Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(911Blogger)   Panicky 9/11 truth nutjobs debate Oakland gas tanker incident, see their WTC conspiracy theories collapse as quickly as that highway did   ( divider line
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

19551 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Apr 2007 at 3:55 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

589 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all

2007-04-30 10:15:57 PM  
Jeez, comparing a B-25 to a B-52 would be like comparing a 110 floor building collapse to a bridge collapse or something.

/just sayin
2007-04-30 10:19:57 PM  
studebaker hoch

Oh so now you're going to say the Spanish build better buildings than we do?

The WTC used an innovative technique that allowed the building to have large open spaces without a lot of supporting columnns taking up space through the use of trusses connecting to a central elevator column. The building also employed tension to keep itself standing upright and to give it strength.

In office space the more total usable floorspace you have in a building the more money you get. Especially when you factor it into a 110 story building.

This Spanish building appears to be a more traditional construction. Yes, it is a stronger building. I'll leave you to make the argument that stronger = better. Unless you're a Civil E with extensive experience in high rise construction and an indepth knowledge of the pros and cons of various construction methods...


/thinks bush is the worst prez ever.
//but this is just silly
2007-04-30 10:21:44 PM  
Hmmm so I wonder....

At the WTC, the steel was over some very long spans. All the way from the utility core to the outer wall. Lot of heat, not much deflection required to pop the bolts at the edge connectors. Gravity does the rest.

At the Bay Bridge interchange, much the same...steel spanning a long distance, sags a bit in the middle, which is enough to move it off the supports.

I think one could clearly say that, based soley on those observations, that the CIA obviously sabotaged both structures to strike fear into a population reluctant to start an oil war.
2007-04-30 10:24:35 PM  
So I'd say that we'd better watch out for long-span steel, and check for fire hazards?

It's cool, those big spans are dramatic, but steel has a serious achilles heel when it comes to heat.

Two words: progressive collapse George Bush.
2007-04-30 10:24:59 PM  
I think one could clearly say that, based soley on those observations, that the CIA obviously sabotaged both structures to strike fear into a population reluctant to start an oil war.

Now you're just making fun of yourself.
2007-04-30 10:25:02 PM  
fight the real terrorists:
2007-04-30 10:25:58 PM  
this thread delivers
2007-04-30 10:26:56 PM  
WTC 7:

As reported by the New York Times,[6] the building had had some extreme renovative work done to it in 1989 to accommodate the needs of a new major tenant, the brokerage firm Salomon Brothers. Most of three existing floors were removed as tenants continued to occupy other floors, and then more than 350 (US) tons of steel were added to construct three double-height trading floors. Nine diesel generators were also installed on the fifth floor as part of a back-up power station. "Essentially, Salomon is constructing a building within a building - and it's an occupied building, which complicates the situation," said a district manager of Silverstein Properties. The unusual task was possible, said Larry Silverstein, because it was designed to allow for "entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors."[6]
2007-04-30 10:27:59 PM  
OH wait....

/just sayin
2007-04-30 10:31:54 PM  

Now you're just making fun of yourself.
2007-04-30 10:33:48 PM  

Leave WTC 7 out of it. There will be another thread for actual conspiracies.
2007-04-30 10:37:28 PM  
The steel doesn't have to melt; it just has to weaken.

Add in the fact that everything is built by the lowest bidder - possibly using the minimum quality steel available - and you have a collapse. Never mind that they say "never has there been a steel-structured building collapse solely from fire" when a FARKING PLANE CRASHED INTO EACH TOWER. That's not "solely from fire." And where did the collapses start? Why, right where the planes impacted. Those farkers can PLAN - even hit a building right on target, matching up with the supposed explosive charges. Impressive, that.

And there are photos of Building 7 that show a large chunk missing from one corner - far from "untouched." 300 feet isn't very far when you're talking about a plane crash and the collapse of two 110-story buildings.

Look at Popular Mechanics. All your debunking needs can be met right there.
2007-04-30 10:38:06 PM  
I would bet (no basis, this is out of my ass just based on looks) that the madrid fire was hotter, and spread out over a bigger area.

And yet, no earth-shattering kaboom?

The WTC got lit faster, the Madrid tower burned hotter, longer and over a bigger area.

And it wasn't built even remotely the same, beyond a goal to make it stand up. It had a concrete central core, waffle slabs instead of solid concrete slabs for each floor, and it DID collapse above the floors that hadn't been retrofitted during a remodeling. It stopped, oddly enough, at the floor that extra fire protection had gone up to at that point.

What you seem to be missing is that the steel buckled just like the WTC, and the round columns you see around the edges are reinforced concrete providing a vertical load support in the middle of each floor (your pictures). Those were absent in the WTC. The floors did not share the vertical load the same as the WTC, nor did the perimeter support, which in the Madrid hotel failed just as surely as in the WTC.

Maybe we're not explaining our position correctly? I can throw a cement safe into a coal fire for five hours and a metal safe into a wood fire for three hours. If I expect the same result, then there are about 100 factors I don't take into account. You can point to that building and say it didn't collapse beyond the halfway point, but if you don't acknowledge anything about how it was built then you aren't really proving a point. I may as well point out my fireplace doesn't melt EVEN THOUGH IT'S IRON OMFG! Or that my wood house could easily collapse in less than an hour depending on the fire.

Also, really, comparing the load on a 110 story building at 70-90 stories is not the same as comparing the load at the 17-20th floor of a 32 story building, particularly if the buildings aren't anywhere close to size in a cross sectional area on any given floor. If anyone adhered to such thought (as I'm sure we used to), you'd never have buildings that large. Haven't you ever wondered why old large skyscrapers get smaller as they go up?
2007-04-30 10:42:38 PM  

Oh so now you're going to say the Spanish build better buildings than we do?

/if Fark came in rocks I would smoke it.
2007-04-30 10:47:58 PM

/still standing
2007-04-30 10:50:46 PM  
This is nothing new. The same thing happened a few years ago on I-95 in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Took something like a year to rebuild the viaduct.
2007-04-30 10:50:50 PM
2007-04-30 10:55:59 PM  
studebaker hoch: Oh so now you're going to say the Spanish build better buildings than we do?

I really can't tell if you are stupid or just having fun, so I'll be nice (I'm guessing you are having fun):

Depending on when and where a building is built, the design will be different. Depending on that design and what happens to it, its failure will be different.

There are huge differences in how big buildings are built the world over. I lived in Asia for a few years and was struck, quite honestly, at the amount of poured concrete structures used for apartment buildings. Turns out it's the best for the humid environment and the rain up to a certain level. It's also cheaper. Steel is not cheap the world over.

No one builds better buildings than anyone else. We build them for our own purposes, period, and we all do a good job at it. No one built the WTC so planes could run into it anymore than someone built the Madrid building so it could catch on fire.
2007-04-30 10:56:12 PM  

/still standing

Yeah, but you know they lost their cleaning deposit.
2007-04-30 10:59:44 PM  

Maybe you can get Firefox and Farkode as an extension so you can make a popup link in the thread? Do some work! Farkode still works!

And if you aren't going to explain your links, what the hell are we looking at?
2007-04-30 11:05:06 PM
2007-04-30 11:06:42 PM  

I really can't tell if you are stupid or just having fun, so I'll be nice (I'm guessing you are having fun):

Do you wanna start the "demolition charges" images, or should I?
2007-04-30 11:06:54 PM  
Clearly, some of the military-grade termites used in the WTC sabotage got loose. Those suckers have an appetite for steel. The tanker truck and resulting fire were obviously a desperate attempt to exterminate them.
2007-04-30 11:19:10 PM  
I can just see the ticket the driver's going to get:

1) Speeding - 4 points
2) Failure to control vehicle - 6 points
3) Total destruction of interstate freeway interchange - 8,000,000 points.

