Are the 9-11 I-beams cut in sharp angles?

I just viewed a video of building 7, it's a rare video showing southside fires, however i do not agree with authors verison of facts relating to fires bringing building 7 down (Note: there were a lot of important paper work from enron and various other criminal matters in build 7 + it was the controll center for the controlled demo., which I believe was the motive to bring it down, etc... etc.. ).

In viewing I had an idea pop into my mind, which is this: has anyone analized photos of the actual steel I-Beams from photos showing that the beams were cut in sharp angles, which is the way they set up the thermite charges? I discovered from some other video that all the steel from the twin towers did not have to be cut they were all in twenty foot lengths which were easily loaded on the trucks, interesting to say the least.

Video link : www.abovetopsecret.com...

comments?

[edit on 23-2-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 23-2-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

Larry Silverstein is on record as making the decision to "pull" the building. Firefighters have been caught in various bits of video as casually saying "watch the building - it is coming down later". These points are raised in "Loose Change", as well as in a few other films.

If you search Google or YouTube you're sure to find them. I think it is certain that WTC7 was a demolition.

One theory suggested that debris from WTC1 and WTC2 hit it, weakening the structure, causing it to collapse, yet other surrounding buildings sustained significantly greater damage, yet still remain standing even now.

[edit on 23-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Here's a link to an angle cut beam photo.

www.european911citizensjury.com...

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Here's a link to an angle cut beam photo.

www.european911citizensjury.com...

The problem with that photo is that it was taken after the clean up operation began and so we don't know what work had been done to the beams in the picture by recovery teams. Iam yet to see any pictures of beams cleanly cut at an angle like that taken before the clean up operation.

I agree to the above,
Theres a brilliant book out that i purchased some time ago, the title isnt in my head atm, but its purely large, detailed photos of ground zero in the immediate days..

the rubble, the extent of damage is amazing.
this book is huge, like 40+cms in height

if someone scowled over the hunder + photos of ground zero im sure there's something there signifying demo, but most of the photos ive looked at u cant tell if the giant steel beams were cut that way, or melted that way

whats the title of that book.. hmmmm

after looking at your photo, the angle isnt what makes me question it,
its the melted metal running from the cut downwards..

what ever tools they sued to cut the beam, would if of caused metal to melt and run ?

I decided to Google 911 steel cut in sharp angels and I discovered one of my posts here came up on google as the # 2 top search result, which kind of amazed me in a way, at any rate I started to read some of the posts and I read that someone was more interested in the spots on the beams which shown melted clumps of steel next to where the sharp angeled cuts are, I never noticed this before but if you look closely you can infact see the clumps of dried moltin steel next to the cuts, this amazed me.

So in closing what do you all think about this?

[edit on 13-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 13-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

I don't think youll find any photos that can be verified taken before they started the clean up. The evidence you speak of would put yet another nail in their official story.

Why do you think all the steel debris was shipped (under heavy guard) overseas before anyone was allowed to investigate it? All that was done under the orders of the "hero" Rudy Guilianni (dont care how its spelled). What a true partiot

Aftermath, thats the book
Has anyone seen it.

That has some amazing huge detailed photos of the ground zero in the days following.

Its truley awe inspiring.

In regard to the angle cut beam in the photograph linked to in an earlier post there is an argument to be made that cutting the beam during cleanup would more than likely be done at 90 degrees to it's length, that being the shortest distance through the beam. Of course that's not proof that the beam was cut during the demolition but I think it gives a greater weight of probability that the cut is evidence of one of the shape charges used during the 911 event.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Aftermath, thats the book
Has anyone seen it.

That has some amazing huge detailed photos of the ground zero in the days following.

Its truley awe inspiring.

See that book with the pictures of the 911 debris, showing the beams too bad we can not post some of them here.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
In regard to the angle cut beam in the photograph linked to in an earlier post there is an argument to be made that cutting the beam during cleanup would more than likely be done at 90 degrees to it's length, that being the shortest distance through the beam. Of course that's not proof that the beam was cut during the demolition but I think it gives a greater weight of probability that the cut is evidence of one of the shape charges used during the 911 event.

Not too many beams needed to be cut from the debris pile due to the fact they were already cut when the thermite charges cut them into 20 foot pieces so they could be easily loaded onto trucks.
I wonder if China might still have any of the beams or pitures of them?

[edit on 13-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

well, consider a few things here.

first thing you should do is see if you know anyone with any experience with an oxy acetalyne torch and ask them what they think of the photos. i did. he said torch, then showed me where the torch cut, paused etc and said it was likely cut at an angle so it would fall, much like cutting a tree.

then, ask if you think thermite would leave such marks on the steel (it wouldnt but ill let you do your own research on that, no one seems to believe me which is fine. question everything)

then ask yourself one last question...how much thermite would be needed to cut 100+story beams every 20 ft.

its a lot, but you all seem smart enough to do the math on that one so ill let it slide.

im not saying nuthin bout nuthin, just points to consider for yourself. everyone knows what i think of the thermite theories.

