Bay Bridge Melt Does Not "Debunk" WTC Demolition Theory

When the fuel tanker crashed and caused the SF Bay area bridge to melt like a Hershey Bar in the sun, the Neo-Con yakkers immediately used the incident to bash Rosie O'Donnell ("put down your turkey leg, Rosie!") and 9/11 Truth in general. "Experts" immediately came out to compare the bridge melt to the WTC demolitions, such as these eminences quoted in the Contra-Costa Times:

The extent of Mosqueda's fuel load was unclear Sunday. But at least 8,600 gallons of unleaded gasoline ignited in a continuous roar -- more fuel than burned inside the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001 -- and turned the 20-foot space between I-880, where Mosqueda crashed into a guard rail, and the I-580 overhead into an oven that roasted the exposed steel girders to more than 2,000 degrees.

At 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, steel in girders and bolts goes soft, said Astaneh-Asl, who studied the collapse of World Trade Center towers for the National Science Foundation.

"When steel gets that warm, it loses its strength and cannot carry its load any more," he said. "It's not to say the steel melted. Some portions may have melted, but the steel got soft, like rubber."

Other experts say structural failure can come at even lower temperatures.

"The bottom line is this kind of thing can happen," said Forman Williams, a pre-eminent combustion expert at UC San Diego, who was tapped by the federal government to explain the World Trade Center collapse. "It is a rare event, but all of these are rare events, and the more of these you can protect against, the better off you are. ... You don't know until you do the study."

Even while Schnitt, Boortz, Ingraham, and other pro-administration propagandists sharpened their knives on this nugget, 9/11 Truthers were wide-awake and ready to counter their inane assault.

The Jones Boys (Alex and Steve) were vigilant in slapping down the Kool-Aid quaffers on Alex's April 30 broadcast. Download it HERE (longer segment, 16k) or HERE (32k). Indeed, where were the clouds indicating pyroclastic flow? Instead of lolling there suggestively like the Rolling Stones tongue logo, why didn't the bridge just go "poof" a la the WTC towers?

We're not talking about three buildings that were massively overbuilt to withstand anything but intentional demolition. Bridges are notoriously flimsy, are made of thin steel wrapped in concrete and asphalt, and manage to collapse and/or burn all the time. There's nothing truly analogous here. The WTC towers and WTC 7 did not "turn to rubber" and sag in high-heat fires. They were intentionally and demonstrably blown up.