So if the planes could not have taken down the WTC.....

This occured last night in the SF Bay area. A tanker truck overturned and caught on fire. The resulting fire caused a collapse of the freeway structure. Note, while there may have been a fireball, there was nowhere near the structural trauma that the WTC suffered. The asphalt was a secondary source of combustion for sure, but you could say the same of all of the plastics and contained within the office structure. And again, no structural trauma to the overpasses themselves which are retrofitted and earthquake resistant structures.

So lets face it, the scenario of the WTC being brought down by the aircraft impact and resulting fire is spot on. You can look for explosives all you guys want but doesn't this make maore sence? I maintain that the real conspiracy here revolves around letting 911 happen at all, not elaborate, one in a million theories about explosives, demo teams et al.

The heat of a dramatic gasoline tanker fire destroyed an overpass and closed two major roadways in the MacArthur Maze at the East Bay access to the Bay Bridge early this morning.

A section of the roadway taking traffic from the Bay Bridge onto eastbound Interstate 580 fell onto the connector that brings East Bay traffic from Interstate 80 to Interstate 880 southbound toward Oakland and San Jose.
Tanker Fire

Was there more fuel on the tanker or on the Airplanes?
Almost the same amount I would guess 10K against 8K and look what a small damage did all this gasoline do...
That actually its a collapse that looks natural for the event.
The asphalt by the way did not pulverize...
Great example for showing us how the WTC could not have collapsed this is probably the definitive proof we needed.
Also notice how the bridge did not explode when it collapsed.
Again thank you for the great service...
8K gallons of fuel and such small damages...Think for your goodness

I don't see how this has any relevance at all.

The problems with the official story don't lie in just the impacts and the fires.

You still have to explain how pieces of the facade, weighing tons, was ejected laterally up to 600 ft.
You still have to explain how all the concrete, office furniture, bodies, turned into a fine dust.
You have to explain how the lower undamaged floors offered no resistance, and the collapse accelerated instead of slowed down.
You have to explain how the momentum of the top section of the South Tower was changed, when no other energy was supposed to be acting on the tower after the initial plane impact and fires, and just before the global collapse.
You still have to explain how a building can fall with all four corners at the same time from unsymmetrical damage and fires on only a few floors.
You still have to explain what caused the visible squibs seen in many videos (and no it wasn't compressed air).

And that's without going into the many other unanswered questions from that day, aside from the buildings themselves.

[edit on 29/4/2007 by ANOK]

Originally posted by piacenza
Was there more fuel on the tanker or on the Airplanes?
Almost the same amount I would guess 10K against 8K and look what a small damage did all this gasoline do...
That actually its a collapse that looks natural for the event.
The asphalt by the way did not pulverize...
Great example for showing us how the WTC could not have collapsed this is probably the definitive proof we needed.
Also notice how the bridge did not explode when it collapsed.
Again thank you for the great service...
8K gallons of fuel and such small damages...Think for your goodness

the amount of gas burning caused the concrete to collapse the structure became unstable. and the world trade centers didnt explode!! the collapsed.

Originally posted by logicaltruth14
the amount of gas burning caused the concrete to collapse the structure became unstable. and the world trade centers didnt explode!! the collapsed.

I will try to make this as simple as i can for you.

911research.wtc7.net...

Since the jet fuel fire was brief, and the building still stood, we know that the composite floor slab survived and continued to function as designed (until the buildings were demolished one or two hours later). After the jet fuel fire was over, burning desks, books, plastic, carpets, etc, contributed to the fire. So now we have a typical office fire. The fact that the trusses received some advanced heating will be of little consequence. After some minutes the fires would have been indistinguishable from a typical office fire, and we know that the truss-slab combination will survive such fires, because they did so in the 1975.

And from what I heard on local news here is there was diesel fuel in that tanker.... Not jet fuel..

So there may be a tad difference between the 2.

Originally posted by ANOK
I don't see how this has any relevance at all.

