Skip to 7:20 for non-politcal parts.

I dont have an opinion on the rest of the bullshit, but I LURV ME SOME THERMITE VIDEO !

What I found interesting is that official groups when to great lengths to say thermite cutting is impossible.. Especially mythbusters.. And some guy does it in his backyard. That's what really makes this interesting.

@joedirt, I don't think Mythbusters is trying to cover anything up, their methods compared to this guy are just flawed. If I recall, they deliver the thermite by lighting it on fire in an exposed bucket, losing energy by not having them capped, or continuously moving down. And as for the "Not be allowed for discussion" I think this falls under their "We don't want to show things on T.v. that could be used potentially badly" checkbox. (I.e. they want to do, but aren't allowed, to do a silencer special, because if it's really easy to make a gun silenced, it could be potentially dangerous for the populace to know how)

As for the rest of the video, this guy makes a helluva good argument, moreso then anybody else ever has. It's refreshing to see someone actually prove their facts instead of just basing them on "Nuh uh, it couldn't happen that way.

@joedirt @Shepppard
I think there WAS a comment here about Mythbusters refusing to do any 9/11-related shows, but I don't see it anymore -- cue the conspiracy theorists. Anyway, I think MB refuses because they doesn't want to be painted into the fringe wing-nut conspiracy theorist camp, so they refuse to test anything that has to do with 9/11. Not that all 9/11 truthers are nuts, just that MB doesn't want to be tarred with the same brush.

That is impressive....

For reference...

NIST report and press conference:
Sunder said that his team investigated these hypothetical causes [thermite] and ruled them out. "We asked ourselves what is the minimum amount of charge we could use to bring the building down," he said. "And we found that even the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away." There were no reports of such a sound; numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet.

FEMA:
The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 degrees C (1,800 degrees F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel...

FEMA:
Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700 to 800 degrees C (1290 - 1470 degrees F).

NIST:
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent [***NOTE: no reference] of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

Modulus of Elasticity for Steel:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/young-modulus-d_773.html

Very interesting. Spread the word?

Can someone show me other examples of jet fuel fire serving as the only means for demolishing any steel structure (besides building 7)?

Sigh

While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.

>> ^Jinx:

Sigh
While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.


I think what's interesting is that like the man says, everyone assumed it was NOT the impact but the jet fuel that brought the buildings down. Unless the offical line is now changing.

I doubt the impact of a fragile aircraft that that disintegrated into a million pieces was enough to bring down a super strong structure designed to resist all that nature can throw at it. To bring down a building that size you would normally have to demolish it...

Still my issue is what the proposed rigging of the building would have looked like. What are they proposing exactly? Would only certain points and floors require rigging?

@Jinx,
Royal Dutch/Shell- 4.5 to 8.2
ExxonMobil - 4.7 to 17.2
British Petroleum- 3.4 to 5.9
Chevron Texaco- 1.1 to 3.5

Profits in Billions from 2002 to 2003. (USA Today, 8/28/03)

Businesses attempting to capitalize on a tragedy (and therefore increase their profits - they are capitalists, remember?) does not a conspiracy make. Until they're able to do an approximate re-creation, ie. build another tower using the same grade steel and materials made in the 70's, age it for 30+ years, reproduce the same weight load on said structure, and then fly a plane into it, all of this is moot. There are so many factors in reproducing what happened on 9/11, attempting only one part of it to support an entire conspiracy is ludicrous.

Where's all the conspiracy nuts talking about how the US govt. took out Pearl Harbor? It happened, right? Right?

What does this prove? That explosives CAN be used to bring down buildings? I wasn't aware that was an argument anyone was using against the controlled demolition theory.

Sure beat the crap out of that straw man though. I don't think the crowd claiming buildings can't be brought down by explosives will be recovering anytime soon.

>> ^Enzoblue:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Jinx" title="member since March 21st, 2009" class="profilelink">Jinx,
Royal Dutch/Shell- 4.5 to 8.2
ExxonMobil - 4.7 to 17.2
British Petroleum- 3.4 to 5.9
Chevron Texaco- 1.1 to 3.5
Profits in Billions from 2002 to 2003. (USA Today, 8/28/03)

What has that got to do with the towers collapse though. I don't doubt that many of the motives for occupation in the middle east are based on oil, but as an excuse to go to war 9/11 was a pretty poor one. No doubt the US government used the tragedy to justify war with Iraq, but there really was no connection and thats why I have a hard time believing they engineered the whole thing. If they can go to all this trouble to rig the buildings, get some planes to fly into and succesfully cover it up, why did they put Saudis in the planes? I think its much more likely that this was a terrorist attack and the US government scrambled to use it to their own advantage.


As for how the planes brought the buildings down, well I think I'm happy with the explanation. The fire, while not hot enough to actually melt steel, would have still weakened it sufficiently to allow it to bend and buckle. The floors pancaked and domino'd all the way down the tower. With the floors gone the walls had no support so they fell in too.

It seems to me the problem here is that there were accounts of molten metal which can't have been caused by the fire, and thats the lose end the guy in this video is trying to address. I cannot speculate how the metal melted, but I'm pretty confident that if there had been girders cut through with thermite there would have been evidence. You saw how distincive those cuts are. As for this "nanothermite", my guess would be that it was left there from contruction. Thermite is used in the contruction of railway tracks to fuse the joints together, its not impossible that a similar method was used in the contruction/repair of the towers and that it remained there (along with the balls of iron).

Anyway, tl:dr. Molten metal. Must be conspiracy. lol.

>> ^Jinx:

Sigh
While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.


No proof? How do you explain the thermite particles found in dust samples collected by people who lived by the WTC? Also, hard to get any other "proof" since the rest of the material from the collapse was conveniently whisked away before anyone could do a thorough investigation. Quite convenient if you ask me.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^Jinx:
Sigh
While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.

No proof? How do you explain the thermite particles found in dust samples collected by people who lived by the WTC? Also, hard to get any other "proof" since the rest of the material from the collapse was conveniently whisked away before anyone could do a thorough investigation. Quite convenient if you ask me.


Yes, the clean-up after is the nefarious part.

The bigger cover up is the crashing of airliners into the towers. That act made it look like there were no pre-planted explosives and that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impact and fires. Quite convenient if you ask Duckman33

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Jinx:
Sigh
While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.

No proof? How do you explain the thermite particles found in dust samples collected by people who lived by the WTC? Also, hard to get any other "proof" since the rest of the material from the collapse was conveniently whisked away before anyone could do a thorough investigation. Quite convenient if you ask me.

Yes, the clean-up after is the nefarious part.
The bigger cover up is the crashing of airliners into the towers. That act made it look like there were no pre-planted explosives and that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impact and fires. Quite convenient if you ask Duckman33


Huh? I never said anything about pre-planted explosives. I just find it strange that thermite was found in the dust samples...

You find it strange that something primarily used for welding was found in the debris of a steel framed building?

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Jinx:
Sigh
While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.

No proof? How do you explain the thermite particles found in dust samples collected by people who lived by the WTC? Also, hard to get any other "proof" since the rest of the material from the collapse was conveniently whisked away before anyone could do a thorough investigation. Quite convenient if you ask me.

Yes, the clean-up after is the nefarious part.
The bigger cover up is the crashing of airliners into the towers. That act made it look like there were no pre-planted explosives and that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impact and fires. Quite convenient if you ask Duckman33

Huh? I never said anything about pre-planted explosives. I just find it strange that thermite was found in the dust samples...

>> ^bcglorf:

You find it strange that something primarily used for welding was found in the debris of a steel framed building?
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Jinx:
Sigh
While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.

No proof? How do you explain the thermite particles found in dust samples collected by people who lived by the WTC? Also, hard to get any other "proof" since the rest of the material from the collapse was conveniently whisked away before anyone could do a thorough investigation. Quite convenient if you ask me.

Yes, the clean-up after is the nefarious part.
The bigger cover up is the crashing of airliners into the towers. That act made it look like there were no pre-planted explosives and that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impact and fires. Quite convenient if you ask Duckman33

Huh? I never said anything about pre-planted explosives. I just find it strange that thermite was found in the dust samples...



You know what? Troll someone else pal. I'm not in the mood.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
You find it strange that something primarily used for welding was found in the debris of a steel framed building?
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Jinx:
Sigh
While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.

No proof? How do you explain the thermite particles found in dust samples collected by people who lived by the WTC? Also, hard to get any other "proof" since the rest of the material from the collapse was conveniently whisked away before anyone could do a thorough investigation. Quite convenient if you ask me.

Yes, the clean-up after is the nefarious part.
The bigger cover up is the crashing of airliners into the towers. That act made it look like there were no pre-planted explosives and that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impact and fires. Quite convenient if you ask Duckman33

Huh? I never said anything about pre-planted explosives. I just find it strange that thermite was found in the dust samples...


You know what? Troll someone else pal. I'm not in the mood.


Who's trolling?

The two primary civilian uses of thermite are welding and pyrotechnics. Right?
The WTC towers were steel framed structures. Right?

How is thermite residue entirely unexpected in the rubble when the towers collapsed?

Stupid video. I think everyone knows thermite can melt steel. Melting steel with thermite proves nothing.

What needs to be proven conclusively for this video to work is that jet fuel, whatever else was present and the conditions of the WTC cannot melt steel.

