Flame speed or no flame speed, a concrete and steel bridge in Oakland was melted by 8,000 gallons of gasoline, and then collapsed, by 8,600 gallons of burning gasoline, which has less BTU's per pound than diesel fuel.
So the statement that "No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire" is unequivocally untrue.
That would work out as a fine explanation, but the SW corner was not damaged very much. The gouge out of the corner that NIST portrays in their report is not a gouge at all, but smoke obscuring the corner.
You wouldn't need a big gouge.
All you'd need is a piece of debris puncturing a pressurized fuel line, which was designed to provide emergency power without external electricity.
So....What did happen to the 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel, which was not found at the site.
And where did all the black smoke come from during the hours preceding the collapse if not from the 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel?
"Witnesses reported flames rising up to 200 feet into the air. 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.
So the bolts melted.
Bottom line, a concrete and steel structure collapsed solely due to fire.
Look, you're either too stupid or too disingenuous to warrant further response from me, if you believe there is some comparison between 7 and this bridge.
7 was a complete and total collapse. If this bridge were a comparable case, the entire section would have had to have fallen and taken out the roadway below. Did it? No.
So Bye! You get the honor of being my very first bozo.
The energy in even a modest thundercloud can be impressive. The first atomic bomb was detonated in the desert near Alamagordo, NM on 16 July 1945. Though the energy released was awesome, it was several times less than that generated by the almost daily thunderstorms which dot the New Mexico mountains on a typical summer day.
When you see comparisons between the energy of the deisel or jet fuel and the energy of TNT, ask youself why thunderstorms don't take out entire cities every day.
Pulled up by the emergency pumps, the SSB diesel fuel went , from the 6,000 gallon storage tanks, under the loading dock, under the southwestern part of the building, to floor 5.
The problem with your theory is the diesel fuel tanks were underground below the loading dock and on the ground floor. No fires were reported in these locations.
Pulled up by the emergency pumps, the SSB diesel fuel went , from the 6,000 gallon storage tanks, under the loading dock, under the southwestern part of the building, to floor 5.
Thanks for the additional information.
Since there were no fires in WTC 7 on floor five or below, we can rule out the farfetched claim that diesel fuel pumps were supplying fuel to fires from a tank located below the loading dock.
The fires shown here are on the 11th floor of WTC 7.
Suggesting on a public forum that fuel lines that stopped at the 5th floor were feeding this fire and the fires above it makes one an "accessory after the fact" in my view.
The tanks were below. However the generators they supplied were on the 5th floor. Therefore pressurized fuel lines were necessary.
Furthermore the 5th floor had "louvers" to insure an adequate supply of air to the generators.
Since these systems are designed to start automatically when power fails, the pumps started the minute the building's elecricity went off. The pressurized fuel fed the fires along the path(s) of the fuel lines wherever they were ruptured.
Since these systems are designed to start automatically when power fails, the pumps started the minute the building's elecricity went off. The pressurized fuel fed the fires along the path(s) of the fuel lines wherever they were ruptured.
You are missing an essential point.
The fuel lines your post identified stopped at floor five.
There were no fires on floor five or below.
The fires were all above where the fuel lines stopped.
Therefore, the fuel lines that stopped on floor five did not supply the fires.
What's so special about floors 1-5 that there were fires elsewhere but not on those floors?
And if I do show there were fires on those floors are you going to admit you've been rebutted, or are you going to come up with some other explanation that they weren't important?
And if I do show there were fires on those floors are you going to admit you've been rebutted, or are you going to come up with some other explanation that they weren't important?
If you provide a photograph of a fire at WTC 7 on any of the floors 1 thru 5 I will acknowledge that if the diesel fuel pumps were running they could have fueled fires on floors 1 thru 5.
If you find the FEMA Performance Study was accurate and you cannot find a photo of a fire on floors 1 thru 5, will you acknowledge a fuel line that stopped at floor five,where the generator was located, could not fuel a fire on the floors above floor 5?
#30. To: honway, AGAviator, honway, critter, ALL (#0)
This video is complete deceptive ... so it epitomizes the *truth* movement.
First, it claims "no steel structure had ever collapsed before due to fire". That is complete false. Why do honway and critter think we have fire codes that require special protection of steel structural members in steel buildings in the first place?
