Notice anything significant?

[Jamie6.5]

<broken link removed> [gallery]/11/

Have a look through the photos at the link above, and see if you notice anything significant in them.

Hint: Notice the boom on the crane.

Please be aware, that it is a lattice-boom specifically built for picking loads, and is trussed out of high strength steel.

Any comments?
Any references to other threads here on NWFA?

Read More

 

[salmonriverjohn]

Other than the cranes at a far left angle, not sure.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Other than the cranes at a far left angle, not sure.

I am referring to the severe droop in the last 20' or so in the boom.

 

[Bigfoot]

Hmm I missed the Viagra thread. Sorry to hear bout that.

Oh you mean the heat softened the steel? Who doesn't know that?

 

[Jamie6.5]

Oh you mean the heat softened the steel? Who doesn't know that?

Awhile back, we had a thread on the 9/11 WTC attacks, and the conspiracy theories that claimed thousands of pounds of jetA wouldn't/couldn't soften the steel structure.

Considering the grade of steel that's used in crane booms,
and the fact that there couldn't have been any chimney effect on the temps the crane boom was exposed to,
and the fact that JetA burns hotter than crude or Nat gas,
I believe it should be apparent that the conspiracy theorists are completely wrong about whether or not the fires in the twin towers would have softened the steel frames adequately to allow them to fail.

And the boom on that crane is proof of that.

 

[Intention]

Awhile back, we had a thread on the 9/11 WTC attacks, and the conspiracy theories that claimed thousands of pounds of jetA wouldn't/couldn't soften the steel structure.

Considering the grade of steel that's used in crane booms,
and the fact that there couldn't have been any chimney effect on the temps the crane boom was exposed to,
and the fact that JetA burns hotter than crude or Nat gas,
I believe it should be apparent that the conspiracy theorists are completely wrong about whether or not the fires in the twin towers would have softened the steel frames adequately to allow them to fail.

And the boom on that crane is proof of that.

Excellent theory. The softened steel wilted but didnt sheer. So using this crane boom proof we can explain how a 1300+ foot building core left no wilted tall pieces after the building "pancaked". Wouldn't you expect to see some very tall limp, bent, twisted remnants of that structure standing? Your crane boom is not laying on top of its self in a tidy heap is it? Fact no fire has ever in history has collapsed a steel framed building. So how did building 7 "pancake" also? No jet fuel no plane impact. If we use your crane boom proof on building 7 what do we see?

 

[Jamie6.5]

The twin towers weren't built with a structural "core" they were an "exoskeleton" design.

 

[Intention]

The twin towers weren't built with a structural "core" they were an "exoskeleton" design.

Excellent I guess that pretty much clears up all of my concerns.

 

[slimmer13]

Kinda funny, I was just channel surfing like ten minutes ago and I stopped on that Jesse Ventura conspiricy show long enough to learn that energy weapons from space brought down the towers.

Mystery solved.

Your welcome, but the credit goes to Jesse, thanks JV!!!!

 

[Jamie6.5]

Excellent I guess that pretty much clears up all of my concerns.

If you're talking about your "tidy heap" remark, maybe you should review some pictures of the site, post-collapse.
It was far from a "tidy heap" with many many vertical members still in place, as well as bent/twisted beams prevalent in the pile.

But hey, thanks for playing!

 

[Chee-to]

Awhile back, we had a thread on the 9/11 WTC attacks, and the conspiracy theories that claimed thousands of pounds of jetA wouldn't/couldn't soften the steel structure.

But, but, that's not what their "expert" sez..........:nuts:

Rosie O'Donnell Spouts 9/11 Conspiracies: 'First Time in History Fire Has Ever Melted Steel' | MRCTV

 

[Intention]

If you're talking about your "tidy heap" remark, maybe you should review some pictures of the site, post-collapse.
It was far from a "tidy heap" with many many vertical members still in place, as well as bent/twisted beams prevalent in the pile.

But hey, thanks for playing!

I would have lover to play more but I got bored waiting over an hour for you to gather your thoughts.

Be well have fun.

 

[Kevatc]

Fact no fire has ever in history has collapsed a steel framed building.

Hmmm ... ahhh .... uhhh actually it has happened. Twice. Perhaps you've heard of the Twin Towers? In case you haven't try Googling 9-11 attacks.

 

[Cheesemaker]

Conspiracy or not? Just as gas prices start to fall back to where its affordable, something happens to a oil derrick, refinery or they need to update some oil lines in Alaska. Then gas prices go back up. And yet, even with all the derrick disasters, the oil companies are showing record profit in the BILLIONS, every quarter!!

 

[mjbskwim]

Awhile back, we had a thread on the 9/11 WTC attacks, and the conspiracy theories that claimed thousands of pounds of jetA wouldn't/couldn't soften the steel structure.

Considering the grade of steel that's used in crane booms,
and the fact that there couldn't have been any chimney effect on the temps the crane boom was exposed to,
and the fact that JetA burns hotter than crude or Nat gas,
I believe it should be apparent that the conspiracy theorists are completely wrong about whether or not the fires in the twin towers would have softened the steel frames adequately to allow them to fail.

And the boom on that crane is proof of that.

Only problem is,the boom stops back where it starts drooping.
But great analogy.

Cool story bro