He says an open air jet fuel fire cannot melt steel, that's fine, but inside the middle of the WTC was hardly "open air". Conditions could easily have been created where the elevator shafts or similar provided a jet of air from below to create a blast furnace. Anyone who has ever owned a wood burning stove knows that a wood fire can turn the steel cherry red in a good stove, all it takes is well channelled air. And wood has a much lower burning temperature than jet fuel.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
You find it strange that something primarily used for welding was found in the debris of a steel framed building?
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Jinx:
Sigh
While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.

No proof? How do you explain the thermite particles found in dust samples collected by people who lived by the WTC? Also, hard to get any other "proof" since the rest of the material from the collapse was conveniently whisked away before anyone could do a thorough investigation. Quite convenient if you ask me.

Yes, the clean-up after is the nefarious part.
The bigger cover up is the crashing of airliners into the towers. That act made it look like there were no pre-planted explosives and that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impact and fires. Quite convenient if you ask Duckman33

Huh? I never said anything about pre-planted explosives. I just find it strange that thermite was found in the dust samples...


You know what? Troll someone else pal. I'm not in the mood.

Who's trolling?
The two primary civilian uses of thermite are welding and pyrotechnics. Right?
The WTC towers were steel framed structures. Right?
How is thermite residue entirely unexpected in the rubble when the towers collapsed?


http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

Enjoy.

One thing that stuck in my craw about this was his brief mention of how the collapse looked like a controlled demolition, and how he then compared the WTC collapse to an actual controlled demolition.

With my admittedly lacking knowledge, controlled demolitions have explosives throughout the whole building, including the lower floors. When they push the plunger for the controlled demolotion, you can see the explosions on each floor (including the lower floors) as the building starts to come down.

If this was a controlled demolition, disguised with the smoke and mirrors of an aircraft ramming into the side, why did we see no molten steel, smoke or other craziness coming out of the ground or first floor? Or any of the lower floors? AND from the bottom up (as I believe it is done in controlled demolition)?

Finally, even if all it would have taken to collapse the WTC in a manner which made it look like a controlled demolition is some thermite/thermate on the 50th odd floor (sorry, I forget exactly which floor the aircraft hit), isn't that a bit of a gamble on the part of the people behind the "conspiracy"? I mean, you need a pilot who is able to fly a passenger jet directly into the correct floor of a building. To me that sounds like a tough thing to do, hitting a building in exactly the right place while travelling at high speed. A slight cock-up from the pilot and you'd have plane explosion and damage in one place, and then 25 floors below you'd be able to see all this molten steel from the thermite/thermate? Bit of a give away if you ask me.

I dunno - if you're going to go to all these lengths to have a pretense to invade somewhere, surely you'd rely on a plan that didn't have a large chance to be immediately exposed? Maybe I've been ruined by Hollywood's crazy and grandiose schemes, but I'd like to think that the "bad guys" would come up with a better, and more reliable, plan than this?

edit: I feel I should mention that I do think it's odd how the WTC towers collapsed. Without going into the wonderful world of science, it just seems odd that any building hit that high up would collapse straight down—probably a throw-back to my childhood days of building towers with my play bricks and then throwing my toys at it. However, I just can't bring myself to accept that this was a controlled explosion. It just doesn't seem to add up to me, much in the same way that the actual collapse doesn't add up. My internal jury is still out on this one.

What astounds me is how those guys are trying to find a common answer to an uncommon event. It's like if Tycho Brahe, when observing his first supernova, just said "It must be fireworks in space!" and then tried replicating the supernova by launching fireworks with the right combination of colors. I'm sure he'd be able to do something that looks like SN 1572 eventually, but it would have been all for naught because supernovae are not fireworks in space.

>> ^Friesian:

One thing that stuck in my craw about this was his brief mention of how the collapse looked like a controlled demolition, and how he then compared the WTC collapse to an actual controlled demolition.
With my admittedly lacking knowledge, controlled demolitions have explosives throughout the whole building, including the lower floors. When they push the plunger for the controlled demolotion, you can see the explosions on each floor (including the lower floors) as the building starts to come down.
If this was a controlled demolition, disguised with the smoke and mirrors of an aircraft ramming into the side, why did we see no molten steel, smoke or other craziness coming out of the ground or first floor? Or any of the lower floors? AND from the bottom up (as I believe it is done in controlled demolition)?
Finally, even if all it would have taken to collapse the WTC in a manner which made it look like a controlled demolition is some thermite/thermate on the 50th odd floor (sorry, I forget exactly which floor the aircraft hit), isn't that a bit of a gamble on the part of the people behind the "conspiracy"? I mean, you need a pilot who is able to fly a passenger jet directly into the correct floor of a building. To me that sounds like a tough thing to do, hitting a building in exactly the right place while travelling at high speed. A slight cock-up from the pilot and you'd have plane explosion and damage in one place, and then 25 floors below you'd be able to see all this molten steel from the thermite/thermate? Bit of a give away if you ask me.
I dunno - if you're going to go to all these lengths to have a pretense to invade somewhere, surely you'd rely on a plan that didn't have a large chance to be immediately exposed? Maybe I've been ruined by Hollywood's crazy and grandiose schemes, but I'd like to think that the "bad guys" would come up with a better, and more reliable, plan than this?
edit: I feel I should mention that I do think it's odd how the WTC towers collapsed. Without going into the wonderful world of science, it just seems odd that any building hit that high up would collapse straight down—probably a throw-back to my childhood days of building towers with my play bricks and then throwing my toys at it. However, I just can't bring myself to accept that this was a controlled explosion. It just doesn't seem to add up to me, much in the same way that the actual collapse doesn't add up. My internal jury is still out on this one.


The buildings simply obeyed Newtonian mechanics. First you have inertia. It takes A HUGE FORCE with that much mass in play to make it go in any direction. But, guess what, nature is already forcing it to go in one direction--and it's winning. That direction is of course down, due to gravity. An object in motion tends to stay in motion, the building is ALREADY going down, that's why it has to be supported. When it began to pancake the mass continued in it's plane of reference and fell straight down. The structure below was meant to hold it up, but in a pancake scenario the side walls and supports are presented with lateral forces far higher (due to the mass and gravity) than designed to mitigate. With the ONE thing that was meant to hold up the building useless it simply continued all the way down.

Interestingly, the building hit the furthest down collapsed first (even though it was hit last). This lends more credence to gravity being the main player. Massive objects like that do not change direction easily; trust me it's the movies or you're watching very weak structures collapse. If a plane impact barely made it wobble, I doubt you could move it sideways unless you literally designed it to collapse that way. Again, inertia. Just think what it's like trying to push a train off a track. Now imagine pushing a building off a track. Won't happen unless it's designed to.

from the scientific analysis of the event i've seen, the conclusion was not that jet fuel MELTED steel, but rather plane impact blew off fire-proofing and jet fuel'ed fires SOFTENED structural steel until it could no longer maintain its shape and collapsed.
to weaken/soften structural beams you don't need to melt or cut through them.

also i wouldn't trust all the eyewitness accounts to be scientifically accurate. when you live through an even such as this, you are not really in a state of mind to logically analyze and memorize everything you heard, felt and smelt. those white flashes could have been anything (yes, including thermite). that dripping molten aluminum(or thermite) could just as easily be a chunk of floor carpet melting and dripping or something else from a full office floor.

also didn't this book cover every possible scientific answer and question on this topic? http://www.amazon.com/National-Geographic-Inside-11-Commemorative/dp/B000FUF6QI

How about this approach for the truther crowd. Anyone convinced that jet fuel can't melt steel needs to go and tell that to these guys. They base their entire business on selling oil fueled furnaces for melting steel. If jet fuel can't burn hot enough all they're devices they've sold will be duds. Actually, it looks like that's the bigger conspiracy. Hundreds of different companies are selling all manner of steel melting furnaces that run on oil. If the truth gets out that their furnaces are impossible to operate, they'll go broke.


Yeah.

>> ^bcglorf:

How about this approach for the truther crowd. Anyone convinced that jet fuel can't melt steel needs to go and tell that to these guys. They base their entire business on selling oil fueled furnaces for melting steel. If jet fuel can't burn hot enough all they're devices they've sold will be duds. Actually, it looks like that's the bigger conspiracy. Hundreds of different companies are selling all manner of steel melting furnaces that run on oil. If the truth gets out that their furnaces are impossible to operate, they'll go broke.

Yeah.


so... you're saying that the WTC towers were furnaces in disguise? I didn't realize they built those towers packed with alumina bricks and backing insulation with which to direct potential fuel into radiant energy.

I can make a device to boil water at room temperature or below, but that doesn't mean that I've debunked modern science's assertion that water boils at ~100C.

--

I haven't made a concrete decision one way or another, but IMO the 'official' story is not the truth. The 'proposed truth' is made even more suspect due to the immediate and secretive clean-up efforts, and the only scientific presentation being made by a government entity.

>> ^kceaton1:

The buildings simply obeyed Newtonian mechanics. First you have inertia.

You make an excellent point, and I doff my hat to you. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

>> ^pho3n1x:

>> ^bcglorf:
How about this approach for the truther crowd. Anyone convinced that jet fuel can't melt steel needs to go and tell that to these guys. They base their entire business on selling oil fueled furnaces for melting steel. If jet fuel can't burn hot enough all they're devices they've sold will be duds. Actually, it looks like that's the bigger conspiracy. Hundreds of different companies are selling all manner of steel melting furnaces that run on oil. If the truth gets out that their furnaces are impossible to operate, they'll go broke.

Yeah.

so... you're saying that the WTC towers were furnaces in disguise? I didn't realize they built those towers packed with alumina bricks and backing insulation with which to direct potential fuel into radiant energy.
I can make a device to boil water at room temperature or below, but that doesn't mean that I've debunked modern science's assertion that water boils at ~100C.
--
I haven't made a concrete decision one way or another, but IMO the 'official' story is not the truth. The 'proposed truth' is made even more suspect due to the immediate and secretive clean-up efforts, and the only scientific presentation being made by a government entity.


Yes, they were good enough to be furnaces. Even a standard home is good enough to count as a furnace and can readily exceed temperatures of 1000C when set on fire, without benefit of jet fuel. Here's an article describing testing a fire simulation. They simulate burning a wooden crib inside a room. They run a parallel actual experimental burn of a real crib and measure peak temperatures of 1134 C. It is noteworthy the experimenters don't even bat an eye at that as being unusually high, because they know that it isn't.

"I've never had cause and effect explained to my satisfaction." -onion sports dome last night

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
You find it strange that something primarily used for welding was found in the debris of a steel framed building?
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Jinx:
Sigh
While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.

No proof? How do you explain the thermite particles found in dust samples collected by people who lived by the WTC? Also, hard to get any other "proof" since the rest of the material from the collapse was conveniently whisked away before anyone could do a thorough investigation. Quite convenient if you ask me.

Yes, the clean-up after is the nefarious part.
The bigger cover up is the crashing of airliners into the towers. That act made it look like there were no pre-planted explosives and that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impact and fires. Quite convenient if you ask Duckman33

Huh? I never said anything about pre-planted explosives. I just find it strange that thermite was found in the dust samples...


You know what? Troll someone else pal. I'm not in the mood.

Who's trolling?
The two primary civilian uses of thermite are welding and pyrotechnics. Right?
The WTC towers were steel framed structures. Right?
How is thermite residue entirely unexpected in the rubble when the towers collapsed?

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
Enjoy.


Not particularly enjoyable. Their method for collecting dust was to request dust samples from private individuals years after the collapse? Then they, without explanation, decided to analyze the 4 samples that appeared to have unidentified red chips in them. Oh, and did I mention no effort or explanation for methods of verifying or confirming the origins of the samples save the word of the individuals. Right, some real hard science there. It's worth noting that such gross errors don't normally pass peer review teams, luckily for your crew, the journal they published in is known for peer reviewing anything that passes the $800 submission fee 'test'.

Here's a serious analysis, from PubMed, of the WTC dust. They thoroughly analyze the dust, and they collected it themselves, before it was cleaned up. They also released their findings publicly, years before your crew of committed truthers even requested samples from private individuals.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
You find it strange that something primarily used for welding was found in the debris of a steel framed building?
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Jinx:
Sigh
While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.

No proof? How do you explain the thermite particles found in dust samples collected by people who lived by the WTC? Also, hard to get any other "proof" since the rest of the material from the collapse was conveniently whisked away before anyone could do a thorough investigation. Quite convenient if you ask me.

Yes, the clean-up after is the nefarious part.
The bigger cover up is the crashing of airliners into the towers. That act made it look like there were no pre-planted explosives and that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impact and fires. Quite convenient if you ask Duckman33

Huh? I never said anything about pre-planted explosives. I just find it strange that thermite was found in the dust samples...


You know what? Troll someone else pal. I'm not in the mood.

Who's trolling?
The two primary civilian uses of thermite are welding and pyrotechnics. Right?
The WTC towers were steel framed structures. Right?
How is thermite residue entirely unexpected in the rubble when the towers collapsed?

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
Enjoy.

Not particularly enjoyable. Their method for collecting dust was to request dust samples from private individuals years after the collapse? Then they, without explanation, decided to analyze the 4 samples that appeared to have unidentified red chips in them. Oh, and did I mention no effort or explanation for methods of verifying or confirming the origins of the samples save the word of the individuals. Right, some real hard science there. It's worth noting that such gross errors don't normally pass peer review teams, luckily for your crew, the journal they published in is known for peer reviewing anything that passes the $800 submission fee 'test'.
Here's a serious analysis, from PubMed, of the WTC dust. They thoroughly analyze the dust, and they collected it themselves, before it was cleaned up. They also released their findings publicly, years before your crew of committed truthers even requested samples from private individuals.


First, what the fuck is your problem with me? Did I do something to you to piss you off? Secondly, they aren't "my crew". I simply Googled for the information and provided a document link. You seem to have some kind of obsession with making people who don't believe the "official story" look like idiots for some reason. Do you have issues with people who don't believe everything they are told? I'm sorry but the "official explanation" is not very believable to me. If you don't like it, tough shit. Think what you want. Just don't try to make me look like a fucking moron because I have a differing opinion. Which, the last time I checked was MY PREROGATIVE.

Derren Brown said it best: "Extra ordinary statements require extra ordinary proof to back it up."

Showing this guy built steel box cutters (which were impressive) to show how to make cuts, isn't extraordinary enough to prove that the US government took down their own buildings. You still need to find the answers to this things like: Why? How? When did they set it up? And if they're so logistically sound to plant explosives in three buildings and make it look like a terror attack, then why couldn't they plan a strategy for Iraq that matched it?

Jinx said it best: "Plane hit building. Building collapse."

Until someone recreates a Skyscraper in the desert, built the same way the WTC and flies a plane into it, and it doesn't fall. You're not going to convince people that it wasn't an inside job =\

You seem to have some kind of obsession with making people who don't believe the "official story" look like idiots for some reason.

Not quite, I find the controlled demolition theories to be idiotic, so yes, I DO work to make believers in it look stupid. Disbelieving the "official story" isn't as big a problem for me. So no, nothing personal about you behind any of this Duckman33, you just walked into a discussion on thermite being the cause of the collapse of the WTC buildings. I'll be beating up on anyone taking that stance because the evidence against the notion is absolutely overwhelming, and the arguments in favor of it are beginning to border on the moon landing hoax scale.

If you question the official story, accepted by most sheeple, that happened cost less to investigate than the Clinton Blowjob Scandal(tm), then you aren't patriotic(tm) and hate freedom(tm). You are a terrorist(tm).

If the government wanted to destroy WTC and blame it on Muslims, why not just blatantly use explosives? It's not like the place hasn't been bombed before. Why bother with the hijacked planes and all the other shit? Blow the lower floors out and let the thing come crashing down. Dozens of terrorist orgs would have been thrilled to take credit for it.

I've tried my best to put the causes of 9/11 out of my mind. Thermite is just as probable as the buildings failing from a weakened structure, maybe.

What I haven't forgotten about is that I do not trust our government. They ARE evil. Huge corporations are inherently evil, they're pathological - they can't help it. You think our financial meltdown was just a random circumstance, ha ha ha?

If you don't think your government is totally evil in a post-modern twisted way with a halo hovering over it's head, a million dollar set of teeth and a fake hand extended outward then you just aren't paying attention.

Don't believe their stories - because their stories = profit.

Back to the video...

The NatGeo program made three claims, and then supported them with an experiment. This guy did more experiments and contradicted NatGeo. Thus the process of science. We all remember science right? Testing, changing the variables and retesting for the fuck of it to gain a better understanding? Clearly the NatGeo conclusions were at best incomplete, and at worst completely wrong.

When it comes to receiving new information, there are four possible responses:
1) Outright rejection based on a bias, which can include previous education.
2) Complete acceptance.
3) Curiosity and an impulse to investigate potential flaws or openings for more explanation.
4) Complete disinterest and remembering that now ice cold Hot Pocket left in the microwave.

Scientists are either #1 or #3. Great scientists are by definition #3 at some point in their life. The rest of us (pundits, politicians, citizens, etc...) fall into the other two categories.

To me it's a moot point. Even if it was proven that it was a conspiracy. America simply doesn't show any willingness to prosecute anyone anymore. No one was prosecuted for the lies that led us to the Iraq war, no one is prosecuted for Wall Street destroying the economy. America simply doesn't care about justice anymore. Justice is inconvenient.

Of course, one could imply that because of America's inability get much done these days, that it's a strong argument for it not being a conspiracy. It actually takes competence to pull off a conspiracy of that magnitude. We're too busy fighting with each other.

Thank-You Pantalones. Well said.

This video does not corroborate conspiracy theory, nor was that the intention. It simply disproves the official story to pressure the public and powers that be to find the real answers.

I live and breathe outside the US media bubble is the liberal getto known as Canada... most of us here are under the impression 911 was some sort of inside job. Not because of the white smoke, or the perfect furnace/office conditions or the vaporizing Pentagon plane or the free fall of building 7, but because of what America did after.

I don't know why this video doesn't get more attention.

http://videosift.com/video/9-11-Blueprint-for-Truth-Compelling-Presentation

I really think that if you're gonna argue about this you should watch this video.

You guys blasting duckman, etc. are just pathetic. Who in here is saying the government did it? Anyone with half a brain can see that the circumstances surrounding this event do not make sense. Skepticism is a virtue, not something that should be looked at with derision.

If you are stupid enough to believe "plane hit tower, tower fall" why don't you just bend over and shove your shares of Goldman Sachs up your ass? You aren't an engineer, you don't understand forces no matter how much you quote "Newtons laws." Go to sleep. Just watch TV and quietly enjoy your 9-5 job at *insert corporation.*

Your life is meaningless.

Why does it have to be a controlled explosion (I'm not saying it is or it isn't). The government is far more organized than it would have you believe. You really think four planes would be able to leave their flight plans and crash into buildings like this? Get real. Even if the government didn't sabotage it they could have easily let it happen because it was overwhelming beneficial to their interests.

As a thought experiment, name a single negative effect from 9/11 (from a governmental perspective). And no, loss of a few thousand lives is not an answer...

There is nothing to gain from preventing this. At the very least you should be asking yourself "how could this possibly happen with the infrastructure in place." Even if the government in no way facilitated these events, you think it was completely blind that it was possible or even likely?

I admire this guy's willingness to tinker, but he comes across as very anti-science. Good scientists (like the people who wrote the official reports) are willing to admit when they don't know something. Yet this guy latches on to that as a failure or a cover up on their part.

He didn't disprove the official story. The official story is that burning jet fuel weakened the steel. How does this video disprove that? He cherry picked a few eye witness reports, he points to some uncertainties in the official report, and he highlights a few material samples of unknown origin and somehow that invalidates the official report?

Me: Rain falls from the sky.
Him: But eyewitnesses have white hot plasma forking through the sky. Also, I have photos of ice falling from the sky. Your shoddy cover up is now disproved.

You realize his central experiments are basically worthless? We know thermite cuts steel. That's what people use it for all the freaking time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite#Civilian_uses
"Thermite can be used for quickly cutting or welding steel such as rail tracks..."

He's right that the National Geographic experiments were shoddy. But again, he doesn't understand science if he somehow thinks that invalidates the official story and at the same time validates his crackpot theory.


>> ^Hanover_Phist:

Thank-You Pantalones. Well said.
This video does not corroborate conspiracy theory, nor was that the intention. It simply disproves the official story to pressure the public and powers that be to find the real answers.

The NatGeo show asserts the exact opposite. Why do they go to so much trouble to argue against the theory with an obviously false premise? Seriously, the show said thermite won't cut steel. It wasn't just a shoddy experiment, it was a willful lie that people believe. You can make it part of a larger story, as this guys hints (without making direct accusations). But his experiments make a clear counter argument at a media piece attempting to contradict, in part, an alternative 9/11 theory. In other words, his intention wasn't to invalidate the official conspiracy, he was defending the relevant piece of an alternative theory.

Which is a bit of a cultural signal that people do accept alternative theories.

I've said it many times: the first draft of history NEVER survives later scrutiny. There are ALWAYS changes.>> ^rychan:


You realize his central experiments are basically worthless? We know thermite cuts steel. That's what people use it for all the freaking time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite#Civilian_uses
"Thermite can be used for quickly cutting or welding steel such as rail tracks..."

I live and breathe outside the US media bubble is the liberal getto known as Canada... most of us here are under the impression 911 was some sort of inside job.


I'm Canadian and I'd like to state, for the sake and reputation of my countrymen and women, a very small amount of Canadians think that 911 was an inside job. Probably around the same percent as in the US.

imstellar28, you imply that if you are not an engineer, you cannot understand physics learnt in grade 8 science? Also, if you value the opinion of engineers so strongly, what do you think of the fact that of all the engineers in the world, practically none of them raise issue with the widely accepted explanation?

Funny that the ones that do raise issue only make sloppy video experiments using a profoundly poor understanding of the scientific method and logical arguments, as eloquently stated by rychan in the above comment.

@guymontage

Who said you have to be an engineer? What I said is I very much doubt anyone in this thread is qualified to comment on the consequences of a plane hitting a skyscraper. To think you can just waltz in here and quote "Inertia" because you heard it in 8th grade science class is just ridiculous.

What argument is rcyhan making? The guy in the experiment started with the hypothesis "thermite can cut steel" and then conducted an experiment and proved that yes, it can cut steel. What is not scientific about that? As far as I understand it, that is the exact implementation of the scientific method. The fact that the conclusion is "widely known" (rychans words) has no bearing on this video. Clearly, it is not "widely known" if a mainstream television show is conducting experiments and concludes that thermite can not, in fact, cut steel.

Everyone on the internet thinks they are an expert, but who in this thread even has a college degree much less one in civil engineering? Even if someone has a degree in civil engineering who has the experience with skyscrapers or even the particular design of this tower? It's retarded to think anyone here is anything even resembling an expert on the physics of this particular situation.

http://www.reflectingpoolfilm.com/reflectingpoollinks.htm

9/11 truthers are idiots. The plane crash alone would be enough to take down the buildings.
I have personally worked with molten aluminum. It only gets a white film thick enough to block the orange glow when it stands STILL. Any movement or disturbance will break through the film and reveal the orange glowing liquid inside. It takes seconds of standing still for the film to re-form.

The temperature produced by the fire in various places depends on the air flow and pre-heating of air and fuel before the reaction occurs. It's not just some arbitrary number you can pull out of your ass (1800F) without specific context. I can easily make a charcoal fire hot enough to melt aluminum or make steel glow white-hot and get very soft, given the right airflow, with only a pound of charcoal. The bigger the scale the easier that would be due to relatively slower conduction/radiation of heat to the surrounding environment.

Also, the gravitational energy released by the collapse could put a shitload more heat into things that were already really hot.

@jwray

WTC 7.

I'm happy for you and imma let you finish but just because you are a physicist doesn't mean you know shit about any of this. There's a lot of people who are a lot smarter than you who have more expertise than "so this one time, I was like totally working with melted aluminum"

http://videosift.com/video/9-11-Blueprint-for-Truth-Compelling-Presentation

I'm with @imstellar28, this video is some guy presenting a hypothesis and testing it. NatGeo made a claim he believed was untruthful, and he wanted to prove it wrong. And he was successful.

I don't understand all these defensive apologist attacks when someone poses a different perspective than the widely accepted one. If science can disprove the "truthers", then great, let it do so. But ridiculing people who are trying to understand what caused the buildings to fall seems like the wrong approach to me in any integral pursuit of truth.

Also I've never seen more "scientists" in my life than on VideoSift. It's like a scientist convention on here when someone posts a 9/11 video. And do scientists make a habit of calling people idiots? Somehow I always thought they'd be above that.

>> ^jwray:

Also, the gravitational energy released by the collapse could put a shitload more heat into things that were already really hot.


I, for one, am very unsure on this idea that the gravitational potential energy of bricks falling a maximum of 800m (the very very top bricks only) are a source of major internal heating in a building collapse.

Random thought experiment - if i dropped 50 kg of wood from 800m, that's a lot of gravitational potential energy. Would it set on fire, then, on impact with the ground?

>> ^imstellar28:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/guymontage" title="member since July 18th, 2009" class="profilelink">guymontage
Who said you have to be an engineer? What I said is I very much doubt anyone in this thread is qualified to comment on the consequences of a plane hitting a skyscraper. To think you can just waltz in here and quote "Inertia" because you heard it in 8th grade science class is just ridiculous.
What argument is rcyhan making? The guy in the experiment started with the hypothesis "thermite can cut steel" and then conducted an experiment and proved that yes, it can cut steel. What is not scientific about that? As far as I understand it, that is the exact implementation of the scientific method. The fact that the conclusion is "widely known" (rychans words) has no bearing on this video. Clearly, it is not "widely known" if a mainstream television show is conducting experiments and concludes that thermite can not, in fact, cut steel.
Everyone on the internet thinks they are an expert, but who in this thread even has a college degree much less one in civil engineering? Even if someone has a degree in civil engineering who has the experience with skyscrapers or even the particular design of this tower? It's retarded to think anyone here is anything even resembling an expert on the physics of this particular situation.


My physics went up to a minor on my undergraduate degree. Even in high school though the potential energy of millions of tonnes of concrete at a certain height is already taught. That is more energy than any bomb or load of jet fuel anyone can get their hands on, and it's all rigged to unload itself straight down.

The truther that are idiots are the ones insisting that the planes weren't the cause of the collapse. If you distrust and loath the government enough to believe they were behind the attacks, if you are a rational, scientific person you will conclude that the government organized the plane crashes to take out the towers. All the insistence that was merely a cover for explosives already planted inside is insanity. If the government wanted to commit the act, they would just plant the explosives and set them off. It wouldn't have even been the first time terrorists tried to use explosives to collapse the buildings. The ONLY thing adding the planes into the mix would do is make it infinitely more prone to failure and discovery.

Then you have the unscientific beliefs that people trumpet as reasons they believe the towers were rigged beforehand:
-Jet fuel can't melt steel! Meanwhile commercial steel furnaces are widely sold that are designed to do exactly that.
-The buildings collapsed at near free fall speed, no resistance! Go see the explosives free building demolition video here on the sift. Same speed of collapse, with just the upper supports pulled out by some cranes outside.
-Everyone knows the planes couldn't have been enough to collapse the buildings! Meanwhile, 10's of thousands of engineers the world over didn't bat an eye at the finding that the fires could cause the collapse. That's a lot of professionals in on the conspiracy.
-Blocking investigation of the real story! Meanwhile google scholar is filled with endless numbers of publicly available journal articles that speak to every loony idea the conspiracy crowd can throw out there.

If you believe the government worked with someone to crash planes into the towers that's one thing. If you believe the whole idea that the planes couldn't possibly have caused the collapse and the government must have wired it with explosives before hand, you believe something idiotic and need your head shaken.

>> ^Pantalones:

Back to the video...
The NatGeo program made three claims, and then supported them with an experiment. This guy did more experiments and contradicted NatGeo. Thus the process of science. We all remember science right? Testing, changing the variables and retesting for the fuck of it to gain a better understanding? Clearly the NatGeo conclusions were at best incomplete, and at worst completely wrong.
When it comes to receiving new information, there are four possible responses:
1) Outright rejection based on a bias, which can include previous education.
2) Complete acceptance.
3) Curiosity and an impulse to investigate potential flaws or openings for more explanation.
4) Complete disinterest and remembering that now ice cold Hot Pocket left in the microwave.
Scientists are either #1 or #3. Great scientists are by definition #3 at some point in their life. The rest of us (pundits, politicians, citizens, etc...) fall into the other two categories.


