Anyone Seen This Picture

[BigBird]

http://bocadigital.smugmug.com/photos/10697258-L.jpg

I havent seen this one before.. Appears to be from ground zero..

EDIT:

Let me clarify.. I am just trying to get an idea what caused the steel on the left on the photo to look as it does... Doesnt appear to be cut with a torch... I'm not trying to play games or anything, just seen it so many times elsewhere I forgot I needed to be so specific...

[Gravy]

Wreckage. What unusual aspects do you wish to bring to our attention?

[BigBird]

Wreckage. What unusual aspects do you wish to bring to our attention?

Its the one piece on the left, looks a bit odd.. Think it was from the collapse or from the cleanup? Someone explain this one to me.

[Pi_314]

I think it's a picture of the small particles of steel that were left over from the DEW weapon. I hear those particles of steel were reduced to specks as small as a thousands pounds.

[BigBird]

I think it's a picture of the small particles of steel that were left over from the DEW weapon. I hear those particles of steel were reduced to specks as small as a thousands pounds.

Thanks... :roll eyes:

[triforcharity]

BigBird,

The one on the left is not cut. That looks to me like it is broken from untold amounts of stress. Notice it matches the one on the lower left?? The round sections is where the bolts USED to be. This is my conclusion.
But, its most certainly not sut with anything torch like. Its too jagged. A 10 year old with an Oxy-Act torch could cut better than that.

But, I have never seen this picture before. Its a great pic.

Linkey???

[Gravy]

Its the one piece on the left, looks a bit odd.. Think it was from the collapse or from the cleanup? Someone explain this one to me.Sigh. What looks "a bit odd" about it? You should be old enough to know this, but I'll say it anyway: be specific.

[BigBird]

Sigh. What looks "a bit odd" about it? You should be old enough to know this, but I'll say it anyway: be specific.

Didn't think I needed to specify, I figured it was obvious, and it seems as though triforcharity knew what i was talking about... cut me some slack... :rolleyes:

[Sword_Of_Truth]

http://bocadigital.smugmug.com/photos/10697258-L.jpg

I havent seen this one before.. Appears to be from ground zero.. What do you suspect it is?

A grave site with 2200 innocent people, 400 heroes who tried to save them and 10 buttholes who are the only ones who deserve to be there.

[BigBird]

BigBird,

The one on the left is not cut. That looks to me like it is broken from untold amounts of stress. Notice it matches the one on the lower left?? The round sections is where the bolts USED to be. This is my conclusion.
But, its most certainly not sut with anything torch like. Its too jagged. A 10 year old with an Oxy-Act torch could cut better than that.

But, I have never seen this picture before. Its a great pic.

Linkey???

I'm not sure where it came from... Its been linked a million times over at another forum... The twoofers always ask us to explain it, and I am not certain what would make a beam look as such...

Also, you said it matches the one on the lower left... Unfortunately I'm not sure what you are referencing...

[triforcharity]

Easy Bigbird, Gravy's on our side.

I am not too certain if thats a column or a beam. It looks to be a beam, but im not sure. maybe some kind of horizontal bracing?? One of the engineers here might be able to shed some light on it though.

[BigBird]

Easy Bigbird, Gravy's on our side.

I am not too certain if thats a column or a beam. It looks to be a beam, but im not sure. maybe some kind of horizontal bracing?? One of the engineers here might be able to shed some light on it though.

I know, I just figured it was obvious.. My mistake... Thanks for your input...

Once again, I made the mistake of using 'beam' as a general term for 'big chunk of steel'... I have not a clue if it was a beam or a column...

[Gravy]

Didn't think I needed to specify, I figured it was obvious, and it seems as though triforcharity knew what i was talking about... cut me some slack... :rolleyes:What you wish me to see is not obvious to me. I see a typical photo of tower debris that happens to be overexposed and oversaturated. The piece at top left is a torn web that connected perimeter columns. I see nothing unusual about it.

[Brainster]

I'm looking at it and I don't have a clue as to what it is. It's certainly not a column or a beam; it looks fairly flat. Possibly a floor pan?

[BigBird]

What you wish me to see is not obvious to me. I see a typical photo of tower debris that happens to be overexposed and oversaturated. The piece at top left is a torn web that connected perimeter columns. I see nothing unusual about it.

Thanks for the explanation.. Sorry for the ambiguity, I dont mean to be a pain in the arse...

Would you mind explaining what you meant by the part I made bold?