/I hope you know that this will go down on your permanent record.
2007-04-30 11:28:55 PM  
I love it how lajaunie and Herr Konditioner both make one comment and then disappear.
2007-04-30 11:32:59 PM  
Anybody that reads this far down in the thread receives...


(-3 charisma)

For the record I think this was the work of Count Chocula,

god people, it's Oakland, news is when somethign doesn't blow up. Anyone remember the gas explosion in Walnut Creek like a year back?
2007-04-30 11:38:54 PM

/touched elchip, but not in that way
//though theres nothing wrong with that
2007-04-30 11:47:19 PM  
way up these comments somewhere, someone (herr konditioner?) asked why the WTC neatly collasped in its own footprint. I'm sure it's been covered (too lazy to read this whole thread) but a building as tall as the WTC can not fall down sideways or tip over or anything. The structure is just too farking massive and too tall to do anything other than fall into its own footprint. I forget the exact number but skyscapers can only lean over something like 26 feet or something like that, then they'd fall, they can't tip over.

/take a physics class sometime
2007-04-30 11:48:30 PM  
You know, I often look at the images of WTC debris and try to identify things, and I can never do it. Just support-column steel, and the prefab side panel steel. After that it's all just metal.

/And one serious-looking cat.
2007-04-30 11:51:48 PM  
studebaker hoch: Do you wanna start the "demolition charges" images, or should I?

I haven't the time or the connection at home to do so.

Guess I didn't really have the time to read the whole thread, either.
2007-04-30 11:54:10 PM  
Clearly you haven't tried modeling this with 1/4 inch chicken wire. If you did, you would know that only thermite charges could weaken the support structures to the point that it falls on its exact footprint. see, youre right, it would tip over to 28 feet, but here it didnt tip. It didnt get tipsy, like ev'rybody in the club. getting tipsy.
2007-05-01 12:04:50 AM  
I didn't see any melted steel on that bridge like I did at the WTC, and I didn't hear of any reports of melted steel on that bridge that was still hot weeks after the bridge fell down.

I did hear that the fire the truck started had open air to use as opposed to the WTC where the air flow was restricted.

For those who think this has any effect on the possibiblity of melted steel at the WTC---you need to go try to melt some steel in your back yard.
2007-05-01 12:10:23 AM  
rofl - I donno which was funnier - the guy who hinted that this whole thing was misinformation/disinformation to help weaken their conspiracy theories - of the guy who sugegsted that this was intentional because they were going to have to demolish both sets of overpasses anyway.

It's always fun when the tin foil hats are on too tight...
2007-05-01 12:18:30 AM  
btw, thanks elchip for posting #2740663. wow that's funny.
2007-05-01 12:28:06 AM  

...this was intentional because they were going to have to demolish both sets of overpasses anyway.

That's GOOD.
2007-05-01 12:33:50 AM  
Probably already been posted but:

YouTube video of the freeway fire
2007-05-01 01:09:52 AM  
You guys are seeing something I don't see. I don't see any melted steel on the roadway. I see bent steel. Anybody see any melted steel or reports of melted steel? Anybody see any pools of melted steel still hot weeks after the event?

Where's the melted steel all you farkers are talking about? Should be tons of melted steel from this bridge when compared to the WTC---the WTC had lots of smoke and a confined space to restrict air flow and temperature, yet still managed to melt steel and have it be in pools weeks later---where is the corresponding melted steel on this bridge?

Whre's the melted steel?
2007-05-01 01:35:59 AM  
I have seen a lot of CTs posting the "cut beams" pictures. I think that the claim is that the beams were cut by thermite or explosives. If that were the case then there should be specks of steel all over the columns and the edges would be melted smooth. The beams in the pictures were either cut with a saw or sheared off. My guess would be that they were cut as part of the debris removal process.
2007-05-01 01:39:12 AM  
Many posters have well said that steel does not have to melt into a liquid in order to cause structural failure. So the "melt" issue is a red herring on the part of the "truthers."

General Sherman, for one, figured out the usefulness of simply heating steel to the failure point about 150 years ago.

