Exposions = bombs?

[pepik]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6746017.stm

Yet another example.

Sorry troofers, collapsing structures can sound like an explosion, and fire can cause steel structures to collapse (e.g. Oakland highway).

[Bushwacker]

You don't think it was Peter Hain attacking Hazel Blears with a beam weapon from space then?

[spiv]

Yup, you're quite right pepik, sounds like explosions can be caused by all sorts of things, but they can also be caused by bombs, oddly enough!!

[Mark Gobell]

Pepik - do you know that there was no explosion at Dean Farrar Street ?

Was the Oakland Highway made of steel ?

[Bushwacker]

The Oakland bridge was made of steel, see this article. Quote:
"California Department of Transportation director Will Kempton said intense heat from the flames caused the steel beams holding up the roadway to buckle and bolts holding the structure together to melt. "

No doubt he meant that the bolts softened!

[Mark Gobell]

Dang Bushy, that's got to be the fastest crash investigation in the history of mankind.

Declared on the same day as the event !

Mind you it does remind me of that chap in the baseball cap declaring the same for the twin towers on the morning of 9/11

I take it you'll settle for that detailed forensic report then Bush ?

[Bushwacker]

[Mark Gobell]

Ah, Bushy, you would like to think that the burning fuel tanker had everything to do with the bridge falling down, no doubt in order to protect the idea, so dear to 911 deniers, that fire can cause steel structures to collapse?

There is nothing of substance in your posts Bushy apart from what you consider to be a definitive account of the causes of the overpass collapse, provided verbally to a reporter by a transport manager on the day of the event.

I haven't claimed I know what caused the overpass collapse.

You, however have already made your mind up.

So, who is the one with a preset agenda here Bushy ?

The rest of your post as usual is just an opportunity to have a pop at anyone who may have an opposing view, or disagree with the world according to Bushy.

That's what you do.

That's what you are here to do.

[Bushwacker]

marky, old chap. it was you who asked whether the bridge was made of steel, and in my helpful way I told you that it was, and linked to the article. I am sorry you see that as nothing of substance.

I have never said that I consider the opinion of Dept of Transportation director to be a definitive account of the collapse, have I? You are so keen to attack me that little things like facts are overlooked, rather similar to "truthseekers" who hate Bush, very understandably, and allow that hate to blind them to the reality that there is no evidence whatsoever to link him to the attacks.

Of course it might just be a coincidence that the bridge collapsed just at the time it had a burning fuel tanker on it.

[Mark Gobell]

Perhaps your position would be clear if you would, in your kindly way, explain how a petrol tanker crashing into a bridge support has any bearing on 9/11 then Bushy.

[Bushwacker]

[Mark Gobell]

Appeared to have happened ?

Once we get a forensic investigation as to the cause of the overpass collapse then we'll be able to assess whether the fire was the cause or somethinig other than the fire was the cause.

Until then Bushy, you're just trying to use the comments of a transport manager, made on the day of the collapse, to support your position that hydro-carbon fires can cause steel components in road bridges to fail and then translating this into proof that the same mechanism was the cause of the twin towers coming down, when the world now knows they were blown to kingdom come.

If we cited a building manager as providing evidence to support our case you would be screaming about his lack of suitable qualifications wouldn't you.

As I said, who is the one with an agenda here ?

[Bushwacker]

Now you are getting really silly!

I carefully used the word "appeared" because that exactly describes the situation, the burning fuel tanker appears to have caused the bridge to collapse. That leaves open the possibility, however remote, that appearances are deceptive and the collapse was in fact caused by something else. Just as it appeared that big Boeings crashed into the WTC towers, but some people believe that they did not.

I never at any point said the collapse of the bridge was proof that the same mechanism caused the towers to collapse.

Either you have great trouble understanding the English language, or you are deliberately distorting what I say for your own purposes. I think it is clear which is the situation, distortion and misrepresentation come so naturally to "truthseekers".

"The world now knows [the towers] were blown to kingdom come" Now that is just simply untrue. Even if they were, the world certainly does not know it. Why write a silly lie like that?

[Mark Gobell]

You post in a thread that clearly uses a gas tanker crash to support the notion that only truthseekers do not believe that fire alone caused the collapse of the twin towers.

You ridicule truthseekers as having to cling to idea that fire does not cause steel structures to collapse.

I state this about your case and you deny it.

I then ask you to clarify your position.

You then try and wriggle out of being in support of the idea that the gas tanker fire is in any way related to 9/11

You then accuse me of deliberate confusion.

It may work in your mind Bushy, it doesn't work for me me old china.

You are not the first 911 denier who has tried to associate the tanker crash with 911 Bushy.

The world knows that the twin towers were blown to kingdom come Bushy.

The world saw it with their own eyes.

The fact that some have difficulty admitting this to themsleves doesn't change the fact that the world saw the twin towers explode.

[pepik]

You are a bit lame.

Keep in mind, nobody needs you to admit anything is true or not true. Nobody cares if you deny the sky is blue. You think "the world" knows? Which world would that be then?

The troof movement is going nowhere except up its own arse.

[Bushwacker]

marky, marky, marky, do take your head out of the sand, it makes you look ridiculous. The world certainly does not know the towers were blown up, there is not the slightest evidence for it, it is technically impossible, and no demolition expert, including Danny Jowenko, thinks they were. You may share your delusions with others, but you are not the world or a significant part of it.

As you say, "You ridicule truthseekers as having to cling to idea that fire does not cause steel structures to collapse" I suppose you now accept that fire can cause steel structures to collapse, so why you are arguing so hard that it might not be the tanker fire that brought down the bridge is a mystery, but not a very interesting one.

[Mark Gobell]

So Bushy, you do think the petrol tanker fire caused the steel in the Oakland overpass to fail then ?

[Bushwacker]

[Mark Gobell]

So, I'm guessing here that you base your view on media reports of the Oakland incident.

Gasoline tanker crashes.

There is a fire.

Transport Manager repeats the intense heat diatribe.

Case closed for Bushy ?

[pepik]

You continue to be lame. Please attempt to make a point rather than asking silly rhetorical questions.

[Bushwacker]

[Mark Gobell]

Well, that's hardly critical thinking now is it.

If you live your life by uncritically accepting what you read in the media Bushy, then that's your funeral.

[Bushwacker]

[TmcMistress]

Bushwacker, out of curiousity... you do know there's some fundamental construction differences between an overpass and a building, yes? Just making sure. As far as "OMG U TROOFERS R WRNG" proof goes, this is pretty weak.

[Bushwacker]

[TmcMistress]

You're right... I keep forgetting carpet and copy paper burns hotly enough to deform steel as well. Forward, relevance!

[pepik]

What temperature could a paper fire reach?

And as a bonus question, what temperature is the hottest part of a candle?

[Bushwacker]

[pepik]

Furniture warehouse fire creates '30 Foot Tornado of Flames'

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070619/NEWS08/7 0619002/1001/NEWS

Apparently burning furniture can create large fires and cause a building to collapse.

[rodin]

@ septik & bush*tter

Do you accept the NIST collapse times?

Do you accept the GCSE physics principle that states if a body falls @ free-fall all its potential energy is going into falling?

Do you accept that debris from towers 1 + 2 was ejected both laterally and even up wards as shown in MSM videos broadcast live?

Do you accept there is therefore an energy deficit in the cases of 1 + 2?

Because if you don't we are wasting our time with you. You would argue round was square

Or mebbe I should say a sphere was a square pyramid?