[R.Mackey]

No, not a floor pan. Most likely a spandrel. They were bolted together in such a fashion, and were fairly thin. No mystery here whatsoever.

There's a similar object in Figure B-5 of the FEMA report, and a more intact one in Figure 3-3, 3-13, and 3-52 of NCSTAR1-3C, among others.

Anyone with interest really should read the NIST Report. NCSTAR1, 1-5A, and 1-3 are where I would recommend one start. Lots of pictures, not so much math.

[alienentity]

Thanks for the explanation.. Sorry for the ambiguity, I dont mean to be a pain in the arse...

Would you mind explaining what you meant by the part I made bold?

Hey BB, I don't know what it is, but it made me think of a question for you. What do you make of the claims that the steel was turned to dust, or 'dustified' (in WoodSpeak)?

Does this stuff look like dust? I don't think so.

[triforcharity]

Thanks. I wasn't sure. I had to reboot my computer, but here is the photo I made.

Yes, its MS Paint, but it works.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/10697258-L.jpg

Anyway, see the big checkerboard looking things in the pile?? Those are the exterrior columns. They were quite big, and very heavy. Saw one of those bent in half like a toothpick. It really was amazing the amount of destruction that happened.

Anyway, I never will claim to be an expert on steel, but firefighting, Yes.

Just a guess though.

[Gravy]

Here's a photo I took of a similar spandrel piece. I hope it looks less mysterious when the image isn't overexposed and oversaturated.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904a5c0799514fb.jpg

[beachnut]

The building was ripped apart with the energy of over 130 TONS of TNT per tower due to a gravity collapse! Someone was right this is debris, wreckage from a very intense, a gigantic kinetic energy event! Has anyone witnessed an event where the energy was this great? 911, 19 dolts fooled by a hateful rich kid, murdered people by killing 8 pilots and crashing 4 planes.

[BigBird]

Hey BB, I don't know what it is, but it made me think of a question for you. What do you make of the claims that the steel was turned to dust, or 'dustified' (in WoodSpeak)?

Does this stuff look like dust? I don't think so.

LOL The only claims I have heard regarding this were in reference to the "spire" that was a portion of the core that appeared to turn into dust.. It was obvious that the video was simply just a big piece of metal covered in dust from the collapse, that fell straight down and the dust that was covering it lingered in the air for a bit, as one would expect....

I don't believe for a second that any steel was "dustified"... That is simply laughable... I'm not THAT dumb... :D

[BigBird]

Here's a photo I took of a similar spandrel piece. I hope it looks less mysterious when the image isn't overexposed and oversaturated.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904a5c0799514fb.jpg

very helpful! Thanks alot!

[sylvan8798]

http://bocadigital.smugmug.com/photos/10697258-L.jpg

I havent seen this one before.. Appears to be from ground zero..

EDIT:

Let me clarify.. I am just trying to get an idea what caused the steel on the left on the photo to look as it does... Doesnt appear to be cut with a torch... I'm not trying to play games or anything, just seen it so many times elsewhere I forgot I needed to be so specific...

One important thing to note about this photo, BB, is that the failure happened through the weakest part (the part of the connection plate with the least amount of steel). It has pulled the plate apart in a combination of shear forces exactly where you would expect it to fail. Obviously not CUT intentionally at this location. If things were cut intentionally here and there, and didn't fail because of lack of strength of the structure under the loads, then you would not have things like this showing up.

[T.A.M.]

Interesting, never knew about these "spandrels" myself. Were they steel as well (they look it)?

TAM:)

[Newtons Bit]

The failure mode of the picture at the top is what is known as "block shear". It's what happens when the bolts don't fail, but the steel plate does.

[BasqueArch]

http://bocadigital.smugmug.com/photos/10697258-L.jpg

I havent seen this one before.. Appears to be from ground zero..

EDIT:

Let me clarify.. I am just trying to get an idea what caused the steel on the left on the photo to look as it does... Doesnt appear to be cut with a torch... I'm not trying to play games or anything, just seen it so many times elsewhere I forgot I needed to be so specific...

Gusset splice plate every third column at each floor connecting adjacent exterior columns, two rows of connecting bolts. Directly below this you see the similar gusset splice plate from the floor below before the bolts sheared the connecting plate. To the top right of the pic note the gussets at each floor, still attached.

Note the four column to column base connecting bolts at 36 feet oc , hand access at each column inside at 6 feet above every third floor, floors bolts also sheared off. This is why the columns toppled outward, too slender, too great unbraced length after floors collapsed past the columns. Like balancing a stick at the end of another stick.

