DIAGONAL CUT BEAM ANALYSIS
DIAGONAL COLUMN CUT
Here's my completed analysis of the famous Diagonally cut column, this includes the famous debunkers photo of a Ground Zero Worker cutting a column supposedly the same way. Since there are too many photos involved, I've only uploaded the 3 most relevant photos. I'm forced to link to the paper instead of posting directly since the analysis also includes 6 images from my study of the USGS thermal images from September 16th and 23rd, 2001 which I show how easy it was for them to fake the September 23rd picture which falsely claims that the smoldering fires were mostly extinguished by then when we know from testimonies that this was not true until mid December.
The text is included below, but you need to follow the link to see all the relevant photos.
If you are an experienced torch cutter, light or heavy metal doesn’t matter, the principles are much the same. There are several facts that indicate it was not a torch cut:
1. No cut from a torch accumulates that much hanging slag. Most slag is blown away; this volume would indicate melting with abundant, directed heat but with little or no air pressure eliminating blow torch possibility.
2. Slag cools too quickly. To drip that long, with the beam itself vertical, that much slag would separate and fall to the ground, and would never drip that far even with that bad a cut. The suggested explanation of Thermate with no air pressure at a much higher temperature would account for this.
3. No experienced torch cutter would take a diagonal cut on 4” thick steel tube. And why would even an inexperienced one do so? There would be no possible reason to do it where a horizontal cut is possible, even if above the cut was bent in the direction towards the lower horizontal cut. And the upper horizontal cut can be seen to be cut also on a downward angle thru the steel. No one would angle from horizontal on 4” thick steel and increase the cut to 5 or 6” thick.
4. No one would cut on an angle thinking that it will cause a standing structure to fall a certain direction, just ask any lumberjack.
5. Any metal cutter would also question why the rear cut is not a straight line and it dips drastically in one spot, this indicates possibly the remains of a round cut which would allow inserting Thermate charges inside of the tube to conceal them (more on this regarding the second photo).
6. Someone implied to me that the cutter would have his hand inside the tube cutting the last horizontal leg to explain the slag on the lower horizontal cut. Impossible, that would mean that 3 legs were cut, and then the beam bent so he could reach inside? You would see evidence of the bend if it was bent before final cutting, and you would see evidence of bending at the conclusion of the cut as the weight takes control. Highly unlikely, and there would be few experienced heavy gauge metal cutters who would agree with the torch cut theory.
This photo has been posted by 9/11 debunkers that supposedly shows a torch cutter making the same diagonal tube cut. This photo either proves that a torch cutter is performing the operation of cutting the column or, he is tasked with completing the cut that wasn’t successful during the demolition:
1. If he started the cut on the right side, why didn’t he finish it? I would say it’s because he’s been assigned the task finishing a cut that was mysteriously ½ done for some reason, maybe thermate that didn’t complete the cut? If there were hundreds of such planted “melts” thru ought the building, its possible that there was an error factor of some that would not burn correctly, but not enough of a percentage to prevent or slow the buildings collapse, except maybe points right near the ground that were basically protected once debri filled in around them. What else supports this?
2. I’ve marked the photo wondering what these other burns are? Did the cutter start on the left top, then decide to move to the bottom, then decide, “Oh, I guess I’ll start on this one over here instead”? And why did he not remove the aluminum façade on the 2 burn attempts on the left tube? Such as on the right one?
3. Given the acrid yellow smoke, it is clearly not steel that is being cut by the worker. Galvanized steel or aluminum burns yellow, steel burns white as shown in the 3rd photo which is a 24” cut of steel which burns white as it most always does (photo source http://www.opetrol.com/gallery.html). Even the burn stains on the aluminum cuts on the right, color match the acrid smoke being produced by the cut work on the left. So it looks to me like the cutter is simply finishing the cutting away of the aluminum façade which is evidently cut away on the far right of the photo to expose the steel hidden beneath it.
4. Aluminum doesn’t cut with an acetylene torch it simply melts and gets blown away by the air pressure. A plasma cutter is the preferred method of cutting aluminum and gives off blue/white sparks and smoke. This worker is most likely using torches he may have on the platform since his task is to cut the heavy beams beneath the aluminum (a Plasma cutter needs electricity). The jagged, unclean edge of the cut aluminum on the right side supports this. A plasma cutter would not leave this kind of edge or yellow smoke or stain.
5. Façade on the outside only so the steel cut in photo 2 indicates cut angled from inside to outside of the building. If the evidence of a possible hole in photo 1 on the high backside indicates where thermate could be installed on the inside of the tube, then the operation would mean they could do this just about anywhere inside the building and covered up by simply repairing sheetrock walls after insertion.
6. The testimony from this iron worker would solve some of this mystery, but without his testimony to confirm otherwise, the facts show that he is clearly making ready to finish cuts that didn’t succeed on their own.
7. Additional supporting evidence includes molten steel found in the rubble for 12 weeks after 9/11. To date, only thermate explains this, the government provides no explanation for this and a lack of evidence is as important is factual evidence.
Below are several pairs of USGS (US Geological Survey) thermal images.
The first pair of thermal images are from Sept 16th and its subsequent photo that implied the hot spots were gone by Sept 23, notice anything strange?
The discoloration from one photo to the next is oddly different as if the color levels have been altered. With the testimony from many fire fighters and workers that the smoldering was not extinguished until mid-December, the color shift in the second image suggests that it was modified. I myself drove my Manhattan on November 7th, 2001, and the site was still smoldering.
Looking at the 2nd pair of images, this is the Sept 16th image modified by the author with Paint Shop Pro (inset not touched), to replicate the USGS Sept 23rd image on the right, proving the ease in modifying the images.
The 3rd pair of images includes the original Sept 16th image on the left, and the image on the right, modified to look authentic with the hot spots removed (inset not touched).
This implies that the individual(s) responsible for falsifying the Sept 23rd thermal image, didn’t even do as good job at it as they could of.