# "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:** 7
**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, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/121 "2016-08-07T01:19:19Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > 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. Phaw … if thermite had a roll in any terrorist attack … it would have a role in _all_ terrorist attacks … it’s super-duper easy to make … kitchen-counter chemistry. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/122 "2016-08-07T01:26:33Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > So are you saying it is true that “our leaders knew that the 9/11 attacks were planned and they intentionally failed to act”? (or might have been planned) In Penn and Teller’s Bullshit, it says “are 49.3% of us just f\*\*\*ing crazy?” How about this: Bush and Cheney dismissed intelligence reports that attacks were planned out of a sense of complacency that they thought al-Qaeda was incapable of pulling off simultaneous hijackings of multiple airliners and flying the planes into prominent structures. I don’t think they maliciously ignored the reports as a justification for taking us into war. Although the attacks did turn out to be opportune for war once they happened. Or as Hanlon said, “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/123 "2016-08-07T01:28:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Already replied too: > > [Skeptic » eSkeptic » September 7, 2011](http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/) > 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) Building 7?! Stop thinking so small! The controlled collapse of Building 7 was designed to destroy Fiterman Hall, a building across the street that was part of the Borough of Manhattan Community College. Success! Fiterman Hall was torn down and Dick Cheney’s step-grandnephew Clem didn’t have to hand in his already-late “What I did on my summer vacation” essay! Connect the dot, sheeple! ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/124 "2016-08-07T02:18:45Z")
Probably already been addressed, but there are several debunking sites for the “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth”, as well as several that actually look into the credentials of the supposed SE’s and architects. [Here](http://lies-of-the-truth-movement.blogspot.com/2010/10/richard-gages-structural-engineers.html) is one that talks about several of the SEs and architects named in the OP’s main site (and note…this crap was debunked in freaking 2010!): > [@](#): > > I decided to look over the credentials and statements of the structural engineers (SEs), in AE911T. There are only 30, 19 in the US and 11 in Canada, Australia and Western Europe. Anders Björkman who used to claim to be an SE is now more accurately classified as a “Naval architect & Marine engineer” > Two to four seem to not really be SE’s. Charles Pegelow is no longer listed as a structural engineer and his now expired license was for civil engineering. Apparently Rich Reed recently earned his BS, is unlicensed and left his bio (and statement) blank. Albert Arey from Chicago is listed as being “Degreed and Licensed” and “Verified” but he is in the “Other Supporters and A&E Students” group, did not provide a license number and is NOT licensed in Illinois. He claims to have a degree from Ecole Centrale Lyon, which only gives degrees in general engineering, so he might be licensed in France. Other than his education his bio gave no indication what experience, if any, he has. The only work experience William H. Russell “Architect, Structural Engineer”, of Atlanta mentioned was as an architecture professor 1973 – 2006 but failed to disclose were he taught from 1979 onward. He claims to have earned his BA in architecture and MS in architectural engineering at the University of Illinois, Urbana and to have been an “Asst Professor” there 1973 -77. He also claims to be the holder of RArch#3454(GA) and “S.Eng#4161(IL,inactive)” both issued in 1977 but a he did not turn up in the IL or GA engineers databases\*, the latter of which lists inactive licensees and used 9-digit numbers and like most states neither IL nor GA issues licenses for specific types of engineers so there is no way he could have earned a “Structural Engineering Registration” in either state in 1977 or any other year. Also it is hard to believe one of the prestigious architecture programs in the US would hire an unlicensed architect as an assistant professor which is a tenure track position. > Despite truthers using the excuse that they sign up so few engineers because many are afraid of being ostracized, marginalized, fired or otherwise persecuted with the exception of a guy who moved from Belgrade to London in 1989 AE911T does not have any SEs from Moslem, Communist, formerly Communist or anti-US countries (unless you count France). > Only 14 of them claimed to have experience with buildings and only one, Steven Merritt, cited tall buildings. Paul A. Thomas claims to have designed “concrete & steel structures to 240 ft. height” but worked mostly for “Mining & Industrial clients”. > Surprisingly only 3 mentioned NIST but only one or two seem to have read the report. The aforementioned Mr. Arey from Chicago simply said “The collapse was too neat to be ascribed to the official story and what was described in NIST report. A new investigation is warranted”, so I doubt he actually read it. His inability to spell out from an engineering perspective why he thinks the towers were CDed is yet another reason to doubt he really is an SE. > Bill Boggia and Ronald H. Brookman critiqued the NIST report in ways that suggest they actually read it (or at least articles by truthers who had). Boggia’s experience however is with offshore platforms. Brookman claims to have “over 21 years experience in structural analysis, design, evaluation and rehabilitation of buildings