THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Monday, April 30, 2007


A few loony right-wing bloggers have grasped the story of the fuel tanker that crashed, exploded and caused a freeway bridge to collapse due to the fuel burning and weakening the structure near Oakland, San Francisco, as proof that burning fuel is able to bring down tall buildings.

So desperate are they to rebut the assertion of engineers and scientists that fuel can’t possibly have caused the WTCs to have collapsed that they have jumped on the story as proof that 9/11 did happen the way the government reckoned after all. However, they have forgotten to stop and consider 1) what kind of fuel caused the bridge in San Francisco to collapse and 2) The two totally different types of structures.

The reality is that the fires in the WTCs were fuelled by Jet-A1 fuel which has a free air burn temperature of between 500°F and 599°F, nowhere near enough to weaken, let alone melt, high-strength steel columns which were the primary structural material used in the buildings. The tanker that crashed and burned causing the bridge to collapse on the other hand was carrying 8600 gallons of unleaded gasoline which exploded right under the bridge causing temperatures to reach some 2000°F which is enough to severely weaken the bridge structure and cause it to collapse.

The other aspect not taken into account in this ill-considered comparison is the fact that the two structures are totally different. The most obvious is; the WTC towers are vertical whereas the bridge structure is horizontal. The other difference is that the primary structure of the WTCs is massive steel columns whereas the structure of the bridge is reinforced concrete, a material that is given to cracking when subjected to sudden high temperatures. It is clear from the photographic evidence that the collapse of the bridge was caused by a combination of the heat and the force of the explosion.

The fairy-story believers are grasping at straws!


Anonymous said...

The fact is the @10K gallons of jet fuel in each of the 2 767 airliners that crashed into the WTC soaked the flammables over several 200' x 200' floors of occupied office space and roared into flame. Documented temperatures (based on NIST analysis of the burned materials) reached upwards of 1500 degrees on those areas struck by the two @275Klb aircraft doing more than 450mph each. More than enough heat was produced to cause structural weakening of the steel. Never mind the destruction caused by the impact. In fact, six hundred degree fires would have been enough over the amount of time that they burned and throughout the area damaged.

For you see, unlike the expressway overpass in California, which after all was burned and collapsed only as a consequence of an @80K pound tanker truck crashing and burning while doing @60mph, each WTC tower fire also had the collossal weight of millions of pounds of building floors bearing down on top of it.

Damian Lataan said...

Anonymous, you reckon that: “…the @10K gallons of jet fuel in each of the 2 767 airliners that crashed into the WTC soaked the flammables over several 200' x 200' floors of occupied office space and roared into flame.”

It did no such thing. Virtually all of the fuel was burnt on impact. Watch the films and see the explosions for yourself.

Having debunked your crap theory that ‘10,000 gallons of jet fuel soaked over several floors’, it puts paid to the rest of your garbage ideas that relies on that having happened – not once but twice!

Neither the energy of the impact or the resultant explosion accounts for how three massive structures, one of them not even hit by any aircraft, went into free-fall collapse.

Anonymous said...

I think you'll find such posts are parodies of conspiricist positions and not serious contentions.

Just as no one needs to look for elaborate government conspiracies in the case of the truck accident, you don't need to look for the same in explaining 9/11.

Damian Lataan said...

I'll be the judge of that!

Anonymous said...

The biggest difference is that to be anything like 9/11 the collapsing bridge would have had to somehow set fire to another bridge a block away and cause it to come down, too, vis a vis WTC7.

Hope in America said...

Hi Damian,
I just discovered your site through an article on Red Ice. Read the articles and wow - great insights, keep up the good work.
I live in Oklahoma and have been active in the Truth for 911 movemment for some years. My eyes really opened earlier with the OKC bombing, pretty up close and personal, and I saw the lies, the cover, the whole ruse - when it began and how it is still being perpetuated by the government here.
In researching several years ago I came across an article by Harry Mason, down in your neck of the woods, that he titled Bright Skies. Of particular interest is Part V where he considers Scalar/Em weaponry as a possibility for the OKC blasts.
The whole article can be read at
I've not been able to find much that he has done since and I was wondering what you know of his work and the Scalar/Em experimentation that was going on in South Australia. I think this weapon technology, if in fact it is up and working, could have been used in other bombings, perhaps even 911 and there are some reasons to think it might be.
Obviously I have much more research and thoughts I could share about this, but I first wanted to know your take on Harry Mason's work and what really is going on Down Under. I know you all have been beaten up pretty badly in the past 3+ years with all sorts of weather phenomena.

Anonymous said...

Check out this new info on Marife Nichols!