Why don’t Ground Zero photos show LOTS of angled cuts?

[Poetry Hound]

We’ve all seen those photos of the angled cuts that truthers claim were caused by thermite cutter charges. Aside from the fact that these cuts are only found on still standing columns at or near ground level where the ironworkers were taking down the remaining standing columns, if thermite was used, shouldn’t we see these cuts on lots of the steel columns we see scattered around in the GZ photos? Presumably, there would be thousands of these cuts and we’d see them on lots and lots steel pieces before the pieces were removed.

Likewise, with explosives, is examining residues under a microscope the only way to determine if the steel experienced an explosive blast? Wouldn’t explosives that violently dislodged steel columns from whatever they were attached to leave some obvious damage? Wouldn’t the column ends be mangled or would that be masked by the damage sustained during the collapses? In the photos I’ve seen, the ends of the columns look nearly pristine, as if the bolts and other connectors were simply sheared off by the collapses and not blown apart by explosives.

Sorry if this has already been covered before.

 

[MarkLindeman]

My "meta" observation is that you seem to be trying to specify "truther" explanatory hypotheses and test them against observational data. The central tendency of 9/11 Truth is to avoid that: to call for a vaguely specified "investigation" that, conveniently, truthers cannot conduct themselves.

Soooo, competent truthers will avoid hanging their hats on angled cuts. They may insist, if pressed, that you are reading far too much into a fragmentary photographic record -- and isn't that just like a debunker, to offer specious rebuttals of strawman arguments?

Similarly for your second paragraph. (ETA: I would construe these reactions as implying that your points are pretty good -- and so the best response is to insist that they are unimportant. In general, the point of trutherism is to unexplain things.)

The best truther line on thermite seems to be that an Unrebutted Scientific Paper proves that it is in the dust, that there is no innocent explanation for that, and that it isn't up to truthers to find the correct non-innocent explanation. It is somewhat like arguing that some photograph proves the existence of Nessie: once people really buy in, they are unlikely to change their minds, despite both direct critiques (after close inspection, the paper/photo is inherently unconvincing) and indirect critiques (the thermite/Nessie hypothesis creates puzzles instead of solving puzzles).

 

[beachnut]

We’ve all seen those photos of the angled cuts that truthers claim were caused by thermite cutter charges. ...

Likewise, with explosives, is examining residues under a microscope the only way to determine if the steel experienced an explosive blast? Wouldn’t explosives that violently dislodged steel columns from whatever they were attached to leave some obvious damage? ...
Sorry if this has already been covered before.

We can't see cuts until they are made during clean up.

Jones used this photo, at one time, as proof of thermite used to destroy the WTC.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...TuUQUqXmE-mpyAHMiYAw&ved=0CE4Q9QEwBg&dur=1059
How gullible are 911 truth followers. Smart 911 truth followers can figure out they made a mistake in days, weeks or months; like passengers on Flight 93, who figured out 911 in minutes.

Like this cut of WTC, clean up... http://www.google.com/imgres?safe=o...tbnh=160&tbnw=211&start=0&ndsp=15&tx=96&ty=78

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm


No evidence of thermite on WTC steel, and no blast effects. No CD.

They can't grasp 19 terrorists taking planes by killing crew in seconds, they can't grasp reality.

Where is the thermite for Flight 93, and 77? How does fantasy of thermite at the WTC fit with flights 77 and 93? Do they have a story? Where were they on the day the teacher taught cause and effect in first grade?


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2975088

use google with this to search randi.org ... angled cuts site:randi.org
angled cuts site:randi.org
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2975088#64

 

[Redwood]

Likewise, with explosives, is examining residues under a microscope the only way to determine if the steel experienced an explosive blast? Wouldn’t explosives that violently dislodged steel columns from whatever they were attached to leave some obvious damage? Wouldn’t the column ends be mangled or would that be masked by the damage sustained during the collapses? In the photos I’ve seen, the ends of the columns look nearly pristine, as if the bolts and other connectors were simply sheared off by the collapses and not blown apart by explosives.

Sorry if this has already been covered before.

No, you must understand that damage from high explosives is actually so subtle that only trained experts with years of experience can detect it. That's why the Vast Conspiracy rushed all the steel off to China. There's nobody in China smart enough to detect it.

Either that, or the Conspiracy put itself at the mercy of the Chinese. Or maybe the Chinese were key players in the Conspiracy. You know, all those Zionists and Neocons over there.

 

[BStrong]

We’ve all seen those photos of the angled cuts that truthers claim were caused by thermite cutter charges. Aside from the fact that these cuts are only found on still standing columns at or near ground level where the ironworkers were taking down the remaining standing columns, if thermite was used, shouldn’t we see these cuts on lots of the steel columns we see scattered around in the GZ photos? Presumably, there would be thousands of these cuts and we’d see them on lots and lots steel pieces before the pieces were removed.

Likewise, with explosives, is examining residues under a microscope the only way to determine if the steel experienced an explosive blast? Wouldn’t explosives that violently dislodged steel columns from whatever they were attached to leave some obvious damage? Wouldn’t the column ends be mangled or would that be masked by the damage sustained during the collapses? In the photos I’ve seen, the ends of the columns look nearly pristine, as if the bolts and other connectors were simply sheared off by the collapses and not blown apart by explosives.

Sorry if this has already been covered before.

To test for explosive residue, you can start with a simple wipe test for nitrates, if it shows positive, you can start looking for the detection taggants that have been required to be included in USA produced high explosives since the early 90's - not because only commercial produced exord is the only stuff available, but if you come back negative for taggants, you rule out the commercial product.

 

[ozeco41]

....with explosives, is examining residues under a microscope the only way to determine if the steel experienced an explosive blast? Wouldn’t explosives that violently dislodged steel columns from whatever they were attached to leave some obvious damage?..

There is no purpose in conducting chemical or microscopic tests in the setting of WTC 9/11. If explosives had been used in the quantities needed to cause CD the evidence would have been readily observable to gross visual examination.

The place where chemical and or microscopic examination is appropriate is when there is doubt about whether or not explosives were used. The chemical evidence can rule in OR rule out presence and use of explosives.

There was no such need at WTC on 9/11. There was never grounds for suspecting CD, no gross evidence either before during or after the event. CD was never "in" to need to be ruled "out".

Hence this neat parody by Redwood:

No, you must understand that damage from high explosives is actually so subtle that only trained experts with years of experience can detect it. That's why the Vast Conspiracy rushed all the steel off to China. There's nobody in China smart enough to detect it.

BStrong is correct as to the sort of test which could be applied -- where such testing would serve a useful purpose.

To test for explosive residue, you can start with a simple wipe test for nitrates, if it shows positive, you can start looking for the detection taggants that have been required to be included in USA produced high explosives since the early 90's - not because only commercial produced exord is the only stuff available, but if you come back negative for taggants, you rule out the commercial product.

Yes -- but not needed at WTC after 9/11 despite all the truther nonsense.

 

[JSanderO]

...

There was no such need at WTC on 9/11. There was never grounds for suspecting CD, no gross evidence either before during or after the event. CD was never "in" to need to be ruled "out".

I spent some time reading the comments of strong truth supporters about a conference in DC which I believe will focus on the Pentagon event. In the course of that discussion a number of people commented that there was no doubt that the buildings were CD and it's plain to see in the videos... implying that even a detailed study of the visuals was unnecessary. A lot of confidence expressed in this approach.

I have to admit that looking at the vids of the twins coming down it is self evident what was going on. Clearly there was a gravitational collapse... at least partially without doubt. There is evidence over-pressure causing materials to be ejected out of the window openings. An expert might be able to look at those ejections and determine if they were cause by explosives or not. I don't see how an amateur could be so confident that they are explosives signs.

Knowing the design it is not hard to visualize the collapse we see as gravity driven without involving the columns. That is except to get the top section mass driving down through the floor system as described by ROOSD. The mystery is what kicked it off? And how did entire set of columns lose strength releasing the floors above it? We can't actually see it if it was in the core.

This has allowed Tony to assert his fantasy as fact conveniently ignoring what he wants, and using the data he wants... making declaration that heat could not weaken the frame (insufficient) or result in lateral movement. He's been shown to be wrong. But seems to ignore contradictory evidence.

Of course 99.999% of the truthers don't even bother to drill into the technical discussions. JREF is poison full of gov loyalists and spawning dis info agents. Changing one's mind is the sign of being gotten to. These people appear to be living in a truther bubble... not even a shadow of doubt in their mind. It's interesting to see how they've connected all the dots in the CT narrative... and it somewhat easy to see how people could fall right in with it.

When the intelligent people... and many of them are... are confronted with another view or inconvenient facts to their belief they simply reject it as dis information and retreat into the arms of their chosen experts... who, aside from Tony don't really try to even debate the issue. How few debates have there been in the last 12 years compared to all the repetition of the same old stuff?

It's virtually impossible to have a discussion/debate built on objective facts that are stipulated to... such as what the ejections were caused by or represent.

 

[beachnut]

... When the intelligent people... and many of them are... are confronted with another view or inconvenient facts to their belief they simply reject it as dis information and retreat into the arms of their chosen experts... ... .

..., intelligent people check it out and get the facts. Intelligent people check out things before they sign up to support lies and fantasy. Kind of makes 911 truth intelligent, cult members in a faith based anti-intellectual industry of woo.

JREF is poison full of gov loyalists and spawning dis info agents.

To the Intelligent truthers? lol

We’ve all seen those photos of the angled cuts that truthers claim were caused by thermite cutter charges.

It was proof Jones was in a woo land when he used the angled cuts as his proof of CD in his first papers. Cut made during clean up became the stuff of woo, used to fool people to join idiots like Gage and other failed 911 truth delusional groups of "intelligent" people who don't realize they are evidence free.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

We’ve all seen those photos of the angled cuts that truthers claim were caused by thermite cutter charges. Aside from the fact that these cuts are only found on still standing columns at or near ground level where the ironworkers were taking down the remaining standing columns, if thermite was used, shouldn’t we see these cuts on lots of the steel columns we see scattered around in the GZ photos? Presumably, there would be thousands of these cuts and we’d see them on lots and lots steel pieces before the pieces were removed.

And why are the kerf marks identical to a 00 (or similar) cutting tip?

And how did those ebil plotters make the slag, easily removed by a file or chipping hammer, stay on the cuts as hundreds of tons of steel crashed down to the ground?

And why??

 

[Porkpie Hat]

It's a fallacy that no testing was done. Not specifically for explosives but there were many PMI (positive material identification) tests conducted on WTC steel. Any results that didn't yield expected results would raise red flags for the technician conducting the tests.

 

[BasqueArch]

It's a fallacy that no testing was done. Not specifically for explosives but there were many PMI (positive material identification) tests conducted on WTC steel. Any results that didn't yield expected results would raise red flags for the technician conducting the tests.

There were many dog teams trained in survivor and explosives detection used immediately after the collapses. One of the owners is on record - no explosives detected. It's here in JREF somewhere. Also distinctive explosives cracks are unmistakable from other loud sounds. Truthers can't help it, they suffer from conspiracy ideasthesia.

 

[ozeco41]

...And how did those ebil plotters make the slag, easily removed by a file or chipping hammer, stay on the cuts as hundreds of tons of steel crashed down to the ground?...

2013 and I had never spotted that one.


Well picked!

 

[Porkpie Hat]

There were many dog teams trained in survivor and explosives detection used immediately after the collapses. One of the owners is on record - no explosives detected. It's here in JREF somewhere. Also distinctive explosives cracks are unmistakable from other loud sounds. Truthers can't help it, they suffer from conspiracy ideasthesia.

I remember reading about the search and rescue dogs and wondered if even Rover was "in on it"!

 

[Porkpie Hat]

[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif[/qimg]

2013 and I had never spotted that one.


Well picked!
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif[/qimg]

Obviously we all filter information through our individual experiences.

Years working in oilfield fabrication made the issue of the still present slag an obvious clue that those cuts were made post collapse.

 

[ozeco41]

Obviously we all filter information through our individual experiences.

Years working in oilfield fabrication made the issue of the still present slag an obvious clue that those cuts were made post collapse.

Sure. To me it was so obviously post collapse cutting that I never even bothered thinking abut it --- so the "slag still in place" never entered my thinking.

 

[Poetry Hound]

There is no purpose in conducting chemical or microscopic tests in the setting of WTC 9/11. If explosives had been used in the quantities needed to cause CD the evidence would have been readily observable to gross visual examination.

Thanks for this and the other answers.

If truthers had a good strategy, they would stay away from that angled cut claim because there are relatively few columns with those cuts on them. How come thousands of other columns seen strewn about at Ground Zero don't have those cuts? I've asked them and they either run away and change the subject or they give the standard truther response: "You're a shill."

Instead of claiming angled cuts, the truthers should claim the thermite charges cut the bolts and connectors, not the columns. That way, there would be no evidence of thermite usage on the columns, which would be consistent with truthers' sneaky demolition theory:

No synchronized 130 db detonation charges + no synchronized detonation flashes + no trace of det charges in the seismic record + no detritus of blasting caps, etc. in the debris + no sign of any demo crews = sneaky demolition.

The sneaky demolition theory contradicts the truthers who say the collapses were "obvious" demolitions. But that's not a problem in trutherland, where things can be simultaneously obvious and sneaky.

 

[Robrob]

The sneaky demolition theory contradicts the truthers who say the collapses were "obvious" demolitions. But that's not a problem in trutherland, where things can be simultaneously obvious and sneaky.

Not to mention, the needlessness of demolitions in the first place. If the intent was to go to war hijacking and murdering hundreds in a fiery crash would have accomplished the same thing without the extreme chance of being found out. Of course having a few Iraqis in the plot would have helped as well.

Of course, if the "real" plan was to demolish the WTC (insert convoluted CT here), it would have been much smarter to simply place explosives openly in the garage under the WTC - like they did the last time.

What kind of a retarded CIA ninja rigs entire twin towers with explosives then runs planes into them as a cover-up?

 

[ozeco41]

Thanks for this and the other answers.

No problem.

...If truthers had a good strategy, they would stay away from that angled cut claim because there are relatively few columns with those cuts on them. How come thousands of other columns seen strewn about at Ground Zero don't have those cuts?

Plus:
1) the cuts were near ground level - and the collapse started nearly 1000 feet higher;
2) (several other aspects fatal to truther claims....fill in to taste)

I've asked them and they either run away and change the subject or they give the standard truther response: "You're a shill."

Remember that most truthers simply cannot think through a complex multi-issue scenario. For many that is probably why they are truthers -- "I cannot understand it therefore no one else could possible understand it!!!"

...The sneaky demolition theory contradicts the truthers who say the collapses were "obvious" demolitions. But that's not a problem in trutherland, where things can be simultaneously obvious and sneaky.

That is another aspect of the "cannot think" issue. There is no concern about consistency for a person who cannot think about two or three things at once. Let alone the dozens of key factors which must be consistent and properly related to explain WTC collapse - and that is true whether or not there was a CD component.

CD does not make the problem easier - it adds to the complication.

Fortunately there was no CD.

 

[Robrob]

CD does not make the problem easier - it adds to the complication.

^ This.