Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by esdad71
All this shows is that steel encased in concrete is weakend in a sustained fire. This is a comparison at best but it should be observed since the WTC had inches of concrete, and we all agree the steel was weakened, and not melted.

Funny, its ok to compare a bridge to the towers but not other steel buildings.

I don't see it that way. We're comparing steel to steel, aren't we?

I understand what you are saying and actually that is what I was thinking. But, you are forgetting that the expansion joint IS where they failed. The only explaination is that the thermal expansion was too much for the joint to handle and the two slabs buckled. Here are some more pictures that show this.



In this one, you can clearly see that the expansion joint in the middle of these two slabs has been forced upward. It kinda looks like tectonic plates does it not?




In this one, we can see that both (actually all 3) failures are at the expansion joints.

You can no more logically compare a bridge collapsing due to fire to a building as you can one building to another. In every situation there's an infinite number of variables that differ in all situations. Using completely different events as evidence to prove something is dishonest.

Any time someone puts forth the "no steel building has collapsed" argument is pushing pseudo-science. It wouldn't hold up academically, it proves nothing. Just as this bridge doesn't disprove anything. It's simply another waste of time and resources.

Even a well written, logical argument comparing the building in Madrid to the WTC's can be "debunked" by someone simply by saying they're different. One sentence writes it off. It reinforces what "truthers" believe and proves nothing to "debunkers". What's the use in preaching to the choir?

This is my new litmus test. If you're a debunker using this bridge as an argument that steel structures can collapse, I don't trust you as much. If your a truther that can't see that a bridge is a structure made of steel and concrete - just like a building and say that you can't compare the two, I don't trust you. Your beliefs are clouding your logic.

This subject is too important for garbage like this to even be brought up.

That support bean DOES NOT LOOK MELTED OR EVEN WARPED TO ME... the vertical one is tilted.

Where is the melting?

And this is from a fire FIVE TIMES AS HOT as at the WTC towers?!?!?!?

Lock the thread... it is toast.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by dbates
The buckling you're seeing is just from the broken piece of roadway when it fell onto the bridge below it.

First of all, I'm not talking about the expansion joint melting anymore and has no relevance to what I'm saying. Also, this is the third time I've said, they failed at the expansion joint due to not enough thermal expansion capacity of the joints. The two slabs expanded and pushed into each other like tectonic plates. Why is this so hard to see? You seem educated enough in expansion joints. The fact that the expansion joint holds minimal loads is irrelavant. The slabs had no where else to go but buckle when they couldn't expand anymore.

I misuderstood what you were saying. You are correct. Also I hadn't seen a good picture of the underside of the bridge and thought the girders were concrete.

Originally posted by DazedDave
I don't see it that way. We're comparing steel to steel, aren't we?

But why is not ok to compare steel buildings to steel buildings ? Evertime i bring up other steel buidlings that have not collapsed the people that believe the official story say i can not use other steel buildings as a comparision.

To reiterate what I'm saying.

Let's assume the spans of the girders are 40 feet. That's 480 in. The coefficient of thermal expansion of carbon steel is 10.8 x 10^-6 in./in. F

So, if we take delta T as 3,000 - 70 (starting temperature) we have 2,930

So, 480 in. x (10.8 x 10^-6)in./in.F x 2930 F = a little over 15 inches. I don't think the expansion joints could accommodate 15 inches of expansion. Also, expansion is not only linear, it's volumetric. Meaning it expands in girth the same as length.

Originally posted by dbates
I misuderstood what you were saying. You are correct. Also I hadn't seen a good picture of the underside of the bridge and thought the girders were concrete.

You were also correct in what you were saying. I think we were just off sinc a little with what each other was trying to get out. I know I'm not always clear on getting my thoughts across.

It's also probably my fault because I did mention the rubber in the expansion joints melting at the beginning of this thread. But, as you pointed out, that would have little bearing on it.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by DazedDave
I don't see it that way. We're comparing steel to steel, aren't we?