Then it shows videoclips of the WTC 7 collapse that are deceptive. They are deceptive because the videos begin more than 7 seconds after the collapse actually began. You see, the east penthouse mechanical room, on the same side of the building as the diesel tank, suddenly sank into the structure more than 7 seconds before the rest of the building collapsed.
The fuel lines described in your reply did not extend above floor five.
That is correct. And also, if there were no fires below Floor 6 then this theory is not viable.
So it should be fairly easy to prove or disprove this hypothesis. If it can be demonstrated there were no fires below Floor 6, I will not put forth any further argument.
However, I'm fairly certain that there were fires everywhere both above and below Floor 5. So I will do some checking and get back to you.
Perhaps you are focusing too much on the 5th floor and below as the initiation point for the collapse. There are papers (such as http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf ) that look into the failure and conclude that the failure could have begun well above that (particularly on the 12th floor) and simply spread from there. Remember, Chief Hayden is quoted saying "we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
Here is a first responder with WTC7 in the background during an interview.
You are correct, Critter, and this is also the explanation for the difference between what AGA, in ignorance (I assume), is claiming here, and what happened to the bridge in Oakland. Gasoline burns very, very fast; it is nearly explosive in its burning, and because of the rate at which it burns, it creates a lot more quick heat. Diesel fuel has a lot more power as a fuel because it does burn slower, and thus creates a more sustained ''push'' inside of an engine, whereas gasoline burns much faster, akin to an explosion inside of each cylinder on each stroke.
Trying to compare what diesel fuel does to what gasoline does is really, really ignorant.
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
The Oakland overpass did not collapse because of "flame speed."
The overpass collapsed because it got heated so much that the bolts supporting the structure melted, the steel beam(s) buckled, and the structure collapsed.
And heat is measured in *BTU's*, which means that a gallon of diesel fuel or kerosene produces more heat than a gallon of gasoline.
And heat is measured in *BTU's*, which means that a gallon of diesel fuel or kerosene produces more heat than a gallon of gasoline.
No shit, O BRILLANT ONE? Of course, because of flame speed, that heat is released over a much, much longer period of time, leading to an overall much, much lower tempature..... but what do I know.......
Oh, that´s right! I do know! I have worked a lot of construction, generally, as the BOSS, if you understand the word. Many, many times, we used diesel fuel in five gal. cans, with the tops cut out, to mark opem holes or piles of dirt esp. during work shiffs at night. Probably, you have seen simialar things, if you simply think about it. And it is really amazing.... the TIN cans NEVER ONCE melted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And, we would use cut off 55 gal. drums, with diesel fuel and several pieces of rebar (which is made of SOFT steel) PLACED OVER THEM to melt tar (HELD IN A 5 GAL. BUCKET WHICH ALSO NEVER MELTED!) to repair or caulk sewer pipes with-------NEVER ONCE HAD A 55 GAL. DRUM MELT!!! AND, USED THEM FOR HOURS AND HOURS! AND DAYS AND DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, I understand how ignorance is an excuse for many things, but what you are talking about goes way, way beyond ignorance and borders on stupidity, but hey, what do I know.....
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
#36. To: richard9151, Destro, YertleTurtle (#35)(Edited)
Because of flame speed, that heat is released over a much, much longer period of time, leading to an overall much, much lower tempature
Like I said, another self-taught scientist. Now you want to claim that kerosene and diesel fuel take "much, much longer" to burn than gasoline.
Are you vaguely aware that jet aircraft go Mach 2 using fuels similar to kerosene even though by your "reasoning" their engines would take "much, much, longer" to burn their fuel, and hence generate less thrust and speed, than if they used av gas (which nobody uses for high performance jets)?
And the afterburners of those jet aircraft using fuels similar to kerosene reach temperatures of 3,000 degrees which again by your "reasoning" would be "an overall much, much" lower temperature than what you claim av gas would produce?
Oh, that´s right! I do know! I have worked a lot of construction, generally, as the BOSS, if you understand the word
That explains a lot
I worked in construction a summer after I got out of college until I went on to better things. Now I do my own because I've seen first hand the work put out by people who do it for a living.
NEVER ONCE HAD A 55 GAL. DRUM MELT!!!
