Did Schwarzenegger Demolish Bay Bridge Interchange?

Found this on the internet and thought it might be interesting to discuss. I am not into conspiracies that much so will hold my comments until later.

For starters

Source


A gasoline tanker caught fire underneath an offramp from the San Francisco Bay Bridge this morning, causing a 250-foot section of the overpass to collapse. That's what they want you to believe, anyway.

Let's look at the facts in the manner taught us by our nation's foremost civil engineer and demolition expert.

-- The overpass was made of concrete and steel rebar. This would mark only the 4th time in history that fire has melted steel. The first 3 of course trace back to the morning of 9/11, when - the government would have you believe - burning jet fuel miraculously managed to weaken steel to the point of bringing down WTC 1, 2, and most notably, WTC 7, which housed secret WorldCom and Enron e-mails.

Oddly enough it is claimed that Rosie O started this but that is not confirmed.

What do you think

Steel loses half its strength at 1000 degrees if I remember my firefighter classes correctly. It doesnt have to melt to collapse just get hot enough to no longer be able to supports its load.

yes I have an active thread in the 911 forum talking about the overpass in comparison to WTC. People persist that fire simply cannot cause that type of damage when real world experiences seem to suggest otherwise.

Conspiracy Theory Rule #1: Never let scientific fact get in the way of you delusions.

Originally posted by anon_111746 on 01-05-07 @ 02:53 PM

So we had this Impeach on the Beach in San Francisco and at the same time a mysterious bridge fire burned a concrete and steel bridge. Arnold was there six hours later (camera op) and offered to pay for our transportation that day.

This bridge is a major bridge in the Bay Area and we will be affected for years to come.

Coincidence?

Never heard of gasoline burning metal before otherwise many engines would have burned up long ago.

Thought I would throw this in there.

Originally posted by damajikninja

Originally posted by anon_111746 on 01-05-07 @ 02:53 PM
Never heard of gasoline burning metal before otherwise many engines would have burned up long ago.

Thought I would throw this in there.

Many people are using the term burn far to loosely. All one has to do is heat steel up and it weakens to a point where it will bend. Once it bends one point may fracture then mother-nature takes over and it breaks because of the weight and gravity forces, simple as all that. I really see no conspiracy here although many are trying to make it one.

Shots, I have to agree with you here. Also, the author's sarcastic tone says he/she has an agenda very likely.
I think people are having a hard time realizing the difference between melting and simply weakening. The driver probably walked away because he thought he might have done something to cause the fire. He may or may not have, but there are many reasons for him to hail a taxi. In SF it was probably faster than waiting for an ambulance at that hour.

I don't see any conspiracy here, either and I'm one who believes 9/11 as well as some other events, was a conspiracy.

Thanks for the info, former (?) firefighter. You confirmed what I had thought.

Flint Michigan has lost at least 3 overpasses to fire that I can remember but only 1 of the 3 collapsed.

mikell

I think Rosie O did it.

Seriously, some people could smell a conspiracy at a 9 year old's lemonade stand.

I live in Texas and don't pay much attention to Califas, so i can't say much about Schwarzennegar (sp), other than he make for an intimidating robot and he is good at killing aliens.

What I can say, however, is that this looney type of stuff is what makes real conspiratorial crimes that much easier to pull off and cover up. The word "Conspiracy" is linked to ridicule in "normal" social circles now, much the same as aliens, UFO's, and esp.

BTW, engines don't melt because they are water cooled. And I think Rosie, based on recent statements, must be a member of this forum somewhere. Which one is she?

Originally posted by shots
All one has to do is heat steel up and it weakens to a point where it will bend.

True.

Once it bends one point may fracture then mother-nature takes over and it breaks because of the weight and gravity forces, simple as all that.

It's not as simple as that. First, modulus of elasticity is lowered in heat. Second, ductility is raised in heat. The ductility would be enough that the steel wouldn't fracture like glass (brittle material), it would bend (like steel). The only thing I can see breaking the steel in the manner you are saying would be impact force. But, the beginning of the towers collapse should have been a more gradual drop because the steel would have bent, not snapped. The definition of buckling is bending.

I really see no conspiracy here although many are trying to make it one.

I see no conspiracy either other than "debunkers" claiming that this is proof that fire weakens steel. First, we all know that already. Second, it was the expansion joints that failed here. You can see in the pictures that the two slabs that failed elongated from thermal expansion and "pushed" each other off at the expansion joints. There's a very good picture in the article that FredT posted in his thread, that shows the middle expansion joint of the two slabs. They look like tectonic plates that have pushed together to form a mountain.

Don't believe me. Wait till the report comes out. We'll see what they say it was.

Wood burns at 600-800 degrees, yet forest fires damage bridges, pipelines, and steel towers every summer.

Griff is right. In fact they didn't even have to replace any steel, they re-used it.

