I just a love a good dad story.

When I was about 10 years old, dad and I went fishing down to the Delaware River between NJ and PA. We would walk across the railroad bridge and make our way to the top of the pier and fish from there.

Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6891036,-75.204665,78a,35y,102.75h,61.26t/data=!3m1!1e3

As we walked with our fishing poles and fishing box across the railroad ties he would tell me stories from when he was a kid. Told me his older brother tried to get my dad to jump from the bridge into the river. My Uncle had done this many times but dad had no desire to try it.

He said my Uncle tried to push him off the bridge once but dad held on real tight to one of the steel girders.

He told me, if I looked real close at that 2nd girder over there, I could still see his fingerprints embedded in it.

I think I laughed for 5 minutes straight.

--------------------------------------------

BTW, that's Easton PA on the waterfall side. Home of Larry Holmes.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6899416,-75.2056761,3a,25.1y,100.05h,92.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suS_MxvwqsYa-rGO1dXt0Lg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Hot as in at over 80 years of age, being vertical, on a stage in front of a bajillion people, entertaining a great huge lot of them, AND being able to play a sax without having her lungs implode?

Yup.

Sure, plastic surgery, steel-girder bra, fake hair, pancake make-up, all of that. But still alive, entertaining and kicking. Gotta respect at least that - and hope I can do it when I'm that age.

(uh... except the steel-girder bra part. Don't think I want that one.)

Well - the "law" says the cyclist can take the whole lane. But COMMON SENSE says that the cyclist should behave as if he's a spun-glass ornament sharing the same space as an avalanche of steel girders. As a regular cyclist myself, I get over to the right about 3 feet from the curb and I STAY there no matter what the laws say I can do. When you're the equivalent of an eggshell on a bowling alley, you don't go plunking yourself right in front of the pins.

Please insert girder.

i'm tellin ya... the guy who shaped my yard had a collection of "bones" he called them, they were steel girders of various shapes. He grabbed one with his opposable claw bucket and SHAVED my land into a particular shape with a excavator.

>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^MaxWilder:
1. The towers were designed to withstand impacts by jet planes and to withstand fires. But they didn't account for the fact that a jet impact would strip much of the insulation on the steel girders. So the impact plus the prolonged fire was what did them in.also when the constructions of WTC started in 1960's, the largest plane was something like 727, if not even smaller, and that's what the designed were accounting for. A logical situation for a plane hitting such tall buildings would a plane lost in the fog coming down for landing..
757 is a much larger plane, fueled for cross-continent flight, and smashed into WTC going much faster than it would normally fly at such height.


As I posted above and you seemed to ignore. This is actually not entirely true at all. According to this site:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Not only the is size of a Boeing 707 only slightly smaller than a Boeing 767, but it holds only a mere 980 gallons less fuel, and is faster than a 767 by 77MPh.

And:
"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

>> ^MaxWilder:

1. The towers were designed to withstand impacts by jet planes and to withstand fires. But they didn't account for the fact that a jet impact would strip much of the insulation on the steel girders. So the impact plus the prolonged fire was what did them in.also when the constructions of WTC started in 1960's, the largest plane was something like 727, if not even smaller, and that's what the designed were accounting for. A logical situation for a plane hitting such tall buildings would a plane lost in the fog coming down for landing..
757 is a much larger plane, fueled for cross-continent flight, and smashed into WTC going much faster than it would normally fly at such height.

>> ^bcglorf:

They didn't specifically test for pre-planted terrorist agents with arc welders cutting the buildings support beams either, but why should they?


Because if this video isn't omitting fundamental parts of the NIST report, the theory of structural failure fails to explain significant evidence, including the molten steel girders, the yellow molten substance (which seems unlikely to have been aluminum with burning furniture), the white flashes and the iron microspheres.

By selectively discarding evidence, an otherwise weak theory can be promoted as the most plausible explanation. For example, if we discard nonrelativistic phenomena, Newtonian physics fit observation quite well.

But as I said, I'm terribly unqualified to take a position on this issue. I have an easy job being a skeptic because whenever I see the media being horribly incompetent when decrying "truthers", I have the tendency of taking the opposing side. I should at the very least read the NIST report.

I can't believe there are still people bringing this crap up.

1. The towers were designed to withstand impacts by jet planes and to withstand fires. But they didn't account for the fact that a jet impact would strip much of the insulation on the steel girders. So the impact plus the prolonged fire was what did them in.
2. The towers were all designed to collapse downward in case of catastrophic failure. That is a design priority for skyscrapers, and has been for decades.
3. WTC7 was seriously damaged by the collapse of WTC1, which also started fires across a number of floors. The damage to the water system caused by the collapse of the larger towers allowed the fires to burn out of control for almost seven hours.

The structural damage to WTC7 plus the uncontrolled fires caused a progressive collapse. That means that several internal collapses occurred before there simply wasn't enough structure left to hold up the building. You can see the penultimate collapse right there in the videos, when one of the penthouse structures goes down into the building. It is likely that several internal collapses happened before we see that.