I'm sure that your "much much higher temperature" gasoline never has melted a 55 gallon drum either. But nevertheless, a gasoline fire did "melt" a fairly large section of a concrete and steel bridge. And I have no doubt that a kerosene or diesel fuel fire under similar conditions would do the same thing
Your point being?
Last but not least, do some research on how hot oil well fires get- which burn totally undistilled crude which by your "resoning" should burn even at lower temperatures than kerosene or diesel - before you make any more uneducated utterances about hydrocarbon combustion.
That is correct. And also, if there were no fires below Floor 6 then this theory is not viable.
So it should be fairly easy to prove or disprove this hypothesis. If it can be demonstrated there were no fires below Floor 6, I will not put forth any further argument.
While it is not proof of the absence of fires not seen, NIST reported as follows:
Photographs and videos were used to determine fire locations and movement within WTC 7. Most of the available information is for the north and east faces of WTC 7. Information about fires in other areas of the building was obtained from interviews, and is summarized as follows:
From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas
In the east stairwell, smoke was observed around Floors 19 or 20, and a signs of a fully involved fire on the south side of Floor 23 were heard/seen/smelled from Floor 22.
Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward the south side, at approximately 12:15 p.m.
No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby
No signs of fire or smoke below floor 6 from stairwell and lobby areas
Fire reported at west wall of floor 7 around 12:15 pm
In east stairwell, smoke was observed near floors 19-20; signs of a fire observed on floor 23
Looking from southwest corner to the south face
Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11
Fire on floors 6, 7, 8, 21, 30
Multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20s and 30s
Heavy black smoke coming out of south face gash; no fire observed
Looking from southeast corner to the south face
Fire on floor 12; [1] area above covered with smoke
Fire on floors 11-12 [1] moved to east face and progressed to the north
[1] fires reported on floor 14, but photographs showed east face fires on floor
Page 21
=====================
Observed Fires
East Face Fires on Floors 11-12 near 2 PM
Fires in WTC 7 -- which began soon after WTC 1 collapsed -- were observed on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle about half an hour before collapse; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.
Fires were also seen on Floors 12, 13, 22, 29, and 30 at various times during the day.
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11 Fire on floors 6, 7, 8, 21, 30 Multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20s and 30s Heavy black smoke coming out of south face gash; no fire observed
I believe the south face gash is where Manuel Garcia, who came up with this theory of the collapse, believes the smoke from the burning diesel fuel was exiting the building.
Perhaps you are focusing too much on the 5th floor and below as the initiation point for the collapse. There are papers (such as http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf ) that look into the failure and conclude that the failure could have begun well above that (particularly on the 12th floor) and simply spread from there.
The theroy being considered is the claim the diesel fuel in storage tanks under the loading dock was pumped up through fuel lines and fed the fires. The fuel lines in question stopped at the generator on floor five.Hence, these fuel lines did not fuel fires above floor 5.
I believe the south face gash is where Manuel Garcia, who came up with this theory of the collapse, believes the smoke from the burning diesel fuel was exiting the building.
No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby
The theory purports that diesel fuel was being pumped out of a compromised fuel line from about the time that WTC-1 fell.
The lack of any observed smell of diesel fuel argues against there being thousands of gallons of diesel sloshing around on the floor to ignite hours later.
Having warned the Port Authority in 1998 and 1999 about the diesel tank, the FDNY was clearly aware of its existence and danger.
December 20, 2001 A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER; City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center By JAMES GLANZ AND ERIC LIPTON
Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes.
The 6,000-gallon tank was positioned about 15 feet above the ground floor and near several lobby elevators and was meant to fuel generators that would supply electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in the event of a power failure. Although the city made some design changes to address the concerns -- moving a fuel pipe that would have run from the tank up an elevator shaft, for example -- it left the tank in place.
But the Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called "disaster."
Putting a tank underground typically protects it from falling debris, and impedes leaks or tank fires from spreading throughout the building.
Engineering experts have spent three months trying to determine why 7 World Trade Center, part of the downtown complex that included the 110-story towers, collapsed about seven hours after being damaged and set on fire by debris from the damaged landmark buildings.
Some of the experts, who said that no major skyscraper had ever collapsed simply because of fire damage, have recently been examining whether the diesel tanks -- there were others beneath ground level -- played an important role in the building's stunning demise.
The Port Authority, which owns the land on which the building stood and issued the building permit for the tank and its fireproof enclosure, said yesterday that it believed the structure had in fact met the terms of the city's fire code. Though the tank was on a tall fireproof pedestal, it was still effectively on the lowest floor of the building, as the code requires, said Frank Lombardi, the Port Authority's chief engineer.
The authority also worked with Fire Department officials to eliminate the department's original objections, Mr. Lombardi said.
"We made sure that it was in agreement with the code," Mr. Lombardi said, adding that the tank was placed in an eight-inch-thick masonry enclosure.
A spokesman for the Fire Department said yesterday that he could not authoritatively say whether all the concerns of its officials had been addressed by the Port Authority. But when reached yesterday, the department official who wrote several of the warning memorandums said he regarded the Port Authority's interpretation of the code to be "a stretch." The official, Battalion Chief William P. Blaich, said he still considered the tank's placement to have been unsafe.
The Port Authority has long held that, as a matter of law, it does not have to abide by city fire codes. But after the 1993 bombing of the towers, the Port Authority signed a memorandum of understanding with the city pledging to not only meet the city's fire codes, but also to often take additional precautions.
A spokesman for the city's office of emergency management, Francis E. McCarton, said the city accepted the Port Authority's determination that the tank and its placement were properly safe. He said it was essential that the mayor's command center have a backup energy source and placing it on ground floor was unacceptable because the area was deemed to be susceptible to floods.
"We put it in the area where we needed to put it," Mr. McCarton said. Any suggestion that the tank's position was a factor in the collapse of the building was ''pure speculation,'' he said.
He added that the tank had fire extinguishers and was surrounded by the thick, fire-resistant containment system, and that the fiery collapse of the towers could never have been anticipated in the city's planning.
No one is believed to have died in the collapse of 7 World Trade Center. But its collapse did further complicate the rescue and recovery efforts under way at the scene.
The engineering and fire experts who have been examining the collapse of 7 World Trade Center have not settled on the final cause of the disaster. But they have seen evidence of very high temperatures typical of fuel fires in the debris from the building and have raised questions about whether the diesel accounted for those conditions.
At least two firefighters who were at the scene, Deputy Chief James Jackson and Battalion Chief Blaich, said that the southwest corner of the building near the fuel tank was severely damaged, possibly by falling debris, and that the tank might have been breached.
Mr. Jackson said that about an hour before the building's collapse, heavy black smoke, consistent with a fuel fire of some sort, was coming from that part of the building.
The Port Authority said it was unlikely the heavy masonry surrounding the tank could have been breached, and its officials have raised the possibility that the two diesel tanks buried just below the ground floor of the building might have contributed to the fire. They have also asserted that structural damage from falling debris is a more likely culprit in the collapse.
Several fire experts said that, whatever the questions surrounding the city's code, installing giant fuel tanks above the occupied spaces of a building posed serious risks.
#43. To: AGAviator, Critter, Destro, YertleTurtle (#36)
Because of flame speed,
I do not have to be a scientist to understand basic facts, O BRILLANT ONE.
Now you want to claim that kerosene and diesel fuel take "much, much longer" to burn than gasoline.
All things are in relationships; for instance, if gas burns in one second, and kerosene in two seconds, tnen kerosene burns half as fast, thus shows a slower flame speed and a slower release of heat. This is why kerosene/diesel fuel is also much safer to haul; oh, by the way, had about 80 over the road trucks including tankers. And that brings up the point, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A DIESEL/KEROSENE LOADED TANKER EXPLODING? Inquiring minds want to know, because I never have.......
Are you vaguely aware that jet aircraft go Mach 2 using fuels similar to kerosene
¿No shit? REALLY!? Of course, here you are comparing apples to organges, as you seem to really, really, really, really, really like to do, as if all of us are stupid, right? Have you ever looked at a break down of a jet engine, and the methodology used to reach those tempatures and thrust? Because if you have not, I have, and IF they used AV gas, they would have more slightly more thrust, but much, much higher tempatures, such that the life of the engines would be severly curtailed. IF IF IF they could build an engine, at any price, that could stand the tempatures. Simply put, AV gas DOES NOT fit the technology of jet engines; never has and never will.
I'm sure that your "much much higher temperature" gasoline never has melted a 55 gallon drum either.
Damned if I know, because no one I know has ever been stupid enough to pour gasoline into an open drum and drop a match into it. Doesn`t mean it has not happened, but whoever did it, if they lived to tell of it, certainly never spoke of it to anyone!
gasoline fire did "melt" a fairly large section of a concrete and steel bridge.
First off, concrete does not melt. It will crack and scale, if enough heat is applied, but it don't melt. Second, the bridge sagged, but the steel did not melt either. That is what happens to steel when it gets hot; it sags, esp. when it is loaded with weight. By the way, concrete is heavy, so the bridge was carrying a lot of weight, and that is what caused the sag as the steel lost its tensile strenght.
You need to consider something; just because some ignorant so-called newsreporter said something about a bridge melting, does not make it fact. The pictures I saw of the bridge certainly had steel sagging down, but I saw no puddles of steel below the bridge... but hey, maybe you know something I do not! Ummmmmmmmm, probably not......
Last but not least, do some research on how hot oil well fires get- which burn totally undistilled crude which by your "resoning" should burn even at lower temperatures than kerosene or diesel -
And once again, apples and what, pears(?), this time! Is this another example of ignorance, or just plain stupidity? Undistilled crude is EXTREMELY dangerous because it is FULL of many, many different chemicals, including natural gas. And what is in the undistilled crude varies widely from oil field to oil field, but in nearly all cases, except in some cases of very heavy crude, it is flammable with only a spark. In fact, oil field fires have been set off with dropped tools sparking on a steel deck, and with static electricity. So I would suggest that you look for other types of info, or, read a few books, before you continue to lecture me.
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
#44. To: richard9151, AGAviator, Critter, YertleTurtle (#43)
Undistilled crude is EXTREMELY dangerous because it is FULL of many, many different chemicals, including natural gas. And what is in the undistilled crude varies widely from oil field to oil field,
I wish I lived in a world where diesel does not catch fire and steel becomes stronger with fire not weaker.
I am so pissed off that we have all had to pay the scam for diesel fuel fire warning stickers and the biggest scam of all - fireproofing steel beams in buildings when now we know thanks to the scholarship of these 9/11 truthers steel is not affected by fire heat - even heat from burning jet fuel or diesel fires. That is millions of dollars wasted on needless fireproofing and warning labels. That is the real scam - the fireproofing and flammable warning label industry.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
All things are in relationships; for instance, if gas burns in one second, and kerosene in two seconds, tnen kerosene burns half as fast, thus shows a slower flame speed and a slower release of heat.
Paper burns 10 times faster than wood or coal. Which one would you heat your house with, the one with the "faster flame speed," or the one that takes longer to get going, but releases more energy once it does?
And that brings up the point, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A DIESEL/KEROSENE LOADED TANKER EXPLODING? Inquiring minds want to know, because I never have.......
You're confusing volatility, energy, temperature, and heat. The issue at hand is what fuels can generate enough heat to melt steel. Gasoline, crude oil, and kerosene all have that ability under the right conditions. And all of them can generate temperatures in the high 2,000's Farenheit.
IF they used AV gas, they would have more slightly more thrust, but much, much higher tempatures, such that the life of the engines would be severly curtailed.
LMAO. Why don't they use av gas on the space shuttle instead of aluminum and a perchlorate oxidizer, for "more thrust" then? Gasoline does not generate any higher temperatures than other hydrocarbons. It simply vaporizes and ignites at a lower temperature.
IF IF IF they could build an engine, at any price, that could stand the tempatures.
Care to explain why diesel engines are heavier than gasoline engines, then? The diesel fuel should burn cooler and generate less heat, according to your theory. So why's all that cast iron necessary when many automobile engines can get by with aluminum almost everywhere except the combustion chambers?
First off, concrete does not melt. It will crack and scale, if enough heat is applied, but it don't melt.
I put "melt" in quotes. The gasoline generated enough heat to cause a structural collapse of a metal and concrete bridge.
You need to consider something; just because some ignorant so- called newsreporter said something about a bridge melting, does not make it fact. The pictures I saw of the bridge certainly had steel sagging down, but I saw no puddles of steel below the bridge... but hey, maybe you know something I do not!
The fire generated enough heat to melt certain critical components and cause a collapse of a steel and concrete structure.
Undistilled crude is EXTREMELY dangerous because it is FULL of many, many different chemicals, including natural gas. And what is in the undistilled crude varies widely from oil field to oil field, but in nearly all cases, except in some cases of very heavy crude, it is flammable with only a spark.
Again you're confusing volatility with heat with temperature.
Since crude oil is denser than gasoline, someone using your theories would expect the mixture to burn at lower temperatures than gasoline. However the fact is crude oil fires burn just as hot if not hotter. That's because it has the denser hydrocarbons which really heat things up once the more volatile lo- temperature burning components get the other things to their [higher] ignition temperatures.
So I would suggest that you look for other types of info, or, read a few books, before you continue to lecture me.
I'd suggest you look at how hot a gas fire, a kerosene fire, and a crude oil fire burn - AND - how much energy for a given quantity each releases.
I can already hear defenders of the official account screaming "See, fire can cause a steel structure to collapse-the bridge collapsed!"
Comparing the circumstances surrounding the fire and subsequent partial collapse of this bridge to the circumstances surrounding the fires and subsequent complete collapse of the towers and WTC 7 is flawed from end to end. This fact should be obvious to most people; but let's point out a few things just in case they weren't already noticed.
1. This was an open air environment where flames were able to reach their absolute maximum temperature; white-hot and shooting upwards of 200 feet in the air.
2. Those 200 foot flames were acting on a single support truss that was fastened to the two columns pictured here. That truss (and the connectors that fastened it to the columns) represents a small fraction of the steel that would have been found on a single floor of the towers or WTC 7. So again, far more heat focused on a single truss and no way to redistribute the load once that truss was weakened.
3. You'll notice that despite the intense fires ability to weaken the truss and connectors that there is NO mention of molten metal in the debris. Also, unlike the debris of the towers and WTC 7, it's not likely we're going to hear anything about thermate (specifically used to destroy steel columns) in the bridge debris.
4. You'll notice that the concrete roadway that "pancaked down" on the roadway below did not cause the lower freeway to collapse. Nor has the concrete disintegrated into a fine powder.
5. You'll notice the columns were not torn down by the collapse, nor did they evaporate into thin air, rather they are still standing (having only lost the the truss and connectors that held the roadway to them.)
So to quickly recap:
White-hot 200 foot flames acting on a single truss (and no ability to redistribute the load once weakened.)
No molten metal and certainly no thermate found
No column failure
No evaporation / pulverization of concrete
No "pancake
-Ending with a paragraph from The 1-hour Guide to 9/11.
For the record, few in the scientific community doubt that it's theoretically possible for a building to experience failure if it is subjected to devastating heat for a sufficient period of time. And additional factors like no fire-proofing, no sprinkler systems, insufficient steel to "bleed off" heat or inferior construction greatly increase the possibility. However, what is "doubted" (or more accurately; considered downright impossible) is that such a failure would resemble anything like what was witnessed on 9/11. -Gradual, isolated, asymmetrical failures spread out over time; perhaps -simultaneous disintegration of all load bearing columns (leaving a pile of neatly folded rubble a few stories high) -no way.
1. This was an open air environment where flames were able to reach their absolute maximum temperature; white-hot and shooting upwards of 200 feet in the air.
1. All "un-offical" accounts of WTC 7 have - up to this time - begun with the statement "No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire."
This statement is now demonstrably untrue, so they're modifying their statement. "But...but...but...it was a freeway bridge! But...but...but...it weakened a load-bearing truss! [Professor Thomas Eagar, do you hear them saying that trusses can be heated to the point of failure? LMAO!]"
Doesn't matter. It was a steel structure, and it collapsed due to fire. Fires can generate enough heat to cause steel to structurally fail. The claim that they cannot are at the core of all "un-official" 911 accounts.
2. Building 7 had "louvers" designed to insure adequate air supply to the emergency power generators.
Therefore air supply to the fires is not an issue. All fires in Building 7 had plenty of air.