007, 10:07:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SAS_KID
It wasn't steel that melted... it was part of the freeway that was "draped" across the interchange.

I see, and what was the material used to hold that overhead section of freeway up? It couldn't have been steel in the form of girders, kind of just like the support structure for the WTC towers could it???

Masherbrum · « **Reply #18 on:** April 30, 2007, 12:00:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SAS_KID
It wasn't steel that melted... it was part of the freeway that was "draped" across the interchange.

I think you need to look underneath an overpass more closely. The steel GIRDERS melted causing metal fatigue, and the weight of the concrete caused catastrophic failure.

allmetal · « **Reply #19 on:** April 30, 2007, 12:18:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dago
I guess Rosie never heard of oxy-acetylene welding. Or metal temper. Or Prozac.

Maverick · « **Reply #20 on:** April 30, 2007, 02:50:29 PM »

The steel does not have to get to the point where it runs in liquid form to cause damae. All it has to do is lose enough tensile strength where it can't support the weight. Then the supported structure collapses under the force of gravity.

Unless you feel that 9/11 and this fire are strictly unsupported by reality and physics in which case it's booshes fault.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #21 on:** April 30, 2007, 06:37:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Can anyone remember who on this board is a 'loose change'-ist? As in, who here buys the "wtc was teh demolished!" and "9/11 was a US job!" theories?

It would be interesting to hear their analysis of this collapse, considering how the "gasoline fires can't hurt steel" assertion is the base of their conspipracy theory.

Chair I think it was the "go ahead and ban me" whitehawk

Masherbrum · « **Reply #22 on:** April 30, 2007, 08:35:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Chair I think it was the "go ahead and ban me" whitehawk

Gunslinger would be correct.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #23 on:** May 01, 2007, 09:26:22 PM »

429truth.org has figured this all out.

Via Fark.com

Of course all this conjecture is based on scientific testing

Funny bellybutton thread

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2772159