Cutting All 47 Columns Wasn't Necessary

How do you double post when there is but one?
I think it is so clear those beams were cut before cpllapse,I see no ambiguity,there is far too much adherant slag for a torch to have been used.

Why is this at all important besides the obvious?Well for one thing,if I am correct,it also means there were pockets where destruction didn't wholly penetrate to have knocked the slag off.Which only supports an explosion,as opposed to,say it were a pancake,those beams would have been at the center of the point where the immobile object(s) and unstoppable force met.In a controlled demo,they would be protected by the beams that were released just before collapse and fell on top.Wonder where those off cuts went anyway.That would tell a tale as well,mostly about what DID NOT happen.

Originally posted by trueforger
PS I WISH the 'flashing yellow banner' included a reference to an actual policy of booting posters of completely false mis-info.

This may be your lucky day! #1 of ATS's Terms & Conditions states:

Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

ATS's T&C


And trueforger, you're absolutely correct. I've been working with steel and aluminum for the past 7 years. I already knew the 45-degree angled beams at the WTC were not cut with any type of torch because all the melted slag is on the outside of the column instead of the inside. But just to make sure, I asked our iron-workers who have been welding and cutting steel for 30-40 years. They are also in agreement that there would be little slag, if any, on the outside of a box column.

So, debunkers can show workers cutting steel at 45-degree angles all day, there won't be thick, previously molten slag on the outside of the column.

reply to post by trueforger

I think it is so clear those beams were cut before cpllapse,I see no ambiguity,there is far too much adherant slag for a torch to have been used.

Explain how they managed to cut the columns before the collapse if they
were behind the walls . How did they cut into the wall to get at the columns without creating enormous amount of dust, smoke and noise?


Also someone should tell the ironworkers

Here is picture of one cutting columns AFTER the collapse

Originally posted by PookztA
So those implying that Dr. Wood "promotes space beams" are promoting disinformation, plane and simple.

Um, she "theorizes" about DEW/energy weapons. Where are those weapons she theorizes about? On satellites IN SPACE, hence "space beams", mmmkay?

She's been debunked here anyway:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by PookztA
despite the lack of support she has received from Dr. Jones and his followers. One of the many reasons I believe that Dr. Jones may be misleading the 9/11 Truth Movement is because Dr. Jones has not filed his nano-thermite findings with NIST or with Congress

First and foremost, I follow no one and that includes Dr. Jones.
Secondly, Dr. Jones hasn't personally filed anything with congress or NIST likely because his findings of nano-thermite aren't 100% proof positive. They are only preliminary findings that need more testing. This is real science here, not sci-fi space beam BS.

However, many members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth have delivered their findings along with Dr. Jones' findings to dozens of congress people, and to NIST. We Are Change have also delivered Dr. Jones' findings to congress people as well. So, Dr. Jones may not being getting his word out personally, but others are doing it on his behalf.

You are spot on about the cuts on the box section and beams, Trueforger,I have cut many beams and box section and worked with heavy guage steel 25
years or so, if they were cut in the clean up they would be straight cuts with the slag on the inside of the beams.They would be cut straight across with a crane holding the top section and then when cut, lifted straight up from the stump that we see that remains

Originally posted by thedman
Here is picture of one cutting columns AFTER the collapse

As I already stated in my previous post, debunkers can post pictures of workers cutting steel all day, your images are missing the thick, once liquefied slag on the outside of the columns. Nice try, though.

reply to post by themove1904


You both are spot-on as well as my experience and with the steel workers at my job who have been doing it for 30-40 years. Torches and plasma cutters will blow the slag into the inside of the column. Not melt it all over the outside.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm glad you're here because I've been asking people to clarify the actual science of what Wood is actually claiming physically happened to the towers.

You should be glad I'm here as well. I've posted several articles that debunk her "work" and you can find them here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Still not answering question

How do you cut thick heavy gauge steel column behind a sheet rock wall
coated with fireproofing with creating inordinate amout of dust, smoke
and noise?

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

Still not answering question

How do you cut thick heavy gauge steel column behind a sheet rock wall
coated with fireproofing with creating inordinate amout of dust, smoke
and noise?

You don't. You gain access to them through the elevator shafts and attach some kind of special shape charge or nano-thermate, or whatever-the-heck was used they have in their 30-year ahead nonpublic arsenal.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

Look at the photos I posted above, especially this one:

That's a relatively small piece of debris to be spewing so much "dust" or "smoke"... don't you think?

If I loaded an object down with pounds of dust and threw it off a building, the majority of that dust would come off in one quick gust and the rest would rapidly come off afterward, a very inverse relationship of amount of dust left per distance traveled.

In this image though, the dust is still POURING off of this small piece of debris after it has already fallen a considerable distance, illustrated by the conical shape of the stuff, and shows no signs of diminishing. Does it not?

Another note about the conical shape of the "dust"/"smoke"/whatever coming off of that debris. Notice it starts as narrow as the debris itself and then rapidly expands outward in all directions behind the debris. That is also evidence that this stuff is hotter than the surrounding air. In fact the whole dust cloud was, which is why it expanded to the monstrous dimensions that it did, and why it set cars on fire, was reported by warm or even hot by the witnesses on the ground, etc.

