Can anyone explain this picture(s) to me?

[Pato2747]

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3937/18957835hi6.jpg

I found this picture, and twoofers say it's hard cold evidence of the use of thermite in the pillars. This was also used on Alex Jones' Terrorstorm :covereyes

I don't really find a more 'plausible' explanation from the picture (In fact, the only explanation I could think of was the twoofer's one). Can you shed me some light on this one, please?

More pictures of the thermite theory. It's pretty much the same, so you may tell me only about the first one:

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/4783/55781355no1.jpg

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/5210/38665274pn0.jpg

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/3918/19368862av2.jpg

I don't understand the last one very well. What does the piece of steel of the left picture means?

[R.Mackey]

Those are cuts made by salvage workers post-collapse. This photo has been discussed here literally a thousand times.

Thermite (of any variety) leaves a distinctive white powdery residue of metallic oxides. It is also totally unknown how to contain thermite into making such precise cuts, or why you would bother to do it at an angle.

Finally, there is no requirement to cut columns low in the structure at all. Bazant & Zhou etc. proved very early on that a collapse that began high in the structure would lead to a total collapse. Surely the New World Order would have known about this.

[Sabrina]

I can't see the photo (at work right now) but if it's the one I think you're using (i.e. the one with a single column at the center of the photo with an angled cut and a fireman or ironworker (not sure which) standing just to the right) then that photograph was taken about a month after the towers collapsed and the angled cut is likely from an oxyacetylene torch cut.

[Unfit4Command]

There are several photographs showing additional torch cuts here (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/photosoftorch-cutsteel) on Gravy's website.

[Pato2747]

I can't see the photo (at work right now) but if it's the one I think you're using (i.e. the one with a single column at the center of the photo with an angled cut and a fireman or ironworker (not sure which) standing just to the right) then that photograph was taken about a month after the towers collapsed and the angled cut is likely from an oxyacetylene torch cut.

That's the one. Thanks a lot, both you and R. Mackey.

[RedIbis]

Those are cuts made by salvage workers post-collapse.
Source?

It is also totally unknown how to contain thermite into making such precise cuts, or why you would bother to do it at an angle.
You honestly have not heard of shaped charges being affixed at angle to make the columns "walk" inward?

[Alferd_Packer]

This is the only thing you need to lok at to understand the photo in the OP.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTCTorchAngleCuts1.jpg/WTCTorchAngleCuts1-full.jpg

In particular, the bottom photo that show a worker making a similar cut.

[CurtC]

You honestly have not heard of shaped charges being affixed at angle to make the columns "walk" inward?

Shaped thermite charges to cut at an angle? No, I haven't heard of those. Do you have any sources?

I thought the whole reason thermite was proposed by Jones was to explain the lack of loud explosive sounds just prior to collapse. If someone was using shaped charges, that implies kinds of thermite with a supersonic detonation speed, which would produce those loud explosions that no one heard. Why don't you make your ideas slightly less crazy by either claiming standard shaped charges that are known to exist, or the SBD thermite that melts steel non-directionally?

[Alferd_Packer]

You honestly have not heard of shaped charges being affixed at angle to make the columns "walk" inward?

So "thermite" is considered a shaped charge now?

How come I didn't get a memo on this?

[RedIbis]

Shaped thermite charges to cut at an angle? No, I haven't heard of those. Do you have any sources?

I thought the whole reason thermite was proposed by Jones was to explain the lack of loud explosive sounds just prior to collapse. If someone was using shaped charges, that implies kinds of thermite with a supersonic detonation speed, which would produce those loud explosions that no one heard. Why don't you make your ideas slightly less crazy by either claiming standard shaped charges that are known to exist, or the SBD thermite that melts steel non-directionally?

Did I say thermite? Mackey brought that strawman into the discussion, not me.

[Alferd_Packer]

No, the OP made that claim.

[DGM]

Did I say thermite? Mackey brought that strawman into the discussion, not me.
Can you show me a result from a shaped charge that looks like that column?

[16.5]

Did I say thermite? Mackey brought that strawman into the discussion, not me.

Uhhh, here you are clearly claiming that thermite was used as a "shaped charge." To wit:

Original comment: "It is also totally unknown how to contain thermite into making such precise cuts, or why you would bother to do it at an angle."

Your response: "You honestly have not heard of shaped charges being affixed at angle to make the columns "walk" inward?"

[16.5]

Crumbs, double post.

I am doubly ashamed.

[jaydeehess]

Did I say thermite? Mackey brought that strawman into the discussion, not me.

None of the cuts in any of the columns shown in this thread are indicative of explosive shaped charges, and the original poster makes reference to the pictures as being explained in Tuth Muuvmint literature as indicative of thermire use. Thus when you mentioned shaped charges it was assumed you actually meant the post to be in this thread and were referring to thermite, shaped charges.
If you now wish to say that the pictures are not, as Jones and others state, indicative of thermite use then I and others here would agree with you.

If you further then are trying to state that they are indicative of high explosive shaped charges we can discuss that.

First thing that comes to mind is that in a normal controlled demolition using explosives the cutter charge is accompanied by a kicker charge to push the column out of line so that the upper part does not fall directly onto the lower part, which could cause them to bind together and arrest a collapse. There is no evidence on any cut portion of a column of a kicker charge.

Usually the cutter charge cuts a straight horizontal slash as well. Now if one cut at an angle then perhaps the two pieces might slide and a kicker might not be required but there is a reason that CD companies don't rely on such a method. It would be highly unreliable! Friction is dependant directly on the force applied between two surfaces for one thing, and the force on such a slash would be tremendous, it has the load of the building above it pressing the two together. Still it might work if one used a large enough cutter charge, OOPS that would now require immensely loud 'bangs' that are not in evidence as having occured.

[Beerina]

It's like a religious defender defending the Bible against evolution. Anything can be explained. Blowing up a column, destroying a foot of it? A-ok! Wait, maybe a shaped charge? A-ok! A death beam from space? A-ok!

That's not how critical thinking and science work.

[OldTigerCub]

Henry62, an Italian blogger and debunker, has a post at his blog that goes into depth regarding the pictures in the OP. Some were made with oxy-acetylene torches, while many were made with larger thermal cutters...essentially a cutting torch on steroids.
His post on it is here (http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/real-world-tests-cut-through-steel.html)
There is a detailed look at thermal cutting technology here (http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/technical-widening-about-thermal.html) as well

[Pato2747]

No, the OP made that claim.

Who, me? I never said that, I just wanted to know an explanation for the pictures. I'm not a 'twoofer' ;).

[RedIbis]

Usually the cutter charge cuts a straight horizontal slash as well. Now if one cut at an angle then perhaps the two pieces might slide and a kicker might not be required but there is a reason that CD companies don't rely on such a method. It would be highly unreliable! Friction is dependant directly on the force applied between two surfaces for one thing, and the force on such a slash would be tremendous, it has the load of the building above it pressing the two together. Still it might work if one used a large enough cutter charge, OOPS that would now require immensely loud 'bangs' that are not in evidence as having occured.

You sure about all that...

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/anglecharge.jpg

[Alt+F4]

You sure about all that...

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/anglecharge.jpg

Well only one sure way to find out. Why don't you contact the Steelworker's Union, ask them and get back to us?

[RedIbis]

Well only one sure way to find out. Why don't you contact the Steelworker's Union, ask them and get back to us?

You don't believe your own eyes?

[Pardalis]

Nah, RedIbis is not MIHOP.

[WildCat]

You don't believe your own eyes?
What does it look like after detonation? :rolleyes:

eta: btw Red, still waiting for you to explain the importance of the C-Ring hole in the other thread.

[RedIbis]

What does it look like after detonation? :rolleyes:

eta: btw Red, still waiting for you to explain the importance of the C-Ring hole in the other thread.

I'll be over any minute now. Wait for me.

[Alt+F4]

You don't believe your own eyes?

Not always. When I look out at the ocean at calm sea the world does look flat. On those rare occassion when I drink too much, the room really does seem to spin.

Here's an example. What are your eyes telling you?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/altf4_photo/bra.jpg

scroll

scroll

scroll

scroll

scroll

scroll

scroll

scroll

scroll

This is it...

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/altf4_photo/baby.jpg


Why not just ask the experts, the eyewitnesses? What is there to lose?

[defaultdotxbe]

You sure about all that...

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/anglecharge.jpg
are those thermite?

and before you go on with your "did i say thermite?" response you shoudl take a look at the quote you were replying to (and presuably attemptiing to refute)

[Pardalis]

I'll be over any minute now. Wait for me.

The vasoline usually is behind the bathroom cabinet.

[Sunni Man]

In my younger days I worked as an Iron Worker.

We used large cutting torches to make cuts like those in the photo.

If you look closely you will see that the cuts have a wavey surface and are not smooth.

That tells me that a scarfing torch was used to make quick rough cuts.

A technique used when cutting metal for scrap.

Also, the molten metal called "slag" is still hanging below the cut.

This is perfectly normal for this type of cutting.

[defaultdotxbe]

Not always. When I look out at the ocean at calm sea the world does look flat. On those rare occassion when I drink too much, the room really does seem to spin.

Here's an example. What are your eyes telling you?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/altf4_photo/bra.jpg

scroll

scroll

scroll

scroll

scroll

scroll

scroll

scroll

scroll

This is it...

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/altf4_photo/baby.jpg


Why not just ask the experts, the eyewitnesses? What is there to lose?
i think that might be illegal in some places

[Alt+F4]

i think that might be illegal in some places

Could be, but in my state a baby can wear a bra on his or her butt whenever he or she wants to! I think it's in the Constitution... :newlol

[Quad4_72]

Crazy how pictures of beams cut by torches after the collapse turns into conspiracy evidence for twoofers.

[Quad4_72]

Ya know out of curiosity, can a twoofer give me an explanation of what they think cut those beams? This explanation must be backed by evidence as well remember.

[defaultdotxbe]

Ya know out of curiosity, can a twoofer give me an explanation of what they think cut those beams? This explanation must be backed by evidence as well remember.
magic thermite, the evidence for the existance of magic thermite is standard explosive charges

it makes sense...somehow...

[cow_cat]

Not always. When I look out at the ocean at calm sea the world does look flat. On those rare occassion when I drink too much, the room really does seem to spin.

