Did Schwarzenegger Demolish Bay Bridge Interchange?

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
...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?...

...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"...

Yes very finely powdered aluminum is highly flammable, solid aluminum, or molten aluminum is not. The Zeppelin burned cause there was aluminum 'powder' used in the paint.
The steel on the overpass did not melt, or fail, the rubber mounts failed. The steel was re-used to repair the overpass.

“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.”

Source

All the press reports said 'Steel Melted', just shows you you shouldn't put too much faith is what the press says. You should base your facts on science not media sensationalism.

If the official story was true and the floors pancaked because the floor trusses failed (which NIST itself no longer believes btw) then the massive inner core and the outer facade would have stayed standing.
The collapse would also have showed obvious resistance, as not all the floors would have heated up enough to fail.
But mute points because an office fire burning for less than an hour will not cause construction steel to get hot enough to fail. Go try it yourself. Try heating up a piece of construction steel and see how hard it is to get it hot enough to become malleable.

What about the South Tower, have you looked into that at all? How does the pancake theory fit with the tilting and rotation, and the subsequent physics anomaly of the top portion, which can't be explained by the official story? In fact it's not even mentioned in the official story.

You've inspired me!

I took a piece of heavy duty aluminum foil, and, using a pair of pliers, held the piece (a rectangle about 3"x4") over the gas flame of my kitchen stove.

Try it for yourself and see what happens.

Now I would agree that we must account for scale here; but I think you'll find the results...a bit interesting.

crazy chainsaw?

HAHA!

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
I took a piece of heavy duty aluminum foil, and, using a pair of pliers, held the piece (a rectangle about 3"x4") over the gas flame of my kitchen stove.

What does this have to do with steel at an underpass or steel of a building? Just curious as to what you are trying to do here.

Plus, you held it over a gas flame (which is hotter than a normal office fire...blue heat as oppossed to orange/yellow heat).

Also, how long did you hold it over the fire?

Did you have tons of aluminum attached to the foil acting as a heat sink?

We'll start with those questions for now.

As far as the underpass is concerned, the steel didn't melt. It elongated (in all directions as steel does when temperature raises). The steel wasn't attached to any other steel for a heat sink. When the elongation was too much for the expansion joints, they failed. Simple really and in no way can be compared to the WTC fires/collapses.



This is not the result of steel beams melting or even weakening. It is a result of the composite slabs pushing into each other. Notice how it looks like tetonic plates making a mountain.

Originally posted by Griff

What does this have to do with steel at an underpass or steel of a building? Just curious as to what you are trying to do here.

Nothing, really, as far as "Steel" is concerned.

My experiement was related to the information Anok provided, regarding the exterior cladding used on the WTC towers: specifically that they were clad in light-weight nickel/aluminum panels. I found that fact interesting, since I knew that aluminum (at least in powdered form) is flammable enough to be considered an explosive.

Plus, you held it over a gas flame (which is hotter than a normal office fire...blue heat as oppossed to orange/yellow heat).

The fires at the WTC, at least initially and at least at the point of impact, were NOT mere "office fires", fueled by wood, paper, plastics and fibers; Thousands of gallons of jet fuel served as an initiator and accelerant.

Modern aircraft also contain quantities of magnesium (which burns yellow-white, I believe, bright enough to be used in flares) in the form of wheels and other structural parts. Given the conditions exent just after impact, it possible that some of all of those parts were induced to ignite as well. Just as kindling may be enployed to ignite charcol, and charcol fires many an iron forge. It is the culmulative heat effect we need to focus on, not just the thermal characterists of individual materials.

Also, how long did you hold it over the fire?

The piece of foil was effectively destroyed within 5-10 seconds.

Of course this is a very simple (and relatively safe) experiment which anyone, including you, can conduct in your own kitchen. As a variation, try holding a piece of foil over a candle flame (I assume a candle flame is much cooler than a natural gas flame), if you don't "cook with gas".

Did you have tons of aluminum attached to the foil acting as a heat sink?

Actually, I used a pair of steel pliers to hold the foil. The post you quoted explains that, although I will grant that I didn't specify that the pliers were steel; guess I shouldn't have assumed that most such tools are made of steel!

If you try this experiment for yourself, you'll learn that the most dramatic and immediate effects occur at the point(s) of contact with the flame, as would be expected. The degradation of the foil spreads rapidly from the point of contact and is in proportion to the intensity and duration of exposure. The net result is a dull, white-ish-grey brittle ash, lacking almost any tensile strength.

We'll start with those questions for now.

I'll start with those answers, for now.

As far as the underpass is concerned, the steel didn't melt. It elongated (in all directions as steel does when temperature raises). The steel wasn't attached to any other steel for a heat sink. When the elongation was too much for the expansion joints, they failed. Simple really and in no way can be compared to the WTC fires/collapses.

I agree, the steel I-beams, which ran the length of the section and supported the concrete roadbed (which itself was reinforced by steel rebar), and which was exposed to the full brunt of the burning fuel, did not "melt", per se. Nor is it percise to say that the I-beams "elongated", either.

The beam, when exposed to the intense heat of the burning fuel, weakend at the point of contact with the inferno, losing the tensile strength required to support the roadbed above, and sagged under the weight of the roadbed... leading to the collapse of the roadbed.

The underlying point being that if 8000 gallons of gasoline could cause several deep-section steel support beams to sag under load; how then is it inconceivable that far less robust steel floor trusses would succumb to the onslaught of tens of thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel and assorted other burning debris in the WTC?

This is not the result of steel beams melting or even weakening. It is a result of the composite slabs pushing into each other. Notice how it looks like tetonic plates making a mountain.

Your analysis is not supported by the experts in the field, those responsible for determining the cause , planning the repair, and studying methods of prevention.

Of course the "experts" could be wrong.

But take care..."looks" can be deceiving

The burning tanker at the MacArthur Maze released over three hours about the same energy as the split-second detonation of 200 tons of TNT, equal to an extremely low-yield atomic bomb.

"It certainly is a message of something we should be concerned about, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out," said David McCallen, a senior executive at Lawrence Livermore Lab's nonproliferation and homeland-security directorate.

The light, flexible steel spans of the MacArthur Maze survived the 1989 Loma Prieta quake that pancaked the Cypress Freeway, which was made of stiff concrete.

But at 3:41 a.m. Sunday, Mosqueda flipped and ruptured his tanker at almost precisely the Achilles' heel of the arching skyways -- the underside of the pier where thin, supporting steel girders are unprotected by concrete or anything else, according to UC Berkeley's Astaneh-Asl.

"I think this was really the perfect fire, tragically," said Astaneh-Asl, who studied the MacArthur Maze intensely after the earthquake.

The extent of Mosqueda's fuel load was unclear Sunday. But at least 8,600 gallons of unleaded gasoline ignited in a continuous roar -- more fuel than burned inside the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001 -- and turned the 20-foot space between I-880, where Mosqueda crashed into a guard rail, and the I-580 overhead into an oven that roasted the exposed steel girders to more than 2,000 degrees.

At 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, steel in girders and bolts goes soft, said Astaneh-Asl, who studied the collapse of World Trade Center towers for the National Science Foundation.

"When steel gets that warm, it loses its strength and cannot carry its load any more," he said. "It's not to say the steel melted. Some portions may have melted, but the steel got soft, like rubber."

more fuel, hotter burning fuel, more localized.
that anyone is trying to extrapolate this fire to the tower fires is suspicious intent, IMO.

what else is suspicious is that the ONE engineer who got to study the steel from the towers, is the same one they 'let' talk about this collapse. media whores say what they're supposed to say.

this blowtorch under the bridge burned for 3 hrs. at 2000°. much, much hotter than the trade centre fires.


(p.s. HAHA, he said, 'it doesn't take a rocket scientist"!)

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
The underlying point being that if 8000 gallons of gasoline could cause several deep-section steel support beams to sag under load; how then is it inconceivable that far less robust steel floor trusses would succumb to the onslaught of tens of thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel and assorted other burning debris in the WTC?

I agree that the trusses would sag. But, what does this overpass have to do with steel columns?

Your analysis is not supported by the experts in the field, those responsible for determining the cause , planning the repair, and studying methods of prevention.

Can you quote what the "experts" say? I haven't heard a cause other than reporters reporting the steel melted (which obviously it didn't). Thanks.

ps. If the beams just sagged, then what caused the expansion joint to look like tectonic plates? That wouldn't happen from just sagging IMO.


[edit on 5/11/2007 by Griff]

i think you might have found the real reason towers 1 annd 2 fell thousands of tones of weight on a rapidly heating frame. once any of it weakened the immense weight being off balance caused the whole structure to fail horrifically. now tower 7 hmm i only remember 2 planes hitting world trade center was their a fire? maybe the collapse of 1 or 2 other towers caused intense vibrations thru steel structure that caused the collapse or it might have been a demolitions team hired to destroy evidence. going back to subject arnold being responsible i don't know but why in hell did he ask for fed money to replace bridge the truck belonged to oil company let them foot the bill. in my community if you are responsible in a car accident for damaging property you or your insurance pays to replace or repair.