Ground level steel beam

[Without Rights]

http://://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4623%27%20border=0%3E%3Cimg%20src=%27http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1501745fadae0c1e1b.jpgwww.teamliberty.net/id244.html (http://www.teamliberty.net/id244.html)


I don't know if this picture has ever been discussed, I just noticed it from SCG's post.

Look at the steel support in the upper/middle. This looks like a clean cut and has what appears to be molten steel residue below the cut. Opinions?

[Miss Anthrope]

www.teamliberty.net/id244.html (http://www.teamliberty.net/id244.html)


I don't know if this picture has ever been discussed, I just noticed it from SCG's post.

Look at the steel support in the upper/middle. This looks like a clean cut and has what appears to be molten steel residue below the cut. Opinions?

This, like all CT claims, have been debunked and discussed to death here.

Looky looky here. (http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm)

[T.A.M.]

Discussed a nauseum.

It looks like it has been cut by a torch. The diagonal angle is standard, as it is much quicker and easier to cut this way than a straight horizontal cut. Likely done during either rescue or clean up.

TAM:)

[Without Rights]

Discussed a nauseum.

It looks like it has been cut by a torch. The diagonal angle is standard, as it is much quicker and easier to cut this way than a straight horizontal cut. Likely done during either rescue or clean up.

TAM:)

"Ad nauseam"

The horizontal cut isn't quicker and easier, it actually allows the steel to fall in an intended direction.

[T.A.M.]

"Ad nauseum"

The horizontal cut isn't quicker and easier, it actually allows the steel to fall in an intended direction.

If you want to start correcting spelling or typo's, better watch your back...other wise just shut up.

Reference...please, or are you an expert in the field. I could be mistaken, as I was stating what someone else stated on the matter.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

You have proof a horizontal cut is easier than a diagonal one?

TAM

[Without Rights]

If you want to start correcting spelling or typo's, better watch your back...other wise just shut up.

Reference...please, or are you an expert in the field. I could be mistaken, as I was stating what someone else stated on the matter.

TAM:)

I realize it was a typo and I just thought I would point it out so you can fix it, I wasn't rude in anyway (like you).

I am referencing the site Miss A gave me above. I am assuming you would consider the site to be correct.

[Without Rights]

You have proof a horizontal cut is easier than a diagonal one?

TAM
I can assume that a horizontal cut would be easier since it is a shorter cut. I can also assume that it would be pretty dumb to cut horizontal and leave the steel balancing on the lower section. I guess it boils down to common sense.

[eeyore1954]

http://://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4623%27%20border=0%3E%3Cimg%20src=%27http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1501745fadae0c1e1b.jpgwww.teamliberty.net/id244.html (http://www.teamliberty.net/id244.html)


I don't know if this picture has ever been discussed, I just noticed it from SCG's post.

Look at the steel support in the upper/middle. This looks like a clean cut and has what appears to be molten steel residue below the cut. Opinions?
Do you think it wasn't done by welding in order to remove the steel beams.
of course it is much more likely that it was done by thermite thats why it was at the bottom of the building when the collapse clearly started in the area of impact. of course also it was likely to be done by welding because they had to work quickly to get the steel cut so it could be shipped to China .

[Without Rights]

Do you think it wasn't done by welding in order to remove the steel beams.
I don't really know. I just seen the picture :30 before I posted and thought it would be appropriate for discussion.

[Miss Anthrope]

If you actually want information, WR, read the page I linked to. Or have you just already made up your mind and don't want to bother?

[T.A.M.]

Well my approach to it is like cutting through a tree (god help me I am entering Judy Woods territory). Cutting diagonal, while a longer cut in terms of distance, would allow gravity to help, not hinder c/w a horizontal cut through a heavy beam. Now whether the same applies to a torch cut, as opposed to a cut with a saw, I am not sure.

As for the correction, it is considered rude by most to correct gramatics/spelling unless someone is VERY CONSISTENTLY doing so, on the internet. I'll leave it at that.

TAM:)

[Without Rights]

If you actually want information, WR, read the page I linked to. Or have you just already made up your mind and don't want to bother?
I did read the info on the site. You are the Miss A in the post
I am referencing the site Miss A gave me above. I am assuming you would consider the site to be correct.

I didn't know if it has been discussed is all. Call off the attack dogs.

[Miss Anthrope]

I did read the info on the site. You are the Miss A in the post


I didn't know if it has been discussed is all. Call off the attack dogs.

You are a member and have access to the search function. This has been discussed here, as noticed previously, ad nauseum. There is a lot of useful information in the countless threads where this is previously discussed if you actually want answers, rather than pushing your CT theory.

[T.A.M.]

My initial "attack", which was far from one, was about your rude calling me on a typo. My replies to your actual post were "matter of fact" rather than attacks. I also admitted to possibly being wrong, to which you inferred I, a physician with 9 years PS education was dumb.

So who is the attack dog?

TAM:)

[Without Rights]

Well my approach to it is like cutting through a tree (god help me I am entering Judy Woods territory). Cutting diagonal, while a longer cut in terms of distance, would allow gravity to help, not hinder c/w a horizontal cut through a heavy beam. Now whether the same applies to a torch cut, as opposed to a cut with a saw, I am not sure.

As for the correction, it is considered rude by most to correct gramatics/spelling unless someone is VERY CONSISTENTLY doing so, on the internet. I'll leave it at that.

TAM:)
Just for the record I have been called an idiot 3 times for typos, I didn't call you an idiot. I guess it is a oneway street. If it is someone you concider a "CT" makers an error, then it is fair game to not only correct but to do so with added insult. If it is someone considered a "skeptic" then it is rude even if you don't do it rudely.

That is just a touch of the inflammatory bias present at JREF. It is cool to be rude to me because I disagree with, and argue against somethings said here.

[T.A.M.]

all that said...I have been perhaps too "abrupt" but I have been responding to TS's bullshaite in another thread, and it has me...annoyed.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Have I ever defended someone calling you an idiot? No.

And I said you were implying/inferring it (by saying common sense dictates that a horizontal cut is quicker and easier, you are implying that I have no such common sense....correct?)

TAM:)

Edit:
And actually, I have called out fellow JREFers who make such comments on typos, unless someone is so unreal with the number of such, that something has to be said in order to be able to read their comments.

TAM

[beachnut]

http://://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4623%27%20border=0%3E%3Cimg%20src=%27http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1501745fadae0c1e1b.jpgwww.teamliberty.net/id244.html (http://www.teamliberty.net/id244.html)


I don't know if this picture has ever been discussed, I just noticed it from SCG's post.

Look at the steel support in the upper/middle. This looks like a clean cut and has what appears to be molten steel residue below the cut. Opinions?
A clean up cut. It is a red flag! When someone says this is some indicator of an inside job, they are a woo. Someone who believes in lies and fraud of the truth movement of 9/11.

Considering you see it at a woo site, it is woo evidence. A basic lie. Even the insane Dr Jones used it in his paper. He is a woo with a PhD. He was fired. He started his own woo journal so he could publish his woo paper. If you need a copy of his very first attempt at woo junk just ask.

[Without Rights]

You are a member and have access to the search function. This has been discussed here, as noticed previously, ad nauseum. There is a lot of useful information in the countless threads where this is previously discussed if you actually want answers, rather than pushing your CT theory.

Ok I guess you don't want to call off the attack dogs, fine. Please show me where I am "pushing my CT theory".

Oh and the search function. What do I type in there "picture" or "steel beam on the ground", yeah that doesn't seem to work to well.

[Without Rights]

A clean up cut. It is a red flag! When someone says this is some indicator of an inside job, they are a woo. Someone who believes in lies and fraud of the truth movement of 9/11.

Considering you see it at a woo site, it is woo evidence. A basic lie. Even the insane Dr Jones used it in his paper. He is a woo with a PhD. He was fired. He started his own woo journal so he could publish his woo paper. If you need a copy of his very first attempt at woo junk just ask.

I don't believe I said it was an indicator of an inside job. I think I was quite neutral in my posts.

[stateofgrace]

Of course there could always be a reasonable explanation for why the beam was cut at a 45 degree angle. Maybe one like this.

A large section of unstable steel frame needs to be cut away as it is in danger of falling over and hampering rescue operations. Welders with oxyacetylene blow torches are called in. A crane is attached to the upper section.

They cut the lower horizontal first and then the two 45 degree diagonals. Finally the back upper section is cut ensuring the upper section falls away from those that were doing the cutting. The crane then lifts the section away from the team cutting the beam.

It's called safety. But hey that's just how I see it.

[Without Rights]

Have I ever defended someone calling you an idiot? No.

And I said you were implying/inferring it (by saying common sense dictates that a horizontal cut is quicker and easier, you are implying that I have no such common sense....correct?)

TAM:)

Edit:
And actually, I have called out fellow JREFers who make such comments on typos, unless someone is so unreal with the number of such, that something has to be said in order to be able to read their comments.

TAM

Well then, I call truce.

I did not mean to offend you.

[beachnut]

I don't believe I said it was an indicator of an inside job. I think I was quite neutral in my posts.Neutral? You do not have an idea that they are telling lies and misleading people. Fraud is the name, and you are neutral! Good job.

So you sit on the side lines unable and not willing to hold anyone to the truth. What is your problem. Are you afraid to tell someone they are liars? Or do you just spread lies and then pretend to be neutral? Which is it?

Why post a woo site of lies when you could tell us it is a woo site of lies? What is the purpose of your post except to spread lies about 9/11 without even thinking about and and then declare neutral?

You have no fact based ideas on 9/11?

[Without Rights]

Neutral? You do not have an idea that they are telling lies and misleading people. Fraud is the name, and you are neutral! Good job.
Yeah, neutral. I seen a picture and asked for opinions.

