turnerguy I just picked one at random

2 minutes with google showed me several complete debunkings of this one

The samples tested in that “paper” had no documented chain of custody meaning that they could have come from anywhere and / or could have been contaminated. Thermite of this type cannot possibly have cut the beams.

~from Wiki
“Regarding Jones’ theory that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers, and the assertion that thermite and nanothermite composites were found in the dust and debris were found following the collapse of the three buildings, which was concluded to be proof that explosives brought down the buildings,[7][8][9][13] Brent Blanchard, author of “A History of Explosive Demolition in America”,[89] states that questions about the viability of Jones’ theories remain unanswered, such as the fact that no demolition personnel noticed any telltale signs of thermite during the eight months of debris removal following the towers’ collapse. Blanchard also stated that a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams, which did not occur with the beams Jones tested, raising questions of whether the metal pieces tested could have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site, or exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, while in storage, or while being transferred from Ground Zero to memorial sites.[90] Dave Thomas of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, noting that the residue in question was claimed to be thermitic because of its iron oxide and aluminum composition, pointed out that these substances are found in many items common to the towers. Thomas stated that in order to cut through a vertical steel beam, special high-temperature containment must be added to prevent the molten iron from dropping down, and that the thermite reaction is too slow for it to be practically used in building demolition. Thomas pointed out that when Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to conduct a demonstration showing nanothermite slicing through a large steel beam, the nanothermite produced copious flame and smoke but no damage to the beam, even though it was in a horizontal, and therefore optimal position.[91]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories

I can’t be arsed copying and pasting the references but once again we get the total bollox being spoken. that theory has been comprehensively debunked contrary to what turnerguy says

Have a read through Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers Chapter 9 – Probable Collapse Sequences and tell me what you think is implausible.

There is much supporting information/analysis/modeling earlier in the document should you need it.

lol

Adversarial or not you haven’t actually put forward another manner of collapse, you’ve said things like ‘differential loading’ and chaotic interaction but not said how you think this would chnage the mode of collapse, what difference would you expect to see? how would you explain such differnces?

If as you posit, bits failed at differnt rates, what do you think the outcome of that would be? I’m genuinely asking you to explain what you think would happen.

For example, do you think left side of tower collapses, with right side left standing or some thing like that?

Fine, there’s always the 0.000000000000000001% chance that something else might happen, but if you’re arguing for us paying attention to the 0.000000000000000001% then you still need to explain the mechanisms at work.

The only way to get that building to do anything other than fall into it’s own footprint would be with massive external lateral forces acting on the majority of the mass of the building as it fell, something which demonstrably did not happen.

define different, this is the bit I’m asking…

CM, what I can’t work out from your postings is whether you genuinely don’t understand and are trying to further your knowledge, or if you think you know better already?

If it’s the former then you questions would perhaps be better resolved by you listening to the explanations given and doing some more research/learning on the mechanics and physics involved so you can actually discuss specific points with whch you disagree, so far some of your comments suggest a lack of understanding.

If it’s the latter than we await your alternative explanation so we can review your workings accordingly and discuss any points which raise disagreement.

How big was the room to accommodate the five tonne elephant dropped from a crane?

no, i was talking of another mode. What would i expect to see? As the result of a chaotic process?

Well, anything. For example, it would collapse unevenly, or stop collapsing, or topple, or split, anything really. The mechanism isn’t the issue here. The probabilistic approach only needs to know that it is possible.

If as you say
“The only way to get that building to do anything other than fall into it’s own footprint would be with massive external lateral forces acting on the majority of the mass of the building as it fell, something which demonstrably did not happen.” Then as an aside you would have to accept that all the talk of 6 months of demolition planning etc. was just wrong. I can’t remember if that was a point you made. But just for clarity. Pretty much any large randomly placed internal explosion would have produced the same result?

It’s not to make a point, it’s to establish a probability. but if you say that probability is .00000001% then fine. For all intents and purposes, that’s the only way the building can fall. It allows us to move forward.

Well, without an a priori estimate, I’d like to see how you move forward with a Bayesian calculation!

I’m rapidly approaching the point at which I stop interacting with this thread and revert to observation only. A position I perhaps should have stayed at from the beggining…

As i said way back on page 1, you cant’ argue with a CT. They’ve already made their mind up.

It’s like Moon Hoax theorists, when one says “we never landed on the moon” the best response is to simply punch them, as hard and fast as possible in the face. When they’ve regained consciousness, wiped the blood up and say “why did you do that” you simply reply “do what?”…. 😉

But you did say no one had debunked the various claims you listed. Two mins gave me links to 3 papers in reputable peer reviewed papers debunking one of the ones you said had never been debunked.

the paper I looked at that you said was never debunked was also published on a self publishing journal where the editor resigned over it being put on there before approval

I did leave you the wiki link where you can find the links

the video is only compelling if you are credulous. As soon as you actually look into the claims they are complete nonsense.

Apart from 9/11 has America ever done any other false flag operations?

But when people pointed out it wasn’t true you argued against them. 😐

Absolutely. According to this peer-reviewed research paper, less than 800 people had to be in on it for it to have had a whistleblower by now.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905

Fair enough.

Ah. So you haven’t actually read the official report that you are “a total sceptic” of 🙄

How about you get on with that first. And then come back and tell us about the bits you don’t agree with, and explain why.

To be fair, if there has been any vitriol, it’s not been aimed at anyone displaying “reasonable scepticism”

It’s been aimed at the sort of people that repeatedly say “yeah but…,. Blah” whenever they are challenged with actual facts to counter their pet YouTube vid.

The guy on the left?

No ones provided an explanation as to where the debris from the collapse of ALL the wtc towers went.

Yes, it may have taken eight months worth of trucks to haul the debris out, but there were a lot of buildings involved.

I’ve yet to read the Judy woods book, (I’m holding out for the kindle edition!), but I believe that she mentions trucks arriving with dirt to ‘dampen down’ the fires, and then hauling it out to be replaced with fresh dirt…

There’s something definitely not quite right about the way they collapse; watch them. You’ll see they fall straight down like a controlled demolition, you can even see what looks like small explosions/charges being detonated.