It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Behavior of steel framed structures under fire conditions.

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 03:34 AM
Here is a link to the article I was talking about where they said they didnt have to replace anything from that overpass..

SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - The portion of the East Bay freeway charred in an explosion three days ago will likely be repaired rather than demolished and replaced, significantly shortening the time the heavily used road remains closed, state transit officials said Tuesday...
...“It doesn’t look right now like we’re going to have to replace it,”Caltrans spokesman Bob Haus said. “We might have to do some straightening, but it looks as if the actual structure is OK despite the scorching.”

I asked the person if they had a link.

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 11:55 AM

Originally posted by PriapismJoe
Were the models hit by airliners doing 500+ mph?

No, but neither was 85% of the towers' structure on the impacted floors, and that's too much structure left for fire to be able to compromise. That's what it comes down to, if you look over the science presented above by the U of Edinburgh study.

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Valhall
Actually, Griff, if you don't mind, I'd like to see the source you pull that time from. There is very good reason for me insisting on where that number comes from.

And thanks in advance!

Don't have a link. Was going from memory and if it's important, don't take my word for it.

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 05:52 PM
I believe it could be real important and I hope you can find where you got that. (Or confirm it might have been anecdotal - either way is okay.) Because I have been unable to find any article or follow up investigative or analytical report that states this time lapse between impact and failure. It's not that I question your word, it's that I have yet to be able to get a definitive answer on this and if you have found it some where I would like to be able to read the source.


posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 07:18 AM
So far, I can only find that the accident happened at 3:45 AM. The original story I read from a post here is missing now.

Here's a video. Looks pretty intense. Much more than the fires at the WTC.

[edit on 8/24/2007 by Griff]

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 07:29 AM
Here ya go Valhall.

Crash - 3:41 A.M.

Collapse - 4:02 A.M.


The single-vehicle crash occurred on the lower roadway when the tanker, loaded with 8,600 gallons of unleaded gasoline and heading from a refinery in Benicia to a gas station on Hegenberger Road in Oakland, hit a guardrail at 3:41 a.m.
Firefighters immediately noticed the upper connector ramp was buckling and seven minutes after they arrived -- at 4:02 a.m. -- it collapsed, Price said. Now there were no more structures threatened, the firefighters' approach shifted.


For some reason the link won't post to the article. I'll keep the article up and scan it if you want. Or I can copy the whole article here.

[edit on 8/24/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 8/24/2007 by Griff]

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 07:31 AM
Well, I've found a video on youtube (I'll find it again this evening and post the link here) where people are recording the fire and make the statement that the impact to the support column caused the collapse. I have im'd the poster of the video asking some questions and hope to get a response from him.

I find it interesting that there is no official analytical report on this incident stating how long the fire burned before the collapse happened. I also find it interesting that not a single news article reporting on the incident states this information either. In fact, most of the articles are almost carbon copies of each other.

I'm not convinced the accident itself did not cause the collapse of the overpass. And until some one proves otherwise I'm leaning that way. It's not going to upset me any to find out I'm wrong, but I'm just not finding any evidence to think otherwise at this time.

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 07:36 AM
Here is the youtube vid I reference above. I don't know how to embed and don't have time to learn right now, so linky linky is what you get.

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 07:59 AM
I'd bet it was the accident itself since it only took 20 minutes. Also with the steel expanding. Definately wasn't melted though.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in