To be clear, I’m not making an argument here, just asking a question so I can procede in an argument I’m having with someone else here.
Apparently there have been a half a dozen to a dozen or so cases in which an entire skyscraper was on fire in a huge, hours-long conflaguration, even in many cases with accompanying structural damage, and yet the skyscraper didn’t collapse.
But if I understand correctly, the WTC towers collapsed for the most part because of fires.
What’s the difference between the WTC towers and these other various skyscrapers? Why did the WTC towers collapse and not, for example, this hotel in Spain a couple of years ago?
Is the explanation just to be found in the fact that the WTC buildings had been hit by missiles or debris from missile collisions? Any way I can corroborate that that’s sufficient to accout for the difference?
Fourth difference, I don’t think any of the other buildings were even remotely comparable in size. The WTC towers were 110 stories each. How tall was the hotel in Spain or Pennsylvania or whichever one your truther is bringing up? 5? 10? Hell, 60? That would still only be half.
Fifth difference, the automatic fire suppressant systems in the WTC were severed on impact. They could have been taming the fires in the other cases, though I can’t swear to it.
Okay and what about this, a peer-reviewed article that says there is “thermitic material” at ground zero? (Couldn’t that be from something done during post-disaster rescue and recovery efforts?)
At the end of the article it says something about how this material “incorporated nanotechnology” which sounds all eerie but as far as I can tell isn’t given support in the article itself. (But then, the article is technical and I didn’t read a lot of its text.) Any ideas what to say here?
You want people to comment on an article that may or may not exist, that you purport to have barely read, which you don’t claim to understand, and where the only information we have about its contents come from you? :dubious:
As to the OP:
I give one human peanut butter. That human lives. I give another human peanut butter. That human suffers a massive allergic reaction and dies. Does this prove that I didn’t really give peanut butter to one of the two subjects?
OK, they found iron oxide particles on aluminum flakes. Iron oxide is often found in coatings and paint; 100 nm is within the range of particle sizes used for this purpose. Iron oxide is often used to coat aluminum flakes in color-effect paints; iron oxide is also used to produce pigmented aluminum structural panels, including those which incorporate iron sulfide; iron oxide has also been used as a wear coating for cast aluminum engines. There are many legitimate sources for these materials, and no reason to believe their presence at ground zero had anything to do with the use of the thermite reaction.
So what? Just because they relate it to a more familiar type of building destruction does not mean they actually think it was a planned implosion. Their is an enormous leap between “looks like” and “definitely is”.
And that says it all about that ‘paper’. Years and years of alleged ‘research’ and the truth movement still has to use a ‘pay to publish’ journal.
The fun was when someone set up a program to write a scientific paper that was entirely random scientific word gibberish. Bentham accepted it for publication (pending the check clearing).