Split Thread The Towers should not hve collapsed (split from Gravysites)

[Dave Rogers]

if you weren't useless, you could have calculated what amount of energy will radiate off in a given timeframe and what amount of energy will be absorbed by the air, and estimated a "heat transfer figure" Instead, you randomly make figures up. Yeah. That's serious sciencework, right.

Oh, I see. So when you make up fantasy numbers, it's everyone else's responsibility to look them up for you, study the physics of the situation in detail and correct them, is it? And if someone who can't do this is useless, that couldn't possibly apply to you. You have no idea what you're talking about, and everyone here has more interesting things to do than correct your utterly unrealistic assumptions. Truth is, nobody can realistically calculate what percentage of heat a thermite charge could transfer to a steel column, because there's no sensible way proposed of fabricating such a thing. I'll take a look at your latest fantasy in a moment; suffice it to say it makes no sense.

You're making up stuff again. The assertion that the entire WTC population would have to be in on the conspiracy or otherwise realize the building is being rigged is ridiculous.

My point exactly. There's no possible way these enormous charges could have been installed throughout the building without enormous disruption, which would have been talked about by all the survivors the moment any of them heard the slightest suggestion from the truth movement. Either they're all in on the conspiracy, or none of them are in the 48% of the US population who suspect that we haven't been told everything about 9-11, or the charges weren't there. The third is the only possibility that passes cursory inspection.

Tungsten, Fool

OK, let's run with tungsten. How well would large tungsten charge casings survive the collapse? I think they'd be rather obvious, don't you? And that's why your latest fantasy has to pretend they aren't needed. Let's take a look.

Stop thinking watching 5s of footage of someone using a shaped charge makes you an expert. Ask someone. The shaped charges contain a copper casing. The parabolic inside of the shaped charge causes a jet of hot plasma when the shaped charge is detonated. The material inside the shaped charges is going to be C4, a high explosive. Despite containing a HE, the construction is not referred to as a HE charge, it's a shaped linear cutting charge.

Ah, I see you've got it right this time. So when you said that cutter charges used thermite, were you lying, or did you only become an explosives expert over the last 24 hours?

Now thermite is not used in a shaped charge. Thermite is simply an incendiary and doesn't produce a copper plasma jet. Instead it melts pretty much anything it comes across within the shortest amount of time. The way to use thermite is not with a shaped charge, but with direct application.

According to Jones, commercial solutions for thermite based column destruction appear to be essentially metal cases with slids in it. however, these would leave back the metal cases or whatever remains from them.

Now you're lying again. Commercial solutions for thermite based column destruction don't exist, and never have. Jones is an incompetent idiot who can't even apply Newton's laws correctly. His expertise in demolition technology is nil, same as yours.

However, if one were to undertake a large scale operation like the destruction of the WTC, it would be trivial to create flat, solid thermite charges by pressure, or plastic. Those would detonate tugged to the columns and most of the termite would in fact fall off. So that means, if you use thermite over a shaped charge

- You will not have copper shrapnell or otherwise identifiable parts afterwards, merely the thermite signature molten iron and steel, and gaseous aluminium.
- You will not have a violent explosion, instead the beam will simply seem to fail.

Why would it fail? The thermite will produce a mixture of molten iron and aluminium oxide, which will simply run down the column, spreading its heat out too widely to melt it. You will not have a violent explosion or a failed beam.

However, there's two problems with this caseless thermite approach

1. It does not explain the observed explosive force

That isn't a problem, since no explosions were observed that correlated to the onset of collapse.

2. It may not actually work. Using copious quantities of thermite, the beams may simply press the softened material away and eventually fuse again through dissipation.

This is absurd. In order to soften part of the beam, thermite would have to remain in contact with it for a significant length of time. Without your inconvenient tungsten casings, it will simply flow downwards away from the region you want to melt.

Now here's what I actually suggest. Instead of shaped charges, we use thermite charges. These thermite charges are caseless and glued / wired / duct taped to the beam. That means, when they go off, a large portion of the thermite will actually fall to the ground or hit the beam way below.

"A large portion"? Don't you mean "all"? You're imagining that a liquid will remain suspended in mid-air for a few seconds somehow. That tends not to happen on this planet.

Finally, after a few seconds, the weakened steel is severed by a HE charge much much smaller than the one that would be needed for a pure-HE destruction or even a shaped charge.

After a few seconds, the thermite has fallen away from the beam as fast as it became molten. Gravity and fluid dynamics will do that.

