Video Evidence of Thermite Cutting at 9/11

[quote]horsepuss wrote:
You all say im full of shit, That is fine im not gonna argue over the internet but I say you are all blind.

That steel wasnt pouring out of the building by chance, Neither were all the other spots around the buildings.

If you guys think that this country is run any different than a large corporation that lays off a thousand workers to raise there own stock with zero concern for the employee andthere families youare all fools.

This country is a corporation and all those people who were killed were the layed off employees.[/quote]

Without a sample of what was coming out of that window you cannot say what it was. Yet you are telling us it definitely was molten steel. How do you know it wasn’t molten aluminum from the airplane wreckage? Aluminum melts at 1200 degrees vs 2600 for carbon steel. What is obvious is not thermite but that you don’t know a damn thing about metallurgy or basic principles of fluid dynamics that are hundreds of years old. You are a dumb ass for making me have to explain this to you.

All that is needed to melt metal is fuel and an air supply. Because of their size, height and proximity to each other those buildings created their own localized air patterns where there would be high pressure areas and low pressure areas. All they would have need to happen is have a big opening in a high pressure area that fed air through the building and came out through a small opening in low pressure area and you would have a venturi effect.

Bernoulli’s principle of fluid dynamics tell us that when a fluid like air passes through a venturi it’s pressure drops simultaneously with an increase in velocity. When you blow air on a fire it gets hotter. This how we have been able to melt metal for thousands of years.

Then there is the simple matter of different fuels burning at different temperatures. There was a lot more fuel to burn in that fire than just jet fuel. The jet fuel burned off quickly just like charcoal barbecue starter.

Steel burns hot enough to melt steel it is just a matter of getting it hot enough then supplying air. Steel wool can be lit on fire with just a match that is why it makes great kindling. The steel beams of the building structure would have been extremely difficult to heat up hot enough to burn because of their thickness. The flooring would not have been so difficult because it is thinner. But even easier than that would have been the thin sheet metal in a pile of steel case desks and filing cabinets full of paper. Once that lot got burning it would have been hot enough for molten metal to pour out of.

You see basic science can explain what we saw without needing exotic conspiracy theories.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

How do you know it wasn’t molten aluminum from the airplane wreckage? Aluminum melts at 1200 degrees vs 2600 for carbon steel. [/quote]

Or 327 Degrees for the lead plumbing, or the copper hot water lines… or the thousands of miles of cheap composite metals within the wiring?

Also when it comes to the melting point of steel, something often forgotten is the PRESSURE factor. The steel support beams were under TRILLIONS of lbs of pressure.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

Actually we do have some idea of what it should look like. The problem however is there are a lot of idiots who have no idea but they try to put it into the context of something that they are familiar with and then start jumping to conclusions.

[/quote]

Where does the “idea of what it should look like” come from?[/quote]

From observing buildings that have pancake collapsed because of structural failure. When they do controlled demolition of a building they are intentionally causing structural failure in order to cause a pancake collapse. There is no mystery to this.

When the WTC collapsed it began as a cascade failure. A cascade failure is a failure in a system of interconnected parts in which the failure of a part can trigger the failure of successive parts. Once that cascade began with the failure of an overloaded structural member it’s overload would have transferred to the one next to it as a shock load which instantly caused that one to fail immediately passing both their loads onto a third, fourth, fifth etc… in rapid succession. Once that cascade began it would have taken moments to rip through what was left of the structure.

The end result would not be different from a rapid fire series of demolition charges that took out all of the structural supports on one or two floors. So why would anyone expect what would happen next to look different?

Then why havnt any of the other buildings around the world that have burned for DAYS not fallen down. Oh I know what your gonna say, They werent hit by planes. Yeah I get thet but Sifu you said youreself that the jet fuel burned off quickly and the office furniture and carpet burned weakening the steel. Well buildings around the world have burned for days and not fallen down and I would be willing to bet they got just as hot.

Point 1: Holy shit Bobby, they make window frames out of aluminum now? Well butter my biscuit!

Point 2: Holy shit Bobby, steel structures fail when you heat them up? Fail before melting point you say? Well butter my biscuit!

Point 3: Steel just fails after reaching critical load? You mean it doesn’t start to creak and buckle like timber? Well butter my biscuit!

Hyuck hyuck.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

Actually we do have some idea of what it should look like. The problem however is there are a lot of idiots who have no idea but they try to put it into the context of something that they are familiar with and then start jumping to conclusions.

[/quote]

Where does the “idea of what it should look like” come from?[/quote]

From observing buildings that have pancake collapsed because of structural failure. When they do controlled demolition of a building they are intentionally causing structural failure in order to cause a pancake collapse. There is no mystery to this.

When the WTC collapsed it began as a cascade failure. A cascade failure is a failure in a system of interconnected parts in which the failure of a part can trigger the failure of successive parts. Once that cascade began with the failure of an overloaded structural member it’s overload would have transferred to the one next to it as a shock load which instantly caused that one to fail immediately passing both their loads onto a third, fourth, fifth etc… in rapid succession. Once that cascade began it would have taken moments to rip through what was left of the structure.

The end result would not be different from a rapid fire series of demolition charges that took out all of the structural supports on one or two floors. So why would anyone expect what would happen next to look different? [/quote]

Never of the scale or structure of the WTC and never hit by airliners. So, no that is just conjecture about a system too complicated to model with any real accuracy.

[quote]horsepuss wrote:
Then why havnt any of the other buildings around the world that have burned for DAYS not fallen down. Oh I know what your gonna say, They werent hit by planes. Yeah I get thet but Sifu you said youreself that the jet fuel burned off quickly and the office furniture and carpet burned weakening the steel. Well buildings around the world have burned for days and not fallen down and I would be willing to bet they got just as hot.

Professor Jones is a crackpot who was relieved of his position at BYU for publishing his theories on the Physics departments website then trying to play them off as having been submitted for peer review and accepted. One of the journals Jones cited being published in (“Journal of 9/11 Studies”) he is the co founder and co-editor of.

The BYU college of mathematical sciences and structural engineering faculty distanced themselves from or even rebutted his theories. Here are some of their rebuttals of Jones.

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his “Conspiracy Theory” relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones’ (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones’ thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet’s fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones’ presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

“I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don’t think there is accuracy and validity to these claims” “The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones’s hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU’s own faculty members. Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review.” - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

“The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.” - The College of Engineering and Technology department

“But jet fuel wasn’t the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.”

“The jet fuel was the ignition source,” Williams tells PM. “It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down.”

Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.

http://www-mae.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/WILLIAMS/williams.html

Another point is your first video is very misleading. It shows portions of the WTC that were cut off at an angle using a blowtorch, in combination with a picture a linear shaped charge used in demolition placed at an angle. They are trying to give the impression that a shaped charge was used to cut that portion of the foundation off when there are photo’s on the web of those beams being cut with a torch.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

Another point is your first video is very misleading. It shows portions of the WTC that were cut off at an angle using a blowtorch, in combination with a picture a linear shaped charge used in demolition placed at an angle. They are trying to give the impression that a shaped charge was used to cut that portion of the foundation off when there are photo’s on the web of those beams being cut with a torch.

debunking911.com - contact with domain owner | Epik.com [/quote]

Those guys who cut those beams with those torches must have put a big ass carpenters triangle up there first to get a perfectly straight 45 degrees huh. Chalk line and all.

So you went out there with a protractor and measured the angle?

[quote]Sifu wrote:
You see basic science can explain what we saw without needing exotic conspiracy theories. [/quote]

You want to know what it’s like dealing with youse Truther guys? Prove you weren’t behind the grisly multiple murder at the Petit’s house in New Haven. I’m serious. How would you do that? Especially if I get to claim the police and everyone else are in on it. For the grand finale, if you manage to tell me there is not one shred of evidence linking you to that, I can always claim that just proves the conspiracy was truly massive and claim victory. This really is how it feels to try and have a discussion with a conspiracy theorists.

Reminds me of that website I found in January of 2000 that was selling camping equipment cheap. There was a note that since the guy really thought that Y2K (remember that?) was going to end civilization he had neglected to do things like actually fulfill his orders. Oops. Not to worry, since he knew that Y2K really had happened and that it was a MASSIVE GOVERNMENT COVER-UP that prevented people from seeing it. Seems he thought that the government was powerful enough to cover up the end of the world. (What supernova?)

