You did your basic research very poorly. Where is there any qualitative analysis of the evidence? Their case has been evaluated multiple times and has come up as worthless.
It might be best if you pick the single best line of argument you think contradicts the official report and explain why you think it is accurate. We’ll explain why you’re wrong and then we’ll go on from there. 
“They said” doesn’t make it fact. It’s glurge to sell nonsense.
I gave a summary of what happened earlier in the thread. What part of that did you not understand? Seriously, The floor joists sagged from the heat started by massive amounts of jet fuel that burned uncontrolled because the riser for the sprinkler system was destroyed. This pulled the outer walls inward until failure. You can literally see the planes hitting the building and an uncontrolled fire that could not be put out as well as the point of failure which was at the point of impact. Both buildings were compromised at the point of impact.
What is so hard to understand about this? No more of your “I have concerns” nonsense. What don’t you understand?
I tried to warn you, dude…
Sulfur added to a thermite compound is referred to as “thermate,” which burns at higher temperatures than traditional thermite. It is used primarily for military applications such as cutting through the thick armor of tanks and for underwater explosions (since neither thermite or thermate require oxygen to react).
The Truther argument is roughly along the lines that to avoid the obvious spectacle of using explosives to bring down the towers, the government used an innovative method of cutting the steel beams by “burning” them with thermate. The alleged (but unverified) presence of sulfur in the dust from the collapses is used as evidence for this theory.
Do you have a Cite?
I looked around and could only find information about thermate in reference to the 9/11 debate … nothing on military applications … sounds like something the crackpots dreamed up to explain their case … which is amatueristic if you ask me.
ETA: I can’t even find the oxidation potential for sulfur …
Since John Clay seems to pay attention to arguments that involve actual physics, maybe I can explain something to him that he already knows, if he only thought about it.
John, have you ever seen a steel bar? Very strong, yes? Try to bend it, and it’s very hard to bend. Now, if someone wants to bend that bar, what do they do? They heat it up. The bar doesn’t have to melt, it doesn’t get cut in two. The blacksmith just puts the bar of steel in the furnace for a while, it gets hot (but well below the melting point of steel!), then the takes it out and bends the metal easily.
Now imagine you have a steel building. The steel supports are very strong. Then you start a fire in the steel building. The steel doesn’t melt, that would take temperatures of 1500 C, which requires specialized blast furnaces. But just heating the steel makes it easier to bend. And so if you’ve got a building with steel beams that can hold ten tons, but the building is designed so that each beam only supports 5 tons, the building is very strong. But now you’ve flown a plane into the building and cut a lot of steel beams. No problem, the rest of the beams are strong enough to hold it up. But there’s a fire. The fire weakens the strength of the steel beams, just like a horseshoe in a blacksmith’s furnace is weakened by fire.
Each beam gets weaker and weaker, until some of them start to fail. And when one fails, the beam next to it needs to be strong enough to support twice as much weight. Which means that it is very likely to fail, and when it fails the next beam needs to support more weight. But that beam has been weakened by fire also, and so it fails.
And so you have the entire top of the building falling onto the lower part of the building, which causes the entire building to collapse.
What causes the collapse isn’t the fire, or the cut beams. It’s gravity. And what direction does gravity pull? Straight down. This is why when buildings collapse they collapse down, because gravity pulls them down and they aren’t strong enough to hold together like a tree that’s been cut through. And maybe you’ve noticed that when dead trees get cut it’s extremely dangerous because the tree might break apart and fall on you, because the dead tree might be weak enough to break apart and if it does gravity pulls the pieces straight down.
This is simple physics that you can demonstrate to yourself. Heat weakens steel. Gravity pulls straight down. A given steel bar can support a given weight at 50 C, but is weaker at 200 C and weaker still at 500 C.
No.
Aliens.
They don’t say Aliens.
But Aliens.
I know you claim that you are not interested in pursuing this, but it indicates one level of your really bad approach to the whole thing.
Are you involved in any educational, scientific, or educational field? How often do you write a letter of support or try to get together a petition to support generally accepted information?
How often do you see astronomers taking out ads to acknowledge new information produced by the Hubble telescope?
How many petitions have you seen signed by doctors agreeing with the cause of Ebola?
Real people have lives to lead and wandering of to organize petitions to lend support for facts is not high on the list. Once in a great while, a group will come together to defend some bit of science that has been harshly and publicly attacked. 1700 people with (misleading) letters after their name and a dearth of actual knowledge or experience is not the sort of thing that is going to get large numbers of people to waste their time refuting the nonsense. Actual people with knowledge know that there will always be idiots that think that Oswald was framed for killing JFK, that the moon landings were hoaxes, that the Holocaust was a “Jewish Lie,” an d similar stupidity. There is no point to getting lots of signatures of people who recognize truth over fiction because the believers of fiction are not going to be persuaded. (Look how many people continue to deny AGW when it is pointed out that over 98% of people directly involved in climate science support the findings of the IPCC.)