But why is not ok to compare steel buildings to steel buildings ? Evertime i bring up other steel buidlings that have not collapsed the people that believe the official story say i can not use other steel buildings as a comparision.

I'm not architecht or anything, but aren't different buildings built different ways? I seem to remember reading that the WTC had a somewhat unique design structure.

I think the only fair comparasion you can make is with a building that has a similar design. Simply using a steel building is as fair a comparasion as using a steel bridge.

I'm not fighting either side, just trying to provoke discussion.

Originally posted by DazedDave
I'm not architecht or anything, but aren't different buildings built different ways? I seem to remember reading that the WTC had a somewhat unique design structure.

I think the only fair comparasion you can make is with a building that has a similar design. Simply using a steel building is as fair a comparasion as using a steel bridge.

I'm not fighting either side, just trying to provoke discussion.

Well when you look at other steel buildings that have had fires burning longer then the fires in the WTC buildings and had severe structural damage as bad or worse then the WTC buildings but still did not collapse it makes you think.

The WTC buildings have been the only steel buildings to collapse from fire and structural damge in the US in 30 years. What are the odds?

[edit on 1-5-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by DazedDave
I'm not architecht or anything, but aren't different buildings built different ways? I seem to remember reading that the WTC had a somewhat unique design structure.

I think the only fair comparasion you can make is with a building that has a similar design. Simply using a steel building is as fair a comparasion as using a steel bridge.

I'm not fighting either side, just trying to provoke discussion.

Well when you look at other steel buildings that have had fires burning longer then the fires in the WTC buildings and had severe structural damage as bad or worse then the WTC buildings but still did not collapse it makes you think.

The WTC buildings have been the only steel buildings to collapse from fire and structural damge in the US in 30 years. What are the odds?

[edit on 1-5-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Well to be fair, they did kinda get hit by airplanes.

Originally posted by DazedDave
Well to be fair, they did kinda get hit by airplanes.

But the airplanes did not cause the collapse (please read NIST and FEMA reports). The buildlings had structural damage from the planes. But as stated before and i will state again, their have been buildings with longer burning fires and had suffered severe stuctural damage and did not collapse. Please look at the buildings aroud the towers like buidlings 5 and 6. They were closeer to the towere and suffered more stuctural damage and fires and they did not collapse.

I can show several other steel buildings that had fires burning far longer the the WTC buidlings and had structural damage but did not collapse.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But as stated before and i will state again, their have been buildings with longer burning fires and had suffered severe stuctural damage and did not collapse. Please look at the buildings aroud the towers like buidlings 5 and 6. They were closeer to the towere and suffered more stuctural damage and fires and they did not collapse.

I can show several other steel buildings that had fires burning far longer the the WTC buidlings and had structural damage but did not collapse.

So? So what? Those steel buildings don't have the variables that the WTC's did. None of them where as tall and none of them had jumbo jets fly into them, just to name a few. Maybe the contractors that built the WTC's were shoddy and covered it up. As I stated before and it was ignored, you can't compare one building to another, just like you can't compare a bridge to a building. It's not academically sound, it's not even logically sound.

Even if there were explosives in the buildings, this argument does nothing to prove it. Not to anyone that already doesn't believe a controlled demolition brought down the towers anyway.

Originally posted by PistolPete
So? So what? Those steel buildings don't have the variables that the WTC's did. None of them where as tall and none of them had jumbo jets fly into them, just to name a few. Maybe the contractors that built the WTC's were shoddy and covered it up. As I stated before and it was ignored, you can't compare one building to another, just like you can't compare a bridge to a building. It's not academically sound, it's not even logically sound.

But as NIST and FEMA reports state the planes impacts did little structural damage to the towers. Also the the jet fuel (what was left after the intial explosion) burned off quickly so basically the fires in the towers were just office fires.

So actually we can compare other steel building fires to the towers and building 7 (that had no plane hit it)

this just helps " cement " that fire can help cause a collaspe , and did .
in s.f and at the wtc .

[edit on 5-5-2007 by gen.disaray]