You will see two kinds of responses on this.

One - This proves that fire could, in fact, have led to the fall of the WTC buidilngs. That it could have melted the steel. This scratches one of the major points of the 9/11 conspiracy groups points right off the board. A devestating blow to the conspiracy community of 9/11.

Two - The ramp was blown by the government so that people would be thrown off of the 9/11 conspiracy because people were getting too close to "the truth".

I'll tell you which one I believe.

It isn't Two.

The steel should be intact.

The roadway expanded and caused the collapse.

It happens all the time.

Nothing new here.

Just keep the thermite and thermate away from perhaps any metal.

Even worse: Tesla's high voltage high frequency low amperage one
wire light bulbs denigrated into the aether every thing he ever put on top
of the wire. See it on the net as he told the British in 1892.

Have fun today everyone.

Thoughts on option 1:

Makes sense but by verifying that petrol can melt steel and crumble concrete, what does this say about the design of all our major highways since surely this would be a scenario (burning petrol and truck accidents) that would leap to mind first in regards to safety and structural integrity.

**** i just had an idea...

One possible way to settle the 9-11 debate for sure.

If time and money were no consideration, why not build exact replicas of the trade towers somewhere (making sure all substructures and geographical elements were also recreated exactly) and fly 2 planes into them (same make and model of those claimed by the official reports) in exactly the same locations, loaded up with crash test dummies, flown remotely and see what happens?

Just me thinking aloud there guys...

Originally posted by Pootie
No comparison...

- The small amount of steel (comparatively) does not make for much of a heat sink, unlike the towers which were enormous heat sinks.

- The bridge fire was "focused" on a small area, probably right under the WEAKEND beam.

- It was "open air" and had plenty of O to burn at the highest possible temps.

- It does not appear that most of the fuel at the bridge burst into a HUGE fireball that almost immediately burned it all off as we saw at WTC 1 and 2.

- If the damaged tanker was still holding the fuel, it would have burned many times linger than the planes that exploded instantly spilling/burning the fuel.

- the above stated "speed of impact" argument blows... since the planes hit going so fast, the fuel would have dispersed/atomized/"spread out" FAR more quickly than a "damaged" fuel tank. I am sure we can agree that the speed of the planes would ahve spread the fires further wand there would have been a more disperse yet less intense fire.

- there is no fireproofing on highway bridges as far as I know.

- There are no fire suppression systems on highway bridges as far as I know.

- Where is the pancake collapse of the lower bridge?

How many hours did it burn for? Anyone?

[edit on 30-4-2007 by Pootie]

STOP using the term "Melt" incorrectly as some of these stories are... I see no MELTING. Weakening, maybe, but NOT MELTING. Same old same old...

[edit on 30-4-2007 by Pootie]

Good point it is very likely they will push the fact that the melted steel caused the collapse of the 911 there by ending many conspiracy theories surrounding the issue. For some that is...

Originally posted by primamateria

**** i just had an idea...

One possible way to settle the 9-11 debate for sure.

If time and money were no consideration, why not build exact replicas of the trade towers somewhere (making sure all substructures and geographical elements were also recreated exactly) and fly 2 planes into them (same make and model of those claimed by the official reports) in exactly the same locations, loaded up with crash test dummies, flown remotely and see what happens?

Just me thinking aloud there guys...

Sure and then after that we could fly in to space find a big ass rock and throw it at the Earth and see how many people die just to prove that a rock did kill off the dinosaurs.

Dude, keep thinking outside the box, just not so far!

I've just seen the fotage of the tanker burning, that was one hell of a fire. I wouldn't have thought exploding tankers would be a the front of a civil engineers mind, but times are'a'changing. The driver is one lucky boy.

totally different situations, you can hardly compare a building like wtc1,2 to a overlap road.

This still doesn't explain how the 90+ floors below the impact zone came down.IMO those 90+ floors would have held up if indeed the fires brought down the floors ABOVE the impact zone.

Originally posted by Griff
Here is a typical expansion joint for a bridge deck.

It is actually 2 pictures combined. In the bottom picture, you can see what a typical expansion joint looks like. Notice that the material that bridges (pun intended) the steel is rubber. What would "melt" first. Steel or rubber?

From the other thread.

Once again I learned something new from Griff,Thanks Griff.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by crowpruitt]

Well, with it being in San Fran, who is to say the last earthquake or two, or three, and tremors etc.. didn't weaken it, and this was the straw that broke the camels back???????

Actually good point. We don't know how much creep this particular structure has gone through.

"Why did the California overpass collapse from a fire burning under it? "

It may have collapsed but it did not evaporate into dust!

Stop wasting time
1000s are dying

It's time to bring the real murderers on 9/11 to justice

The fire actually shows that in a small amount of time that steel can weaken. it was also less than hit the WTC. As far a starving fire, there was plenty of fresh air bieng sucked in and psuhed out of hte upper floors.

the reason that it did not collapse into dust is that is was not a 100 story on ramp. The building was also not designed to withstand multiple hits, that is a comment from DeMartini in an interview, not the designer or architects. That building swayed in the wind everyday for almost 30 years, sometimes feet at a time, so there was plenty of stress on the buildings in comparison to Earthquake damage.

However, the earthquake reference made me think. Steel would not be damaged, but there would be cracks in concrete. That would lead us to believe that the concrete covering the steel was damaged, right? I am sure if it is it will come out becayuse after major events like that they have to check the integrity of existing structure. So, would this not lead us to believe, that with only 6 inches of concrete in the floors, it would not also have weakned and failed with 40 stories on top of it.

i saw video of the fire. This is very relivent to the 9/11 conspiracy debate, mostly in that it proves that fire can melt the steel. I do not know if there was an initial explosion from the truck but the driver did surrive. What I find most interesting is the pre colapse footage, you can see the thing sag like mad.

The collapse is comparable to that of a 90+ story building coming down. When the stories started to come down on 9/11 the buildings steel was weaked by fire and the force of the building broke them. It would be like a building made of spagetti, and you put it in boiling water and it collapses. Steel melts. We now have proof. Finally.

How long untill some one says that the whole thing was a set up by the gov to descredit the 911 truth people.