• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

9/11 Thermite Experiment video

aaarrrggh

New Blood
A
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
12
Hi Guys,

Before I post this video, let me state my own position: I am very much your traditional skeptic, just like I'm assuming the majority of the people on this forum. I'm an atheist, believe man walked on the moon, believe in man made climate change and I do NOT believe that sept 11th was anything other than a terrorist attack perpetrated by islamic fundamentalists, backed by Osama Bin Laden. I am not a conspiracy nut.

I recently came across this video, however, and I must admit that on the surface at least it appears to raise questions:

[Edit - apparently I'm not allowed to post a video link at this point in time because I've not made enough posts on the forum. Please go to youtube and post this on the end of the url:]

watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g&feature=related

Now I'd like to be clear on this one: I'm hoping that someone on these forums who has greater knowledge than myself on such issues will be able to sufficiently explain what's going on here. I do not have a great knowledge of the whole sept 11th conspiracy theory stuff as I grew tired a few years ago of arguing with nutcases (I spent years debating christians and creationists and over time grew increasingly angry and frustrated at their anti-intellectual and dishonest view of the world - for this reason I steered somewhat clear of the sept 11th stuff, because I assumed it'd just be the same thing all over again - which I'm willing to bet it is).

I come in peace. I'm not a believer in the conspiracy theory, but I would like someone on here who is able to critique this video and it's implications to do so in order to put my mind at rest.

Thanks guys :)
 



We've seen this before. The guy deserves some recognition for actually making these things, and showing that they could work. Of course, the CT still falls apart in that no such devices were ever found in the examination of the debris, nor were the obvious effects of such devices on the steel ever found.

Also, he's trying to debunk the claim that "thousands of tons" of thermite would be needed, but in doing so, he also proves that, if these devices were used, then most of the CT talking points that lead to the thermite hypothesis are also debunked. Things like massive pools of melted steel, melted steel pouring out the side of the tower, thermite reactions taking place for months after the collapses, and large amounts of un-reacted thermite being found in the dust after the collapses, all would never occur if the conspirators had used the devices he has developed.

So in the end, even though he shows that it might be possible to used such devices to collapse the towers, he's still far from proving that they were actually used.
 
Last edited:
aaarrrggh said:
I recently came across this video, however, and I must admit that on the surface at least it appears to raise questions:
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g&feature=related. We've seen it before.

First of all, provisionally, I'll be honest with you here: I don't believe a word of your OP, and I predict that within fifteen posts at most you'll be ranting about hijackers not appearing on the flight manifests and Norman Mineta's time of arrival at the PEOC, or some such nonsense. But on the off-chance that you're sincere: What are the questions that this video raises with you? It shows that it's possible to damage structural steel by burning large quantities of thermite when in contact with it, and it also shows that an incompetently devised experiment executed in an absurdly slipshod manner failed to reproduce an effect seen in the WTC7 rubble pile to a degree that was immediately obvious to the most superficial inspection. However, since there is no credible evidence that thermite was in any way involved in the collapses of the WTC towers, the whole line of argument is utterly irrelevant to a discussion of the events of 9/11.

So what, exactly, were the questions that you think this video raises?

Dave
 
Ok, so you don't believe a word of what I've said.

Well, I can pretty much prove I'm for real.

I said I have a history of arguing with creationists. I do. Look:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aaarrrggh

You can see some of my debates and arguments with creationists and the work I did on the evolution and creationism articles on wikipedia via that link. I got into some massive fights with creationists at the time, and even had one of the guys involved in the "intelligent design" court case in America a few years ago (on the christian side of the 'argument') call me a 'brown shirted neo-darwinist' on there at some point.

You'll also note I haven't been active on there for a few years. As I said in my (honest and truthful) original post: I grew frustrated with it all due to the constant lies, logical fallacy, stupidity and outright dishonesty on the other side of the fence.

Please don't instantly assume everybody is out to lie to you. It's not very rational of you ;-)
 
Welcome to the Forums!

You have to understand that we have seen alot of OP's very simmilar to yours in the past, then come to find out, it's all just a charade.

So, you'll have to excuse us when we are skeptical of your OP. No offense intended at all. And kudos for posting the link. That certainly helps your cause.

Again, welcome!
 
Thanks :-)

It is a little hard for me to talk properly right now as I'm actually in work. Naughty of me, I know.

