Yes, it does. That, and the eyewitness testimony of the photographer, steel workers, firemen, emergency workers..... Here's another photo of some guys working.
Like I said before, those pictures have absolutey nothing to do with the controlled demolition of Building 7 and Kevin McPadden's eyewitness testimony regarding it. Kind of funny how you neglect to mention his eyewitness account and completely ignore it. You're not very good at this disinfo stuff, are you? Dumbass. LOL
Boy, you're dumber than I thought. Go back to my last post. See the part where it says quote from Mr Zero? In it, you'll find McPadden mentioned there. Now, an intelligent person would realize that my response acknowledges McPadden's claims, and would also realize that the other eyewitnesses accounts would be in direct conflict with McP's. But since I have to explain this to you, we can all see on which side of the "intelligent/not intelligent" fence you reside.....
at least four other first responders/emts are cross referencing word for word what mcpadden is saying.
And hundreds of other fr's/emts say otherwise, Bit. At the very least, you must question whether or not the whole thermite is the only way the those beams can be cut at an angle as Jones and Loose Change say / oxy acetelyne can cut the beam argument is not so clear cut as Jones/LC would like you to believe. I've shown photos of workers at the site using torches. I've shown angle cut beams at the Kennedy Airport hangar in New York. I've shown one of your countrymen using a torch to cut steel thicker than that found in the WTC towers. Now here's a video of a cleanup worker talking about how they angle cut the columns to get them to fall in the direction they want. <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ySHgiUxnLC0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ySHgiUxnLC0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> Jones at one point has said that workers were usingtorches to cut the steel. http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/04/steven-jones-replies-finally.html The angle-cut beam in the first photo above has been the subject of much discussion. Recently, a first-responder has stated that he saw this particular cut-column (it is rather remarkable in appearance) when he arrived at the GZ scene on 9/11/2001. We are seeking a written statement from him to this effect to hopefully settle this issue. An analysis of the slag seen clinging to the inside and the outside (both) of this angle-cut column would also do much to answer questions about what did the cutting. I think you will agree that in the second photo, the worker is using an oxyacetylene torch to cut the steel. And CTerz will say that the presence of firemen in the photo proves that it was done imeadiately after 9/11 since the rescue operations went on for only 2 weeks. But the firemen were there for months, making it much more likely that the beam was cut during cleanup. Now, while thermite could in fact cut the beams at an angle, they don't blow them out instantly and allow a very fast collapse that we saw on 9/11. HUUUGE bombs would have been necessary to blow the columns out at the speed necessary to make the building collapse the way it did. You don't hear that Bit, which makes it an impossibility. <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tacYjsS-g6k"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tacYjsS-g6k" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> Anyways, decide for yourself, grazie...
Presence of thermite in the wreckage debunked <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wGnSFwL8a10"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wGnSFwL8a10" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Video of rescue workers standing in the glow of molten steel that was caused by the thermite. A photo with a screenshot similar to this video has actually been used by Cterz to try and prove the existence of thermite. Ridiculous. <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YW1jsUXoRgs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YW1jsUXoRgs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5JVYTxjmdc George Bush says when talking about WTC and I quote "He told us that the operatives had been instructed to ensure the explosives went off at a point high enough to prevent people from escaping ..." US Army special forces says and I quote "in 2001 after the WTC bombing ..." Rumsfeld when talking a about the 911 attacks says and i quote "they shot down the plane over Pensilvania ..." Silverstien admits that he was informed by the fire dept on sept 11 that they would have to demolish building 7 When John Kerry was questioned regarding the Silverstein admission he says and I quote "they made a decision based on the danger that it would destroy the other buildings so they did it in a controlled fashing ..."
Rosie debunked <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qLShZOvxVe4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qLShZOvxVe4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Okay, folks, pay attention. This is very important. Haroki has just fallen into the same logical trap that eventually all supporters of the government's non-demolition building collapse theory fall into. These people say that in order for Bldgs 1, 2, and 7 to have fallen symmetrically, at nearly free-fall speed, and converted into fine dust powder, that there would had to have been placed within the steel infrastructure of these buildings "HUUUGE bombs" in order to accomplish this task. Read the quote above. So far, so good, right? Now, these very same people who claim that a huge, immense quantity of high explosives would had to have been present in order for the towers to collapse the way that they did, then turn around and, in the next breath, claim that all three buildings collapsed in the way that they did without the assistance of any explosives whatsoever! :eek: ROTFLMAO!!! You have got to be kidding me! Are you people serious?! Do you now see the logical dead end trap that your line of reasoning has led you into? Right about now your jaw should be dropping and your mouth should be hanging wide open. If they're not, then you need to re-read the two paragraphs above. Keep re-reading them until you get it. The argument that these people are making is precisely analagous to this one: They are claiming that it is physically impossible for someone to drive from New York to Los Angeles with only ten gallons of gasoline in their car. These same people then turn around and claim that they drove from New York to Los Angeles with absolutely no gasoline in their car whatsoever! ROTFLMAO!!! Game Over! You Lose! Next!