Now here is the issue (and yes, you are quite right in all you wrote Sifu): The Truthers have no standard of proof for anything. Reason did not lead them to their conclusions and reason will not change their minds – mostly it just feels good to say the gubmint did it. Having been sucked into some of these discussions before, all conspiracy theorists have a huge advantage when they engage honest people. See, it is easy to make a claim like the government did X and honest people who are dedicated to finding out the truth are then at a serious disadvantage because it might take several dissertations to tidy up all the details. Long before you get this completed, they will change their song to claiming the government did Y instead. The mistake for us lies in assuming these people have anything even remotely like an interest in objective truth.

So, if you think that 9-11 was an inside job, before we start you have to not just give your “proof” but explain what it would take to convince you that you are wrong. If you cannot articulate this, then you are by definition biased. Exceptional claims require exceptional proof, not just masses of conditional irrelevancies. You can’t, e.g., claim Bush blew up the Pentagon single-handed then sit back and let us spin our wheels trying to prove a negative.

And as always, I might just be full of shit…

– jj

The biggest problem with the official theory, as you could say as there is with the conspiracy theory- is that there isn’t evidence for either side. KSM can’t be your only evidence.

19 hijackers did it… buuut, they aren’t on the flight lists

Building 7 falls… buuuut, they can’t explain why

Pentagon is hit… buuuut, they aren’t releasing the videos of it

BIGGEST FUCKING “HUH?” MOMENT:
I find it quite disturbing that the biggest attack on American soil happens, and suddenly ANY and ALL standard crime scene protocol is suddenly thrown out the window… Huh? What the fuck? Why isn’t anyone wondering why the fuck this happened?

Why was evidence destroyed as quickly as possible? Why is there video of pentagon employees outside picking up debris on the lawn immediately after the attack? Where are the black boxes? … HUH???

It’s that most simple fact that should make you at least wonder, in the slightest, why that was done.

Funny how I don’t see that trend continuing. They continue to tape off, collect, examine, STORE evidence. But not on 9/11, no sir. Straaaange.

let’s just assume that there was thermite and secondary explosions and all that. why couldn’t these things have been placed by terrorists? why would it have to have been placed by the government?

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
You see basic science can explain what we saw without needing exotic conspiracy theories. [/quote]

You want to know what it’s like dealing with youse Truther guys? Prove you weren’t behind the grisly multiple murder at the Petit’s house in New Haven. I’m serious. How would you do that? Especially if I get to claim the police and everyone else are in on it. For the grand finale, if you manage to tell me there is not one shred of evidence linking you to that, I can always claim that just proves the conspiracy was truly massive and claim victory. This really is how it feels to try and have a discussion with a conspiracy theorists.

Reminds me of that website I found in January of 2000 that was selling camping equipment cheap. There was a note that since the guy really thought that Y2K (remember that?) was going to end civilization he had neglected to do things like actually fulfill his orders. Oops. Not to worry, since he knew that Y2K really had happened and that it was a MASSIVE GOVERNMENT COVER-UP that prevented people from seeing it. Seems he thought that the government was powerful enough to cover up the end of the world. (What supernova?)

Now here is the issue (and yes, you are quite right in all you wrote Sifu): The Truthers have no standard of proof for anything. Reason did not lead them to their conclusions and reason will not change their minds – mostly it just feels good to say the gubmint did it. Having been sucked into some of these discussions before, all conspiracy theorists have a huge advantage when they engage honest people. See, it is easy to make a claim like the government did X and honest people who are dedicated to finding out the truth are then at a serious disadvantage because it might take several dissertations to tidy up all the details. Long before you get this completed, they will change their song to claiming the government did Y instead. The mistake for us lies in assuming these people have anything even remotely like an interest in objective truth.

So, if you think that 9-11 was an inside job, before we start you have to not just give your “proof” but explain what it would take to convince you that you are wrong. If you cannot articulate this, then you are by definition biased. Exceptional claims require exceptional proof, not just masses of conditional irrelevancies. You can’t, e.g., claim Bush blew up the Pentagon single-handed then sit back and let us spin our wheels trying to prove a negative.

And as always, I might just be full of shit…

– jj[/quote]

No your right, I am Biased.

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
The biggest problem with the official theory, as you could say as there is with the conspiracy theory- is that there isn’t evidence for either side. KSM can’t be your only evidence.