in northern California” but makes no mention of what types of buildings. Other than forums and truther sites the only mention of an engineer named Ronald, Ronald H. or Ronald Herman Brookman was the California Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors. > However like the others neither Boggia nor Brookman not Merrit nor Thomas have written a technical critique of the NIST report including calculations showing (or attempting to show) that it was flawed let alone gotten anything published in an engineering journal > To save space in the chart below I edited down most of their bios and statements, substituted numbers with numerals and used the following abbreviations: ME mechanical Engineer, CE civil engineer, BSe Bachelor Sci. Eng. (general engineering or field not specified), CD controlled demolition, BLD building, FF free fall, FTP footprint. All mentions of the NIST report and experience with buildings were included. So, it’s the usual assortment of guys who aren’t actually SEs or architects, guys who WERE SEs or architects (some with rather shaky creds) who let their licenses laps, and a few nutter fringers who are, well, nutters and on the fringe of their professions. Since we’ve basically debunked the actual claims these guys are making in myriad threads I figured I’d just skip that part. Sorry if someone has linked to this already…there are a ton of cites on this, as well as a bunch of debunking sites specifically aimed at the claims made by the “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth” and I figured those have already been linked to earlier in the thread since it’s an easy search. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/125 "2016-08-07T02:54:53Z")
**JohnClay** you also have to realize that you’re implying that the government murdered thousands of its own citizens, which is patently false and insulting. It makes people somewhat testy to discuss this again when you refuse to do even basic research for yourself. ---
**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, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/126 "2016-08-07T03:01:10Z")
… this is a government who honestly thought a grateful Iraqi public would willing hand over all their oil assets to American oil companies … ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/127 "2016-08-07T03:18:45Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > … this is a government who honestly thought a grateful Iraqi public would willing hand over all their oil assets to American oil companies … Well, it’s easy to assume the government is _stupid_, less so to assume they are masterfully devious. ---
**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, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/128 "2016-08-07T03:50:51Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > … this is a government who honestly thought a grateful Iraqi public would willing hand over all their oil assets to American oil companies … And there are indeed reasons to distrust the government, but that was already implied when I cited Chomsky. The reality is that even one of the most intellectual critics of the American political system knows how hare brained is the idea that in this case the government killed all those people to gain control of the oil in Iraq. One should realize that dictators in the past also knew about how to use a crisis to their own advantage. The evidence demonstrated that 9/11 was organized by Arab terrorists. Bush just used the attack to justify the invasion of Iraq. The most ironic thing with that was that Bush actually ended up doing what Osama Bin Laden wanted also. > **[Bin Laden wanted US to invade Iraq, author says](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-08-24/bin-laden-wanted-us-to-invade-iraq-author-says/648888)** > > The author of a new book says Osama bin Laden deliberately provoked the US into invading Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/129 "2016-08-07T05:34:11Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > So are you saying it is true that “our leaders knew that the 9/11 attacks were planned and they intentionally failed to act”? (or might have been planned) In Penn and Teller’s Bullshit, it says “are 49.3% of us just f\*\*\*ing crazy?” No. When you say “intentionally failed” you are turning a sin of omission into a sin of commission. You have to remember what the security services were like pre 9/11. Several of them had pieces of the puzzle. The FBI knew a bit of this. The CIA knew a bit of that. INS knew something. The NSA probably knew a lot. However, none of these agencies were willing to talk to one another. They were all separate kingdoms fighting for a slice of federal dollars by jealously guarding their secrets. Had they all been sharing information at the time it might have made a difference. It might not have. Amidst all of this is Mr. Clarke, doing a lot of warning but not bringing actionable intel. “Terrorists might want to attack something somewhere with planes” is incredibly vague even if we bear in mind that Tom Clancy practically gave directions on how to smash the Capitol in Debt of Honor which was published in 1993. But even that idea was of a lone wolf hitting a single target at a precise moment. What actually happened was not fathomable at the time nor would it be realistic to expect preparation for it. Hindsight along with the PNAC’s fervent desire for a modern-day Pearl Harbor can make it look like the Bush administration planned it this way but the truth is that they were as caught off guard as everyone else. ---
**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, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/130 "2016-08-07T07:37:52Z")
> [@DWMarch](#): > > No. When you say “intentionally failed” you are turning a sin of omission into a sin of commission… Well I’m just saying the alleged poll results where 49.3% of New Yorkers surveyed said that “our leaders knew that the 9/11 attacks were planned and they intentionally failed to act”. I agree with what you’re saying. ---
