9/11 Thermite Experiment video

My welcome, too, aaarrrggh! Enjoy your stay here, and don't get sucked in when the heat is turned up! My advice: Stay with the cooler replies :cool:



Now on to the video.
It shows, indeed, that a clever engineer could device a means by which a (vertical) column could be melted through, or at least get fatally damaged, using thermite as an incendiary. This refutes ill-considered claims by some who have argued against other "thermite-theorists" that thermite, on account of getting so extremely hot, would always melt vertically down materials and could only cut beams (non-vertical elements) in a significant manner.

What does this proof with regards to 9/11? Pretty much nothing.


Suppose the video showed how someone cut massive columns with a laser. Would that make any laser-theory of 9/11 more plausible?
What if the video showed a platoon of midgets with saws severing massive columns - would you start to suspect that maybe an army of midgets dunnit?

Showing that something is possible is a necessary condition for it to be true, but not at all a sufficient one.

Now that the truthers at least show the engineering feasibility of thermite cutting on one column, they next need to show
- how many cuts could be timed with enough precision to cause their beloved "controlled" demolition
- how (when, where, who...) work crews could have accessed the structural steel and attached the devices, complete with everything that's needed to trigger them in a well-timed fashion
- how these triggers and charges could have survived the incredibly hellish fires in the floors where collapse began

After that, they still have ZERO evidence that any of that was actually done.

There is no evidence whatsoever that thermite was used in any way, sort or fashion.
- No unreacted thermite found (the one paper by Harrit+Co. is fatally flawed in a dozend ways, most prominently by providing the very data that disproves the claim)
- No products of a thermite reaction found
- No steel member found that show signes of having been melted apart
- Nothing found that might have been part of the devices or triggering system
- No blindingly bright flashes seen on any video that are so typical for thermite reactions
- No such sightings reported by any witnesses
- None of the many people who would have had to work on that plot (producing the devices, producing or acquiring the thermite, applying the devices, planning the whole thing... we are talking about at least dozends of conspirators for this sub-plot alone) has come forward


So what does the video prove? Basically that human ingenuity is pretty amazing. It proves nothing about 9/11, though.
 
Dave Rogers said:
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
Click to expand...

@ aaarrrggh,

what Dave says is, lamentably, true.
But don't let that stop you :)
 
aaarrrggh said:
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.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the Forums.

Since this question got overlooked, the claim from the Truthers -- since there is no evidence of large quantities of molten iron* -- is that the "iron microspheres" found all over the place in the dust are evidence of thermite activity.

They're not. They're evidence of concrete construction. Concrete used in the Towers (and most places) uses fly ash, i.e. slag from burnt coal, which contains lots of iron microspheres. They're actually quite common in industrialized society. But either the Truthers never heard of them before, or they're betting that you haven't either, so they become "suspicious."

The dust was analyzed by several professional teams in published journal papers. They compared everything they found at the microscopic level to particle atlases, and they found nothing that suggests foul play.

Anyway, nobody doubts that with enough thermite, you could destroy anything. But the stuff is a bear to work with, and the idea of a synchronized, clandestine demolition using thermite makes no freaking sense at all. So far as is known the largest thermite burn in history was carried out by the Mythbusters, who unleashed a half-tonne of it on a single SUV, and failed to totally destroy even that. It's on YouTube and worth watching -- it clearly shows just how hard to conceal such an operation would be.

*: This is the point where Truthers bray about "witness statements" of molten iron, but as literally hundreds of threads on this Forum demonstrate, all they are is speculation -- no formerly molten iron was ever found, and no one tested anything while it was still hot. Besides, some of those "witness statements" are apocryphal themselves. There's no evidence of large quantities of molten iron, full stop.
 
Last edited:
aaarrrggh said:
Hi Guys,

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

...Thanks guys :)
Click to expand...
When a video starts out with a quotation, something Tim McVeigh might quote, you know it is moronic claptrap. No need to study, or refute, it is nonsense.

Or you look up the dolt who made the video. You find out he says this without offering any support or evidence.
Until such time that all this can be clearly explained without the use of explosives, I will throw my lot with fundamental laws of physics rather then the "official story" which defies those laws.
Click to expand...
If he was with the law of physics he would not join nuts who spread lies.

In the video he quotes Newsweek, who said structural steel melted, it did not and if he was a rational engineer he knows this is the news making a mistake. He takes an unfounded news source mistake, melted steel, and builds his failed video around a news source error. He is an idiot.

His over all premise is steel was melted, it was not. He is an idiot who think steel is indestructible, stronger than wood.

Ordinary fire beats steel. The video failed.
woodsteelfire.jpg


He proved no thermite was used on 911, there were zero explosions as he made by confining thermite to a small area where it blasts out. He proved no thermite was seen on 911. Then he shows beams with no thermite on them, after he showed us how the thermite product plates the steel with iron; what a nut. Is he a tax evader, or just an anti-government nut?
 
beachnut said:
When a video starts out with a quotation, something Tim McVeigh might quote, you know it is moronic claptrap. No need to study, or refute, it is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that a) that's not the quote and b) Einstein isn't the one who said it.
 
aaarrrggh said:
t.

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...

