I thought a fire couldn't melt steel?
2007-04-29 10:38:15 · 7 answers · asked by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
LOL...The fact that fire CAN melt steel is precisely my point kids. The 9/11 conspiracy theorists deny that fact in their argument that the planes crashing into the Towers could NOT have created a hot enough fire to melt the steel in the infrastructure. This tanker crash makes that point.
2007-04-29 10:50:11 · update #1
The tanker did catch fire, my friend. Early estimated temperatures at around 2000 degrees. CNN...less than 1 hour ago.
2007-04-29 11:18:54 · update #2
LOL..... I noticed that too. I wonder if Blabbermouth (Rosie) has ever been told the truth about what is "possible".
Of course Bush will be blamed for that accident. The left blame Bush every ill in this world!
2007-04-29 10:46:05 · answer #1 · answered by Bosspooba 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
2 things
what was the tanker hauling?
different flam. liquids burn at different temp.
and what was the mass and thickness of the steel?
am pretty sure the steel on the bridge was just bolts holding the concrete together.
unlike the huge 3+ inch THICK interlaces beams of WTC.
an overpass is not a world class skyscraper
It is kinda like comparing a fish trawler to a cruise ship.
have a good one though
2007-04-29 10:51:23 · answer #2 · answered by Paul D 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Get your head out of your butt. As for fire melting steel, how do you think the from steel?
2007-04-29 10:46:43 · answer #3 · answered by vagpenisdude 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Steel didnt melt. Bridge was crashed into, not melted. Check your facts and turn on the cerebrum.
2007-04-29 10:57:17 · answer #4 · answered by V 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
If you don't understand a question, DON'T ANSWER IT! How hard is that to do?
2016-11-30 11:42:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds logical to me, lol.
2007-04-29 10:52:57 · answer #6 · answered by The Nana of Nana's 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Please wake up. Don't drink any more of that red kool-aid.
2007-04-29 10:44:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