|
|
Topic started on 30-4-2007 @ 08:54 AM by DazedDave
|
www.msnbc.msn.com...
Flames on a lower ramp melted the upper deck of a highway on the Oakland/Emeryville side leading to the double-decker Bay Bridge that connects the
heavily populated East Bay to San Francisco. As the steel structure weakened, a concrete slab fell onto the ramp below.
Seemingly off topic but not really. I read on here many times that fire can't cause the collapse of a steel structure...But here is an example of it
doing so. I'm not experienced in physics or structural architechture though, so if someone could maybe explain this a bit better it would be
appreciated.
|
copyright & usage
|
Click here for more 9/11 Conspiracies topics
Hot Topics
|
Top Topics
|
This Week
|
Subscribe
|
Home
|
reply posted on 30-4-2007 @ 09:44 AM by primamateria
|
I just read about this in the Melbourne Age. He are the first few pars..
A stretch of highway near the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge has collapsed after a petrol tanker crashed and burst into flames, a loss that
officials say could disrupt traffic for weeks, if not months.
Flames shot 60 metres in the air and the heat was intense enough to melt part of the freeway and cause the collapse, but the truck's driver walked
away from the scene with second-degree burns.
No other injuries were reported in the 3.45am (1645 AEST) Sunday crash, which officials said could have been deadly had it occurred at a busier
time.
"I've never seen anything like it," Officer Trent Cross of the California Highway Patrol said of the crumpled interchange. "I'm looking at this
thinking, 'Wow, no one died' - that's amazing. It's just very fortunate."
The first thing I thought after reading this is that it is a stunt designed to give credibility to the official 9-11 story where jet fuel and fire
melted the structural. That is just my gut instinct, however even discounting that intuition, the event and story as a standalone incident still seem
a bit odd.
My basis for this is that:
1. If you design a highway, wouldn't the first thing be that you would make sure it could withstand burning petrol from cars or trucks or tankers
after accidents.
2. Driver walks away with 2nd degree burns, noone else injured.
3. While there is some detail about the alleged heat caused by the burning petrol, it does not say how long it took to melt the steel enough for it to
collapse.
From the same article...
The tanker carrying 32,000 litres of petrol ignited after crashing into a pylon on the interchange. A preliminary investigation indicated the
driver may have been speeding on the curving road, Cross said.
Witnesses reported flames rising up to 60 metres into the air. Heat exceeded 1,510 degrees Celsius and caused the steel beams holding up the
interchange to buckle and bolts holding the structure together to melt, leading to the collapse, California Department of Transportation director Will
Kempton said.
The charred section of collapsed freeway was draped at a sharp angle onto the highway beneath, exposing a web of twisted metal beneath the
concrete.
www.theage.com.au...
I am very interested to hear more thoughts about this too, especially in regard to whether highways are safe anymore if petrol can cause them to
collapse, or whether this is a huge anomaly or if there is something more sinister going on.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-4-2007 @ 09:47 AM by nyk537
|
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. 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-4-2007 @ 10:09 AM by TeslaandLyne
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 30-4-2007 @ 10:20 AM by primamateria
|
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...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-4-2007 @ 10:27 AM by Pootie
|
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]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-4-2007 @ 10:29 AM by antar
|
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...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-4-2007 @ 10:33 AM by Pootie
|
Heat exceeded 2,750 degrees and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound Interstate 580 above to buckle
and bolts holding the structure together to melt, leading to the collapse, California Department of Transportation director Will Kempton
said./
The NIST, FEMA, PM, NOVA NEVER reported temps ANYWHERE NEAR 2,750F as far as I have read. 482F is what the NIST said from their testing...
NIST examined more than 170 areas on the steel recovered from the Twin Towers for evidence of fire exposure (NCSTAR 1-3, p. xli). Only three of
these 170 locations indicated temperatures above 250 C, and according to NIST, one of these three locations appeared to have experienced temperatures
above 250 C after the collapse. According to NIST (wtc.nist.gov...), the steel was selected specifically from the
areas that experienced fire and impact damage, included all 14 grades of steel used for the exterior columns and two grades of steel used for 99% of
the core columns, and was adequate for estimating the maximum temperature reached by the steel.
[edit on 30-4-2007 by Pootie]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-4-2007 @ 10:36 AM by ChiKeyMonKey
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-4-2007 @ 10:36 AM by andy1033
|
totally different situations, you can hardly compare a building like wtc1,2 to a overlap road.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 30-4-2007 @ 10:37 AM by crowpruitt
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-4-2007 @ 04:06 PM by Griff
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-4-2007 @ 04:48 PM by crowpruitt
|
Once again I learned something new from Griff,Thanks Griff.  
[edit on 30-4-2007 by crowpruitt]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-4-2007 @ 05:32 PM by ULTIMA1
|
Originally posted by nyk537
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".
Well for 1 you need to do some basic research. Jet fuel does not burn as hot as gas. You should also read more of the NIST and FEMA reports.
911research.wtc7.net...
Since the jet fuel fire was brief, and the building still stood, we know that the composite floor slab survived and continued to function as
designed (until the buildings were demolished one or two hours later). After the jet fuel fire was over, burning desks, books, plastic, carpets, etc,
contributed to the fire. So now we have a typical office fire. The fact that the trusses received some advanced heating will be of little consequence.
After some minutes the fires would have been indistinguishable from a typical office fire, and we know that the truss-slab combination will survive
such fires, because they did so in the 1975.
[edit on 30-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-4-2007 @ 05:36 PM by mirageofdeceit
|
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???????
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-4-2007 @ 07:48 PM by Griff
|
Actually good point. We don't know how much creep this particular structure has gone through.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 30-4-2007 @ 08:26 PM by FiFiLaBush
|
"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
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-4-2007 @ 09:37 PM by esdad71
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-4-2007 @ 09:47 PM by Leyla
|
Originally posted by DazedDave
www.msnbc.msn.com...
Flames on a lower ramp melted the upper deck of a highway on the Oakland/Emeryville side leading to the double-decker Bay Bridge that connects the
heavily populated East Bay to San Francisco. As the steel structure weakened, a concrete slab fell onto the ramp below.
Seemingly off topic but not really. I read on here many times that fire can't cause the collapse of a steel structure...But here is an example of it
doing so. I'm not experienced in physics or structural architechture though, so if someone could maybe explain this a bit better it would be
appreciated.
Ok listen up kids I will say this only once hehe. Well you realize it was a overpass and not a building. Less steel and more asphalt. I saw the fire
on tv and it WAS intense. Unlike the fire on 9-11. Sure there was a fire ball for a few moments then dissipated. The fire on the overpass was a
inferno. If the WTC had this same type of fire- I would be sure the building would have collaped but perhaps not in the same way as it did on 9-11.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-4-2007 @ 10:07 PM by squidbones
|
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. 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
