Theist Free

Do you have any proof that the pictured steel beam (top) was cut by a torch? It looks to me like it may have been right after the attacks, given the firefighters & smoke.

Plus, in the second picture, the torch guy clearly has a place to sit on the ground where he’s working. I see no such place to sit in the top picture – in fact, it doesn’t look to be accessible at all. They haven’t even cleared out any of the junk around it yet, how in the world would they determine that they needed to cut THAT specific steel column?

Either way, you’ve proven nothing here. You’ve presented another alternative explanation, but it doesn’t seem very probably unless you have answers to the questions I listed above.

What is more logical?

That these beams were cut by special thermite cutting devices that even now only exist on a small scale, One can cut a 2 inch steel bar.

OR, that these beams were cut by a well known device that has been in use for god knows how long, A device that would leave the exact molten cut you see in the pictures. In fact on 911 calls went out for cutting equipment to aid in removing debris so rescue efforts could be done.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it’s a duck.

In truthers land If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it’s must be a hypothetical bomb.

Think a little here. Use some sense.

You’re begging the question. In other words, you’re using the conclusion that the building collapsed naturally to support evidence of the very same conclusion.

Now ask yourself the same question (“which is more logical?”) without using your conclusion. Ask yourself:

– is there a guy with a torch in the picture? No.
– is the area reasonably cleared out, as shown in the other pictures of people using a torch? No.
– is there a visible crane that could be used to lift the top piece of steel out of the way? No.
– are the guys with torches making other cuts with the same precise angles? No.

When you get right down to it, there really isn’t much evidence to support your claim that a torch made that cut. There also isn’t any evidence immediately available that it was thermite. The correct answer should be that it’s inconclusive.

By claiming that it was a torch, you’re guilty of the exact same rush to judgment that you regularly condemn the truth movement for. Let me guess, it’s not fallacious when you do it, right?

This is the same silly argument creationist use to attack evolution, “Have you ever seen a monkey evolve into a man?” No, But when you see the overwhelming similarities between man and monkey it is just pure logic to assume they are related. But because 911 truth is a religion you can’t acknowledge the facts without loosing your soul.

It’s all about thinking, if you had to bet money on how that beam was cut you would be a fool to bet on thermite, something that has NEVER EVER been used to cut anything near the size of those beams.

But Hey, you want to be a sucker? be my guess.

There’s no shortage of evidence that apes evolved into men, though. So when they say that, you just point them to the fossil records and be done with it.

In this case, as I pointed out above, there is no evidence that a torch cut that steel beam. Show that picture to someone without any context, and they won’t be able to tell you how the steel beam got like that. They’ll say the same thing I did, “inconclusive”.

See? The conclusion you already believe is guiding your perception and creating a cognitive bias. You’re free to do that – be my guest.. just don’t mistake it for sound logic, because it’s nowhere close.

In the top picture though it shows slag running down the inside AND the outside of the beam. That would NOT happen had that beam been cut for debris removal.