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

If Anyone wants to comment on this or give me any advice please let me know.
I don't want to gain any enemies, but it looks like my posts are making people mad so I think I will "think" on this for a while, being that in some of the discussion threads on this screen name: "AboveTopsecret.com" discusses privacy issues which concerns me greatly.

[edit on 21-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

Dear Pharaoh:

Don’t sweat it. That’s a bunch of poppycock, that listing of yours as a ‘foe’. Fee, fi, foe, fum, who cares! You’re friendlier than a fuzzy teddybar. As long as you don’t get any ‘warn’ labels beneath your avatar you’ve got nothing to worry about. Or so I think…

Har, har,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Pharaoh:

Don’t sweat it. That’s a bunch of poppycock, that listing of yours as a ‘foe’. Fee, fi, foe, fum, who cares! You’re friendlier than a fuzzy teddybar. As long as you don’t get any ‘warn’ labels beneath your avatar you’ve got nothing to worry about. Or so I think…

Har, har,
The Wizard In The Woods

I been doing a little research here and am learning things sec. by sec. (Rapidly)
I guess it all boils down to this: Know who your friends are and know who your foes are.
I find it interesting to say the least, therfore I am going to put you on my friends list but want your permission first.
I have not filled out any of my profile yet but maybe I should, You seem like a nice person and very smart too.

lol dont sweat the friend/foe thing.

remember how the term "foe" is used in the context of the user profiles. "worthy advosary" you tag someone as a foe who disagrees with you and makes you think/keeps you on your toes.

like, id tag you as a foe pharoh, not cuz i dont like you but because we disagree on many of the issues and you challenge me to think and make sure that what im posting isnt a bunch of BS.

if i just didnt like you, i wouldnt acknowledge you on my profile (this is and example, i havnt done much with my friends/foes list yet)

its about respect, not animosity. on this site being someoens friend is an honor, but being their 'foe' is just as much an honor, when the foes lists are used in the spirit they were put up for.

something to consider.

Originally posted by Damocles
lol dont sweat the friend/foe thing.

Yeah, but ok I'm starting to understand it, I guess, but I have never come across Abovetopsecret.com (I did not put him on my foe list), before so when I happened to come across it it made me feel, like someone was trying to give me a hint?
It's just kinda hard trying to figure out where everyone stands and the reasons they make these stands? I mean I'm trying to be open-minded as to what they know and what convinces them to take these positions, In other words I want to be informed about what they know so I can become enlightened also.
Well thanks for your input! Can I list you as one of my friends? Just want to ask everyone before I do cuz I don't want to step on anyones toes, I haven't really filled out my profile yet, cuz, I don't know why just lazy I guess, but maybe I will soon and add people who are my respective friends whether they agree or disagree, I just don't want anyone to hate me just because I have a certain view or maybe less informed then they are, Am I making any sense here to ya or does it seem my mouth is running overth.
At any rate this thead has been very interesting to say the least.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

Dear Pharaoh:

Perhaps there is such a thing as time travel. You could be one of those ‘clockstoppers’. Jumped into here from another era. No one nowadays is as polite as you are. Almost makes one wonder if you’re for real!

Sure, you can list me as a friend. Filling out your profile too much sounds kind of risky somehow, because this ATS site is about as public as they come. I mean anything you post here will be seen by the world — and this really might include some ‘foes’.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by PHARAOH1133
Yeah, but ok I'm starting to understand it, I guess, but I have never come across Abovetopsecret.com (I did not put him on my foe list), before so when I happened to come across it it made me feel, like someone was trying to give me a hint?

Someone named "abovetopsecret" marked you a foe? Or am I misreading that? If so That's odd, where at? (thread link or title will do). I will investgate any such oddity.

I tag people that personally seem to rip on me mostly. I sometimes wish the "respected" part wasn't even there... Being a foe of mine is fairly serious, but no caus for a fistfight. I disagree with too many to bother tagging disagreers as foes.. So the labels mean differetnt things to diff people. It's hard to say just from that. They mighta hit the button on accident...
Sorry, Flat forgot the whole original intent of your hread now. Oops.

you can can certainly tag me as a friend, and when i get around to my profile you may end up as my friend or foe depending on whether i agree with you or not that day jk

lol however we've gotten off topic.

i still think it was a blowtorch

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by PHARAOH1133
Yeah, but ok I'm starting to understand it, I guess, but I have never come across Abovetopsecret.com (I did not put him on my foe list), before so when I happened to come across it it made me feel, like someone was trying to give me a hint?

Someone named "abovetopsecret" marked you a foe? Or am I misreading that? If so That's odd, where at? (thread link or title will do). I will investgate any such oddity.

To save space on the system I will direct you to where the link is. It's on the bottom of the prior page, page 16 if you want to check it out.

Who here reading this thread agrees up to this point with all the beautifully done debated issues and analogies, believes that the I-Beams were cut with sharp angels and the possible use of Thermite or simular type of material was used to cause a "Controlled Demolition" ?

Yes = Controlled Demo

No= Not a Controlled Demo

Maybe = More info. is needed, debate undecided


Let me know And then we can go from here.

well im still in the no/maybe camp.

i still see NO evidence of thermite or lsc's or c4 or tnt or self lighting charcoal briquets for that matter.

ive used all of said materials in the past and see no evidence of them.

though i do nothing to change my disclaimer about thermite. ive seen it demonstrated in incendiary grenades but never used it to do anything but start fire. but, i can compare what i saw thermite do to an old piece of equipment to the columns and i just dont see a similarity.

im in the maybe camp because i cannot rule out the possibility that there is evidence out there ive not seen, or that someone with way more knowledge than i have could do the job in such a way that would throw me off. im not so arrogant as to say i cant be mistook. but, based on what i HAVE seen i remain unconvinced. yes, theres holes in the official story, but not big enough to make me think it was an inside job.

my .02

Originally posted by Damocles

i still see NO evidence of thermite or lsc's or c4 or tnt or self lighting charcoal briquets for that matter.


my .02

Poured a gallon of lighter fluid on the briquets also?