I just had a little read over my old wikipedia talk page after posting the link here, and I felt quite proud of some of my former work. A quote from one of the fundies I met on there:

While I do not believe in the YE business, I think that the ID philosophies are justifiable, and valid in today's scientific arena. You cannot dismiss this fact. Creationism today is not the same as it was 100 years ago, and the entire reason that this controversy has resurfaced anew is that science has progressed. So read Nowa's statements again and rethink your impulsivity. Salva 02:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Followed by my retort:

It is not a fact, and yes, I deny it. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, and has no scientific basis whatsoever. It is a politically designed euphemism for creationism, created by christian fundamentalists to get around the 1987 supreme court ruling that banned the teaching of creationism in American public schools for violating the constitutional separation of church and state. The 'controversy' lies entirely in the public arena, and in the public arena alone. It is nothing more than a clever little technique of christian fundametnalist propaganda, and is totally invalid. Interestingly, I had something of a religious conversion of my own recently, and will of course be insisting that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is taught in Kansas schools after the recent atrocities against science that took place there.

"Creationism today is not the same as it was 100 years ago, and the entire reason that this controversy has resurfaced anew is that science has progressed."

Creationism today is pretty much identical to how it was 100 years ago, except the christian fundamentalists who advocate it today have become more media savvy. There is no assertive evidence to back up any claims put forward by these religious types, and their theories are nothing more than cleverly worded biblical literalism. I will continue to prevent you from pushing forward your christian, creationist agenda wherever I catch you doing it. Good day to you Salva! :-) Aaarrrggh 16:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

----


Ah, I do miss fighting the good fight sometimes :-)

Anyway, with regards to the sept 11th stuff - what I said earlier really does reflect my position. I'm quite ignorant to most of their so-called arguments, because I'm scared of getting sucked into another battle with fundamentalists who wouldn't understand a logical argument if it manifested itself in the form of a cricket bat and smacked them in the face.

I will go through the responses in here in more detail later on, when I have time.

By the way - I respect the work you guys do a lot. I've been a fan of James Randi for a very long time. He's a bit of a legend, isn't he? ;-)
 
Last edited:
The video is self debunking in that what he shows doesn't match the phenomena he claims is evidence of therm*te. He shows how little therm*te is needed per section (1.5-4lbs) but mentions all the truther canards of melted steel, large flows etc.

The only way to access parts of the box columns he claims were packed with thermite is during the building of the WTC. I'd like to know how all of the rigging/detonation cables/wiring/thermite/ignitors and everything else managed to stay in such a good state and undiscovered over 30 years.
 
Well firstly, please bare in mind that I'm getting much of my information from the video itself. I understand that this may mean I'm ill informed (I watched the video a couple of hours ago on my dinner break at work. I'm still in work now, so I can't sit here reading through wades of information at this moment in time - it's kinda why I came here: as a quick means of avoiding all the nonsense and (hopefully) getting straight to the point).

With that in mind - based on the information from that video, it would appear that National Geographic did a similar experiment and *apparently* concluded that no types of thermite could burn through steal. The experiment in the video appears, on the surface at least, to contradict those findings.

There was also the mention of (I think) Iron balls that again, are *apparently* evidence of thermite. I *think* the balls were iron, and I can't watch the video again right now to double check.

I'm sure sept 11th was a crime perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists. I just wanted to come in here as a quick means of finding an answer to a video that appeared, on the surface at least, to show holes in the conventional explanation. That's all.
 
The simplest starting point is to point out that the whacktard who did this experiment overlooks all the evidence that the stuff that Jones, Harrit and the rest of the twoofers call thermite chips are chemically indistinguishable from paint.

Only an idiot would expect there not to be paint chips in the dust, and the thermite fanciers do not mention finding any paint.
 
lefty:

As I've stated already numerous times in this thread (and this is only my fifth post), I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to the whole sept 11th conspiracy theory. I'm aware that there are people who believe in these things, but I've steered clear of going into the details in the past simply because I tend to get really involved in these things. When I took an avid interest in creationism/intelligent design (which are of course one and the same) a few years back, it culminated in me eventually giving a lecture covering the subject to the Manchester Humanist society. In other words, I tend to get really into this kind of thing, then I'll typically see these big gaping flaws in the believers faith system and try to take this information to them and expose those flaws to them in an honest and calm way. This doesn't work in my experience, because the kind of people who believe in invisible sky monsters who care about your sex life, much like the people who believe the holocaust was a hoax or that planet earth isn't round, are not swayed or even influenced by logic, facts and reason.

