• 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.

AE911Truth Watch

It does NOT disprove the possibility that the column was cut using Thermite.


It's not anyones job or responsibility to disprove that possibility. It's the job of those who believe it was cut with thermite that to actually prove that it was.

What is it about the burden of proof that is so mind bogglingly difficult for your guys to comprehend?
 
Last edited:
IYO

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/8456/cut2bi7.jpg

Not staged; wrong again. They cut off the 3 inches of wallboard and then started to cut.
The slag is on the back side of a cut. [see first picture in my post] This is the back side of a cut.

There is no thermite that cuts horizontally, it works vertically. If you use the thermite cutting device, you would have hundreds of them after the collapse found in the pile!
Are you an expert on demo techniques and devices?
Are you saying Thremite is not used in demolition?
 
It's not anyones job or responsibility to disprove that possibility. It's the job of those who believe it was cut with thermite that to actually prove that it was.

What is it about the burden of proof that is so mind bogglingly difficult for your guys to comprehend?
Ask yourself that question.
You have no proof that it was cut after the collapse.

It would be impossible to get a cherry picker in there for a cutter to cut that column.
Do you think someone used a ladder?
Do you think they would let something that heavy just fall?
Where is the piece that was cut off?
They would need a crane to move it so why not pick it up as it's being cut?
That would be a lot safer for the cutter.
It would also make the 45º angle cut unnecessary.

 
What if the column you're talking about is leaning forward, with the top closer to the photographer than the base, similar to the column to its right in the above photograph, of which we have a side view? In that case, cutting straight across would be the least amount of cutting and also produce the desired effect of being able to direct the fall of the upper portion.

Also, you can continue to ignore that controlled demolition style "implosions", which employ explosives, make very distinct and extremely loud noises for as long and as blatantly as you wish, but their absence from any recording of building 7's collapse continues to destroy the argument put forth by you, Richard Gage, or anyone else who choses to make it.
 
Last edited:
According to Implosion World the record for the tallest building brought down by explosive demolition is 439 feet. WTC 7 was 570 feet. <~ I can't post link due to low post count. Google Implosionworld

Save for the Twin Towers, Building 7 was a worthy attempt to smash the record. I'm still trying to grasp how they did it. I just cannot find enough information on silent fireproof explosives. :boggled:
 
I'd like to see peole start using the proper term explosive demolition instead of the more general controlled demolition. I have participated in a couple of controlled demolitions and we used no explosives to tear down those houses.
 
C7: If the beam had been cut on three sides, allowed to fall, and then the final side was cut, the beam would look just like that.
 
Ask yourself that question.
You have no proof that it was cut after the collapse.

It would be impossible to get a cherry picker in there for a cutter to cut that column.
Do you think someone used a ladder?
Do you think they would let something that heavy just fall?
Where is the piece that was cut off?
They would need a crane to move it so why not pick it up as it's being cut?
That would be a lot safer for the cutter.
It would also make the 45º angle cut unnecessary.

So you have decided to go completely fantasyland now. Where is the device to make the thermite cut sideways in a world of gravity? Funny stuff. Not very good questions, just move on to the goal post next set and get it over. Why does 9/11 truth make up stuff about clean up cuts clearly debunked by visual evidence, and why do you lack the evidence and research to even try to back up your false ideas?
 
Last edited:
First, Christopher, you asked about the origin of the photo itself. It was taken by Sam Hollenshead:

In 2001, Sam Hollenshead was a staff photographer for Labor Research Associates.

For example, if you search the articles from the union site workinglife.org, you will find a lot of examples of his work.

http://wbff.org/films/detail.asp?fid=664

Sam Hollenshead worked as a photographer from 2001-2003 documenting union labor throughout NYC. In 2004 his photographs of the rebuilding of subway infrastructure at the World Trade Center site were exhibited at the Museum of the City of New York.


http://www.samhollenshead.com/bio01.html

After 9/11, he documented workers at the World Trade Center site clearing debris and rebuilding damaged subway lines. Images from this project were published in the New York Times Magazine and displayed at the Museum of the City of New York in a group show with Magnum photographer, Bruce Davidson and MacArthur fellowship recipient, Camillo Jose Vergara. A solo exhibition of his subway photographs is currently on display at the New York City Transit Museum until December 2006.


http://www.samhollenshead.com/escontacts/wtccontact.htm...


http://www.lraphotography.com/essays/sep11/essay_wtc.ph...

When historians sit down to write about September 11th and its aftermath, they will have to reserve a page of History for the workers at ground zero whose tireless efforts saved lives and helped New York City rebuild itself. Here is the story of workers at ground zero. Photography by Sam Hollenshead.

Here is the sequence of photos taken by Mr. Hollenshead showing steelworkers engaged in the cleanup. Please not the presence of your favorite photo in the sequence:

wtc.g0.b2.2.jpg


wtc.g0.b2.3.jpg


wtc.g0.b2.4.jpg


wtc.g0.b3.1.jpg


wtc.g0.b3.2.jpg


wtc.g0.b3.3.jpg


Hollenshead was there to document the efforts of union steelworkers. That's what he was doing for a living at the time. That's why, if you know anything about the photographer and why the picture was taken, that it was relevant to all of the other pictures Mr. Hollenshead took of guys with torches cutting stuff.

I wrote to Mr. Hollenshead about that picture specifically, and he said:

"i do recall that the photo of the firefighters was taken almost a month after 9/11 and the cut beam in the background was almost certainly cut by a worker, not the result of 'intentional demolition.'"

That's why it has the date that you asked about.

Gage and Jones still use this photograph as evidence of CD, and their lack of investigation into it is, to me, convincing evidence of their intellectual bankruptcy.

In order to have slag run down the outside of the box, the cutter would have to be inside the box

So, how do you suppose someone put thermite inside of a box beam, to make that happen.

But, in fact, yes, you do want to cut a box beam from the inside out. You do this by making a hole large enough to get an angle-tipped torch in there.

Why? So, you can be sure you are cutting all of the way through.

If you take a look at the box column with the strap on it, discussed above, you can see that there is a large hole in the facing side. Waddya suppose that hole is for?
 
Late to this discussion, but has the term "implosion" been agreed upon for purposes of this thread?

In my work-a-day world, I tend to think of "implosions" as materials failures that occur in systems under vacuum.

I also tend toward the belief that every implosion ultimately can become an explosion (for certain values of vacuum, etc.)

Just curious.

Sorry if this is off topic/derail.

My recollection of the first time I heard the word implosion was more years ago than I care to remember. It described what happened to a television CRT when it was broken, i.e. the opposite of explosion.

Dave
 
Gage and Jones still use this photograph as evidence of CD, and their lack of investigation into it is, to me, convincing evidence of their intellectual bankruptcy.
Stephen Jones was a professor of physics at a very conservative university for 20 years. He has 2 PhD's.
Richard Gage has been an architect for 20 years.
They became involved with the "Truth Movement" after seeing some of the evidence.
Based on further investigation and their expertise, they have determined that the Tread Towers and building 7 could not have fallen the way they did without explosives.

You have NO evidence that the core column was cut after the collapse.
All you have is suggestion and supposition.
Yet you say Stephen and Richard are "intellectually bankrupt".

You [all] say this kind of thing about anybody, no matter how qualified,
who says the official story is BS.

By engaging in relentless adolescent insults, you only expose your own intellectual bankruptcy.
 
How about a working platform supported from a crane?
Dave
It would be impossible to get a working platform in amongst the surrounding debris, and why bother trying?
It would be easier to cut the column at chest level or higher up from a working platform suspended from a crane.
 
How about a working platform supported from a crane?

Dave

It would be impossible to get a working platform in amongst the surrounding debris, and why bother trying?
It would be easier to cut the column at chest level or higher up from a working platform suspended from a crane.


Did you read what you just wrote?

And what about the video I posted to this thread (twice) of a worker on the cleanup pointing out columns cut at an angle.....by people doing the cleanup.
 

Back
Top Bottom