Might that sway your opinion?

Dang it I forgot the thermite, can you run to the store real quick and pick some up we need to get this Bar-bie started?

Originally posted by Damocles
im in the maybe camp because i cannot rule out the possibility that there

my .02

I'm just trying to find convincing evidence that thermite was not used because I believe they use it in other Controlled demo's

In other words I need to see a better picture as to what brought the buildings down.

Originally posted by PHARAOH1133


I'm just trying to find convincing evidence that thermite was not used because I believe they use it in other Controlled demo's

In other words I need to see a better picture as to what brought the buildings down.

thats the thing many people miss...they really...dont use thermite on a wide scale. sure, some companies may use it from time to time though ive never seen anything to prove they do and ive never bothered to call CDI and ask them.

but

dyamite is really cheap, not as effective as tnt, c4 or even lsc's but its really cheap. conventional stuff is also very stable, very easy to use and much more predictable than thermite. anyone thats researched thermite will see that its not always the easiest thing to set off, whereas the standard blasting cap almost never fails so you dont have to worry aobut unexploded ordinance in yer blast pile, nor do you ahvae to worry about lingering heat or fires so you can get on the cleanup faster.

time=money

remember, the less they spend to drop the building, the more profit there is for them.

all hail the almighty dollar.

Originally posted by Damocles

anyone thats researched thermite will see that its not always the easiest thing to set off,

It shows thremite on a car.

Heres' the link : video.google.com...

HAHA, awesome vid pharaoh

Originally posted by PHARAOH1133

Originally posted by Damocles

anyone thats researched thermite will see that its not always the easiest thing to set off,

It shows thremite on a car.

Heres' the link : video.google.com...

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Kr0n0s]

Here is my 2 cents worth on the subject after doing research, I don’t believe so much with the thermite theory but I do believe it was demolition. Here are my clues as to that and just let me know what you think.

1. The video showing the towers coming down at the base there are a series of explosions, I have seen in person a few controlled demos of large structures. That sound made me think of it along with the smoke shown at the base of the structure moments before it falling. They have to knock out key beams starting higher up then knocking base beams out to start the free fall. The sky lobbies were reinforced sections of the building and I believe the building would have not fell in a uniform fashion if this resistance was met.

2. Multiple pictures of symmetrical cuts in the same direction of key supporting beams. During the clean up process this would not be needed. In the case of implosions I believe they placed shaped linear charges to cut the beams symmetrically like seen in the pictures then use other secondary explosives to knock the beam free. This in turn weakens the structure to have the free fall effects and how the building fell in on its self. If it would have been a collapse due to the fire I think the building would not have completely collapsed as it would not exactly pancake on it self especially meeting the sky lobbies. Think of as simple as water hitting an object, it goes in different directions as would the debris, instead the debris came down in good fashion as the implosions I have seen. Also as seen with WTC-7 the middle of the building "buckles" inward as seen with implosions to bring the building in on it self, and that is exactly what happened with this building.

3. This was the first time fire had ever caused a large building to collapse. There have been other documented cases of buildings that have caught fire with more intense heat and flames and more involved floors that still stood after flames lasting 2-3 times longer than what brought down WTC 1,2, and 7.

4. Most important the multiple reports and rare-seen videos of smoke rising from the base and the firefighters, police, and civilians reporting these explosions.

Just let me know what you think on this theory, I came up with this hypothesis after doing in-depth research on building implosions and using good old common sense and physics.


Here are some of this pics and video to further my points.

Watch this full video at this link it will explain a lot of theories but specifically my ideals I have expressed.

Here are photos of more of the beams and a history channel illustration of linear-shaped charges.









In the cleanup no need for these precise cuts so whether it is before or after is irrelevant to the theory. That is my 2 cents worth on the subject, it has really bothered me people think if a building collapse due to just the fire weakening the steel this anomaly does not happen multiple times.

Sorry here is the video link. This one is for WTC 1&2 implostion therory



This one is for WTC 7 and for evidence of no high rise building collapsing due to fire.


www.youtube.com...

[edit on 23-3-2007 by flyboy3737]

[edit on 23-3-2007 by flyboy3737]www.youtube.com...

[edit on 23-3-2007 by flyboy3737]

Originally posted by PHARAOH1133

Originally posted by Damocles

anyone thats researched thermite will see that its not always the easiest thing to set off,

It shows thremite on a car.

Heres' the link : video.google.com...

you dont really believe that the thermite in that vid was set off by the "touch paper" do you? cmon...the MOST obvious reason we know thats bunk is cuz the shows producers arent going to let them show a "how to" to kids out there that just happen to try to mix this stuff at home, or get it anywhere else. not to mention it wouldnt be all taht safe for the guys handling it if it was taht simple.

and the top of the car to teh gastank was a good example, couple thin sheets of sheet metal and it was fast, but not instant. you think it could burn through 2"+ of structural steel instantly?

not gonna happen.

cool video though, heres one i thought was amusing.
video.google.com...

but again, we can see that with a thermite grenade buring on it, it still took a few seconds to burn a hole in the safe and drop inside. and tahts burning straight down

so how do these thermite cutters work again? (for use on box columns and the like i mean) has anyone ever even found any data on them? id love to read the spec sheets.