Here is another photo of the North Tower smoking core columns taken from a different angle. (west or northwest) This should be definitive proof that the core columns were sheared by explosives or incendiaries of some kind.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3d2965a2410f.jpg[/atsimg]

Smoking Heavy Core Column hi-rez image

WTC6 and WTC7 are hidden behind the building on the left.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/83bd8a5f6fb1.jpg[/atsimg]

NYPD photo taken from NorthEast

NIST NYPD gjs-wtc030.jpg

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2525be89b475.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 3/13/10 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


So SP, what's the best argument you've heard for why, or how, there was SO MUCH material pulverized to dust? That is a real major problem with OS. I mean I could understand maybe some, if it was a pancake collapse, but not on the scale we see- which is way more indicative of some kind of explosives to me.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by SPreston

 

So SP, what's the best argument you've heard for why, or how, there was SO MUCH material pulverized to dust? That is a real major problem with OS. I mean I could understand maybe some, if it was a pancake collapse, but not on the scale we see- which is way more indicative of some kind of explosives to me.

It does seem that tens of thousands of tons of heavy structural steel was pulverized into powder. There is no evidence that approximately 500 miles of heavy structural steel was trucked or barged out of NYC.

Let's calculate:

500 miles times 5280 = 2,640,000 feet of structural steel
Assume 50 foot lengths = 52,800 pieces
Average 10 pieces per flatbed = 1056 truckloads
Of course many of the core sections could only be carried one or two at a time.
Where did all the steel disappear to?

There is evidence that much of the steel, including from WTC7, was melted. There is much speculation as to how it was done. It is certain that explosives and incendiaries of some nature were used. But that does not seem to fully explain the extreme pulverization of the concrete and contents of both towers into fine powder, even from the very beginnings of both collapses.

Then we have hundreds of multi-ton pieces of structural steel hurled in all directions up to 600 feet away from both towers, which suggests enormous explosive forces, emanating apparently from the massive core sections.

If only in the interests of science:

These facts BEG FOR A NEW REAL INVESTIGATION INTO 9-11.

Missing WTC Steel?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9db33bbc272a.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 3/13/10 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


SPreston, are you even REMOTELY aware of the rediculous amounts of high power explosives that would have had to been placed in the WTC core to be even REMOTELY able to launch the external columns any distance? Maybe you can explain how was it that smaller chunks of steel and concrete were not ejected even farther from the WTC at the time of "detonations" of these "high power" explosives. Did you know that in a REAL controlled demolition, they take great care in covering and trying to minimize any smaller projectiles from being ejected at high velocity from the zone, that could kill people farther away? Why didnt anything like this happen at the WTC? Here is what happened in Australia:
en.wikipedia.org...

But far worse, the explosion was not contained on the site and large pieces of debris were projected towards spectators situated 500 metres away on the opposite side of the Lake, in a location that nobody considered unsafe or inappropriate. A twelve year old girl, Katie Bender, was killed instantly, and nine other people were injured. Large fragments of masonry and metal were found 650 metres from the demolition site.

SPreston, admit it, you have no clue to even the most basic sciences of explosives, do you? If you do not understand it, I will be more than willing to give you a few pointers and facts to remember when it comes to explosives and how they work. Cause apparently you are really lacking in this.


[edit on 3/13/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by SPreston




My gosh, take it easy on that poor OS, SP! But hehe, this is one case where I can't blame you a bit for kicking a story when it's down...

If NIST claimed there was no steel recovered from WTC7, then add that to the mountain of other lies we have been told...Because I see plenty of steel here in the WTC7 rubble pile, don't you?



Or is that just mosquito netting?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by SPreston

 

My gosh, take it easy on that poor OS, SP! But hehe, this is one case where I can't blame you a bit for kicking a story when it's down...

If NIST claimed there was no steel recovered from WTC7, then add that to the mountain of other lies we have been told...

It just ticks me off that Americans (and others) would defend this bunch of incompetent, lying, indifferent NIST pseudo-scientists.

Missing Steel

I think we need a real investigation into 9-11, and let's store the NIST clowns at Gitmo meanwhile, so they cannot interfere in real science.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ee7f92ca98ce.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SPreston


Another less known pic of the wtc7 rubble:



Looks like steel to me. In fact, that looks like A WHOLE LOT OF STEEL to me.

[edit on Sat Mar 13th 2010 by TrueAmerican]

reply to post by TrueAmerican


The building in the picture is 30 West Broadway aka Fiterman Hall (picture
is taken from Barclay Street looking east)

For the lunatic fringe still yapping about WTC 7 collapsing "in its footprint"
can see the distance debris traveled across Barclay St, which is a 4
lane highway, before striking 30 West Broadway.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
If NIST claimed there was no steel recovered from WTC7,

Please show in a NIST report where they stated no steel was recovered from WTC 7....

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by SPreston

 

Another less known pic of the wtc7 rubble:



Looks like steel to me. In fact, that looks like A WHOLE LOT OF STEEL to me.

[edit on Sat Mar 13th 2010 by TrueAmerican]

For every building done by CD , the expected "pile" after collapse is

approx 15% of the height of the building.

WTC7 was 610 feet tall, so the debris pile should have been approx 91 FT

high, with the expected spill over of a 610 ft building at near free fall speed,

a 4 lane highway would be a short distance to spill over.

It was a Foot Print Collapse.