It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Shaped charges used at WTC

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 03:40 PM
Here are some beams from the WTC rubble. There was no reason for cleanup crews to do this kind of cut unless they wanted the beam to come down on their heads.
That kind of cut is made with a linear shaped charge, and it is used in demolitions, it makes the top part slide over the bottom part and the building falls :

Mystery solved.
The only way to find out the truth is to find some clean up people and ask them about those beams

posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 04:57 PM
Yup, I brought this up a little while ago

posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 05:22 PM
Congratulations on a well put together posting.

This point has been made before (probably many times, but that is the nature of any forum that has been around for a while populated by newbies and oldbies.)

Having said that, I think the prevailing counter argument submitted by adherents of the so called "official version," is that during the cleanup cuts were made like that for reasons of ergonomic utility. It's a plausible argument that introduces the famous "shadow of doubt" you hear about in judicial circles. I don't subscribe to it myself. Preponderance of evidence argues the other way, in my view. Near free fall speed of collapse, etc.

These arguments will be had over and over on this forum. It's a good thing.

posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 06:06 PM

Look at the jagged cuts and see in the first pic why the pattern is like that similar to the one below that is doing in similar fashion by a person wielding a torch.

posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 06:25 PM
Another terrific posting. To me the big problem with all this is that the vast majority of the rubble was hauled away without proper examination.

You have a lot of angle cut beams in photos and these angle cuts are related to building demolition. The post by deltaboy makes it obvious that some of them were made by torches wielded by the Controlled Demo people post 9/11. The question: Were they all made that way? It's very difficult to determine, except where you have a photo of the guy with the torch standing by the beam.

I think that given the near free fall speed of the collapses that day, most reasonable people are going to conclude that the buildings fell aided by shaped charges and probably other more esoteric means.

It's one thing to make the argument that some angle cuts were made during the cleanup but another thing to conclude therefore, that the buildings collapsed only because of fire in the upper stories and plane collision damage. If anyone is making that claim then personally, I have to agree to disagree.

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 08:11 AM

Originally posted by deltaboy

I tend to agree to does look like its been lanced during the clean up after the collapse. What would be good is if we could get a time stamp for this picture because the debate about this particular image keeps coming up again and again. If we could get the time the image was taken we would be able to determine whether the clean up team had been on the scene long enough to cut it.

Is this guy admiring his handy work? Had he been there long enough to cut the beam? I expect so.

Edit: just to add so you don't get the wrong idea, i totally think the building was blown up using explosives! I just don't happen to think we are seeing beams cut with thermite in these specific images.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by VicRH]

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 08:45 AM
Something about this photo.

Notice the guy I circled in red. Now, imagine him standing straight up. I have drawn a line about where his head would be. Why would someone cut that column above their head, when it could be just as easily done below (where I have the diagonal red line)? It just doesn't make sense to have to bring in a step ladder to cut about 3 feet higher. Does it?

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 10:22 AM
Hey Griff...

I don't think the cut beam picture is the same beam as the one that is shown getting cut. The man that is cutting the beam is on a cherry picker, which would be the right thing to do considering the stability of the pile of rubble, and other obvious safety concerns.

Just my .02

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 10:40 AM
CO. I don't know what you are getting at. My post has nothing to do with the picture of the guy in a cherry picker cutting the column. My post is about the picture I posted. Disregard the corner where it shows a guy with a cutting charge.

What I'm saying is that for someone to stand there and cut, they would be doing it a few feet above their head. Why take the extra step and bring in a step ladder when you could just cut at a comfortable level? As far as having to be on cherry pickers, the guy is standing in the rubble. Why is he not on a picker if it's so hazardous?

Also disregard the line near the guy in the foreground. He has nothing to do with what I'm saying. It is the guy bending over that is circled in red that I'm talking about.

[edit on 7/27/2007 by Griff]

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 10:52 AM

I thought the guy bent over was the ladder you are talking about.LMFAO As bfar as the cherry picker goes...the height of the rubble must have been different...either way...the cherry picker isnt part of the discussion..sorry.

Where is the ladder?

[edit on 27-7-2007 by CaptainObvious]

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 11:16 AM
Typical demolition work is evident.

How smart are those Arabs, we going after garden center workers now.

Those are shaped charges and needed expert setting.

I saw those slant jobs before.
I liked these:

right out of the side of the building.

Sure don't look like stress are strain collapse to me, and I had
engineering lab on materials.

And you don't need an engineering degree to figure that out.

Put that up on times square for a 9/11 resolution agenda.

Mucho points

[edit on 7/27/2007 by TeslaandLyne]

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 12:19 PM

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Where is the ladder?

Sorry for the confusion. There is no ladder in the pic. I'm just saying someone would have to be on a ladder (or cherry picker) to cut where that was cut. But why? It's obvious that someone could have stood there and cut it a few feet lower since there is a guy standing (bending over) right there. Why bring in a ladder or cherry picker to cut it when you could just stand there and cut it lower?

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 12:54 PM
sorry Griff, I figured it out after i looked at the picture... I know what you're saying... kind of tough to specualte why.

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 12:58 PM

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
sorry Griff, I figured it out after i looked at the picture... I know what you're saying... kind of tough to specualte why.

I agree. And it really is just a hmmm. Anyway, I thought it was a little strange.

Little off topic. Look at the size of that column in comparison to the guy bending over.

[edit on 7/27/2007 by Griff]

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 01:17 PM
What with you and guys bending over??? LMFAO.... just kidding... and I know where your going with this!

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 01:25 PM

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
and I know where your going with this!

Can you tell me, cause I don't know myself.

I was just saying, look how huge they were.

posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 04:25 PM
If I had the luxury of speculating, it would be my speculation that shaped charges exploding are exactly what we are watching when one views the footage of the tower collapses and sees the white plume 'phenomena' that appear to explode out of the building well below the primary plane of destruction.

Of course, as a questioner and examiner rather than an accuser, I don't have the luxury of speculating. So I'll merely wait until someone offers an adequate explaination for the violent ejections.

(I wish I had an image for these I could post right at the moment, but such novelties will have to wait until my home has it's internet connection installed on Wednesday. At any rate, I'm sure most of you know what I'm talking about).

...You know, I was so busy jumping down someone's throat on a different tread that I completely forgot to introduce myself.

Salutations. I'm just a guy watching for answers, given that the official report provided so few so poorly. I don't pretend to know what happened, but I also don't pretend that burning furniture and jet fuel can turn steel superstructures into molten slag or that the violently explosive nature of the building collapse can be merely shrugged-off just because it would put my mind at ease.

top topics


log in