Freeway Collapse

Freeway Collapse

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 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.


Original article here. Thanks to Stop The Lie!



Alex Jones interviewed

Alex Jones interviewed Steven Jones about this today.

The O'Reilly Factor

Someone sitting in for Bill O'Reilly, can't remember his name, was all over this at the very beginning of the show, attacking Rosie and all of the 9-11 Truth people.

Just had a moron try this on me!

Sippin my coffee with my big black and white 9/11 Truth Now sign prominently displayed to the passersby... A guy walks up--"didn't you hear about the freeway in California? you STILL think fire couldna done that?" I said "You really think there's any comparison?" "Of course." Walks off shaking head and muttering cognitively dissonant somethings...

Then a couple stopped to chat--asked me if I wasn't afraid of the cops, given what they did to that poor activist in, uh, where was it--they said he had a bomb...

I went into doomshill damage control mode and explained how there are certain people (Chris knows who I'm talkin' about!) who you can't necessarily believe like 75% of the time. Then a member of guardian angels joined in the convo and we had a great time chatting truth.

It's great to be a truther these days! Oh yeah, some really strung out looking dudes walked by and said "hey wasn't that guy on South Park? hyuk hyuk"

He who hyuks last hyuks best!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


yeah, that damn Alex Jones

yeah, that damn Alex Jones is killing the movement huh?

Goddamn it.

That's really what I want -- to have to explain how these two instances are different.

And would you believe

within five minutes of posting that I *was* in fact explaining the difference to a snarky family member who was happy to point out to me that "fire just melted the steel core (sic) of the freeway."

A Duh !


To quote the Governator AH-NOLD:

"It is amazing to see it melted, that the steel actually melted - because the fires were just so intense"

or words nearly to that effect, every hour on the hour, during the gcn radio shows, forced to play the parent company propaganda news breaks (like Jack Blood calls them)

eerily close to sounding like Harley Boy, but with the dumb ah-nold speech impediment. The media really swooped down on this story, and this is the 4th blog entry about it today, lol.

Anyone else get the feeling that the spooks are scrambling for anything they can, and that they are scared shit about... wait for it...

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Anyone who thinks there is any comparison

between this freeway collapse and 9/11 is a f*cking idiot.

And if someone insists on making this comparison, remind them that NIST tried to model the so-called melting steel in the WTC and it did not work. NIST applied hotter fires than were witnessed on 9/11, longer than the fires burned on 9/11, and the structure would not collapse. That was a model based on the actual conditions of 9/11, not some freeway of an entirely different structure and substance.

The only way this freeway collapse would prove anything about 9/11 is if they strapped the road with explosives and then detonated them.

Most of them are . . .

The problem is that the vast majority out there are "f*cking idiots" so we have to deal with it, like it or not.

I read about 4 mailboxes and have gotten more mail on this issue than most - a lot of people who claim that they've supported the questioning of 9/11 but now don't, and things like "don't you feel like an idiot now!" etc.

The real idiots are most people sitting in front of the tube.

Anyway, we should at least document the fact of all these media using the phrase "melted the steel" with zero evidence. I've seen 2 stories so far that say "engineers say" but won't reference who and won't respond to emails asking who said that. We need to call them on that.

9-11 Research cites the idiots who said it on 9/11/01, and we should do that now again -

The Core Meltdown Theory
The Fire-Melts-Steel Idea Was Promoted by Experts

We need to do that for this . . .

I would remind these people

that the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 are specific cases based on specific evidence, and are not analogous with a freeway collapsing from a crashed tanker or whatever.

Improbable Collapse is a pretty good look at the collapses and the NIST investigation. I prefer it to 9/11 Mysteries primarily because it looks directly at the claims of the NIST report, something most debunkers don't do.

What a Schnitt head

Get a load of this CRAP!

"Cogito ergo sum"