De-bunkers are so quick to jump on something that barely resembles what happened at the WTC. Yet when the truthers compare steel buildings to er...steel buildings, all of a sudden the WTC becomes a unique building that is incomparable to any other. But bridges are OK to compare...

And guys, don't forget to wipe that egg off, OK...

[edit on 4/5/2007 by ANOK]

Originally posted by dave_54
Wood burns at 600-800 degrees, yet forest fires damage bridges, pipelines, and steel towers every summer.

No one is saying that fire will not weaken, or even melt steel. Of course it can, but not enough heat could be created by an office fire, burning for less than hour, to cause thousands of tons of construction steel, welded and bolted together, to collapse with no resistance down to its basement.

You all keep picking on one issue but forget that all the other unanswered issues keep making your claims completely mute.

Even if the fire was hot enough to cause all that steel to fail the building will still NOT have collapsed to its basement with no resistance, while ejecting pieces of it's facade lateraly 600 ft away, and turn everything but steel into a fine dust.

Look at the big picture, or are you too scared of what you might see?

Originally posted by ANOK
...Of course it can, but not enough heat could be created by an office fire, burning for less than hour, to cause thousands of tons of construction steel, welded and bolted together, to collapse with no resistance down to its basement.

Look at the big picture, or are you too scared of what you might see?

Tens of thousands of firefighters across the United States and around the world disagree with that assertion. They all have first hand experience that ordinary office fires can and do cause total structural collapse in steel frame buildings in less than 1 hour.

A few months after 9/11 I had the privilege of attending a training seminar hosted by the Los Angeles City FD (also well experienced in high rise fires). One of the topics discussed was why did FDNY not recognize the structural integrity of the buildings were compromised and adjust operations accordingly? That the buildings were capable of collapsing at any time was obvious to any experienced firefighter watching the footage on TV.

Look at the facts and reality, or are you too scared of what you might see?

^Well good for you. What firefighters? Am I just supposed to take your word for it?

Pls show me evidence of a steel framed building that collapsed to it's foundations, whilst ejecting pieces of its facade laterally up to 600 ft and turning all it's concrete, office furniture, and bodies into a fine dust.
Well actually just show me a steel framed building that has ever collapsed to it's foundation from fire.
Then explain to me how the South Tower managed to defy the laws of physics. If you don't know what I'm talking about then you haven't done your research very thoroughly.

Can you do that? If you can't then it makes your claim just ludicrous.

Originally posted by dave_54

Tens of thousands of firefighters across the United States and around the world disagree with that assertion. They all have first hand experience that ordinary office fires can and do cause total structural collapse in steel frame buildings in less than 1 hour.

A few months after 9/11 I had the privilege of attending a training seminar hosted by the Los Angeles City FD (also well experienced in high rise fires). One of the topics discussed was why did FDNY not recognize the structural integrity of the buildings were compromised and adjust operations accordingly? That the buildings were capable of collapsing at any time was obvious to any experienced firefighter watching the footage on TV.

Look at the facts and reality, or are you too scared of what you might see?

nevermind that what you are saying is technically hearsay.
the more important thing to observe in your little rant, here, is that SOMEHOW it is OBVIOUS to all the other firefighters, "POST 911", yet the FDNY somehow had NO EXPERIENCE with highrise fires, and in fact, were not experienced firefighters at all, only wet behind the ear blind novices.

nevermind that what the actual firefighters who were there saw and heard has been effectively SILENCED by a court GAG ORDER.

when i look at the facts and reality, i see the wave of destruction travelling down the side of the building(s) faster than the debris which is falling through air on the outside. that tells me that it is not gravity driving the collapse.

Originally posted by ANOK

Pls show me evidence of a steel framed building that collapsed to it's foundations, whilst ejecting pieces of its facade laterally up to 600 ft and turning all it's concrete, office furniture, and bodies into a fine dust.

First off, and this maybe just a matter of semantics, the WTC was NOT a "Steel Framed" building. As I understand from various analyses and reports the two towers were composed of a steel rebar-reinforced concrete central core (functioning as elevator shafts), the periminter of the building(s) was defined by steel columns at each of the buildings four corners, each column connecting to its adjacent twin at each floor-level by a light-weight steel I-beam.

These I-beams were in place not so much to support the structural integrity of the building, as to distribute the load-weight of the building's floor strucure, principlely born by light steel trusses (the trusses which are reportedly to have failed and caused the collapse of the towers) to the four corner-columns.

In fact, as I understand it, (and bear in mind that I am NOT an architect) the "lion's share" of the Tower's structural rigidity was result of the building's distinctive pre-formed light-weight panelized cladding.

Ingeneous, really. Anyone familiar with aircraft or race-car technology might easily recognize the similarities to the type of "Monocoque" construction incorporated in those applications.

I believe those panels were constructed of a special low-density concrete, weren't they?

Wouldn't it then be more correct to refer to the WTC as a "Concrete-Framed" structure?


As to the SF interchange claimed by the tanker fire we should understand the actual construction details before we attempt to draw conclusions.

I live within 100 miles of that same overpass. On my many trips to and from San Francisco (Which I am proud to claim as my birthplace!), I have passed by that same section of freeway.

The actual road surface is paved with asphalt. This surface is laid over a formed roadbed composed of steel re-bar reinforced concrete. These formed roadbed sections are supported by several deep-section steel I-beams, each custom forged, running the legnth of the roadbed section. The I-beams are supported at each end by another steel I-beam running perpendicular to the roadway and tying into steel reinforced concrete pillars straddling the roadway.

The fire that occurred as a result of the tanker truck crash was apparently intense enough to weaken the deep-section I-beams. Once they became too weak to support both their own weight and the weight of the concrete roadbed section attached to them, they began to sag. Eventually the sagging became severe enough that the expansion joints at at least one end of the section gave loose, and the overpass section collapsed.

The steel I-beams supporting the overpass were far more robust than the steel trusses incorporated in the WTC towers as floor supports; that would make the WTC trusses more suceptible to weakening by fire.

By virtue of its monocoque-inspired design, the structure of the WTC would also be far more susceptable to failure if its over-all integrity were to be challenged by damage or failure to one of its primary components.

IMO.

the perimeter columns were (208) MASSIVE STEEL COLUMNS covered in nickel/aluminum lightweight cladding, and cross connected with spandrel plates, and ZERO concrete.
the floors were not i-beams, they were open web floor joists with galvanized pans with four inches of (lightweight) concrete poured into them.
the floors of the core were rebar and concrete, but the (47) vertical supports were pure steel. columns some of which were fifty four inches wide at the base of the building.

it was the total opposite of a monocoque design. it was like a giant steel mesh.
as one of the design team, frank martini remarked, "it's like a giant mosquito net. you poke a pencil through, and nothing happens." (not verbatim) he was replying to a question about whether the towers could take a plane impact. and he said he thought it could take SEVERAL, because, "it's like a giant mosquito net. you poke a pencil through, and nothing happens."

Thanks for setting me straight regarding the WTC cladding.

From your description, I'm not quite understanding the "Mosquito Net" mesh analogy, although I do understand how a steel "mesh" would be better able to withstand localized damage; even if the damge was to occur at several, discontinuous locations.

Indeed, the floors of the structure were comprised of, I believe, corragated galvanized plates covered with concrete, as you explained. But as I recall from the PBS special regarding the collapse, weren't those flooring plates themselves supported by trusses (inadequately protected by fire-resistant material) tying the core structure to the perimeter?

Doesn't the "Official Story" (if one is to believe that!) blame the collapse of the towers on the failure of those trusses on several sequential floors for the eventual disaster?

If intense heat could weaken large steel I-beams sufficiently to result in the collapse of an overpass, is it not conceiveable for even a much less intense fire to have weakened much less robust building trusses beyond their ability to support the weight of the metal and concrete flooring system they carried?

It is also interesting that the previously mentioned exterior cladding was composed of nickle and aluminum. Aluminum, as you may know, not only melts, but under the right conditions (sufficient heat, sufficient oxygen) is one of several metals (magnesium being another) that will actually burn.

It ahs been shown that aluminum-based doping material contributed to, if not was the primary cause of, the fire which destroyed the zepplin "Hindenberg". From my own experience with rocketry, I know that powdered aluminum is highly flammable and considered an explosive material; to the extent that it is a primary component of solid rocket fuel.

Imagine, a skyscrapper wrapped in rocket fuel!

Originally posted by Bhadhidar

It ahs been shown that aluminum-based doping material contributed to, if not was the primary cause of, the fire which destroyed the zepplin "Hindenberg". From my own experience with rocketry, I know that powdered aluminum is highly flammable and considered an explosive material; to the extent that it is a primary component of solid rocket fuel.

Imagine, a skyscrapper wrapped in rocket fuel!

yes. except rocket fuel burns bright, and metal will melt and flow before it ignites from the conditions of an office fire inside the building.

we don't see the cladding melting while the fire burns, nor do we see burning cladding. we do see a highly localised molten flow, and a brief, bright white metal fire(as reported by NIST) on one corner, and because this molten flow is bright yellow, it is probably iron, and not aluminum, as aluminum begins to run when it is silver. this appears shortly before the collapse.

powdered aluminum igniting, yes, but, solid aluminum, not likely. it's all about the oxide layer, right?

(let's face it, ONE of us, is NOT A ROCKET SCIENTIST. HAHHHALOLROFLDAMNILOVETHATJOKEFROM-
THEFARSIDEWITHTHEGUYSINLABCOATS-
LOOKINGATACROOKEDROCKET)