>> ^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.

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...

>> ^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.

>> ^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?

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???

>> ^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?

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.

@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.

>> ^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.

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.

>> ^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.

"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.

>> ^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.

>> ^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.