**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, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/131 "2016-08-07T07:45:47Z")
> [@ddsun](#): > > **JohnClay** you also have to realize that you’re implying that the government murdered thousands of its own citizens, Well actually before posting I read their FAQ which said “We do not know who the perpetrators of this crime are. Identifying the culprits is the purpose of a real criminal investigation” so I wasn’t thinking about the full implications of their 10 points of “evidence”. > [@](#): > > which is patently false and insulting. I had heard that the CIA may have gotten up to some diabolical mischief though… probably mainly just involving murdering other country’s citizens though. > [@](#): > > It makes people somewhat testy to discuss this again when you refuse to do even basic research for yourself. As far as research goes, I did stumble across their Wikipedia page that seemed pretty impressive: > **[Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth)** > > Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc. (AE911Truth) is an American non-profit organization promoting the conspiracy theory that the World Trade Center was destroyed in a controlled demolition, disputing accepted conclusions around the September 11 attacks, including the 9/11 Commission Report, as well as FEMA's "WTC Building Performance Study" (2002). Their claims and theories lack support among the relevant professional communities. > Richard Gage, a San Francisco Bay Area architect, founded... A lot of the paragraphs seem to be saying there is good evidence for their views. So I did “basic” research. ---
**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, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/132 "2016-08-07T07:52:10Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > …The evidence demonstrated that 9/11 was organized by Arab terrorists… The Zeitgeist film also said that they didn’t know where the money came from though so maybe there were other players involved? ---
**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, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/133 "2016-08-07T07:55:36Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > …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. Even if only 100 of the 1700 (now 2500+) are qualified experts who know that they’re talking about that’s still 100 vs “only a few dozen who have openly supported the NIST WTC reports”. Though I no longer am interested in that argument anyway. ---
**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, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/134 "2016-08-07T08:20:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > …The evidence demonstrated that 9/11 was organized by Arab terrorists. Bush just used the attack to justify the invasion of Iraq. The most ironic thing with that was that Bush actually ended up doing what Osama Bin Laden wanted also. > > [Bin Laden wanted US to invade Iraq, author says - ABC News](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-08-24/bin-laden-wanted-us-to-invade-iraq-author-says/648888) Hmmm ok yeah it looks like Osama’s plan worked. Though then he ended up dead. But maybe that made him a martyr. ---
**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, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/135 "2016-08-07T08:38:53Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > …[Chomsky:] They are not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve discovered something. What you do is write articles in scientific journals… > **[Journal of 9/11 Studies | Truth Matters.](http://www.journalof911studies.com/)** Well there is “The Journal of 9/11 Studies” which is “peer-reviewed”. Articles in other journals: [http://www.journalof911studies.com/mainstream.html](http://www.journalof911studies.com/mainstream.html) ---
**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, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/136 "2016-08-07T08:46:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. Well they said “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” so I thought I was following what most experts were saying. Though the official story of the government was different of course. Also I didn’t initially know that there were good explanations for their 10 items of key “evidence”. ---
**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, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/137 "2016-08-07T08:51:49Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > Even if only 100 of the 1700 (now 2500+) are qualified experts who know that they’re talking about that’s still 100 vs “only a few dozen who have openly supported the NIST WTC reports”. Though I no longer am interested in that argument anyway. As others noted in this thread you are looking at their deception. Not all are qualified. What they are doing is like the climate change deniers. They also do the same in an attempt to fool others with fake consensus obtained from deceptive surveys trusting that we will never look at what most experts do think. And we can conclude that not just by logic; but by the fact that, as Chomsky noted, they are not publishing their research to be peer reviewed. And that is because they do realize that almost all peers in academia are not impressed at all. ---
**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, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/138 "2016-08-07T09:16:33Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > [http://www.journalof911studies.com/](http://www.journalof911studies.com/) > Well there is “The Journal of 9/11 Studies” which is “peer-reviewed”. Articles in other journals: [http://www.journalof911studies.com/mainstream.html](http://www.journalof911studies.com/mainstream.html) Speaking of not impressed at all… Sorry but I did check even that, what you have there is the equivalent to a vanity press. The only intereting bit was that they claimed that “The editors have also published articles in mainstream scientific journals” but that is stinky lie. [The first link I saw](http://www.journalof911studies.com/mainstream.html) did go to an “open access journal” Just about the same kind of journals that have shown up in recent news for being very unreliable and with very little “weight” among serious researchers. Also, it is a paper that was already debunked: > **[The 9/11 Truth Movement: The Top Conspiracy Theory, a Decade Later |...](https://skepticalinquirer.org/2011/07/the-911-truth-movement-the-top-conspiracy-theory-a-decade-later/)** > > After ten years, the pesky 9/11 Truth movement has refined its arguments but still hasn’t proved the attacks were an inside job. Their key claims are refute ... > [@](#): > > Niels Harrit and Steven Jones, along with several coauthors, published the “peer-reviewed” paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal (Harrit 2009). This article does not make the case for thermite use on 9/11. The paper examined “distinctive red/gray chips” found in WTC dust (unfortunately, with no chain of custody for the dust), and these were claimed to be thermitic because of their composition (iron oxides and pure aluminum) and other chemical properties. However, the presence of rust and aluminum does not prove the use of thermite, because iron oxide and aluminum are found in many common items that existed in the towers. Furthermore, the authors admit that their “differential scanning calorimeter” measurements of the supposed thermitic material showed results at about 450 degrees C below the temperature at which normal thermite reacts (Fana 2006). Finally, the scan of the red side of the “thermitic material” of Harrit/Jones is a dead-on match to material Jones himself identified as “WTC Steel Primer Paint” in his Hard Evidence Down Under Tour in November of 2009 (“Sunstealer” 2011). > > Harrit’s article describes the red portion of the chips as “unreacted thermitic material.” But while thermite may be slow, it does not stop its reaction once it has begun. Because thermite supplies its own oxygen (via iron oxides), it can even burn underwater. Suggesting that the samples show partially reacted thermite is preposterous. Claiming that thermite would explain molten pools of steel weeks and months after the attack is equally preposterous. > > The article’s publication process was so politicized and bizarre that the editor-in-chief of the Bentham journal that featured Jones’s article, Marie-Paule Pileni, resigned in protest (Hoffman 2009). > > Thermitic demolition should have created copious pools of melted steel at Ground Zero, but nothing remotely like this was ever found. Truthers say iron microspheres found in the rubble indicate thermite; since hot fires and spot-welding do produce very tiny spheres of iron, though, these “microspheres” are not unexpected. Pictures of cranes holding red-hot materials in the rubble are said to show molten steel. Had this been the case, however, the crane rigs would have immediately seized up (Blanchard 2006). No reports of “molten steel” in the tower basements have ever been credibly verified (Roberts 2008). Some Truthers claim that a few pieces of sulfidized “eutectic” steel found in the towers proves thermate (thermite with sulfur) usage, but this occurred because sulfur, released from burned drywall, corroded the steel as it stewed in the pile for weeks (Roberts 2008). The moral of the history: you are only showing to all that you are not caring about how deceptive or how foolish those “architects for truth” sources actually are. The farther we go you only show a dedication to continue to look at the sources that were already found to be misleading; and at the same time you do not show the same aptitude of searching in the sites like The Skeptic or [CSICOP.org](http://CSICOP.org). Logic tells me it should be expected that just as you can look around the bad sites from the conspiracy peddlers you should be able to search in the good sites already provided to you. ---
**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, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/139 "2016-08-07T09:41:23Z")
Just one more note **JohnClay** , please read **XT** ’s post #124 and I do hope that you realize how dismal then your most recent posts do sound like after reading that. Even the last posts I made are not really needed once we take into account that others already noted how deceptive that “A&E for 9/11” group is. I was already familiar with that “nano thermite” paper and their past debunking too. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2016, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917/140 "2016-08-07T09:50:38Z")
You know, the whole Truther obsession with “nanothermite” seems interesting to me, because I remember arguing with Truthers in AOL chatrooms back in 2002, 2003, 2005, and back then, thermite was _never_ mentioned in their arguments as to why it must’ve been a controlled demolition. I don’t recall ever hearing the term come up in Truther arguments until later in the decade, somewhere around 2008 or 2009 - which is interesting, because in 2007, Mythbusters ran an episode where they investigated the idea that thermite helped speed the destruction of the Hindenburg. It’s my hypothesis - though I lack the time or wherewithal to study and confirm or disprove it - that that episode of Mythbusters was responsible for many Truthers becoming aware of the concept of thermite for the first time, and subsequently incorporating it into the Truther Mythos. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/architects-engineers-for-9-11-truth/761917.md?page=8)