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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I honestly can't see any benefit from cutting the column before the debris around has been cleared in the first place. What was so important that they had to cut the column? You can see other columns just laying there. Why even cut this column before you have removed that column over there that is already sitting there? Unless they had to cut columns for safety reason, why cut columns at all until the cleanup is well underway?


Weight's the big one I can see. I don't think I have to tell you how heavy they are. You'd want to remove the columns by themselves as much as you could just to avoid adding more weight to the debris.

Plus, removing them in a big pile with the other debris would just make them snag on everything. It would make grabbing a big pile of debris with a trackhoe almost impossible.




posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I found this interesting.

www.centralmass911truth.org...


If you are an experienced torch cutter, light or heavy metal doesn’t matter, the principles are much the same. There are several facts that indicate it was not a torch cut:



No cut from a torch accumulates that much hanging slag. Most slag is blown away; this volume would indicate melting with abundant, directed heat but with little or no air pressure eliminating blow torch possibility.
Slag cools too quickly. To drip that long, with the beam itself vertical, that much slag would separate and fall to the ground, and would never drip that far even with that bad a cut. The suggested explanation of Thermate with no air pressure at a much higher temperature would account for this.
No experienced torch cutter would take a diagonal cut on 4” thick steel tube. And why would even an inexperienced one do so? There would be no possible reason to do it where a horizontal cut is possible, even if above the cut was bent in the direction towards the lower horizontal cut. And the upper horizontal cut can be seen to be cut also on a downward angle thru the steel. No one would angle from horizontal on 4” thick steel and increase the cut to 5 or 6” thick.
No one would cut on an angle thinking that it will cause a standing structure to fall a certain direction, just ask any lumberjack.
Any metal cutter would also question why the rear cut is not a straight line and it dips drastically in one spot, this indicates possibly the remains of a round cut which would allow inserting Thermate charges inside of the tube to conceal them (more on this regarding the second photo).
Someone implied to me that the cutter would have his hand inside the tube cutting the last horizontal leg to explain the slag on the lower horizontal cut. Impossible, that would mean that 3 legs were cut, and then the beam bent so he could reach inside? You would see evidence of the bend if it was bent before final cutting, and you would see evidence of bending at the conclusion of the cut as the weight takes control. Highly unlikely, and there would be few experienced heavy gauge metal cutters who would agree with the torch cut theory.


Notice the moltin steel globs next to the cut this was not done by a torch, they didn't have torches cutting beam this early in the clean up!

[edit on 15-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   
that the cuts were done in angles, plus the fires burned for months the only thing that could of made it burn that long was or is Thermite, In my view.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit

I honestly can't see any benefit from cutting them horizontally no matter how they did it.


Well one advantage of a horizontal cut over a diagonal cut would be time taken to complete the cut.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   
ok, then does anyone have any theories on how the "thermite" made the torch marks that are clearly visible in the photos?

ok, an oxy-acetalyne torch WILL blow the slag away, thats the reason you can squeeze the lever and kick up the o2 flow. (one of the reasons) but to blow slag away it has to have made a hole first...so, where does the metal from the starting hole go before it punches through the stee.?

and honestly i cant remember if its this thread or another but white rabbit made a comment about priming failure of thermite charges that could/would/should happen with thermite cutters. in the interest of keeping everything even, ill interject the following: even with c$ or TnT, any good demo guy is going to dual prime for that exact reason. so of all of the reasons you list for the thermite probably not all working, ill put that one on the bottom of the list. not saying youre wrong, just saying that one is unlikely.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Giordano Bruno
The original damage, if caused by the pressure of falling mass and fires, should show extensively twisted, contorted beams. It's not wood, they don't snap like splinters. The reason you use steel instead of iron is because it has tensile strength, not just loading strength.

Try and cleanly snap a dinner fork handle and you'll see what I mean.


Yes you can not even break a coat hanger either, you have to bend it back in forth like a 100 times before it snaps.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
ok, then does anyone have any theories on how the "thermite" made the torch marks that are clearly visible in the photos?



