Support 911Blogger


Angled cut column explained.

The photo with the angled cut column has somehow taken on an almost mythical status amongst some people in the 9/11 movement. In this short video I explain that it's not evidence of thermite and how it could very well have been done by cleanup crews with a thermic lance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlkWFDiYgig

So, let's look at some real evidence of explosives on the core columns. Gordon Ross' theory, in which concussion charges are placed against the welds of the thickest core columns, explains exactly what we see in the pile; column ends that are bent, broken and exploded. You can watch his presentation on YouTube (part 1, part 2, part 3).

Thanks again arie.

BTW, Ross' presentation is highly recommended for those who haven't seen it.

The man also has a sense of humor;

http://www.911blogger.com/node/4867

"Apparently, I do not exist. According to a thread on the JREF forum, no one by the name of Gordon Ross has been born in Dundee since the latter part of the 19th Century. This came as quite a shock to me and no doubt will also surprise my father, who it seems has laboured for all his life under the delusion that he is also called Gordon Ross and was born in Dundee. My Great Uncle Gordon passed away several years ago and has thus been spared the trauma of discovering that he also did not exist.

In this article I will deal with some of the responses to my work as presented on this web site and elsewhere. At the end I will, in time, list some of the favourable comments, but firstly I will deal with the criticisms. Please forgive me for dealing with the easy ones first, but when such inviting targets present themselves, it is difficult not to take advantage, and they do provide some very welcome light relief. The JREF forum, a scary Twilight Zone kind of place where some strange fictions pass for facts, takes the prize for the most ludicrous assertions available. The "fact" presented there regarding the absence of any Gordon Ross in Dundee's register of births, would make me at least 120 years old, and I must admit that as I read through the site, I did begin to feel every day of that extended life span. So what was their explanation for my existence, or more correctly, my non-existence? According to the evidence presented there, I am actually Professor Jones masquerading as someone else.

And we are the conspiracy theorists?"

Gordon Ross was right from the start

as to how the demolition was accomplished. That is by taking out the outer core columns every third floor and the corners of the perimeter.

The molten metal found in the rubble was probably from use of thermite in the fire affected areas, used to initiate the collapses. After the collapses started explosives would have been used on the core columns to break the welds to ensure the collapse continued reliably and the sounds would be masked by the collapse itself. Most of the discharges would have been contained within the perimeter and those that weren't would be masked by the debris falling outside. However, it wasn't a perfect job and we do see some ejections.

The amount of explosive needed to provide a concussion powerful enough to break the welds on the core columns is significantly less than that needed to cut through them. These charges could have been tamped to cause most of the energy to go into the column and reduce the noise level.

The arguments made by debunkers like Mark Roberts, that the sound levels would be much higher if explosives were used, are simply bare assertions. Roberts and others like him do not consider methods like tamping and breaking the welds to accomplish the demolition. They don't do the calculations which show it is feasible to minimize the percussive noise to a level consistent with that of the collapsing material, while still generating more than enough force to remove the column by breaking the weld.

Well summed up!

Tony has condensed the CD event quite nicely, (along with Gordon Ross). This is the way to go folks!

This video

does not explain why the steel beams would be cut at 45 degree angles. A co-workier of mine is an ex-Army explosives engineer and I asked him what a steel beam would look like after being cut with a shaped charge as in a controlled demolition.

He talked about the slag and he specificallly mentioned the grooved or jagged edges around the cut beam. He also has never seen this photo either. Therefore, this picture still cannot be counted out as being from a shaped charge.

Could this beam have been cut by a steel worker? It is possible. Could this beam have been cut with a shaped charge? It's more than likely given the evidence we have.

Since this video doesn't explain why steel workers would cut these beams at 45's and we KNOW beams are cut at 45's in CD's, then it's safe to assume this is from a CD for now.

It is hard to imagine how a

It is hard to imagine how a shaped-charge would leave grooves that so closely resemble torch artifacts.

The 45 degree angle argument is weak too. It could have been just a convenient angle to cut at because other debris was obstructing, or perhaps the cutter was trying to direct the column to fall in a certain direction or maybe the cutter was trying to create a "hinge" so that the weight of the column acted to open the cut (rather than close it).

People have carefully examined pictures of the debris piles. Columns were not cut, rather they were blown apart at weld interfaces.

I worked as an industrial

I worked as an industrial welder for years and often used acetylene cutting torches to cut thick metal. (Not the more recent innovations with thermite cutters mentioned.) Every time I saw this photo I was immediately reminded of that process, though thermite charges seemed almost as likely to produce such a result. The ridges in the cut and the slag is very typical. So I will readily back the claim that it was part of the cleanup process and that our focus should be elsewhere when it comes to solid evidence -- unless of course this photo was from Sept 11 or before cleanup crews were at work. Regarding the angled cut, for anyone who has felled a tree, this angle on vertical beams will come as no surprise. It is a way of controlling the weight and tendency to fall. It was surely not a way of working around obstructions, and yes, it is more material to cut, but safety for the cleanup worker would be the primary concern, so it is no coincidence that all those cut beams show a similar cut, designed to contain chaos.

>>Regarding the angled cut,

>>Regarding the angled cut, for anyone who has felled a tree, this angle on vertical beams will come as no surprise.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

Great video Arie!

Sorry....

I too am a welder fabricator...For thirty years. I also worked as an iron worker. The slag is on the outside which rules out a torch cut. I would use a lance,sometimes called a burning bar. It would explain the slag on the outside . As for the fallen tree theory. You don't try an drop steel like this. For safety sake you would attach a choker via crane or large track hoe. You would not waste time with an angled cut.. The equipment used would direct the fall.
If they did try to use this angled method for direction control (which is unsafe as hell) You would only cut the sides and the back of the column. This would show the inside of the column bent , and torn.
There is only one explaination for the slag on the outside of the column, and the diagonal cut.
CUTTER CHARGES.............PERIOD.

But columns were cut at an

But columns were cut at an angle at GZ.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

And a thermic lance leaves slag.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Combine these two and you have the famous photo.

Now I'm wondering why you are denying this and still conclude that the only explanation is cutter charges.
___________________________________________________________
Please watch my movie: The Third Tower

arie

This is a very large section of steel. I am sure it is rigged to a crane while the guy makes his cuts. Diagonal cuts here would make sence.
With the size (mass) of this steel, a angled cut would help with bringing it down. Cutting only three sides, and using the crane to pull to the weak side.
I wish i could have seen the steel while in the pile. Or at least talk to those who did the removal.
Something stinks here.
I will say with 100% certainty. The famous steel pic (the one where the firemen were around it.
Was not cut by a torch. The only way the slag could be left on the lower outside portion of the column, would be if only if the the back and sides were cut first. A crane used to shift the weight against the weak (uncut portion) and cut from the inside out.. However there was no signs of tearing or bending.
A lance....Maybe. It would be alot faster than a torch, it would also explain the excessive amount of slag on the outside. The angle still makes no sence.
Would also add this steel was pretty thick. You would need to use a large cutting tip. Anyone with experience would tell you that cutting a column like this would suck starting out the cut because until you blow through the steel, the molten metal has no where to go when you hit the oxygen except back at you.
All these angled cuts don't make any sence. The other thing i noticed was the cut was angled. Why increase the thickness of the steel to be cut as well as the lengh?

Exterior slag questions.

I see what you mean about the column not being bent or torn, so I think we can rule out the "tree cutting" idea entirely.

But I am a little confused about your statement on the exterior ("outside") slag:

" I would use a lance,sometimes called a burning bar. It would explain the slag on the outside ."

Do you really mean to say that a lance would produce slag on the outside? If so, why could not the observed cut be the product of a lance?

One more thing, do we know for a fact that no cutter charges were used in the clean-up?

It was no torch cut

....Maybe a lance. I noticed what appeared to be a hole on the top of the angle. This could be where a lance blew through to start the cut........The cut on the lower part of the angle showed what appeared to be oxygen grooves. They too were cut on an angle, meaning it would also increase the thickness of the column.
I still say with a 100% certainty. This was no torch cut.
Maybe a lance.... To me it just doesn't make sence to angle cut all this steel. Would love to see the results of a shape charge on a column like these.
I do agree with all those here. It still is no proof.
A lance could leave some slag on the outside.....A torch leaving this much....no way

Interesting. However,

The video in this blog doesn't explain this:

That being said, I've always been slightly skeptical of the post-collapse photo of the cut beam as evidence, also wondering if it couldn't have been done during the cleanup.

One thing arie's video does reinforce: It couldn't have been done by fire!

thanks arie

the photo is at best inconclusive and may only be evidence that the column was cut by a steelworker; it certainly isn't proof of controlled demolition, and shouldn't be presented as such.

Plenty of evidence for controlled demolition has been well documented by 911research.wtc7.net, stj911.org, journalofstudies911.com and others- and it's simpler to figure than a 5th grade word math problem anyway; can plane damage, jet fuel fires and 15-30 stories of building mass pulverize 80-95 stories of steel frame and concrete skyscrapers into huge dust clouds and small piles of rubble in about 10 seconds? No. Could some combination of explosives and thermate do it, as well as account for the video, photos and witness accounts of explosions and molten metal? Yes.

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...

Photo taken on 9/11 w/ cut support columns

At www.jamesnachtwey.com you can go to the last picture he posts that he took 9/11/01 An interview with him explains that he was incapacitated by the dust on the site at that day and did not return to make photos in subsequent days. In that photo, which is posted elsewhere on the web, you can see the bases of two support columns with what appear to be angle demolition charge cuts. Publicly acknowledged steel cutting occurred a little on 9/12 to aid in search for survivors and cleanup cutting of steel did not start until at least 9/13.

I see them

Thanks for the post. The Snachwey photo clearly shows angle cuts. The documentation regarding by whom and when a photo is taken is critical in defending the veracity of any claims based on a photo. If the date of the Snachwey photo can be corroborated as being Sept 11, it's pretty strong evidence, and we should use this photo instead to illustrate the theory of preplaced cutter charges, always citing the date and name of the photographer.