So you sit on the side lines unable and not willing to hold anyone to the truth. What is your problem. Are you afraid to tell someone they are liars? Or do you just spread lies and then pretend to be neutral? Which is it?
Are you talking about the picture or in general?

Why post a woo site of lies when you could tell us it is a woo site of lies? What is the purpose of your post except to spread lies about 9/11 without even thinking about and and then declare neutral?
The purpose was to discuss a picture I seen today. You are just being confrontational because of our past. Get over yourself.

[Jennie C.]

"Ad nauseum"

The horizontal cut isn't quicker and easier, it actually allows the steel to fall in an intended direction.

Ahem, "ad nauseam," with an A.

sorry, pet peeve

[T.A.M.]

Ahem, "ad nauseam," with an A.

sorry, pet peeve

oh boy, that makes 2 errors for me in one expression...so now I guess i am fair game...lol

TAM:)

[RAMS]

http://://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4623%27%20border=0%3E%3Cimg%20src=%27http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1501745fadae0c1e1b.jpgwww.teamliberty.net/id244.html (http://www.teamliberty.net/id244.html)


I don't know if this picture has ever been discussed, I just noticed it from SCG's post.

Look at the steel support in the upper/middle. This looks like a clean cut and has what appears to be molten steel residue below the cut. Opinions?

Yes. That is a beam cut with normal oxyacetylene torch some 3 weeks after 911 day. Normal. Tell tale is crude cut, cool ferrous slag content.

Robert

[RAMS]

You have proof a horizontal cut is easier than a diagonal one?

TAM

Actually, you are both correct. In the case of the angle cut, it was to aim the upper section to fall in a desired place-location for easier retrieval. Same as putting a 'humbolt cut' in a large fir in the logging industry for aiming a tree to its prepared bed so it doesn't split--same principle.

Robert

[scooby]

http://://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4623%27%20border=0%3E%3Cimg%20src=%27http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1501745fadae0c1e1b.jpgwww.teamliberty.net/id244.html (http://www.teamliberty.net/id244.html)


I don't know if this picture has ever been discussed, I just noticed it from SCG's post.

Look at the steel support in the upper/middle. This looks like a clean cut and has what appears to be molten steel residue below the cut. Opinions?

It is exactly the same as a demolition cut, to allow the beam to slip sideways rather than rest on the beam below.

You will hear many claims on here that it was cut with welding torches during the cleanup by people who do not know this to be a fact yet will claim it is, but as you see, there doesn't seem to be much cleaning up done yet, and there is no noticeable method of access to the steel beam or a platform for somebody to stand on to cut it.

Additionally, you might want to ask yourself what the urgency was in getting into the rubble pile and cutting this steel beam, when the pile is still smoking and everyone else is standing around looking confused. It's got immediate aftermath written all over it.

You can better judge it's scale and the lack of any preparation of the site in this photo, note the firemen climbing next to the beam, the steel is as thick as his upper arm if not thicker ...

http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/9/11/214131/pic87932.jpg

Also judging from the thickness of the beam, it looks to be several inches think, you might ask yourself why somebody with a welding torch would waste time cutting it at that angle when the quickest method would be used in a situation like this - a straight line - I think you have mentioned this.

I worked for several years on and off as a welders mate, and though I am not a welder myself, I can tell you that cutting a steel beam as large as this with an ordinary welding torch would not be as easy or quick a task as you might think, and without assistance the cut would not be uniform. I've seen people clean up things by cutting with welding torches and the result is normally quite a jagged cut unless care is taken to produce a straight line - again, no need for that in this situation.

There were several other cuts like this found, these are mentioned in an excellent documentary - 911 Mysteries. Included in that I think, is an excerpt from a TV program where a demolition expert explains why cut's like this are made. I would imagine that everyone in this thread so far is well aware of all this, and could at least concede that it looks like what it looks like.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

In addition, do you consider yourself a skeptical person? I know I do, yet I find on here that it is claimed this is not the case. There seems to be some kind of secret exam that you must pass first, after which you don't have to be skeptical about anything anymore, all you need to do is sit back and take delight in making fun of people who think they are. Odd don't you think?

[RAMS]

Of course there could always be a reasonable explanation for why the beam was cut at a 45 degree angle. Maybe one like this.

A large section of unstable steel frame needs to be cut away as it is in danger of falling over and hampering rescue operations. Welders with oxyacetylene blow torches are called in. A crane is attached to the upper section.

They cut the lower horizontal first and then the two 45 degree diagonals. Finally the back upper section is cut ensuring the upper section falls away from those that were doing the cutting. The crane then lifts the section away from the team cutting the beam.

It's called safety. But hey that's just how I see it.

And THAT, above, is categorically correct, according to NYFD.

Robert

[Miss Anthrope]

It is exactly the same as a demolition cut, to allow the beam to slip sideways rather than rest on the beam below.

You will hear many claims on here that it was cut with welding torches during the cleanup by people who do not know this to be a fact yet will claim it is, but as you see, there doesn't seem to be much cleaning up done yet, and there is no noticeable method of access to the steel beam or a platform for somebody to stand on to cut it.

Additionally, you might want to ask yourself what the urgency was in getting into the rubble pile and cutting this steel beam, when the pile is still smoking and everyone else is standing around looking confused. It's got immediate aftermath written all over it.

You can better judge it's scale and the lack of any preparation of the site in this photo, note the firemen climbing next to the beam, the steel is as thick as his upper arm if not thicker ...

http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/9/11/214131/pic87932.jpg

Also judging from the thickness of the beam, it looks to be several inches think, you might ask yourself why somebody with a welding torch would waste time cutting it at that angle when the quickest method would be used in a situation like this - a straight line - I think you have mentioned this.

I worked for several years on and off as a welders mate, and though I am not a welder myself, I can tell you that cutting a steel beam as large as this with an ordinary welding torch would not be as easy or quick a task as you might think, and without assistance the cut would not be uniform. I've seen people clean up things by cutting with welding torches and the result is normally quite a jagged cut unless care is taken to produce a straight line - again, no need for that in this situation.

There were several other cuts like this found, these are mentioned in an excellent documentary - 911 Mysteries. Included in that I think, is an excerpt from a TV program where a demolition expert explains why cut's like this are made. I would imagine that everyone in this thread so far is well aware of all this, and could at least concede that it looks like what it looks like.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

In addition, do you consider yourself a skeptical person? I know I do, yet I find on here that it is claimed this is not the case. There seems to be some kind of secret exam that you must pass first, after which you don't have to be skeptical about anything anymore, all you need to do is sit back and take delight in making fun of people who think they are. Odd don't you think?

BWHAHAHAHA! You called yourself neutral them BOOM. Just like in the Income Tax thread. You didn't look at the page I sent you. You have made up your mind, much like you and your sock on the tax thread. Buhbye!

[T.A.M.]

So I suppose there is no way it was cut to expediate a rescue effort than...simply, scooby, this is your smoking gun of CD, am I correct?

TAM:)

[HeyLeroy]

If you look at the bottom corner of the cut piece, it was not cut all the way through. My guess is the beam was hooked to a crane, grapple, or other piece of equipment and pulled (yeah, I said it!) over as the cut was completed.

[scooby]

So I suppose there is no way it was cut to expediate a rescue effort than...simply, scooby, this is your smoking gun of CD, am I correct?

TAM:)

I've got to say it, but I really don't think you've been correct once in your assumptions, though true, it is smoking.

[T.A.M.]

ok, so you are saying that it could have been done to expediate rescue efforts, and that this is not your smoking gun then? Correct?

TAM:) (nice try at insulting me)

[RAMS]

It is exactly the same as a demolition cut, to allow the beam to slip sideways rather than rest on the beam below.

You will hear many claims on here that it was cut with welding torches during the cleanup by people who do not know this to be a fact yet will claim it is, but as you see, there doesn't seem to be much cleaning up done yet, and there is no noticeable method of access to the steel beam or a platform for somebody to stand on to cut it.

Additionally, you might want to ask yourself what the urgency was in getting into the rubble pile and cutting this steel beam, when the pile is still smoking and everyone else is standing around looking confused. It's got immediate aftermath written all over it.

You can better judge it's scale and the lack of any preparation of the site in this photo, note the firemen climbing next to the beam, the steel is as thick as his upper arm if not thicker ...

http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/9/11/214131/pic87932.jpg

Also judging from the thickness of the beam, it looks to be several inches think, you might ask yourself why somebody with a welding torch would waste time cutting it at that angle when the quickest method would be used in a situation like this - a straight line - I think you have mentioned this.

I worked for several years on and off as a welders mate, and though I am not a welder myself, I can tell you that cutting a steel beam as large as this with an ordinary welding torch would not be as easy or quick a task as you might think, and without assistance the cut would not be uniform. I've seen people clean up things by cutting with welding torches and the result is normally quite a jagged cut unless care is taken to produce a straight line - again, no need for that in this situation.

There were several other cuts like this found, these are mentioned in an excellent documentary - 911 Mysteries. Included in that I think, is an excerpt from a TV program where a demolition expert explains why cut's like this are made. I would imagine that everyone in this thread so far is well aware of all this, and could at least concede that it looks like what it looks like.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

In addition, do you consider yourself a skeptical person? I know I do, yet I find on here that it is claimed this is not the case. There seems to be some kind of secret exam that you must pass first, after which you don't have to be skeptical about anything anymore, all you need to do is sit back and take delight in making fun of people who think they are. Odd don't you think?



And being absolutely objective, you are a pathological liar.

To end this silliness, please call FDNY at:

(718)-999-2845/1234

or email: smithma@fdny.nyc.gov

Melissa will send you to First Responders who will verify the many accurate responses so posted by many here in this thread, concerning that photo and many like it posted all over the net.

(cultists......God help us all!!!!!

Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC ®
NASA Fine Art Documentation Program
Vision Motion Dynamic-FX-FX
behold-the-rage dot com
________________________________
Have Jeep, Have Heart, Will Travel

[T.A.M.]

I am sure you have likely made Mellisa an involuntary "USG Shill" by mentioning her name to the 9/11 truthers like that...such a shame.

TAM:)

[RAMS]

I am sure you have likely made Mellisa an involuntary "USG Shill" by mentioning her name to the 9/11 truthers like that...such a shame.

TAM:)

hahahahahahaha.........good one TAM

Well, of course. I know many at FDNY and if it is demo or anything else related about 911, pick up the phone and get the data. No fuss no muss and no conspiracy horse doodoo. Logical. Great response, again, TAM.

Robert

[scooby]

hahahahahahaha.........good one TAM

Well, of course. I know many at FDNY and if it is demo or anything else related about 911, pick up the phone and get the data. No fuss no muss and no conspiracy horse doodoo. Logical. Great response, again, TAM.

Robert

Do you know who took the photo, and what date it was taken on?

[scooby]

And then there's Craig Bartmer - do you by any chance know him?

Former NYPD Officer and 9/11 First Responder Craig Bartmer worked on the rescue operation at Ground Zero. He, like many others who worked to clean Ground Zero, has developed respiratory illnesses as a result of the toxic dust inhaled at the site. Also like many others who were physically affected by the attacks, Craig Bartmer is now combating Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In this interview he details his eyewitness account of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. He also speaks out against the official 9/11 story, the lies told by the EPA about the air quality at Ground Zero and the critical need for a fresh independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2283625397351664218

It's shocking how they covered up the problems with toxicity at ground zero and sent everybody in without the proper equipment, and as a result many have now died and many are dying of asbestosis and similar respiratory problems. No doubt this has been 'debunked'? Care to add your seal of approval and say it ain't so, oh friend of the first reponders?

[Pardalis]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67275

[Without Rights]

BWHAHAHAHA! You called yourself neutral them BOOM. Just like in the Income Tax thread. You didn't look at the page I sent you. You have made up your mind, much like you and your sock on the tax thread. Buhbye!
I called myself neutral not scooby. You are responding to scooby. Buhbye!

[RAMS]

And then there's Craig Bartmer - do you by any chance know him?

Former NYPD Officer and 9/11 First Responder Craig Bartmer worked on the rescue operation at Ground Zero. He, like many others who worked to clean Ground Zero, has developed respiratory illnesses as a result of the toxic dust inhaled at the site. Also like many others who were physically affected by the attacks, Craig Bartmer is now combating Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In this interview he details his eyewitness account of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. He also speaks out against the official 9/11 story, the lies told by the EPA about the air quality at Ground Zero and the critical need for a fresh independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2283625397351664218

It's shocking how they covered up the problems with toxicity at ground zero and sent everybody in without the proper equipment, and as a result many have now died and many are dying of asbestosis and similar respiratory problems. No doubt this has been 'debunked'? Care to add your seal of approval and say it ain't so, oh friend of the first reponders?



Dear rabid, frothing at the mouth, tinfoil hat wearing, demonic worshipper, al queda shill, communist, american hater........(Gee, Robert, don't sugar coat it, how do you really feel about 'scooby doo-doo-peepee pants?)

You are correct. In so many issues within disaster there is always negligence where upon the natural tendency in good people to do good things, helping others, to do stupid things compromising self. 911 is no different. No one new the toxity in the debris field at the time and for some time thereafter.

There was no malovence intended. No coverup of anything.

I've seen this at NASA KSC when several men went into the launch platform to manually safe the orbiter and stack on the pad and many were fallen and a few perished to hydrazine propellant poisoning.

And lastly, why is it in all fields of what I refer as a noun as 'Strange' (UFO world), and the 911 conspiracy world is no different, and it too will now be called 'Strange', as in a noun proper, is when one responds in good faith with a fact, a logical explanation, or whatever the correction, the answer is always laced with some insult, cutting remark, accusation or anything related?

Why not a, "Oh, I see. I wasn't aware of that and I stand corrected." or something akin.

Why is 'conspiracy' and 'Strange' and all the other cultist psychosis rife with truculent adversity to anything and anyone that disagrees.

Concluding, again, you are corrrect, many afflictions from the residue in the WTC debris field----no malfeaseance intended by anyone.

Is that helpful. Have you called Melissa yet FDNY, as suggested, to get it first hand.


Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC ®
NASA Fine Art Documentation Program
Vision Motion Dynamic-FX-FX
http://www.behold-the-rage.com
________________________________
Have Jeep, Have Heart, Will Trave

[CHF]

It is exactly the same as a demolition cut, to allow the beam to slip sideways rather than rest on the beam below.

You will hear many claims on here that it was cut with welding torches during the cleanup by people who do not know this to be a fact yet will claim it is, but as you see, there doesn't seem to be much cleaning up done yet, and there is no noticeable method of access to the steel beam or a platform for somebody to stand on to cut it.

Additionally, you might want to ask yourself what the urgency was in getting into the rubble pile and cutting this steel beam, when the pile is still smoking and everyone else is standing around looking confused. It's got immediate aftermath written all over it.

You can better judge it's scale and the lack of any preparation of the site in this photo, note the firemen climbing next to the beam, the steel is as thick as his upper arm if not thicker ...

http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/9/11/214131/pic87932.jpg

Also judging from the thickness of the beam, it looks to be several inches think, you might ask yourself why somebody with a welding torch would waste time cutting it at that angle when the quickest method would be used in a situation like this - a straight line - I think you have mentioned this.

I worked for several years on and off as a welders mate, and though I am not a welder myself, I can tell you that cutting a steel beam as large as this with an ordinary welding torch would not be as easy or quick a task as you might think, and without assistance the cut would not be uniform. I've seen people clean up things by cutting with welding torches and the result is normally quite a jagged cut unless care is taken to produce a straight line - again, no need for that in this situation.

There were several other cuts like this found, these are mentioned in an excellent documentary - 911 Mysteries. Included in that I think, is an excerpt from a TV program where a demolition expert explains why cut's like this are made. I would imagine that everyone in this thread so far is well aware of all this, and could at least concede that it looks like what it looks like.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

In addition, do you consider yourself a skeptical person? I know I do, yet I find on here that it is claimed this is not the case. There seems to be some kind of secret exam that you must pass first, after which you don't have to be skeptical about anything anymore, all you need to do is sit back and take delight in making fun of people who think they are. Odd don't you think?

And this is all according to....which experts?

[ktesibios]

Here's a larger view of the column:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/37845fb022a645f5.jpg

This shows something rather interesting-notice that on the upper side and on the diagonal edge away from the camera, the slag is clinging to the inner faces of the steel plates, with no slag visible on the outer face of the diagonally-cut plate closer to the camera, while on the lowest edge it's clinging to the outer face.

If one were applying SuperNanoThermateTM charges to a box column like that, they would presumably all be applied to the accessible outer faces, and if they produced any slag, they should do so in the same way on each side of the column- all on the inner sides or all on the outer sides.

OTOH, what we see would be consistent with the upper and diagonal cuts being made first, the column bent over like a felled tree with the face towards the camera still tying it to the stump, and that face then being cut from the now-exposed inner side, which would be uppermost.

Another interesting thing that can be seen in this larger version of the pic on the Muckraker Report site:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/37845fb020213917.jpg

is that slag from the lowest cut appears to have dripped down onto debris outside the column and below the cut. If this is true, the debris had to be there before the slag was produced. Since the debris is from the collapse of the tower, that would rule out the cut being made before the tower had collapsed.

All in all, not only does this picture not provide any support for "controlled demolition" theories, it tends strongly to falsify them.

[A W Smith]

a close up of that photo clearly shows on the left side the jagged undulations of an almost freehand oxygen lance cut. It is obvious you never worked as a welders assistant scooby. Burning through that thickness of steel you wouldn't want to do it level or from below. you could get pockets of molten steel that would blow back at you. And it is quite easy to use almost any object as a guide for a lance or torch. A strap. A length of pipe. A piece of angle iron, Even using the hand railing of an aerial personnel lift You could lay the lance on it. A lift Which BTW is most likely what that cut was made from. It is too hazardous to lay oxygen or acetylene hose on hot smoking debris. Much safer from a lift.

[RAMS]

Here's a larger view of the column:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/37845fb022a645f5.jpg

This shows something rather interesting-notice that on the upper side and on the diagonal edge away from the camera, the slag is clinging to the inner faces of the steel plates, with no slag visible on the outer face of the diagonally-cut plate closer to the camera, while on the lowest edge it's clinging to the outer face.

If one were applying SuperNanoThermateTM charges to a box column like that, they would presumably all be applied to the accessible outer faces, and if they produced any slag, they should do so in the same way on each side of the column- all on the inner sides or all on the outer sides.

OTOH, what we see would be consistent with the upper and diagonal cuts being made first, the column bent over like a felled tree with the face towards the camera still tying it to the stump, and that face then being cut from the now-exposed inner side, which would be uppermost.

Another interesting thing that can be seen in this larger version of the pic on the Muckraker Report site:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/37845fb020213917.jpg

is that slag from the lowest cut appears to have dripped down onto debris outside the column and below the cut. If this is true, the debris had to be there before the slag was produced. Since the debris is from the collapse of the tower, that would rule out the cut being made before the tower had collapsed.

All in all, not only does this picture not provide any support for "controlled demolition" theories, it tends strongly to falsify them.


It is post like this that inspires me to recommend you should go to work at NASA or the like in failure, or at least deductive analysis. Very well documented, explained, and presented in unbiased technical fashion.

Very well done, indeed!! Have thought of posting this on one of the 'Strange' sites for reaction, if that is possible, without being assailed in some fashion?

