Ground level steel beam

[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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/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/s...tml?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? 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 ?

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 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 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