English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

How could a freeway melt by having just gasoline burn? Burning Jet fuel could not bring down the WTC unless controlled demolition was used. Somehow George Bush is trying to discredit WTC demolition theories by melting a bridge

http://origin.insidebayarea.com/argus/lo...

2007-04-29 10:02:34 · 8 answers · asked by nullgateway 2 in Science & Mathematics Engineering

8 answers

Come on guys how many times we got to go through this?
It has been asked and answered at least a dozen times.
Don't waste UR time with the past. Focus on the present.

Best Regards.

2007-04-30 20:43:42 · answer #1 · answered by ? 5 · 0 0

I agree with you, WTC must not collapse freeway, and also 80% Jews must not be absent on the same day.
It was a well cooked spicy food of justification to attack on Muslims and reshape the world as per new world order.

High rise buildings are made most light weight and tensile materials, that can bear the load of upper few floors easily if collapsed, but rest of the floor must not be collapsed freeway, unless every column is not exploded by remote control bombs.
And all the structural vertical supports would not had been melted at once, so when one side is melted earlier than the other, it must over turn rather than freeway collapse.

2007-04-30 01:55:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

The WTC became no longer taken down by potential of controlled demolition. for added info on demolition specialist centers, demolition methods and projects pass to Dallas Contracting Co., Inc. internet site

2016-12-28 04:02:59 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

conspiracy yes, but wrong guess. it was the petroleum industry. 8000 gallons was a small price to pay for now being able to sell twice that amount extra to commuters every day for several months. San Francisco has the highest gas price on the west coast, this should push it over $4 gallon because of the increased 'demand'.

2007-04-30 09:57:13 · answer #4 · answered by lare 7 · 1 0

Don't be stupid, There's something called fire-protection insulation that is sprayed on all exposed metal structures in a building. Metal is susceptible to heat from a fire, and can be distorted enough to compromise its structural load bearing specifications. Only an idiot says fire cant effect steel, how do you think metal is even created, a blast furnace!
People should at least try to educate themselves before making statements that are based on stupidity!

2007-04-29 10:12:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Is this the best he could do in response to Rosie's claims, just more discomfort for the world around him?

The American people better take lessons from the pro-amnesty students who prove their convictions by mass unity and protest. (btw no one is opposing them either of those who disagree)

2007-04-30 15:34:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Total rubbish. Gasoline sets fire to things, and you are completely discounting updrafts.

Accelerants used in arson attacks can cause fires that reach in excess of 1000 C, and not the 300C or so usually quoted for the still air combustion temperature of gasoline.

2007-04-29 10:10:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

ROSIE...is that you?

2007-04-29 12:25:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers