"Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth"

[Horatius]

@JohnClay

BTW I guess I like to play devil’s advocate sometimes and point out where I think people’s arguments might seem weak to the other people.

So why haven’t you done this with A&E9/11?

[tomndebb]

@JohnClay

“close enough to being a truther for this thread” is different to “obviously” being a “dedicated” truther.

You are quibbling and it is not helping.

[scr4]

@JohnClay

Actually they have that:
http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html

I said citations and quotes, not an online petition.

[dasmoocher]

To give this thread the respect it deserves: I thought the Towers were brought down by a “Death Ray” developed at Area 52 (It’s even more secret than Area 51). :eek:

[bonzer]

@scr4

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.

Strictly, on the issue of whether evolution is real, one ought to acknowledge the existence of Project Steve. Though as the organisers and the signatories of the list have pointed out, this is basically a vast deliberate piss-take of the whole idea of such lists.

[running_coach]

@dasmoocher

To give this thread the respect it deserves: I thought the Towers were brought down by a “Death Ray” developed at Area 52 (It’s even more secret than Area 51). :eek:

Area 52 is a cover. It came from Area **.

[sinjin]

I’m a PhD Mechanical engineer. You are not. You are wrong. Get a degree in engineering and we can chat.

[dasmoocher]

@sinjin

I’m a PhD Mechanical engineer. You are not. You are wrong. Get a degree in engineering and we can chat.

But doesn’t that require an investment of courses, years, research, and intellect? It’s so much easier to speculate on the interwebs!

[dropzone]

Oh, JohnClay, an invitation.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=19539854#post19539854

[JohnClay]

@tomndebb

You are quibbling and it is not helping.

Evidence that I’m still “obviously” a “dedicated” truther requires precision. Also would a dedicated truther say that no explosives were involved? Because I think that is a fact.

[JohnClay]

@sinjin

I’m a PhD Mechanical engineer. You are not. You are wrong. Get a degree in engineering and we can chat.

Firstly I WAS wrong but I’ve changed my beliefs. Also in the case of young earth creationists sometimes a relevant degree doesn’t change their mind. In the Cracked article only 1/5 of the people the BBC educated changed their mind.

[GIGObuster]

@JohnClay

Evidence that I’m still “obviously” a “dedicated” truther requires precision. Also would a dedicated truther say that no explosives were involved? Because I think that is a fact.

Well, I will have to go to the pit soon as what I have seen is that you ignored what XT and others posted already. It is good to accept that no explosive were involved, but so far you are still giving the hacks of A&E911 your attention.

[tomndebb]

@JohnClay

Evidence that I’m still “obviously” a “dedicated” truther requires precision.

No, it does not. It was an off-the-cuff personal opinion that carries no weight in the discussion, but was an attempt to get other posters to stop keeping this silly thread going.

I do not even agree with Monty’s assessment. I would still characterize your persistence, here, as JAQing off.

[Monty]

@tomndebb

I do not even agree with Monty’s assessment. I would still characterize your persistence, here, as JAQing off.

Well, that was pretty much my initial assessment in post #25. Further posts in this thrad by the OP, IMHO, supported changing my assessment.

[JohnClay]

@GIGObuster

Well, I will have to go to the pit soon as what I have seen is that you ignored what XT and others posted already…

Like I said I sometimes don’t reply to people if I agree with them or don’t have much to say about it. Partly because some of my debate threads have been closed if I have 50% of the replies or even less…

@XT

I would ask the OP to show us something truly new…

Well I guess to do that I’d have to read all of the old threads. Though their 4 part response to Popular Mechanics is from 2012 while I thought the old threads were from a lot longer ago…

Debunking the Real 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face up to Reality...

…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).

See
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19535996&postcount=135

…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.

…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).

Like I said their response to the Popular Mechanics book is from 2012.

So there I replied to XT. I guess now people will see that as evidence that I haven’t learnt anything. I replied in a way where I was justifying my earlier beliefs. I guess I could have just said “well that’s all irrelevant, I don’t believe in it anymore”.

[GIGObuster]

@JohnClay

So there I replied to XT.

Not really, the post I pointed out made the overall point that most of the members of that group were not really active nor architects or engineers. You only did go for the tap dancing.

@JohnClay

I guess now people will see that as evidence that I haven’t learnt anything. I replied in a way where I was justifying my earlier beliefs. I guess I could have just said “well that’s all irrelevant, I don’t believe in it anymore”.

That would had been more helpful, also showing that you did read the debunking made by The Skeptic would had helped.

[JohnClay]

@GIGObuster

…also showing that you did read the debunking made by The Skeptic would had helped.

I haven’t got around to reading a lot of the links in this thread. But like I said I don’t believe in the demolition theory anymore. Also when I am looking at counter-arguments I sometimes like to know what the original arguments were first to see whether some of it was left out, etc. (like with creationist articles - they sometimes leave out some of the original arguments) I know I should trust that the skeptic counter-arguments are fair and honest but anyway at the moment I’m watching some of Penn and Teller’s Bullshit “Life Coaches”.

[JohnClay]

@GIGObuster

Not really, the post I pointed out made the overall point that most of the members of that group were not really active nor architects or engineers…

I’d said something somewhat relevant to that before - even if only 100 of them were properly qualified that’s still 100 vs. a few dozen, but I guess I’ll end with “well that’s all irrelevant, I don’t believe in it anymore”

[JohnClay]

From the Popular Mechanic’s book response:

Debunking the Real 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face up to Reality...

…This is obviously an attempt on PM’s part to portray those who question the collapse of the Towers as conspiracy theorists who have irrational beliefs…

How unfair! :dubious:

[Stringbean]

@watchwolf49

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.

The Wikipedia article offers a link to the specs of the AN-M14 TH3 incendiary hand grenade, taken from Army Field Manual FM 23-30. What does it say:

@FM 23-30

(6) Capabilities – can be thrown 25 meters by average soldier. A portion of the thermate mixture is converted to molten iron, which burns at 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit. It will fuze together the metallic parts of any object that it contacts. Thermate is an improved version of thermite, the incendiary agent used in hand grenades during World War II. The thermate filler of the AN-M14 grenade burns for 40 seconds and can burn through a 1/2-inch homogeneous steel plate. It produces its own oxygen and will burn under water.

@watchwolf49

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].

Yes. Thermite is obviously not an explosive. But it is obviously a substance, and not a just a name for a chemical reaction.

@watchwolf49

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.

Yes. It has a wide variety of uses. With regard to the sulfur component, the government’s patent on the AN-M14 grenade specifically references this:

@Patent Description

Thermate-TH3, a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives, was found to be superior to thermites and was adapted for use in incendiary hand grenades. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulfur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and reduces the ignition temperature.