It's for this reason that I've avoided going into too much detail with the sept 11th deniers. I'm scared of getting sucked into another hole of crap, which will only result in me exhausting myself and getting angrier and angrier at the ignorant idiots who are incapable of formulating an opinion based on rational arguments through the accumulation of evidence.

I therefore wasn't aware of the fact that these chips are indistinguishable from paint. Is that genuinely true?

I will look into this in more detail when I get home later.
 
aaarrrggh said:
I'm sure sept 11th was a crime perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists. I just wanted to come in here as a quick means of finding an answer to a video that appeared, on the surface at least, to show holes in the conventional explanation. That's all.
Click to expand...



The problem is, this video doesn't "show holes in the conventional explanation". The "Conventional explanation" doesn't rely on the anti-thermite arguments made by debunkers, as it is a perfectly adequate explanation of the collapse of the twin towers via the expected mechanisms of mechanically- and fire-induced damage, without reference to any other caused that might be proposed.

The "thermite hypothesis" is not needed to explain the collapses, and as such, the "conventional explanation" really has nothing more to say on thermite. The thermite hypothesis was created by those who reject the conventional explanation, in an attempt to patch holes in the "explosive demolition hypothesis". However, neither of those alternative hypotheses have established any significant "holes" in the conventional explanation so as to require such an alternative explanation.

What this video does is point out a hole in a debunking of the thermite hypothesis - that is, the claim that it would require thousands of pounds of thermite to produce the collapses, if it were even possible to cause the collapse at all with thermite. However, that's a debunking of a hypothesis which is not required to explain the collapses, and as such, debunking this one point still says nothing about the explanatory power of the conventional explanation.

Analogy time. Let's say that a Moon Hoax Believer made the argument that "There should have been stars visible in the pictures taken on the Moon!". If I, as a debunker, were to say, "There shouldn't have been any stars visible, since they were on the side of the Moon facing the Earth, not the side facing the stars!", does the stupidity of my "debunking" somehow lend credence to his "hole" in the "conventional explanation" of us really going to the Moon?
 
Ah ok, thanks.

I will check that out later too.

I'd be a lot more active in places like this btw, but I'm honestly scared of getting sucked into it all again. I don't have as much patience as Mr Randi, put it that way.
 
aaarrrggh said:
I come in peace. I'm not a believer in the conspiracy theory, but I would like someone on here who is able to critique this video and it's implications to do so in order to put my mind at rest.

Thanks guys :)
Click to expand...

Hi aaarrrggh, welcome to the forums. As some of the other posters have mentioned, we've all seen the video. It proves that it is possible to cut steel beams with a small amount of thermite. However, it also proves that you need a specially designed device in order to do this.

As far as I can tell, there are two competing thermite theories. "Researchers" (their term for themselves, not mine) like Harrit and Jones focus on a magic thermite paint, which was used in large quantities on all of the major structural elements in the towers. The advantage of thermite paint is that it would likely be mistaken for normal collapse debris by investigators. Only those with electron microscopes would be able to tell the difference between the two substances.

On the other hand, some "researchers" are claiming that a small amount of thermite can be used. This gets around the thermal mass issue (thermite actually contains less total chemical energy than an equivalent mass of paper), and some logistical problems (e.g., how did they get it up there in the first place?). But it creates a massive evidence problem. Despite what truthers would have you believe, the people involved in the cleanup and investigation process were experts. If hundreds of these little devices started showing up, steel workers, FBI agents, engineers and so on would notice. Steel workers especially are intimately familiar with all manner of flanges, bolts, connections and support structures. When something shows up that they haven't seen before, showing burn marks and evidence of melting steel, that would be cause for alarm.

After nearly 10 years, we need more than possibilities to prove this case. It's not sufficient anymore to say, "Well, it might have happened this way." If it did happen, there is physical evidence to support it. There is tremendous physical evidence to support the case for fire and gravity destroying the structures. Anything less than a veritable mountain of physical evidence is not even worth mentioning.

Perhaps the truthers could next determine how a corrosive mixture of ammonia and Chipotle's red chili sauce actually corroded the steel, causing a collapse that just took 60 years to begin. Or maybe every bolt in the twin towers had a core filled with C4, which exploded on 9/11, sufficiently weakening the structure to allow for collapse. What if hyper advanced robots were installed in the twin towers years ago with oxyacetylene torches, and on 9/11 they were activated and told to cut? We could spend all day coming up with alternative theories, but none of it matters unless we have physical evidence that backs them up.
 
aaarrrggh said:
Please don't instantly assume everybody is out to lie to you. It's not very rational of you ;-)
Click to expand...