Here's an example. What are your eyes telling you?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/altf4_photo/bra.jpg

scroll


This is it...

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/altf4_photo/baby.jpg


Why not just ask the experts, the eyewitnesses? What is there to lose?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I know the mods hate it, but :socks: :socks: :socks: :socks: :socks:

We've heard it all before.

[David Wong]

In my younger days I worked as an Iron Worker.

We used large cutting torches to make cuts like those in the photo.

If you look closely you will see that the cuts have a wavey surface and are not smooth.

That tells me that a scarfing torch was used to make quick rough cuts.

A technique used when cutting metal for scrap.

Also, the molten metal called "slag" is still hanging below the cut.

This is perfectly normal for this type of cutting.

Sunni Man made a very informative and relevant post.

Thought that was worth mentioning.

[CTM]

This article is about the dismantling of the Deutsche Bank that was badly damaged on 9/11.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/nyregion/17bank.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

On the left side of the article are links to a slideshow. If you look at pictures 7 and 11 you see the same 45 deg. angle cuts in the steel beams to take the building apart. No dynamite, no thermite. Could have been the same construction guys that worked on the towers.

[A W Smith]

You sure about all that...

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/anglecharge.jpg


Red. Note that the shape charges in your photo need to be on both sides of the flange to do their work. The H section has the web cut from it to allow for this placement. Also the cross section of the steel in your photo is a lot less than the wall thickness of the core columns shown cut in the photos in the OP.

[WildCat]

This article is about the dismantling of the Deutsche Bank that was badly damaged on 9/11.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/nyregion/17bank.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

On the left side of the article are links to a slideshow. If you look at pictures 7 and 11 you see the same 45 deg. angle cuts in the steel beams to take the building apart. No dynamite, no thermite. Could have been the same construction guys that worked on the towers.
This takes you right to pic 11: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/08/16/nyregion/20070817_BANK_SLIDESHOW_11.html

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Usually the cutter charge cuts a straight horizontal slash as well. Now if one cut at an angle then perhaps the two pieces might slide and a kicker might not be required but there is a reason that CD companies don't rely on such a method. It would be highly unreliable! Friction is dependant directly on the force applied between two surfaces for one thing, and the force on such a slash would be tremendous, it has the load of the building above it pressing the two together. Still it might work if one used a large enough cutter charge, OOPS that would now require immensely loud 'bangs' that are not in evidence as having occured. You sure about all that...

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/anglecharge.jpg

So what is the context of the charge used in that photo Red? Any special reason why in that case they angled the cut? Perhaps they wanted the building to fall in the direction of the guy who is kneeling? This charge would be ther to cut the lowest column to allow the upper section to tilt and fall over rather than down. In such a case a horizontal cut would be counter productive. Now check the first word I used in the paragraph of mine you quoted.

Are you now trying to tell us that the original plan of the vast, complicated, complex, and convoluted 9/11 gov't conspiracy was to have the towers topple at their bases?

That actually was the plan in the first WTC bombing, they wanted to place the truck bomb to take out the foundation under one side of one tower and have it topple over.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I don't really find a more 'plausible' explanation from the picture (In fact, the only explanation I could think of was the twoofer's one).

You've gotta be frakking kidding me...

CUT... ON... THE... GROUND... BY... RESCUE/CLEANUP... WORKERS... WITH... WELDING... GEAR.

If are going to tell us with a straight face that doesn't sound plausible to you, then stop posting here. You're wasting all of out time, ours and yours.

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/5210/38665274pn0.jpg

BTW, it's worth noting in this photograph the word "SAVE" prominently spray painted on these beams. This is from from the engineers and technicians working in the investigation you people claim never happened going over each individual piece of structural steel from the WTC wreckage and marking the ones they wanted to send to the labs first.

They did not go straight to China, they did not collect 200 dollars, they went straight to girder jail where they were subjected to numerous tests in the most fabulously expensive incident investigation in the history of engineering science.

[Bananaman]

BTW, it's worth noting in this photograph the word "SAVE" prominently spray painted on these beams. This is from from the engineers and technicians working in the investigation you people claim never happened going over each individual piece of structural steel from the WTC wreckage and marking the ones they wanted to send to the labs first.

They did not go straight to China, they did not collect 200 dollars, they went straight to girder jail where they were subjected to numerous tests in the most fabulously expensive incident investigation in the history of engineering science

Beautiful.

You know, this is why only a handful of the more self confidently deluded truthers post here. They just get hacked to pieces by explanations of reality. You have to be suspended in an ocean of fantasy to still try and argue with reality. In fact you have to be barking.

I think you know who I'm talking about.

Bananaman.

[leftysergeant]

As R.Mackey pointed out, thermite would leave a considerable white residue of aluminum oxide of the metal. I have made shaped thermite charges, but they do not cut that smoothly or leave such fine striations as are seen in any of the close-ups of the cut steel. They would also leave a crust that you could chisel your initials into and water would not wash it off.

A shaped explosive charge, such as is normally used in demolition work, would also not leave such striations in the cut. It would more likely produce a smoother cut in thin metal, or a granular texture in thicker metal, as it fractures the steel.

Having worked with all three methods for quickly cutting steel, this looks most like a torch to me.

[fuelair]

Sunni Man made a very informative and relevant post.

Thought that was worth mentioning.
I will back you on that. Credit when/where credit is due.

[Pato2747]

You've gotta be frakking kidding me...

CUT... ON... THE... GROUND... BY... RESCUE/CLEANUP... WORKERS... WITH... WELDING... GEAR.

If are going to tell us with a straight face that doesn't sound plausible to you, then stop posting here. You're wasting all of out time, ours and yours.


That sounds a lot more plausible indeed. I forgot to say that the only plausible explanation I found was from the 9-11 truth movement, was mainly because I didn't find another explanation around, no matter how I searched it. That's why I posted here, to find an explanation that didn't come from the twoofers' side :rolleyes:

Please, don't get me wrong. I'm not from the truth movement. I'm a skeptic, just as all of you guys and gals. I just found this picture, with the only explanation that was made by termite, I searched, didn't find anything, so I posted here to get a more plausible explanation.

[Minadin]

Beautiful.

You know, this is why only a handful of the more self confidently deluded truthers post here. They just get hacked to pieces by explanations of reality. You have to be suspended in an ocean of fantasy to still try and argue with reality. In fact you have to be barking.

I think you know who I'm talking about.

Bananaman.

My own personal favorite contradiction between conspiracy theories is when you have several of them arguing that heat cannot weaken steel, and others arguing that thermite was used to heat-weaken it in the WTC, while a third sub-set is trying to convince us that steel framing in a skyscraper acts as a super-conductive heatsink so that the heat is evenly spread, and yet some more of them are showing us pictures of steel actually being cut with oxy-acetylene torches, to convince us that thermite was used to cut the steel - presumably by heat.

It's the woo merry-go round. Nevermind that if the 3rd group's idea was correct, then any attempt at torch or "thermite" cutting would result in the steel doing nothing for a while, until the entire chunk you were trying to cut all reached the melting point at more or less the same instant. Doesn't sound like something you would want to be around with a hand-held torch and an oxygen tank, but maybe that's just me.

[Quad4_72]

That sounds a lot more plausible indeed. I forgot to say that the only plausible explanation I found was from the 9-11 truth movement, was mainly because I didn't find another explanation around, no matter how I searched it. That's why I posted here, to find an explanation that didn't come from the twoofers' side :rolleyes:

Please, don't get me wrong. I'm not from the truth movement. I'm a skeptic, just as all of you guys and gals. I just found this picture, with the only explanation that was made by termite, I searched, didn't find anything, so I posted here to get a more plausible explanation.

So you saw a beam with a big slice in it and it never occurred to you that it could have been made by a cutting torch? We need to work on your critical thinking skills...

[Jonnyclueless]

I think someone should post that youtube video where they discuss the cut marks and include the interview with one of the steel workers doing the cutting. I jsut can't remember who did it or how to find it. It pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of this one.

[WildCat]

I think someone should post that youtube video where they discuss the cut marks and include the interview with one of the steel workers doing the cutting. I jsut can't remember who did it or how to find it. It pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of this one.
I think I found it! Towards the end (at the 1:30 mark):

FfgSr2eBXls

If this doesn't settle it, I dont know what will.

[Quad4_72]

I think I found it! Towards the end (at the 1:30 mark):

FfgSr2eBXls

If this doesn't settle it, I dont know what will.

Wildcat I don't think you watched that video close enough. If you look on the back of the guys hard hats in micro print it clearly says NWO cover up crew..

[jaydeehess]

My own personal favorite contradiction between conspiracy theories is when you have several of them arguing that heat cannot weaken steel, and others arguing that thermite was used to heat-weaken it in the WTC, while a third sub-set is trying to convince us that steel framing in a skyscraper acts as a super-conductive heatsink so that the heat is evenly spread, and yet some more of them are showing us pictures of steel actually being cut with oxy-acetylene torches, to convince us that thermite was used to cut the steel - presumably by heat.

It's the woo merry-go round. Nevermind that if the 3rd group's idea was correct, then any attempt at torch or "thermite" cutting would result in the steel doing nothing for a while, until the entire chunk you were trying to cut all reached the melting point at more or less the same instant. Doesn't sound like something you would want to be around with a hand-held torch and an oxygen tank, but maybe that's just me.

I had not made that connection before but I can tell you what the TuthMuuvment would say; " the torch is a lot hotter than an office fire".
Never mind that the heat output of the torch is puny compared to an office wide fire. You could show them the calculations of heat input, heat conduction rates and illustrate that the torch cuts BECAUSE steel cannot transfer the heat away fast enough to keep up with the input rate and that the heat input rate from a multi-floor fire would also be faster than the conduction rate and therefore the temp of the steel must rise local to the fires,,,, and they will still not get it.
Now one can forgive a person with no science background for not understanding this. Most people don't understand the difference between Farenheit and Celcius scales let alone the difference between heat and temperature. However, how does one forgive Jones and Griffen who should know?

I do love the imagery of putting a torch to a piece of steel and walking away, then after a sufficient amount of time goes by to heat the entire piece, it sags as the whole thing enters the plastic range.:D

I had always pointed out that the steel insulation was still intact on floors not hit by the planes and that any heat that did get conducted to cooler areas would not easily be radiated away because of that.