19 hijackers did it… buuut, they aren’t on the flight lists

Building 7 falls… buuuut, they can’t explain why

Pentagon is hit… buuuut, they aren’t releasing the videos of it

BIGGEST FUCKING “HUH?” MOMENT:
I find it quite disturbing that the biggest attack on American soil happens, and suddenly ANY and ALL standard crime scene protocol is suddenly thrown out the window… Huh? What the fuck? Why isn’t anyone wondering why the fuck this happened?

Why was evidence destroyed as quickly as possible? Why is there video of pentagon employees outside picking up debris on the lawn immediately after the attack? Where are the black boxes? … HUH???

It’s that most simple fact that should make you at least wonder, in the slightest, why that was done.

Funny how I don’t see that trend continuing. They continue to tape off, collect, examine, STORE evidence. But not on 9/11, no sir. Straaaange.[/quote]

Yeah what this guy said, I have seen the pentagon video, it was in the NatGeo documentary I watched. And what hit the Pentagon didnt look like a plane.

[quote]siouxperman wrote:
let’s just assume that there was thermite and secondary explosions and all that. why couldn’t these things have been placed by terrorists? why would it have to have been placed by the government?[/quote]

There wan an email that surface post 9/11 by a guy named Scott Forbes, he claimed the wknd before 9/11 the trade centers were completly shut down from the 50th floors and up. He claimed that the power was cut for 36 hours for cable replacements. He says the security cameras were off and there were people in and out of the building constantly for the whole period of time.

He says he didnt think anything of it untill tuesday morning.

But he is the only one who makes these claims and even finding info about it online can be tough.

Why was what was left of the towers moved so quickly and never examined? What happened to the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon? It’s common knowledge that we knew that this was planned and was coming. We didn’t do anything about it and that concerns me. Good old george bush didn’t even blink an eye when her heard what happened. Just glad I live in the north american union and I’m surrounded by a bunch of sheep who cower in fear and never question authority. Yes, my tin hat fits nicely thank you. Now go pray and see how much that accomplishes.

[quote]horsepuss wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:
let’s just assume that there was thermite and secondary explosions and all that. why couldn’t these things have been placed by terrorists? why would it have to have been placed by the government?[/quote]

There wan an email that surface post 9/11 by a guy named Scott Forbes, he claimed the wknd before 9/11 the trade centers were completly shut down from the 50th floors and up. He claimed that the power was cut for 36 hours for cable replacements. He says the security cameras were off and there were people in and out of the building constantly for the whole period of time.

He says he didnt think anything of it untill tuesday morning.

But he is the only one who makes these claims and even finding info about it online can be tough.
[/quote]

That largest building at the time to be brought down in a controlled demolition took much longer and serious amounts of manpower to pack with explosives to bring it down.

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
Why was what was left of the towers moved so quickly and never examined? What happened to the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon? It’s common knowledge that we knew that this was planned and was coming. We didn’t do anything about it and that concerns me. Good old george bush didn’t even blink an eye when her heard what happened. Just glad I live in the north american union and I’m surrounded by a bunch of sheep who cower in fear and never question authority. Yes, my tin hat fits nicely thank you. Now go pray and see how much that accomplishes. [/quote]

I like you. “Think for yourself and question authority” -Timothy Leary

You guys need to read about the Thermite that is believed to have been used. It wasnt an explosive like what keeps getting brought up, It was used for cutting.

Correct me if I’m wrong here (and I could well be, as I haven’t studied it as rigourously as others), but didn’t the US Government claim to find Mohammad Atta’s passport at ground zero shortly after the planes hit? Amazing it survived the fiery wreckage.

I also remember reading that the only contents of Atta’s car left at Boston airport were a Koran and an Arabic flight manual. Why would he have that in his car? Was he “cramming” before the big event? The attack involved flying jumbo jets into skyscrapers with surgical precision, and even tilting the wings before impact to maximize the amount of jet fuel that would come into contact with the towers. The hijacker had considerable flight expertise…probably not the types who would pore over a flight manual in their glovebox at the last minute. It does seem remarkably convenient to find these books in his car.

I do agree that keeping a conspiracy like this “under wraps” would be nearly impossible for the government to accomplish, but just because somebody questions the events of 9/11 doesn’t automatically make them a delusional moron. There are valid points to be made for both sides…