• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ground level steel beam

Without Rights

Muse
Without Rights
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
928
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?
 
Last edited:
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:)
 
T.A.M. said:
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:)
Click to expand...

"Ad nauseam"

The horizontal cut isn't quicker and easier, it actually allows the steel to fall in an intended direction.
 
Last edited:
Without Rights said:
"Ad nauseum"

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

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

TAM
 
T.A.M. said:
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:)
Click to expand...

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.
 
T.A.M. said:
You have proof a horizontal cut is easier than a diagonal one?

TAM
Click to expand...
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.
 
Without Rights said:
[qimg]http://://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4623%27%20border=0%3E%3Cimg%20src=%27http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1501745fadae0c1e1b.jpg[/qimg]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?
Click to expand...
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 .
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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:)
 
Miss Anthrope said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't know if it has been discussed is all. Call off the attack dogs.
 
Without Rights said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:)
 
T.A.M. said:
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:)
Click to expand...
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.
 
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:)
 
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
 
Without Rights said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Miss Anthrope said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom