Ground level steel beam

[Without Rights]

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]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

"Ad nauseam"

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

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

"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]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

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]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

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]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

http://://forums.randi.org/vbimghost...adae0c1e1b.jpgwww.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]

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

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]

Originally Posted by Miss Anthrope

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]

Originally Posted by beachnut

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]

Originally Posted by 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

Well then, I call truce.

I did not mean to offend you.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

"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.]

Originally Posted by Jennie C.

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]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

http://://forums.randi.org/vbimghost...adae0c1e1b.jpgwww.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]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

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]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

http://://forums.randi.org/vbimghost...adae0c1e1b.jpgwww.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 ...



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?...90071483512003

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Robert

[Miss Anthrope]

Originally Posted by scooby

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/...1/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?...90071483512003

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by scooby

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/...1/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?...90071483512003

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by RAMS

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?