[jaydeehess]

Wildcat I don't think you watched that video close enough. If you look on the back of the guys hard hats in micro print it clearly says NWO cover up crew..

Right near the end, to the left of the sparks from the torch cutting, you can see me waving to the camera. Well, you could if the video was not so badly compressed.:D honest:rolleyes:

[Alferd_Packer]

So has Plato2747 come back to this thread at all?

[jaydeehess]

RedIbis, post 39 (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showpost.php?p=3558924&postcount=39) stands un-commented upon.

[RedIbis]

RedIbis, post 39 (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showpost.php?p=3558924&postcount=39) stands un-commented upon.

Your assertion that:

Usually the cutter charge cuts a straight horizontal slash as well. Now if one cut at an angle then perhaps the two pieces might slide and a kicker might not be required but there is a reason that CD companies don't rely on such a method. It would be highly unreliable!

belies a lack of understanding proven by the pic I posted. I don't feel the need to respond to every post directed at me, especially those that are blatantly contradicted by easily obtained information.

[DGM]

Your assertion that:



belies a lack of understanding proven by the pic I posted. I don't feel the need to respond to every post directed at me, especially those that are blatantly contradicted by easily obtained information.
Just for my curiosity, You don't actually think this picture is proof of "thermite" do you? (fully expecting a no committal answer)

[RedIbis]

Just for my curiosity, You don't actually think this picture is proof of "thermite" do you? (fully expecting a no committal answer)

No, I don't. That's why earlier in the thread I rejected the claim that I had asserted it was thermite. It's evidence that shape charges are affixed at an angle to columns.

Is that committal enough?

[DGM]

No, I don't. That's why earlier in the thread I rejected the claim that I had asserted it was thermite. It's evidence that shape charges are affixed at an angle to columns.

The problem is it has no signs of explosive effects. The angle is unimportant. (hint...no compressed or rolled edges)

Is that committal enough?

Sure.

[Corsair 115]

You've
BTW, it's worth noting in this photograph the word "SAVE" prominently spray painted on these beams. This is from from the engineers and technicians working in the investigation you people claim never happened going over each individual piece of structural steel from the WTC wreckage and marking the ones they wanted to send to the labs first.Years ago, on the program @ Discovery Canada, shown on Discovery Channel Canada, they had a piece where they followed one of the engineers who was inspecting the debris from the WTC towers and was spray painting the steel beams he wanted retained for further analysis.

[Quad4_72]

No, I don't. That's why earlier in the thread I rejected the claim that I had asserted it was thermite. It's evidence that shape charges are affixed at an angle to columns.

Is that committal enough?

Out of curiosity what did you think of the video that Wildcat posted? Watch it from 1:30 on and please let us know what your thoughts are.

[Dr Adequate]

Sunni Man made a very informative and relevant post. Moreover, he's the one person on these forums whom the CTs can't suspect of being a shill, since obviously no Muslim fundamentalist could be mixed up in 9/11 in any way whatsoever.

[HeyLeroy]

This takes you right to pic 11: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/08/16/nyregion/20070817_BANK_SLIDESHOW_11.html

Two skid steer loaders pulled down the bay, which was already cut at the base of each column.

OMG!!!1111eleventyzillion!!!111!

[TC329]

I can't see the photo (at work right now) but if it's the one I think you're using (i.e. the one with a single column at the center of the photo with an angled cut and a fireman or ironworker (not sure which) standing just to the right) then that photograph was taken about a month after the towers collapsed and the angled cut is likely from an oxyacetylene torch cut.

A month after the attack and those oxygen starved jet fuel fires were still smoking.....what more could a jihadi ask for?

[DGM]

A month after the attack and those oxygen starved jet fuel fires were still smoking.....what more could a jihadi ask for?
So what would have caused these fires and why?

[TC329]

So what would have caused these fires and why?

Jet fuel, right?

You do believe jet fuel based fire was burning at the bottom of the WTC rubble a month after the attack don't you?

[DGM]

Jet fuel, right?

You do believe jet fuel based fire was burning at the bottom of the WTC rubble a month after the attack don't you?
Of cource not that would be stupid. The vast amount of others fuels (desks,chairs paper,ect) was what was burning.

[WildCat]

Jet fuel, right?

You do believe jet fuel based fire was burning at the bottom of the WTC rubble a month after the attack don't you?
I haven't seen anyone claim the jet fuel was still burning a month after 9/11...

[WildCat]

btw TC329 (and other truthers), what do you think of this? It's on youtube so truthers can understand it, pay special attention to the part starting at 1:30...

FfgSr2eBXls

[Quad4_72]

btw TC329 (and other truthers), what do you think of this? It's on youtube so truthers can understand it, pay special attention to the part starting at 1:30...

FfgSr2eBXls

Yes I asked the same question, no response as of yet though...

[TC329]

Of cource not that would be stupid. The vast amount of others fuels (desks,chairs paper,ect) was what was burning.


And what do you propose was keeping these fires ablaze all that time at the bottom of all that rubble where they were starved of oxygen?

[DGM]

And what do you propose was keeping these fires ablaze all that time at the bottom of all that rubble where they were starved of oxygen?
Same thing that would make this fire in your home state burn for years. Underground trash fires are no wheres near rare.

http://www.brandenburg.com/Library/FeaturedProjects/soq%20insert_Emerson%20Dump.pdf

[TC329]

Same thing that would make this fire in your home state burn for years. Underground trash fires are no wheres near rare.

http://www.brandenburg.com/Library/FeaturedProjects/soq%20insert_Emerson%20Dump.pdf


According to what you just linked it's caused from Demolition Debris and Haz Mats. Thanks. :D

[defaultdotxbe]

And what do you propose was keeping these fires ablaze all that time at the bottom of all that rubble where they were starved of oxygen?
"starved of oxygen" doesnt mean the fire will do out, in fact in many cases it means the fired will burn hotter because materials can heat beyond their autoignition point without bursting into flame

so what do YOU propose was burning down there for a month, starved of oxygen? (and ive got a laughing dog ready if you say thermite)

[DGM]

According to what you just linked it's caused from Demolition Debris and Haz Mats. Thanks. :D
Your point?

[WildCat]

Yes I asked the same question, no response as of yet though...
I wonder if his sudden interest in underground fires is related to the pic in the OP being proven to have been made with a cutting torch during cleanup?

[defaultdotxbe]

According to what you just linked it's caused from Demolition Debris and Haz Mats. Thanks. :D

http://www.epa.state.il.us/small-business/construction-debris/

Construction and demolition (C&D) debris is nonhazardous, uncontaminated material resulting from construction, remodeling, repair, or demolition of utilities, structures, and roads. http://www.epa.state.il.us/small-business/construction-debris/house-construction.gifThese materials include the following:

Bricks, concrete, and other masonry materials
Soil
Rock
Wood, including nonhazardous painted, treated, and coated wood and wood products
Wall coverings
Plaster
Drywall
Plumbing fixtures
Non-asbestos insulation
Roofing shingles and other roof coverings
Reclaimed asphalt pavement
Glass
Plastics that do not conceal waste
Electrical wiring and components that do not contain hazardous substances
Piping
Metal materials incidental to any of the materials above
sounds liek there might have been alot of stuff you could classify as "demoliton debris" at the WTC

[TC329]

Your point?

I agree with your consensus. What was burning under the WTC rubble was the same thing burning in Philly.....demolition debris and hazardous materials.

I wonder if his sudden interest in underground fires is related to the pic in the OP being proven to have been made with a cutting torch during cleanup?

I'm sorry but where was it "proven" that a cutting torch made the cut in the steel in the OP?

[leftysergeant]

Buried demolition debris, even common household trash can smoulder in a landfill for months without any sign at the surface. I have had to deal with a couple of such.

There was a supply of air from under the rubble pile at WTC. No further questions should remain as to the nature of the fires.

[TC329]

http://www.epa.state.il.us/small-business/construction-debris/

sounds liek there might have been alot of stuff you could classify as "demoliton debris" at the WTC


Yes because as we all know even though the massive steel members used to assemble the core of the WTC weren't strong enough to survive the precollapse fire.......wood, plaster, glass, plastic, etc all would have survived the massive heat and burned later at much much higher tempatures than their properties allow.

Is there any other building fires this example can be compared to where normal office contents such as furniture and capeting and copy machines burned at higher temptatures than their properties allow a month after the fact while being starved of oxygen underneath the rubble of the building?

[WildCat]

I'm sorry but where was it "proven" that a cutting torch made the cut in the steel in the OP?
In the video where cleanup workers are making the exact same cuts as in the pic in the OP. And since no truther has shown that such a cut can be made with thermite, thermate, space beams, or explosive cutting charges the evidence is overwhelming that it was made with torch during cleanup.

I'll also add that the WTC collapsed from the top down, and the cuts shown are at ground level.

QED

[WildCat]

Yes because as we all know even though the massive steel members used to assemble the core of the WTC weren't strong enough to survive the precollapse fire.......wood, plaster, glass, plastic, etc all would have survived the massive heat and burned later at much much higher tempatures than their properties allow.
Oh look, TC329 is now claiming every bit combustible material in the WTC - even that on floors that weren't on fire - was completely consumed pre-collapse! The stench of desperation fills the air!

[defaultdotxbe]

Yes because as we all know even though the massive steel members used to assemble the core of the WTC weren't strong enough to survive the precollapse fire.......wood, plaster, glass, plastic, etc all would have survived the massive heat and burned later at much much higher tempatures than their properties allow.

you do relaize that most of both towers was not on fire when it collapsed, right?

also "higher temperatures than their properties allow" isnt accurate, combustion is a chemical reaction that releases energy, theoretically there is no maximum temperature a material can burn at given the correct circumstances, lack of oxygen is one circumstance that can increase the combustion temperature of a meterial, i explained this in a previous post

[DGM]

Yes because as we all know even though the massive steel members used to assemble the core of the WTC weren't strong enough to survive the precollapse fire.......wood, plaster, glass, plastic, etc all would have survived the massive heat and burned later at much much higher tempatures than their properties allow.

Is there any other building fires this example can be compared to where normal office contents such as furniture and capeting and copy machines burned at higher temptatures than their properties allow a month after the fact while being starved of oxygen underneath the rubble of the building?
Why "starved for oxygen"? There were large open areas and subway tunnels under those buildings. The debris also helps insulate and trap the heat. Like a kiln.

