• 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

Christopher7 said:
Really?
What makes you so sure?
You have no proof that this cut was made with an acetylene cutting torch.

cut3ol5.jpg
Click to expand...
Wrong again. Pushing lies like this pretty much expose you as a no evidence guy.

You need to work with people who do welding and cutting. Experience and knowledge are useful if you want to try to push lies so you can do a better job. At least 9/11 truth is no better than your attempted false information excursion.

If you are trying to say this was cut by thermite to bring down the WTC, you are making up stuff or just telling a lie. Which is it?
 
Last edited:
Oh look - he threw a "thermite residue" tag on it! That changes everything.

Chris - why not just resolve this entire debate by asking some Ground Zero workers whether that cut looks like their work?

Are you afraid of their answer?
 
beachnut said:
Wrong again. Pushing lies like this pretty much expose you as a no evidence guy.
Click to expand...
Excuse me.
Where is the lie?

1) The slag is on the out side of the cut at the bottom

cut3ol5.jpg


2) the slag is on the back side of an acetylene cut.

acetylenecut2em3.jpg




 
beachnut said:
The lie is 9/11 truth. Such an easy question...
Click to expand...
The lie is truth.

How terribly Orwellian.

ETA: So, you don't think

The slag is on the out side of the cut at the bottom
and
the slag is on the back side of an acetylene cut.

are lies?
 
Last edited:
I don't think they are.

Don't you agree that an explanation for such a thing which uses tools and methods which are known to us already and may be demonstrated to be possible is a much more likely scenario than one which uses unknown tools and methods and has never been, and possibly cannot be, demonstrated to work?

If you're going to champion the less likely explanation, it's incumbent upon you to provide some evidence that your solution is possible, even if it is unlikely.
 
So that one column was cut by therm?te, at the bottom of the Tower either right before or during collapse, and no clean-up worker noticed?
 
Minadin said:
If you're going to champion the less likely explanation, it's incumbent upon you to provide some evidence that your solution is possible, even if it is unlikely.
Click to expand...


BINGO!!
And that's the crux of the issue right there.
Well done Minadin.
 
Last edited:
Minadin said:
I don't think they are.
Click to expand...
So, you don't think there is slag on the outside of the cut at the bottom.
[lower arrow]
cut3ol5.jpg



and you don't think the slag is on the back side of this acetylene torch cut

acetylenecut2em3.jpg


:boggled::confused::o:p:D;):rolleyes: Right
 
Last edited:
I know nothing at all about such torches. So a wee question. Where is the actual torch in the lowermost photo, immediately above? Is it that thin line at the very top? And is that really a solid piece of steel/cast iron/whatever or simply a box section?
 
Architect said:
I know nothing at all about such torches. So a wee question. Where is the actual torch in the lowermost photo, immediately above? Is it that thin line at the very top?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.


Architect said:
And is that really a solid piece of steel/cast iron/whatever or simply a box section?
Click to expand...

My guess is solid, seeing as the three surfaces visible are solid.
But that seem running just beneath the top makes me wonder if it isn't capped off.
But if it were hollow, I'd expect to see some glow coming from the previously-made cut, since some of the sparks and slag flying off the cut would bounce around inside and the glow should show through the other opening.

So my vote is solid.
 
So to what extent is it proof (or otherwise) of Chris' point.

[/genuine curiosity]
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
The lie is truth.

How terribly Orwellian.

ETA: So, you don't think

The slag is on the out side of the cut at the bottom
and
the slag is on the back side of an acetylene cut.

are lies?
Click to expand...

Minadin said:
I don't think they are.

Don't you agree that an explanation for such a thing which uses tools and methods which are known to us already and may be demonstrated to be possible is a much more likely scenario than one which uses unknown tools and methods and has never been, and possibly cannot be, demonstrated to work?

If you're going to champion the less likely explanation, it's incumbent upon you to provide some evidence that your solution is possible, even if it is unlikely.
Click to expand...



Christopher7 said:
Minadin said:
I don't think they are.
Click to expand...
So, you don't think there is slag on the outside of the cut at the bottom.
[lower arrow]
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg


and you don't think the slag is on the back side of this acetylene torch cut

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9259/acetylenecut2em3.jpg

:boggled::confused::o:p:D;):rolleyes: Right
Click to expand...

No, I said that I don't think that the statements "the slag is on the out side of the cut at the bottom" and "the slag is on the back side of an acetylene cut." are lies.

But I certainly would disagree with the labels in your top photograph and your conclusion that "they" used therm(i,a)te to cut these columns, and I will continue to do so until such a time as there is any evidence whatsoever that this scenario is even possible. I'm not even asking for plausible or likely at this point.

Your continued refusal to acknowledge this flaw in your argument, or respond to the relatively simple question I posed to you in post you quoted (you even left it out when you quoted me) is at best intellectually dishonest to us, and at worst implies that you are in fact in denial, and are being dishonest with yourself. If you're so unfalsifiably convinced that your idea is the correct one, despite both a complete lack of evidence in its favor and a deluge of evidence and logical reasoning to discredit it, you're so far off the path of skepticism and critical thinking, that I should hold little hope that you will ever recover.


"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." - Jonathan Swift
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
So, you don't think there is slag on the outside of the cut at the bottom.
[lower arrow]
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg


and you don't think the slag is on the back side of this acetylene torch cut

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9259/acetylenecut2em3.jpg

:boggled::confused::o:p:D;):rolleyes: Right
Click to expand...

What if you're wrong, chris?
What if it is not impossible that the 'slag' shown in your pictures was created by a thermal lance?

How far are you prepared to commit yourself to a belief in the 9-11 conspiracy based upon this sort of 'evidence'?
 
Christopher7 said:
A lance is an arc welder cutting tool.
They were using acetylene torches at ground zero.
Click to expand...

Jeez chris, ok so what if it wasn't impossible that the 'slag' shown in your pics was caused by an oxy acetylene torch? :rolleyes:

How far are you prepared to go based upon this?
 
Have you used one before Chris? (lance) This is the most ridicules argument I've ever seen. This type of cut is done every day by people like me. When is the "truth" movement going to show me it can be done with "thermite"? Personally (and professionally) I think they're full of [rule 10). Show me it can be done "truth" movement.
 
Last edited:
Minadin said:
No, I said that I don't think that the statements "the slag is on the out side of the cut at the bottom" and "the slag is on the back side of an acetylene cut." are lies.
Click to expand...
My bad, i tried to edit but the window had closed.


Gotta go now, more later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom