Fire and Steel
This is funny.
These "debunking 911" debunkers use this picture to show how heat can distort steel-- a fuel-carrying tanker truck overturned, thousands of gallons of fuel burned in one small area, and at least one of the steel beams of the overpass RIGHT ABOVE the fire shows serious heat-induced distortion:
Not really surprising, everyone should know that heat can soften and eventually melt steel.
So what's missing in this story that they use to support the official 9/11 WTC collapse fairy-tale???
THE OVERPASS COLLAPSING!
These "debunking 911" debunkers use this picture to show how heat can distort steel-- a fuel-carrying tanker truck overturned, thousands of gallons of fuel burned in one small area, and at least one of the steel beams of the overpass RIGHT ABOVE the fire shows serious heat-induced distortion:
Not really surprising, everyone should know that heat can soften and eventually melt steel.
So what's missing in this story that they use to support the official 9/11 WTC collapse fairy-tale???
THE OVERPASS COLLAPSING!
posted by spooked at 10:21 AM
27 Comments:
as if.
first of all the fire from that fuel truck spill was concentrated right in one spot. how many gallons of fuel at most would a real aluminum 767 have if it really hit a massive steel/concrete wtc? 10k? that's the amount of water an average backyard swimming pool holds in california. so hitting a wtc would disperse that small amount of fuel widely throughout said massive steel/concrete wtc except for wtc2 which had all of it's fireball outside the building.
secondly, the fuel in a real 767 is jetfuel which is basically kerosene which did not even burn the paint off of my wheelbarrow when i tried to destroy it with a kerosene fire just to see if it would. it did not.
third, those fools at that debunking site use the word IRON several times when referring to the wtc - the wtc were constructed of massive hardened STEEL columns, not IRON. is there a difference between IRON and STEEL when they are exposed to a kerosene fire for only a short time? hmmm. just ask the PAINT on my wheelbarrow - it is still intact.
this is the best that the debunking911.com/tard has?
morons.
And what else is missing???
THE MULTIPLE HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS OF TONS OF WEIGHT ON TOP OF IT!
But if it were only built of rabbit wire and the weight were nothing more than Spooky's foot.
*sigh*
nice try but "THE MULTIPLE HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS OF TONS OF WEIGHT ON TOP OF IT!" in the wtc were not comprised of rabbit wire, but rather massive hardened steel/concrete. anyone with 2 eyes in his head can see that this steel/concrete was all rendered into powder and suspended in the air and was not exerting any of it's powdery weight onto the remainder of each wtc.
poof!
it only took 10 seconds total for complete poof action.
*get with the program*
*sigh*
"THE MULTIPLE HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS OF TONS OF WEIGHT ON TOP OF IT!"
Brilliant!!!!!!!!!!
Except for the fact that this steel beam was not meant to support the top of the WTC. It was meant to support the this overpass!
And this beam did that quite well, thank you, despite a fucking raging inferno beneath it.
Anyone else notice that the fire only caused the steel to distort upward on this bridge? There is no downard sag or any signs of structural fatigue in any sense of the word.
If anything, this proves just how freagin resilient steel is. Under the worst situations, it merely distorted its frame a little. Not unexpected at all.
Spooked,
This falls into the area known as "bukkake stupid". If you and your believers don't understand why your post makes no sense, ask a five year old....
"bukkake stupid"-- I'm not sure what this term is supposed to imply.
"your post makes no sense"-- the concept is pretty simple really. Fire heats steel and is supposed to make it lose strength. The overpass didn't collapse. The incredible fire from this fuel truck was not sufficient to make this steel structure fail. What is hard to understand about that?
How can a mind - even as small as yours - compare an isolated fire under a section of bridge to that which caused the WTC to eventually collapse. You do understand there are differences - in almost every way to the WTC - don't you?
""compare an isolated fire under a section of bridge to that which caused the WTC to eventually collapse. You do understand there are differences - in almost every way to the WTC - don't you?""
oh tooshay - you must be one of the /tards in person!
of course there was a difference:
the fireball @ wtc2 was entirely outside the building and burnt up totally in a single flash and thus could not have melted even the paint off a wheelbarrow much less caused the total poof action of wtc2 in only 10 seconds.
and the so-called fireball @ wtc1 is belied by the simple fact that ms. edna cintron was filmed standing right where the "raging inferno" was claimed to have been.
again, no raging inferno no total poof action of wtc1 in only 10 seconds.
hey /tards!
tell your advisor the phony professor david benson that i said he should go build a bicycle powered search engine out of coconuts.
jha.
Jesus, do our trolls need to take logic 101 here.
Just for clarification, for the slower people: I did NOT directly compare what happened at the WTC with what happened with the truck. I did not say they were perfectly analogous situations. I did not say this fuel truck example proved anything about the WTC.
What we CAN say though, is that the heat from this fuel truck fire was hot enough to massively warp at least one of the supporting beams on that overpass. Logically, this heat induced distortion weakened the beam. The beam still held up the structure it was meant to support despite the extreme warping and weakening -- there was no collapse.
ERGO-- heat-induced weakening of a strcutural steel beam does not necessarily lead to collapse.
We CAN say that there were several thousand gallons of fuel that burned directly below this beam, which was more fuel than a single beam of the WTC officially could have been exposed to. Further, the fire at this crash site was exposed to open air, more oxygen, and presumably burned hotter than oxygen starved fires inside the WTC. So, the situations are not comparable, but this truck fire tends to go against the idea that fires weakened the steel enough to cause the WTC to "collapse".
In reality though, anyone who has carefully studied the WTC "collapses" knows it is demolition involving extreme amounts of added energy such as delivered by a nuclear device.
they're not slower - but for whatever reasons they refuse to allow anyone to deviate from the accepted govt/media fable.
the fact that they grasp so half-heartedly to the slightest tidbit however lame and however far between as being supportive of the fable all the while ignoring the sheer myriad of actual 9/11 info that in a world of real justice would be the smoking gun nails in the fable's coffin that they really are shows that these people don't really believe the govt/media fable any more than you do.
really all they ever do is poke fun of you and i would bet that secretly they admire your perseverance.
whatever would they do if you just rolled over and took it - allowed 9/11 to be swept under the rug?
You fucktards leave us laughing. That you think you can learn anything from comparing these two obviously different construction types AND fires would be more amusing to me if it wasn't for the fact that you dullards may be influencing children.
anon@8:12 just reinforced my point about half-assed lame deflecting comments actually being indicative of not believing in the official govt/media fable any more than the rest of us do.
go /tards go!
"ERGO-- heat-induced weakening of a strcutural (sic) steel beam does not necessarily lead to collapse. "
THAT has to be one of the most brilliant statements of all time - on a par with Einstein's theory of relativity or with Darwin's theory on natural selection or with Mariah Carey's comment of "I wish I could be skinny like those starving people" (you Spook worshipers who are Mariah fans - I know that is a satire).
How many rabbit-wire skyscrapers and cinder blocks did you go thru to achieve that bit of brilliance?
THAT has to be one of the most brilliant statements of all time - on a par with Einstein's theory of relativity or with Darwin's theory on natural selection or with Mariah Carey's comment of "I wish I could be skinny like those starving people" (you Spook worshipers who are Mariah fans - I know that is a satire).
How many rabbit-wire skyscrapers and cinder blocks did you go thru to achieve that bit of brilliance?
Yes, it makes perfect sense to ridicule a completely logical statement and then ignore my statement about a nuclear device being used to take down the WTC.
Whoever you are, you are very very strange.
and there is anon@9:55 once again ignoring the fact that the govt 9/11 fable holds no water.
it's as if he is paid simply for pretending to believe the govt 9/11 fable but in reality does not.
strange is as strange does.
hey 10:49 AM
Got any proof for your fantasy or are you just another witless conspiracy fucktard?
/tard@11:25 - your own words are proof that you are merely pretending to believe.
knock yourself out genius.
"/tard@11:25 - your own words are proof that you are merely pretending to believe.
knock yourself out genius."
Translation: Another fucktard without any evidence....
p.s. Smasher is having fun at your expense...again....
""Another fucktard without any evidence....""
without any evidence of what? what are you referring to?
""Smasher is having fun at your expense...again....""
wow it is encouraging that you /tards are having fun at least.
tell smasher to knock himself out as well!
"ERGO-- heat-induced weakening of a strcutural (sic) steel beam does not necessarily lead to collapse. "
"ERGO-- an automobile accident does not necessarily cause death - but sometimes it does."
"ERGO-- a plane crash does not necessarily result in the death of all passangers and crew - but sometimes it does."
"ERGO-- dark rain clouds do not necessarily result in a downpour - but sometimes it does."
"ERGO-- one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch, girl - but sometimes it does."
The fact that you left out that one teensy weensy phrase - "...sometimes it does" - shows your absolute total bias. Not to mention your stupidity.
Pull your head out of your ass and try to see how incredibly idiotic your statement is.
You calling me strange....THAT is funny, though!
I made an ordinary conclusion and never pretended it was anything other than an ordinary conclusion.
Meanwhile you go on and on analyzing that one ordinary statement-- when there are thousands of other more controversial things you could challenge me on?
I call that strange.
But, whatever turns you on, I guess.
By the way, for future reference, when I wrote "necessarily" in my statement, that word IMPLIED "...sometimes it does".
Is that too much to understand?
anon/tard@4:34 is still at it!
really /tard, unless your boss is keeping score your continued inanities are pointless.
hey anon/tard's boss!
/tard has given it the typical half-hearted attempt that we have come to expect from the likes of the lot of you.
in my opinion anon/tard@4:34 is fully deserving of a promotion and a substantial increase in salary!
however, maybe next time /tard will remember and acknowledge the fact that both towers were rendered completely into powder at the astounding rate of 11 floors per second, which is just slightly faster than the weak force of gravity allows.
absent some assistance by an outside force such as explosives that is.
Well, now that you mention it, reading your blog DOES turn me on. Kind of like the "Daily Chuckle". What is REALLY funny is how you pretend to be serious. I am really starting to catch on - that this is just a farce with a goal of seeing just how far actually you can go and have people support you. Is thsi some sort of special college psychology project? I say that because there apparently is no end to where you will take this thing - killer laser beams, nukes, invisible aircraft and yet you STILL have a core support group who go along with everything you post. I'm waiting for the UFO and alien beings next.
I'm also looking forward to when you finish your project and publish your findings. It will be a fascinating look into the deep well of post-traumatic disaster psychosis and how it affects group dymnamics.
"UFO and alien beings next."
wow awesome commentary relevance /tard @5:04!
you do realize that it is all about you now right?
Steel beams don't need to melt, all that has to happen is for them to lose some of their structual strength which require far less exposure to heat, flames or fire:
...their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of 'The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety'. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
The Above from the Popular Mechanics Debunked 9/11 Conspiracy.
Mr. Dunn is actually an EXPERT in his field as opposed to 99.9999% of the conspiracy heads who do not have his training and education.
Post a Comment
<< Home