It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Telescoping Steel?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Yeah imagine that, it looks just like it Val.


I would guess that maybe a wee bit more might be present when the whole beam has been cut, as opposed to when just a small amount has been cut.

Imagine that.









posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
No, I can't imagine that. That's the problem here LB. You can't just say - we cut more steel so there was 2 feet of slag run!

It's not like water for pete's sake. It won't run 2 feet away from the cut. IT COOLS OFF. You can't keep slag hot enough to keep flowing that far away from a torch cut. Serious...imagine that.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
What evidence do you have that it is something else Val?


We have a picture of a 45 degree cut on a beam, obviously during the cleanup, with slag on it.



Then we have a picture showing someone cutting a beam at a 45 degree angle which is producing the same exact slag.



What else could it be?

Why would you say your open to what it is, and then reject the most obvious thing it could be?

You are open to it being insulation, but not slag that is produced when they are cutting the beams, even when shown evidence that cutting the beams does indeed produce slag that looks just like it?

Please since your open to what it is please tell us and then provide evidence.

Complaining that theres too much slag is like complaining that theres not enough plane parts at the pentagon.

Why draw arbritrary lines for what evidence you find acceptable?

Also theres a real easy way to answer this. Find some pics of them finishing off the beam so we can see how much slag is there, then you can prove your point, or not as the case may be.

It's a little unreasonable to compare the lowest part, where it would build up, to a middle part of the cut when comparing volume of slag produced.

[edit on 4-11-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Oh know you don't. You're being a total smart-alek right now. YOU are claiming it's slag. I'M saying you are wrong.

I am not required to prove a negative. But YOU are now on the spot to prove that's slag. ALL 2 FOOT OF IT. Get an expert here that will explain how that's slag. And while you're getting that done, have him explain why that beam is sheared off on one face (the one that appears to be a 45 degree) but has this "MONSTER CUTTING TORCH" slag on the other faces.

You're the one selling this story - NOW PROVE IT.

[edit on 11-4-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I am not asking you to prove a negative, I am asking you what else you might think it is?

Please show us, I have shown what I got and it makes sense to me.

I have shown the cut with some sort of substance, I have also shown a similar substance being produced when a beam is being cut in a very similar manner. I really don't know what else you need.

You want to contend that it's something else, fine prove to us what this something else is.

But don't sit there and say your open to what it is, if your just going to disbelieve a perfectly rational explanation in favor of "insulation."

God forbid your wrong once in a while.




[edit on 4-11-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I have no earthly idea what it is. All I know is this - it's not cutting torch slag, because you can't get that length of slag. I'm sorry that I don't feel comfortable speculating what it could be, but I have learned one thing:

I don't have to know what it is, to know what it isn't.

My only guess was maybe left over fire insulation. That's all I'm going to guess.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
LB Look at the areas I've marked and annotated. Tell me what you think.




posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Don't building demo's cut the core column at that angle when bringing down a building? Thermite shape charges



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   
LEFTBEHIND :

it is you who is making the assumption that the detritus you are pointing out is actuall steel slag - and not some other material

please review these pictures of burnt out cars

i hope you will accept that none of the fires shown in that gallery were accelerated by thermite or any other exotica .

the WTC towers had tons and tons of plastics and light alloys which would when burned / melted - and then solidified form deposits that look like slag , but are not



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 04:43 AM
link   
VALHALL :

the " curious semi circular hole " you point out on your annoted photo is IMHO the start point where a cutting torch was applied



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape


the WTC towers had tons and tons of plastics and light alloys which would when burned / melted - and then solidified form deposits that look like slag , but are not


I agree. It could be melted carpet, melted aluminum. It could be a hundred different things. It sure would be nice to know where that particular column was located in the building.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
VALHALL :

the " curious semi circular hole " you point out on your annoted photo is IMHO the start point where a cutting torch was applied


Well, I considered that, but the problem I have is that it is far too "neat". A cutting torch won't make a clean-edged perfect circle, and that looks to be a perfect semi-circle to me. It may have been a bolt circle? I'm just guessing now.

EDIT: Actually I shouldn't say it's a perfect semi-circle. Now that I look at it again the left edge of the column is occluding part of the feature. For all I know it could be an angle instead of circular. So - just ignore all these comments. lol!

[edit on 11-5-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape


i hope you will accept that none of the fires shown in that gallery were accelerated by thermite or any other exotica .


I fully accept that, in fact that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

We are in agreement ignorant ape, I think that the beam was cut with a torch well after the collapses.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
This panacke theory as shown on TV, made sense until you consider the enormous steel girders in the core. We are meant to believe the the surrouding floors trusses weakened by fire was able to pull the steel core down at free fall speed?



Look up the difference between a static load and a dynamic load. All of the NIST tests were static load tests. A sudden shift from a static to a dynamic load is what caused the tower collapse.

By the way if you look at that 45 degree cut you can see the marks left by the cutting torch. If a cutting charge was used there would be no marks. A cutting charge leaves a clean shear plane.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
All of the NIST tests were static load tests.


Why? Weren't they allotted millions of dollars to study the collapses? All you have to have is the construction drawings and you could do even rough calculations, and all that would cost would be time.

Gordon Ross has done some even without the construction drawings, drawing a rough but generous picture that's pretty damning to what you suggest here:


A sudden shift from a static to a dynamic load is what caused the tower collapse.


You can find his work on the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Soon as the top of WTC1 would have hit the lower structure, the momentum would have been transferred through the lower structure down right into the foundations, and would then be TOTALLY UNAVAILABLE as an energy source for further destruction. Ross is a mechanical engineer, btw, and not someone like a structural engineer that only deals in the statics that you yourself will admit had very little, if anything to do with the collapses.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
the WTC towers had tons and tons of plastics and light alloys which would when burned / melted - and then solidified form deposits that look like slag , but are not


So then why is this stuff laying across the cut section of a core column near the base of a building?



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   
If this material is right beside the cut then what is it? beeswax? I think the case is made and how would anybody argue otherwise is beyond me.

The cuts at the bottom would cause main support beams to move inward allowing the mass of the entire tower to force the building down into the very subfloors of the structure. Some kind of fast acting and triggered cutting material aka charges would do the job fast and clean and not be noticed in all the confusion going on.

The plane crash and all the smoke and flames could be used as a cover to fool people into thinking the plane brought down the buildings but it is not possible.

Even with floors collapsing we would see a lot of the superstructure standing and always forgotten around this site is the periodic levels which were superstrengthened where the elevator shafts were interchanged. It is highly probable that any floor collapse would be stopped at the skyview levels due to the increased reinforcement at those levels.

This leaves only one way for the building to come down and that is it being toppled somehow or some shearing forces which would have been effected just after the planes impact.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
It is my understanding that the amount of slag can vary depending on the type of fuel used, the condition of the cutting tip, etc.

And BTW, why hasn't anyone addressed the use of the term "telescoping steel?"

WTF is that supposed to mean?

Buckling?

Bending?

Where did anyone ever claim that the steel somehow "telescoped?"



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Can we not make a reasonable conclusion it would be extremely unconventional to attempt to cut a beam that large with so much debris around it. It's at such a height where it'd be unconventional with so much surrounding debris.

And don't try to twist this argument.

It's a very valid conclusion to make, it's like taking a giant robot across a field of debris, and cutting unconventionally at such a low height.

And lets not turn this into a debate of whats conventional as the cutting height or get too off track.

The point is valid: It's extremely unconventional to attempt to cut a beam that large with so much debris around it.

Also some observations:

A) Clean cut
B) Lots of slag
C) Lots of slag
D) Appears to be heated to a point where fast cutting could occur.

I'm with Valhall on this one, LeftBehind, it's funny to always see you at the buttend of all 9/11 conspiracy arguments, scraping together any irrelevant questions or problems you can pose to make everything seem ridiculous.

===================================

This is a very interesting point, and I've always found this photo questionable, and furthermore, the question:

What happened to the inner core columns to allow them to give out simultaneously with the rest of the building (in both situations for World Trade Center 1 and 2, so destructively?)?

I would honestly like to hear from HowardRoark and LeftBehind on this one, or JimC, hmm who else have I left out?



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   
hmmm, I still don't buy into this because dozens of private agencies were consulted on the collapse of the towers



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join