I'm not saying people should forget about what happened. I'm not even saying we should stop trying to figure out exactly what happened. It's just these wacko conspiracy theorists that seem to be making up their own facts and ignoring perfectly reasonable explanations that piss me off.

Two of the tallest structures ever built by man collapsed amidst dozens of other massive structures. It's amazing they didn't take more with them.

>> ^Mandtis:

>> ^Duckman33:
I see the third steel structure building ever in history to collapse from a fire. 3 buildings in one day, but has never happened before in history. Wonder what the odds of that happening are?

Third steel structure to collapse from fire? And I thought the other two collapsed due to a plane crashing on them...


Yes, the official story is that the fire from the jet fuel caused the steel girders to soften, which in turn caused the buildings to collapse. [Edit] If I remember correctly, the designer of the WTC buildings is on record stating the buildings were designed to take not one, but two impacts from similar sized jets carrying virtually the same amount of jet fuel as the jets that hit the WTC 1 & 2 without causing the buildings to collapse.

>> ^Enzoblue:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Jinx" title="member since March 21st, 2009" class="profilelink">Jinx,
Royal Dutch/Shell- 4.5 to 8.2
ExxonMobil - 4.7 to 17.2
British Petroleum- 3.4 to 5.9
Chevron Texaco- 1.1 to 3.5
Profits in Billions from 2002 to 2003. (USA Today, 8/28/03)

What has that got to do with the towers collapse though. I don't doubt that many of the motives for occupation in the middle east are based on oil, but as an excuse to go to war 9/11 was a pretty poor one. No doubt the US government used the tragedy to justify war with Iraq, but there really was no connection and thats why I have a hard time believing they engineered the whole thing. If they can go to all this trouble to rig the buildings, get some planes to fly into and succesfully cover it up, why did they put Saudis in the planes? I think its much more likely that this was a terrorist attack and the US government scrambled to use it to their own advantage.


As for how the planes brought the buildings down, well I think I'm happy with the explanation. The fire, while not hot enough to actually melt steel, would have still weakened it sufficiently to allow it to bend and buckle. The floors pancaked and domino'd all the way down the tower. With the floors gone the walls had no support so they fell in too.

It seems to me the problem here is that there were accounts of molten metal which can't have been caused by the fire, and thats the lose end the guy in this video is trying to address. I cannot speculate how the metal melted, but I'm pretty confident that if there had been girders cut through with thermite there would have been evidence. You saw how distincive those cuts are. As for this "nanothermite", my guess would be that it was left there from contruction. Thermite is used in the contruction of railway tracks to fuse the joints together, its not impossible that a similar method was used in the contruction/repair of the towers and that it remained there (along with the balls of iron).

Anyway, tl:dr. Molten metal. Must be conspiracy. lol.

For reference...

NIST report and press conference:
Sunder said that his team investigated these hypothetical causes [thermite] and ruled them out. "We asked ourselves what is the minimum amount of charge we could use to bring the building down," he said. "And we found that even the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away." There were no reports of such a sound; numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet.

FEMA:
The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 degrees C (1,800 degrees F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel...

FEMA:
Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700 to 800 degrees C (1290 - 1470 degrees F).

NIST:
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent [***NOTE: no reference] of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

Modulus of Elasticity for Steel:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/young-modulus-d_773.html

What is concerning is that thermite was rule out because of the noise, and that 1000 lbs would be needed.

Also, no one has explained the UL testing on the steel for 6 hrs at 1000C?

Finally, what is troubling is that softening girders causeing collapse, fine, steel is weakened at 1400degF, but the core wouldn't fall. Certainly wouldn't break apart.

"a permanent memorial to the thousands of people who lost their lives..."

Those Americans didn't just "lose their lives" as if their lives were a purse forgotten at a lunch counter. They were murdered by the religion of peace.



And shouldn't the truther-media be on scene to take pictures of the new "shaped charges" workers are placing on the girders for the next staged attack?

....and that was not a plane that hit the pentagon (show the films confiscated)..and the burning WTC 7 simply HAD to come down!!! After all, it was on fire...we always drop buildings into their own footprints that have been burning for over 5 hrs in the U.S....especially ones with so much cool government spook shit in them, and especially ones with the NY office of Emergency management, IRS, Secret Service, and SEC...

Yeah yeah yeah, "The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail." blah blah blah....

Why then, did Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC compound, in need of asbestos removal and major repairs say "we had to pull it" when asked about WTC 7? Answer-He got sloppy on the record.

Any one of the simple questions swept under the rug of time and apathy should be vigorously and publicly questioned.

I'm not sure the logic is sound. While, his observations seem accurate, it may simply be collapsing asymmetrically, girders in the corners not under as much weight, as the contents of the floor above fall inwards to the center of the building.

In any case *talks.