# "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 6, 2016, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917 "2016-08-06T07:26:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/101 "2016-08-07T00:12:49Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Please define “nano-thermite explosive” … the key feature to thermite is that it is _non-explosive_ … you have a made-up word here so I’m appreciate a definition. I was just going on what I read. I don’t know how truthful it is. I think they were talking about thermite being related to the explosive and the nano version involved nano-technology and is more powerful and quieter. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/102 "2016-08-07T00:14:31Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > What’s your opinion now? Do you think terrorists flying airplanes into the WTC buildings is what caused them to fall? If not, then what? Try to be succinct, and avoid saying what you think \*didn’t \*happen. Yes the first option. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/103 "2016-08-07T00:18:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > By your own words… > > You already told me that you found what I linked to to be useful, in this very same thread. The real question is, useful for what? Well it seems to address my concerns and “refute” them though I haven’t fully read it all. > [@](#): > > …I have found that there are no shortcuts to learning, unless you do not want to. Actually getting direct answers here and links to good sites would take far less of my time than me reading through all the old threads to try and find what I’m after when a large proportion of the content is irrelevant to what I’m looking into. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/104 "2016-08-07T00:19:35Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > Well I thought they said it was nano-thermite explosives that caused them to fall in a way that appears to the layman to be like a controlled demolition. Speaking of insulting, do you not realize that \*The Skeptic \*cite I made was a direct reply to the points that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth were making? [http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/](http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/) > [@](#): > > 7 WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE UNIGNITED NANOTHERMITES THEY FOUND IN THE DUST SAMPLES IN THAT EXPERIMENT? Niels Harritt, Steven Jones and other 9/11 controlled demolition theorists claim to have found nanothermite particles in dust samples from the World Trade Center. They made sure the dust samples were untainted, and used advanced instruments to measure what happened when these tiny red-grey chips were heated up. > > Thermites reach temperatures of around 4500° and have their own oxygen supply when they burn, so they can burn underwater. Harritt, Jones, et. al. therefore should have heated up the chips in a nitrogen or argon atmosphere to eliminate the possibility that regular hydrocarbons were burning. They also failed to take the carbon-based products out of the mix, so what we may well be seeing is some kind of carbon-based product burning in oxygen. They compared the sudden energy spike of their burning chips with the spikes of known nanothermites, and found that their chips ignited at around 150° C. lower than the known nanothermites, and the energy release was off between their chips and the nanothermites by a factor of at least two. Yet they called this a match for nanothermite! > > Attempts to independently replicate this experiment have been dismal. Mark Basile, who appeared in the acknowledgments of the original study, burned the chips in air, replicating the error of the original experiment and not even measuring the energy released. A chemist named Frédéric Henry-Couannier got another dust sample from the original experimenters and wrote, “Eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed.” The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and didn’t find thermitic material. This is to point out that you are ignoring or skipping even the cites that you claim are useful in this very same thread. On Edit: > [@JohnClay](#): > > Actually getting direct answers here and links to good sites would take far less of my time than me reading through all the old threads to try and find what I’m after when a large proportion of the content is irrelevant to what I’m looking into. If you do want to give to others the impression that that is the case you should not skip the cites in this very same thread. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/105 "2016-08-07T00:27:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Sorry, but using the Zeitgeist movie as a point does not lead to take your concern very seriously. I don’t mean to say that because it was mentioned in the film it proves it is true. I’m just saying that that film got me interested in this. I was watching it because it is related to [Religulous](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=798923). > [@](#): > > …most experts and engineers agree… I quoted the site saying “As of the date of this publication, there are almost 1,700 architects and engineers who openly support the findings of AE911Truth vs. **only a few dozen** who have **openly** supported the NIST WTC reports” and I don’t think anyone disputed that. > [@](#): > > …that it was not a controlled demolition and the planes and the fires they caused were the reason of the collapses is just about the first item that you should accept so as to not sound insulting to the ones you are claiming to ask for help in this issue… I want to be able to understand the issues myself rather than just accept whatever the experts say. “claiming to ask for help” - well I did change my mind on whether it looked like a controlled demolition… I just didn’t immediately change my mind just because people said it was the consensus and that it had been covered before. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/106 "2016-08-07T00:31:18Z")
How do you feel about the weasel word “rapid”? ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/107 "2016-08-07T00:32:51Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > …This is to point out that you are ignoring or skipping even the cites that you claim are useful in this very same thread… > > …you should not skip the cites in this very same thread… > **["Not really a debate again"](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=787957)** > > http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19195828&postcount=19 “I figure if your posts in a thread exceed 50% you’re preaching to yourself and not for the benefit of others or of a real debate.” My posts were 5/12 including the... “I figure if your posts in a thread exceed 50% you’re preaching to yourself and not for the benefit of others or of a real debate.” I have had debate threads closed for me posting too much. If I agree with someone’s post I often just not reply - I just point out the things I disagree with or need to mention. In this thread I might already be approaching 50% of the posts so me telling people I agree with them might make me go over the threshold… ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/108 "2016-08-07T00:36:20Z")
Ah … so then you agree the first “key evidence” is complete bullshit? ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/109 "2016-08-07T00:40:56Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Ah … so then you agree the first “key evidence” is complete bullshit? It seems like it though their video has a lot of “experts” :dubious: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/nC0eQ3_FUs0/maxresdefault.jpg "11 WTC TT Part 2 Sudden Onset of Destruction - ESO - Experts Speak Out") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC0eQ3_FUs0) ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/110 "2016-08-07T00:43:17Z")
So this brings into question everything on that page … credibility is lost now. If the first evidence is bullshit, we must regard everything else said as bullshit unless proven otherwise. I gave the web page the benefit of the doubt, but now that trust is violated … do you agree? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/111 "2016-08-07T00:43:20Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > I quoted the site saying “As of the date of this publication, there are almost 1,700 architects and engineers who openly support the findings of AE911Truth vs. **only a few dozen** who have **openly** supported the NIST WTC reports” and I don’t think anyone disputed that. Sorry. But that is creationist and climate denier logic. You are not supposed to use their sorry logic, otherwise you are indeed begging that we accept the illogical argument that they are making about the consensus in all other areas of research and science. And you are even wrong about anyone here not disputing that, I even quoted Chomsky on what the few architects at AE911 are doing there, not science indeed and their lack of attempts at convincing other experts that they are correct points to why their logic is shot, might as well wonder why biologists do not bother to openly support evolution, **they see no need to do it** unless the science they are working with involves evolutionary mechanisms. > [@JohnClay](#): > > I want to be able to understand the issues myself rather than just accept whatever the experts say. Uh, sorry, but experts exist for a reason, that some experts are deluded on a subject is something to take into account, but it is silly to ignore what **most** experts are telling us. > [@JohnClay](#): > > “claiming to ask for help” - well I did change my mind on whether it looked like a controlled demolition… I just didn’t immediately change my mind just because people said it was the consensus and that it had been covered before. That “covered before” part also included evidence and previous experience. Once again it is something that you need to acknowledge because many generalists like the skeptical groups already linked to have already looked at, you may be queasy about that but previous experience tells me that one gets closer to the truth by not ignoring what the experts told the skeptics and generalists in the past. In essence, we are showing you where to go so you should not reinvent the wheel and look as if you do want to become the dictionary’s definition of “teaching grandma to suck eggs”. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/112 "2016-08-07T00:46:00Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > So this brings into question everything on that page … credibility is lost now. If the first evidence is bullshit, we must regard everything else said as bullshit unless proven otherwise. I gave the web page the benefit of the doubt, but now that trust is violated … do you agree? I’m still interested in the counter-arguments for some of the other things though such as the traces of thermite. I’ll look into that myself though. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/113 "2016-08-07T00:47:54Z")
Right … you need to figure out what nano-thermite is … I guess … do you understand that “thermite” is the name of a chemical reaction, there’s no specific substance that can be rightfully called “thermite”? ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/114 "2016-08-07T00:49:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > …And you are even wrong about anyone here not disputing that, I even quoted Chomsky on what the few architects at AE911 are doing there,… What I meant by not disputing that I meant directly responding to the part of the quote that said “only a few dozen who have openly supported the NIST WTC reports”. sorry I’ve got to go for a few hours… ---
**Author:** ![Enlightening\_Meditation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecc23a/32.png) [@Enlightening\_Meditation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enlightening_Meditation)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/115 "2016-08-07T00:53:04Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > …\ In this case I’m saying that from my POV it seems like Building’s 7 collapse looks like a demolition. I can’t understand how a fire on 2-3 floors would cause it to suddenly collapse like that in such a clean way. Rather than keeping on telling me to look in other threads I’d like it if people could explain that to me. \… I’ll try… Depending on elemental composition and steel processing history, plain carbon steel loses approximately 50% of its yield strength at 1,020°F and approximately 85% to 90% of its yield strength by the minimum austenitizing temperature (around 1,350°F). Standard grade A36 construction steel has a minimum yield strength of 36 kilo-pounds force per square inch (ksi) at room temperature and static loading rate. This is a cheap commodity material. This is not a high strength, heat resistant tool steel, an exotic stainless steel like used in engine valves, or nickel based superalloy used in jet engines. It is not at all difficult for me to imagine a steel building collapsing after 6+ hours of raging fire around a few critical support columns. The WTC buildings had somewhat unusual structural support designs with large open spaces, long horizontal beams. They were not designed to handle widespread sustained high temperatures combined with structural supports knocked out by impact by large aircraft and/or debris from falling adjacent taller buildings. I suspect that the much more dense steel packed Empire State building would have remained standing if struck by either of the large aircraft. I am not a licensed structural engineer, but I have done enough steel heat treating, blacksmithing, mechanical testing and welding to understand many of the temperature dependent properties of steel. [QUOTE=JohnClay] I’m still interested in the counter-arguments for some of the other things though such as the traces of thermite. I’ll look into that myself though. [/QUOTE] I watched Zeitgeist or one of the other so-called truther movies 10 years ago that claimed thermite was present because of detected sulfur compounds. Well, gypsum boards used in office ceiling tiles and other products are loaded with sulfur containing compounds. Is there other claimed ‘evidence’ for thermite? ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/116 "2016-08-07T00:58:48Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Right … you need to figure out what nano-thermite is … I guess … do you understand that “thermite” is the name of a chemical reaction, there’s no specific substance that can be rightfully called “thermite”? Thermite is an umbrella term for a number of pyrotechnic compounds with specific properties. It is indeed a substance. A “thermite reaction” is when thermite is ignited by heat. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/117 "2016-08-07T01:02:05Z")
I’m not finding sulfur used in thermite … have I missed something here? ETA: Household thermite is just Iron Oxide and metallic Alumunium powders mixed together … nothing special about this mixture ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/118 "2016-08-07T01:08:33Z")
[quote=“JohnClay, post:109, topic:761917”] It seems like it though their video has a lot of “experts” :dubious: [/QUOTE] Already replied too: [http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/](http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/) > [@](#): > > WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition. There is also the so called experts (mind you, they can be experts, but their ignorance and ideology does show on how they willfully ignore evidence) in that video harping about the building collapsing in their footprint, problem is that they are only spewing bullshit, the buildings did not collapse like controlled explosions, many parts of the buildings fell over other ones, with many parts also crashing into building 7. That last bit BTW is what I do think a lot of the misleaders do want to tell others about the buildings collapsing like in a controlled demolition, Because it does take away one of the main reasons why building 7 collapsed. [http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm](http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/119 "2016-08-07T01:09:38Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I’m not finding sulfur used in thermite … have I missed something here? You’re not. The suggestion, I believe, is that the mere presence of sulfur (despite the abundance of ample sulfur-containing compounds in an urban environment) is somehow indicative of steel weakening attacks in conjunction with thermite. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/120 "2016-08-07T01:14:24Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > What I meant by not disputing that I meant directly responding to the part of the quote that said “only a few dozen who have openly supported the NIST WTC reports”. > > sorry I’ve got to go for a few hours… :rolleyes: No, you can not get away with that, you were wrong even on that simple test. The whole reply (and I already did notice other dopers also pointing at the sorry logic that minority group of architects are using) does point to how dumb it is to hang to that point of “only a few dozen who have openly supported the NIST WTC reports”. That is not how this works, the proponents of the conspiracy are the ones that have to show that most of the ones **that do not openly support** the Architects for Truth are on their side, they have bupkis to support what they are logically implying. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917.md?page=7)