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: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by PHARAOH1133
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.


I still say it couldn't have been thermite. It would've left so much obvious evidence they wouldn't have had a prayer of covering it up. Even super-thermite.

I don't believe it was explosives for a second, but if it was a controlled demolition, it was explosives or nothing.




posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   
That one picture has been around and used as proof of thermite. This was done to assist in the clean up!! OA was used in the cutting of remainding beams. Geesh!






Source: hereisnewyork.org...



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   

OA was used in the cutting of remainding beams. Geesh!


Can you please provide a source of this information? Thanks!



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   
its at the bottom of the page...i provided a link that shows where the photos originate from.

hereisnewyork.org...



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
its at the bottom of the page...i provided a link that shows where the photos originate from.

hereisnewyork.org...


I didn't ask for a source from where you got the pictures. I asked for a source to this comment you were able to throw into your post:


OA was used in the cutting of remainding beams. Geesh!


Let me know when you find the source, I'd love to see it.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Um... look at the pictures Truth... what is the man in the picture doing? Doesn't a picture paint a thousand words?? Please tell me what you think that man is doing in the picture i posted???



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   
CameronFox -

I'm not asking what the pictures are saying. You made a pretty "clear obvious statement" in your opinion that there was OA used to cut the remaining beams. I'd like to know the source where you got that information, rather than looking at pictures.

So, when you find the source of that information, please enlighten everyone. Thanks!



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
You know what's really aggravating? I've been trying to Google up a picture of thick metal that's had thermite used on it to show you guys the difference. But every time I try to Google for that, I just keep getting those famous angle-cut cutting torch pictures over and over and over. It's amazing to me how many people believe that.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMP
I'm not asking what the pictures are saying. You made a pretty "clear obvious statement" in your opinion that there was OA used to cut the remaining beams. I'd like to know the source where you got that information, rather than looking at pictures.


The guy in the picture is using a cutting torch to cut the beam during cleanup.

Are you saying he's not using a cutting torch? What do you think that thing spraying metal in his hands is?



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Truth,

My "opinion" that the angle beams were cut by clean up crews was based on photographic evidence and common sence. I do not have a source that claims: " We cut the beams at an angle to assist in the direction of the fall during the clean up efforts"

what I did provide you with was a picture that shows a man using an torch to cut at an angle through a standing column at ground zero. This IMO is a VERY stong indicator that explains the other picture of a cut beam that is so often posted.

Again, I am interesting in knowing what your opinion is as to what this gentleman is doing in the photograph.

Thanks,

Cam



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test

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.


Because of all the rubble and what not I doubt they were able to get the heavy machinery in there to make those cuts - IMHO.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoobieDoobieDo
Because of all the rubble and what not I doubt they were able to get the heavy machinery in there to make those cuts - IMHO.


It doesn't take any. All you need to cut those steel beams is a tank of oxygen and acetylene (both of which are roughly the size of a helium tank, although the oxygen is often smaller) and a really long hose connected to them. The end of the hose just has a little adapter on it with a trigger. It's not heavy machinery at all.

They also make mini-bottles of both acetylene and oxygen, small enough that you could amost put them in a backpack. They're small enough that a man can carry both of them around easily.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Again, I am interesting in knowing what your opinion is as to what this gentleman is doing in the photograph.


I'm also interested in what that guy is doing also. Because:

1. Steel being cut by an OA torch gives off white smoke and not yellow smoke. Yellow smoke is from aluminum or copper. So, he is not cutting the steel in that photo. He is probably cutting the aluminum on the other side of the beam.

2. Why did he decide to cut part of the beam, then jump to the other face of the beam to cut a short distance, then jump to the back and start cutting? Wouldn't it have made sense to actually finish the cut on the side he's working on?

3. Look at the other column. What's that burn mark from? Why did he start to cut that column and decide "oh, well. I'll jump to the other column instead."?

Questions that need some answers about that pic.

Edit: A scenario that would fit what we are seeing is that those columns had thermite "duds" on them and didn't fully "melt" and fall. That would explain the half angled cut on the steel. It would explain why he's cutting the aluminum off the other side. It would explain why there is a mysterious burn mark on the other column. Not that I put all my faith in this theory but it does explain some of the anomolies seen in that photo.

[edit on 3/16/2007 by Griff]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I'm also interested in what that guy is doing also. Because:

1. Steel being cut by an OA torch gives off white smoke and not yellow smoke. Yellow smoke is from aluminum or copper. So, he is not cutting the steel in that photo. He is probably cutting the aluminum on the other side of the beam.


You can see some other kind of metal wrapped around that beam, and where he's cut a square out of it. Whatever that is caused the smoke.


2. Why did he decide to cut part of the beam, then jump to the other face of the beam to cut a short distance, then jump to the back and start cutting? Wouldn't it have made sense to actually finish the cut on the side he's working on?


Not if he doesn't want that structure to collapse on his head.


3. Look at the other column. What's that burn mark from? Why did he start to cut that column and decide "oh, well. I'll jump to the other column instead."?


Don't know. I'm sure it's nothing very interesting, though. Maybe he got started and someone told him to do the other one first, for whatever reason.


Edit: A scenario that would fit what we are seeing is that those columns had thermite "duds" on them and didn't fully "melt" and fall. That would explain the half angled cut on the steel. It would explain why he's cutting the aluminum off the other side. It would explain why there is a mysterious burn mark on the other column. Not that I put all my faith in this theory but it does explain some of the anomolies seen in that photo.


Dude. Seriously. There's nothing remarkable or suspicious about this photo at all.

It's a guy partially cutting some steel beams with a cutting torch, probably so they can pull it down with machinery afterwards.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by whiterabbit]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit

Originally posted by NoobieDoobieDo
Because of all the rubble and what not I doubt they were able to get the heavy machinery in there to make those cuts - IMHO.


It doesn't take any. All you need to cut those steel beams is a tank of oxygen and acetylene (both of which are roughly the size of a helium tank, although the oxygen is often smaller) and a really long hose connected to them. The end of the hose just has a little adapter on it with a trigger. It's not heavy machinery at all.

They also make mini-bottles of both acetylene and oxygen, small enough that you could amost put them in a backpack. They're small enough that a man can carry both of them around easily.



I highly doubt a small portable torch could cut those massive beams.

But I've been wrong before.

Also, what would the benefit / rush be to cut the beams ? There's so much other stuff to do - like look for the dead.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Edit: A scenario that would fit what we are seeing is that those columns had thermite "duds" on them and didn't fully "melt" and fall. That would explain the half angled cut on the steel. It would explain why he's cutting the aluminum off the other side. It would explain why there is a mysterious burn mark on the other column. Not that I put all my faith in this theory but it does explain some of the anomolies seen in that photo.

[edit on 3/16/2007 by Griff]


ok, but then wouldnt that lend some credibility to rabbits claim that there would be the remains of a dud somewhere and do we really think that of all of the charges ONLY one would fail?

see what i mean? im going to stay with the more mundane answer, i still think torch or lance.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit
You can see some other kind of metal wrapped around that beam, and where he's cut a square out of it. Whatever that is caused the smoke.


That's the point. You can't say definatively that he is using the torch to cut the steel, because he isn't cutting the steel.


Not if he doesn't want that structure to collapse on his head.


So, that would totally be the oposite of what you concluded at the end of this post? You said "It's a guy partially cutting some steel beams with a cutting torch, probably so they can pull it down with machinery afterwards." If they are going to pull it down afterwards, it would have been braced and certainly wouldn't be a hazard of falling on his head.


Don't know. I'm sure it's nothing very interesting, though. Maybe he got started and someone told him to do the other one first, for whatever reason.


Nothing very interesting? If your scenario isn't true, there is only one other. That it wasn't done by the welder.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
im going to stay with the more mundane answer, i still think torch or lance.


I agree with you but there are still inconsistencies with that. Just trying to figure out which I believe.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoobieDoobieDo
I highly doubt a small portable torch could cut those massive beams.

But I've been wrong before.


Well, yeah, you're wrong on that one. The size of the bottles has absolutely nothing to do with the torch's cutting power. It's the same whether you use the helium tank-sized bottles or the little ones. The little ones just run out quicker. It's the same hoses, the same adapter, the same flame. You could easily cut those steel beams with one.


Also, what would the benefit / rush be to cut the beams ? There's so much other stuff to do - like look for the dead.


Hard to drag out piles of debris with those columns sticking out of them. Added weight, they'd snag on stuff. Lots and lots of reasons to take them out.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Thanks White Rabbit for your info to Griff...

Hey Griff...do you realize how much thermite it would take to "cut" the beams? Well...here is an interesting formula they may help. I don't not have any information in regards to the Jelled Thermite that also exists. IF I do, I'll be sure ot let you in on it!


Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g

density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc
54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3

So, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.

A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg
For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:
0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb

A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.

Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.

That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.

Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:

Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.

To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.


Example:

Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.

Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.

*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.



EDIT For spelling

[edit on 16-3-2007 by CameronFox]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join