I find glass to be much more expensive. Then again, it depends on what you mean by "smithing" if you are talking about a blacksmithing studio then yeah a small lampworking set up will be cheaper but still more expensive than the basic start up tools for metalsmithing. Glassblowing however is extremely expensive requiring an annealer, glory hole (no not THAT kind for you dirty minds), and a furnace that runs all the time so it takes a great amount of energy. Coldworking tools are also very expensive. It is understandable why studio cost for glass students are always WAY higher than for metals students.


>> ^Porksandwich:

Glass and smithing are two things I'd like to at least say I'd made something from, even if they looked like crap. Glass is probably the bigger one because it's something you could more likely do at home and on a lower budget. But they are both one of those things where I think you need a apprenticeship in to keep from doing stupid things that could potentially kill or maim you bad enough to screw you up for life.

Guys, if you know anything about fire, it's simple. The elevator shafts caused an updraft of air which turned the fire into a blast furnace. Really it's the same method they've been using to melt steel since the dark ages, but instead of pumping a bellows the air was sucked through the shaft by the heat of the fire.

This is stupidly simple. Stop making up idiotic explanations for what can be explained simply and rationally.

Except none of these problems you listed are major problems, or problems whatsoever. Public education is indoctrination for government as savior?! That would be no. I don't remember such indoctrination in math, science, english, gym, or even the most applicable subject, social studies. And guess what? I also taught history in public schools, and I taught things from both liberal and conservative perspectives. In fact, it was required that I do so even if I didn't want to. That's all of course part of the liberal agenda of the county/state I live in, which is one of the most conservative in the nation.

How much of your money actually pays for abortions? Virtually none.

How much of your money actually pays for daycare of anyone else's child? Virtually none.

HELP! HELP! YOU'RE BEING REPRESSED!

>> ^quantumushroom:


If only that were so, my friend. The responsible are chained to the fck-ups, now and forever, because it buys votes.
There is no promotion of responsibility, so we have to pay for the knucklehead gang 'tard to get his tattoos lasered off, we have to pay for overpriced, government school education indoctrination which explains from an early age that Government is the Savior, we have to pay for armies of government bureaucrats whose existence is not need or market-based, and pay again for their "pensions" for jobs half-done or barely done at all. We have to pay for the day care center for teen preggies who made their CHOICE in part because they knew Uncle Scam would pay for everything. We have to pay for the invasion of illegals, their crime, subterfuge and hospital bills. And, of course, we have to pay for the pet projects of the government thieves and thugs who burn our money in a furnace.
There are weak people seeking strength, and then there's the weaklings who prey on the rest of us.
To get votes it's just easier to point a gun at the productive than help up the idiots. Sad truth is sad.
>> ^chilaxe:
Here's the answer Olbermann's looking for: When we grow up, we realize you can warn people a dozen times to not do something stupid, and then when they proudly do it, it's their responsibility, not yours.

and then when they proudly do it, it's their responsibility, not yours...

If only that were so, my friend. The responsible are chained to the fck-ups, now and forever, because it buys votes.

There is no promotion of responsibility, so we have to pay for the knucklehead gang 'tard to get his tattoos lasered off, we have to pay for overpriced, government school education indoctrination which explains from an early age that Government is the Savior, we have to pay for armies of government bureaucrats whose existence is not need or market-based, and pay again for their "pensions" for jobs half-done or barely done at all. We have to pay for the day care center for teen preggies who made their CHOICE in part because they knew Uncle Scam would pay for everything. We have to pay for the invasion of illegals, their crime, subterfuge and hospital bills. And, of course, we have to pay for the pet projects of the government thieves and thugs who burn our money in a furnace.

There are weak people seeking strength, and then there's the weaklings who prey on the rest of us.

To get votes it's just easier to point a gun at the productive than help up the idiots. Sad truth is sad.

>> ^chilaxe:

Here's the answer Olbermann's looking for: When we grow up, we realize you can warn people a dozen times to not do something stupid, and then when they proudly do it, it's their responsibility, not yours.

What if it depends what the comet is made of...?
>> ^Fantomas:

^ I was thinking to myself that there was no way a comet, no matter how big, is going to cause anything but a miniscule disturbance to a nuclear furnace the size of the sun.

^ I was thinking to myself that there was no way a comet, no matter how big, is going to cause anything but a miniscule disturbance to a nuclear furnace the size of the sun.

Partly. The mold would definitely break if heated too quickly (either in the furnace or with the bronze being poured in) but it is also heated so the bronze doesn't cool and harden before all of it is poured in.

Bronze swords, unlike iron/steel, are cast in a mold, then (since about 2000 BC) the edges are forged with hammer and anvil to give it hardness and strength. >> ^deathcow:

I guess they preheat the sword mold to keep it from exploding when you pour stuff in it?


>> ^smooman:

im curious about the forging of it tho, thought you would hammer the metal out and shit to make it harder. Wonder if during the Bronze Age swords were made out of just one piece like this without forging

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

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.

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

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.

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.

As the loyal opposition, I don't see how any liberal (here defined as left-leaning, not Van Jones-communist) could be upset.

Sure, there's no official socialized medicine, but it's damned close.

Military effectiveness continues to be compromised with social experiments.

The federal leviathan continues to shovel money into a furnace while expanding.

The New Deal, with its massive debt and social programs that prolonged the Depression, is still regarded as a "model" of good government.

All of the media outside of one channel continues to be leftist water-carriers, despite losing viewership.

The leftstocracy still runs Hollywood.

Leftist unions still run government indoctrina---er--"schools".

You have nothing to worry about, unless you're part of the one-third of the populace paying for the other two-thirds who take more than they give.