« Rice Lies about WMDs: U.N. | Main | Are the Democrats Surrendering in Iraq? »

Officals Studying S.F. Freeway Collapse

[Sorry about the title typo - it should read "Officials Studying S.F. Freeway Collapse" - Lee]

Making the best of a bad situation, officials are studying this weekend's fire and collapse of the freeway overpass in San Francisco to draw comparisons with the 9/11 collapse of the World Trade Center, and to learn more about fighting such gasoline-fed structural fires in the future.

While crews sifted through the wreckage Monday, outside experts did their own analysis. In one line of inquiry that could improve future responses, some scientists were studying links between the freeway collapse and how the World Trade Center came down Sept. 11, 2001.

The structural failures appear similar, said David McCallen, division leader in nonproliferation, homeland and international security at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The steel supporting the overpass turned pliable after the gasoline-fed fire below reached temperatures up to 2,000 degrees -- more than four times as hot as the hottest conventional home oven.

The big difference between a blast and a fire is the fire takes time, "which gives you the potential or the option of responding," McCallen said. In this case, it makes sense to look at better ways to douse fuel-based fires, McCallen said, adding: "We ought to at least investigate whether there's a response mechanism that makes sense."

More here.

Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 1.8/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 1.8/5 (5 votes cast)

Comments (16)


Interesting. It's fortunate that nobody was killed.


Do you think that this will have any impact on 9/11 consiracy theorists...or will they just think that this was elaborately staged to retroactively prove that fire can collapse structures by weakening the metal supports?

Someone will suggest that this was staged, true, and they will have the truck driver's dodgey past as supporting evidence. Apparently he's a felon who's been previously convicted of heroin possession and burglary -- sounds like CIA-Operative material to me...

The studies cited in this article are most likely all being conducted through official government channels, so yes -- you're right -- someone will raise the theory that the accident was staged (at 3 am when one one could hurt) in order to somehow counter 9/11 conspiracy theorists.


I think that's why I get so annoyed with conspiracists. Events and discoveries that should help to disprove or at least challenge their thinking have no effect because they are effortlessly worked into the overall theory without regard.

Then again, it's my view that conspiracists have a flawed thinking process, so they couldn't incorporate anything contrary to their view and think critically.

It's a matter of trust, Heralder. This administration has very low marks on the "trustability" scale, and that's a disgrace. It's that whole "Oh what a tangled web we weave" thing that just keeps coming back to haunt them.


Requesting a post on the cowardice of DJ Drummond...

"Requesting a post on the cowardice of DJ Drummond..."

Then write one :). If I can get my colleagues on WB-B to approve we'll post it here.



Not really though. Conspricacists are by no stretch of the imagination exclusive to the Bush administration.

They're more anti-government than anti-Bush in my opinion.


DJ, was pretty specific in the control he was going to exert over that thread. Everyone was forewarned.

Paul Hamilton:

Heralder: I used to listen to shortwave radio back in the 90s and you're right that their goofy ideas are more anti-New World Order and eschatological than they are related to any specific administration.

JP2 - There is a "tips" email link on the home page and an mail sent to that address reaches the entire WB-Blue staff. Feel free to make a pitch there.

Heralder - Yes, conspiracy asshats existed before Bush and they will still exist after, but the Bush's administration's penchant for (ahem) "stretching the truth in their favor" provides a motive that conspiracy theorists can then hang their hat on. I don't believe any of the conspiracy theories floating around regarding explosives bringing down the towers, but I understand what fuels those conspiracy theories. Some of it may be lack of medication, true - but not all of it.

In a vacuum, without a motive, would anyone have even listened to the theory that that the towers were brought down by explosives? It is only when you apply the motive that the administration wanted to stretch the evidence in support of an Iraq invasion that you arrive at the thin-but-plausible conclusion that our federal government could stage such an event to support their cause. That motive is supported by the administration's obvious desire to invade first, and hope they founds the WMDs that would support the pre-invasion smokescreen after the invasion -- since they didn't find them before going in.

After all, we are talking about politicians and billions upon billions of dollars. Bad mix.

Btw: DJ would edit out my comment regarding the motive supporting the theory - he'd say that's not a viable argument, even though I personally don't subscribe to the thoeries or give them credence -- it would be "prohibited-thinking" in DJ's world.

His proclamation was that he was going to stage a fair debate, and, imho, he's now shown by deleting comments which question his definition and methodology of what is "fair" that in his idea "fair arguments" are those that he agrees with.


"Then write one :). If I can get my colleagues on WB-B to approve we'll post it here."

Sheesh, that sounds like a lot of work. I was hoping to outsource it.

"Sheesh, that sounds like a lot of work. I was hoping to outsource it."

Then make a pitch via email as described above.



In a vacuum, without a motive, would anyone have even listened to the theory that that the towers were brought down by explosives?

I think so, definitely. I mean, what's the motive for thinking the moon landing was a hoax? Also, one needs to be mindful that this occured not long after Bush took office, and the theories popped up almost immediately...there wasn't quite alot of time for this "climate for conspiracy" to develop.

They make their own climate.

H-man - good point.


Thanks, Lee.

Now, to completely abuse the post rating feature so I can give 200 votes to your post saying I made a good point!

Through my subversive techniques, Wizbang Blue will bend to my will and become a shining beacon of center-rightedness!!!

Guess my plan wont work though, since I just typed it out in detail.

"Through my subversive techniques, Wizbang Blue will bend to my will and become a shining beacon of center-rightedness!!!"

We libtards don't bend to someone's will - we just kind of slouch and nod in their direction.


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]





Add to Technorati Favorites


Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.