Thanks for this. The point of the video is that the official story and investigation declared this impossible. The official media shows on this like NatGeo and PopMechanics make bold statements and act as experts and declare things impossible.


Some guy proves them all wrong in his back yard.


Anyways, the fact of the matter is the WTC was built like a box within a box, and the floors for each level spanned the outer tube to the inner core. The reality is that no possible fire could take down the inner core. Yes, heat even from jet fuel could maybe weaken the hangers and they might give. We would then have to talk about energy of "pancaking" and acceleration and forces, which I think there are legitimate questions about.

But the reality is that the inner core would maybe bend over from damage, maybe the pancaking might cause problems at the base.. but it seems impossible for the inner core to collapse, especially from fire. Go google how it was constructed and where the official damaged sections from the plane and jet fuel officially were. In one tower the core was more damaged.

The reality is that no possible fire could take down the inner core.

Thousands of professional engineers disagree with you. Why should I believe your word over theirs?

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^jwray:
Also, the gravitational energy released by the collapse could put a shitload more heat into things that were already really hot.

I, for one, am very unsure on this idea that the gravitational potential energy of bricks falling a maximum of 800m (the very very top bricks only) are a source of major internal heating in a building collapse.
Random thought experiment - if i dropped 50 kg of wood from 800m, that's a lot of gravitational potential energy. Would it set on fire, then, on impact with the ground?



17.4 degrees C for iron dropped 800m in a vacuum. More or less for other things depending on their specific heat capacity and the exact configuration of the collapse. Things that get a lot of shit falling on top of them may get a 10-100 times larger share of the energy than the average depending on the parameters of all the materials (if you drop a hard thing onto mush, the mush absorbs most of the impact).

Also, imstellar, 99.9% of all legitimate scientists don't support the "WTC was an inside job done with thermite" hypothesis. For one, it violates occam's razor. The planes alone were enough. A lot of people actually DIED on those planes and were never heard from again. Plus there is VIDEO of the planes crashing into the buildings.

Truthers are like Young Earth Creationists using the gish gallop.

"99.9% of all legitimate scientists don't support the "WTC was an inside job done with thermite" hypothesis."

That may be so, but here are fourteen hundred engineers/architects who believe the official story does an insufficient job scientifically proving it's "facts".

When you don't believe and then disprove flimsy evidence from a shady government it does not make you a "truther" crack-pot conspiracy theory nut job.

When you don't believe and then disprove flimsy evidence from a shady government it does not make you a "truther" crack-pot conspiracy theory nut job.

You may not have noticed, but we are still waiting for the disproving part. Proof that explosives are capable of bring down the WTC, shocking as it may be to some, says nothing about the official story.

Until someone provides evidence that the plane crashes could NOT bring down the towers, the controlled demolition crowd ARE crackpot conspiracy theory nut jobs

That may be so, but here are fourteen hundred engineers/architects who believe the official story does an insufficient job scientifically proving it's "facts".

as jwray observed, that sounds about right:

Truthers are like Young Earth Creationists using the gish gallop.

The government(s) in the U'S' is defective that's for sure and it does not look like there is a cure for such a terminal situation. Many great societies, most of them now gone, burnt like a light bulb giving out leaving the world to fend for itself for 1000 year stints before some revival of order. This one is close-"Not in my lifetime" is beginning to seem more and more like denial-some are already to the anger stage of this realization.

Do those who believe 9-11 was an inside job, requiring the competence and lack-of-conscience of thousands of conspirators, deny the possibility obama is hiding his true foreign birthplace?

Trirthers?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Do those who believe 9-11 was an inside job, requiring the competence and lack-of-conscience of thousands of conspirators, deny the possibility obama is hiding his true foreign birthplace?
Trirthers?


So you agree..?
Indeed, both ideas are equally stupid things to believe without more objective evidence.

Yay! This and that whole cannabis stance is encouraging. = P

The best part is what you find when you look into Steven Jones, whom many cite as the preeminent scientist working with the 9-11 truthers. He's done some amazing work over there at BYU. Including a great piece on the reinterpretation of Mayan artifacts, and how they show evidence of Christ's visit to north America.

That there is a proper scientist.

>> ^imstellar28:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/guymontage" title="member since July 18th, 2009" class="profilelink">guymontage
Who said you have to be an engineer? What I said is I very much doubt anyone in this thread is qualified to comment on the consequences of a plane hitting a skyscraper. To think you can just waltz in here and quote "Inertia" because you heard it in 8th grade science class is just ridiculous.
What argument is rcyhan making? The guy in the experiment started with the hypothesis "thermite can cut steel" and then conducted an experiment and proved that yes, it can cut steel. What is not scientific about that? As far as I understand it, that is the exact implementation of the scientific method. The fact that the conclusion is "widely known" (rychans words) has no bearing on this video. Clearly, it is not "widely known" if a mainstream television show is conducting experiments and concludes that thermite can not, in fact, cut steel.
Everyone on the internet thinks they are an expert, but who in this thread even has a college degree much less one in civil engineering? Even if someone has a degree in civil engineering who has the experience with skyscrapers or even the particular design of this tower? It's retarded to think anyone here is anything even resembling an expert on the physics of this particular situation.


He claims much more than "Thermite can cut steel". He implies that there are widespread media biases or conspiracies. He implies that the official explanation for the WTC collapse is wrong and that his experiments support this claim. If he narrowly tailored his claims I would have no problem with this video. It has fun explosions, after all.

Most people debating on the Internet know nothing about steel, explosives or the official report. Yet they somehow have very well defined opinions.

Yes, I'm looking at you, sifters.

I have BS degrees in electrical engineering and pure math. I'm finishing my Ph.D. in electrical engineering. However, I know very little about steel, explosives and I haven't read the NIST report. Next to an expert, my opinion is as good as a high school dropout's.

But if this video is accurate and NIST didn't explain convincingly how the steel melted, then their report is disturbingly incomplete. And by convincingly, I mean experimentally -- NOT with handwaiving and computer models based on guesswork.

During my career as a practicing engineer and a researcher, I've seen way too many computer simulations designed to "prove" something which is in fact false. Many of the papers I reject have some kind of bullshit assumption or simulation. By using the wrong model, it's possible to show pretty much anything, and in the end, nothing can replace real-world experiments, especially if you're trying to overcome skepticism and confusion.

I suppose I should read the NIST report and stop taking other people's word for it. Because if the quotes from this video are correct, then he's right and NIST's work is unconvincing at best.

Part of the scientific method is not overstating the implications of your results, and simply stating what your results find. Through out the video he talks about alot more than just NatGeo doing shitty experiments, which is the ONLY thing his results indicate. Sloppy science.

That may be so, but here are fourteen hundred engineers/architects who believe the official story does an insufficient job scientifically proving it's "facts".

I'm not sure that all of those engineers believed that the WTC were brought down with explosives. They signed a petition demanding a more thorough investigation. How do you know that many of them aren't backing this petition because they believe a more thorough investigation could reveal improper building standards, faults in construction or over looked safety concerns with respect to building skyscrapers that the original investigation overlooked. This is common with any type of disaster involving a man made structure, ie plane crashes, train wrecks, building/bridge collapses, sunken boats....

Even if every single one of the 1400 or so engineers who signed the petition believed it was definitely explosives, thats still means very little. More than 200 000 people graduated with engineer degrees in the US during 2005 ALONE. When you consider how many graduate in India, China, Europe, and the rest of the world, 1400 is an abysmally small faction, easily less than 1 in 1000. If 999 biologist told me life on earth has evolved from a single ancestor for every one biologist that told me it was magic, I know which theory I would lend more credence to.

But if this video is accurate and NIST didn't explain convincingly how the steel melted, then their report is disturbingly incomplete.

If you want a quick place to start, here's some Cole's notes that NIST put together specifically for truthers too lazy to follow the original report before outright rejecting it.

Thanks. I just read Cole's notes, and they actually agree with the quotes from this video.

My most serious concern is summarized by these paragraphs:

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds [explosives or thermite residues] in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

While the responses to questions 2, 4, 5 and 11 are consistent with the explanation that no explosives were used, they aren't strong enough to imply that there were no explosives.

I'm surprised that they chose not to test the steel for explosive residue, when the tests involved are well known and this was a terrorist attack.

It looks like NIST chose not to test the theory that explosives were used, and tried to find a model which explained the collapse using remaining factors. But this video strongly suggests that their model doesn't properly fit the evidence.

>> ^bcglorf:

But if this video is accurate and NIST didn't explain convincingly how the steel melted, then their report is disturbingly incomplete.
If you want a quick place to start, here's some Cole's notes that NIST put together specifically for truthers too lazy to follow the original report before outright rejecting it.

>> ^probie:

Businesses attempting to capitalize on a tragedy (and therefore increase their profits - they are capitalists, remember?) does not a conspiracy make. Until they're able to do an approximate re-creation, ie. build another tower using the same grade steel and materials made in the 70's, age it for 30+ years, reproduce the same weight load on said structure, and then fly a plane into it, all of this is moot. There are so many factors in reproducing what happened on 9/11, attempting only one part of it to support an entire conspiracy is ludicrous.
Where's all the conspiracy nuts talking about how the US govt. took out Pearl Harbor? It happened, right? Right?


http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=445
http://historyrat.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/conspiracy-theory-fdr-and-pearl-harbor/

Not that I subscribe to this, but you asked.... I think there's some for and against the theory, I didn't really take the time to read them since I'm at work.