[DavidJames]

Yes because as we all know even though the massive steel members used to assemble the core of the WTC weren't strong enough to survive the precollapse fire.......wood, plaster, glass, plastic, etc all would have survived the massive heat and burned later at much much higher tempatures than their properties allow.Do you actually think about the words you put into posts? Do you actually think about what you are saying? Do you actually consider the implications of the words you type?

Your post has stundie written all over it.

[jaydeehess]

Your assertion ...........belies a lack of understanding proven by the pic I posted. I don't feel the need to respond to every post directed at me, especially those that are blatantly contradicted by easily obtained information.


Your post belies a problem with reading comprehension in that I started the paragraph with the word "usually". A fact I pointed out in the follow up post.

In fact if a column is to be cut to allow a building to come straight down then the cut will almost always be a horizontal one and utilize a kicker charge to offset the two pieces. If the building is to fall in a set direction then the cut may be at an angle to allow this to occur.

We know that the lower part of the towers showed no predisposition to fall in any particular direction which would be in evidence had the columns been cut at an angle. In fact one of the bugaboo's that the TM keeps harping on is the general symmetry of the collapses. Please feel free to reconcile the angle cut columns with a symmetric collapse.

[jaydeehess]

Jet fuel, right?

You do believe jet fuel based fire was burning at the bottom of the WTC rubble a month after the attack don't you?

I don't. Do you know anyone who does?

The jet fuel was simply the acellerant that ignited a multi-floor fire in each tower. A multi floor fire has never occured within seconds, that I know of, prior to 9/11/01.Tthe closest would have been the 100 or so gallons of fuel from the B-25 that hit the Empire State Bldg. That hardly compares with the several thousand gallons from Flt 11 and Flt 175.

There is no so-called official story that has the jet fuel being the major component of the fuel for the fires either on the fire floors or in the rubble pile.

[BenBurch]

You don't believe your own eyes?

because you are lying...

[Quad4_72]

Still waiting to hear TC's thoughts on the video..

[WildCat]

Still waiting to hear TC's thoughts on the video..
That was from a program aired on PBS. PBS is funded by the government, how convenient that it shows up after Dr. Jones reveals the thermite cuts!

/truther

[Alferd_Packer]

A month after the attack and those oxygen starved jet fuel fires were still smoking.....what more could a jihadi ask for?


Did you know that there are underground coal seam fires and buried fires in landfills that have burned for years, decades and even centuries? One fire in Austrailia has been estimated to have been burning for 2000 years.

The temperatures in those fires can get pretty high, as well.

[TC329]

There is no so-called official story that has the jet fuel being the major component of the fuel for the fires either on the fire floors or in the rubble pile.


So the towers simply came straight down because of office fires?

[HyJinX]

So the towers simply came straight down because of office fires?

If not...then how?

[Arus808]

So the towers simply came straight down because of office fires?

and that is a false statement and you know it.
how many times must it be spoon fed to you truthers ,taht a combination of events caused the towers to collapse? You claim that the towers can withstand plane impacts, but ignore the fires. Then you claim that there were only fires, but ignore the plane impacts.

you can't have it as either/or . ITs all or nothing.

[Alferd_Packer]

Is there any other building fires this example can be compared to where normal office contents such as furniture and capeting and copy machines burned at higher temptatures than their properties allow a month after the fact while being starved of oxygen underneath the rubble of the building?

While this is not a building fire, the comparison to the ground zero rubble pile is valid.

Centrailia (http://fogonazos.blogspot.com/2007/03/centralia-mouth-of-hell.html)

More:

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Coal_fires

[16.5]

Anyhow, this thread was a complete rout.

They are all getting to be this way, aren't they?

[Quad4_72]

So the towers simply came straight down because of office fires?

Again, you avoid responding to the posted video. Why is this?

[WildCat]

Anyhow, this thread was a complete rout.

They are all getting to be this way, aren't they?
It's almost embarrassing! I think they really thought that with Gravy gone they'd be able to pwn us and stuff... :D

[BenBurch]

So the towers simply came straight down because of office fires?

Well, yes, exactly, of course the damaged structure was obviously a big part too.

[R.Mackey]

So the towers simply came straight down because of office fires?

TC329, if you do not even know the most basic summary of the "official theory," you cannot possibly criticize it.

I strongly urge you to read NCSTAR1 before commenting any further. I'll be glad to help if you have any questions about the report.

[jaydeehess]

So the towers simply came straight down because of office fires?

That would be an incredibly simplistic explanation of a situation which involved much more.

Large, fast aircraft hit the towers causing a significant amount of damage to the load bearing members of the structure. The impact also dislodged a significant amount of the passive fire protection and disabled any active fire suppression systems. The large amount of liquid fuel on board the aircraft was spread out in much of the area of several consecutive floors igniting major office fires on all of them. Structural members exposed to the heat of the fires then heated up and lost a percentage of their ability to carry a load. The building now had several consecutive levels on which columns were losing load carrying strength due to being heated while the truss system also was being compromised by heating and which were the system that supplied bracing between core and perimeter as well as the damage caused to both columns and floor pans by the initial impact. The structure responded by redistributing loads as structural members sagged or suffered from creep until the point at which the redistribution caused complete failure in one or more structural members that in turn caused further load redistribution which also could not be handled and therefore in turn caused more failures in quick succession.
At this point the upper section came down on the next intact floors space. Since the load bearing columns no longer lined up the impact was on the trusses which were never designed to hold the mass of the upper several stories let alone the impact force of that mass dropping on them, The lower section columns speared upward through the falling upper section as did the columns of the upper section spear through the lower section. The falling mass acellerated and the entire building collapsed.

The debris consisted of not only the steel and concrete but also of the office furnishings, file cabinet contents, computers, carpeting and of course the automobiles that were in the parking area. There was an oxygen supply from the subway system as well as from above. there were passages through the rubble more than enough to allow fires to rage underground where heat released would more slowly escape than if these fires were in open air. Certainly the rubble contained spaces that allowed several people to survive and be rescued.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... but if you wish to believe that the so-called official story is that office fires caused the buildings to fall that would be your perogative.

Now, how about them pictures in the OP?

[RedIbis]

because you are lying...

About what? Be specific and quote whenever possible. Mendacity is a serious charge, not as much for the accused as the accuser. If you throw that term around it says far more about you than me. Unless you can prove it, you are quilty of exactly that which you accuse.

[DavidJames]

About what? Be specific and quote whenever possible. Mendacity is a serious charge, not as much for the accused as the accuser. If you throw that term around it says far more about you than me. Unless you can prove it, you are quilty of exactly that which you accuse.How about you get accused of complicity to murder of 3000 people, something you have no qualms about doing to others. Deal with it CT boy!

[Major_Tom]

The cut is most probably not from an oxyacetylene torch because of the liquified, now solidified metallic drippings.

It seems characteristic of an oxy lance cut.

Please see the following link

?http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=38&MMN_position=59:59

I asked Steven Jones to remove the photo from his paper and to issue a retraction many, many times. I showed him all the evidence he needed to understand that this photo is a silly thing to use as proof of demolition. He refused my requests.


He also starts out the same paper in which he uses this photo by showing falsified photos of supposed molten metal in buckets of excavation equipment. I also asked him to remove these photos or show proof that they are unmanipulated images because I had proof that they were manipulated photoshop forgeries. He refused this also, though he admitted that he has never been in posession of the original photos.

For those who are not hypnotized by the official government account of the 9-11-01 attacks, please be careful about believing at face value cllaims made by Steven Jones.

He may not be what he claims to be. Do be more careful.


Why don't some of you people confront Steven Jones on these issues?

[RedIbis]

The cut is most probably not from an oxyacetylene torch because of the liquified, now solidified metallic drippings.



That might be persuasive if you could provide the time and source for that first pic. Otherwise, two FDNY on the scene of a smoking pile of rubble does not coincide with a post torch cut operation. Look at how inaccessible that rubble is and try and imagine a torch crew accessing that.

[Spindrift]

You sure about all that...

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/anglecharge.jpg

Do you have a picture of those columns AFTER the charges were detonated?

[RedIbis]

Do you have a picture of those columns AFTER the charges were detonated?

No, not of those columns. That was posted to put the rest the idea that angle shaped charges are not an industry standard.

[Alferd_Packer]

Otherwise, two FDNY on the scene of a smoking pile of rubble does not coincide with a post torch cut operation.

Prove it.

Provide dates that iron workers first showed up on site to conduct debris clearing operations.

Provide the date that the last firefighters were present on site during the recovery operations.

Show that they do not overlap.

[Alferd_Packer]

Look at how inaccessible that rubble is and try and imagine a torch crew accessing that.

Please provide evidence that that image was not taken with a telephoto lens and that it does not have the characteristic foreshortening effect common to such lenses.

[Quad4_72]

No, not of those columns. That was posted to put the rest the idea that angle shaped charges are not an industry standard.

Again Red, you still have not commented on the posted video that is undeniable proof of cutting torches. Why won't you watch it?

[RedIbis]

Prove it.

Provide dates that iron workers first showed up on site to conduct debris clearing operations.

Provide the date that the last firefighters were present on site during the recovery operations.

Show that they do not overlap.

You seem convinced that the angle cuts were a result of torch crews, why don't you prove that?

Why would a torch crew make a more time consuming cut? I don't expect to get a reasonable response, just throwing it out there.

[WildCat]

You seem convinced that the angle cuts were a result of torch crews, why don't you prove that?

Why would a torch crew make a more time consuming cut? I don't expect to get a reasonable response, just throwing it out there.
3rd time in this thread I'm posting this RedIbis. You and the other truthers seem to be unable to see it for some reason! Pay close attention starting at the 1:30 mark...

FfgSr2eBXls

Now, you were saying? :rolleyes:

[RedIbis]

3rd time in this thread I'm posting this RedIbis. You and the other truthers seem to be unable to see it for some reason! Pay close attention starting at the 1:30 mark...

FfgSr2eBXls

Now, you were saying? :rolleyes:

Not once have I said that torch crews didn't eventually work at the scene. From the get go I've asked for a time stamp and a source for the first pic posted on the OP.

Just because you found video of the clean up doesn't explain away every pic of angle cuts.

[R.Mackey]

I too am getting awfully tired of this sophistry.

The photographs you are all getting excited about are not anonymous. See here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93662).

Do some research. You'll find they are, indeed, cuts made by salvage workers. Not proof of an imaginary conspiracy.

I remind the Truth Movement, the burden of proof is on you. You have to show they aren't caused by torches or lances after collapse. You can't. You haven't even explained how they might be cut that way in situ. To wit: What devices were used? Where were they bought? How were they placed? How were they triggered? When? Was the gypsum and plaster cleared away first? Why did nobody see the prep work? Why did nobody see the flare as they ignited and burned? And on and on and on.

You have nothing. Just photographs that you choose not to understand. You know who you are.

[Spindrift]

No, not of those columns. That was posted to put the rest the idea that angle shaped charges are not an industry standard.

How about any columns cut with shaped charges?

Do they look like those in the picture in the OP?

[defaultdotxbe]

Not once have I said that torch crews didn't eventually work at the scene. From the get go I've asked for a time stamp and a source for the first pic posted on the OP.

Just because you found video of the clean up doesn't explain away every pic of angle cuts.
i believe wildcats post was in direct response to the post yours he quoted, here it is again in case you forgot your own words


Why would a torch crew make a more time consuming cut?

[WildCat]

Not once have I said that torch crews didn't eventually work at the scene. From the get go I've asked for a time stamp and a source for the first pic posted on the OP.

Just because you found video of the clean up doesn't explain away every pic of angle cuts.
You've just been shown ironworkers at ground zero making the exact cuts you claimed they wouldn't make. No thermite involved, no explosive cutter charges.

Game, set, match RedIbis.

If you want to continue in your own character assasination keep it up. Frankly, anyone lurking here can see how full of crap you are at this point. The more you post nonsense like demanding time stamps, the more pathetic you look. The goalposts were fine where they were, a reasonable person would have conceded the point by now. But as you prove, a MIHOP aficionado like yourself just keeps going like the energizer bunny. Straight to the pathetic pile of bovine feces you and the rest of your ilk live for.

[defaultdotxbe]

From the get go I've asked for a time stamp and a source for the first pic posted on the OP.
i jsut realized that even if we give you a time the picture was taken and its after ironworkers arrived at the scene you will simple claim that that doesnt give any indication of when that cut was made, and demand a new picture of the column in the process of being cut

[RedIbis]

You've just been shown ironworkers at ground zero making the exact cuts you claimed they wouldn't make. No thermite involved, no explosive cutter charges.

Game, set, match RedIbis.

.

I saw a guy pointing to cut columns. If you're going to bluster be specific and accurate.

[jaydeehess]

No, not of those columns. That was posted to put the rest the idea that angle shaped charges are not an industry standard.

I pointed out several times now what the utility of placing the charges to cut at an angle would be. I did not state that cutter charges would always be horizontal.
I asked you to reconcile the use of angled cuts with a symmetric collapse.

I also mentioned the lack of the always notable sounds of cutter charges going off over the sound of falling rubble.

[A W Smith]

I saw a guy pointing to cut columns. If you're going to bluster be specific and accurate.


Rediot, You never answered the question as to how they got your "cutter charges" on the interior of a closed 3 inch wall box column.

[jaydeehess]

Why would a torch crew make a more time consuming cut? I don't expect to get a reasonable response, just throwing it out there.

To ensure that there is one safe direction to make the final cut, the top of the wedge. The column would not be able to move in that direction when it is severed. The column would be held by a crane during the last cut but would swing when freed. It could not go towards the welder though if the final cut is at the top.
Just throwing that out there.

[RedIbis]

Rediot, You never answered the question as to how they got your "cutter charges" on the interior of a closed 3 inch wall box column.

Changing the spelling of a member's name to insult is against the rules here. I don't report infractions to the mods, but I understand why this forbidden, it's juvenile and smacks of desperation.

[A W Smith]

Changing the spelling of a member's name to insult is against the rules here. I don't report infractions to the mods, but I understand why this forbidden, it's juvenile and smacks of desperation.


dodge noted

[jaydeehess]

I saw a guy pointing to cut columns. If you're going to bluster be specific and accurate.

You saw a guy pointing to a row of cut columns , cut in extremely similar fashion to the ones seen in all the other photos and him saying that his crew cut them and describing what they were doing and why.

If it quacks, flies, has feathers, and paddles about in the water then its probably a duck and not an ostrich!

[DavidJames]

I would like to congratulate Red for finally coming out of the closet and making a claim regarding how he believes the towers were brought down. Don't you feel better now Red? It must have been very frustrating trying to hide behind the just asking polite questions facade.

[WildCat]

I saw a guy pointing to cut columns. If you're going to bluster be specific and accurate.
If you turned the sound on you'd also hear him talking about how they had cut those and they had 3 more to cut. And those cuts were identical to the ones you think were made by angled cutter charges.

Know what's even more pathetic? You and the rest of the "truth" movement pointing at those cuts near ground level and claiming that's why the towers collapsed from the top down.

And I notice you haven't ever showed back up on the C-Ring thread to defend your statements there. Remember that RedIbis? The thread in which you claimed there were no plane parts, and then disappeared as soon as the many photos of plane parts were shown just outside the C-Ring?

Keep digging that hole RedIbis.

[RedIbis]

I would like to congratulate Red for finally coming out of the closet and making a claim regarding how he believes the towers were brought down. Don't you feel better now Red? It must have been very frustrating trying to hide behind the just asking polite questions facade.

Quote me. What specific claim did I make about how I believe the towers were brought down?

Unlike the majority here, I don't pretend to know the exact mechanism, I just know the bs when I see it.

[X]

Changing the spelling of a member's name to insult is against the rules here. I don't report infractions to the mods, but I understand why this forbidden, it's juvenile and smacks of desperation.



RedIbis has a good point, and a valid complaint here.

In this case, as in the thread which credited him with a false quote, RedIbis was wronged.

Doing this reflects badly on the rest of us here, and I implore everyone, no matter what your views, to stop lowering the reputation of those who post here.

If RedIbis wasn't willing to let this slide, I would report the post myself.
I will next time, even if he doesn't.


RedIbis, on behalf of other members, I apologize.

[RedIbis]

And I notice you haven't ever showed back up on the C-Ring thread to defend your statements there. Remember that RedIbis? The thread in which you claimed there were no plane parts, and then disappeared as soon as the many photos of plane parts were shown just outside the C-Ring?

Keep digging that hole RedIbis.

Since you seem to like to stalk me from thread to thread, I'll make you the same offer I've made in the past. Let's set up a semi-formal debate thread, with the mods' permission. You pick the topic, as long as it's about 9/11. I won't defend any "conspiracy theory" or claims by twoofy twoofers, only something specifically related to 9/11, such as Flight 93, 77, WTC 1, 2, or 7, etc.

You must defend, not your pov, but the official explanations, those that are easily accessible. I will provide arguments which refute those explanations.

The purpose of this is to put a stop to your incessant stalking. I've stated my position. I don't have a responsibility to respond to each and every comment you make.

Deal?

[HyJinX]

You sound like the stalker, Red.

[R.Mackey]

This is off-topic, and I surely don't support stalking by either party, but this is an interesting offer:

You must defend, not your pov, but the official explanations, those that are easily accessible. I will provide arguments which refute those explanations.

How are these "official explanations" to be chosen? And how can one separate this from one's own point of view, given that the official explanations often require some interpretation, just like any scientific result?

For instance, if this offer was made to me, I could defend NIST ably against anyone. Even though I don't agree with it 100% myself, as I've explained endlessly in posts and papers. There are no arguments that refute NIST to be found, although there are arguments that I feel refine it.

I'll be keen to see how this plays out.

[Hornit]

Something which jumped out at me about this supposed "evidence of thermite" photo long ago was the simple fact that it is obvious there is a good bit of fairly new looking rust on the intact portion of the beams. The cut portion showing the dripping slag is fresh metal. It appears to not be oxidized at all. Now I don't believe steel inside a building would rust as we see here. Please correct me If I'm wrong about that. I would expect that the steel inside the building may have some rust on it, but those beams shown during clean up show a significant amount of what appears to be fresh oxidization and the cut areas do not. This tells me that the beams have been exposed for a time after the collapse and the cuts are very recent suggesting that the two events (collapse/ angled cut) are not related by time.

[Alferd_Packer]

The construction of the towers was delayed for several months due to a worker strike. The steel for the buildings sat, exposed to the weather for some time before being erected.

One of the bigest problems with the fireproofing in the buildings was that it was falling off. One reason for this was that these was a coating of rust and scale on the columns before the fireproofing was applied. This impacted the adhesion of the fireproofing to the substrate.

So it is possible that the columns in the picture were oxidized when they were installed.

[Alferd_Packer]

Look at how inaccessible that rubble is and try and imagine a torch crew accessing that.

Please provide evidence that that image was not taken with a telephoto lens and that it does not have the characteristic foreshortening effect common to such lenses.

To follow up. Here is a nice, large, UNCROPPED (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/forumimages/Fig3-5.jpg) copy of the photograph.

Notice the two men IN THE BACKGROUND. If it was so difficult for the torch crews to acccess, how did they get there?

In any event, looking at the relative positions and sizes of the men in that images it is clear that there is considerable foreshortening going on.

[Quad4_72]

Since you seem to like to stalk me from thread to thread, I'll make you the same offer I've made in the past. Let's set up a semi-formal debate thread, with the mods' permission. You pick the topic, as long as it's about 9/11. I won't defend any "conspiracy theory" or claims by twoofy twoofers, only something specifically related to 9/11, such as Flight 93, 77, WTC 1, 2, or 7, etc.

You must defend, not your pov, but the official explanations, those that are easily accessible. I will provide arguments which refute those explanations.

The purpose of this is to put a stop to your incessant stalking. I've stated my position. I don't have a responsibility to respond to each and every comment you make.

Deal?

In other words you are just going to spew information about random anomalies and loose ties to the government and not actually put forth any hard evidence or scientific proof? Got it.

Why do the cuts on the beams in the pictures look EXACTLY like the ones in the video that were cut with torches? If shaped charges were put on the beams, why were they put on them at ground level when the collapse was top down?

[WildCat]

Since you seem to like to stalk me from thread to thread, I'll make you the same offer I've made in the past. Let's set up a semi-formal debate thread, with the mods' permission. You pick the topic, as long as it's about 9/11. I won't defend any "conspiracy theory" or claims by twoofy twoofers, only something specifically related to 9/11, such as Flight 93, 77, WTC 1, 2, or 7, etc.
What's the matter RedIbis, you're upset that I'm calling you out on your easily debunked claims?

You must defend, not your pov, but the official explanations, those that are easily accessible. I will provide arguments which refute those explanations.
Actually, you won't provide any arguments. You never have! All you seem capable of doing is moving the goal posts. Example: Yo say there's no plane parts at the Pentagon. You get shown plane parts. You then claim you need serial numbers of every part.

You're hopeless RedIbis. Just like in this thread - you insist that the angled cuts could have been made with explosive cutter charges, but you don't think you have to provide a bit of evidence showing that. In fact, no truther has shown that those cuts could have been made with explosive cutter charges, or thermite, or thermate, or space beams, or any other ridiculous theory truthers dream up. And when you're shown evidence in your native language - youtube - showing workers cutting the columns exactly as is shown in the truthers thermite/thermate/cutter charges/space beam "evidence" photos you reply that you know the "official story" is BS. The only "argument" you seem capable of making is moving the goal posts...

The purpose of this is to put a stop to your incessant stalking. I've stated my position.
No, you haven't. You imply, you insinuate, you wink and nod and critique what you call "the official story" without ever actually making a definitive statement yourself. You can't even admit you're a MIHOP guy, even though you claim Larry Silverstein said "pull it" in reference to a CD of WTC 7, and claim there's no evidence of Flight 77 at the Pentagon - which cannot be anything but MIHOP.

I don't have a responsibility to respond to each and every comment you make.
No, you don't. But you risk looking like a fool when you get called out on your ignorant comments and refuse to back them up. Of course, that horse left the barn a long time ago, hasn't it?

If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. The Loose Change forum is thataway ----->

You'll find they love guys like you who spout off on the impossibly vast conspiracy and don't offer a shred of evidence to support their contentions.

Deal?
The only deal you have is that when you make half-assed statements on this forum you will be called out on them. Don't like it? No one is stopping you from crawling out of here. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out. :rolleyes:

[DavidJames]

Since you seem to like to stalk me from thread to thread, I'll make you the same offer I've made in the past. Let's set up a semi-formal debate thread, with the mods' permission. You pick the topic, as long as it's about 9/11. I won't defend any "conspiracy theory" or claims by twoofy twoofers, only something specifically related to 9/11, such as Flight 93, 77, WTC 1, 2, or 7, etc.

You must defend, not your pov, but the official explanations, those that are easily accessible. I will provide arguments which refute those explanations.

The purpose of this is to put a stop to your incessant stalking. I've stated my position. I don't have a responsibility to respond to each and every comment you make.

Deal?Sorry CT Boy, I won't speak for WC, but I'm not going to play your games. I'm not going to defend the "official explanations". If you think something different happened on 9/11 other then what the NIST or Pentagon analysis papers suggest then you will need to provide the analysis, you will need to provide the evidence. You, CT Boy, need to support your contention.

You must do so not by asking questions, you must present your evidence that refutes the "official explanations". Asking what made the hole in the Pentagon doesn't count. If you think cutter charges were used to bring down the towers, then you need to prove it. If you think the NIST reports conclusion is incorrect then refute the science in the report, don't simply say something childish like, they didn't test for thermite or they sent the steel to China. Your childish and disingenuous asking questions run is over. Tell us what happened and prove it.

Hop to it CT Boy. Let's see what you've got.
Do not use derogatory terms to refer to other posters.

[RedIbis]

;3562155']RedIbis has a good point, and a valid complaint here.

In this case, as in the thread which credited him with a false quote, RedIbis was wronged.

Doing this reflects badly on the rest of us here, and I implore everyone, no matter what your views, to stop lowering the reputation of those who post here.

If RedIbis wasn't willing to let this slide, I would report the post myself.
I will next time, even if he doesn't.


RedIbis, on behalf of other members, I apologize.


Your graciousness is moving, but of course, you owe me no apology. You're not alone in being among the posters that I may disagree with but maintains a good deal of integrity and ultimately, persuasiveness.

[RedIbis]

I'll be keen to see how this plays out.

It won't. WC won't accept the challenge. You, on the other hand, would be a much more formidable opponent. Still, you're incorrect that NIST's conclusions cannot be refuted.

BTW, I asked earlier if you had the source and/or time stamp for pic #1 in the OP which would determine whether the cuts were from torches or not.

[Pato2747]

So you saw a beam with a big slice in it and it never occurred to you that it could have been made by a cutting torch? We need to work on your critical thinking skills...

Well, what can I say, I don't know a lot of construction working v:)v

[WildCat]

BTW, I asked earlier if you had the source and/or time stamp for pic #1 in the OP which would determine whether the cuts were from torches or not.
See RedIbis? This is the problem with you - always attempting to shift the burden of proof, and moving the goalposts. We've alrteady provided ample evidence that those cuts were made with torches during cleanup. Problem is you, and any other truther, have been unable to show that such cuts could be made by any other means except a torch. Can you show such a cut being made with thermite? Thermate? Explosive cutter charges? Space beams? Of course you can't, because it can't be done.

But lo and behold, here you are claiming we have to provide time stamps! How would that prove anything, if you're claiming it happened during the collapse? No matter what the time stamp says, you'd claim the cut happened earlier. You'll then demand to see pics of the column actually being cut, and if we were able to do that you'd say "oh yeah, well what about this cut over here?". Your request doesn't even make sense, and is nothing but a transparent attempt to move the goalposts. Remember your claim that a ironworker wouldn't cut it on an angle? :rolleyes:

And the other point you keep "forgetting" to refute - how the hell can a cut on a column near ground level cause a skyscraper to collapse from the top down?

If you think such a cut could be made by any means besides a torch, prove it. If you think a cut near ground level can cause a skyscraper to collapse from the top down, prove it.

Defecate or get off the pot RedIbis.

[R.Mackey]

It won't. WC won't accept the challenge. You, on the other hand, would be a much more formidable opponent. Still, you're incorrect that NIST's conclusions cannot be refuted.

Talk is cheap. I've defended it against insightful and scientific people like Dr. Greening and Eric Douglas, as well as rank ignoramuses like Miragememories and jay howard. I've destroyed a written critique of it, heralded by the Truth Movement, in order, and left my roughly 250-page analysis open for criticism; after over six months exposure, it remains completely intact. Your claim seems a wee bit premature.

BTW, I asked earlier if you had the source and/or time stamp for pic #1 in the OP which would determine whether the cuts were from torches or not.

I provided the source on the previous page. That photograph was taken by Sam Hollinshead for Labor Research Associates. Contact them for the timestamp.

[R.Mackey]

:bump2 for RedIbis.

[pomeroo]

It won't. WC won't accept the challenge. You, on the other hand, would be a much more formidable opponent. Still, you're incorrect that NIST's conclusions cannot be refuted.

BTW, I asked earlier if you had the source and/or time stamp for pic #1 in the OP which would determine whether the cuts were from torches or not.


You're doing it again. Ryan wrote a 200-page whitepaper and asked the fantasy community for feedback. He received nothing of consequence. Tell us how the NIST report can be refuted and explain why fantasists have failed to do so.


UPDATE: Mackey beat me to it.

[RedIbis]

:bump2 for RedIbis.

Sir?

[R.Mackey]

Fine, let me be more clear. You said:

Still, you're incorrect that NIST's conclusions cannot be refuted.

Show me.

[RedIbis]

Fine, let me be more clear. You said:



Show me.

Are you suggesting that NIST's conclusions are not falsifiable?

[Minadin]

Let's look at this entire exchange to date:

You must defend, not your pov, but the official explanations, those that are easily accessible. I will provide arguments which refute those explanations.

How are these "official explanations" to be chosen? And how can one separate this from one's own point of view, given that the official explanations often require some interpretation, just like any scientific result?

For instance, if this offer was made to me, I could defend NIST ably against anyone. Even though I don't agree with it 100% myself, as I've explained endlessly in posts and papers. There are no arguments that refute NIST to be found, although there are arguments that I feel refine it.

I'll be keen to see how this plays out.

It won't. WC won't accept the challenge. You, on the other hand, would be a much more formidable opponent. Still, you're incorrect that NIST's conclusions cannot be refuted.

Talk is cheap. I've defended it against insightful and scientific people like Dr. Greening and Eric Douglas, as well as rank ignoramuses like Miragememories and jay howard. I've destroyed a written critique of it, heralded by the Truth Movement, in order, and left my roughly 250-page analysis open for criticism; after over six months exposure, it remains completely intact. Your claim seems a wee bit premature.

And your response to all of that is:

Are you suggesting that NIST's conclusions are not falsifiable?

Does that really sound like what he is suggesting, to you, or are you simply attempting to twist the meanings of his words around?

To me, it seems like he's asking that you make good on your boast that you will "provide the arguments which refute those [official] explanations". Meanwhile, you appear to be either unprepared or unwilling to do so.

[DavidJames]

...you appear to be either unprepared or unwilling to do so.I don't want to nitpick, but that is not an either/or question. :)

[kookbreaker]

Are you suggesting that NIST's conclusions are not falsifiable?

That's not what he said, and that's not what you were claiming.

[R.Mackey]

Are you suggesting that NIST's conclusions are not falsifiable?


Hell no. I said that its conclusions are not refutable. They are falsifiable, but they are also verifiably correct. The two aren't even similar.

I'll assume you simply misspoke.

[johnny karate]

Since you seem to like to stalk me from thread to thread, I'll make you the same offer I've made in the past. Let's set up a semi-formal debate thread, with the mods' permission. You pick the topic, as long as it's about 9/11. I won't defend any "conspiracy theory" or claims by twoofy twoofers, only something specifically related to 9/11, such as Flight 93, 77, WTC 1, 2, or 7, etc.

You must defend, not your pov, but the official explanations, those that are easily accessible. I will provide arguments which refute those explanations.

Despite my complete confidence that R. Mackey will dismantle RedIbis, or any other CTer, in such a debate, I would like to point out the rank unfairness of Red's proposition.

Typically in a debate, both sides defend a particular and defined position, rather than one side being confined to doing so, while the other gets full latitude to snipe at their opponent's arguments without the bother of offering a cohesive point of view.

Just another example of a CTer trying to stack the deck in his favor.

[WildCat]

Just another example of a CTer trying to stack the deck in his favor.
And on yop of all that, in RedIbis's world any off-the-cuff remark by anyone at a press conference constitutes an "official explanation".

RedIbis is hopeless.

[jaydeehess]

Are you suggesting that NIST's conclusions are not falsifiable?

Apparently you may not be familiar with the common scientific use of that term.

It refers not to having the evidence that illustrates that the theorem in false but to the fact that there exist ways to test the veracity of the theorem. If the theorem puts forth a set of conditions that should apply and it can be tested to determine that such set of conditions either do or do notapply, then the theorem is said to be falsifiable.

There are many ways to test the veracity of the NIST claims. Some have been done. In every case at least the basics of what NIST claims happened still come out ahead in such falsability tests.

Hence Ryan stating that it is unrefutable.

[Pookster]

... Still, you're incorrect that NIST's conclusions cannot be refuted. ...

... Show me.

This is gonna be good.

:popcorn1

[WildCat]

This is gonna be good.

:popcorn1
No, it won't. RedIbis runs away from threads as soon as he gets called to present evidence. That's why he isn't likely to appear in this one again, and if he does he sure as hell won't be debating the NIST report with R.Mackey.

RedIbis will pop up, make some snarky comment, and scurry off. It's all he's ever done his entire time here.

[jaydeehess]

Indeed, RedIbis is not above making patently ,,, odd,,, statements as evidenced by

Originally Posted by RedIbis
No, I'm alluding to the preposterous NIST claim that the removal of fireproofing in the towers accelerated the steel temp.

[Pardalis]

This is gonna be good.

:popcorn1

I'll give you a preview

This will be Red:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/slide3.gif


and this will be Mackey:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/attachment-1.gif

[Alferd_Packer]

Bump for Red. . .

That might be persuasive if you could provide the time and source for that first pic. Otherwise, two FDNY on the scene of a smoking pile of rubble does not coincide with a post torch cut operation. Look at how inaccessible that rubble is and try and imagine a torch crew accessing that.

Please provide evidence that that image was not taken with a telephoto lens and that it does not have the characteristic foreshortening effect common to such lenses.

To follow up. Here is a nice, large, UNCROPPED (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/forumimages/Fig3-5.jpg) copy of the photograph.

Notice the two men IN THE BACKGROUND. If it was so difficult for the torch crews to acccess, how did they get there?

In any event, looking at the relative positions and sizes of the men in that images it is clear that there is considerable foreshortening going on.

Back to this subject.

A failure of the imagination on your part does not constitute a conspiracy. I find it much more difficult to imagine a plausble scenario where angled cutter charges could be installed in an occupied building (especially in the basement levels) without anyone noticing.

On the other hand, you don't need much imagination to see how this works:
http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/US/NY/GroundZero/CleanUp/images/230.jpg

[Alferd_Packer]

(any comments on the above photo, Red?)

[RedIbis]

(any comments on the above photo, Red?)


On what exactly? My questions were about the pics in the OP. Mackey provided a source, but through research I found out that the photo was not taken with a digital cam so there is no time stamp and the photographer could not say if the shot was taken before or after clean up crews came through.

If you're trying to prove that torch crews came through, you'll get no argument from me.

[DGM]

On what exactly? My questions were about the pics in the OP. Mackey provided a source, but through research I found out that the photo was not taken with a digital cam so there is no time stamp and the photographer could not say if the shot was taken before or after clean up crews came through.
If you're trying to prove that torch crews came through, you'll get no argument from me.

Did you speak with him or was this research from a post on this forum?

[jaydeehess]

On what exactly? My questions were about the pics in the OP. Mackey provided a source, but through research I found out that the photo was not taken with a digital cam so there is no time stamp and the photographer could not say if the shot was taken before or after clean up crews came through.

If you're trying to prove that torch crews came through, you'll get no argument from me.

So we all agree that clean up crews came through, that they used torches to cut the steel up for removal and that many of those cuts resemble the angle cut seen in the OP photo, right?

Now your only point of contention is whether or not that photo was taken before or after that time, correct?

Well that means you have no evidence at all that it was taken prior to clean up whereas we have the resembelence to the known torch cuts as shown in the video.

Whereas we may not have direct evidence of the time that the photo was taken one can fall back on the " if it quacks, flies and paddles about in the water it is probably a duck", style of circumstantial evidence and that it is, in fact, not a zebra.

What do Ibis' do?

[DGM]

Now your only point of contention is whether or not that photo was taken before or after that time, correct?


Let's also not forget that it's never been shown to even be possible by way of "thermite" (the twoofer way).

[RedIbis]

So we all agree that clean up crews came through, that they used torches to cut the steel up for removal and that many of those cuts resemble the angle cut seen in the OP photo, right?

I know they came through. Whether or not that's how the steel was cut in the OP has not been determined.

Now your only point of contention is whether or not that photo was taken before or after that time, correct?

That and whether that was the method that those beams were cut.

Well that means you have no evidence at all that it was taken prior to clean up whereas we have the resembelence to the known torch cuts as shown in the video.

As well as the resemblence to angled shape charges affixed to steel columns, which also is consistent with the rather symetrical nature of the three collapses.

Whereas we may not have direct evidence of the time that the photo was taken one can fall back on the " if it quacks, flies and paddles about in the water it is probably a duck", style of circumstantial evidence and that it is, in fact, not a zebra.

You can fall back on it because your standards for evidence are not very high. Likewise, you are satisfied with the lack of any evidence that infernos were raging in WTC 7. I imagine you are just as satisfied with the explanations for lack of evidence at Shanksville.

What do Ibis' do?

Due to the punctuation, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

[phunk]

As well as the resemblence to angled shape charges affixed to steel columns, which also is consistent with the rather symetrical nature of the three collapses.

I disagree, shaped charges would not leave a cut that looked like the one in the pic. The 'slag' in that pic dripped down from the cut, with a shaped charge, it would be blown away as it was cut and there would be no 'drippings' left behind.

[WildCat]

As well as the resemblence to angled shape charges affixed to steel columns,
You keep saying this, yet no truther can present evidence that a shaped charge can make such a cut. Got a pic of a column after it is cut by an angled shaped charge RedIbis? Of course you don't. Because they don't result in anything resembling the pics at ground zero, which were made by torches.

And, of course, there's the matter of all your smoking gun evidence of cutter charges is near ground level, when the towers collapsed from the top down... :rolleyes:

[Alferd_Packer]

http://www.september11news.com/AftermathReuters11.jpg

Red, let's suppose for a miute that you had responsibility for direction the search and recovery efforts afterward.

You would want to be sure that the area was safe to enter, wouln't you?

WHat appears to be the most unstable part of "the pile" in the above picture?

What would be the quickest and safest way of removing the risk of further collapse?

[A W Smith]

anyone notice the ironworker bending over in his coveralls to the left of the torch cut column?

[defaultdotxbe]

anyone notice the ironworker bending over in his coveralls to the left of the torch cut column?
i hadnt noticed him previously, although i think hes a firefighter

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/forumimages/Fig3-5.jpg

[A W Smith]

The telephoto lens adds some confusion. I am trying to pick out what column number the suspect cut was made on.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/wtc20core20labels_2.jpg

[A W Smith]

here is a wider shot of the op image. Notice the huge square column to the right? I suspect that is column #707 and that the image is of the north tower "survivor core" with the remains of the north perimeter wall leaning against building six.

[jaydeehess]

I know they came through. Whether or not that's how the steel was cut in the OP has not been determined.

So that's a 'yes'.



That and whether that was the method that those beams were cut.

The question involved whether or not the crew went through and when. So its another 'yes'.



As well as the resemblence to angled shape charges affixed to steel columns, which also is consistent with the rather symetrical nature of the three collapses.

Except it is not particularily consistent with a shaped charge cut and how does one use an angle cut to fell a building straight down?


You can fall back on it because your standards for evidence are not very high.

You on the other hand have nothing at all other than 'it looks like, because I want it to...' as evidence to back your claim. You have no evidence from the towers, empirical or circumstantial, to back your claim. Sorry, your standard of evidence is sorely lacking.

Likewise, you are satisfied with the lack of any evidence that infernos were raging in WTC 7.

derail
You mean besides the fact that the building had several fires in it all of which would have been major fires by themselves, besides the statements of the FF's on site?

I imagine you are just as satisfied with the explanations for lack of evidence at Shanksville.

derail
There is ample evidence that an airliner crashed there.

I suppose you are satisfied with the complete and utter lack of evidence that anything other than an airliner crash took place there.

You aren't...
you can't be...
you aren't saying, that you are an advocate of a Killtown style faked scene there are you?

Now it all makes sense, such as your statement that is enshrined in my sig.

Due to the punctuation, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

What do plural of Ibis do? They don't quack, for instance, do they?

ETA: according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary ;
plural: ibis or ibis·es

So the only punctuation I got wrong was to include the apostrophe, sorry.

[LashL]

anyone notice the ironworker bending over in his coveralls to the left of the torch cut column?

here is a wider shot of the op image. Notice the huge square column to the right? I suspect that is column #707 and that the image is of the north tower "survivor core" with the remains of the north perimeter wall leaning against building six.

Alferd Packer posted a nice, clear shot upthread. See this post:

To follow up. Here is a nice, large, UNCROPPED (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/forumimages/Fig3-5.jpg) copy of the photograph.

Notice the two men IN THE BACKGROUND. If it was so difficult for the torch crews to acccess, how did they get there?

In any event, looking at the relative positions and sizes of the men in that images it is clear that there is considerable foreshortening going on.

[LashL]

What do plural of Ibis do? They don't quack, for instance, do they?




Red Ibis (http://www.amazon.com/Red-Ibis-Walt-Dozier/dp/1403305862) is also a book by Walt Dozier about Islamic terrorists planning a catastrophic attack on the U.S. with a smallpox-like virus for which there is no vaccine and no cure.

Purely coincidental, I'm sure.

[RedIbis]

Red Ibis (http://www.amazon.com/Red-Ibis-Walt-Dozier/dp/1403305862) is also a book by Walt Dozier about Islamic terrorists planning a catastrophic attack on the U.S. with a smallpox-like virus for which there is no vaccine and no cure.

