Quote from: tvbcof on March 12, 2016, 03:42:35 AM

Quote from: Spendulus on March 12, 2016, 02:48:58 AM

...
However, a lot of the 911 conspiracy assertions are so stupid it's fucking ridiculous. So let's get those out of the way. Just think of me as a guy who WILL ANSWER, and provide the math, for chemistry and physics issues related to 911. That's it. No more. Although there is interplay - if your favorite 911 conspiracy theory requires wrong physics or wrong chemistry to logically require the US government to be the bad guy, prepare to be proven a fool.

I agree. A lot of assertions about a lot of things are in this category. Especially about contentious things. After studying the phenomenon for a while now, I believe that to some degree a lot of this is by design. It's known as 'cognitive dissonance.' They say that Cass Sunstein suggests it as a means of disrupting 'false conspiracies.'

Did you read the Harrit et-al paper? I've not run across any scientifically compelling challenges to the material, though I've not looked for a while.

I've also not run across a good explanation about why so many people would compromise their careers and reputations to perpetuate a challenge to the official narrative of 9/11 just for shits and giggles. http://www.ae911truth.org/

Quote from: Spendulus on March 12, 2016, 02:48:58 AM

Are we through with the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" argument or is there more on that subject.

The Architects and Engineers dudes cover much of this material and rather convincingly as I see it.

Did you read the Harrit et-al paper? I've not run across any scientifically compelling challenges to the material, though I've not looked for a while.

For me personally, I never paid any serious attention to this for several reasons. Maybe because of some work I did decades back I am familiar with thermite, which most people are not. And with nano-thermite concepts, although I did not work with it.

First, if thermite was used at one specific point in a huge skyscraper, people are simply not going to be finding evidence of it in dust. "Evidence" would be parts per billion or trillion in dust at the site. Translated, it simply would not exist, and that's not even taking into account the issues of the molecular and granular structure of thermite.

Somehow the 911 conspiracy nuts want to assert "nano-thermite," not just thermite. This is a curiosity, but it has for them a big advantage: Nano-thermite is a very exotic laboratory creation, therefore it has to be a government deploying it, therefore it must be the US Government.

The report you mention, I stopped reading after the guy started talking about Fe2O3 being an "unreduced" form of iron. Hell, it's RUST. It's fully reduced, but at a certain temperature with Aluminum, aluminum will grab the oxygen, resulting energy release. Rust is everywhere. It's a powder. Powder is "nano." Powdered metals are used in paint. Duh....

I could go on about the chemistry ...but maybe the best counter to the "thermite argument" is that these reactions produce BRILLIANT WHITE light, lots of it. (For that matter, so do explosions) There was no such light seen at the World Trade Centers.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistrydemonstrations/ss/thermite-reaction.htm

but to answer your question, yes there is a rebuttal to the paper.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=015_1330900552

I've also not run across a good explanation about why so many people would compromise their careers and reputations to perpetuate a challenge to the official narrative of 9/11 just for shits and giggles. http://www.ae911truth.org/

Probably it is just money. Channeled in from enemies of the USA. Just like money from Saudi interests props up US "Environmental" and political groups supporting "Green" which in turn maximizes Saudi revenue. Similarly, anti-nuclear efforts in the US increase dependence on foreign oil, hence increase revenue to Middle Eastern oil sources.

Are we through with the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" argument or is there more on that subject./The Architects and Engineers dudes cover much of this material and rather convincingly as I see it.

"Jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is a straw man argument. 911 conspirators make the claim, and then "prove" it is false. But nobody ever said steel beams were melted in the World Trade Centers except those who wish to use the straw man argument. (Technically, it's false anyway - numerous of the best foundaries for melting iron and steel use waste oil)