Oh look, fire does melt steel! Just bridges, though. Not buildings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us...rssnyt&emc=rss

 

I was going to bring up the same point except I then heard Halliburton had been seen doing some workin the area earlier that night. Kinda makes you wonder?

 

I had the same though, but you forget that the bridge didn't melt. There are not enough facts known about the design of this bridge to start making presumptions. I know many of you are dying to disprove the whole 911 collapse, but you guys need to get more facts on this bridge and how it fell. I also haven't seen any detailed close up photos of the fallen bridge at it's weak points of failure.

 

You know, you are so right. We need a detailed analysis of the grade of steel, the design features, stress points, the type of fuel on the tanker [was 93 octane or only 85], etc...

But, after all is said and done, I'll bet it was refracted luminescence created by a facsimile reflection overload, which as everyone knows would exceed the threshold for load balancing during redistribution protocol. Thereby, dialog transfer through an autonomous subnet would have adversely affected weight repositioning, creating an obvious filtering interface fault.

This is purely speculative at this point.
A video showing little puffs of smoke would help also.

 

please post the video of the smoke puffs.

 

I work for 511 in Oakland California. The 8,600 gallons of unleaded fuel was spread out underneath the overpass and was an open air fire. Meaning it burned as hot as it could without forced air help.

The engineers here state that the steel used in that overpass becomes soft at 1,000 degrees and will melt at 2,800+. The estimate of the fire's temperature was just over 3,000 degrees. Also there was no insulation of any sort around the underside of this overpass. The overpass that the fire was actually burning on was insulated by concrete and asphalt.

The cleanup continues and there will have to be a full inspection of the overpass that remained standing to determine it's structural condition.

 

Wow! You know, Maxwell has a point there...
Get real.

 

If I only had one, then maybe we could link it to the building 7 collapse. Heh, whadya think?!

 

Anychance someone could find a cross sectional blueprint of the Twin towers floor plan lol, and compare that with a cross sectional view of the bay area freeway. Which has more steel in it? I know those bridges are nothing but concrete and rebar, I think the Towers are built stronger with heavier beams than that bridge, but it would require more research, hopefully someone could take up the cause and look deeper into it.

 

I would like to get more detail on how they build these bridges, from what I've seen they are built rather cheaply, and quick.

 

Ya know, that's a gosh darn good idea. I think they should also have a congressional inquiry. OH! ...and hearings, lots of hearings. They love to have hearings.

Cuz you know this administration had something to do with it... and I think I have the answer. This tanker truck "accident" was just another reason to increase the price of fuel at the pump.

I'm not an expert, but I am a thinker.

 

They also planned this to divert attention from Iraq...

 

Since when do they "need" a reason to do that.?

 

Anyone know what temperature that tanker was burning at?

I found some more history on the WTC, turns out there was a huge fire on the 11th for back in 1975, with temperatures reaching in excess of 700*C, goddamn that's hot! And not a single structural failure, ecept the windows where cracking and falling out due to heat, amazing how the Jet fuel in the 9/11 attack didn't even get that hot to break glass, something smells fishy...

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=10613