Yeah, your claim smelled like barf. I read that article in Wikipedia, but that article itself only referenced a patent. Now, you claimed it was deployed and there’s nothing in that article to back your claim up. Indeed there’s nothing in that Wikipedia article that says thermate even exists, just that it could as demonstrated by the patent. Here’s a good example of “original research”, and a very good reason why The Master tells us Wikipedia isn’t a citation, just a good place to find citations.
I read up on thermite right after I saw railroad crew use it to weld their tracks together. This is why I jumped on the OP’s claim that some manner of “nano-thermite explosive” was used to bring down the WTC. It’s obvious to anyone with any idea of what redox reactions are that thermite is not an explosive, the oxygen exchange is one-to-one with none left over to become O[sub]2[/sub].
I suppose one could call any combination of Aluminum and rust thermite, just like one could call tap water hydrochloric acid; but generally we don’t. Plus there’s quite a few mixtures that undergo the thermite reaction. What I don’t know and am asking is if sulfur can be used.
It’s a teeming millions feeding frenzy … isn’t it just adorable …
I’m just chiming-in to say that i’m shocked -shocked, i tell you- that this thread has made it to 4 pages (and still going strong). Good on ya, JohnClay.
JohnClay-You haven’t asked any questions or shown us any new links that haven’t already been covered in previous threads that others have generously gone through the effort of finding and linking for you. Just because you are the one asking these same old questions that have already been answered multiple times doesn’t make your take “fresh”, and just because we are tired of answering your tired old questions yet again and refer you to previous threads doesn’t make our response “weak”. Now why don’t you take advantage of the generosity of those Dopers that did your work for you and found all those links you couldn’t be bothered to look for, and read through them? I would be damn surprised if you could come up with a legitimate question that hasn’t already been covered at least five or six times. Personally, I see no need to start all over again with this conversation just because you are the one asking these questions about supposed facts that have long debunked.
I would ask the OP to show us something truly new. So, there is the “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth” group that sparked this thread. Fair enough. What have they published for peer review? Let’s see the list of engineering and architectural papers they have published that point clearly to a structure on 9/11 being taken down in a controlled demolition (or whatever they are claiming). Basically, if you can’t point to a single paper they have published or even submitted for peer review then…you…gots…nuffin. No one, at this point, is going to take anything else you say seriously if you can’t show at least one such paper. We’ve been through all of the Truther claims, we’ve debunked all of the CT non-sense, and unless you actually have something new, such as an engineering or architectural paper either peer reviewed or at least submitted for peer review then no one is going to take you or these guys seriously. I’d say come back with that or just live with the fact you are going to be dismissed as yet another in a long line of Truthers with claims that were debunked and old 10 years ago (like I posted earlier the link I used to debunk the guys in your OP is now 6 years old).
Since you’ve been asking about building 7, here’s a picture of it on that day:
Here is a video showing heavy smoke pouring out of every floor of the building:
They’re lying when they say it had fire on only 2-3 floors. We also know from videos that WTC7 had a huge gouge running down its south face, from where the North Tower’s core columns slammed into it. We also know that the fires were not fought but allowed to burn for something like seven hours. And we know that the fire department reported that it was obviously bulging out, in a way that they knew hours ahead of time that it was about to collapse.
Its construction was unusual in that it was built over an existing electrical substation, so instead of all its columns going all the way down, it had beams over that substation, and columns being supported by those beams.
Now I agree that this, in some videos, does look more like a controlled demolition that the two towers did, but that’s just because the support failed down low instead of higher up. But here’s another way that the AE911T people are lying: the videos they show are edited so that they begin AFTER the collapse had started - the “mechanical penthouse,” a big section on the roof of WTC7, collapsed into the structure a full FIVE SECONDS before the main part of the building fell. Why do they not show that? The original videos we have captured that part, but all the truther sites leave it out. What kind of controlled demolition takes out something on the roof five seconds before the rest of the building? Could it be, that the full video indicates that the internal structure of the building was collapsing before the exterior walls came down?
Take a look at this simulation of the collapse hypothesis determined by NIST:
Note that this is all happening behind the facade of the building, so you wouldn't actually see much happening until the facade starts to crumble. The "sudden onset of collapse" is mostly an illusion.
And that’s because NIST did a completely separate study on WTC7, which was published much later. This was for many reasons, including but not limited to:
[ol]
[li]There was no loss of life in WTC7’s collapse, so there wasn’t the same pressure to produce results[/li][li]WTC7’s collapse was of a completely different character, and as such required different types of analysis[/li][li]WTC7’s structure was entirely different from the Towers, again requiring a different analysis[/li][/ol]
The MAIN reason that WTC7 wasn’t mentioned in the 911 Commission report is that it had nothing to do with the purpose of the commission or the report. The report was about the terrorist attacks, how they came to happen, and all the stuff we may want to know to prevent something like that from happening again.
The fact that a nearby building was damaged is not relevant to all that.
NIST, on the other hand, looked into WTC7’s failure because they DO want to understand what made it collapse - standards are what they do.
Enough people wander onto the SDMB, repeating these sort of questions each year, that posting responses is a legitimate exercise of providing The Straight Dope.
Beyond that, if you wish to make an accusation of trolling, take it to The BBQ Pit. Do not post such accusations in Great Debates.
No. The point is that one would generally NEVER expect to see long lists of people supporting obvious facts and any time someone waves long list of doubters and claims that the “other side” has very few supporters, the very fact that they waved a list indicates that they are the ones pushing woo.
The very fact that they made the claim should have been the first bit of evidence that they are either liars or nutcases, (not excluding the possibility that they are both).
You are still posing dumb questions and responding as is if there was any genuine question to be answered despite the fact that you have already had multiple sources provided from you showing that every one of your questions had been answered authoritatively and honestly a decade ago.
You may not fit the precise definition of a truther, but you have all the hallmarks of someone who is just JAQing off, and that is close enough to being a truther for this thread.
Exactly. There is no list of scientists who publicly support the view that the earth is round, or that evolution is real, or we went to the Moon, or even global warming. I’m a scientist myself and I’ve never been asked to publicly endorse any particular position.
I wasn’t talking about the 911 Commission report, although that is another claim truthers often make. NIST did engineering studies of both the Twin Towers, and WTC7, but they were separate studies.
Sorry I misunderstood. You were replying to a comment that JohnClay made, that “in the 9/11 report they didn’t really cover Building 7.”
And that is the standard Truther BS: “Did you know there was a THIRD skyscraper that fell that day? WTC7 collapsed but it wasn’t even hit by a plane! The 9/11 Commission report didn’t even talk about that building - I wonder why?!?”
And a good question you should ask about all those names is, “So, what have they done about it?” They’ve publicly signed their name to a belief that 9/11 didn’t happen the way the “Official Story” says it does, and to a belief that NIST has engaged in scientific fraud in the reports they’ve generated. So what has that motivated any of them to do?
You’ll find that, for the vast majority of them, the answer is, “Absolutely nothing”. They haven’t done any engineering analysis, they haven’t written letters to any professional journals or organizations promoting the idea. Heck, most of them haven’t even gone out of their way to even convince one fellow engineer/architect to also join the group!
Almost everything that comes out of A&E comes from just a few people, and the majority of that comes from just one person: Richard Gage. And even he has done almost no original work on 9/11; he merely re-packages claims made by other, notably non-architect or -engineer, people, and gives it the illusion of professional approval by rubber stamping it. To my knowledge, he’s only ever found one thing that was new, and contradicted the typical truther talking points on 9/11, and that was a fairly trivial bit of analysis of the video of the fall of WTC7, which fact did nothing to affect the overall argument one way or the other.