"Rather well know photo" only shows a column cut at a standard angle, either by cutting torches or something like thermite.  Most likely just a cutting torch, because that wouldn't require building up the dam like structures around the areas to be worked on.  And with thermite, the slag would have been routed out, not just dribbled on the low side.  So I'd say cutting torch on this, but could be wrong.  Does not matter, because for this picture to support the conspiracy theory you have to definitively show the column to be like that before the men started working.

Because those men arrived to do things  — EXACTLY THINGS LIKE THAT.  

I'm certain you can see the problem with this kind of "evidence."

As for your question about being doubtful as to the kinetic energy of a plane hitting the tower, we can address that.  Have you considered that the kinetic energy of a mass is a function of speed and of weight?  It does not matter if the mass is steel, fuel, water, humans, or aluminum.  There is nothing but the cross sectional area of the propelled object divided by the weight, times the square of the velocity.  Then there are secondary effects if the mass experiences phase changes on impact.  (Solid to liquid, or liquid to gas).  Whether this occurs is a function of the noted kinetic energy figured as instantaneous localized heating.

As for the flash in the video (one flash repeated over and over) I'm not impressed.  Yes, it appears to be a flash in the interior of the building - it looks like a flash from the big UPS systems which were IIRC a couple floors over the area that got hit.  So, something shorted out, right?  Flash.

What I was getting to is that if thermite had been used on the exterior columns you would have seen a very distinctive series of flashes going down the line.  One random flash doesn't cut it, sorry.

Also, are we through arguing nano-thermite?  As I mentioned, there's no need to hypothesize "nano-thermite" for a conspiracy theory, in fact it makes it crazier.  Demolition crews would simply used standard materials and standard methods.  Never has that been "nano-thermite," which is something of a laboratory curiosity.  The very reason Nobel won his Nobel prize was the fact that he figured out a way that dangerous, explosive material could be handled safely.  

I'm also curious, why this focus among conspiracy nuts on "cutting the columns?"  There is no relation between cutting a column and bringing a building down.  It is only necessary to heat a steel structure until it is weakened.  Steel is like putty when it is above 500-800 F.  The temperature and strength curves are well understood.  There's plenty of energy in jet fuel to do this.  This is simply stated, why I do not think "additional theories" are required.  These theories only attempt to bring "additional destructive energies" into the equation.  But if the known energies are sufficient, these ideas are not necessary.

It's as simple as that.  The conspiracy theorist must first rule out that the impact energy and the fuel of the jets could have caused the structural failures.  

I have not seen this done.  I've seen attempts at it that were extremely easy to debunk.

We call this an Ad Hominem argument.

That's why you kill people who decide to leave Islam?

Takiyya.

No, the nano-thermite thing was debunked completely.  If you want me to bring the paper up again, I can do that.   But it is not (at least I do not see how it is) a necessary part of a conspiracy theory.  If you think it was explosives, just use that generic word.  More explicitly, "high explosive," since that implies a shattering effect on the surrounding matter and something like a 50,000 foot per second gas velocity.

I have seen a large experimental rocket explode, and it was a brilliant white, instantaneous flash.  Scary as hell from a mile away.  I've also seen all kinds of molten metal and such.  No, you wouldn't see the flash if something occurred in the interior.  But if it occurred on the perimeter I beams (did I just say "beams"?  I'm an idiot...) then you would definitely see it, either from explosives or from thermite type materials.

No credible is people who say they heard "explosions."  Honestly, I can't tell the difference between a car backfiring and certain types of gunshots. 

Molten steel is VERY bright.

Speculation about "nano-thermite" is a waste of time.  This is because the term itself is not a specific item, in rate of reaction, high or low explosive or not at all, and so forth.  It's only a variety of "nano-stuff" anyway.  Every heard of grain elevator explosions?  "Nano-dust."  Submarine torpedos running on "nano-size aluminum powder" and sea water?  "Nano."

It's still a ridiculous assertion to say that planes hit the towers AND there was explosives AND there was a thermite material.  I hold that one should look for a SUFFICIENT cause of the events, and that's well, sufficient.

I must have seen Rand Paul talk thirty times and like him but will disagree.  He's in the shadow of Ron Paul, and is to a degree viewed the same way. 

But there is a truly massive number of high caliber men and women out there at this time who would work.

But that's not the way the question was posed or what it implies.  Among fervent leftists, "second hand smoke" is one item on a litmus test of whether you are a retrograde knuckle dragging Repugnantan.  Others include your attidue on Bush Jr.  (Hate is required), attitude on vaccines (watch out!  you'll be stereotyped an Anti-Vaxer).

DWMA can probably recite the entire current Creed, if we are nice.  Basically it's top down promulgated, so probably today it includes the transgender, same sex bathrooms, whatever the latest crap is being pushed.  Personally I don't care much except insofar as it becomes anti-scientific.

An actual discussion on vaccines, second hand smoke, or climate change is not sought, but agreement with whatever form of a three word or one line meme on the subject was cited.   Anyway this is off the subject, lol...

Hey, I'm pitching ...


A MUSLIM FREE MARS!

When I wrote that I did not have facts on the number of such arrests which are simply posturing, versus the number that result in appropriate punishments.

However I do not doubt your comments are true.

Awww....

We're not going to get him talking about who his country refuses to admit and why?

Here's one way you can look at the matter.  Suppose you pointed a sensor at the Earth from a considearable distance.  Your sensor looks at the Earth and gives you one number for albedo.  From that you can figure the entire energy budget of the planet.  Day and night.  

You could then acquire data on "global warming."  All you need to do is predict the change in the energy budget in 5, 10 or 15 years, take more measurements, and you have proved or disproved the theory of global warming.  More precisely, you have measured climate sensitivity.

The next best way to do this is with a polar orbiting satellite that takes temperature at altitudes above the Earth.

The absolute worst way to do this is with an old bunch of thermometers in various altitudes and locations, coupled with subsurface sea temperatures from water passing through ship engines, and so forth.

And there's no confusion on my part.  The companies taking money on the global warming gravy train are today's tobacco companies.  I encourage you to stick around this thread, as you can tell there are many things to learn.  There are many fields of science associated with the mismash loosely called "climate science."

Hillary has a definite association with world events happening which we could conveniently call "crazy stuff."

Although Obama does also.  The net effect of their actions has been very position for Iran.  Of course it's just a coincidence that Obama's Chief of Staff, Valarie Jarret, is Iranian.

And Hillary's girlfiend is .... Iranian....

Which IIRC I posted a rebuttal to.

But now you see part of what I was talking about?  Molten metal?   Oh, they must have used THERMITE.

SUSPICIOUS DUST?  Oh, they must have used EXPLOSIVES.

So we've got planes ramming into towers PLUS explosives previously set EXACTLY WHERE THE planes hit PLUS THERMITE exactly there to.

Man, we have a whole buffet line of crap going on at the same time from these conspiracy theorists.

LOL, these conspiracy theories are very weak theories.  They are bat shit crazy talk.

Rationally, one should ask from the evidence, what is necessary and sufficient to cause the results.  Nothing other than planes ramming buildings is required, because -

1.  There was no "molten metal."
2.  There was no flash as would have been seen from explosions.  Remember the beams supporting the towers were on the perimeter, so it would have been very, very obvious.  If you have never seen an explosion, you wouldn't understand.  It's a brilliant flash.
3.  The effect of nano-thermite and thermite are opposite.

None of this implies that a great conspiracy theory on 911 couldn't be made, just that it hasn't been seen yet.

Absolutely fascinating?

Where can I buy some of this concrete-mixed-with-nano-thermite?  Does it get delivered in regular concrete trucks?

How many buildings have it?

Do the roads and the bridges have it?

Do the Muslim Islamic Terrorists have it?

So you think the planes the towers, they were loaded up with "nano thermite," AND there were explosives?

Wow.  That sounds like one very complicated set of stuff.

There must have been hundreds of ninjas prowling in and around those buildings for months to get all that set up.

You don't have any tough questions.  You have confused statements in unscientific language which don't make sense.  Pointing out how they don't make sense, or how the terms are used completely wrongly is really about I have done with you.  You haven't had much in the way of questions at all.

Actually that was the first thing I explained to you.  Lapse rate.  Now go back and learn how it answers your question.  If it still doesn't make sense look at partial pressures of gases, and equilibrium conditions.

You also apparently did not understand my initial criticism of the application of an averaging of temperature to a system with multiple states of matter flowing between states.  Gas <--->  Liquid <---> Solid.

If you can't keep up with the class, go back a grade or two.  We're about at a freshman or sophomore level here in a meteorology class.

Actually I'm quite familiar with analogs, similar things to the thermite processes, although I have not worked with thermite.  But it's nothing but a welding compound.  The nano-thermite nonnsense, I recall reading a number of college dissertations that were on similar processes in rocket motors.  We're not talking here about the chemistry of the processes.

We're talking about crazy talk — your talk of building explosive materials into buildings, and your insinuation that that was and is being done.  Please tell us more.

Well, you'll just have to explain those "various reasons." 

"Spectral absorption is different" 

Really?  Between where and where?  How does that support your idea that Ground is Good?  Not consistent throughout the atmosphere?  How so?

All you need to do now is find spectral transmission and absorption charts for specific atmospheric levels which shouldn't be hard.  I guess if you have trouble let me know.  But your basic premise is refuted by Warmers themselves.  Like many a fervent religous believer, you don't know your own Creed.  See the below article for an explanation. 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot/

Over at the Climate Dialogue website we start with what could become a very interesting discussion about the so-called tropical hot spot. Climate models show amplified warming high in the tropical troposphere due to greenhouse forcing. However data from satellites and weather balloons don’t show much amplification. What to make of this? Have the models been ‘falsified’ as critics say or are the errors in the data so large that we cannot conclude much at all? And does it matter if there is no hot spot?

The (missing) tropical hot spot is one of the long-standing controversies in climate science. In 2008 two papers were published, one by a few scientists critical of the IPCC view (Douglass, Christy, Pearson and Singer) and one by Ben Santer and sixteen other scientists. We have participants from both papers. John Christy is the ‘representative’ from the first paper and Steven Sherwood and Carl Mears are ‘representatives’ of the second paper.

Your arguments presented here have already been refuted.  Yes, with 8th grade chemistry.

How do you want to proceed?  Each of your rantings one by one? 

I guess that what I wonder is where on Earth do you come up with this stuff?  If it is refuted by science, it's not true a week later.  Yet that's what you are doing.  Taking arguments that have been refuted, then presenting them as true yet once again.

"explosive sulfur thermite built into all these buildings to make it easier to demolish them when the time comes"

You have any idea how crazy that statement is?

He would NOT WANT us to have to say....

"You're FIRED!"

This is another fundamental chart.  Over which "deniers" and "Devout believers" can have a field day arguing one or another of the little arrows.

In my view both this and prior chart show exactly what I was trying to explain to DWMA.  That "global warming" to whatever extent it exists or does not exist, is an atmospheric, not a "surface" phenomena.