The problems with the official story don't lie in just the impacts and the fires.

You still have to explain how pieces of the facade, weighing tons, was ejected laterally up to 600 ft.
You still have to explain how all the concrete, office furniture, bodies, turned into a fine dust.
You have to explain how the lower undamaged floors offered no resistance, and the collapse accelerated instead of slowed down.
You have to explain how the momentum of the top section of the South Tower was changed, when no other energy was supposed to be acting on the tower after the initial plane impact and fires, and just before the global collapse.
You still have to explain how a building can fall with all four corners at the same time from unsymmetrical damage and fires on only a few floors.
You still have to explain what caused the visible squibs seen in many videos (and no it wasn't compressed air).

And that's without going into the many other unanswered questions from that day, aside from the buildings themselves.

bla bla de da

Hey when thinking up things to prove their cases, They don't look at the more simple ways of things..

You say CD we say not.. but they don't look at what you stated.

Next up..


[edit on 4/29/2007 by ThichHeaded]


edit: to Include the Actual quoted content]

[edit on 29-4-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by FredT
So lets face it, the scenario of the WTC being brought down by the aircraft impact and resulting fire is spot on. You can look for explosives all you guys want but doesn't this make maore sence?

If you would be so kind as to consider some facts from this video?

I already posted that same video on a different thread. Truthfully we have been through this already. If you all would read the other threads that are only a few days old instead of posting a new thread.

If you wanna get real serious I believe it was SO who posted it 1st.. a long long while ago..

By golly 1st hit on search and this is what i get.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hmm... search is your friend.

Originally posted by Leyla
I already posted that same video on a different thread. Truthfully we have been through this already. If you all would read the other threads that are only a few days old instead of posting a new thread.

I'm aware the video is popular. It occured to me FredT probably hasn't seen it. He feels fuel can bring down steel structures like the WTC, and I provided a counter. What's wrong with that?

Ohhh I can bet he has seen it.. at least 3 times...

Trust me on that.

Eeps sure with all the points he has I'm sure he can find anything on this entire ATM forums with his eyes closed.

*taps foot*

Just what kind of rebuttal do they have for that video?

.....and the world trade centers didnt explode!!

You're right. For the most part, they vaporized. The pictures below certainly could be mistaken for an explosion by the untrained eye, however. But then again, we all know how unpredictable gravity can be...

guardian.150m.com...

guardian.150m.com...

guardian.150m.com...

Originally posted by piacenza
Was there more fuel on the tanker or on the Airplanes?
Almost the same amount I would guess 10K against 8K and look what a small damage did all this gasoline do...
That actually its a collapse that looks natural for the event.

I do not know why I bother sometimes. A 767 has a fuel capcity (max) of 23,980 gallons, most tanker trucks have a maximum of 9000. The tanker truck overturned and burned, it did not impact a at 400+ knots then burn.

The collapse was due to the fire ranging underneath it. It was a reinforced concrete overpass, not a steel structure set up to pancake. Nor did it fall as far as the WTC towers. Fire can and will weaken steel and concrete structures to the point of failure period. Thats what happened here, thats what happened at WTC. Structural failure occured because of a deterioration of the structure secondary to the impact, and further compromise from the fire which ensued from all the office equipment and jet fuel.

Remember that Jet Fuel has more energy that regular gasoline from 119,000 to 125,800 btu/gal and standard gasoline is a bit lower at 114,000 btu's. So we are talking more energy not even factoring in twice the fuel load. More fuel and higher energy content means more heat,

The collapse of the towers as a result of the impact and ensuing fires is far more plausable than the mini nuke theory or any other random pie in the sky theory I have seen floated around. Ask an average civil engineer with experience in large building contructiuon about how and why they building went down.

As I tried to point out, the reinforced concrete structure of the I-80 interchage collapsed without any of the physical trauma of a 500000 lb airline travaling at high speed. It collapsed because its structure was weakend by heat of the fire raging underneath it. Much like the WTC.

It seems, FredT, that most civil engineers form the consensus that fire even by jet fuel, cannot and never has destroyed a steel framed building. It is an absolute fallacy. The WTC (1/2) had been designed to survive multiple impacts from airliners and their ensuing fuel fires.

Max temperature of a jet fuel fire: 1800F. Steel melting point: 2750F.

Further you may want to reconsider if said jet fuel, which mostly burst and exploded externally to the WTC, is capable of causing the bulk of the WTC to sublimate into a 'pyroclastic flow' that covers all of the financial district, leaving behind two stories of rubble in the foot print.

img355.imageshack.us...
Sublimation..

img259.imageshack.us...
That picture shows the debris while WTC7 still stood!

img405.imageshack.us...
Said rubble remains at molten steel temperatures for eight weeks?

Still think jet fuel is this potent?

All sources in Wizard's thread.

I just love the nice sweet voice in that video. So calm, so understanding. She is just saying, please believe me. Im going to give you "facts" and you should welcome them. Planes fly into buildings all the time, when they do this the building is going to be ok. Everything is going to be ok. Just close your eyes and listen to what we say.

Im not making a video an hour and a half long to prove to you people that an when an airplane flys into a build it's going to fall down. Want to know why??? Because I don't have some crazy agenda to makes me want to go through the time and the effort to do so. Want to know what I would give you, 30 seconds, plane hits building, it falls down. If somebody shoots you, your going to be hurt, you might even die. If you jump of a bridge you might get hurt. You people are the reason we have to have warning lables one everything we buy.
To all pilots of aircrafts, warning: If aircraft hit's building it might fall down. Contact fire department.

Guess what? Next time a building gets hit by and airplane and it's on fire, don't worry about it. The stores at the bottom are still open. I think hot dogs are on sale down there, go and try one, there great!

Styki

[edit on 29-4-2007 by Styki]

For one thing, the planes were not fully fueled. They usually put somewhere between 5,000 - 8,000 gallons in for a cross country trip, depending on the type of plane and whether there are head winds or tail winds. They will not put in way way way more fuel than needed because the jet will need to dump most of it before landing. Too much fuel on landing equals too much mass and hence too much inertia... way more than the brakes can handle.

Second, this was a collapse of a beam, not a column. The difference is a column is a vertical support member.

While this example does demonstrate beam collapse quite conclusively, it does not really do much to support the global collapse like what we have seen on 9/11. It is well known that steel structures suffer localized collapse during fire, IE small sections of floor will collapse. This is why buildings have fireproofed steel, to prevent localized collapse. Sagging, warping, and etc are all very well recorded phenomena. Global collapse is not.

Also, i doubt the truck did absolutely no physical damage during the crash.

Nowhere has there even been an example of a global collapse like what we saw on 9/11. NIST attempted to model a scale mock-up floor assembly that ranged for over 30-40 floors, and used spray burners burning twice as hot as the jet fuel fires on 9/11. They could not even achieve a localized collapse, let alone global collapse.

And another thing... What are jet engines made out of? Steel! Controlled burn jet fuel, burning at the pressure/oxygen conditions found inside of a jet engine, burns at temperatures reaching 1700C. The hotter the fuel burns at, the more thrust you get. The fires in WTC were only around 600C.

Why dont jet engines fall off of the planes?


[edit on 4/29/2007 by sp00n1]

Ok say jet fuel caused the collaspe of the wtc 1 and 2 then why didn't the center structure of the wtc stay intact? The center was renforced with steel and concrete.

And on the wtc 7 are you going to blame jet fuel on that too?

Originally posted by SteveR
*taps foot*

Just what kind of rebuttal do they have for that video?

Here ya go, a rebuttle to the fallacy riddled 9/11 mysteries.

www.911mysteriesguide.com...

The video:

Google Video Link

Huge props to The Doc, for making this information avalible in many types of forums.