I hear the fire from a fuel tanker actually melted the steel on the Bay Bridge?

You don't have to completely melt steel to weaken it to the point that it will no longer support stuff (concrete) that is attached to it. It weakens as the temperature increases. 8000 gallons of 87 octane gas appears to be able to drop two overpasses that were built to withstand an 8.0 earthquake.

You heard wrong.

The bridge is perfectly fine.

What collapsed was a section of freeway people who cross the bridge need to get to various destinations.

The steel didn't melt, it was softened.

For specifics about the relative widths of the steel in the freeway support (smallish) and the steel in the WTC towers (bigger around), you'd have to ask the 911 Truth people.

Ditto regarding the temperatures of the relevant fires.

water freezes at 32 ranges metal melts at 2700 WTC Bldg 7 fires were no the position close to that temp. SF bridge-8600 gals. of gasoline, burned at temp >2750 causing bolts to soften in that section- not the same as WTC Bldg 7. No jets flew into WTC7. yet a 40 seven tale progression got here down. i'm not announcing i believe in a conspiracy theory. i'm merely announcing I really have a perfect to question something that would not make experience to me.

The actual story reported the fire reached over 2700 degrees and actually melted the steel at the bolted areas, now the conspiracy theorists all morning keep saying it melted asphalt, which it also did, but refuse to acknowledge the steel, because it puts another hole in their WTC conspiracy.

The facts are, the fire at the bridge burned at over 2700 degrees, the melting point of steel. Just goes to show, you can never believe a conspiracy theorist, they're probably conspiring with someone to try to fool you.

fuel fires burn MUCH hotter than other types of fire like say, wood fires...the heat is much more intense and as we all know, it is HEAT not fire, that melts steel. the "9/11 truth" people are nothing but leftist propagandists...just ask rosie o'dumbell, she was, at least until recently, their most visible mouthpiece!

here is a bit of unsolicited advice: any, and i mean any, conspiracy theory involving anything other than islamic radicals flying airplanes into the twin towers is nothing but RUBBISH! and where does rubbish belong?...

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.

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.

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.

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.)

- - -

You fell asleep in science class, didn't you?

But, but, Loose Change said that gas could not burn hot enough to melt steel...humm...lol

Hey I saw a car last week that was on fire and all that steel melted as well.......................

Your own eyes, and the laws of physics and chemistry.