More a hypothesis than a theory but here you go....The torch marks have been photoshoped.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Rotator]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Giordano Bruno
The original damage, if caused by the pressure of falling mass and fires, should show extensively twisted, contorted beams. It's not wood, they don't snap like splinters. The reason you use steel instead of iron is because it has tensile strength, not just loading strength.

Try and cleanly snap a dinner fork handle and you'll see what I mean.


Why does not our fireplace steel grates melt and snap or our stove top grills where we place pans on them melt and burn or the pan itself?
they don't you can leave them on for hours and hours!

PLUS: in order for the jet fuel to melt the steel it would of had to be constantly fueled meaning a constant supply of fuel like say when a oil platform catches fire and has a constant supply of fuel making the fire rage, when the planes hit the tower most of the fuel exploded.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rotator

Originally posted by Damocles
ok, then does anyone have any theories on how the "thermite" made the torch marks that are clearly visible in the photos?



More a hypothesis than a theory but here you go....The torch marks have been photoshoped.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Rotator]


What about the huge boulder like clumps of steel that were shown, huge boulders 8 feet high made of moltin steel, jet fuel don't do that!

[edit on 15-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   
The steel may have heated up and bent a few inches but what about the rest of the bottom 80 or 90 floors which were not on fire, they fell.
Plus the upper floors when coming down were pulverized as they were falling dust, so the weight of the floors could not of crushed the bottom floors the top ones were powder.
If it was the pancake theory it would of taken at least, at least (1 sec.) for it to happen on each floor, that's at least 80 seconds to fall (Like the Domino effect), both buildings fell at free fall speed less than 10 seconds, if you took a golf ball and dropped off the twin towers it would take the same amount of time 9 seconds.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 15-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rotator

Originally posted by Damocles
ok, then does anyone have any theories on how the "thermite" made the torch marks that are clearly visible in the photos?



More a hypothesis than a theory but here you go


Touche', didnt realize we were getting so hung up on semantics but ok, ill grant that one


....The torch marks have been photoshoped.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Rotator]


and honestly, no one has, or has even tried to rule that out as a possibility.

so ill accept that as a possibility, though ill keep it low on the list of probabilities.

pharoh raises a few good pionts, but the thing is we've not seen ALL the photos of the debris so we have no idea how much steel was twisted vs not twisted.

ive not seen lumps of steel that were formed by melting then cooling in the debris, but ill take your word for it

and there APPEARS to be a lot of the buildng just disintegrating as it fell but in fairness you even have to agree that the dust cloud did obscure a lot of it so we really cant judge it to any degree of accuracy.

what i can say in my own opinion though....conventional explosives didnt do it.

also, not directed at anyone in particular, how can we be so sure how much of the jet fuel burned off in the fireball? how much was left after a minute? two? ten? etc?



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   
I have found several videos on the molten steel, will be posting more asap

Video Link : www.youtube.com...

Video Link : www.youtube.com...

Note on above video ^ : Do you think someone was using a torch to cut the beams inside or do you think it was Thermite straps?

Iron workers video : www.youtube.com...


Video Link : www.youtube.com...


And yet another Video : www.youtube.com...


[edit on 15-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 15-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 15-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 15-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 15-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   
cool ill check it out...maybe...youtube is google and im on a personal boycot of all things google.

i used to love youtube



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   
if not here's one more video by Prof. Jones on what convinced him, here's the video link.

Video Link : www.youtube.com...


Here's a great video from inside the lobby with firefighter before the buildings fell. **Correction** : "As they were falling. " **no it's Before,During and After. this video below. "Amazing Video!!!!!!!"

Video Link : www.youtube.com...

[edit on 15-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 15-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 15-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 15-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   
lol no, i mean, you say "we" and i cant speak for you but me and the voices in my head are still unconvinced.

but maybe thats cuz some dont know my position on the events of that day but its not real important.

presenting me with anything from jones is going in the wrong direction. i personally think the guy's a whack-job, but thats my opinion and im entitiled to it.

you have to realize one very important thing to undertand my position on the events, i do NOT know why the buildings fell and dont pretend to.

however, as a what can be considered an expert in military demo ops, i cannot reconcile what ive seen presented as "evidence" to what i KNOW about explosives. i do not see any REAL proof of there being any explosives involved.

all the molten metal, wasnt caused by tnt c4 or any other conventional explosive.

im sorry, theres just no proof of explosives. (please dear god dont start talking about squibs again...id have to gouge out my own eyes and i need them for seeing)

now having said all that, i will openly admit, something seems hinky in what did happen and especially when you compare it to waht the govt is telling us happened. i wont deny that in the least.

but personally, i think that the "official story" is inaccurate due to lack of hard information for them to go by, beurocracy, incompetance and a NEED to tell the masses SOMETHING whether its right or wrong. they have to give "answers" and so in absence of real answers they fall back on the "i reject your reality and substitute my own" method

ive always said it looked hinky, ive just always said i dont personally think there were conventional explosives used. (i say conventional as a comprimise to bsb, though other than thermite he's yet to present me with an unconventional one that works
just yankin yer chain bsb, u know i respect you)

so i guess the bottom line is that i like discussing these things, i DO have an open mind and am willing to consider many theories and things provided as 'evidence' with said open mind, but, over all i just disagree with many of you. most of you have your internet data, ive actually used tnt, c4, det cord, time fuse, anfo etc and i dont see anything that legitimatly supports the use of conventional high explosives.

thats about as good as i can state where i stand on this



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

all the molten metal, wasnt caused by tnt c4 or any other conventional explosive.



Thermite Straps (Which were used to cut the I-Beams) (Not Explosive) (Super Thermite is explosive) Explosives were used in conjuction with Thermite not just explosive.

The explosives were used to push the sections of I-Beams out which were cut using Thermite, if this clarifies things for you and makes it more easy to understand, Brother.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   
oh i was already clear on most of it. the meds may have slowed me down but im not dumb


but, even you, as sure as you are...have to admit that its speculation. theres no real, tangible, hard proof thats how it happened.

its not a bad theory, but in the absense of real physical proof it is just that, a theory.

though ill give you props for presenting your opinoins in a much more articulate manner than many ive debated on these boards in the last year



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
oh i was already clear on most of it. the meds may have slowed me down but im not dumb


but, even you, as sure as you are...have to admit that its speculation. theres no real, tangible, hard proof thats how it happened.

its not a bad theory, but in the absense of real physical proof it is just that, a theory.

though ill give you props for presenting your opinoins in a much more articulate manner than many ive debated on these boards in the last year


Watch this video of bush and tell me what you think he was thinking, just try to guess, any opinion will be suitable.
Bush Video Link : www.youtube.com...

Here's a 911 victims memorial Video "Their names"
Video Link : www.youtube.com...

[edit on 15-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   
lol yeah, im not even going to try to speculate on what was going in his mind. i mean, what would you have prefered? jump up and down "oh my god oh my god"?

he had to try to maintain a veneer of calm in the storm.

hypothetically of course.


thing is, everyone that is sure it was an inside job points out many inconsistancies and so forth. but, were i bored enough i could point out just as many or more that could actually, when considered with an open mind, pretty much exhonorate the govt...depending on your point of view of course.

but thats a topic for another thread.

and remember...im not saying the govt didnt do it, but based on what i know (and in my last line of work al queda was a frequent topic of discussion for us even before 9-11) i just think its more likely that terrorists did it...now, whether the govt KNEW before hand or even helped them remains to be seen cuz there ARE many anomylous things that happened that day.

but with what i have now. ill stand on the one opinon i feel strongly about. no HE in the towers.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
when considered with an open mind, pretty much exhonorate the govt...depending on your point of view of course.



I'm not saying the whole goverment did it, just that only a few who were in the know did it?

At any rate yes there are other topics to discuss that are for other threads, I just believe the Thermite is the most compelling, because you can see the liquid iron and you can hear the bombs going off.

It just amazes me as to the fact that more people who witnessed the whole thing like the firefighters who know are starting to come out, slow but sure, we will or at least I will be looking for other convincing evidence on the basic same line, other aspects so to speck for this is just one.

Thanks for all your interest, as we all move forward in discussing other relevant topics.


[edit on 15-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join