And too, according to FDNY, you have presented exactly as it is/was. This photo was taken 3 weeks after 911 day, while first actual dismantling had taken place in certain pre-cleared parts of the debris field of WTC-2.

Excellent!

Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC ®
NASA Fine Art Documentation Program
Vision Motion Dynamic-FX-FX
http://www.behold-the-rage.com

Have Jeep, Have Heart, Will Travel

[scooby]

a close up of that photo clearly shows on the left side the jagged undulations of an almost freehand oxygen lance cut. It is obvious you never worked as a welders assistant scooby. Burning through that thickness of steel you wouldn't want to do it level or from below. you could get pockets of molten steel that would blow back at you. And it is quite easy to use almost any object as a guide for a lance or torch. A strap. A length of pipe. A piece of angle iron, Even using the hand railing of an aerial personnel lift You could lay the lance on it. A lift Which BTW is most likely what that cut was made from. It is too hazardous to lay oxygen or acetylene hose on hot smoking debris. Much safer from a lift.

No I don't lie, I had a friend who was a Pipe Fitter Welder and every summer during university I would work for him for a couple of months. Now if I was the dishonest type, it would be the merest hop skip and jump to claim I was the one holding the torch, but no, I was the one holding the pipe and carrying stuff.

Ever heard of an "acetylene bomb" - a common prank in the industry?
It may be called something else in the states, but anyone who knows anything about welding will know what I'm talking about.

[A W Smith]

Ever heard of an "acetylene bomb" - a common prank in the industry?
It may be called something else in the states, but anyone who knows anything about welding will know what I'm talking about.

Yes it is a large balloon or condom filled with acetylene. we set one off in a race car fabrication shop I worked at in the eighties.

[scooby]

Dear rabid, frothing at the mouth, tinfoil hat ...

He he he, just as I thought.
Move along nothing to see here.

It's established fact that they lied about the toxicity of the ground zero site.
Everyone knows the place was full of asbestos - and knew at the time, it was no secret.
Everyone saw the place turned to dust.
Whats going to be in the dust Sherlock?
Where's all the asbestos going to go?

Utter spoon bender.

[RAMS]

No I don't lie, I had a friend who was a Pipe Fitter Welder and every summer during university I would work for him for a couple of months. Now if I was the dishonest type, it would be the merest hop skip and jump to claim I was the one holding the torch, but no, I was the one holding the pipe and carrying stuff.

Ever heard of an "acetylene bomb" - a common prank in the industry?
It may be called something else in the states, but anyone who knows anything about welding will know what I'm talking about.


That's great stuff. Super. Okay, now, FDNY confirmed that 'I' beam was a torch cut, among many others in that same photo if one blows it up with no low res pixel corruption, and this was 3 weeks after 911 day, and this was at WTC-2 and the beginning of structural dismantling.

Please address this post and the fact I have made the calls and confirmed the issue as well as provided contact info FDNY and a contact person including email for same.

Please do not be completely a member of 'Strange' and respond to this post.

Thank you in advance,


Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC ®
NASA Fine Art Documentation Program
Vision Motion Dynamic-FX-FX
http://www.behold-the-rage.com

Have Jeep, Have Heart, Will Trave

[scooby]

Yes it is a large balloon or condom filled with acetylene. we set one off in a race car fabrication shop I worked at in the eighties.

Well there you go, not the variation I'm familiar with but the same thing.

[scooby]

That's great stuff. Super. Okay, now, FDNY confirmed that 'I' beam was a torch cut, among many others in that same photo if one blows it up with no low res pixel corruption, and this was 3 weeks after 911 day, and this was at WTC-2 and the beginning of structural dismantling.

Please address this post and the fact I have made the calls and confirmed the issue as well as provided contact info FDNY and a contact person including email for same.

Please do not be completely a member of 'Strange' and respond to this post.

Thank you in advance,


Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC ®
NASA Fine Art Documentation Program
Vision Motion Dynamic-FX-FX
http://www.behold-the-rage.com

Have Jeep, Have Heart, Will Trave

Are you talking to me?

[RAMS]

Are you talking to me?


Categorically.


Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC ®
NASA Fine Art Documentation Program
Vision Motion Dynamic-FX-FX
http://www.behold-the-rage.com

Jeep, Have Heart, Will Travel

[scooby]

Categorically.


Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC ®
NASA Fine Art Documentation Program
Vision Motion Dynamic-FX-FX
http://www.behold-the-rage.com

Jeep, Have Heart, Will Travel

OK, what are you saying?

[RAMS]

OK, what are you saying?

Respond to my post that you are in error, possibly.


Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC ®
NASA Fine Art Documentation Program
Vision Motion Dynamic-FX-FX
http://www.behold-the-rage.com

Have Jeep, Have Heart, Will Travel

[Augustine]

Respond to my post that you are in error, possibly.


Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC ®
NASA Fine Art Documentation Program
Vision Motion Dynamic-FX-FX
http://www.behold-the-rage.com

Have Jeep, Have Heart, Will Travel

I would be :jaw-dropp if scoob actually admitted error. He does not seem to possess the integrity to do so.

[DavidJames]

I would be :jaw-dropp if scoob actually admitted error. He does not seem to possess the integrity to do so.

I got to give scooby credit for being resilient. He's gotten intellectually smacked around all day yet he keeps staggering to his feet ready to accept another whack.

By resilient, I mean really stupid

[beachnut]

Terminal stupidity is self critiquing.

[beachnut]

OK, what are you saying?
The fact you are challenged to comprehend, is self evident by your posts.

You need to pay attention and read. If you try you can comprehend what people are saying. But you may have a disability at understanding simple things, yet alone 9/11 or what other people post to you.

He told you your earlier posts are in error and he told you why!

[LashL]

He he he, just as I thought.
Move along nothing to see here.

It's established fact that they lied about the toxicity of the ground zero site.
Everyone knows the place was full of asbestos - and knew at the time, it was no secret.
Everyone saw the place turned to dust.
Whats going to be in the dust Sherlock?
Where's all the asbestos going to go?

Utter spoon bender.

Actually, much of your post is incorrect. While it is certainly true that the collapse of large buildings and the burning of many hundreds of thousands of tons of building contents, including people, will and did create a toxic stew at the site, it is untrue that asbestos played much of a role in that.

One of the towers had asbestos fireproofing up to a certain level (I can't recall the exact floor off the top of my head but if memory serves, it was up to around floor 38) and the other tower did not contain any asbestos at all. WTC7 did not contain asbestos either.

The buildings did not "turn to dust".

Of course, there was a large amount of dust created by the collapses. That dust was tested and its contents were analyzed. The results are clear that asbestos was a very small portion of it.

[kookbreaker]

Obviously I must post this again, since scooby was too busy testing out his new masonry drill bits on his skull to see it the first time:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/CopperDepositweb.jpg

This is a picture of an I-beam from an actual demolition site. You may note the two smooth streaks of purple, and where they end a more jagged edge appears.

The reason is simple: To place the charges, the demolitionists cut 'windows' in the I-beams to place the charge with a blowtorch, hence the jagged cut. When the charge fires, the plasma from said charge produces the purple colored, comparitively smooth cuts on the beam in order to bring down the building.

Now, this is a much closer photo than the one the OP and Scooby are whooping about being 'demolition charge cuts', but even with the photo at that distant column you can tell that cut is not from any explosive cutting charge.

[CHF]

OK, what are you saying?

Pd, sock puppet. 100%

Scooby sounds just like Aphelion; the same "huh? Was that for me?" type mentality.

[Without Rights]

BWHAHAHAHA! You called yourself neutral them BOOM. Just like in the Income Tax thread. You didn't look at the page I sent you. You have made up your mind, much like you and your sock on the tax thread. Buhbye!

And another thing, on the income tax thread I didn't claim neutrality, so it appears that you can't get anything right. Maybe you should stick with MTV.

[Without Rights]

Actually, much of your post is incorrect. While it is certainly true that the collapse of large buildings and the burning of many hundreds of thousands of tons of building contents, including people, will and did create a toxic stew at the site, it is untrue that asbestos played much of a role in that.



I disagree. Reports say:

"WR Grace Asbestos containing insulation was used at the World Trade Center (WTC). James Cintani stated that Grace Vermiculite did not contain asbestos. Unfortunately this was not true this material was 2-5 percent asbestos. 100,000 80 pound bags of this vermiculite was used in the WTC. In addition 9,150 pounds of MonoKote 3 was used at the WTC. Monokote 3 was about 20 percent asbestos. Therefore in total about 201,183 pounds of pure asbestos fiber from Grace was used in the WTC."
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/9/12/192330/380

And the Seattle Post http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/54382_asbestos14.shtml
Federal and state officials have grossly underestimated the number of people in lower Manhattan who are at risk of lethal asbestos-related disease because of the collapse of the World Trade Center, independent experts say.

Evaluations by teams of leading asbestos researchers show the increased risk to people who live, work or study in homes or offices that have not been properly decontaminated could be as high as one additional cancer death for every 10 people exposed.

These figures come as leading government officials continue to insist that there is no long-term health risk to those living and working near ground zero from the dust of hundreds of thousands of tons of asbestos-containing products used in the floors, walls, ceilings and steel frame of the twin towers.

[Gravy]

That's a good photo, kookbreaker. I have dozens of photos of torch-cut columns and beams from Ground Zero, but none of a comparison beam cut with cutter charges. I wonder if that's unexploded detcord next to it.

Needless to say, of the thousands of people who handled the steel and examined all the debris for evidence, exactly zero found any evidence of the use of high explosives.

[kookbreaker]

That's a good photo, kookbreaker. I have dozens of photos of torch-cut columns and beams from Ground Zero, but none of a comparison beam cut with cutter charges. I wonder if that's unexploded detcord next to it.

It is detcord, my friend who took the picture of it was on site. There was lots of detcord, as well as the copper bracings that they used to hold the charges. Not to mention the stuff they wrap the charges in (carpet, wire, playwood boxes). He gave me some of the copper and used detcord. It was all over the place. Troothers seem to think the stuff burns away like flash paper.

That was from this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76343

[Gravy]

I disagree. Reports say:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/9/12/192330/380

And the Seattle Post http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/54382_asbestos14.shtml

LashL is correct about the use of asbestos in the towers. It was installed only on 38 floors of the north tower, and about half of that had been removed over the years as tenants moved in and out. There was no legal requirement to remove the rest, but new tenants generally insisted on its removal.

The asbestos in the WTC dust was still a potential hazard. The EPA did not properly sample it and did prematurely announce that the air in lower Manhattan was safe to breathe. Here are some WTC asbestos links.

Me on WTC asbestos abatement http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2122044&postcount=60

WTC Asbestos Abatement appeal: Port Auth NY & NJ v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co. WTC http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002/012513.pdf

ATSDR - Asbestos - World Trade Center Full Report http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/asbestos/asbestos/types_of_exposure/WTC_FullReport.html

Did the Ban on Asbestos Lead to Loss of Life? (Guy Tozzoli $ NYT 9/18/01) http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/18/science/physical/18ASBE.html?ex=1172379600&en=edb5e434a5f33a7c&ei=5070

NYC Dept. of Health Asbestos fact sheet http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/ei/eiasbest.shtml

OSHA asbestos sampling sector B2: WTC & NE http://osha.gov/nyc-disaster/b2.html

OSHA Asbestos Air Sampling Area Map - Lower Manhattan and World Trade Center http://osha.gov/nyc-disaster/map.html

[scooby]

I disagree. Reports say:


http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/9/12/192330/380

And the Seattle Post http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/54382_asbestos14.shtml

Thanks for posting that, it's good to see there is some honesty - and sanity on here - who the hell thinks its a good idea to lie about asbestos to win an argument? It's shocking. Somebody could have read that and thought that everything is OK - "Yeah asbestos in the roof Chuck? No problem it's safe in small quantities, I read it on the James Randi Educational Forum. Some joker claimed it was a health hazard - but they soon sorted him out ho ho ho."

It's back to the Dark Ages on here.

Here's the results of the USGS survey done at the WTC in the aftermath of the collapse ...

"Ground sampling consisted of collecting debris from 35 locations in the WTC area, including 33 dust, 2 concrete, and 2 steel beam insulation samples.

Optical photographs of a typical dust sample on the left (sample WTC01-27) and what appeared to be an insulation coating from a steel beam on the right (WTC01-8). The coating contains as much as 20% chrysotile asbestos. Scale bar is 10 millimeters."

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/

People who are new to this site should really consider carefully why information like this is being systematically dismissed on here by a certain group of posters who claim to speak for the forum itself. Corporate 'woo' is not challenged by them while they pretend that this is exactly what they do.

For a start they should read a book "Toxic Sludge is Good For You" by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton - all about how industry creates fake front groups that pretend to represent public opinion but are in actuality just back channels for corporate PR. It's called Astroturfing (fake grass roots support) and explained briefly on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

But the book deals with it in much more detail and gives many real examples of its use in recent history.

In a nutshell the principle is this. A company will be producing unsafe meat for public consumption. They will finance a fake grassroots organisation - "The Safe Meat Foundation" which will look like an independant citizens group. The Safe Meat Foundation will make a big song and dance about the need for safe meat - and will endorse their product.

And there are no if's or but's these days with situations like this - it will happen or they'll hire a new PR company to make it happen.

[DavidJames]

Thanks for posting that, it's good to see there is some honesty - and sanity on here - who the hell thinks its a good idea to lie about asbestos to win an argument? It's shocking. Somebody could have read that and thought that everything is OK - "Yeah asbestos in the roof Chuck? No problem it's safe in small quantities, I read it on the James Randi Educational Forum. Some joker claimed it was a health hazard - but they soon sorted him out ho ho ho."

It's back to the Dark Ages on here.

Here's the results of the USGS survey done at the WTC in the aftermath of the collapse ...

"Ground sampling consisted of collecting debris from 35 locations in the WTC area, including 33 dust, 2 concrete, and 2 steel beam insulation samples.

Optical photographs of a typical dust sample on the left (sample WTC01-27) and what appeared to be an insulation coating from a steel beam on the right (WTC01-8). The coating contains as much as 20% chrysotile asbestos. Scale bar is 10 millimeters."

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/

People who are new to this site should really consider carefully why information like this is being systematically dismissed on here by a certain group of posters who claim to speak for the forum itself. Corporate 'woo' is not challenged by them while they pretend that this is exactly what they do.

For a start they should read a book "Toxic Sludge is Good For You" by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton - all about how industry creates fake front groups that intend to represent public opinion but are in actuality just back channels for corporate PR. It's called Astroturfing (fake grass roots support) and explained briefly on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

But the book deals with it in much more detail and gives many real examples of its use in recent history.

In a nutshell the principle is this. A company will be producing unsafe meat for public consumption. They will finance a fake grassroots organisation - "The Safe Meat Foundation" which will look like an independant citizens group. The Safe Meat Foundation will make a big song and dance about the need for safe meat - and will endorse their product.

And there are no if's or but's these days with situations like this - it will happen or they'll hire a new PR company to make it happen.Another rambling, off topic post by the poster child for A.D.D. tin hatters.

[T.A.M.]

Thanks for posting that, it's good to see there is some honesty - and sanity on here - who the hell thinks its a good idea to lie about asbestos to win an argument? It's shocking. Somebody could have read that and thought that everything is OK - "Yeah asbestos in the roof Chuck? No problem it's safe in small quantities, I read it on the James Randi Educational Forum. Some joker claimed it was a health hazard - but they soon sorted him out ho ho ho."

It's back to the Dark Ages on here.

Here's the results of the USGS survey done at the WTC in the aftermath of the collapse ...

"Ground sampling consisted of collecting debris from 35 locations in the WTC area, including 33 dust, 2 concrete, and 2 steel beam insulation samples.

Optical photographs of a typical dust sample on the left (sample WTC01-27) and what appeared to be an insulation coating from a steel beam on the right (WTC01-8). The coating contains as much as 20% chrysotile asbestos. Scale bar is 10 millimeters."

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/

People who are new to this site should really consider carefully why information like this is being systematically dismissed on here by a certain group of posters who claim to speak for the forum itself. Corporate 'woo' is not challenged by them while they pretend that this is exactly what they do.

For a start they should read a book "Toxic Sludge is Good For You" by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton - all about how industry creates fake front groups that intend to represent public opinion but are in actuality just back channels for corporate PR. It's called Astroturfing (fake grass roots support) and explained briefly on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

But the book deals with it in much more detail and gives many real examples of its use in recent history.

In a nutshell the principle is this. A company will be producing unsafe meat for public consumption. They will finance a fake grassroots organisation - "The Safe Meat Foundation" which will look like an independant citizens group. The Safe Meat Foundation will make a big song and dance about the need for safe meat - and will endorse their product.

And there are no if's or but's these days with situations like this - it will happen or they'll hire a new PR company to make it happen.

Scooby, people here, despite your paranoid delusions, are not here to "promote" the official story. The official story is simply the story which has the most reliable (in our minds) evidence behind it. It is the story the majority of people in the world, as a whole (please dont quote those poll results again) believe, and many of them, despite what you think, are smarter than you and I.

What you hope to accomplish with your insults is beyond me. I guess you, like us, get angry at the opposite sides inability to see it like you...fair enough, but that will not change, so you, like us, are beating your head off a brick wall.

I for one do not doubt that the air down at GZ was hazzardous. One of the things I find most frustrating with "truthers" is their assumption that our opinions on other issues must fall in line with some Neocon agenda. My personal views on many issues, would fall way more democrat than conservative. That is where the CTers are wrong. Most here at JREF are not on some "down with the democrats, down with freedoms" agenda. Most here are simply of logical minds, and have as of yet been shown no credible evidence that proves USG direct involvement in carrying out 9/11. We aren't persuaded by "oh isnt that fishy" and "well thats pecular", it isnt nearly enough to make us change our minds. Give me concrete evidence or go home, simple as that.


TAM:)

[Gravy]

For a start they should read a book "Toxic Sludge is Good For You" by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton - all about how industry creates fake front groups that intend to represent public opinion but are in actuality just back channels for corporate PR. It's called Astroturfing (fake grass roots support) and explained briefly on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AstroturfingI own the book and have read it. "Astroturfing" has nothing to do with Ground Zero. Try to make your future arguments relevant to the topic.

[scooby]

I own the book and have read it. "Astroturfing" has nothing to do with Ground Zero. Try to make your future arguments relevant to the topic.

I'm not the one making ludicrous claims in this thread that could cause injury to the public. That you are taking your precious time to argue with me, and not them - I find very insightful.

[uk_dave]

scooby, have you ever looked for love on an internet dating site?

[LashL]

Scooby, once you learn to read for comprehension, your life will significantly improve. I suggest that you work on that, pronto.

[kookbreaker]

And then there's Craig Bartmer - do you by any chance know him?

Former NYPD Officer and 9/11 First Responder Craig Bartmer worked on the rescue operation at Ground Zero. He, like many others who worked to clean Ground Zero, has developed respiratory illnesses as a result of the toxic dust inhaled at the site. Also like many others who were physically affected by the attacks, Craig Bartmer is now combating Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In this interview he details his eyewitness account of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. He also speaks out against the official 9/11 story, the lies told by the EPA about the air quality at Ground Zero and the critical need for a fresh independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2283625397351664218

It's shocking how they covered up the problems with toxicity at ground zero and sent everybody in without the proper equipment, and as a result many have now died and many are dying of asbestosis and similar respiratory problems. No doubt this has been 'debunked'? Care to add your seal of approval and say it ain't so, oh friend of the first reponders?

One thing, to date, that I have not mentioned is that a good friend of mine is a Manhattan EPA agent who was one of the first responders on the site. Now, I'm not sure about this 'coverup' but I have severe doubts that he was part of it. He was on the job making certain the disaster wasn't made worse by the clean-up efforts. One fun bit for him was with the destroyed hotel's (WTC4?) dry cleaning supplies rescued without a spill. You might think that's nothing, but when you realise that Dry Cleaning Fluid is some of the most toxic crap used on every corner of this planet and makes asbestos spray look like pollen.

Anyway, he was onsite for his whole shift in the weeks after the collapse, wearing a jacket that said 'EPA'. Naturally, many workers would come up to him and ask him about the dangers of asbestos and anything else. He was very straightforward with them . HE mentioned the asbestos, but pointed out there were other dangers in that tower, such as the phosphors from perhaps thousands of flouescant lights, not to mention the ones in CRTs that were on every desk in every office. (CRT had other toxic properties). One thing he points out to this day is that he never removed his mask, even in discussion, wheras everyone who approached him had their mask hanging uselessly around their neck. Why did they do that? The discomfort? No, it was so they could smoke.

The EPA did some monitoring, and some claim now that they had no business issuing reports saying the air was comparitively safe. The EPA as an institution was in the hard position of having no evidence of dangerous air, being required to say _something_ and having the pressure of workers wanting to clean-up and the world's largest city saying they wanted to go home. One can be critical now, and there is room for _some_ criticism, certainly. But I wonder how such intellectual giants such as scooby would have handled the situation. He'd probably make a sock-puppet and try to have it make the decision.

[scooby]

One thing, to date, that I have not mentioned is that a good friend of mine is a Manhattan EPA agent who was one of the first responders on the site. Now, I'm not sure about this 'coverup' but I have severe doubts that he was part of it ...

Oh nobody's claiming that rank and file EPA employees were involved in any coverup - they did the job they were supposed to do. Christine Todd Whitman is the one responsible for the deaths since, and those to come, this was her statement ...

Statement by Christine Todd Whitman ...

As soon as the first plane hit the North Tower, EPA activated its emergency response personnel from its Regional office in lower Manhattan. Before anyone knew the tragic consequences of the attack, EPA's responders were headed to the site to monitor the cloud of smoke and dust.

EPA immediately dispatched monitoring teams to test the ambient air quality around the World Trade Center site (WTC) and as far away as Jersey City, New Jersey. On the first day, tests were taken for asbestos, lead and a class of chemicals associated with fires and fuel called volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In most instances on the first day, EPA did not detect the presence of these pollutants. In some instances, we found them in very low levels - - well below a level that would be considered a health threat.

EPA performed environmental sampling of debris, as well as air monitoring and air sampling in the work zone and support areas. This data was used to ensure that health and safety plans were implemented to minimize the exposure to hazardous chemicals of the responders doing the firefighting, search and rescue efforts and criminal investigations.

http://epw.senate.gov/107th/Whitman_092402.htm

Her statements in bold, were known to be untrue when she made them, apparently under duress from the Whitehouse - "Go Shopping" ...remember?

You might be interested in this speech by four of the first responders a few months ago, describing the conditions they worked in and the situation that they are in now, it's difficult listening in parts, what with all the wheezing ...

New York Stories: 9/11 First Responders
Guns & Butter, KPFA Radio, Berkeley, CA 94.1 FM
http://gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=142

And by the way - of course they were taking their masks off to smoke - they were told it was safe to do so by Christine Todd Whitman, and we were all told it was safe to smoke by the Tobacco industry for 50 years as well. The full death toll as a result of this is expected to exceed the number of people who died on the day.

[Gravy]

I'm not the one making ludicrous claims in this thread that could cause injury to the public. That you are taking your precious time to argue with me, and not them - I find very insightful.Thank you for finding me insightful. I appreciate it.

[WildCat]

scooby, have you ever looked for love on an internet dating site?
Actually, the more he posts the more convinced I am that scooby is not pdoh - but is in fact Stundie! The sentence structure, the improper use of words, the inability to comprehend what he reads, has Stundie all over it.

[Gravy]

And by the way - of course they were taking their masks off to smoke - they were told it was safe to do so by Christine Todd Whitman, and we were all told it was safe to smoke by the Tobacco industry for 50 years as well. The full death toll as a result of this is expected to exceed the number of people who died on the day.

Christine Todd Whitman told them it was safe to smoke? Can you point me to that statement?

And can you point me to any statement by any official in any department at any time that the respirator rule at Ground Zero was not in effect?

[scooby]

Christine Todd Whitman told them it was safe to smoke? Can you point me to that statement?

And can you point me to any statement by any official in any department at any time that the respirator rule at Ground Zero was not in effect?

Har har har, very good.

The respirator rule?

Is it your claim that each of the first responders was issued with a 'respirator'?

Paper masks most of them had.

[Gravy]

Actually, the more he posts the more convinced I am that scooby is not pdoh - but is in fact Stundie! The sentence structure, the improper use of words, the inability to comprehend what he reads, has Stundie all over it.I'm mostly familiar with Stundie's "Stundie"-nominated posts. I forget: Stundie is also a Brit, yes?

To me, scooby has come across like multiple p'doh socks: initially JAQ, then more and more bitter, angry, and full-on batcrap-crazy denier.

I see what you mean about the sentence structure and improper use of words, though.

scooby, we know that pdoherty76 claimed to have a maths degree, but his so-called university would not confirm that. Do you have a college or university degree? If so, in what area of study?

[Gravy]

Har har har, very good.

The respirator rule?

Is it your claim that each of the first responders was issued with a 'respirator'?

Paper masks most of them had.I am well-versed on this subject. Tell me, scooby, from what sources do you derive your information?

[A W Smith]

scooby, we know that pdoherty76 claimed to have a maths degree,

Did he get that degree at a university? Or from just repeatedly measuring something?
:dl:

[T.A.M.]

From measuring something...given how quickly that could be done, he would be the smartest Mathematician on the planet by now.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

Gentlemen!

[T.A.M.]

Whats this I wonder...

http://www.spazmataz.net/members/photos/gallery/view_photo.php?full=1&set_albumName=wtc-gallery1&id=AIRPLANE_ENGINE

I am sure it has been linked to, but it is the first time I have seen this particular photo.

TAM:)

Edit:

And this is the clearest photo of the plane hitting the second tower.

http://www.spazmataz.net/members/photos/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=wtc-gallery2&id=2087_G

[Gravy]

Whats this I wonder...

http://www.spazmataz.net/members/photos/gallery/view_photo.php?full=1&set_albumName=wtc-gallery1&id=AIRPLANE_ENGINE

I am sure it has been linked to, but it is the first time I have seen this particular photo.

That's the portion of the (probably starboard) engine from flight 175 that wound up at Church & Murray Streets, north of the WTC. The "Murray" sign was knocked down and in most photos is visible on the ground next to the engine. The engine's smoking, flaming trail is quite clear in the wide shots of the south tower fireball. Some people who were near the Woolworth building saw that smoke trail leading to the south tower and thought a missile had been fired at the tower. NIST estimates that the engine exited the north wall of the south tower at 155 mph (250 km/h).

Edit:
And this is the clearest photo of the plane hitting the second tower.

http://www.spazmataz.net/members/photos/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=wtc-gallery2&id=2087_GIn 2006, here's what Jason Bermas and Dylan Avery told a sizable audience in Oakland, California about flight 175 (from Loose Change Creators Speak):

Bermas: Well the evidence that the planes were not the ones they suggested they were is pretty evident. We don't have , we don't seem to have anything identifiable at the Pentagon. And the video of the second plane hitting the tower, all we see is the gray underside of the plane, which should be blue. On top of this, the Pentagon and the second WTC planes pulled high G-force maneuvers that did not seem possible anyway.

...I think the evidence is quite strong that they probably switched drone aircraft during war games, and hit the buildings with separate aircraft.

...Just the evidence that it's a totally gray plane, and it's supposed to have markings on it, and not one video on one of the clearest days ever in New York, after all that evidence, can show me that it's a... (to Avery) [I]what airline is it?

Avery (under his breath): United.

Bermas: A United Airlines plane, is pretty evident.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045fcaf5d6f97f.jpg

What hideous, hideous creeps.

[T.A.M.]

Hideous...agreed.

That blow up makes it even clearer. I mean unless they are going to claim the photo is a fake (which they likely will), I think this shot shows CONCLUSIVELY that a commercial Jet Airliner, likely United Airlines, hit the WTC.

TAM:)

[scooby]

scooby, we know that pdoherty76 claimed to have a maths degree, but his so-called university would not confirm that. Do you have a college or university degree? If so, in what area of study?

Are you by any chance making a poor attempt at eliciting personal information from me, and failing miserably?

[beachnut]

Are you by any chance making a poor attempt at eliciting personal information from me, and failing miserably?So are you incapable of answering simple questions, presenting simple facts, and making any headway in proving the 9/11 truth movement. All you have are lies. Why not tell us your educational background?

Transformers do blow up and make a big noise like an explosion. That is one of the most challenged sig quote ever, the sig of a challenged CTer.

Example!



LaPORTE -- American Renolit Corp. may need a week to restore full operations after a Tuesday night transformer explosion.
The series of blasts were caused by a short circuit on lines carrying more than 12,000 volts, said Tim Jones, maintenance supervisor at the plant.
Enough heat was produced by the short circuit to cause a melt down of the transformer and light up the sky for several blocks.
The explosions from the transformer went on for several minutes and triggered fires inside electrical boxes leading to the plant, a company official said. Nobody was injured, officials said.


How inexperienced are you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzbQjd_Oo4Q

Darn one with thermite a CTers dream http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHSBph71GX8

A double http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7cHgAVVNck

[kookbreaker]

Are you by any chance making a poor attempt at eliciting personal information from me, and failing miserably?

Testing the carbide bits this morning, are we?

[Mince]

I realize it was a typo and I just thought I would point it out so you can fix it, I wasn't rude in anyway (like you).


TAM made a typing error, but it was obvious what was meant. The obviously unintentional omission of the "d" did not alter the context, so no correction was needed. It is considered pretty rude and pedantic to correct such errors. Should I sieve all of your posts for such errors and correct them for you accordingly?

[WildCat]

Gentlemen!
Where? (looks around nervously)

[WildCat]

Hideous...agreed.

That blow up makes it even clearer. I mean unless they are going to claim the photo is a fake (which they likely will), I think this shot shows CONCLUSIVELY that a commercial Jet Airliner, likely United Airlines, hit the WTC.

TAM:)
Only complete idiots would claim that's not UA175.

Obviously the troofers will be unconvinced.

[gumboot]

...Just the evidence that it's a totally gray plane, and it's supposed to have markings on it, and not one video on one of the clearest days ever in New York, after all that evidence, can show me that it's a... (to Avery) what airline is it?

Avery (under his breath): United.

Bermas: A United Airlines plane, is pretty evident.


This little exchange says all you need to know about the Louder Than Words "filmmakers".

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

Have they seen this actual photo? What do the "no-planers" say about it? CGI? Fakery?

TAM:)

[DavidJames]

Are you by any chance making a poor attempt at eliciting personal information from me, and failing miserably?I don't think anyone hears give a crap who you are. What I'm curious about is the educational and work background of someone who's view of reality is so consistently wrong.

[A W Smith]

I think the fuel tanks would have made a louder explosion than the transformers being that they held fuel and not an oil like coolant.

[Gravy]

Are you by any chance making a poor attempt at eliciting personal information from me, and failing miserably?Many great things are accomplished by people without secondary or college schooling. I don't think Mr. Randi went to college. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

[scooby]

Only complete idiots would claim that's not UA175.

Obviously the troofers will be unconvinced.

Ahh it's Wildcat, one of the OCT's, a Bush twoofer - any luck with the source of the libel you've been disseminating against Prof Jones yet Wildcat?

Where ya been?

[RAMS]

I'm not the one making ludicrous claims in this thread that could cause injury to the public. That you are taking your precious time to argue with me, and not them - I find very insightful.

You are the one making ludicrous claims.

You have avoided my invite to respond 6 times now, to respond to the fact that the 'I' beams, angled cut, as pictured throughout this thread, were part of demolition 3 weeks after 911 day, at WTC-2. There were no explosives whatsoever used or found. You are in error.

I find this odd, no dfferent than the Art Bell-UFO bunch and that part of 'Strange' who categorically stated with 'proof' that mission STS-80 was rife with UFOs swirling around the orbiter (Space Shuttle in lay terms) while on orbit. And I use the conspiratories favorite fact source, none other than our beloved YouTube for a source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJyuQVIFdKo

There were no UFOs around the orbiter in STS-80 or any other mission. For STS-80 it is packing foil from the TDRS array in the pallet trunnion section of the orbiter's cargo bay, hold down pallet section 4. Nothing more or less. Fact.

I demand if you are to state as you do and have on this topic, you give equal time to the correction that you are categorically in error, and that is not subject to debate.

Again, I have provided contact information, phone numbers, email source, etc, at FDNY and First Responders for you and any other members of 'Strange' who wish to incorrectly espouse these 'I' Beams were blown with pentex, amithol, primacord, sodium pechlorate, thermite, thermex, etc, or any other explosive in some predetermined fashion with malice. That includes Mr. Steven Jones "Professor Boy", Dylan Avery at LC, you, or any other 'professional' within this 'conspiracy' realm..........

Repeating your odd question again, yes, I am taking to you. Categorically.

Respond now. Please admit you are in error.

Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC ®
NASA Fine Art Documentation Program
Vision Motion Dynamic-FX-FX
http://www.behold-the-rage.com

Have Jeep, Have Heart, Will Travel

[Without Rights]

LashL is correct about the use of asbestos in the towers. It was installed only on 38 floors of the north tower, and about half of that had been removed over the years as tenants moved in and out. There was no legal requirement to remove the rest, but new tenants generally insisted on its removal.

The asbestos in the WTC dust was still a potential hazard. The EPA did not properly sample it and did prematurely announce that the air in lower Manhattan was safe to breathe. Here are some WTC asbestos links.

Me on WTC asbestos abatement http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2122044&postcount=60

WTC Asbestos Abatement appeal: Port Auth NY & NJ v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co. WTC http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002/012513.pdf

ATSDR - Asbestos - World Trade Center Full Report http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/asbestos/asbestos/types_of_exposure/WTC_FullReport.html

Did the Ban on Asbestos Lead to Loss of Life? (Guy Tozzoli $ NYT 9/18/01) http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/18/science/physical/18ASBE.html?ex=1172379600&en=edb5e434a5f33a7c&ei=5070

NYC Dept. of Health Asbestos fact sheet http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/ei/eiasbest.shtml

OSHA asbestos sampling sector B2: WTC & NE http://osha.gov/nyc-disaster/b2.html

OSHA Asbestos Air Sampling Area Map - Lower Manhattan and World Trade Center http://osha.gov/nyc-disaster/map.html

She may be correct about only 38 floors being coated but she is not correct in saying that asbestos played a minor role in the contamination of the area.

[Without Rights]

TAM made a typing error, but it was obvious what was meant. The obviously unintentional omission of the "d" did not alter the context, so no correction was needed. It is considered pretty rude and pedantic to correct such errors. Should I sieve all of your posts for such errors and correct them for you accordingly?

Are you here to rescue him? I think we worked it out ourselves, thanks.

[MRC_Hans]

No I don't lie, I had a friend who was a Pipe Fitter Welder and every summer during university I would work for him for a couple of months. Now if I was the dishonest type, it would be the merest hop skip and jump to claim I was the one holding the torch, but no, I was the one holding the pipe and carrying stuff.

Yes, that could be true and obviously doesn't qualify you to make any kind of statments on what is possible anf what is not possible in welding. And, of course this was not done with a welding torch but by a cutter. The fact that you keep calling it the other, testifies to your lack of knowledge (or you are dishonestly trying to cloud the issue).

Ever heard of an "acetylene bomb" - a common prank in the industry?
It may be called something else in the states, but anyone who knows anything about welding will know what I'm talking about.

A prank? :eye-poppi Oh, you mean the expression? Yes I have heard about it. And the closest I have ever been to a welding operation is several yards away, so your knowledge of it hardly qualifies you for anything.

Instead, I suggest you provide some useful arguments against the excellent explanations provided here.

Hans

[RAMS]

Are you talking to me?

Categorically.

You are the one making ludicrous claims.

You have avoided my invite to respond 7 times now, to respond to the fact that the 'I' beams, angled cut, as pictured throughout this thread, were part of demolition 3 weeks after 911 day, at WTC-2. There were no explosives whatsoever used or found. You are in error.

I find this odd, no dfferent than the Art Bell-UFO bunch and that part of 'Strange' who categorically stated with 'proof' that mission STS-80 was rife with UFOs swirling around the orbiter (Space Shuttle in lay terms) while on orbit. And I use the conspiratories favorite fact source, none other than our beloved YouTube for a source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJyuQVIFdKo

There were no UFOs around the orbiter in STS-80 or any other mission. For STS-80 it is packing foil from the TDRS array in the pallet trunnion section of the orbiter's cargo bay, hold down pallet section 4. Nothing more or less. Fact.

I demand if you are to state as you do and have on this topic, you give equal time to the correction that you are categorically in error, and that is not subject to debate.

Again, I have provided contact information, phone numbers, email source, etc, at FDNY and First Responders for you and any other members of 'Strange' who wish to incorrectly espouse these 'I' Beams were blown with pentex, amithol, primacord, sodium pechlorate, thermite, thermex, etc, or any other explosive in some predetermined fashion with malice. That includes Mr. Steven Jones "Professor Boy", Dylan Avery at LC, you, or any other 'professional' within this 'conspiracy' realm..........

Repeating your odd question again, yes, I am taking to you. Categorically.

Respond now. Please admit you are in error.

Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC ®
NASA Fine Art Documentation Program
Vision Motion Dynamic-FX-FX
http://www.behold-the-rage.com

Have Jeep, Have Heart, Will Travel

[WildCat]

Ahh it's Wildcat, one of the OCT's, a Bush twoofer - any luck with the source of the libel you've been disseminating against Prof Jones yet Wildcat?

Where ya been?
What libel?

Are you a no-planer scooby?

[Horatius]

Are you by any chance making a poor attempt at eliciting personal information from me, and failing miserably?



As, yes Gravy you subtle bastid! Trying to "elicit" information from him by openly asking a question! You almost got him, but at the last second, he caught on to you!

I can only imagine what devious tactics you'll employ next - perhaps you'll quote what he just wrote, so people will see what he just wrote! Nobody will see that one coming!

[Belz...]

I can assume that a horizontal cut would be easier since it is a shorter cut. I can also assume that it would be pretty dumb to cut horizontal and leave the steel balancing on the lower section. I guess it boils down to common sense.

Uh oh. There's that "common sense" again.

Though science formally cannot establish absolute truth, it can provide overwhelming evidence in favor of certain ideas. Usually these ideas are quite unobvious, and often they clash with common sense. Common sense tells us that the earth is flat, that the Sun truly rises and sets, that the surface of the Earth is not spinning at over 1000 miles per hour, that bowling balls fall faster than marbles, that particles don't curve around corners like waves around a floating dock, that the continents don't move, and that objects heavier-than-air can't have sustained flight unless they can flap wings. However, science has been used to demonstrate that all these common sense ideas are wrong.

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

The cut was made by the cleanup crew, by the way.

Case closed.

[Belz...]

It is exactly the same as a demolition cut, to allow the beam to slip sideways rather than rest on the beam below.

Not so "exactly", as demo charges couldn't possibly create such a clean cut.

You will hear many claims on here that it was cut with welding torches during the cleanup by people who do not know this to be a fact yet will claim it is, but as you see, there doesn't seem to be much cleaning up done yet, and there is no noticeable method of access to the steel beam or a platform for somebody to stand on to cut it.

"Doesn't seem" ? That's your evidence ?

Additionally, you might want to ask yourself what the urgency was in getting into the rubble pile and cutting this steel beam, when the pile is still smoking and everyone else is standing around looking confused. It's got immediate aftermath written all over it.

"Yeah, you know what ? Let's just leave everything there. Huh ? No, no problem at all. No it's fine this way, really."

Also judging from the thickness of the beam, it looks to be several inches think, you might ask yourself why somebody with a welding torch would waste time cutting it at that angle when the quickest method would be used in a situation like this - a straight line - I think you have mentioned this.

"Sir, won't that beam tend to fall NOT in the direction we want it to if I cut straight ?? Nope ? You're sure ? Okay, here goes..."

In addition, do you consider yourself a skeptical person? I know I do

"Skeptical" seems to be a very vague term, these days. I don't buy into crap. That's what I am.

There seems to be some kind of secret exam that you must pass first, after which you don't have to be skeptical about anything anymore, all you need to do is sit back and take delight in making fun of people who think they are. Odd don't you think?

What is odd is the general lack of evidence in your posts. Ad hominems fly like leaves in the wind, but nothing else seems to.

[Belz...]

It's shocking how they covered up the problems with toxicity at ground zero and sent everybody in without the proper equipment, and as a result many have now died and many are dying of asbestosis and similar respiratory problems. No doubt this has been 'debunked'? Care to add your seal of approval and say it ain't so, oh friend of the first reponders?

Fascinating. What does this have to do with the steel beam, now ?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/608045fd3950b30f8.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4645) noted.

It's established fact that they lied about the toxicity of the ground zero site.
Everyone knows the place was full of asbestos - and knew at the time, it was no secret.

Huh ?

It's established fact that they lied about the toxicity of the ground zero site.

vs

Everyone knows the place was full of asbestos - and knew at the time, it was no secret.

Why is it suspicious, then ? And how does this relate to the beam ?

Thanks for posting that, it's good to see there is some honesty - and sanity on here

Is there anything that disagrees with you that you consider "honest" ?

Oh nobody's claiming that rank and file EPA employees were involved in any coverup

Did you read the rest of Kookbreaker's post ??

Paper masks most of them had.

"Faith in your new apprentice, misplaced may be."

[Belz...]

She may be correct about only 38 floors being coated but she is not correct in saying that asbestos played a minor role in the contamination of the area.

And you know this how ?

[Myriad]

I've been thinking about the rationale for the diagonal cuts, and I suspect there's more to it than just making sure the beam falls in the right direction.

Unfortunately I don't have any experience with cutting standing steel columns with a torch, so I have to try to extrapolate from something else I do have experience in: felling standing trees with a chainsaw.

The reason for the traditional series of cuts (a notch on one side of the tree, then a horizontal cut from the other side intersecting the upper angle of the notch) isn't just to get the tree to fall in the right direction -- though of course that's extremely important. It's also to manage the forces involved so that the weight and torque of the tree above the cut never squeezes the saw cut closed. Unless you do that, you can't make the cut at all.

If you try to cut a tree with a single horizontal cut, at some point (about two thirds of the way through, more or less), the entire weight of the upper tree will hinge on the uncut portion and start to bear down on the open cut with enormous force, pinching the bar of your saw, stalling the chain, and trapping the saw pretty much permanently (at least, until you can fell the tree above the trapped saw or pull it over with heavy equipment). There are also many ways that this event can cause injury.

Now, cutting a standing I-beam with a torch isn't quite the same. For one thing, a torch is never actually inside the cut the way a saw is. Also, an unloaded steel column can hold itself upright with a far smaller fraction remaining uncut than a tree can. However, as the cut nears completion, the same basic principle must apply. Once the uncut portion is too small to hold the column upright (and remember that the remaining steel is also getting hot, and therefore weaker, as the torch approaches), the weight and torque of the standing portion would act to force the cut closed, causing the cut to tend to weld itself back together instead of separating cleanly.

To counteract this, one could use the same multiple cuts as for a tree, but that would greatly increase the length of the cuts. (On the "notch" side of an I-beam column, you'd have to cut through the whole flange at two separate places). It would seem more practical to use a cable to provide extra force to keep the cut open, which has the additional advantage of helping to control the column's fall.

With a straight horizontal cut, keeping the cut open requires a force pulling upward on the column, or a strong pull to the side to provide an upward torque. With a diagonal cut, it takes less force pulling to the side to keep the cut open. (One way to see this intuitively is to consider if the cut were near vertical, then clearly almost no force would be required to keep the cut open. But of course a near-vertical cut would have to be very long to sever the column, and would leave an unsafe spear point behind). This makes a diagonal cut a very sensible option.

I hope someone with experience in this trade can check me on this.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Gravy]

Have they seen this actual photo? What do the "no-planers" say about it? CGI? Fakery?

TAM:)They have. The no-planers do say it's a fake. CurtC used the photo in his analysis (http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html) of the model of aircraft flight 175 was. I used it in "Loose Change Creators Speak," with the Bermas quotes above. No reply from the Loosers.

[T.A.M.]

I've been thinking about the rationale for the diagonal cuts, and I suspect there's more to it than just making sure the beam falls in the right direction.

Unfortunately I don't have any experience with cutting standing steel columns with a torch, so I have to try to extrapolate from something else I do have experience in: felling standing trees with a chainsaw.

The reason for the traditional series of cuts (a notch on one side of the tree, then a horizontal cut from the other side intersecting the upper angle of the notch) isn't just to get the tree to fall in the right direction -- though of course that's extremely important. It's also to manage the forces involved so that the weight and torque of the tree above the cut never squeezes the saw cut closed. Unless you do that, you can't make the cut at all.

If you try to cut a tree with a single horizontal cut, at some point (about two thirds of the way through, more or less), the entire weight of the upper tree will hinge on the uncut portion and start to bear down on the open cut with enormous force, pinching the bar of your saw, stalling the chain, and trapping the saw pretty much permanently (at least, until you can fell the tree above the trapped saw or pull it over with heavy equipment). There are also many ways that this event can cause injury.

Now, cutting a standing I-beam with a torch isn't quite the same. For one thing, a torch is never actually inside the cut the way a saw is. Also, an unloaded steel column can hold itself upright with a far smaller fraction remaining uncut than a tree can. However, as the cut nears completion, the same basic principle must apply. Once the uncut portion is too small to hold the column upright (and remember that the remaining steel is also getting hot, and therefore weaker, as the torch approaches), the weight and torque of the standing portion would act to force the cut closed, causing the cut to tend to weld itself back together instead of separating cleanly.

To counteract this, one could use the same multiple cuts as for a tree, but that would greatly increase the length of the cuts. (On the "notch" side of an I-beam column, you'd have to cut through the whole flange at two separate places). It would seem more practical to use a cable to provide extra force to keep the cut open, which has the additional advantage of helping to control the column's fall.

With a straight horizontal cut, keeping the cut open requires a force pulling upward on the column, or a strong pull to the side to provide an upward torque. With a diagonal cut, it takes less force pulling to the side to keep the cut open. (One way to see this intuitively is to consider if the cut were near vertical, then clearly almost no force would be required to keep the cut open. But of course a near-vertical cut would have to be very long to sever the column, and would leave an unsafe spear point behind). This makes a diagonal cut a very sensible option.

I hope someone with experience in this trade can check me on this.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I posted this same line of thought earlier in this thread, though I did not express it nearly as well. I think the issue is with regard to whether a torch suffers from the same effect of the top portion as a chainsaw does with a tree. I agree, with a tree, the effect of the top portion inhibiting the movement, and hence the cutting, by the chain saw is a major factor, but I am not sure this effect is considered in torch cutting.

They have. The no-planers do say it's a fake. CurtC used the photo in his analysis (http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html) of the model of aircraft flight 175 was. I used it in "Loose Change Creators Speak," with the Bermas quotes above. No reply from the Loosers.

Figures. Be nice to have an expert in photo analysis confirm the legitimacy of this photo...would go along way in terms of evidence against the no-planers.

TAM:)

[ktesibios]

I posted this same line of thought earlier in this thread, though I did not express it nearly as well. I think the issue is with regard to whether a torch suffers from the same effect of the top portion as a chainsaw does with a tree. I agree, with a tree, the effect of the top portion inhibiting the movement, and hence the cutting, by the chain saw is a major factor, but I am not sure this effect is considered in torch cutting.


It might also have to do with safety- controlling where the cut end goes so as to avoid the risk of the worker doing the cutting getting hit by the butt end of the cut column. Cutting on three sides, bending the column down and then making the final cut from above through the inside face so that the butt falls down and away from the torch operator comes to mind.

I've been hunting for photos of the cleanup that might illustrate how standing columns were dealt with, but had no luck so far. Input from an ironworker with experience in demolition would be really helpful.

[RAMS]

Do you know who took the photo, and what date it was taken on?

Yes. I do. It was taken on October 4, 2001, by members of FDNY. It is in their collection archive. It is among 9,800 other documenting type photos of 911.

RAMS