The theory is not that they "took it out", but that they had foreknowledge it was going to occur, and let it.

While the responses to questions 2, 4, 5 and 11 are consistent with the explanation that no explosives were used, they aren't strong enough to imply that there were no explosives.

That's because NIST was charged with simply determining the cause of the collapse. They determined a few things. Airliners filled with jet fuel were crashed into the towers hours before they collapsed. The collapse of the towers appears to start with the collapse of the floors that were crashed into by the airliners. Expert study of the damage caused to the building, including simulations and past direct experiment determined that the airliner crash and resulting fires were sufficient to cause the collapse. NIST then concluded that the cause of the collapse was the airliners that crashed into the towers that day.

They didn't specifically study the possibility of pre-planted explosives causing the collapse. There were thorough analysis of the dust from the collapse though, and they looked for trace elements of almost anything and everything. The came up with traces of asbestos and even pesticides, but no high explosives.

They didn't specifically test for pre-planted terrorist agents with arc welders cutting the buildings support beams either, but why should they?

They didn't specifically study the possibility of trained monkeys with hacksaws being pre-positioned at the pillars causing the collapse either, but why should they?

>> ^bcglorf:

You seem to have some kind of obsession with making people who don't believe the "official story" look like idiots for some reason.
Not quite, I find the controlled demolition theories to be idiotic, so yes, I DO work to make believers in it look stupid. Disbelieving the "official story" isn't as big a problem for me. So no, nothing personal about you behind any of this Duckman33, you just walked into a discussion on thermite being the cause of the collapse of the WTC buildings. I'll be beating up on anyone taking that stance because the evidence against the notion is absolutely overwhelming, and the arguments in favor of it are beginning to border on the moon landing hoax scale.


The problem is, I never stated that I believed that. You ASSUMED I believed that because I asked a question about thermite particles found in the dust, and then proceeded to belittle and speak to me in a condescending manner. Well, we both know what happens when we assume, correct?

Taking a stance? I never took any stance other than asking a simple question, period.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^pho3n1x:
>> ^bcglorf:
How about this approach for the truther crowd. Anyone convinced that jet fuel can't melt steel needs to go and tell that to these guys. They base their entire business on selling oil fueled furnaces for melting steel. If jet fuel can't burn hot enough all they're devices they've sold will be duds. Actually, it looks like that's the bigger conspiracy. Hundreds of different companies are selling all manner of steel melting furnaces that run on oil. If the truth gets out that their furnaces are impossible to operate, they'll go broke.

Yeah.

so... you're saying that the WTC towers were furnaces in disguise? I didn't realize they built those towers packed with alumina bricks and backing insulation with which to direct potential fuel into radiant energy.
I can make a device to boil water at room temperature or below, but that doesn't mean that I've debunked modern science's assertion that water boils at ~100C.
--
I haven't made a concrete decision one way or another, but IMO the 'official' story is not the truth. The 'proposed truth' is made even more suspect due to the immediate and secretive clean-up efforts, and the only scientific presentation being made by a government entity.

Yes, they were good enough to be furnaces. Even a standard home is good enough to count as a furnace and can readily exceed temperatures of 1000C when set on fire, without benefit of jet fuel. Here's an article describing testing a fire simulation. They simulate burning a wooden crib inside a room. They run a parallel actual experimental burn of a real crib and measure peak temperatures of 1134 C. It is noteworthy the experimenters don't even bat an eye at that as being unusually high, because they know that it isn't.


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there"

Oh, and FYI, I'm still not taking a stance.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^probie:
Businesses attempting to capitalize on a tragedy (and therefore increase their profits - they are capitalists, remember?) does not a conspiracy make. Until they're able to do an approximate re-creation, ie. build another tower using the same grade steel and materials made in the 70's, age it for 30+ years, reproduce the same weight load on said structure, and then fly a plane into it, all of this is moot. There are so many factors in reproducing what happened on 9/11, attempting only one part of it to support an entire conspiracy is ludicrous.
Where's all the conspiracy nuts talking about how the US govt. took out Pearl Harbor? It happened, right? Right?

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=445
http://historyrat.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/conspiracy-theory
-fdr-and-pearl-harbor/
Not that I subscribe to this, but you asked.... I think there's some for and against the theory, I didn't really take the time to read them since I'm at work.
The theory is not that they "took it out", but that they had foreknowledge it was going to occur, and let it.



Oy vey. The psychosis runs deep in those who can't accept that shit just does happen. It must suck to live life in constant state of self-induced victimization and the need for validation. I wonder what conspiracy theories they come up with when they drop a coffee cup, or stub their toe?

>> ^bcglorf:

They didn't specifically test for pre-planted terrorist agents with arc welders cutting the buildings support beams either, but why should they?


Because if this video isn't omitting fundamental parts of the NIST report, the theory of structural failure fails to explain significant evidence, including the molten steel girders, the yellow molten substance (which seems unlikely to have been aluminum with burning furniture), the white flashes and the iron microspheres.

By selectively discarding evidence, an otherwise weak theory can be promoted as the most plausible explanation. For example, if we discard nonrelativistic phenomena, Newtonian physics fit observation quite well.

But as I said, I'm terribly unqualified to take a position on this issue. I have an easy job being a skeptic because whenever I see the media being horribly incompetent when decrying "truthers", I have the tendency of taking the opposing side. I should at the very least read the NIST report.

Man... if only you people knew what I know about scientists...

One thing that keeps repeating in this thread is the idea that planes were a factor. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane and it collapsed symmetrically into it's own footprint. I also see people mentioning Occam's razor, which would be the "simplest, most probable" explanation. I'm sorry but if you are outside and see a steel building collapse at free fall speed, symmetrically, and into it's own footprint are you really going to think,

"Hmm, looks like some burning office furniture must have annihilated that entire building"

or are you going to think,

"Hey look, a controlled demolition"

I think it should be pretty obvious which is the "conspiracy theory" and which is the simpler explanation. The logistics of someone rigging a building really have no bearing on the mechanics of the collapse - that is a separate body of evidence altogether. I'm not saying it was an inside job I'm just saying what it looks like and what is to me the simpler explanation (from a mechanical perspective only). I can't make a clear argument on intention or logistics because honestly, nobody in this thread can be sure what the government is really capable of.

>> ^blankfist:

I'm with imstellar28, this video is some guy presenting a hypothesis and testing it. NatGeo made a claim he believed was untruthful, and he wanted to prove it wrong. And he was successful.

He should have stuck with debunking NatGeo. He gets himself into trouble with all the "scientific" claims he makes that fall outside of his experiment and have no evidence.

20 seconds in he's claiming that the fires were "burning out and cooling down" after the plane hit. His cited evidence is verbal testimony from a Fox News helicopter.

At 55 seconds he lays the groundwork for the molten metal being steel. The evidence? "It looked like steel in a foundry."

He continues to cite eyewitnesses throughout the video; eyewitnesses who wouldn't know molten steel from boiling orange juice or magnesium flares from flash photography.

There's a reason eyewitness testimony is almost useless in science.

@xxovercastxx

I think anyone who is coming across new information (especially something from the internet...) should be viewing it with a filter of critical thinking. His personal beliefs are what motivated him to conduct the experiments - which I don't think anyone can deny the scientific validity of. If he was a neutral party he probably wouldn't have cared enough to spend this much thought and time putting it together. So yes, its unfortunate his personal opinion made it on air along with his very effective experimentation but that is the price you pay for someone who puts the effort into something like this.

Just ignore it and take the video for what it's worth: thermite can cut steel in low quantities.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories for Dummies:

George W. Bush -- THAT George W. Bush -- for reasons known only to himself decided he wanted to knock down the World Trade Center, blame the whole thing on terrorists from Saudi Arabia and use that as a pretense to invade Iraq.

Yes, THAT George W. Bush.

He decided the WTC should collapse, so he had some people rig the building with explosives/thermite. They did this without being spotted by the people who worked in the buildings, the people who maintained the buildings, the people who secured the buildings or the people who inspect the buildings.

Then, because he's George W. Bush, he decided to sex the whole thing up by flying a couple of Boeings into the Towers. So he hired a crew of hijackers and said "Hey, you lot, would you please fly these airplanes into the World Trade Center, but don't tell anyone what you're up to while you're in training here in American flight schools? Yeah, you'll die and stuff and your names will be infamous and you'll shame your families -- but hey, look: MONEY!" Oddly, no one said no to this offer, because no one has come forth to talk about the wackiest government job interview ever.

Oh yeah, and he got some guys to fly some other planes into stuff, too, because just flying two commercial airliners into buildings wasn't believable enough as is.

So the explosive guys and the plane-flyer guys all got together on September 11, 2001, and WHAMMO!, the whole crazy plan went off without a hitch!

Then, the guys who planted the explosives, the guys who supplied the explosives, the guys who ordered the guys to plant the explosives, the guys who trained the pilots, the guys who gave the orders to the guys who trained the pilots, the guys who paid off all the guys, the guys who were in charge of making sure all the guys did their things and all the other guys who were involved in keeping all the loose ends tied up, all of them kept their mouths shut. All of them were so well-paid and so fundamentally evil that they never breathed a word of their part in the murders of almost three thousand people.

The most amazing part is that these same guys have been able to keep scientists, journalists, government investigators and peer-reviewed journals from printing a word of proof of any of this -- a conspiracy so vast that even the Democrats -- who would stand to make incredible gains by exposing mass-murder on the part of the far right -- have kept quiet about it.

But luckily, a plucky group of internet users with, no background in building engineering, physics, thermodynamics or materials engineering, have seen through this whole charade and are ringing the bell to alert a drowsy national of sheeple that shit ain't right, yo! And just as soon as they're able, they'll bring George W. Bush -- yes, THAT George W. Bush -- to account for his role in the worst conspiracy in American history, next to those faked Moon landings and Pearl Harbor.

There you have it, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories for Dummies.

>> ^StukaFox:

9/11 Conspiracy Theories for Dummies:
George W. Bush -- THAT George W. Bush -- for reasons known only to himself decided he wanted to knock down the World Trade Center, blame the whole thing on terrorists from Saudi Arabia and use that as a pretense to invade Iraq.
Yes, THAT George W. Bush.
He decided the WTC should collapse, so he had some people rig the building with explosives/thermite. They did this without being spotted by the people who worked in the buildings, the people who maintained the buildings, the people who secured the buildings or the people who inspect the buildings.
Then, because he's George W. Bush, he decided to sex the whole thing up by flying a couple of Boeings into the Towers. So he hired a crew of hijackers and said "Hey, you lot, would you please fly these airplanes into the World Trade Center, but don't tell anyone what you're up to while you're in training here in American flight schools? Yeah, you'll die and stuff and your names will be infamous and you'll shame your families -- but hey, look: MONEY!" Oddly, no one said no to this offer, because no one has come forth to talk about the wackiest government job interview ever.
Oh yeah, and he got some guys to fly some other planes into stuff, too, because just flying two commercial airliners into buildings wasn't believable enough as is.
So the explosive guys and the plane-flyer guys all got together on September 11, 2001, and WHAMMO!, the whole crazy plan went off without a hitch!
Then, the guys who planted the explosives, the guys who supplied the explosives, the guys who ordered the guys to plant the explosives, the guys who trained the pilots, the guys who gave the orders to the guys who trained the pilots, the guys who paid off all the guys, the guys who were in charge of making sure all the guys did their things and all the other guys who were involved in keeping all the loose ends tied up, all of them kept their mouths shut. All of them were so well-paid and so fundamentally evil that they never breathed a word of their part in the murders of almost three thousand people.
The most amazing part is that these same guys have been able to keep scientists, journalists, government investigators and peer-reviewed journals from printing a word of proof of any of this -- a conspiracy so vast that even the Democrats -- who would stand to make incredible gains by exposing mass-murder on the part of the far right -- have kept quiet about it.
But luckily, a plucky group of internet users with, no background in building engineering, physics, thermodynamics or materials engineering, have seen through this whole charade and are ringing the bell to alert a drowsy national of sheeple that shit ain't right, yo! And just as soon as they're able, they'll bring George W. Bush -- yes, THAT George W. Bush -- to account for his role in the worst conspiracy in American history, next to those faked Moon landings and Pearl Harbor.
There you have it, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories for Dummies.


What in the fuck are you talking about? Where in this thread has ANYONE said anything about GW doing this? Where? LOL you write this drivel yourself, or plagiarize it off some web site?

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

Man... if only you people knew what I know about scientists...


Jews, right? Yeah, I knew it.

Do tell. >> ^MycroftHomlz:

Man... if only you people knew what I know about scientists...

Just ignore it and take the video for what it's worth: thermite can cut steel in low quantities.

But anyone that's spent 5 minutes googling thermite already knew that. That's the main use for thermite, spot welding or cutting of steel without having to lug around heavy electrical supplies. Should we be awed by the next youtube video demonstrating that you can use electricity to cut steel???

I also see people mentioning Occam's razor, which would be the "simplest, most probable" explanation. I'm sorry but if you are outside and see a steel building collapse at free fall speed, symmetrically, and into it's own footprint are you really going to think,

"Hmm, looks like some burning office furniture must have annihilated that entire building"

or are you going to think,

"Hey look, a controlled demolition"

Well if the building looked perfectly fine, you'd think controlled demolition. If it'd been on fire for half the day and had several floors demolished you'd think it was the fire and physical damage. Is that so hard to grasp?

>> ^bcglorf:

I also see people mentioning Occam's razor, which would be the "simplest, most probable" explanation. I'm sorry but if you are outside and see a steel building collapse at free fall speed, symmetrically, and into it's own footprint are you really going to think,
"Hmm, looks like some burning office furniture must have annihilated that entire building"
or are you going to think,
"Hey look, a controlled demolition"
Well if the building looked perfectly fine, you'd think controlled demolition. If it'd been on fire for half the day and had several floors demolished you'd think it was the fire and physical damage. Is that so hard to grasp?


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
You seem to have some kind of obsession with making people who don't believe the "official story" look like idiots for some reason.
Not quite, I find the controlled demolition theories to be idiotic, so yes, I DO work to make believers in it look stupid. Disbelieving the "official story" isn't as big a problem for me. So no, nothing personal about you behind any of this Duckman33, you just walked into a discussion on thermite being the cause of the collapse of the WTC buildings. I'll be beating up on anyone taking that stance because the evidence against the notion is absolutely overwhelming, and the arguments in favor of it are beginning to border on the moon landing hoax scale.

The problem is, I never stated that I believed that. You ASSUMED I believed that because I asked a question about thermite particles found in the dust, and then proceeded to belittle and speak to me in a condescending manner. Well, we both know what happens when we assume, correct?
Taking a stance? I never took any stance other than asking a simple question, period.


Here's your first post again that I responded to:
No proof? How do you explain the thermite particles found in dust samples collected by people who lived by the WTC? Also, hard to get any other "proof" since the rest of the material from the collapse was conveniently whisked away before anyone could do a thorough investigation. Quite convenient if you ask me.

That's either you taking sides, or simply you having not made any effort what so ever to find an answer to your own question, or to confirm your statement about evidence being whisked away never to be studied or seen again. When I provided answers that made the question look stupid you didn't say oops, I never knew that. Instead you accused me of trolling and dug in your heals googling for supporting evidence of the conspiracy. You then got even more upset when I pointed out the faults in that evidence and provided far more detailed and reliable counter evidence.

If my aggressive initial response offended you I'm sorry for that. From your posts I had every belief you were supporting and defending the controlled demolition theory. Why don't we bury it and you tell me straight out if you are for, against or on the fence?

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
I also see people mentioning Occam's razor, which would be the "simplest, most probable" explanation. I'm sorry but if you are outside and see a steel building collapse at free fall speed, symmetrically, and into it's own footprint are you really going to think,
"Hmm, looks like some burning office furniture must have annihilated that entire building"
or are you going to think,
"Hey look, a controlled demolition"
Well if the building looked perfectly fine, you'd think controlled demolition. If it'd been on fire for half the day and had several floors demolished you'd think it was the fire and physical damage. Is that so hard to grasp?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html


I don't see how Occam's Razor applies any differently to WTC 7. It received serious blast damage from the collapse of WTC 1. It was on fire on at least 10 floors. Emergency crews had been ordered clear of the building fearing the it might collapse. When it collapses what is the simplest explanation?

1.The visible blast damage and fires caused the collapse.
2.Explosives planted before the blast and fires were triggered causing the collapse.
3.Miniature welding robots planted around the steel columns caused the collapse.
4.An inter-dimensional rift briefly opened within the buildings support columns, severing them and causing the collapse.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
You seem to have some kind of obsession with making people who don't believe the "official story" look like idiots for some reason.
Not quite, I find the controlled demolition theories to be idiotic, so yes, I DO work to make believers in it look stupid. Disbelieving the "official story" isn't as big a problem for me. So no, nothing personal about you behind any of this Duckman33, you just walked into a discussion on thermite being the cause of the collapse of the WTC buildings. I'll be beating up on anyone taking that stance because the evidence against the notion is absolutely overwhelming, and the arguments in favor of it are beginning to border on the moon landing hoax scale.

The problem is, I never stated that I believed that. You ASSUMED I believed that because I asked a question about thermite particles found in the dust, and then proceeded to belittle and speak to me in a condescending manner. Well, we both know what happens when we assume, correct?
Taking a stance? I never took any stance other than asking a simple question, period.

Here's your first post again that I responded to:
No proof? How do you explain the thermite particles found in dust samples collected by people who lived by the WTC? Also, hard to get any other "proof" since the rest of the material from the collapse was conveniently whisked away before anyone could do a thorough investigation. Quite convenient if you ask me.
That's either you taking sides, or simply you having not made any effort what so ever to find an answer to your own question, or to confirm your statement about evidence being whisked away never to be studied or seen again. When I provided answers that made the question look stupid you didn't say oops, I never knew that. Instead you accused me of trolling and dug in your heals googling for supporting evidence of the conspiracy. You then got even more upset when I pointed out the faults in that evidence and provided far more detailed and reliable counter evidence.
If my aggressive initial response offended you I'm sorry for that. From your posts I had every belief you were supporting and defending the controlled demolition theory. Why don't we bury it and you tell me straight out if you are for, against or on the fence?


Look, all you provided was a link with information to the contrary of the link I posted nothing more or less. It proved nothing and neither did mine. You're problem is you think so highly of yourself that you also think all the information you provide is fact and the end all of proof, when quite frankly it's not any more factual or proof positive than any links I can provide. So get over yourself already.

Ever heard the quote "there are no straight lines in nature" ?

Seriously, what are the chances that random, organic events caused three symmetrical collapses at free fall speed? How can a building collapse in the direction of most resistance (through load bearing columns) especially when it is damaged unevenly by either a fire or a plane strike. You make a cut in a tree and it falls in the direction of the cut. You light a wood framed building on fire and it collapses in the direction of whatever column succumbs to fire first. I'm not an expert but what happened does not make sense.

Again, not saying it was an inside job. I'm just pointing out what seems probable vs improbable in my mind, in the same way that I would point out a straight line in the forest.

If anything this shows that it takes a lot of engineering and setup to make thermite usable for this purpose. To me this implies setup time and research would present a problem and a high probability for failure.

I should say I am a physicist. And when I deposit aluminum in the clean room it glows, granted it is under a vacuum. Therefore, it could be possible that moving molten aluminum also looks "red hot".

Steven Jones is famous for faking his data about cold fusion. That is all I am going to say about that.

I find it laughable that you think the people at NIST are capable of conspiracy... Don't get me wrong; they are great scientists. But I doubt they take kindly to people telling them the results of their experiments.

What really blows my mind here is what an idiot @blankfist is...

I said @blankfist is an idiot!

^this should be a top rated comment... Incidentally, I am reminded of a famous quote that explains why the government funds the sciences...

"That's why it's always worth having a few philosophers around the place. One minute it's all Is Truth Beauty and Is Beauty Truth, and Does A Falling Tree in the Forest Make A Sound if There's No one There to Hear It, and then just when you think they're going to start dribbling one of 'em says, Incidentally, putting a thirty-foot parabolic reflector on a high place to shoot the rays of the sun at an enemy's ships would be a very interesting demonstration of optical principles." Terry Pratchett.

Now... if you please. I have to go back to my copper box and do some experiments before my wife (el biólogo) wakes up...

I am not a Truth'er by any means, but I find the explanation of supersonic pancaking unlikely. And that only explains how the floors collapsed...not the center support columns. Unless part of the explanation is that the floors also pulled the center over...which would take away from the energy needed to have objects in near free fall. This really was a case of complete building failure. We owe it to ourselves for future building construction to prevent a building failure of this magnitude. I mean, hell, they can rebuild a plane and reconstruct nearly the exact conditions of its demise...but you have a report here that even doubts its own validity, seems halfassed.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

I said @blankfist is an idiot!


You won't find any arguments from me.

>> ^jwray:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^jwray:
Also, the gravitational energy released by the collapse could put a shitload more heat into things that were already really hot.

I, for one, am very unsure on this idea that the gravitational potential energy of bricks falling a maximum of 800m (the very very top bricks only) are a source of major internal heating in a building collapse.
Random thought experiment - if i dropped 50 kg of wood from 800m, that's a lot of gravitational potential energy. Would it set on fire, then, on impact with the ground?


17.4 degrees C for iron dropped 800m in a vacuum. More or less for other things depending on their specific heat capacity and the exact configuration of the collapse. Things that get a lot of shit falling on top of them may get a 10-100 times larger share of the energy than the average depending on the parameters of all the materials (if you drop a hard thing onto mush, the mush absorbs most of the impact).
Also, imstellar, 99.9% of all legitimate scientists don't support the "WTC was an inside job done with thermite" hypothesis. For one, it violates occam's razor. The planes alone were enough. A lot of people actually DIED on those planes and were never heard from again. Plus there is VIDEO of the planes crashing into the buildings.


I find your answer lacking. 17.4 degrees C for what amount of iron dropped in a vacuum? Saying 17.4 degrees C "for iron" is tantamount to telling me you looked it up on wikipedia. As a statement of fact, it makes no sense! It depends on so many things - shape, the amount, what it lands on.. I have a suspicion you have an idea of what you're talking about, but you'll need to do better than that kind of comment.

And don't forget that only the very top bits are falling 800 m, it falls less and less the further down you go, and the fall is so complex, collisions taking place, things landing on other things, bouncing off things, slowed down, sped up, who knows what's going on in the middle?

It's still looking suspicious that your statement that the GPE of the falling shit will somehow shoot huge temperatures up to even huger temperatures.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^jwray:
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^jwray:
Also, the gravitational energy released by the collapse could put a shitload more heat into things that were already really hot.

I, for one, am very unsure on this idea that the gravitational potential energy of bricks falling a maximum of 800m (the very very top bricks only) are a source of major internal heating in a building collapse.
Random thought experiment - if i dropped 50 kg of wood from 800m, that's a lot of gravitational potential energy. Would it set on fire, then, on impact with the ground?


17.4 degrees C for iron dropped 800m in a vacuum. More or less for other things depending on their specific heat capacity and the exact configuration of the collapse. Things that get a lot of shit falling on top of them may get a 10-100 times larger share of the energy than the average depending on the parameters of all the materials (if you drop a hard thing onto mush, the mush absorbs most of the impact).
Also, imstellar, 99.9% of all legitimate scientists don't support the "WTC was an inside job done with thermite" hypothesis. For one, it violates occam's razor. The planes alone were enough. A lot of people actually DIED on those planes and were never heard from again. Plus there is VIDEO of the planes crashing into the buildings.

I find your answer lacking. 17.4 degrees C for what amount of iron dropped in a vacuum? Saying 17.4 degrees C "for iron" is tantamount to telling me you looked it up on wikipedia. As a statement of fact, it makes no sense! It depends on so many things - shape, the amount, what it lands on.. I have a suspicion you have an idea of what you're talking about, but you'll need to do better than that kind of comment.
And don't forget that only the very top bits are falling 800 m, it falls less and less the further down you go, and the fall is so complex, collisions taking place, things landing on other things, bouncing off things, slowed down, sped up, who knows what's going on in the middle?
It's still looking suspicious that your statement that the GPE of the falling shit will somehow shoot huge temperatures up to even huger temperatures.


You'll have troubles looking up temperature in any scientific literature because the real measure that matters in energy. Temperature is just a measure of how much energy a particular object is storing in the form of heat. Jwray's very valid point is simply that a skyscraper is storing an utterly enormous amount of energy in the form of gravity. If even a small portion of that energy is converted to heat, which a collapse is guaranteed to do, it will raise temperatures of whatever material absorbs that heat. If it is concentrated enough it could melt whatever is heated up. The point is simply that the collapse turned more than enough energy into the form of heat to melt a good mass of steel, the question is only how that energy was distributed through the wreckage. Odds are in a random collapse it will be distributed fairly broadly, meaning less temperature increase per mass, but the already very hot steel may not have needed that much either.

All said, it is absolutely hard to say. Meaning it's hard to rule out the collapse and simmering fires within the wreckage couldn't have melted some steel over time. Hard say that would be expected either. The more complex an event is the harder it is to predict.

@bcglorf - thank you for agreeing with my initial feeling

Heat capacity of iron: 0.450J/(gK)

GPE per mass = 800m * 9.8m/s^2 = 7840 J/kg = 7.84J/g

7.84J/g / 0.45J/(gK) = 17.4K

That's the average temp change assuming no losses to phase change / deformation / etc.

It's a relatively small factor compared to the fires, but the GPE could contribute to the melting depending on how unevenly it's distributed as the structure collapses

Also crushed silicon dioxide or silicates in the wreckage (e.g. glass, granite, marble, concrete, and anything else consisting mostly of rock) could react violently with aluminum, in a very similar reaction to thermite. See http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fdBLS0oP0csJ:www.amazingrust.com/experiments/how_to/Thermite.html+silicon+dioxide+and+aluminum&cd
=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com

Edit: marble is carbonate, not silicate, but most rocks are silicates.

I have read basically none of the above comments ('cause there's just too damn many of them.)

The facts I have gathered are:

1) thermite is crazy shit that can basically boil lava.
2) planes hit some buildings in new york.
3) that sucked. a lot of people died.
4) a lot of people got angry about a lot of people dying.
5) somehow a lot of iraqi civilians got killed because of this.
6) thermite can be made, used and ignited in a civilian's back yard.
7) other people who are not "civilian" could make or use thermite for reasons other than science.
9) thermite probably does not make the best sandwich spread. I'll stick with banana peppers to spice things up.
10) people could have put a couple hundred pounds of thermite in the plane before the plane flew into buildings.
11) burning jet fuel can probably ignite thermite.
12) okay i contributed. I'm done now.

Man, I hate agreeing with imstellar but he puts my reasons for doubting the official story so succinctly: In a world where no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire, how did three collapse due to fire in one day? And really, I'm not saying I know that this was a conspiracy, but if you can't see how beneficial this attack could have been to an administration then, well... you've got a lot to learn about history.

>> ^Bruti79:

Derren Brown said it best: "Extra ordinary statements require extra ordinary proof to back it up."
Showing this guy built steel box cutters (which were impressive) to show how to make cuts, isn't extraordinary enough to prove that the US government took down their own buildings. You still need to find the answers to this things like: Why? How? When did they set it up? And if they're so logistically sound to plant explosives in three buildings and make it look like a terror attack, then why couldn't they plan a strategy for Iraq that matched it?
Jinx said it best: "Plane hit building. Building collapse."
Until someone recreates a Skyscraper in the desert, built the same way the WTC and flies a plane into it, and it doesn't fall. You're not going to convince people that it wasn't an inside job =\


I couldn't agree more. Until someone rebuilds the trade center exactly, and flies a plane into it, and it falls, I won't believe planes alone can bring down buildings.