For those believing a conspiracy brought down three skyscrapers on 911, see what a gasoline fire did to a major highway in Northern CA.

[Cellblock2429]

It isn’t just the heat, it’s the stress. All one member has to do is to weaken just a little bit and it throws a different load on other parts than they were designed to carry. Failures cascade as loads shift resulting in disaster.

/——/ Tell that to the 911 deniers who claim the WTC was bright down with hundreds of explosions perfectly timed.

 

[AZrailwhale]

/——/ Tell that to the 911 deniers who claim the WTC was bright down with hundreds of explosions perfectly timed.

I've tried to reason with them before and gave it up after months of trying to explain why they were wrong. Now I just figuratively smile, pat them on the head and say that's nice like I would to a toddler. Arguing with them is like mudwrestling with a pig, all you do is get dirty and tired and the pig enjoys it.

 

[Resnic]

We have posters posting that believe that a missile hit the Pentagon and that the skyscrapers came down to planted explosives. We all know that the airplanes burst immediately into massive flames and that it was the flames that took out the skyscrapers. But to see the picture where you see the massive power of flames on steel and concrete, watch this video and let me know if you still think there was a massive conspiracy in NY City on 911 and the Pentagon as well. This was one Tanker truck filled with Gasoline that crashed a major freeway and the bridge as well.

That road is black topped. black top is a bi product of petroleum, so it will burn.

Once it begins to burn it is going to ruin the structural integrity of the bridge. A bridge can collapse from the right weakness in the right spot, but in this cause the whole thing was burning so it became one giant weak spot.

On the other hand twin towers had like 500,000 yard of hardened concrete with a massive amount of 200,000 tons of steel beams creating its structure.

The towers also had integrity based on vertical strength while the bridge was based on horizontal strength. It's hard to knock down a tower than it is a bridge due to how they are designed. Something horizontal like a bridge will collapse easier because it has a weaker integrity due to only having supports instead of a solid base under the whole thing.

I'm not arguing a conspiracy theory, I'm just arguing your comparison is very flawed and inaccurate. You aren't comparing apples to apples.

 

[Robert W]

That road is black topped. black top is a bi product of petroleum, so it will burn.

Once it begins to burn it is going to ruin the structural integrity of the bridge. A bridge can collapse from the right weakness in the right spot, but in this cause the whole thing was burning so it became one giant weak spot.

On the other hand twin towers had like 500,000 yard of hardened concrete with a massive amount of 200,000 tons of steel beams creating its structure.

The towers also had integrity based on vertical strength while the bridge was based on horizontal strength. It's hard to knock down a tower than it is a bridge due to how they are designed. Something horizontal like a bridge will collapse easier because it has a weaker integrity due to only having supports instead of a solid base under the whole thing.

I'm not arguing a conspiracy theory, I'm just arguing your comparison is very flawed and inaccurate. You aren't comparing apples to apples.

The Tanker truck does not nearly the weight of airliners almost full of fuel. I suggest you read the engineers reports on the towers falling down. Also on the Bridge, did you watch the video I supplied?

 

[Cellblock2429]

That road is black topped. black top is a bi product of petroleum, so it will burn.

Once it begins to burn it is going to ruin the structural integrity of the bridge. A bridge can collapse from the right weakness in the right spot, but in this cause the whole thing was burning so it became one giant weak spot.

On the other hand twin towers had like 500,000 yard of hardened concrete with a massive amount of 200,000 tons of steel beams creating its structure.

The towers also had integrity based on vertical strength while the bridge was based on horizontal strength. It's hard to knock down a tower than it is a bridge due to how they are designed. Something horizontal like a bridge will collapse easier because it has a weaker integrity due to only having supports instead of a solid base under the whole thing.

I'm not arguing a conspiracy theory, I'm just arguing your comparison is very flawed and inaccurate. You aren't comparing apples to apples.

/—-/ This argument started with Rosie O’Donnell after 911, when she screeched : “Steel don’t melt.”

 

[AZrailwhale]

That road is black topped. black top is a bi product of petroleum, so it will burn.

Once it begins to burn it is going to ruin the structural integrity of the bridge. A bridge can collapse from the right weakness in the right spot, but in this cause the whole thing was burning so it became one giant weak spot.

On the other hand twin towers had like 500,000 yard of hardened concrete with a massive amount of 200,000 tons of steel beams creating its structure.

The towers also had integrity based on vertical strength while the bridge was based on horizontal strength. It's hard to knock down a tower than it is a bridge due to how they are designed. Something horizontal like a bridge will collapse easier because it has a weaker integrity due to only having supports instead of a solid base under the whole thing.

I'm not arguing a conspiracy theory, I'm just arguing your comparison is very flawed and inaccurate. You aren't comparing apples to apples.

Skyscrapers are designed to be just strong enough. Steel costs money and modern design methods cut redundancies to the minimum. All it took for the towers to fall was ONE joint weakening and shifting its load to another in a way the other wasn't designed to resist, then a cascade failure would result. Steel doesn't need to melt to weaken.

 

[Mac-7]

/——/ Tell that to the 911 deniers who claim the WTC was bright down with hundreds of explosions perfectly timed.

You have a point

It does not prove conspiracy, but it does raise questions

 

[AZrailwhale]

That road is black topped. black top is a bi product of petroleum, so it will burn.

Once it begins to burn it is going to ruin the structural integrity of the bridge. A bridge can collapse from the right weakness in the right spot, but in this cause the whole thing was burning so it became one giant weak spot.

On the other hand twin towers had like 500,000 yard of hardened concrete with a massive amount of 200,000 tons of steel beams creating its structure.

The towers also had integrity based on vertical strength while the bridge was based on horizontal strength. It's hard to knock down a tower than it is a bridge due to how they are designed. Something horizontal like a bridge will collapse easier because it has a weaker integrity due to only having supports instead of a solid base under the whole thing.

I'm not arguing a conspiracy theory, I'm just arguing your comparison is very flawed and inaccurate. You aren't comparing apples to apples.

I drove over that bridge a few times. If I remember correctly, it was poured concrete, not asphalt. Most highway bridges and overpasses are concrete since the roadway is part of the strength box of the bridge. Offhand, I can't remember ever seeing a highway overpass that was paved with asphalt.

 

[Robert W]

That road is black topped. black top is a bi product of petroleum, so it will burn.

Once it begins to burn it is going to ruin the structural integrity of the bridge. A bridge can collapse from the right weakness in the right spot, but in this cause the whole thing was burning so it became one giant weak spot.

On the other hand twin towers had like 500,000 yard of hardened concrete with a massive amount of 200,000 tons of steel beams creating its structure.

The towers also had integrity based on vertical strength while the bridge was based on horizontal strength. It's hard to knock down a tower than it is a bridge due to how they are designed. Something horizontal like a bridge will collapse easier because it has a weaker integrity due to only having supports instead of a solid base under the whole thing.

I'm not arguing a conspiracy theory, I'm just arguing your comparison is very flawed and inaccurate. You aren't comparing apples to apples.

t

Serious question.

Where is the video of the plane that hit the Pentagon?

There are many videos of the planes that hit WTC, but none of the one that hit the Pentagon???

There are photos of airplane parts from the crash of the airliner into the Pentagon. It is difficult to film objects up close moving at 530 mph. But witnesses saw the airplane hit the Pentagon so we have written testimony from them.

 

[Robert W]

I drove over that bridge a few times. If I remember correctly, it was poured concrete, not asphalt. Most highway bridges and overpasses are concrete since the roadway is part of the strength box of the bridge. Offhand, I can't remember ever seeing a highway overpass that was paved with asphalt.

I have also driven over that road where the Tanker crashed so many times to be frank, there is no way to know how many times I was there. In fact not there but at another bridge on the same highway I was part of the construction crew that drove piles to support the overpasses.

 

[Cellblock2429]

t

There are photos of airplane parts from the crash of the airliner into the Pentagon. It is difficult to film objects up close moving at 530 mph. But witnesses saw the airplane hit the Pentagon so we have written testimony from them.

/——/ Those 911 deniers will never accept it.

 

[DukeU]

t

There are photos of airplane parts from the crash of the airliner into the Pentagon. It is difficult to film objects up close moving at 530 mph. But witnesses saw the airplane hit the Pentagon so we have written testimony from them.

Extremely hard to believe there's no video of the plane hitting the PENTAGON.

 

[whitehall]

Lest we forget the first attack on the World Trade Center happened on Clinton's watch and the good ole boy dismissed it as "a stupid act by stupid people" and dismissed it and so did the media. God only knows what the CIA or the FBI were working on at the time but the same jihad extremists gang attended flight school in Florida while Clinton was busy bombing a defenseless country in Europe to deflect attention from his peculiar sexual appetite.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Extremely hard to believe there's no video of the plane hitting the PENTAGON.

/—-/ there is and has been available for 23 fu*king years. Get your head out of your azz.

 

[DukeU]

/—-/ there is and has been available for 23 fu*king years. Get your head out of your azz.

Show it.

 

[Robert W]

Extremely hard to believe there's no video of the plane hitting the PENTAGON.

Parts of the airplane that hit the pentagon

 

[DukeU]

Parts of the airplane that hit the pentagon

Yep that is definitely an airplane part, thanks.

Where is the video?

 

[Robert W]

Yep that is definitely an airplane part, thanks.

Where is the video?

What is that building burning and do you believe those parts were put their for fun?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Show it.

/——/ Look it up on YouTube. I’m not your gopher.

 

[DukeU]

What is that building burning and do you believe those parts were put their for fun?

Buildings only burn when planes hit them? LOL


I really don't know, TBH.

Just seems rather suspicious that there is no video.