The fire was so hot it damaged ... steel

[TrogL]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/26/national/main608802.shtml

The fire was so hot it damaged the steel support beams that carry the highway over an avenue, authorities said.

"The southbound lane of the highway has sagged 3-4 feet," said Bridgeport Fire Chief Michael Maglione.

"At the height of the heat, the actual bridge almost touched the ground, it went down so far, and then as the firefighters poured water and foam on the fire, it contracted, and it left that buckling effect," Rowland told reporters Friday morning.

So what's all this about steel not bending when heated?

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

1. This is unreal

I have driven under this section of highway many times. It's sagging to the point where you can't drive under it.

THE HIGHWAY MELTED!!!

[DulceDecorum]

9. Do you think that the

asphalt coating the roadway had anything to do with it?

Or did that remain intact as the fuel oil burned in open air as opposed to burning in a confined space?

[OudeVanDagen]

21. Explain please ...

... DeluceDecorum, all about asphalt ... that Roman concrete info was simply marvelous.

[TrogL]

2. More metal damaged by fire

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/14/national/main593068.shtml

The fire burned much of the soft metal on the vehicles

Gee, whoda thunk it.

[LARED]

3. One can only assume

the laws of physics were once again suspended. :)

[CaptainClark23]

5. Don't wanna start the melting steel thing again,

but...I don't recall anyone with any sense saying steel would not melt or buckle under the correct conditions.

But this incident on I-95 is hardly 'proof' of the melting beams of WTC you are inferring it is.

How long was the steel exposed to the heat? What was the grade of steel? What type of fuel was consumed?

again, not to start another exhausting thread. I'm not going to convince you, nor you me.

But you're kind of a smart fella, and implying that this proves anything other than the fact that I-95 buckled is as weak as some of the more inane theories you love to trounce.

[LARED]

15. Help me out here

Do you think I believe the steel structure melted in the WTC?

I don't.

[CaptainClark23]

19. help on the way

Alright, I'll be more specific. If I'm not mistaken you have stated as being of the mind that a result of the heat from the fires of the plane impacts, the steel beams tying the outer frame of WTC to the inner core of the towers were sufficiently weakened so as to sever that crucial connection. Thereby leading to the towers' collapse.

If I misstate your position, accept my apologies, and correct me so I might understand better. The preceding posts seemed to indicate a validation of the "softening steel" theory of the WTC collapse. And it is that validation I was rejecting.

[OudeVanDagen]

20. And ...

... a natural question arises from your comment; quote: "it is that validation I was rejecting." end quote.

What theory are you offering?

I'm curious, which report do you have disagreement with?

Also ... would you kindly state exactly where the; quote: "steel beams tying the outer frame of WTC to the inner core of the towers" end quote, were located.

[CaptainClark23]

24. easy there, spike!

Read the thread. Not offering a theory. Asking Lared a question which he understood and answered. What do you want?

There is no "report" I have a disagreement with. But since you can't seem to discern my GENERAL position re WTC collapse as opposed to Lared's - I am of those who believe there is insufficient evidence presented for the Official Story to conclusively explain the collapse.

Re: The quote you wish to see referenced - to my knowledge first appeared in the post to which you initially responded. As far as I know, I may well be the very first person in the world to arrange those words in just that arrangement.

[OudeVanDagen]

25. OK, what I want is

for you to define a term you're using ... "Official Story" ... for me. I'm not sure what your perceptions are re the WTC collapses.

I'm just curious .... you see, I've participated in the investigations and am wondering what 411 you have that's different from mine ....

[CaptainClark23]

26. W/o reinventing the wheel

I use the term "Official Story" to represent the explanation offered to date that the towers collapsed because of damage to the buildings' structural integrity as the direct and sole result of a) structural damage from the actual impact of the aircraft into the towers and b) the heat from the resulting fires reducing the integrity of trusses between the outer 'shell' of the towers and the inner core (being a fundamental element of the towers' structural integrity) to the point of failure.

That is my understanding of the "Official Story" as regards the actual collapse. There are other parts of the "Official Story" as pertain to the highjackings, the highjackers, the pentagon, the US response on the 11th etc. which I question as well, but in this case I speak solely of the collapse of WTC 1&2.

If not mistaken, I believe I can source this perception to a preliminary NIST report which I can dig out the particulars on if I must. But since you have participated in the investigations, I'll assume you've perused it at length.

Hope I've clarified sufficiently.

[OudeVanDagen]

27. 10-4

[LARED]

22. Ok

a result of the heat from the fires of the plane impacts, the steel beams tying the outer frame of WTC to the inner core of the towers were sufficiently weakened so as to sever that crucial connection.

Up to that part you were pretty close. I think sever is not quite the correct term though. I'm sure some floor trusses were severed,and some lost enough strength to fail at the connections -- but I believe some just stopped providing the the "stiffness" for lack of a better word required to maintain the structures integrity.

Thereby leading to the towers' collapse.

If you mean the aforementioned scenario was the cause of the collapse, then you are misstating my position. If you mean it is one of many factors then we are in agreement.

The point of my comment about suspending the laws of physics was a jab at those that pretend to believe the WTC steel was not affected by the heat. The analogy is simple, if the steel on a roadway will sag and bend because of a diesel fuel fire, but you don't think the steel in the WTC was affected by a similair fire, then you have to believe that on route 95 the laws of physic were once again suspended.

[CaptainClark23]

23. Ok Ok

A Jab I can understand. Just making sure it wasn't a serious point of proof being suggested.

Good natured jabs are part of the dialogue. Have a good day.

[TrogL]

7. Presumably they mean melted

[OudeVanDagen]

8. Example of lousy reporting

I don't usually offer links; but this one will lead you to a perfect example of misleading irresponsible and terrible reporting ... the writer uses 'melt' in the article; quote: "The fiery tanker truck melted part of the bridge Thursday night and left a buckled mess on the highway." end quote.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/2951420/detail.html

This is an example of how readers can be mislead.

NO official report coming across my desk had 'melt' in it.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OudeVanDagen]

12. Time for a change?

Why not try something new for a change .... contribute something to the discussion.

[DulceDecorum]

14. Official report?

Do tell.

[OudeVanDagen]

18. Which

report do you want to talk about? But, I must warn you ... they're all still preliminaries.

[forgethell]

4. whoever said that

steel wouldn't bend when heated sufficiently? Of course it will.

[OudeVanDagen]

6. I just got three words ....

..... Modulus Of Elasticity.

[DulceDecorum]

11. Twang

Rowland said that the damage looked like an earthquake when he first surveyed the scene of the accident.

According to state police, a tanker truck loaded with 12,000 of gallons of fuel was forced into a guardrail by a passenger car.

"There is a lot of unanswered questions, including how diesel fuel could ignite the way it did," Rowland said.

The intense flame buckled the highway.

"The steel beams were almost touching the ground. When the cold water and the foam hit, they came up to the upright position," Rowland said.
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/2951420/detail.html
Bounced back -- twang.
Instead of laying around molten for another six weeks.
Funny how the road still appears to be standing.
Stupid thing should have turned to dust as it collapsed onto its own footprint.
Rowland has unanswered questions. Join the club, guv, take a number.

[OudeVanDagen]

13. "take a number"

He wasted no time taking some numbers, $11.2 Million:

http://www.ct.gov/governor/cwp/view.asp?Q=272640&A=1551

[LARED]

17. More sloppy reporting. Listen to the video link you provided

The article states the Gov said;

"The steel beams were almost touching the ground. When the cold water and the foam hit, they came up to the upright position,"

Except that's not an accurate quote.

Sloppy reporting

[LARED]

16. How about three pictures