I literally regurgitated what I read from the wikipedia “thermate.”
Between your erroneous statement that thermite is “not a substance” and the enigmatic inability to find the first response on a simple Google search, I think you need to do some more research on this topic.
And there are over 100,000 architects in the U.S. - so maybe 1% of them (at best) signed the petition.
You can find similar petitions by “health care professionals” and “scientists” calling for an end to water fluoridation, condemning vaccination, supporting a ban on genetically modified foods, denying climate change, claiming HIV doesn’t cause AIDS etc.
On the other hand, you’ll have considerable difficulty finding petitions signed by X number of physicians supporting vaccination or agreeing that HIV causes AIDS, because both elements of medical practice are so well-known and widely accepted that there is little perceived need for such forms of activism (this perception can become a disadvantage when a tiny but loud minority is shouting to the contrary and has a disproportionate effect on public opinion).
There are sub-rational conspiracy-shouting fringe advocates in every profession.
Instead of just highlighting what a tiny minority believes about such subjects, consider the deep flaws in their thinking and ask why the overwhelming majority isn’t buying into their nonsense.
Yes, except detecting sulfur in the WTC debris and then deciding that it must have been destroyed by thermate is really really really really silly. You’ve heard of drywall, right? What’s that made of? Gypsum. And what’s gypsum? Calcium sulfate dihydrate.
Seriously, this is about as silly as it gets.
It seems they’ve been asked that before: “Frequently Asked Questions”
“FAQ #6… Most architects and engineers have never been presented with the scientific evidence of controlled demolition…”
Longer answer:
And just like that you show then that indeed it was a waste of time to show you how unreliable they were and how do they lie.
You need to undertand and accept that, you are only relying on a poisoned well of information there.
In reality most architects that look at the issue accept the conclusions of the oficial report. What you see there was just tap dancing and you think they are making a great point. They are not.
Well they covered that in their FAQ which I perused earlier so I initially didn’t see much of a problem with the relatively low numbers of signatures.
Ok I see your point… you’re explaining why allegedly there have been a very low number of engineers/etc (“only a few dozen”) who “have openly supported the NIST WTC reports”.
I meant to say that they have counter-arguments for people complaining about the low number of signatures. I didn’t mean to imply that I am on their side. So if you encountered one of their supporters in real life, complaining about their low numbers wouldn’t be a convincing argument for them.
Thanks… BTW I read somewhere that airplane fuel doesn’t burn at a high enough temperature but then elsewhere I think it said that office equipment, etc, could be burning at a higher temperature.
What Lemur866 is trying to tell you is, burning airplane fuel may not be hot enough to melt steel, but it’s more than hot enough to soften it. Which is all that’s needed to bring down the building. (Just soften the supports slightly, and gravity brings down the whole building.)
Well they had a 4 part response to the Popular Mechanics book so it seemed they were quite knowledgeable on the subject. I never claimed to be an informed academic or anything.
Well I thought I heard that in the 9/11 report they didn’t really cover Building 7. In this part of the video
They compared Building 7 to a controlled demolition. In that video the collapsing appears to be happening at the bottom, out of view of the camera. It caused me to forget that in the main tower collapses, the collapsing happened in the middle.
“most people simply don’t know much about Building 7 due to the extraordinary secrecy surrounding its collapse”
I thought to myself “well I had never heard of that 3rd WTC building collapse - maybe they’re onto something”!
By post 20 the most direct response I’d had was
To which I replied smugly “No in the same way that I haven’t seen a moon landing in person.”
I was thinking I was onto something! Though I have had psychotic delusions in the past…
:rolleyes:
It is not about them, they are a lost cause, what I and many do here is for the ones that were folled by those guys.
Sorry, but it has been demonstrated in studies on conspiracy theory that for the deniers of the evidence and the official report** it is very damn important to also deny what most of the experts do think about an issue.** It has also been shown that one way to bust their bubble in front of the people that are being misled is to point out what the real consensus is.
What the AE911 guys are doing there in your sorry links is a tested and most used misleading tactic. It is crucial indeed to point out the real support trash peddlers like those ones from AE911 are really. And we should not forget ever how fake experts are a common thing to see in controversial subjects.
Their “counter-argument” seems to boil down to “we’re few, but we’re right.” Which really isn’t a counter-argument.