Purely coincidental, I'm sure.

Someone's been sipping the woo woo punch.

[R.Mackey]

This is awfully lame.

If for sake of argument we accept that the photo can't be used to prove that one particular column -- out of a whole row -- was definitely cut by a salvage worker, whereas many others definitely were, then at best this photo is neutral towards either the rational hypothesis or the thermite hypothesis. In other words, this photo is not valuable as evidence. It is indeterminate.

In that case, there is no evidence whatsoever for "thermite."

We'll ignore for now that cutting at that location is totally unnecessary and useless in terms of collapsing the structure, and that no such cutting devices are known, no hypothesis regarding placement or volume or ignition has been tendered, etc., etc. The simple fact is, your idea requires this picture. Ours does not.

Game over.

P.S.: RedIbis, I am still waiting for you to back up your claim that you can provide arguments to refute the NIST Report. As you are aware, I've done a fairly extensive search of literature and whitepapers both pro and con the Report, and I've found no such arguments. I am therefore quite interested to hear of them, if indeed they exist. If they do, please share them. If, instead, this was merely an errant boast of yours, please acknowledge this, so that I won't have to keep asking you. Thanks!

[RedIbis]

[QUOTE]This is awfully lame.

If for sake of argument we accept that the photo can't be used to prove that one particular column -- out of a whole row -- was definitely cut by a salvage worker, whereas many others definitely were, then at best this photo is neutral towards either the rational hypothesis or the thermite hypothesis. In other words, this photo is not valuable as evidence. It is indeterminate.

I would tend to agree with this description. FTR, angle shaped charges is only a hypothesis.The charge was made that such cuts are not part of CD industry. They are and this was the only point I wished to put to rest.

In that case, there is no evidence whatsoever for "thermite."

Unless I'm mistaken, that pic was hardly the totality of suggested evidence for a thermite theory.

We'll ignore for now that cutting at that location is totally unnecessary and useless in terms of collapsing the structure, and that no such cutting devices are known, no hypothesis regarding placement or volume or ignition has been tendered, etc., etc. The simple fact is, your idea requires this picture. Ours does not.

You're conflating several theories into one. Please retract the statement that "no such cutting devices are known." There is voluminous evidence, which I trust you are aware of, of such angle cutting charges.

"Your" idea requires just as much evidence, as any other. You have nothing more than equally justifiable theories, and I join Dr. Quintiere in requesting that someone else besides NIST look at the archived evidence.

Game over.

I tend to think of it as just beginning.

P.S.: RedIbis, I am still waiting for you to back up your claim that you can provide arguments to refute the NIST Report. As you are aware, I've done a fairly extensive search of literature and whitepapers both pro and con the Report, and I've found no such arguments. I am therefore quite interested to hear of them, if indeed they exist. If they do, please share them. If, instead, this was merely an errant boast of yours, please acknowledge this, so that I won't have to keep asking you. Thanks!

You must have forgotten that we went into extensive discussions about NIST when I first joined last year.

[R.Mackey]

I would tend to agree with this description. FTR, angle shaped charges is only a hypothesis.The charge was made that such cuts are not part of CD industry. They are and this was the only point I wished to put to rest.

I don't recall seeing that disputed in the OP to this thread...


Unless I'm mistaken, that pic was hardly the totality of suggested evidence for a thermite theory.

There are a few other wild bits of conjecture, but it's all similarly vague and indefinite, e.g. microspheres, sulfidation, and so on. The theory itself also remains unstated in any testable detail.


You're conflating several theories into one. Please retract the statement that "no such cutting devices are known." There is voluminous evidence, which I trust you are aware of, of such angle cutting charges.

Thermite cutting charges? Show me.


"Your" idea requires just as much evidence, as any other. You have nothing more than equally justifiable theories, and I join Dr. Quintiere in requesting that someone else besides NIST look at the archived evidence.


Equivocation fallacy. We have mountains of evidence and thousands of pages of computations.

Dr. Quintiere is looking at the archived evidence. I support him as well. He's published on his findings. His findings further rule out any need to look for exotic sources of energy in causing the collapses. So... Why did you bring him up?


I tend to think of it as just beginning.


Not surprising.


You must have forgotten that we went into extensive discussions about NIST when I first joined last year.

I see. So your new claim is that you've already provided those arguments? Need I tell you that this is false?

[Par]

Red Ibis (http://www.amazon.com/Red-Ibis-Walt-Dozier/dp/1403305862) is also a book by Walt Dozier about Islamic terrorists planning a catastrophic attack on the U.S. with a smallpox-like virus for which there is no vaccine and no cure. Purely coincidental, I'm sure.


Rather, perhaps, he has modelled himself upon the Iittala Red Ibis ornament (http://www.mulberryhall.co.uk/ShopItem/Iittala/BirdsbyToikka/RedIbis/&id=25086&fr=wpg&fid=223).

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/5675/4951cr9.jpg

Apparently, the “Red Ibis has a deep red color and stands tall on a pedestal”. Further, “one cannot overlook that long silvery beak preparing to dig in the sand”. Well, there’s a thing. “Each Red Ibis is a unique piece of artglass... Each bird is acid-stamped with the mark of authenticity… on the bottom”. Now that’s commitment.

[RedIbis]

Rather, perhaps, he has modelled himself upon the Iittala Red Ibis ornament (http://www.mulberryhall.co.uk/ShopItem/Iittala/BirdsbyToikka/RedIbis/&id=25086&fr=wpg&fid=223).

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/5675/4951cr9.jpg

Apparently, the “Red Ibis has a deep red color and stands tall on a pedestal”. Further, “one cannot overlook that long silvery beak preparing to dig in the sand”. Well, there’s a thing. “Each Red Ibis is a unique piece of artglass... Each bird is acid-stamped with the mark of authenticity… on the bottom”. Now that’s commitment.

It sure is beautiful at that size, isn't it? Thanks for the info, I've never actually seen that.

If find it at once surprising and charming that some have taken to googling the origins of my name and avatar.

[LashL]

Someone's been sipping the woo woo punch.


Certainly not me. As I said, I'm sure it is purely coincidental. Unlike conspiracy fantasists, I fully acknowledge that coincidences occur in the real world. Like doing some shopping at Amazon and coming across a book with a title that gave me a chuckle. No woo here, I'm afraid.

[Par]

If find it at once surprising and charming...


Yeah. I’m good like that.

[jaydeehess]

I would tend to agree with this description. FTR, angle shaped charges is only a hypothesis.The charge was made that such cuts are not part of CD industry. They are and this was the only point I wished to put to rest.

Who said that. Not me. Perhaps you should again read my post RI. What qualifier did I use in my statement? I also pointed out that an angle cut would have its own utility, have you provided any reasoning for an angle cut in the collapse of the towers yet?



Unless I'm mistaken, that pic was hardly the totality of suggested evidence for a thermite theory.

True, it was supposedly one point though, which is now shown to be false.


Red Ibis is a book on a tangentially related topic, I did not know that.
I can find a reference in the zoological world, for a Scarlet Ibis and several other colours but not a Red Ibis.

[defaultdotxbe]

The charge was made that such cuts are not part of CD industry. They are and this was the only point I wished to put to rest.
actually when you brought up the angled shaped charges it was in reply to someone saying thermite couldnt be used to make those cuts

[jaydeehess]

If find it at once surprising and charming that some have taken to googling the origins of my name and avatar.

While making the analogy concerning the probability of something being a duck I also made the connection that an Ibis is a bird of another feather.

Rather than posting
" if it quacks, flies and paddles about in the water it is probably a duck", ......, not a zebra.

I thought of posting
" if it quacks, flies and paddles about in the water it is probably a duck", ......., not an Ibis

Instead I just asked what Ibis (or Ibises) do? I was curious about the bird, don't flatter yourself too much.

[leftysergeant]

Take another look at the full-field version of the cut column. Notice that the tops are a little above head-level to the fire fighters. They are at ground-level to where the iron worker is standing. All the columns between the iron workers and the fire fighters are the same height, where cut or snapped off at the joints. Everything behind those columns is at ground level to the iron workers up to the standing columns. Behind those columns, the top of the pile is lost at the frame of the picture.

How much more obvious need it be made that this is not how the stuff fell onto the pile, and that this is obviously a shot taken during clean up?

That not all the ciolumns show any slag is a clear indication that they had broken earlier and that the unbroken columns had just been cut down to the same level to enable workers to move the beams more safely, and that the pile was being taken down in layers as the work progressed toward those standing columns.

[A W Smith]

On what exactly? My questions were about the pics in the OP. Mackey provided a source, but through research I found out that the photo was not taken with a digital cam so there is no time stamp and the photographer could not say if the shot was taken before or after clean up crews came through.

If you're trying to prove that torch crews came through, you'll get no argument from me.

What column number is it red? And what level or floor?

[Pookster]

I'll give you a preview

This will be Red:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/slide3.gif


and this will be Mackey:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/attachment-1.gif

You were pretty much spot on. Red seems to be all bark and no bite. Too bad. It could've been very entertaining and educational. It's rare that I don't learn something reading exchanges that include Ryan.

[PhantomWolf]

I would tend to agree with this description. FTR, angle shaped charges is only a hypothesis.The charge was made that such cuts are not part of CD industry. They are and this was the only point I wished to put to rest.

Sorry to raise the dead, but what you have posted is NOT prove that such a cut is part of the CD industy. Nor is it proof that an angled shaped charge could have made anything that looks like that cut. The only way to show that the cut could have been made by something is to show a comparison cut that matches. That has been done by those that sday it was a torch cut. They have shown the striations on the metal are consistant and so is the lag. All I have sen from the CD side is the claim that some unknown CD technique could have made it, that is they assign properties to something unknown. This is like assigning properties to an Alien Space Craft or to a Figwat. If you don't know anything about a item how can you assign properties to it? You can't.

"Your" idea requires just as much evidence, as any other. You have nothing more than equally justifiable theories, and I join Dr. Quintiere in requesting that someone else besides NIST look at the archived evidence.

However I suspect that you won't join so readily in his conclusions, right? Here's a question. If you believe that Quintere is mistaken in his analysis and conclusions, then why you agree with his conclusion that NIST is wrong in theirs? This is like a person that believes that 2+2=3 joining the one that believes that 2+2=5 to denounce those saying 2+2=4.