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 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.

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.

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.

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

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

>> ^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.

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.

>> ^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.

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.

>> ^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?

>> ^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.

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:

>> ^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...