From the available evidence we have; yes they were cut with charges or thermate. It's hard to make a complete analysis, because the crime scene was never investigated. The evidence was quickly hauled away and destroyed. The remaining evidence is locked away and classified. It's almost as though the Government doesn't want us to know the truth.

Originally posted by PHARAOH1133

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Aftermath, thats the book
Has anyone seen it.

That has some amazing huge detailed photos of the ground zero in the days following.

Its truley awe inspiring.

See that book with the pictures of the 911 debris, showing the beams too bad we can not post some of them here.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

It cost me $100 AUSSIE dollars for this book, the pages are.. a3 photos i think..
its thick too, not a thin book.

but it would be impossible to SCAN These photos and post them, maybe some digital photographs but then you cantr see the detail.

I advise you to got to your local boffins, or book store look for the book and flick through some pages.
the photography is awesome.

I'm going to give you CT'ers some help:

Drop the thermite theory. It's ridiculous.

I don't personally believe in controlled demolition at all, HOWEVER...

Whether you realize it or not, it is infinitely more plausible that they used conventional explosives than thermite. We've gone over the reasons why a million times, but here's the short version.

Thermite doesn't burn uniformly, so there would've been lots of unburned thermite for people to find. Thermite doesn't naturally burn horizontally through things, so it would require LARGE amounts and/or a device to make it burn that way. Thermite doesn't burn from a simple flame, so a secondary explosive or ignition device would've been necessary. Thermite also leaves TONS of slag everywhere, and would've set tons of small fires--people would've noticed both big time.

They would've had to pack this huge mound of thermite, and the ignition source, around every column, and somehow nobody noticed. It's easier to believe that they would've been able to put one single explosive on each column, rather than a massive amount of thermite and incendiary device.

The thermite theory is ridiculous.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

WhiteRabbit -- Learn the difference between Thermite and Thermate-TH3

Regardless of the endless straw man arguments and red herrings being propagated at light speed here on the WWW, the people are waking up. Anyone can see for themselves that it was a controlled demolition. The only barrier preventing you from seeing the truth is the delusion that Government is your friend and would never do such a thing.

Governments are corrupted 100% of the time! There has never been a Government, that wasn't corrupted and taken over by psychopathic criminals! So wake up! It’s here. It’s now.

Originally posted by Smack
The only barrier preventing you from seeing the truth is the delusion that Government is your friend and would never do such a thing.

Yeah, that's exactly why I doubt the controlled demolition theory. It couldn't possibly be because it's illogical, implausible, and scientifically disputed. It must be because I think the government is my friend.

Whatever. I don't trust the government one bit. I have no doubt they'd kill innocents in the interest of national security.

But the controlled demolition still didn't happen. Thermite or thermate, all the arguments still apply. It's ludicrous. There would've been slag everywhere. There would've been enormous evidence of fires everywhere there was thermite. And there would've been unburned thermite and thermate for everyone to see. Unless they paid off hundreds of people (and none of them magically talked), they could NOT have used thermite/thermate and gotten away with it. Period.

I don't have a beef with someone thinking the government was behind this. I DO have a beef with someone clinging to a theory that doesn't have a shred of scientific credibility just because they haven't come up with anything better.

If the government was behind 9/11, they DID NOT use thermite.

Originally posted by Damocles
well, consider a few things here.

first thing you should do is see if you know anyone with any experience with an oxy acetalyne torch and ask them what they think of the photos. i did. he said torch, then showed me where the torch cut, paused etc and said it was likely cut at an angle so it would fall, much like cutting a tree.

My only problem with the theory that it was torch cut is that why cut it so that it falls like a tree? Wouldn't the column have been braced against falling onto someone? If so, why the need to cut it so that it falls when it wouldn't fall in the first place?

Originally posted by Griff
My only problem with the theory that it was torch cut is that why cut it so that it falls like a tree? Wouldn't the column have been braced against falling onto someone? If so, why the need to cut it so that it falls when it wouldn't fall in the first place?

I'm not 100% sure what you're asking, but... My understanding is that they're cut like that so the two sections of beam will slide off each other from the force of gravity. If you just cut a straight line through them, the top section would just stay sitting there.

But, it doesn't matter. You can see in the picture the grooves left by the metal being blown out with a cutting torch. You couldn't replicate that with thermite or explosives. Thermite would've just left it looking like a sloppy mess, or candle wax or something.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by whiterabbit]