Let's Play the 'Find the Cut Core Columns' Game! (From Rare 9/11 Photos)

reply to post by okbmd

feel free to prove your right, can you show pic of them cutting this ? a before / after pic? do you know what a shape charge cut looks like? see use of shape charge to cut steel, also placement of demo charges on steel beams.

reply to post by TrueAmerican
the facts still remain that three buildings fell to the ground which has never happened before and never will without the use of expolsives or thermate ..whatever

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Thread derailed by the usual pack of wolves before we even got past the first picture or first page! Yup, I'm onto something.

And that was just one of like 20 pics... Maybe if I post the second one my door will be busted down?

If your definition of "derailment" is our pointing out the columns were cut by steel workers during the cleanup of ground zero, then I suppose I can agree- it IS derailing the thread. Namely, becuase your intention isn't to show how the columns were really cut. Your intention is to simply display the cut columns out of context so you can say, "These columns were cut, isn't THIS suspicious (wink wink)".

Thus, our stopping you from your deliberate attempt at innuendo dropping to get people all paranoid over shadows is by definition derailment. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing, though...except perhaps for you.

As rightly pointed out by the opposing side, the many steels on show do clearly have signs of being cut by a thermal lance or oxy-acetylene torch, even though some of these could have been cut via thermite/thermate etc, there is no significant proof......

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f8df30fca6cf.jpg[/atsimg]

However as these were the only cutting devices used by the clear up crews, then cuts showing no signs of a 360 degree scorch mark or slag stuck to the metal were made by something else, a cookie cutter cutting charge snaps the metal via a directional detonation that expels air at around 20,000 mph thus snapping the metal, so the signs we should be looking for are a slight scorching around a hole and a surface that looks like it has been cut by a large toothed saw..........

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/73cd98f514b1.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I don't know about you guys, but for me it wouldn't have taken all the thousands of people the debunkers claim to orchestrate 9/11 fraud. Nope, not at all. When it comes to the WTC building failures, it goes without saying that something is amiss. We know those buildings should never have come down. Not one, not two, but THREE times the "cavemen" got lucky on 9/11. WTC2, then 1, then 7 came down on that day- redefining precedent- after all, no steel frame building, especially of THESE magnitudes, had EVER collapsed before because of fire.

What makes me smirk more than anything regarding this aspect is their `Do you know how long it would take to get the hundreds of tons of explosives needed to bring down these towers, inside them?`, but in the same breath tell us that 33 cubic metres of aviation fuel is more than enough to do exactly the same job, lmfao.

Originally posted by Seventh
What makes me smirk more than anything regarding this aspect is their `Do you know how long it would take to get the hundreds of tons of explosives needed to bring down these towers, inside them?`, but in the same breath tell us that 33 cubic metres of aviation fuel is more than enough to do exactly the same job, lmfao.

But, he's arguing against your claim, that it wouldn't be and that it would require tons of explosives. That's the point. Are you surprised that he doesn't believe in what you believe in?

Seriously I can't understand the logic here, you seem to be arguing that he believes what he believes and that he's arguing against what he doesn't believe. What's wrong with that?

reply to post by bekod


Here you go , pay close attention to when the guy says that you can see where his crew made the cuts , as he points towards the angle-cuts .

Doesn't get any more real than that right there .

www.youtube.com...

Also , take a good hard look at the 4th and 5th pictures in this link :

www.debunking911.com...

Now , tell me that guy is not cutting that column at an angle , during cleanup operations .

Originally posted by exponent

But, he's arguing against your claim, that it wouldn't be and that it would require tons of explosives. That's the point. Are you surprised that he doesn't believe in what you believe in?

Seriously I can't understand the logic here, you seem to be arguing that he believes what he believes and that he's arguing against what he doesn't believe. What's wrong with that?

You have completely missed the point here, which is thus........

1). OS believers tell us that it would have taken hundreds of tons of explosives to drop the towers....yes?..

2). They also enforce the aspect that 33 cubic metres of grade A kerosene was plenty enough to do the job.


