A fuel fire causes structural failure in a prestressed concrete-and-steel structure

[Bill S.]

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/US/04/30/highway.collapse.ap/story.overpass.ap.jpg

CLEARLY, AN INSIDE JOB DONE BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Would anyone supporting the 9/11 "conspiracy theories" surrounding the WTC now kindly Shut Up(TM)?

[Maha Vailo]

ToSeeked (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=977995#post977995), kinda.

- Maha Vailo

[NEOWatcher]

ToSeeked (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=977995#post977995), kinda.

- Maha Vailo
Darn; I pointed the other one here for the serious side, but didn't reciprocate back, because I didn't want to give any potential posters here an idea of how they were being discussed over there... In other words, I was expecting some interesting discussion here.

[Fazor]

Isn't a "real" discussion on this "4/29" conspiracy no longer allowed? Although, I'm failing to catch the tone of the OP here, can't tell if he's serious, sarcastic, or what.

[Groundhog]

I heard there were reports of someone watching the fire yelling "Pull It!" into a walkie-talkie.

[01101001]

Would anyone supporting the 9/11 "conspiracy theories" surrounding the WTC now kindly Shut Up(TM)?

9/11 conspiracies, and refutations thereof, wore out their welcome in this Conspiracy Theories subforum.

See topic: New Change for Conspiracy Theory section: only space and astronomy (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=52887)

[mugaliens]

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/US/04/30/highway.collapse.ap/story.overpass.ap.jpg

CLEARLY, AN INSIDE JOB DONE BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Would anyone supporting the 9/11 "conspiracy theories" surrounding the WTC now kindly Shut Up(TM)?

Awww, you beat me to it! You can read the article, here (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/30/highway.collapse.ap/index.html).

However, before some posts the conspiratist's point of view, let me surmise what it might sound like:

In a veiled attempt to provide "evidence" that the WTC was brought down by heat, and not by demolition charges, a CIA employee, disguised as a trucker, set fire to his fuel truck before fleeing the scene of the accident, in a uniquely problematic section of the Bay Area's highway that will have maximum impact and receive maximum public coverage. Unlike the low-temperature Jet-A involved in the WTC debacle, which wasn't enough to melt anything, the tanker truck was loaded with high-octane automotive gasoline laced with additional oxidants and accelerators to make it burn much hotter than normal. The normal burning temperature of gasoline is between 900-1700 degrees Fahrenheit, while CNN's report cited that temperatures exceeded 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit, clearly indicating that the fuel had been tampered in order to induce failure in the bridge structure. This is nothing more than a poor attempt by the government to convince people that the WTC failure was actually possible.

Now the interesting part - how long will it take for the real CT's to descend here and say, "See? See!"

:shifty:

[Fazor]

Now the interesting part - how long will it take for the real CT's to descend here and say, "See? See!"
They won't because they can't. That's a CT that's forbidden by the new rules of the BAUT CT section (i.e., does not involve space or astronomy).

[Christopher Ferro]

Interesting to see it took 2 years to come 'round (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=31082)...

(see post #8)

CJSF

[Eric12407]

Wonder if the pool of liquid metal will keep burning for weeks after like it did at Ground Zero ... or some adjacent freeway will collapse for no reason. Ha !

[Bill S.]

My apologies everyone; I wasn't aware of the posting rules change.

I shall educate myself and refrain in the future!

[Grashtel]

As has already been noted non-space/astronomy related conspiracy discussion is no longer welcome here, but the Apollo Hoax forum (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com) still allows it and has more active conspiracy theorist posters (along with many of the posters from here).

[Tinaa]

Since this topic doesn't involve space, I've moved it here to OTB.

[upriver]

The comparison to 911 is very Lame.

[sarongsong]

...The normal burning temperature of gasoline is between 900-1700 degrees Fahrenheit, while CNN's report cited that temperatures exceeded 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit...?...Gasoline may ignite from a nearby spark, flame, or even static electricity and become a "fireball" with a temperature of 15,000 degrees F.
City of Bellingham Fire Department (http://www.cob.org/fire/safety/Gasoline/index.htm)

[Gillianren]

You have to admit, 15,000 degrees does indeed exceed 2750 degrees.

[mugaliens]

Even under perfect air-fuel conditions, there's just not enough energy in the reaction of a gasoline-air thermobaric weapon to heat the mass of the air and the fuel to 15,000 degrees.

Even the best thermobaric weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon#Calculations)rarely exceed 5,400 deg F.

The City of Bellingham Fire Department is a bit less well educated that I'd hoped a fire department might be!

However, in a furnace-like environment, such as a burning building can tend to be, the internal temps can, under certain temperatures, become much hotter, but only when the air, and to a lesser extent, the fuel, is pre-heated by the fire itself. Even then, I seriously doubt it exceed 7,000 deg F.

Apparently, the

[Trebuchet]

The City of Bellingham Fire Department is a bit less well educated that I'd hoped a fire department might be!

I wonder where they got that number? That department has pretty recent experience with a major gasoline fire after a pipeline failure in 1999.
link (http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5468)

[Donnie B.]

Wouldn't a 15000 degree fireball be much brighter and whiter than the yellow-orange color we associate with gasoline fires?