Like everyone else, I find it suspicious that the origin of the photo in question is "unknown" --- like it showed up at FDNY or FEMA HQ in an unmarked envelope? Pleeeese! Since ground zero immediately became a restricted area, anyone in there, by definition, was known to authorities...and I always thought that was a FEMA photo, anyway.

Evidence the photo was on 9/11 and another photo.

From http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ1005WIL_206

James Nachtwey relating of his experiences on 9/11/01: "I never let go of my cameras. They were on a strap around my neck. The police were trying to keep everyone out of ground zero, but I stayed there all day shooting, feeling like I was on borrowed time.

What stands out to me now is one photo. What had been the World Trade Center is now a jumble of twisted steel. There's no sky above it -- just smoke and dust. It's very apocalyptic. Very small in the frame is a fireman searching in the ruins. But it's pointless to try to describe it in words. The power is in the picture."

From http://journalism.indiana.edu/news/20070205nachtwey/

"Nachtwey was at his loft in New York that morning, preparing to head to an assignment in Antigua. He looked out his window and saw the second plane hit the World Trade Center. He unpacked his cameras, grabbed his film and went to Ground Zero, where he spent the day photographing in the wreckage of the twin towers."

On this site, http://www.micr.ch/E/EXHIB/explore_archives_war2_e.html , the caption for the photo is "A fireman probes for survivors in the wreckage at Ground Zero, New York, September 11, 2001."

Another photo that appears to show an angle cut beam is in the collection at http://www.slideshare.net/tvawler/amazing-9-11-wtc-ground-zero-photo-col... . The photo I refer to is one showing WTC6 on fire with the apparent cut beam at the bottom center. The timeline of events here: http://www.911timeline.net/ states that the WTC6 fires were extinguished by the end of the day 9/11/01.

In both of these photos there is no evidence of any cleanup crews or equipment.

More details and another couple photos

Number 21 in the slide show at http://www.slideshare.net/tvawler/amazing-9-11-wtc-ground-zero-photo-col... shows WTC6 on fire and an apparent cut beam at the bottom center. Also, # 29 shows what appear to be angle cut columns but there is no way to date that photo as far as I can tell but then again, no cleanup crew or equipment is apparent. #72 also shows an angle cut major column at the top left. There does not appear to be any cleanup crew or equipment and much debris suggesting no cleanup had commenced. That last photo also has the angle of the cut opposite to what you would expect for cleanup purposes. You can download the pdf file of these at that site from the home page for higher resolution photos as well as look at them in full screen via clicking on "full" at the bottom right of the pictures.

The angled cut was never

The angled cut was never solid evidence of cutter charges as cutting at an angle would be a reasonable explanation in the clean up operation. One thing that did strike me about the photographs was the uniformity of the cut. Notice both adjacent sides are at the exact same angle. To cut it that precisely would have meant marking it out beforehand and using a straight edge. Would a man using an oxy acetylene torch do that on steel that is going to be scrapped anyway? .My opinion based on the burners i used to work with is the cut is way too precise,burners only do that on a controlled cut where the steel is to be reused. .In the circumstances where speed was of the essence i would expect a cut that looked like it had been cut by Stevie Wonder rather than one cut by a surgeon but we will never know either way,the steel is long gone.

Steel

up to six inches can be cut with a torch. Over that one would need to hook up another bottle of oxygen for a high pressure cut.
As far as the quality of the cuts shown they are not very good. The other thing i noticed was the grooves in the cuts. They show signs of whatever cut them to be on an angle as well. So not only do you have an extended amount of steel to cut this way you also would increase the thickness of the steel your cutting.
They do look like oxygen grooves. A lance , and a torch would do this.
Anyone have pictures of an angled column cut when a shape charge is used? Think Danny Jewenko could provide us some pic's?

Thank you Arie!

Here's more info confirming that angle cuts were used by the ironworkers during cleanup.
http://nasathermalimages.com/index.php?#%5B%5BAngle%20Column%20Cuts%5D%5D

Also more on the blast damage

http://nasathermalimages.com

What has always bothered me about this photo...

Is the fact there are no other photos of this column. I have spent hours trying to locate this column in hundreds of ground zero photos. I have yet to find any that match its shape and location. If any of you have photos that show this column in its location shown in the original photo, show them.

From what I've witnessed, its easy for proof to be turned into spoof with one paragraph. And, vice versa.

In the interview with the experienced welder, he also stated he witnessed men in black welder garments come in when they found the gold. How do we know these men weren't there on day one, analyzing the wreckage to find evidence they can deface or manipulate (not saying that is what happened, anything is possible in this day in age).

Its best to not use this as THE example of demolition, but we should not discard it either. At least not till it can be totally explained. We need to interview ALL steel workers who worked at ground zero. I'm sure we'd be surprised on what they all say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infowar Relay Stations:

truthgonewild.blogspot.com
zombieamerica.blogspot.com