Here's an exercise for you. Find the viscosity, surface tension and density of molten iron at 2500ºC, and work out how thick is the layer that will adhere to the steel as the rest runs away. Show your working. If you find that there's enough left on the column to contain sufficient heat to melt it, and your calculations look even vaguely plausible, I'll send you a congratulations card by flying pig.

Structural Steel does not contain sulfur. Neither should it melt under any office fire / collapse related circumstances to the point where sulfur can enter the steel. The thermite theory perfectly explains the sulfur. You can't without without heavily bending the laws of physics.

You've ignored fluid dymanics, thermodynamics and Newton's law of universal gravitation! How many laws of physics have we got left to merely bend?

Oh, and drywall contains sulfates, and steel from WTC7 was observed to have been corroded - not melted - in a sulfate environment. That perfectly explains the sulfur without bending a single law of physics.

Overall, your attempt to articulate a practical thermite hypothesis is the most idiotic piece of drivel I have yet seen on this forum. Steven Jones has a good reason for refusing to do this; it would make him look an even bigger idiot than Bazant has already.

Dave

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

That means that according to your calculation 2.7 tons of thermite was needed, whereas I get 27 tons. Should we take an intermediate and assume 10 tons? So in addition to the HE charges needed to get the building to go at exactly the needed time, 'they' needed to tote in and install 10 tons of thermite and wire it.

And in your earlier haste to declare me an incompetent fool, you forgot to address this issue: Since you claim that beams were first weakened with thermite, then severed with HE, even an amateur can figure out that the HE charge must necessarily be placed just in the places where the beams are previously weakened. So now, expert or not, you need to explain how 'they' got away with placing a HE charge, presumably just opposite the thermite charge, and keep it from being damaged, or going off when that part of the beam got red to white hot from the cutter charge.

Also we haven't considered the ignition and linking system. Can you imagine the rats nest of miles and miles of det cord (or shock tube) it would take to run between the 2000 charges? That no one noticed?!?

LLH

 

[MRC_Hans]

Also we haven't considered the ignition and linking system. Can you imagine the rats nest of miles and miles of det cord (or shock tube) it would take to run between the 2000 charges? That no one noticed?!?

LLH

Well, if we want to be charitable (and Ed knows Dabbler needs that), we might assume that they were radio controlled. That, of course, would spark an entirely new host of problems, but heck, we're deep into the realm of fantasy here, anyway.


Which reminds me, Dabljuh:

While you are out there in the deep end, why don't you tell us about the other part of your theory? Where did the planes come from, and how did 'they' arrange for them to hit the towers?

This could be even more fun.

Hans

 

[pomeroo]

The conspiracy liar Dabljuh has been beaten as badly as was Heiwa on his imbecilic collpase theory and RedIbis on "pull it," which is to say that he has been beaten very badly indeed. Another ignorant, agenda-driven fraud bites the dust.

 

[gumboot]

What would a whole bunch of explosives, detonated on 9/11, be like?

Here's 100T of high explosives detonated at a distance of about 700m:



And here's about 100T of high explosives detonated at a distance of about 3.3km:



Anyone notice anything like that on 9/11?

 

[Dabljuh]

MRC_Hans is now on ignore. My time is too precious to waste it on filling the vacuum that only a very generous philantrope would call an intellect. Go back to high school, and get that diploma after all! It's the school's job to educate you basic stuff, not mine.

Ah, I see you've got it right this time. So when you said that cutter charges used thermite, were you lying, or did you only become an explosives expert over the last 24 hours?

Come back to this thread when you know the difference between a cutter charge and a shaped charge.

This is absurd. In order to soften part of the beam, thermite would have to remain in contact with it for a significant length of time. Without your inconvenient tungsten casings, it will simply flow downwards away from the region you want to melt.

This, or rather the uncertainty of the portion of what's going to be lost from the thermite charge is an actual issue. But there's a convenient solution: if one considers the I-Beams not to be a series of parallel beams with continuous length like you apparently, but actually a grid that is interconnected. Ideally, one would place the melt-away thermite charges at exactly those interconnections, using them against the structure itself, making sure the termite would heat the steel as good as possible, and then blow the upper beam with the HE charge, this setup also conveniently causing the lever effect to be greatest.

Hmm I probably should have mentioned this in the previous post, instead [edited]. Yeah, I should have. Sorry about that, Dave.

Oh, and drywall contains sulfates, and steel from WTC7 was observed to have been corroded - not melted - in a sulfate environment. That perfectly explains the sulfur without bending a single law of physics.

No one's arguing that a large part of the corrosion may have taken place long after the collapse. Enough with the strawman arguments already. But you're talking about calcium sulfate. Then why isn't there an excess of calcium found? No, the excess sulfur is still either "Mystery sulfur" or "thermate residue".

What would a whole bunch of explosives, detonated on 9/11, be like?
Here's 100T of high explosives detonated at a distance of about 700m:
And here's about 100T of high explosives detonated at a distance of about 3.3km:
Anyone notice anything like that on 9/11?

A 100 tons of ammunition being blown up with high explosives? The only thing I noticed is your ignorance.

Here's an actual 100t HE detonation



Needless to say, this would have leveled a large part of Manhattan. What's your point? Pulling for the strawman again? Go away.

Remember Civility.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Now thermite is not used in a shaped charge. Thermite is simply an incendiary and doesn't produce a copper plasma jet. Instead it melts pretty much anything it comes across within the shortest amount of time. The way to use thermite is not with a shaped charge, but with direct application.

Well I'm scouring through pictures of columns that had not been cleaned out, and I'm finding no such signatures as heat induced cuts... Perhaps you could point a few out here:

However, if one were to undertake a large scale operation like the destruction of the WTC, it would be trivial to create flat, solid thermite charges by pressure, or plastic. Those would detonate tugged to the columns and most of the termite would in fact fall off. So that means, if you use thermite over a shaped charge

The speculation is strong with you young one. Pictures of the columns shows no signs of having been cut, rather that the connections simply snapped.

- You will not have copper shrapnell or otherwise identifiable parts afterwards,

This is based on a set of assumptions relying on 'woulds, could's, and if's...

- You will not have a violent explosion, instead the beam will simply seem to fail.

And a fireworks display visible to most of Manhattan island... Thermite isn't subtle

- No one will look for thermite since it's not usually used for building destruction.

Strawman. They wouldn't need to specifically search for it. Rescue operations were underway for days following the collapse, and then the cleanup followed, any recognizable remnants would have been found

As such it is ideally suitable to the clandestine destruction of a steel highrise building.

no....

1. It does not explain the observed explosive force

name one grade of explosive that would be capable of sending large pieces of debris weighing several tones outwards of 300 feet. I've asked you to answer this once already, is it so difficult to answer?

However, and this is where my experience with explosives comes into play again, what I'm thinking of solves both of these issues.

I spent some time in Inkscape to also educate the more complete idiots on this forum on how this would look like.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_172564875d11c29992.png[/qimg]1- Lets say, that's a regular, badly drawn I-Beam.

For comparison, Fig 2 and 3 show how a shaped charge, or a high explosives destruction of a beam looks like. The huge packs are no accident, HE is very inefficient compared to shaped charges at destroying (intact) steel.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_172564875d14a555a5.png[/qimg]2 - Shaped linear cutting charges

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_172564875d19ce1137.png[/qimg]3 - HE charges


Now here's what I actually suggest. Instead of shaped charges, we use thermite charges. These thermite charges are caseless and glued / wired / duct taped to the beam. That means, when they go off, a large portion of the thermite will actually fall to the ground or hit the beam way below.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_172564875d1e22850b.png[/qimg]Solidified Thermite and 100g of TNT


However, since thermite is fairly effective, a large, flat slab of thermite would sufficiently weaken the steel to already nearly collapse on its own, but the pressure that's on the beam might actually push a large portion of the softened material away, and the beam's heat dissipation might cause any liquified material to quickly solidify again.

Again - not an expert on thermite. But this is a perfectly viable setup.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_172564875d2e64bf29.png[/qimg]Thermite melts...


Finally, after a few seconds, the weakened steel is severed by a HE charge much much smaller than the one that would be needed for a pure-HE destruction or even a shaped charge.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_172564875d339918a3.png[/qimg]HE charge severes the weakened beam.


Now this is perfectly viable and would explain everything observed. Except for one tiny thing: Most explosives like C4 or TNT leave residue that can be detected by bomb-sniffing dogs or chemical analysis. I'm not a chemist, so I don't know if there's alternative high explosives that wouldn't be detected by such means. Maybe it's highly explosive super dooper thermite? Then again. FEMA was quick to shield the evidence from any independent investigators so it may just be a regular old 100g block of TNT.

Very nice analysis... but it does not explain the absence of such cuts in pictures like this:

This, or rather the uncertainty of the portion of what's going to be lost from the thermite charge is an actual issue. But there's a convenient solution: if one considers the I-Beams not to be a series of parallel beams with continuous length like you apparently, but actually a grid that is interconnected. Ideally, one would place the melt-away thermite charges at exactly those interconnections, using them against the structure itself, making sure the termite would heat the steel as good as possible, and then blow the upper beam with the HE charge, this setup also conveniently causing the lever effect to be greatest.

You're speculating again... but I'm glad you brought this up.... perhaps you can point out in the picture I've brandished a few times where the column connections show such signs of melting.
And perhaps you could point out where in this picture columns were damaged by the detonation of your postulated thermite/explosive combination.

A 100 tons of ammunition being blown up with high explosives? The only thing I noticed is your ignorance.

Here's an actual 100t HE detonation

[/quote]
I hope you realize that the shock waves from a sequential detonation using those would have shattered the windows on all sides of the surrounding buildings and left people temporarily deaf, liquefy the insides of people standing too close (including the people who survived the collapse INSIDE the tower), Cause shrapnel wounds to others, in addition a light show grander than Independence day... Apparently, small details like that don't bother you so much...

 

[Dabljuh]

Grizzly, you show the same picture over and over and I can't make out a single core column there. Only peripherial beams, which I do not argue have been cut. You seem to be oblivious to this detail. Are you even aware that there was a core? Or were you lead to believe that the towers were essentially hollow tubes?

Also, exploding a large number of small quantities of explosives inside the core would have caused the massive dust cloud the exactly observed way, and stuff being flung all over the place. It would not have "liquified people" or caused significant amounts of shrapnel since the small HE charges aren't capable of shattering the steel to a significant degree, merely to bend it. And there wouldn't be a lightshow either, the only visible flashes would be visible from within the core. Contrary to what TV shows display, explosions are rarely as bright and firey, but rather messy and dusty, unless pyrotechnics are added.

This is a speculative model that is corroborated by the evidence as far as I can tell. The only counterpoints to my knowledge are the missing fusing/detonation (detcord, RC etc) mechanism, the composition of the HE, and the all-too-well-known problem of how the charges got there in the first place.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Are you even aware that there was a core? Or were you lead to believe that the towers were essentially hollow tubes?

Yes I am aware there was a core, Never was I led to believe otherwise. Irrelevant. You've speculated that the connections would have been cut to expedite the collapse. They are the same points that would fail during the collapse WITHOUT such assistance in the 1st place.

You are correct that the connections would be the weakest points. However, your claims requires that the logistics of sneaking in that volume of explosives and incendiaries would be possible beyond speculation. A level which you have not taken your claims to. The core columns collapsed and snapped primarily at these connections when they lost their lateral bracing anyway...

Also, exploding a large number of small quantities of explosives inside the core would have caused the massive dust cloud the exactly observed way, and stuff being flung all over the place.

You're forgetting the fact that in controlled demolitions it's not the explosives which create the majority of the observed dust, it is the fragemtation and pulverization resulting from the building's own material weight in collapse that generates the majority of it.

It would not have "liquified people" or caused significant amounts of shrapnel since the small HE charges aren't capable of shattering the steel to a significant degree, merely to bend it.

I'm not saying the steel would shatter, nor have I stated that they would... the schockwave from the explosives would have shattered glass and any similar brittle material and generated shrapnel either directly or indirectly. The 'liquefied' comment relies on proximity to the detonators, which is why the survivors found in stairwell B are a case in point. The pressure wave of a detonation would destroy a person's internal organs if in very close proximity to the detonation, the survivors inside the towers during collapse had a front row seat.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Come back to this thread when you know the difference between a cutter charge and a shaped charge.

Which one of those is a "linear shaped cutting charge"? You seem to be a little confused yourself. There's no such thing as a "thermite cutter charge", it's a fabrication of the truth movement. It's not entirely clear whether "cutter charge" is common jargon. Before you nitpick others' terminology, get your own straight.

This, or rather the uncertainty of the portion of what's going to be lost from the thermite charge is an actual issue. But there's a convenient solution: if one considers the I-Beams not to be a series of parallel beams with continuous length like you apparently, but actually a grid that is interconnected. Ideally, one would place the melt-away thermite charges at exactly those interconnections, using them against the structure itself, making sure the termite would heat the steel as good as possible, and then blow the upper beam with the HE charge, this setup also conveniently causing the lever effect to be greatest.

Now you're placing constraints on the buildings that your thermite is able to destroy. And thermite charges at interconnections still obey fluid dynamics, and will spread and fall off horizontals. To get reliable results you'd have to design the building specifically so that it could be demolished with thermite. Even an architect might find that a little odd.

Hmm I probably should have mentioned this in the previous post, instead of making you look like a total idiot who couldn't display some creative thought if his life depended on it. Yeah, I should have. Sorry about that, Dave.

Creativity is only the first step; assessing feasibility is just as important. But if your definition of creativity is the ability to dream up schemes that can't possibly work, then I defer to your superior abilities.

