So if the planes could not have taken down the WTC.....

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Tanker truck fire didn't melt steel or collapse bridge.

Ummmmmm, did you not look at the pictures of what occured on Sunday? Follow the link, the overpass did collapse and im sure you can find plenty of pictures and news about the ensuing traffic nightmare

Originally posted by Griff
Notice the lower bridged road didn't pancake down to the ground. Just something to think about.

Yes, but its structure is different and the loads a different than at the WTC.

You did not have structural damage from an impact for the upper roadway, nor was the upper roadway way under ANY load from above as was in the WTC. So the bottom roadway only had to absorb the impact from one section, not multiple floors.

Also, all of these structures surrvived and were further retrofitted the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and are failry robust structures

[edit on 4/30/07 by FredT]

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Tanker truck fire didn't melt steel or collapse bridge.

Ummmmmm, did you not look at the pictures of what occured on Sunday? Follow the link, the overpass did collapse and im sure you can find plenty of pictures and news about the ensuing traffic nightmare

ummmm... did you look at the previous posts?
TEMPS are all wrong for comparison...

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.

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.

How many hours did it burn for? Anyone?

Pootie,

In your post here, you say:

It is considered to be FACT by those on both sides of the argument that hydrocarbon fires cannot MELT steel.

And yet, here we have a hydrocarbon fire melting steel. This incident clearly proves you to be wrong in making that statement.

Originally posted by nataylor
And yet, here we have a hydrocarbon fire melting steel. This incident clearly proves you to be wrong in making that statement.

Melting and softening are different. No flow, no melt. I do not see flowing or dripping STEEL. If something were melting or flowing, it could very well be alloy bolts as stated in one of the original articles..

IT IS ALL MOOT THOUGH because of the TEMPERATURE of the fire... The fires in WTC 1 and 2 were ONE FIFTH AS HOT AT MAX according the the NIST.

End of discussion really. As far as "hydrocarbon fires", gasoline/diesel that is acting essentially like a blowtorch in this case, burning a focused, narrow flame straight at the target metal and using convection currents to induce air will reach MUCH HIGHER TEMPS than if the tanker slammed into something at 400, dispersed the gas and it burnt out in an enclosed building and exterior fireball almost instantly.

End of invalid comparison.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Pootie
ummmm... did you look at the previous posts?
TEMPS are all wrong for comparison...

Chill I was getting to you

Heat exceeded 2,750 degrees and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound

Even if it did not (which many posters adhere to like a new religion) lower temperatures will and can cause structural failures in steel. I never said the steel melted, but was weakened enough to allow collapse which is what happened here. Please note as well, that the upper roadway was not subject to any impact damage

NIST examined more than 170 areas on the steel recovered from the Twin Towers for evidence of fire exposure (NCSTAR 1-3, p. xli

No comparison...

Will have to run that one by my dad, a Civil Engineer and familiar with large scale steel structures

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.

Heat sink or not, you still have as you say heat being applied to a relativly small area of the structure. yes, I know the overpass failed quickly but as you point out, optimum burning conditions and concentration in one area. BUT, aside from the fuel and the truck and the asphalt which in the pictures did not burn too far on either bridge portion, there were no other combustable materials. The WTC however being an office was packed to the gills with combustable material. having been through the Fire Acadamy before I became a nurse, I have seen, faught, and gone over the science of fires and that type of fire can and does burn hot.

The structure as I have pointed out was sound. It survived an major earthquake and had been retrofitted to current standards

- 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.

How does it 'blow" Its important. you guys seem hell bent on ignoring the fact that the structure suffered sign. damage from the impact itself putting it in a already weakened condition. But when you analuize the fire etc, it seems you make assumptions and base finding on an intact structures.

- 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.

No there are none and I have seen these overpasses and driven on them firsthand. But the impact of the planes could have easily blown off the insulation on the steel in the WTC. The insulation IS not cement, its more of a foam like substance and for fun our hospital has some stairwells that have the insulated beans exposed and you can chip the stuff off. Its fire retardant, not a structural element.

By most estimates the fire burned for 2 hours because with the bridge already down and no structures threatened the fire department let it burn itself out. I think the collapse took 18 minutes. but I have not seen an offical estimate. WTC burned for a bit longer than that. Plus had signifigant structural damage of its load bearing structure that would allow it to fail in less extreem condition than we say at the bridge

Originally posted by PootieMelting and softeing are different. No flow, no melt.

You said hydrocarbon fires can't cause steel to melt. The story about the bridge (which you have quoted) says that the bolts melted. Therefor, you are wrong.

Originally posted by FredT
SteveR in regards to the WTC being designed with multiple impacts in mind in seeing interviews with the main designer of the WTC, he indicated the building was designed for the biggest civilian aircraft at the time the Boeing 707. The aircraft was far lighter than the 767 that hit the tower (707 empty weight 103145 , 767 empty weight 164800)

Yes, it made a difference. The 767 punched through.

In no way does this lend credence to that impact and the fuel fire dropping a WTC.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by PootieMelting and softeing are different. No flow, no melt.

You said hydrocarbon fires can't cause steel to melt. The story about the bridge (which you have quoted) says that the bolts melted. Therefor, you are wrong.

OK... you have bad logic...

1. Originally, it was being reported STEEL WAS MELTING AT THE WTC. Later that story was backed off from and it was "weakened". Melted = LIQUID.

2. Who said the bolts were STEEL? Cold be an alloy that melts, remember LIQUID, at a lower temp.

3. You do not have enough information to make the assertions you are making. Find me a picture of FLOWING or LIQUID METAL then we will know at least that SOMETHING melted... then you would need to show it was the same grade or better of steel used in the WTC...

In summation.. no chance, bad comparison, see the REST of the details above that you have so conveniently ignored....

[edit on 30-4-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by SteveR
[Yes, it made a difference. The 767 punched through.

In no way does this lend credence to that impact and the fuel fire dropping a WTC.

Not really, it both towers absorbed the impact and if they punched through the core completly the building would have collapsed outright.

How does this not lead credence. For years peopel have been going on that there is no way the fires and the impact could have brought down the structure. Yet Sunday a steel structure that had nowhere near the load that the damaged floors and none of the structural damage of the WTC failed. I think its pretty darned relevant IMHO

Originally posted by Pootie

In summation.. no chance, bad comparison, see the REST of the details above that you have so conveniently ignored....

I'm not talking about any other details. I'm not talking about the WTC at all. I am talking about the blanket statement you made that hydrocarbon fires can't melt steel. The story reports there was melted steel at the bridge. Therefor, your statement is wrong.

Originally posted by FredT
Chill I was getting to you

Just debating with vigor.

Originally posted by FredT
Even if it did not (which many posters adhere to like a new religion) lower temperatures will and can cause structural failures in steel. I never said the steel melted, but was weakened enough to allow collapse which is what happened here. Please note as well, that the upper roadway was not subject to any impact damage

Steel will be weakened by 2,750F fires... that is true. I have no idea how those temps were achieved in this case. All I can guess is that the shape of the flame was very focused creating air currents that were essentially inducing O to make it burn VERY hot OR Al or another metal used to construct the tanker was also burning. Just an educated guess... The fires in the WTC WERE NOT LIKE THIS AT ALL according to ALL SOURCES. News, Gov't, CTers, Firemen... everyone.

Originally posted by FredT
Heat sink or not, you still have as you say heat being applied to a relativly small area of the structure. yes, I know the overpass failed quickly but as you point out, optimum burning conditions and concentration in one area. BUT, aside from the fuel and the truck and the asphalt which in the pictures did not burn too far on either bridge portion, there were no other combustable materials. The WTC however being an office was packed to the gills with combustable material. having been through the Fire Acadamy before I became a nurse, I have seen, faught, and gone over the science of fires and that type of fire can and does burn hot.

Heat sinking is VERY important to this topic as that metal member or members on the bridge probably was not connected to thousands of other members allowing for heat transfer and "cooling" of the focus area. Steel is a conductor of heat... more well connected steel, less localized heat. Sure an office fire can burn hot, BUT AGAIN... max temps at WTC were no more than 500F. PERIOD. This is according to the NIST and FEMA.

Originally posted by FredT
The structure as I have pointed out was sound. It survived an major earthquake and had been retrofitted to current standards

Relevance?

Originally posted by FredT
How does it 'blow" Its important. you guys seem hell bent on ignoring the fact that the structure suffered sign. damage from the impact itself putting it in a already weakened condition. But when you analuize the fire etc, it seems you make assumptions and base finding on an intact structures.

I am only assuming ONE THING that the max temps the NIST provided are in fact correct. They wanted them to be as HIGH as possible for their purposes and only published < 500F. This fire was FIVE TIMES AS HOT, focused, open air and on a MUCH smaller structure. No comparison.