Hi aarrrggh,

I wanted to add to the comments already made just a small tidbit for you, regarding 'molten metal' seen by various people at GZ: It was also described in or below WTC 6!
Now, if the theory is that therm*te (some of us use this nomenclature to describe whatever iteration it is that Truthers are proposing) must've caused the molten metal, then there MUST have also been therm*te in WTC 6.
Of course neither Truthers nor anybody else is proposing this, which I find highly contradictory. It certainly demonstrates how selective 911 Truth is when examining evidence.

There was a large fire in 6, and it alone seems to be the cause of this stuff. The only report I have is from a PBS documentary 'America Rebuilds'.

'Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. Cars - both burned and pristine - were suspended in the air balanced on cracked parking garage slabs.
Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.'
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html


You'll also come across the story of the 'meteorite' found, allegedly made of molten metal. However, this object is apparently compacted material (several floors of it, yuck..) including intact rebar and even paper shreds.

Hardly evidence of therm*te.

IMO the therm*te theory is scientifically dead, at least in serious circles, and lives on mainly in the minds of incredulous followers of various 9/11 myths.
 
Thanks guys. I was pretty much certain you'd be able to point me in the right direction. It was one of those niggling feelings, where you just kinda know the thing you're looking at is flawed, but you don't necessarily know why.

Part of me would like to become more active in the skeptic movement again (I used to be a member of the Manchester Humanist Society, among other things), but another part of me thinks I could do without all the constant stress that comes with arguing with irrational idiots who don't know how to think properly.

I'm glad that places like this exist. Cheers!
 
alienentity said:
Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. Cars - both burned and pristine - were suspended in the air balanced on cracked parking garage slabs.
Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.
Click to expand...

Well, we do know that there actually WAS molten metal in WTC 6. Large blobs of it were recovered during clean-up.

It was lead, maybe some brass.

If you can't get a sample of it, brass is as good as steel in the follow-up to the incident. Brass glows red at an incredibly low temperature.
 
Horatius said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hm. Assuming it takes 4 lbs to cut through one steel colum and that there were about 250 steel columns to cut per floor, and that multiple floors need to be cut, we're still in "thousands of pounds" range quite easily.

What this video shows is that it is technically possible to demolish a steel framed building using therm*te-based charges. Notice I left out the adjective "controlled".

McHrozni
 
There are just too many variables to make the therm@te theory viable. We are still looking at a premeditated setup...a setup that would require thousands of pounds of therm@te and dozens, if not hundreds, of people in on it. In addition to all the daily employees completely oblivious to any changes to the walls, strange contraptions, fresh drywall, etc. in the months leading up to 9/11.

Read up on Occam's Razor.
 
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...

As already explained by many, the video you refer too debunks itself. This is typical of a large % of 'evidence' or 'proof' supplied by a truther. It is self debunking. 'Debunkers' are often not required in the discussion because truthers do it to themselves without a thought! lol.

I could direct you to youtube videos of men using oxyacetalene torches to cut steel columns. Does that prove that any building affected on 911 was demolished using this method?

I could direct you to youtube video of explosives being used to 'cut' steel columns and railway track etc. Does that prove that any building affected on 911 was demolished using this method?

I could direct you to youtube video of men losening nuts and bolts to steel buildings and those steel buyildings collapsing. Does that prove that any building affected on 911 was demolished using this method?

Truthers will say 'YES YES YES' then proceed to work bacwards to make it fit into a theory then redirect us back to the source.................a video on youtube showing 'men loosening bolts' etc etc etc.

If a video existed of 'garden worms burrowing through steel columns' then we wouldnt be discussing 'therm*te'! Any woo will do........just as long as it is an 'alternative theory' that bucks. lol.
 
Last edited:
aaarrrggh said:
Thanks guys. I was pretty much certain you'd be able to point me in the right direction. It was one of those niggling feelings, where you just kinda know the thing you're looking at is flawed, but you don't necessarily know why.

Part of me would like to become more active in the skeptic movement again (I used to be a member of the Manchester Humanist Society, among other things), but another part of me thinks I could do without all the constant stress that comes with arguing with irrational idiots who don't know how to think properly.

I'm glad that places like this exist. Cheers!
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum. I am glad that posters like you exist.
 
aaarrrggh said:
Thanks guys. I was pretty much certain you'd be able to point me in the right direction. It was one of those niggling feelings, where you just kinda know the thing you're looking at is flawed, but you don't necessarily know why.

Part of me would like to become more active in the skeptic movement again (I used to be a member of the Manchester Humanist Society, among other things), but another part of me thinks I could do without all the constant stress that comes with arguing with irrational idiots who don't know how to think properly.

I'm glad that places like this exist. Cheers!
Click to expand...

I'm very glad to see I was completely wrong about you. My apologies, and welcome to the forum.

Dave
 
aaarrrggh said:
Thanks guys. I was pretty much certain you'd be able to point me in the right direction. ..

... but another part of me thinks I could do without all the constant stress that comes with arguing with irrational idiots who don't know how to think properly.

I'm glad that places like this exist. Cheers!
Click to expand...

Cool. Yes, but here you can share in the satisfaction of watching various woo proposals and defences wilt, and in the understanding of how people get things really wrong.

cheers
 
Hey Guys,

Cheers for welcoming me to the forums :-)

Not sure whether I'll be around here so much as I do have a tendency to become quite sucked into this kind of thing, but I do keep a keen eye on all things Randi, and I hope he's around for many years to come to fight against the forces of irrationality.

And Dave Rogers: no problems. I can understand your initial analysis given the context and what you've experienced here no doubt countless times before.

See you around guys :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom