Boy Vandaler you were pulled in right away by the mainstream media weren't ya?



Freeway Collapse Bears No Relation To WTC Buildings

Stop The Lie
Monday, April 30, 2007

Comment: Debunkers are already using this to attack the 9/11 truth movement in claiming that this explains the collapse of the towers and WTC 7. Syndicated radio host Neil Boortz attacked Alex Jones this morning, claiming that this refutes the controlled demolition hypothesis. In reality, the freeway collapse is completely different and the comparison is ridiculous.

I can already hear defenders of the official account screaming "See, fire can cause a steel structure to collapse-the bridge collapsed!"

Comparing the circuмstances surrounding the fire and subsequent partial collapse of this bridge to the circuмstances 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 collapse"

-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.

We stand by that assertion. For a more detailed argument see Fire Initiated Collapse - Primary Arguments Against.

Actually a physicist (Stephen Jones) was already commenting on the issue.

Actually a physicist (Stephen Jones) was already commenting on the issue.

 

Guess you don't get it.  No matter what was brewing, I was not aware... I just recognized immediatly and on my own that this would re-ignite the debate for those inclined by it.

I suppose I was right, because the debate was allready raging on.

Quite frankly, there is very little to compare.  But it don't take much to get some going.