[Dumb All Over]

I havent seen this one before..



... Its been linked a million times over at another forum... The twoofers always ask us to explain it...
Something here is not quite passing the smell test.

[leftysergeant]

It sort of looks to me as though someone had altered the colors to achieve an appearance that there was some sort of chemical or exotic energy involved in the damage. Yes, it is definitely from the perimeter wall. In this piece, all of the bolts are torn out, indicating that two panels of joined columns were moved away from each other.

But notice that in Gravy's example, sometimes the bolt failed, sometimes the plate. Such randomness is not entirely consistant with demolition charges.

[Brainster]

Interesting, never knew about these "spandrels" myself. Were they steel as well (they look it)?

TAM:)

Yes, they are the pieces that connect the columns. Much thinner than the columns themselves. If you look at the columns near the top right in the photo you can see the spandrels between them.

[T.A.M.]

Yah I thought so. I got the impression that someone was subtly trying to allude to the fact that in the original OP, the picture gives a slight impression of metal that was melted (partially at least), and hence alluding to the "molten steel" argument. It has not DEvolved into that yet, so maybe I was wrong.

TAM:)

[BigBird]

Something here is not quite passing the smell test.

What I meant to say in the OP was I have not seen this one discussed here before.

What are you getting at? How is this relevant?

[BigBird]

Yah I thought so. I got the impression that someone was subtly trying to allude to the fact that in the original OP, the picture gives a slight impression of metal that was melted (partially at least), and hence alluding to the "molten steel" argument. It has not DEvolved into that yet, so maybe I was wrong.

TAM:)

I don't buy the molten steel argument at all... 9 out of 10 things can easily be explained and understood by myself when talking to twoofers, but every now and then they ask me questions that I didn't consider and am not sure of... That's why I post here.. I am NOT a twoofer, I am just trying to get all the info I can, and I think this forum is the best place for it...

I believe they are inferring when they post this picture that its evidence of thermite/molten steel/etc or very high temperatures not consistent with the fires... I know thats crap from all the other evidence, or lack thereof, I just want to know why.

[alienentity]

The failure mode of the picture at the top is what is known as "block shear". It's what happens when the bolts don't fail, but the steel plate does.

Looks like it was melted by thermite.:eek:

[Dumb All Over]

What I meant to say in the OP was I have not seen this one discussed here before.


You did not say that, however. You did say, "I havent [sic] seen this one before.."

[BigBird]

You did not say that, however. You did say, "I havent [sic] seen this one before.."

Fantastic. My mistake.. What the hell is your point?

[T.A.M.]

I don't buy the molten steel argument at all... 9 out of 10 things can easily be explained and understood by myself when talking to twoofers, but every now and then they ask me questions that I didn't consider and am not sure of... That's why I post here.. I am NOT a twoofer, I am just trying to get all the info I can, and I think this forum is the best place for it...

I believe they are inferring when they post this picture that its evidence of thermite/molten steel/etc or very high temperatures not consistent with the fires... I know thats crap from all the other evidence, or lack thereof, I just want to know why.

Sorry Bigbird. I should have been more clear. I wasn't insinuating that you believed the argument, but rather that this is the argument and line of thinking that was being alluded to.

In future, to avoid ambiguity and potential suspicions, better to come outright and say what arguments you feel the truthers will use with the picture, and then ask what others think of the picture in relation to that argument.

As you know, they have seen more then there share of vague posts here, that turn out to be nothing more than a truther in disguise, trying to lead them down a garden path.

TAM:)

[Macgyver1968]

It sort of looks to me as though someone had altered the colors to achieve an appearance that there was some sort of chemical or exotic energy involved in the damage. Yes, it is definitely from the perimeter wall. In this piece, all of the bolts are torn out, indicating that two panels of joined columns were moved away from each other.

But notice that in Gravy's example, sometimes the bolt failed, sometimes the plate. Such randomness is not entirely consistant with demolition charges.

I agree about the wierd looking colors. I'm not sure if it's from the sunlight oversaturating the image, or if someone photoshopped it to make it look like it was red hot. (It's thermite!) But it does look a little strange to me.

[T.A.M.]

Fantastic. My mistake.. What the hell is your point?

his point is probably similar to mine above.

If you have lurked here long enough, you will know that every few weeks we get someone who joins, claiming to be just asking questions. They post things like this, asking us simply what we think, when in fact they are trying to lead people here a certain way...a truther way so to speak.

