The overpass collapse is a conspiracy!

I'm going to say what everybody is thinking about the fuel truck overturn. It's obviously a government black-op. Come on, do they really want us to believe that fuel can melt concrete and collapse the overpass? It melted, and concrete has a melting point of 1800-2500 C. I doubt a little fuel truck fire could get that hot to totally collapse the overpass. The only explanation was this was a large government blackop, to proove that the WTC could've collapsed. Micronukes anyone?!

Well I never saw the video yesterday.
is there a link to the video anyone knows of?
but either way it in now way debunks 9/11 conspriacy
not in a million years

You see, the problem with the whole theory about fire melting concrete is..well its just wrong. I have even performed a demonstration that clearly shows that the only thing that could have brought that bridge down was..brace yourself for this..United States mininukes. It is also my completely researched and partially unfounded hypothosis that the truck was nothing more than hologram machines put in place by the reptillian overlords. The "heat" that people felt was produced by non lethal weapons put on humvees that no one saw.

The fire is this case is does not need to melt concrete or steel, the collapse could be due to a little thing called "thermal expansion" and may have taken the bridge, which isn't designed for a massive increase in delta T (temp), to failure.

The failure mechanism therefore being cracking (major) and microcracking of the concert, making the entire structure weak and possibly even splitting the concrete into pieces.

Sidewalks even have thermal expansion gaps to avoid section to split (as well as for ease of manufacture). The forces on a constrained rigid structure being exposed to large increased temperatures are HUGE.

Now the bridges designers allow for thermal expansion, but only for a normal temp increase from a hot hot summer day, along with a factor of safety applied. This allowance would not be sufficient to allow for large temp increases.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by greatlakes]

*Removed entire quote of previous post*

Great Lakes,

WHat on this earth is wrong with you. You did not post with histronics, Drama, out of control emotions. Did you go to public school but managed to overcome the handicap??

No conspiracys mentioned in your post either. Only logical reasonable concepts which can be followed with relative ease. Shame on you ...you need to be run back through the machine for reprogramming!!

Obviously you dont need the red pill.

Great Lakes ....you will never survive on the evening news formats or in the newspapers...you are to logical and reasonable. Everyone knows drama sells more copy.

Thanks for your post and views,
Orangetom

Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by sanctum]

Originally posted by greatlakes
The fire is this case is does not need to melt concrete or steel, the collapse could be due to a little thing called "thermal expansion" and may have taken the bridge, which isn't designed for a massive increase in delta T (temp), to failure...The failure mechanism therefore being cracking (major) and microcracking of the concert, making the entire structure weak and possibly even splitting the concrete into pieces.

The fire would have barely damaged the concrete itself in the bridge structure, but the localised heat generated by the fire would have radiated through the concrete and affected the mild-steel rebar.
As Greatlakes pointed out, thermal expansion and jointing are taken into account in the structural design, but not the thermal expansion of the embedded steel reinforcement cages. As these become heated, they expand and buckle creating internal fracturing of the concrete matrix and the structure is no longer able to support its own dead-load.

no conspiracy

en.wikipedia.org...

www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

Concrete will melt at several thousand degrees (IIRC approximately 3,000 to 3,500F). The temperature of burning fuel can rise to the same temperatures.
No conspiracy here.

If the tanker tuck fire/explosion was staged event,

it was probably not to reflect in any way with the WTC twin towers collapse

A staged and conspired event like that (If it was staged) was most likely directed as a show of how the public infrastructure is an open target for terrorist operations...
...recall how NYC tunnels & bridges were promoted as logical
follow-up targets immediately after the 9-11 attacks,
the PTB repeatedly warned/forecasted tanker trucks as mobile weapons
in the similar manner that passenger jets were commandeered by those
mostly Saudi, Wahhabbist/Jihadist/anti-western militants, intent on accomplishing a spectacular attack inside the US homeland

the answers are right here

www.infowars.com...

[edit on 1-5-2007 by junglelord]

If you do not believe in coincidences (I do not) then you would have to ask "why" the only section on the bridge that was not renovated after the Loma Priea earthquake? Did funding run out? Is this some ploy to finish the job? I don't know, you have to pick and choose your conspiracies, but this one smells wrong. It may not be just cut and dry.

There have been several reasons put forth as to why they didn't finish the bridge reconstruction, all of which could be true:

- lack of funds
- political graft
Both of these are rampant in California and have been for a very long time.

And lastly, it was believed that they realized that the part that needed to be replaced was on very shakey ground, having been built on top of sandbars and sunken ships. And that's wehre the bridge collapsed.
Of course it would have happened on the unfinished section of the bridge, it was the weakest point.
And, they were never the most stable freeways in the world, either.

See my previous post and read the links. It is entirely possible that the fire melted the concrete. There is no conspiracy here that I or anyone else can find.

Originally posted by antar
If you do not believe in coincidences (I do not) then you would have to ask "why" the only section on the bridge that was not renovated after the Loma Priea earthquake? Did funding run out? Is this some ploy to finish the job? I don't know, you have to pick and choose your conspiracies, but this one smells wrong. It may not be just cut and dry.

Come on guys, you don't have to go ANYWHERE near the melting point of steel to weaken it.

All you have to do is heat it up until some of the reinforcing bars expand a little too far for the concrete, the concrete then crumbles, and everything collapses.

I'm sick of people who know NOTHING about engineering making retarted claims about steel melting... you don't have to melt the damn steel to bring a structure down, you just need to heat it until it either warps, expands too far, or becomes pliable enough for the weight to fold it.

When you're talking hundreds of tonnes of weight, it doesnt take much heat to get it to that point.

Close this thread before the whole conspiracy movement is shot down in flames of much embarrassment.

Originally posted by forestlady
There is no conspiracy here that I or anyone else can find.

i think the point was that there are people that dont believe that the fires in teh wtc could have caused the steel to fail so the govt set this tanker on fire under a steel and concrete structure and made sure the bridge failed to get people to believe that if it happened here it couild have happened in the wtc.

or i could be wrong and putting words in peoples mouths in which case i just need to go back to bed

as for me personally, im jsut glad no one including the truck driver was killed

well the way I see it, is the rubber/neoprene expansion joint melted end of story

Clearly, it was a micro nuke that collapsed the overpass. The tanker truck was remote controlled to crash at that exact point. The micro nuke was detonated right after the crash.

But, the real kicker is there is a recording of several people saying it sounded like a bomb. Therefore it had to be a micro nuke.

Of course the firemen were over heard saying pull it.

Originally posted by Damocles

Originally posted by forestlady
There is no conspiracy here that I or anyone else can find.

i think the point was that there are people that dont believe that the fires in teh wtc could have caused the steel to fail so the govt set this tanker on fire under a steel and concrete structure and made sure the bridge failed to get people to believe that if it happened here it couild have happened in the wtc.

or i could be wrong and putting words in peoples mouths in which case i just need to go back to bed

as for me personally, im jsut glad no one including the truck driver was killed

Yes, I get the point. It is useless to compare the two, though, because JET fuel burns at 500-600F, much lower temps than does regular fuel, which is several thousand degrees F. Concrete melts at those temps.
The airplane that hit the WTC couldn't have caused the damage that there was, it wasn't hot enough.

And, rememeber, folks, that spot was already weakened from the Loma Prieta earthquake and never reinforced.

To add to the possible thermal expansion failure mechanism is the rebar building techniques employed in construction of buildings, bridges etc. The rebar is sometimes constructed under tension (large force) while embedded in the concrete. This helps with the sag / loads experienced by the structure and pretensions the entire span be it a bridge or any unsupported span.

Not sure if this was employed here but just food for thought.

Originally posted by greatlakes
Not sure if this was employed here but just food for thought.

Pretty much all concrete structures will have reinforcement bars as a standard format of construction. Whilst concrete is an excellent material for compressive loads when constructed as a column, it is liable to cracking under tensile loads when used as a beam even with the addition of rebar

This site gives a good overview of how these types of concrete bridge-structures are built

Conspiracy perhaps, but what happened to the tanker truck? After reading the story and thinking about it I'm beginning to see some obvious things that seem to lack explanation or common sense to it all. While it can be debated why the freeway collapsed due to the fire, I'm actually looking for answers on the following:

1: Where is the tanker truck?
2: How do cars manage to drive through the flames?
3: Why is the fire limited to a small area?
4: Why did the driver call a cab to get to the hospital, not 911?

For further explanation and analysis on these questions, I've started the thread here titled: Where is the tanker truck?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If anyone can help with some explanations, please do, because these specific questions are really bugging me.