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.

 

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

page: 11
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
And I though it was a very interesting link with informatio which has to do with letters sent to Vice Pres. Cheney on the use of thermite in the 911 twin tower and build 7 attacks, it has pictures with firemen standing below cut I-Beams and outlines certain aspects which are being discussed about the cuts made in the I-beams and the molten metal left on them.
Please give me your takes on this.

Link : www.valis.cjb.cc...




posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I went to view the the first video I posted on this thread and it has been taken down by the person who posted it originally, I can not remember the title, and I can not repost it on the first post. In my view I feel we are getting somewhere with this topic and thread and they are deliberatly tring to remove subject mater from this thread, becuase I believe that the I-Beams were cut using Thermite or other simular devices, so if anyone has a link to or can figure out the title and Re-post it here I would be very thankful.
If anyone else notices More videos on this thread being taken down or anything else which maybe being censored please bring it to my attention!

Thank you



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit

Originally posted by Connected
Do you not know how cleanly a shaped charge can cut steel? Why are you imagining some stupid cartoon render of a blown up cannon?

Let me show you what a shaped charge made from a WINE BOTTLE can do to a steel plate.


Those shaped charge pictures don't look ANYTHING like the ends of the columns that you're continually passing around the forum as proof of thermite or explosives.

The outside edges are broken and serrated from the shape charges, and there's no discoloration like with the cutting torch.

With the cutting torch pictures, you can clearly see the discoloration, the slag and melted places, and even the blowing grooves in some of the pictures.

Those pictures you posted are clearly cutting torch pictures. It's so utterly obvious, that I still can't believe we're arguing about it.

Edit to add:

Also, upon looking, that's like what? 1/4" plate steel? MAYBE 1/2".

I think the damage to one of the support columns wouldn't be quite so neat.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by whiterabbit]



I felt a link to it shold be included here so we can discuss the realted topic
Thermite-VS-Explosions

Here's the link : www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 02:29 AM
link   
It's basically part of the whole 911 truth movement, so it is at least relevent, in this video called Hoodwinked in shanksville : Back In Black Boxes, it explains how the black boxes were planted so take a break and watch it, the way this is sort of related is they said something was burning underground and someone said they heard someone say it was thermite.

Video Link : video.google.com...


And another video which has quite a few of the videos all wrapped up into one video.
Video Link : video.google.com...

[edit on 20-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 20-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by PHARAOH1133
...it has pictures with firemen standing below cut I-Beams...


A link to this picture was posted on the first page of this thread and it is, of course, a well known photo and often used to support deliberate cutting of the beams as part of the attack.

The problem is, as I said on page 1, that the photograph was taken after clean up crews, (for want of a better phrase), moved in and so it proves nothing in itself.

You will notice that the firefighter on the left is not completely visible in the picture and this is because it has been cropped to hide the civilian workers standing on a large pile of debris behind the firefighters. The continued use of this cropped version is grossly misleading although understandable as the original is very hard to find. It's out there somewhere but I'm damned if I can find it at the moment, sorry.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test

Originally posted by PHARAOH1133
...it has pictures with firemen standing below cut I-Beams...


A link to this picture was posted on the first page of this thread and it is, of course, a well known photo and often used to support deliberate cutting of the beams as part of the attack.

The problem is, as I said on page 1, that the photograph was taken after clean up crews, (for want of a better phrase), moved in and so it proves nothing in itself.

You will notice that the firefighter on the left is not completely visible in the picture and this is because it has been cropped to hide the civilian workers standing on a large pile of debris behind the firefighters. The continued use of this cropped version is grossly misleading although understandable as the original is very hard to find. It's out there somewhere but I'm damned if I can find it at the moment, sorry.


I want to see the picture you are talking about so I see what you are refuring to?



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Twin towers and building 7 before Larry Silverstein bought them? I have not heard any talk about who owned them prior, so if anyone knows please post it here, I believe it ties in with the topic, I just need to do a little research on it.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by PHARAOH1133
I want to see the picture you are talking about so I see what you are refuring to?



It's this one which appears in the article/letter you linked to above.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by PHARAOH1133
The other half of of the beams? Did they just go around trimming all the beams that were sticking out, remove the parts which were cut then just turned around and took pictures of the beams that they trimmed? I think not these were taken before any pre-clean up, they were busy putting fires out and didn't just want to rush right in with torches to cause possibly more fires, things are done in steps. First you put out fires, then you try and analyze what needs to be done next like: what equipment needs to be brought in to do the clean up, it would of taken days to get this all orgainized, in the mean time they were just trying to put the fires out which lasted over 6 weeks.


Those pictures, despite what Connected initially claimed, were taken while they were in the midst of removing debris from around the Verizon building. It may very well have been during cleanup.

I do know they were removing beams from around the Verizon building as early as September 12th. It's logical to think they had some reason for removing these as well.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by PHARAOH1133
There was plenty of room to access the building, no beams needed to be cut to get in, look at how big the hole is, plus they would of turned off the electricy from a larger controll pannel away from the building, not a circuit breaker box inside the building, plus when the building came down it would of cut the lines to the power.


That's incorrect.

They sent workers into the Verizon building on the day of the attack to shut off circuit breakers inside the building. Steel columns had severed large copper lines in the collapse, and they were worried about electrocution. They sent workers in there, at the risk of their own lives, into the flooded building to shut off the large circuit breakers inside.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Connected,

Where is the conversation with the Verizon photographer? I'd like to confirm that he took those pictures because the columns looked suspicious to him, like you said.

I'd also like his email so I can confirm that and ask him some questions myself.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by PHARAOH1133
it has pictures with firemen standing below cut I-Beams and outlines certain aspects which are being discussed about the cuts made in the I-beams and the molten metal left on them.
Please give me your takes on this.


My take on this is that it's a non-issue.

Connected posted pictures of obviously-cut beams outside the Verizon building.

We know that people were cutting beams around the Verizon building as early as September 12th.

We know that the pictures Connected posted were taken during later debris removal around the Verizon building (with heavy machinery around).

We know that at least the front side of those columns was cut with a cutting torch--it's obvious.


It's logical to conclude from the evidence that those beams were just cut with a cutting torch, for whatever reason, and removed.

It's illogical to conclude, on no evidence, that there's magical LSC damage on the other side of the column that the photographer just--WHOOPSIE--forgot to photograph and that none of the Verizon employees who were all over the place ever reported.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit
We know that people were cutting beams around the Verizon building as early as September 12th.


No, ONCE AGAIN THEY WERE NOT "AROUND" THE VERIZON BUILDING!!! You can not use that as evidence, it is irrelivant. The aritcal you posted said they were cutting beams on Vesey Street between WTC 6 and Verizon building, that is on the wrong side. No where does it state they were even near WTC 7. THEY WERE CLEARING DEBRIS FROM THE STREETS TO GAIN ACCESS, NOT TO CLEAN UP!

You STILL do not have proof they even touched the WTC 7 debris on 9/12.
You CAN NOT rule out something, because someone was doing something simular, in the area, thats rediculous. Here is your rediculous way of logic, in an anology:

A guy1 was found dead in an alley, with a gunshot wound to the head. Across the street, another guy2 was found dead with a gunshot wound. According to your messed up logic, both guy1 and guy2 were killed by the same guy, because they are in the same area. When actually guy1 killed himself and only guy2 was murdered..

Get how your assumption can be totaly wrong? Just because they were in the area, doesn't mean they even touched it.




Originally posted by whiterabbit
We know that the pictures Connected posted were taken during later debris removal around the Verizon building (with heavy machinery around).


Actually no, you are wrong again. You seen a group of pictures taken all at different times on one page, and you automaticaly assume they are all taken at the same time. You are 100% wrong. Also, the debris in question were presnet ON 911.




[edit on 20-3-2007 by Connected]



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
The aritcal you posted said they were cutting beams on Vesey Street between WTC 6 and Verizon building, that is on the wrong side. No where does it state they were even near WTC 7. THEY WERE CLEARING DEBRIS FROM THE STREETS TO GAIN ACCESS, NOT TO CLEAN UP!


They were cutting beams between the Verizon Building and another building. Any sane person would call that "around the Verizon building."

Also, they began working to restore telecommuncations as early as September 12, and probably needed to remove some of that debris. So there's your explanation for why they probably cut those beams. They were sitting next to a gaping hole in the wall in a room full of telecommuncations equipment.


You STILL do not have proof they even touched the WTC 7 debris on 9/12.


They were cutting beams on the other side of the building since September 12th. They were clearing debris when the pictures were taken. And they'd been working inside the building since September 12th. There's also a ladder ON TOP of the debris by the cut columns. One side of the column is visibly cut with a cutting torch.

The preponderance of evidence is that they cut those beams (for whatever reason) and hauled them off.

There's absolutely NO REASON to think the other side of that column is any different than the front (other than the fantasy you've concocted in your head about it), and there are several reasons to think it's the same.