So, in a nutshell, you have to be open, frank, and SPECIFIC. Vagueness is seen as an attempt to conceal true intent.

TAM:)

[Dumb All Over]

Fantastic. My mistake.. What the hell is your point?
My point is that had you included the words "discussed here", this thread and the responses here would be much different. It is quite possible the picture in the OP has been discussed here before. Do I know this for a fact? No. Do I care? Only to the point that this thread is a waste if, in fact, the picture has been discussed here before.

You said, "I am NOT a twoofer". I must be honest; whenever I hear that, a huge red flag starts its ascent up the pole. Again, I could be wrong, but never once have I ever heard any of the fine debunkers here say that. The only people that come here to this forum and say, "I am not a truther" are, in fact, truthers. Color me skeptical.

[Gravy]

...But notice that in Gravy's example, sometimes the bolt failed, sometimes the plate. Such randomness is not entirely consistant with demolition charges.Actually, no. Not every hole had a bolt through it. It appears that the bolts pulled through the plate in each case.

[Justin39640]

My point is that had you included the words "discussed here", this thread and the responses here would be much different. It is quite possible the picture in the OP has been discussed here before. Do I know this for a fact? No. Do I care? Only to the point that this thread is a waste if, in fact, the picture has been discussed here before.

You said, "I am NOT a twoofer". I must be honest; whenever I hear that, a huge red flag starts its ascent up the pole. Again, I could be wrong, but never once have I ever heard any of the fine debunkers here say that. The only people that come here to this forum and say, "I am not a truther" are, in fact, truthers. Color me skeptical.

hey i said that the other day lol
then again i was REing a person who posted in the wrong thread
big confusion lol (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4888070#post4888070)

[BigBird]

Sorry Bigbird. I should have been more clear. I wasn't insinuating that you believed the argument, but rather that this is the argument and line of thinking that was being alluded to.

In future, to avoid ambiguity and potential suspicions, better to come outright and say what arguments you feel the truthers will use with the picture, and then ask what others think of the picture in relation to that argument.

As you know, they have seen more then there share of vague posts here, that turn out to be nothing more than a truther in disguise, trying to lead them down a garden path.

TAM:)

Agreed. My apologies once again. I don't mean to be obtuse.

[BigBird]

My point is that had you included the words "discussed here", this thread and the responses here would be much different. It is quite possible the picture in the OP has been discussed here before. Do I know this for a fact? No. Do I care? Only to the point that this thread is a waste if, in fact, the picture has been discussed here before.

There's not much I can do to figure out of something has been discussed here before.. I can't search for a picture in the search function. It's not a waste TO ME, because I am the one who started it and requested discussion on the matter.

You said, "I am NOT a twoofer". I must be honest; whenever I hear that, a huge red flag starts its ascent up the pole. Again, I could be wrong, but never once have I ever heard any of the fine debunkers here say that. The only people that come here to this forum and say, "I am not a truther" are, in fact, truthers. Color me skeptical.

I don't blame you. I feel it necessary to point out that I am not just trying to be a pain in the ass, by saying I'm not a truther, but its a catch 22 because you then believe I am based on previous idiots who lied...

I say we just be done with the confusion at this point. I've explained where I stand and what information I'm looking for. It seems its been discussed to a point that I can use the information in the future, although further discussion is always helpful...

For the last time, sorry for the confusion and lack of specificity in the OP and resulting posts...

[Checkmite]

Here's a photo I took of a similar spandrel piece. I hope it looks less mysterious when the image isn't overexposed and oversaturated.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904a5c0799514fb.jpg

Man, that's just incredible. So much force! It's almost frightening.

By the way, find the company that made those bolts and hire them as the new official builders of anything important.

[bill smith]

Thanks for the explanation.. Sorry for the ambiguity, I dont mean to be a pain in the arse...

Would you mind explaining what you meant by the part I made bold?

Maybe that beam on the ground on the bottom right is the mate to the one on the top left. Interesting damage. What could have caused it ?

[lapman]

Maybe that beam on the ground on the bottom right is the mate to the one on the top left. Interesting damage. What could have caused it ?
More force that it was desinged to handle. Not a hard concept bill. That force was tens of thousands of tons of building falling. However, it is not consistant with supersekritnanonanoothermitictermites.

[bill smith]

Looks like it was melted by thermite.:eek:

Sure looks like a hell of a lot of heat was involved anyway which is a bit of a surprise considering that it must have been at least 50 stories away from the nearest known source of fire.

