Explosive shear on the left, torch cut on the right
sheared columns.
Your left pic is not explosive shear (or not just explosive shear). Have any proof that it is?
Examples of a cutting charge:
Shaped charges placed on steel plate--Very rough edges, as is expected. Also, blast marks clearly visible.
Industrial explosive cutting set up, using shaped explosives and a "cuting frame"--again, notice roughness of edges and blast pattern.
You'll see this in explosive cuts, not the nice smooth edges you showed. If that was cut with explosives, it was ground and finished afterwards.
Again, you are blatantly misrepresenting these images to further your agenda...you aren't interested in truth.
wtf, I wish people read before they post. My site deals with most of what you say, which is correct, except fo the denial. There were extreme shape charges built into the floors around the columns. After a few years of looking at thsoe square cut ends. Too clean, as you say, for any previously known salvage operation, I realized that the documentary in 1990 had a few relative words.
Do you have any evidence, or is this more speculation?
Explosive built into the building would have become highly unreliable by 2001 (modern C-4 has a shelf life of 10 years under good conditions). Not to mention that trying to get charges, on a sequenced timer, and set it so you cut the steel and demolish the concrete core, along with everything else, is just plain idiotic. There's no way to hide the wires or tubes you'd have to have installed for the system, or the switches, junctions, and other equipment. It'd run throughout the building. The first time electricians go to rewire an office (or the first time network cabling was run through the building), they'd find these wires.
Here is an approximate diagram of the
cutting charges built into every other floor. Based on the last 10 minutes of the 1990 documentary and their details on the floor finishing details on behalf of the public OVER expenditure on the tower construction. PBS producers trying to show that the coasts were justified. The videographers found that tempered steel plates had a 0.035 inch clearance to the interior box columns that surrounded the concrete core. The PA was upset and said the documents they had sourced from a sub contractor 20 years after the construction was still considered confidential.
I don't need your diagram, I want to know what you based it on. So far, it's just your opinion. Which, with 50 cents added, will buy me a cup of coffee.
Provide a source for that? "A PBS documentary" is not a source. Dates, show name, air times, anything?
Steven Jones refers to them as
cutting charges and they will perform leaving an edge as smooth as that which guides the plane of high presure gasses.
Stephen Jones also thinks thermite is a high explosive and contains sulfur. He's a physicist, not an explosives expert.
These
columns sheared level were not done so by men cutting off the tops of piles of tangles steel. The green arrows are a level, square cut row of interior box column tops. The yellow are the salvage cuts you describe. Not core columns. Elevator landing supports or other mechanical equipment, yes.
I'll speak slowly, with small words...
HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH ONES WERE EXPLOSIVE SHEAR AND WHICH WERE NOT?
None of them appear to be explosive shear, sorry. There's no blast patterns, and the edges are too smooth.
Whatta' mean? I'm kicking your ass in this intellectual battle and you DO know what you are talking about with high explosives, but you don't know the WTC and cannot explain any of what happened without the exact same logic I use. Tell rummy to send some one not afraid of the truth.
Um, which intellectual battle are you watching?
You've provided baseless speculation and false photographs.
You provided no evidence that any of the photographs you presented are examples of explosive shear (beyond your opinion).
You provided no evidence of high explosives used at WTC (residue, detonators, etc), again except for your opinion.
You provided no evidence of explosively cut columns, except your opinion.
You provided no evidence of a concrete core, except your interpretation of a very unclear photo that is directly contradicted by other video and photographic evidence (i.e.-tapes of the collapse that do NOT show your "concrete core" standing).
And I can explain what happened without your logic. Your logic is nothing of the sort, it's your opinion and a lot of speculation and conjecture.
I notice you did not use any evidence, your post used reasonable knowledge, but was inadequate to provide criticism. READ.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
No. Your site is, I'm afraid, not an unbiased source. I;ve asked specific questions, you should be able to point me to reliable sources to support your assertions.
Of course, you're more interested in the attention you recieve by spreading your slander, and get to feel good because you can pretend to be doing more than others who actually do have the intestinal fortitude to get up off the couch and do something about what they believe in.
So, do you have any evidence? Or just more conjecture?
