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.

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

@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.

I can't believe there are still people bringing this crap up.

1. The towers were designed to withstand impacts by jet planes and to withstand fires. But they didn't account for the fact that a jet impact would strip much of the insulation on the steel girders. So the impact plus the prolonged fire was what did them in.
2. The towers were all designed to collapse downward in case of catastrophic failure. That is a design priority for skyscrapers, and has been for decades.
3. WTC7 was seriously damaged by the collapse of WTC1, which also started fires across a number of floors. The damage to the water system caused by the collapse of the larger towers allowed the fires to burn out of control for almost seven hours.

The structural damage to WTC7 plus the uncontrolled fires caused a progressive collapse. That means that several internal collapses occurred before there simply wasn't enough structure left to hold up the building. You can see the penultimate collapse right there in the videos, when one of the penthouse structures goes down into the building. It is likely that several internal collapses happened before we see that.

I'm not saying people should forget about what happened. I'm not even saying we should stop trying to figure out exactly what happened. It's just these wacko conspiracy theorists that seem to be making up their own facts and ignoring perfectly reasonable explanations that piss me off.

Two of the tallest structures ever built by man collapsed amidst dozens of other massive structures. It's amazing they didn't take more with them.

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 =\

wtf w/ that skyscraper aspect ratio? what kind of record like that?!

I want to build skyscrapers all over that wasted real estate. I mean come on! What is the point of nature if not to dilute the presence of mankind? rofl

>> ^bremnet:

"Air raids on non-military targets that claim large numbers of civilian casualties are prohibited under international law". I guess the International Police were busy that day. For people to be shocked by such practices or debate it in the context of whether it is civil or not during war are delusional. It's war after all. (Should the Allies have stopped carpet bombing Germany while millions of other civilians are taken to the death camps because, you know, it's the proper thing to do? My ancestors would have voted no).


How is it better to try to kill everyone in the city--including innocent civilians, Jews, and POWs (like Kurt Vonnegot, who was in Dresden during that attack) than to do a targeted bombing campaign that specifically targets infrastructure, communications, and factories?

"It's war, after all."

You could justify just about anything with that statement, including the indiscriminate use of nuclear and chemical weapons, the execution of POWs, or the flying of jet planes into skyscrapers. It's not delusional to do as much as possible to prevent atrocities from occurring (or re-occurring as the case may be). You may not be able to wage a war without the possibility of an atrocity occurring but that certainly doesn't mean you shouldn't try to limit that possibility as much as possible.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'world trade center, freedom tower, construction, building, skyscraper' to 'world trade center, freedom tower, construction, building, skyscraper, 1776 feet, wtc' - edited by lucky760

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by geo321.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by sepatown. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Chuck-Norris-Has-Nothing-on-Flaming-Skyscraper-Jump-Man

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Chuck-Norris-Has-Nothing-on-Flaming-Skyscraper-Jump-Man

[redacted]