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: 13
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
What I dont get, is why whiterabbit thinks out of all things a firefighter could do the day after 911, that the only wanted to cut that one beam.

Even though, there are 1000's of bodys trapped in WTC 1 and 2 and probaby 3,4,5,6 a firefighter went out of his way to cut one tiny little section of useless steel from WTC 7 which knowingly has ZERO casualties.

That is beyond all logic to me.



[edit on 20-3-2007 by Connected]




posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
What I dont get, is why whiterabbit thinks out of all things a firefighter could do the day after 911, that the only wanted to cut that one beam.

Even though, there are 1000's of bodys trapped in WTC 1 and 2 and probaby 3,4,5,6 a firefighter went out of his way to cut one tiny little section of useless steel from WTC 7 which knowingly has ZERO casualties.

That is beyond all logic to me.


Maybe your logic is flawed then, because here's the page, yet again, where the firefighters themselves talk about cutting beams on September 12th AND 11th:

www.fullerroadfire.com...

This is on September 11th:


Not long after this Danny McDonough, a retired FDNY Rescue 3 firefighter and NYTF-1 member who is assigned as a liaison for our team to the FDNY, got us an assignment cutting steel beams that had fallen north of the north pedestrian bridge.


This is on September 12th:


Our first assignment for the morning was to begin to cut some of the steel beams that fell on Vesey Street, between Building 6 and the Verizon building. We utilized an exothermic torch and numerous oxyacetylene torches.


By the way. I really appreciate that you tried to imply that I think firefighters are cowardly. That's pretty disgusting that you'd try to twist my words like that, just like you did with Damocles.

You must really want another warning or something.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Oh and Connected...

I know you said you couldn't find that conversation with the photographer, but could you please give me his name? I'm sure I can track him down from that and verify that he really told you about those suspicious beams.

And I'm sure, since you're telling the truth about that, that you're more than eager to give me his name so I can verify that and look like a fool for ever doubting that there were explosives, right?

So, yeah, I'd love to have that name.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit

Maybe your logic is flawed then, because here's the page, yet again, where the firefighters themselves talk about cutting beams on September 12th AND 11th:

www.fullerroadfire.com...

This is on September 11th:


Not long after this Danny McDonough, a retired FDNY Rescue 3 firefighter and NYTF-1 member who is assigned as a liaison for our team to the FDNY, got us an assignment cutting steel beams that had fallen north of the north pedestrian bridge.


This is on September 12th:


Our first assignment for the morning was to begin to cut some of the steel beams that fell on Vesey Street, between Building 6 and the Verizon building. We utilized an exothermic torch and numerous oxyacetylene torches.




You just proved, and confirmed for me, that their efforts were focused on OTHER PLACES. And not on WTC 7. Thanks..

They were cutting steel beams closer to the survivors, in efforts to save lives. Not to cut some stupid beam 2 to 4 feet long.


Originally posted by whiterabbit
By the way. I really appreciate that you tried to imply that I think firefighters are cowardly. That's pretty disgusting that you'd try to twist my words like that, just like you did with Damocles.

You must really want another warning or something.



What are you talking about? Another fog tactic? Cant stay on subject can you? You should get warned for going off topic? Whats wrong you can't think of anything else to debate about?



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Oh and Connected...

I know you said you couldn't find that conversation with the photographer, but could you please give me his name? I'm sure I can track him down from that and verify that he really told you about those suspicious beams.

And I'm sure, since you're telling the truth about that, that you're more than eager to give me his name so I can verify that and look like a fool for ever doubting that there were explosives, right?

So, yeah, I'd love to have that name.


Sorry its not my decision to give out his name and his e-mail. Do your own research. I know what I know, and I can care infinetly less if you believe it or not. In the end you are still a lemming.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
Sorry its not my decision to give out his name and his e-mail. Do your own research. I know what I know, and I can care infinetly less if you believe it or not. In the end you are still a lemming.


So let me get this straight.

You claim to have the name of a photographer who can verify that there were cut beams in the rubble before anyone touched them. You claim to have the name of a man who can 100% verify the 9/11 conspiracy, blow the lid right off of it, and shut debunkers up like me FOREVER. You claim to have the name of a man who could finally bring the 9/11 conspiracy to light.

And you don't want to give it out? Because... I'm a lemming?

...

Go on, pull my other leg.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
You just proved, and confirmed for me, that their efforts were focused on OTHER PLACES. And not on WTC 7. Thanks..


That "OTHER PLACE" they were cutting beams?

You realize that was just around the corner of the Verizon building, right? I mean, we're not talking a trek across the Dust Bowl here.

Yeah, dude. It's impossible they'd travel less than a city block to cut some more beams. That's just too far!



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit

So let me get this straight.

You claim to have the name of a photographer who can verify that there were cut beams in the rubble before anyone touched them. You claim to have the name of a man who can 100% verify the 9/11 conspiracy, blow the lid right off of it, and shut debunkers up like me FOREVER. You claim to have the name of a man who could finally bring the 9/11 conspiracy to light.

And you don't want to give it out? Because... I'm a lemming?

...

Go on, pull my other leg.


You cant even get THAT right. LOL.

I don't know his full name, never claimed I did. I had his e-mail, but this was 4 years ago, I don't think its still active. On top of that, I'm not about to give out someone elses info, I think its against the rules here at ATS.

I never claimed he can 100% verifiy the conspiracy.

But I did already tell you WHY he took those picture, and that is because he was curious as to why it was cut like that. Why else would someone take pictures of that???? Please out of all questions I have asked, tell me what is so important about taking a picture of this cut beam?



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit
You realize that was just around the corner of the Verizon building, right? I mean, we're not talking a trek across the Dust Bowl here.


Do you realize the size of the building? Do you realize that between the position of the firefighters and this steel beam in question is a LARGE PILE OF A 47 STORY BUILDING CALLED WTC 7.




Originally posted by whiterabbit
Yeah, dude. It's impossible they'd travel less than a city block to cut some more beams. That's just too far!


Nobody is saying it is impossible, I am asking WHY? Why would they go out of their way to cut this tiny insignificant beam on a building known to have zero casualties, when they are clearing a street to get to OTHER buildings WITH CASUALTIES??

Do you understand that this beam is a few storys above ground, on the other side of a large pile of a 47 story building, way out of anyones way?



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
I had his e-mail, but this was 4 years ago, I don't think its still active. On top of that, I'm not about to give out someone elses info, I think its against the rules here at ATS.


Well how 'bout you give me that email, and I'll do the leg work of tracking him down.

And he's not a member here. You're not breaking the rules.


But I did already tell you WHY he took those picture, and that is because he was curious as to why it was cut like that.


That's NOT what you said.

You said he took pictures of them because they looked suspicious to him.

Are you changing your story?



And yes, if this man saw cut beams in the rubble before ANYONE got to them (WHICH IS WHAT YOU CLAIMED) then his testimony is proof that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

And you're going to have us all believe that you have no interest in letting us track this man down, knowing full well that he could single-handedly bring the 9/11 conspiracy to light?

You'd ACTUALLY have us believe that?


Congratulations on just completely destroying your credibility here forever. It's utterly obvious that you made that story up.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Congratulations on just completely destroying your credibility here forever. It's utterly obvious that you made that story up.


Congratulations on totaly ignoring all my posts...

b.t.w suspicious and curious are pretty much the same thing. He was BOTH.

His first name is Mike, I do not know his last name.

His e-mail was: [email address removed]

I didn't make this up, nor did I try to use it to validate my theory, I have enough evidence to do that for me.


CAN WE GET BACK ON SUBJECT? STOP IGNORING MY QUESTIONS!! YOU CANT IGNORE QUESTIONS ON A DEBATE!



[edit on 20-3-2007 by Connected]


[Mod Note: Do not post someone's email address to the boards]

[edit on 20-3-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit

Originally posted by bsbray11
What I don't get is, is why the core columns came apart is so pristine a condition:


My guess would be that the weight of the falling stories just blew apart whatever connects the steel beams together without ever putting that much stress on the actual beams themselves.


Not to derail this thread but are you serious? What weight of what falling stories are you suggesting? Steel just doesn't fail instantaneously along with 46 of it's other members (In the towers) and how ever many in 7. They bend and warp. That is what buckling is. For all 47 to do that at once is a leap of faith in my opinion let alone fail in straight neat sections. I could be wrong though. I'd like to see some testing done though on how those massive columns buckled but didn't bend? What else is there that could accomplish this feat? Can't be torsional buckling. Can't be shear or the steel would have sheared before the welds. I can't think of what could make that happen other than the welds and connections were not as strong as the steel?

As far as the welds coming apart at the seams. Welds are suppossed to be strronger than the material that they weld. The steel "should" have failed before the welds and connections. Either someone screwed up in the design or construction of the buildings or they were demolished with more than plane damage/building damage and fires in my opinion. Either way, the government is covering something up. Read my sig to see how I respond to that.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
b.t.w suspicious and curious are pretty much the same thing. He was BOTH.

His first name is Mike, I do not know his last name.

His e-mail was: [email address removed]

I didn't make this up, nor did I try to use it to validate my theory, I have enough evidence to do that for me.


[email address removed] huh? Well, color me skeptical that that was ever anybody you knew's email, but whatever.

Either way, this is quite the fantastical story:

You claim the photographer, that YOU claimed to have had a conversation with, said he took those pictures because the beams looked suspicious to him. For whatever reason, that photographer didn't take a picture of the side that shows all the magical LSC damage, even though that was what had to have looked suspicious to him. But however it happened, this guy tells you that those beams were there, cut like they were, from the time the towers came down. No one EVER cut them as they lay there. That's what you claim the photographer told you. Basically, this photographer claimed to you that he saw the proof of the 9/11 conspiracy with his own eyes.

And oddly enough, you lost that conversation and can't remember the guy's full name. All you have is an email that's almost guaranteed to not work, if it ever did.

How can I put this delicately?

That's the biggest bunch of horsecrap I've ever heard in my whole life.


[edit: removed email address from quote]

[edit on 20-3-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I can't think of what could make that happen other than the welds and connections were not as strong as the steel?


That's basically what I meant. But like I said, it was a guess.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   
[removed quote of entire previous post]



But then, why hasn't anything been done to the construction company that completed the welds? The fact that the welds failed before the steel is a sign that the welds weren't up to code. Also, what about the connections? Why isn't Leslie Robertson under the microscope with his design? 2 bolts to connect the floor trusses to the columns? What's that again? 2 bolts?



Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   
whiterabbit, understand this...

...you are a newbie to this subject. This beam I am debating right now, has been debated before, on many other forums, YEARS AGO. I was a part of the debate on the forum, and Mike who never gave a last name, was uploading these pictures. People verified he was telling the truth by looking at EXIF data on his digital images, and he also took snap shots of his Verizon work badge, of course editing out his last name for his pruposes. This was all on a forum 4 or more years ago. The thread this converstaion was held on is no DUMPED. Some forums can not have large database's, so they perge the old stuff. 4 year old stuff. The link I had to that thread is LONG GONE, and DEAD.

He told us what he saw, why he took pictures, and what he believes.

If I did have all this information at hand, dont you think I would have already givin it to you? Why would I waste my time with my other evidence and explinations?


SINCE WHEN IS THIS A POPULARITY/CREDITABLITY CONTEST?? I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO BELIEVE ME, IM ASKING YOU TO LOOK AT MY EVIDENCE AND EXPLINATIONS, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
SINCE WHEN IS THIS A POPULARITY/CREDITABLITY CONTEST?? I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO BELIEVE ME, IM ASKING YOU TO LOOK AT MY EVIDENCE AND EXPLINATIONS, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME.


So, all these people, including you, on a forum had verifiable, smoking gun, blow-the-lid-off-the-conspiracy evidence (which also mysteriously, no one took to the media)...

But, erm, oops, you lost it?

Yer killin' me, dude. When you gotta start making up fish tales to support stuff, it's time to cut your losses. "I have evidence you're wrong! But, erm, don't ask me for it because I don't have it anymore!"

I am hesitant to call anyone a fibber without proof, but this just takes the cake.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Just for sheer amusement, what was this website Connected?

If you give me the URL, I might be able to find an old cached version of the page somewhere on some obscure search engine.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit

So, all these people, including you, on a forum had verifiable, smoking gun, blow-the-lid-off-the-conspiracy evidence (which also mysteriously, no one took to the media)...

But, erm, oops, you lost it?



WTF is your problem man? Are you serious? I just frikken told you, I didn't say anything about a smoking gun, blow-the-lid-off-the-conspiracy evidence.

All there was, is a guy who said those beams were untouched by cleanup crews, and he took pictures of it. He was telling the truth about working for Verizon, and he was uploading the images. But I said nothing about it being 100% accurate. EVER.

When I told you about the guy, I thought I could give you the links and evidence, but when I went to look for it again, its gone. Just like a few things in the 911 Commision Report are gone. GET IT? IM TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING 4 YEARS OLD.




Originally posted by whiterabbit

Yer killin' me, dude. When you gotta start making up fish tales to support stuff, it's time to cut your losses. "I have evidence you're wrong! But, erm, don't ask me for it because I don't have it anymore!"

I am hesitant to call anyone a fibber without proof, but this just takes the cake.


whiterabbit, without the proof of my claims, i STILL HAVE MORE EVIDENCE THAN YOU!



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
I just frikken told you, I didn't say anything about a smoking gun, blow-the-lid-off-the-conspiracy evidence.


If this guy saw beams that were cut from the moment they landed and took pictures of it, then that's smoking gun evidence.

In fact, that's the silver bullet the truther movement has been looking for all along to prove their case.

And you, Connected, claim to have had their evidence in your little hands...

But, whoops, you didn't think to save it or take it to the media or whatever.

Got it! I understand.


When I told you about the guy, I thought I could give you the links and evidence, but when I went to look for it again, its gone. Just like a few things in the 911 Commision Report are gone. GET IT? IM TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING 4 YEARS OLD.


What was that website again?


(Isn't it funny how I keep having to ask you multiple times for details about this, but everything else you respond to like a rabid hyena? You wouldn't be trying to change the subject, now wouldja?)

[edit on 20-3-2007 by whiterabbit]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join