First, heat the rails by using the railroad ties for a fire

Then bend the shiite out of them

More Here

And this was done by burning wood; I wonder how he would have fared by ramming them with airliners loaded with tons of volatile fuel.
2007-05-01 01:46:41 AM  
Glad to see everybody shot down Mercutio's misinformation quickly. The B-25D that hit the Empire State was vastly smaller and lighter than the 9/11 aircraft, and perhaps more importantly it was on the approach to New York Municipal airport (now La Guardia airport).

In other words, it was almost certainly low on fuel, particularly when compared to the near fully fuelled, much larger 9/11 aircraft.

Even then, it still took 45 minutes to extinguish the fire according to contemporary reports.
2007-05-01 02:18:34 AM  
dearest truthers,

pretty please?

/i'm so anti-bush it hurts
//but you people are friggin morons
2007-05-01 02:23:25 AM  
Damnit... I got sucked into the retard vortex.
2007-05-01 02:28:09 AM  

The planes that hit the WTC didn't start out fully loaded with fuel. They were only going across country which was about one third of their range. They only carry the fuel they need and some extra in case of emergency. The planes also used part of this third to fly the routes they flew before hitting the WTC, so being generous when they hit the buildings they had about 20% of their fuel left. Of that 20%, most of it was ejected in the giant fireball seen in the videos. Then smoke and a restricted space would have kept temperatuires down.

There was melted steel at the WTC, and reports of steel STILL in melted pools weeks after the WTC attack. Why wasn't the steel on this bridge melted? The bridge had a much better chance of melting steel than the WTC since ehe WTC had restricted airflow and lots of smoke to bring the temperature down. Why no melted steel on the bridge?
2007-05-01 02:46:55 AM  
enki40: Sorry, I misspoke - I meant "near fully fueled for the segments they were on" - ie. they were near the start of their flights, not right at the end as in the case of the tiny B-25D that hit the Empire State Building.

As for the rest of the nonsense in your post, quite frankly I can't be bothered playing "point out the tinfoil hat brigade's nonsense" right now. You're going to believe what you want, no matter what logic dictates.

My point was to show yet another glaring flaw in the misinformation posted by Mercutio. I'll let the others debunk the rest.
2007-05-01 03:34:00 AM  

You only succeeded in pointing out your own ignorance of the facts.

As to asking questions, it seems your only answer is derision. Another indication of your ignorance.

You are batting a thousand.
2007-05-01 03:42:17 AM  

Only a widdle bit of fuel actually burned in the WTC towers? Really? Most of it popped out in that fireball, huh? You got a source for that info other than your ass?

You're not forgetting that several floors chock full of those yankees' papers and crap were also combusting, right?
2007-05-01 03:44:19 AM  
Is the Fark server on the moon? Man this page loads slow.
2007-05-01 03:49:57 AM  
Patty McG

As stated--the planes only had about 20% of the fuel when they hit the buildings, and the big fireballs can be seen by anyone who looks at the videos. When the fuel tanks ruptured that fluid flowed with great force and a bunch went out the windows. Yet there was melted steel at the WTC.

Yet at the bridge ther was no melted steel that I see---do you see melted steel?

Do you think "several floors chock full of those yankees' papers and crap were also combusting" will melt steel?
2007-05-01 04:34:06 AM  
enki40: You're funny. :)

/doesn't the tinfoil chafe?
2007-05-01 06:25:47 AM  

Dude you are just making things up

only 20% fuel in the tanks
most of the fuel burned immediately

Both of these things you just made up on the spot. How do you know that you are not completely wrong without doing any research?

I demand that you explain how you get all the people involved in this conspiracy to go along with it. How do you find a group of more than say, 5 people, who would be willing to kill 3000 of their fellow Americans. I can assure you that this conspiracy would involve way more than 5 people so I do not see how it would even be possible carry it out even if the Bush administration wanted to.

Posting this I can guarantee you that enki40 will never answer this very important point. The reason is that it is impossible to explain away. This question alone can never be overcome by the CTs.
Displayed 50 of 589 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.