And Connected, where's that conversation with the photographer? I'd really like to see where he said he took those pictures because the beams looked suspicious. And don't forget his email, because I'll need to verify that he actually said that.

I'd also like to ask him why he didn't take a picture of Narnia or the explosive damage on the other side of the column.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by whiterabbit]



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit
They were cutting beams between the Verizon Building and another building. Any sane person would call that "around the Verizon building."
.


No, not any sane person. Any person with ZERO knownledge of the English language maybe.. AROUND means circular. A, ROUND, which would mean the entire perimeter of the building. They were only in FRONT of Verizon, on the street, clearing the street. NOT WTC 7.


Originally posted by whiterabbit
Also, they began working to restore telecommuncations as early as September 12, and probably needed to remove some of that debris. So there's your explanation for why they probably cut those beams. They were sitting next to a gaping hole in the wall in a room full of telecommuncations equipment.
.


Once again, you are stating OPINION. Not EVIDENCE. There is notevidence that the beam was in their way. Nor is there evidence they cut it on before 9/15.




Originally posted by whiterabbit
They were clearing debris when the pictures were taken.


No they weren't, they were still putting out fires!!!





Originally posted by whiterabbit
There's also a ladder ON TOP of the debris by the cut columns.



Wow, thats funny, the ladder is not even being used, nor is it in a position that would enough benifit them. Plus its not a firefighters ladder, because its made of WOOD! The ladder was in the building, thats it.



Originally posted by whiterabbit
There's absolutely NO REASON to think the other side of that column is any different than the front (other than the fantasy you've concocted in your head about it), and there are several reasons to think it's the same.


Once again, you stating OPINION, we dont need OPINION. We need FACT.





[edit on 20-3-2007 by Connected]



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Connected, I noticed that you, for the second time, dodged my question about the photographer.

I hope you're not about to give me some lame excuse as to why you can't produce this conversation with the photographer, or his email, or his name, or something that I can verify your story with.

I mean, it would difficult for everyone here to believe, considering how bonkers you get every time someone questions your conspiracy theory, that someone handed you smoking gun evidence of this government conspiracy and you just lost it or something.

Can't wait to verify this evidence of yours and blow the lid off of this conspiracy.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
Once again, you stating OPINION, we dont need OPINION. We need FACT.


And WHY would you have an opinion that the column MUST have magical explosive damage on the other side, when all the evidence points to it simply being cut and taken away for some reason?

Because you just can't stand to be wrong about anything.

It's debunked, dude. Let it go. There will be other claims for you to come unhinged about. This one's a loser.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit

And Connected, where's that conversation with the photographer? I'd really like to see where he said he took those pictures because the beams looked suspicious. And don't forget his email, because I'll need to verify that he actually said that.

I'd also like to ask him why he didn't take a picture of Narnia or the explosive damage on the other side of the column.



It was 4 years ago that this conversation was had, and I'm still looking for a chached version of it. The conversation itself has been removed from its original spot, (because of old age).

Also, why cant you fkin get it in your head that a LSC cut will look simular to a torch cut? I don't understand...

Seriously look at this picture...


The entire thing is so mangled on the edges, that you can not clearly know what cut it all the way around. Torch + LCS is what I see.. You are just plainly denying LSC because you have no clue what a LSC cut looks like, and you give Bush BJ's every morning.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   
What would be the purpose of cutting it with charges and then coming in later on the exact spot and cutting it with a torch?

That does not make a whole lot of sense.

If you used a torch to try and hide the charges damage, wouldn't you just cut the entire thing off, leaving behind just a torch cut.

And are you implying that the clean up crews were all in it? That's an awful lot of people that you are accusing of covering up mass murder.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
It was 4 years ago that this conversation was had, and I'm still looking for a chached version of it. The conversation itself has been removed from its original spot, (because of old age).


Well, isn't that convenient.

You had in your own little hands the evidence that could've proven this conspiracy true and... You lost it.

Right. And I'm the Queen of England.


Also, why cant you fkin get it in your head that a LSC cut will look simular to a torch cut? I don't understand...


Because it doesn't look anything like at torch cut? It would have a shattered serrated edge if it were an LSC. It wouldn't have a drippy, discolored cut from a cutting torch.

You don't know what you're talking about.


Seriously look at this picture...


That's a torch cut, dude.

And unlike the other picture you've been going on and ON about, in that one you can actually see that it was cut ALL THE WAY by a cutting torch. There are no broken, serrated, mangled edges like you'd see with an explosive.

Torch cut. Let it go.


and you give Bush BJ's every morning.


Way over the line.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join