So what is it to be?, hundreds of tons of high explosives or 33 cubic metres of aviation fuel this is your argument not ours?.

I`ll break it down some more... If explosives were used (which I, like 96% of the people posting here also think, that they were) it would have taken hundreds of tons therefore admitting that these towers were nowhere near as flimsy as you stress them to be, whilst expressing your reasoning that 33 cubic metres of Jet fuel would do the job no problem whatsoever, therefore it is you guys that fail the logic side of this aspect, not us.

But anyway`s let`s not derail this thread, I noticed you have not commented on the pictures I posted showing none conformal signs of cuts, your views on these please?.

Originally posted by Seventh
You have completely missed the point here, which is thus........

1). OS believers tell us that it would have taken hundreds of tons of explosives to drop the towers....yes?..

No.

2). They also enforce the aspect that 33 cubic metres of grade A kerosene was plenty enough to do the job.

Yes.

So what is it to be?, hundreds of tons of high explosives or 33 cubic metres of aviation fuel this is your argument not ours?.

Debunkers (generalising here) believe that a major fire and some fireproofing damage would be enough to bring down the towers.

I`ll break it down some more... If explosives were used (which I, like 96% of the people posting here also think, that they were) it would have taken hundreds of tons therefore admitting that these towers were nowhere near as flimsy as you stress them to be, whilst expressing your reasoning that 33 cubic metres of Jet fuel would do the job no problem whatsoever, therefore it is you guys that fail the logic side of this aspect, not us.

Uh, sorry but this paragraph is a complete failure of logic. It's not the debunkers who claim hundreds of tons are needed, it is the truthers who say that the whole building was blasted into dust, or that the top accelerated at freefall because the structure below was being destroyed by explosives.

These are 'truther' claims which we must use if we're making an argument against truthers. If you believe that only a tiny amount of explosives were used, then I assume you'll have no problem stating that the towers weren't blasted to dust, and that the speed at which they collapsed is not suspicious?

But anyway`s let`s not derail this thread, I noticed you have not commented on the pictures I posted showing none conformal signs of cuts, your views on these please?.

I didn't see anything particularly suspicous. I notice you said high speed air, wheras in typical demolitions it's actually a high speed ideally flat jet of copper.

Could you be more specific about which cuts you feel are suspicious?

Originally posted by Seventh

What makes me smirk more than anything regarding this aspect is their `Do you know how long it would take to get the hundreds of tons of explosives needed to bring down these towers, inside them?`, but in the same breath tell us that 33 cubic metres of aviation fuel is more than enough to do exactly the same job, lmfao.

What makes *me* smirk is that whenever you people try to back peddle away from your original claims like this, you don't even realize you're necessarily AGREEING with the NIST and FEMA findings that there was an achilles heel within the design of the building that noone fully understood was there. Remember, we're the ones who subscribe to the idea that the floors collapsed one after the other in a domino effect. You're the ones claiming that invisible gov't ninjas snuck in and pushed over every individual domino without anyone noticing.

If you're now claiming that not every floor required demolitions and that at least some of the floors legitimately collapsed because they were unable to withstand the overwhelming forces crashing down on them from above, then you're really saying that they ALL could have legitimately failed becuase every single floor was of the exact same design, the exact same load bearing capabilities, and therefore had the exact same structural weaknesses. At most, all you have to complain about is how that first floor that caused the chain reaction of structural failure actually collapsed. You know, the exact location where the planes hit and all those fires were burning with such ferocity that people were jumping out of the building?

You gotta really, really want to believe these conspiracy stories of yours are true for you to keep foisting them on people, at this point.

reply to post by bekod


Shaped charge explosives are placed in copper container - when detonated the copper forms a jet of molten
metal which cuts the steel . Leaves behind a residue of copper aound the cut.

So tell us why nobody found any copper residue on the columns supposedly cut by these shaped charges !

Have plenty of pictures of ironworkers with torches and thermal lances cutting up the debris including many
with "angled cuts" the conspiracy loons love to squawk about.....

I am enjoying this. I really am. Because not a single one of you has even taken a close look at the pic in the OP. I didn't post that particular pic on just a whim ya know. I have been researching this since 2003. There is a damning evidence in that pic, it's just that you guys haven't found it yet. Thread stalled until someone finds it.

Originally posted by survivalstation
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

Just like Photo Hunt! This one jumped out at me.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/45802e7c7c15.jpg[/atsimg]

You cant say the indicated column is cut at an angle because the column is not vertical You can see that if you look at the picture so what do you say now!

img.photobucket.com...


Is it this?
It looks like molten material but I doubt its been cut by a torch due to the height.
Sorry about the link but when I put image tags aroud it says the pic has been deleted or moved.

reply to post by Seventh


Well lets add to that math:

You have one large 767 impacting the building at nearly 500mph. The fuel starts a fire that spreads to multiple floors, and then the building collapses.

Are you purposely forgetting or ignoring the fact that the jet fuel STARTED the massive fires? Its like you people have selective amnesia that kicks in whenever you wish to make such strawmen arguments. For the trillionth time: It was not just jetfuel that brought down the WTCs. You are forgetting the impacts, the fires started by the jet fuel, and the fires that spread from the point of impact. And the loss of fireproofing. I thought after 9 years, you folks would at least remember the chain of events in the correct order, and not recall bits and pieces and try and fashion them to a fantasy.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I am enjoying this. I really am. Because not a single one of you has even taken a close look at the pic in the OP. I didn't post that particular pic on just a whim ya know. I have been researching this since 2003. There is a damning evidence in that pic, it's just that you guys haven't found it yet. Thread stalled until someone finds it.

You are of course being deliberately disingenuous here to give yourself false credibility. I did look at it and I presumed you are referring to THIS:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8caeae81b7f9.jpg[/atsimg]

Here's a closeup photo of steel in similar condition found elsewhere. It's part of the steel that was salvaged and preserved in the hanger at JFK. This wasn't caused by thermite charges. It was caused when the steel broke during the collapse of the towers.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cd3cea246efc.jpg[/atsimg]

In short, you are playing the standard truther innuendo dropping game of taking a grainy photo of something that kinda sorta looks like what you want to see in it and you present it as such, while pretending all these other photos that disprove what you want to believe don't exist. It's the whole reason why I'm pointing out that work crews were cutting up the steel with torches to begin with- the only thing your photo analysis proves is that you're grasping at straws here.

If I am in error, let me know and I'll retract it.

reply to post by OllyP

Is it this?
It looks like molten material but I doubt its been cut by a torch due to the height.
Sorry about the link but when I put image tags aroud it says the pic has been deleted or moved

Ever hear of a man lift or hi -lo ?

Many of the steelworkers were using them to cut up pieces of steel

reply to post by GoodOlDave


You should try and be less committal next time Dave, because you are not even remotely close.

I'll give you all a clue:

The date of that pic. And no, I will not say what it is, unless one of you proves to be a real digger and finds it. If you do, post it.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, I am having fun!

On one of the pictures above posted by Seventh, there is a black rescue dog located right below one of the steel columns which appears to have been cut.

1) Is it normal rescue procedure to have the iron workers cut these heavy columns and have them drop onto the rubble pile below while rescuers and their dogs are searching for survivors in the same rubble pile?

or

2) Does the cutting of these heavy steel columns only begin when all rescue efforts have been exhausted and there is little or no chance of finding survivors?

Anyone with any shred of common sense would say that #2 is the correct option when dealing with a search and rescue operation.

Therefore, how and why was this steel column cut by iron workers while a search and rescue operation was still in progress? Common sense leads one to believe that this column was not cut by iron workers, since they probably had not even arrived on the scene to perform their work.

reply to post by thedman


Doesn't look like you could get a cherry picker anywhere near that.
But practicality says that you would cut it near the bottom and then cut at that point for ease of transportation.
Also, that girder looks like its leaning quite a bit. Not very safe, so why would they cut the top off and leave that piece which could fall over at any time?