Originally posted by FredT
No there are none and I have seen these overpasses and driven on them firsthand. But the impact of the planes could have easily blown off the insulation on the steel in the WTC. The insulation IS not cement, its more of a foam like substance and for fun our hospital has some stairwells that have the insulated beans exposed and you can chip the stuff off. Its fire retardant, not a structural element.

The blown off insulation argument will never be proven or disproven. We would have to assume that even on the impacted floors that the planes did not come into contact with much of the insulation if we are going to be reasonable. BUT, this is a topic that I don;t want to pursue... It is NOVA's guess vs. my guess.

Originally posted by FredT
By most estimates the fire burned for 2 hours because with the bridge already down and no structures threatened the fire department let it burn itself out. I think the collapse took 18 minutes. but I have not seen an offical estimate. WTC burned for a bit longer than that. Plus had signifigant structural damage of its load bearing structure that would allow it to fail in less extreem condition than we say at the bridge

The point was not how long the residual fires lasted but how long the FUEL FED fires lasted. If you went to fire academy... you tell me, fight a raging gas fire or burning paper, carpet, etc.? I will take the latter even though a lot of it is burning plastic resins (reil).

Originally posted by nataylor
I'm not talking about any other details. I'm not talking about the WTC at all. I am talking about the blanket statement you made that hydrocarbon fires can't melt steel. The story reports there was melted steel at the bridge. Therefor, your statement is wrong.

Open air hydrocarbon fires cannot melt steel.

Why do you think steel is produced in O inducted forges?

Without preheating or pressurization a FUEL/paper/wood/etc. (hydrocarbon) fire will not exceed 1517 degrees...

Someone is wrong: a reporter, a thermometer, an editor... someone because there was no forge there.

Originally posted by Pootie
Someone is wrong: a reporter, a thermometer, an editor... someone because there was no forge there.

OK, fair enough. Someone must be wrong. I suggest it is you.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by Pootie
Someone is wrong: a reporter, a thermometer, an editor... someone because there was no forge there.

OK, fair enough. Someone must be wrong. I suggest it is you.

On what grounds? Find me a document showing that an open air hydrocarbon fire can burn at a temp > 1517F without "special circumstances" (re: Air induced through thermal draft, insulation, NON-hydrocarbons burning (Al, Mg, etc...))

How are you so certain that STEEL was LIQUEFIED (RE: MELTED)? A reporter said so? We have been there before.

yeah lets get bogged down with semantics :shk: melted, liquified, stretched whatever. Look the heat caused the steel structure to fail of the overpass to fail. Heat and structural damage caused the WTC to fail. Not sure whats so hard baout this.

FredT, while I admire your OP and give a nod to your intention, it's a fruitless topic. The entire MO of the 9/11 conspiracy theorist is to mutate facts into convenient half-truths or out right false-hoods. The only way 10% of them will be able to fathom the idea that our government was not responsible for 9/11 would be if another comparable building was destroyed in the same fashion. I applaud what you are trying to put out there; structural integrity, not melting, can cause steel to collapse. Somehow this argument is not good enough; yet they are willing to believe that hundreds upon hundreds of black ops personell wired two of the tallest buildings in the world for a top to bottom demolition to win public support for war. Never before has such an incident made so many physics professors out of so many laymen.

Originally posted by PartChimp
FredT, while I admire your OP and give a nod to your intention, it's a fruitless topic. The entire MO of the 9/11 conspiracy theorist is to mutate facts into convenient half-truths or out right false-hoods. The only way 10% of them will be able to fathom the idea that our government was not responsible for 9/11 would be if another comparable building was destroyed in the same fashion. I applaud what you are trying to put out there; structural integrity, not melting, can cause steel to collapse. Somehow this argument is not good enough; yet they are willing to believe that hundreds upon hundreds of black ops personell wired two of the tallest buildings in the world for a top to bottom demolition to win public support for war. Never before has such an incident made so many physics professors out of so many laymen.

What does ANY of this diatribe have to do with a collapsing overpass due to fire and comparing it to the WTC fires and steel?

More backhanded insults in BOLD.

I like how you worked the old "It would take too many people" argument in there too.

I also like how you imply a top to bottom demolition is not possible. KUDOS TO YOU for adding unrelated junk to this thread.

Debunker heaven today.

So, how does this tanker crash show us ANYTHING other than fire can weaken steel? which is a fact no one is arguing against.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by FredT
yeah lets get bogged down with semantics :shk: melted, liquified, stretched whatever.

Stretched = weakened...
Liquid = melted...

Huge difference and also huge temperature delta for those two occurrences.