On the contrary, it's solidly based in experience. A great many posters have come here with a post that resembles your OP in every detail - the statement of support for the conventional narrative, the example of skeptical behaviour in an unrelated area, followed by the citation of an attempted rebuttal by truthers of a counter-argument to some fine detail of one of their theories, and the suggestion that that citation, far beyond demonstrating (or, more usually, failing to demonstrate) that some truther theory is stupid not in every conceivable way but rather in every way but one, somehow suggests that the conventional narrative of 9/11 has some shortcomings. The pattern is so familiar that it's known locally as "the mark of Woo", and is usually traced to a sockpuppet of a former member.

As further evidence emerges, I may find that this impression is wrong, in which case I'll be happy to revise my conclusions, but you should be aware that conspiracy theorists pretending not to be conspiracy theorists, for their first few posts anyway, are common enough on this forum to be considered a cliché.

Dave
 
aaarrrggh said:
Hi Guys,

Before I post this video, let me state my own position: I am very much your traditional skeptic, just like I'm assuming the majority of the people on this forum. I'm an atheist, believe man walked on the moon, believe in man made climate change and I do NOT believe that sept 11th was anything other than a terrorist attack perpetrated by islamic fundamentalists, backed by Osama Bin Laden. I am not a conspiracy nut.

I recently came across this video, however, and I must admit that on the surface at least it appears to raise questions:

[Edit - apparently I'm not allowed to post a video link at this point in time because I've not made enough posts on the forum. Please go to youtube and post this on the end of the url:]

watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g&feature=related

Now I'd like to be clear on this one: I'm hoping that someone on these forums who has greater knowledge than myself on such issues will be able to sufficiently explain what's going on here. I do not have a great knowledge of the whole sept 11th conspiracy theory stuff as I grew tired a few years ago of arguing with nutcases (I spent years debating christians and creationists and over time grew increasingly angry and frustrated at their anti-intellectual and dishonest view of the world - for this reason I steered somewhat clear of the sept 11th stuff, because I assumed it'd just be the same thing all over again - which I'm willing to bet it is).

I come in peace. I'm not a believer in the conspiracy theory, but I would like someone on here who is able to critique this video and it's implications to do so in order to put my mind at rest.

Thanks guys :)
Click to expand...


Simple......ask yourself the following.

Where would those devised have been placed....and how many of them in the structure seen here.

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/godfrey.htm

Remember that the devices would have had to cause the collapse and all the preceding video evidence prior to the collapse ( I.E. inward bowing columns, collapsed floors etc.)

Next ask yourself how all these devices were placed in those locations in a building that was occupied 24/7 and in a city where nothing moves without several unions involvement.

When 2 people and one stained blue dress could not be kept secret, ask yourself why out of the thousands of people that would have had to been involved in such a plot, not one has even mentioned it in 10 years?
 
aaarrrggh said:
Ah ok, thanks.

I will check that out later too.

I'd be a lot more active in places like this btw, but I'm honestly scared of getting sucked into it all again. I don't have as much patience as Mr Randi, put it that way.
Click to expand...

Then run...run while you still have the chance. This is much worse that Creation Science. It's cloaked in this veil that makes it look like it could be true because it's engineering and science, isn't it? And the Truthers, at least they're not a bunch of religious nuts. There must be some reasoning and logic in there somewhere. Right?

Two years ago, that's what I thought. But two years has taught that 9/11 conspiracy is must more bizarre than Creation Science. In fact, I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that Truthers are Creation Science 2.0 - literally. You have to remember that for Americans (and Canadians) Creation Science was a 1980s thing. I am convinced now that most young Truthers are children of the Creation Science crowd from the 1980s. 9/11 Truth is just one spin on their Obama anti-Christ-thing that takes us into a One World Government and their plan to depopulate the Earth. Don't ask about this; it's very long and very stupid.

9/11 Truth is far more stupid that Creation Science. The people in it are far more stupid than the people you meet in Creation Science. Their arguments are far more mixed up and confused and convoluted. And you are far more likely to be left wondering why anyone with half a brain could possibly believe this.
 
There are more holes in that video than there were bolt holes in the columns and beams in the WTC.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom