From Bruce Smith and the A.P. about the Charleston, S.C. fire that killed nine firefighters: "...flames swept across the warehouse... eventually collapsing the roof in a twisted mass of brown steel." Yet another example of weakened steel leading to a building collapse. Since most of you claim this is impossible then I guess Bush perpetrated this too?
2007-06-20 05:17:01 · 15 answers · asked by Scott B 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Nostradamus: don't let facts get in the way of your opinion. I can't even begin to tally the number of times a conspiracy troll has claimed "fire can't weaken steel to the point of collapse." So I'm safe in saying "most". It people like you who spit on the graves of those who died in that tragedy by claiming someone other than mideast terrorists were responsible.
2007-06-20 05:43:37 · update #1
Chimpy: You are really sad, keep believing your fiction, don't let facts keep you from your beliefs.
2007-06-20 05:44:39 · update #2
Deep Blue: unfortuanately no. They are out there...
2007-06-20 05:45:20 · update #3
Brother Shamus" please explain how Bush is "tied to Saudi Arabia", even Michael Moore has had to eat crow on that one. Stop spouting off what read on the net.
2007-06-20 05:46:50 · update #4
MishMash: In any of your examples did jumbo jets filled with gallons of flammable jet fuel crash into them at a high rate of speed? No? Thanks for a pointless retort.
2007-06-20 05:48:16 · update #5
Jason B: You do realize we are on the same side here...?
2007-06-22 05:55:42 · update #6
Ah yes... Check the manufacturer of all that furniture !! Could it be Chinese ?? A plot in coordination with Iran ?? I'd be VERY nervous if it was a "Persian" carpet warehouse !!
I understand your point... I always laughed at the conspiracy-knuts. Just take a look at any pictures of the USS Forrestall or USS Kitty Hawk after an aircraft crashes and thousands of gallons of jet-fuel starts burning... not just the bombs... it melts STEEL !!
2007-06-20 05:26:53 · answer #1 · answered by mariner31 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
First of all, I live in Charleston SC and I know some of those firefighters so I am a bit incensed that you are using their deaths to make your point. In fact I'm kinda pissed. I echo the sentiments of Nostradamus "You stand on the shoulders of the brave dead to make yourself look tall". Shame on you. I also lost my best friend James Arthur Greenleaf jr. in 9/11 (North Tower, Carr Futures), And I am not a conspiracy theorist, however, ithink there may be a difference in the steel used in the World trade Center and that used in the Sofa Superstore warehouse. Its kind of apples and oranges thing. On submarines we used to use an HY-80 steel, now they use HY-100. It's a high yield (strong) steel. There are varying degrees of steel hardness and strength. The steel used in a warehouse isn't as strong or hard as that used in Towers or Bridges. So, actually not a vary good example. Also, hve you seen the pictures of the steel trusses in the warehouse? It looks almost liek aluminum. definatley not the high strength steel the towers were built with.
2007-06-20 23:26:28 · answer #2 · answered by Myles D 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
DUDE!!! I can't believe that people are arguing this. The fire doesn't have to be hot enough to melt steel, just warm enough to make it flimsy. Leave a candy bar on your front seat. You'll notice that it becomes flimsy and soft well before the point at which we call it melted.
Addendum:
It doesn't matter what temp the fuel burns at, ONLY what else was in the towers or the furniture store for that matter that may burn hotter than that. Additionally, it's not demeaning to those firefighters who lost their lives, nor is it to those who died in the WTC. It is pointing out that there are reasons for structural failure, not fanciful and secretive conspiracies involving the government. GROW UP!
2007-06-20 06:08:24 · answer #3 · answered by Jason B 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is a stretch. You are comparing a warehouse to two of some of the tallest buildings in history? I have some examples for you, as well:
New York, 08/05/1970, 50 stories, burns for 6 hours, does not collapse; Los Angeles, 05/04/1988, 62 stories, burns for 3 hours across 4 floors, does not collapse; Philadelphia, 02/23/1991, 38 stories, burns for 19 hours across 8 floors, does not collapse; Venezuela, 10/17/2004, 56 stories, burns for 17 hours across 26 floors (reaches the roof), does not collapse.
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. Still not hot enough to drop two 110 story buildings in 56 and 103 minutes, respectively. Tell me why WTC 1, 2 and 7 are the only skyscrapers in history to be taken down by fire.
2007-06-20 05:39:02 · answer #4 · answered by MishMash [I am not one of your fans] 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The "conspiracy" includes WTC 7 which did no longer get hit via a airplane, consequently no "impression rigidity" and no jet gas. The construction "fell" a number of hours after the crashes, fell into it quite is very own "footprint" and the cement grew to become into pulverized. that isn't what occurred in SF. in case you watch the video of WTC 7 falling you may discover the as a result explosives detonating. what's your clarification for the BBC broadcast with regard to the construction falling with the construction completely visable, in tact, at as quickly as in the back of the reporter, 20 minutes in the previous it fell? evaluate the "after" photographs of the two incidents. for sure one is an unintended partial demolition, the different is a functional, finished, controlled demolition . awaken ! Bush et al had/has an "schedule" the two own and political ! The truck driving force did no longer ! isn't this the comparable bridge that grew to become into structurally compromised via an earthquake a number of years in the past ?
2016-09-28 04:14:37 · answer #5 · answered by courcelle 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The conspiracy exists in Bush Administration ties to Saudi Arabia.
Not in how the buildings collapsed.
***All documentation pertaining to Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11 is classified. We will know some day. Until then, I do hope that we are successful in bringing stability to the Middle East. (I also hope that I am wrong about the Saudis and Bush. But it does seem like they own W. Past favors? I don't know.)
2007-06-20 05:30:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Steal is weakened by high temperatures. The steal used in the WTC was made to last to a certain degree, and when it got hotter than that the steal weakened and collapsed. Besides, wasn't the WTC built in the 1970s? It's not like Bush ordered the building to be made out of weak steal 30 years ago.
2007-06-20 05:22:32 · answer #7 · answered by steelersfan2010 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Conspiracy theorists are loons. May those 9 brave firefighters RIP. God Bless them and their families.
2007-06-20 05:20:25 · answer #8 · answered by melanie 3 · 7⤊ 3⤋
The fruit loop libs blame Bush for everything anyway..
2007-06-20 05:26:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
That's nice, but did the building free fall into its own footprint like the WTC?
2007-06-20 05:23:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 6⤋