It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
One question would be why a welder would cut the beam so high if the purpose was to remove the beam from the area. Welders don't really like to cut huge steel beams where the slag will fly back at their face. The slag definately is from the inside out on the lowest face. It appears that the force from the cutting jet was from top to bottom across at an angle.
Its also a rather clean cut. A torch cut with the beam pushing down on the slag would have allowed for reattachment of the molten slag. That happens to me pretty often, cutting even 3/4" plate. It seems to me there should have been broken reattachment points unless the beam was cut all the way across at once and slipped over while the steel was molten. Also like the expert says, a crane would have had to have been lifting the beam as a welder cut it.
Unless you wanted the beam to shoot out or slide to one side, it would have been easier to cut with a torch the connecting points which were probably bolts or rivets where the beam had its seperating joint above.
Demolitions will cut the beam at a slant in two places to allow for an instantaneous slipping out from under the load to allow for a near free-fall speed to give the collapsing mass the most accelleration to gain the most kinetic energy to demolish the structure below and the mass itself.
The speed at which destruction below the collapse zone progressed downwards indicates a need for very fast dislodging of beams which would require slant cuts. But there should be a lot of slant cuts, not one or two. Unless a few slant cuts were used for guiding the collapse and for downward acceleration, and some kind of joint dismemberment was used to seperate the columns at the joints to be flung apart by the kinetic mass generated by the slant-cut sections.
originally posted by: samkent
Nice pictures of the beams with the diagonal cuts and the words 'save' painted on the sides.
So why would the perpetrators write save on the sides?
Notice how the one worker was in a basket cutting the beam? I'll bet he cut at what ever angle was the safest. Not only 90 degrees.
originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Because when we say truthers that's exactly how we mean it. It's not like we're being covert about it. a reply to: Bundy
originally posted by: douglas5
originally posted by: woogleuk
Ok, this has to be the worst theory involving the attack on 11/9/01.
You need a minimum yield on an atomic explosion to achieve critical mass, 10-20 ton is as low as they can get it right?
Are the loons who came up with this nuke theory honestly trying to tell us no-one noticed an explosion of that size on that day?
To the hoax bin, or 404, anything, this is just stupid.
The lightest nuclear warhead ever acknowledged to have been manufactured by the U.S. is the W54, which was used in both the Davy Crockett 120 mm recoilless rifle–launched warhead, and the backpack-carried version called the Mk-54 SADM (Special Atomic Demolition Munition). The bare warhead package was an 11 in by 16 in (28 cm by 41 cm) cylinder that weighed 51 lbs (23 kg). It was, however, small enough to fit in a footlocker-sized container.
originally posted by: Hilux1996
a reply to: hellobruce
I thought I would detail a bit more on this cut beam.
If this was a column cut during the cleanup by a thermic lance then why was it cut at an angle so high up?