[beachnut]

Maybe that beam on the ground on the bottom right is the mate to the one on the top left. Interesting damage. What could have caused it ?
Two 130 TONS of TNT kinetic energy gravity collapses. Got Physics?

[triforcharity]

Maybe that beam on the ground on the bottom right is the mate to the one on the top left. Interesting damage. What could have caused it ?

The one on the ground that I pointed to is a column. The one near the front is a gusset.

Secondly, I would imagine that something really heavy fell on it somehow. I wonder what it was???

Toaster?? Nah, too small

Elephant??? Nope, there weren't any there to my knowledge.

A bigger beam/column/section of floor??? Possibly......

WTF DO YOU THINK HAPPENED TO IT?!?!?!?!??!!

[triforcharity]

Why do you assume there was heat involved?? I can look at it and tell you it wasn't damaged by heat.

[Audible Click]

Sure looks like a hell of a lot of heat was involved anyway which is a bit of a surprise considering that it must have been at least 50 stories away from the nearest known source of fire.

Another wonderful BillSmith post, completely devoid of logic, critical thinking, and incredulity.

[Grizzly Bear]

Another wonderful BillSmith post, completely devoid of logic, critical thinking, and incredulity.

What are the chances of billsmith looking up structural failure modes if I gave him a citation to go look up at his local bookstore or library?

[ElMondoHummus]

What are the chances of billsmith looking up structural failure modes if I gave him a citation to go look up at his local bookstore or library?

Zero, but if you've got one, you should post it anyway. It's a mistake to think that truthers will be the beneficiaries of such information; at this late date, they're the leftovers who haven't come to their senses and realized that the fantasy is full of bunk. Rather, the info will come in handy for those non-participants reading this or who will discover this forum in the future.

[triforcharity]

Heck, I might look at it because this kind of thing facinates me.

[Gravy]

Zero, but if you've got one, you should post it anyway. It's a mistake to think that truthers will be the beneficiaries of such information; at this late date, they're the leftovers who haven't come to their senses and realized that the fantasy is full of bunk. Rather, the info will come in handy for those non-participants reading this or who will discover this forum in the future.
Amen, Brother Hummus!

[bill smith]

Zero, but if you've got one, you should post it anyway. It's a mistake to think that truthers will be the beneficiaries of such information; at this late date, they're the leftovers who haven't come to their senses and realized that the fantasy is full of bunk. Rather, the info will come in handy for those non-participants reading this or who will discover this forum in the future.

An exerpt from a quote by Mike Rivero seems to be appropriate here:-

''...hence most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

[BigBird]

An exerpt from a quote by Mike Rivero seems to be appropriate here:-

''...hence most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

Thanks for staying on topic.... :rolleyes:

[Audible Click]

What are the chances of billsmith looking up structural failure modes if I gave him a citation to go look up at his local bookstore or library?

Zero unless it was in the form of a comic book and even then I doubt he'd get it.

[Dave Rogers]

An exerpt from a quote by Mike Rivero seems to be appropriate here:-

Or, indeed, anywhere else. But only to you.

Dave

[sylvan8798]

Heck, I might look at it because this kind of thing facinates me.

This is a very good book, and very accessible to the lay person:

http://www.amazon.com/Design-Construction-Failures-Forensic-Investigations/dp/0070335656/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247670618&sr=8-1

[leftysergeant]

An exerpt from a quote by Mike Rivero seems to be appropriate here:-

''...hence most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

In what convoluted way is a quotation from a foaming-at-the-mouth-Holocaust-denying whackadoodle relevant to any subject of interest to an adult who was discussing an aircraft accident? For that matter, how is it relevant to real events of this time/space conmtinuum?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Why do you assume there was heat involved?? I can look at it and tell you it wasn't damaged by heat.


Just look at the picture, man:

http://bocadigital.smugmug.com/photos/10697258-L.jpg

It's still glowing yellow-hot! :p

[triforcharity]

You know, your right!! What was I thinking.......:D

[LashL]

I seem to recall that photograph being discussed here before, but it may have been 2 years ago or more. It was posted and discussed ad nauseam by tinhatters over at the DU board back in 2004-2005 and, if memory serves correctly, it was posted here and discussed briefly in 2006 or perhaps 2007. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the inclination to go scouring the last 2-3 years' worth of posts here to find the discussion of it on this forum, but if I happen to stumble across it, I'll post it, but it is not of any particular importance and it does not advance the tinhat 'theories' any.