Will They Again Compare a Cracked and Weakened Bridge to 1300+ Foot Tall Steel Reinforced Buildings?

Prison Planet | August 2, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

The latest tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota brings back memories of a similar collapse in San Francisco earlier this year, after which desperate debunkers attempted to make a comparison to the implosion of the twin towers in order to attack 9/11 truth.

The debunkers were notably silent in February 2005 when the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid was gutted by intense fires for 28 hours but did not collapse, yet they all attack in unison whenever a structure wholly incomparable to the twin towers meets its demise, attempting to use it as evidence that the WTC and Building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, could have collapsed at free fall speed without the aid of explosives.

In order to get ahead of the inevitable re-hashing of this ludicrous argument, let's take a look at the facts.

Firstly, according to experts and news reports, the bridge in Minnesota had fallen into a state of disrepair and was already severely weakened.

"A weakened bridge combined with just heavy traffic loads could very well have been the reason for the collapse," William Ibbs, professor of civil engineering at U.C. Berkeley told ABC News .

The prevailing consensus is that the bridge had fallen into disrepair and as a result weakened abutments may have led to the bridge's collapse," added the American Chronicle .

According to the What Really Happened website, "Local TV stations in Minneapolis are reporting that the bridge was known to have stress cracks in the structure."

The section of bridge that collapsed was built in 1967, before more modern techniques were introduced to counter the effects of fatigue stress which, as rush hour traffic clogged the bridge, was undoubtedly the key to its collapse.

Highway sections across the country routinely collapse with no fire damage whatsoever being involved, including a case in Oklahoma in 2002 when a 500-foot section of an Interstate-40 bridge collapsed after a barge collided with a bridge support.

In comparison, the cores of the WTC twin towers were built to withstand the weight of their 110 floors and tens of thousands of occupants multiple times over, as well as compensating for potential gale force winds and earthquakes.

"Far more than a mere "service core", it comprised of 47 steel box columns tied together at each floor by steel plates, similar to the 52" deep spandrel plates that tied the perimeter columns together. The largest of these core columns were 18"x36", with steel walls 4" thick near the base and tapering in thickness toward the top, and was anchored directly to the bedrock."

According to numerous architects and designers who helped to build the twin towers, the buildings were designed to absorb multiple airliner impacts without collapsing .

The limited fires inside the towers did not reach temperatures hot enough to weaken or melt steel.

Any comparison between bridge collapses and giant steel skyscrapers is manifestly absurd just on the surface, and if debunkers attempt to make the same argument again it will only expose their continued desperation and hopelessness in being able to counter the obvious controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7.