Oh, and "total idiot" isn't the conventional description of someone who doesn't believe that molten metal will stay exactly where you put it with no means of support.

No one's arguing that a large part of the corrosion may have taken place long after the collapse. Enough with the strawman arguments already. But you're talking about calcium sulfate. Then why isn't there an excess of calcium found? No, the excess sulfur is still either "Mystery sulfur" or "thermate residue".

I think we can add chemistry to thermite and demolition explosives in the list of things you're not an expert on.

Dave

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Add-on to address claims...

Grizzly, you show the same picture over and over and I can't make out a single core column there.

Portions of the cores were still standing after the rest of the towers fell ahead... In none have I seen any visual indications of the thermite charges cutting them, or any part that had been visually heated. They lost the bracing that the floor's transferred from the exterior columns

 

[e^n]

Right, steal I-Beams are known to be incredibly slippery to the point of impossibility of attaching anything to them. Even duct tape falls right off.

I appreciate that you may not be fully informed on the construction of the building but you should investigate the placement of critical columns in the towers and their surroundings.

Stop thinking watching 5s of footage of someone using a shaped charge makes you an expert. Ask someone. The shaped charges contain a copper casing. The parabolic inside of the shaped charge causes a jet of hot plasma when the shaped charge is detonated. The material inside the shaped charges is going to be C4, a high explosive. Despite containing a HE, the construction is not referred to as a HE charge, it's a shaped linear cutting charge.

Indeed it is, while it's not likely to be C4 and rather a more industrial explosive like RDX you are pretty much correct. Your nice little attack on me at the start is irrelevant as you said:

Since it requires the explosion to overcome the tension of the steel to actually rupture it, demolition teams do not usually destroy with high explosives (to which steel is very resilient to) but instead using cutter charges, for example thermite to pre-fragment the steel, and then simply blow it away with a small charge not capable of overcoming the steel's tension.

You are clearly describing a cutter charge here, and this description is very obviously at odds with your revised description. I appreciate it could be an honest error, but questioning my experience doesn't change the fact that you have given two different definitions for a 'cutter charge'.

The problem with those if you clandestinely want to blow up a building under the cover of a jet liner impact, is that they're not only using copious amounts of HE, causing a loud boom, no, they also produce copper shrapnel by the bucketload, and leave copper signatures behind on whatever they cut. So any cleanup operation would find this. Plus it's what you commonly use for destruction of steel columns, which means it's going to be detected pretty quickly as there are enough people familiar with those.

So can I quote you with the credibility of a demolitions expert to say that cutter charges were not involved in the destruction of the WTC?

Now thermite is not used in a shaped charge. Thermite is simply an incendiary and doesn't produce a copper plasma jet. Instead it melts pretty much anything it comes across within the shortest amount of time. The way to use thermite is not with a shaped charge, but with direct application.

I think here you are also agreeing with what I said before, that a standoff distance would render thermite useless. So your attack on my credibility was worthless.

2. It may not actually work. Using copious quantities of thermite, the beams may simply press the softened material away and eventually fuse again through dissipation.

I also appreciate you pointing this out.

Now this is perfectly viable and would explain everything observed. Except for one tiny thing: Most explosives like C4 or TNT leave residue that can be detected by bomb-sniffing dogs or chemical analysis. I'm not a chemist, so I don't know if there's alternative high explosives that wouldn't be detected by such means. Maybe it's highly explosive super dooper thermite? Then again. FEMA was quick to shield the evidence from any independent investigators so it may just be a regular old 100g block of TNT.

To illustrate why this is a problem, consider the size of the towers.
47 core columns, assuming only 50% were severed would be 23 per floor, even assuming only the fire floors and a few below were attacked, that would be around 230 100g charges, or 23kg of TNT or C4. This is going to be very audible, see 12 minutes in here

 

[BenBurch]

Dabljuh, wow, you know nothing about using thermite, do you? TRY to keep it on that beam, just try. It will not heat the beam significantly, and will just run off.

Here is a challenge for you; Go get a structural i-beam, scrap will do, and set up that thermite+100g TNT scenario and videotape it as you set if off. Come back when you've made it work.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Can we stop saying I-Beam and start using correct terminology, such as wide-flange column or wide-flange beam.

 

[BenBurch]

Can we stop saying I-Beam and start using correct terminology, such as wide-flange column or wide-flange beam.

Well, I could, but then he never would know what I was talking about. Not that he does anyway.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"My time is too precious to waste it on filling the vacuum...."

Yet here is spewing his nonsense instead of appealing to a higher power who would then take action. Why do we suppose that is? Because they would laugh much harder than we do. And the issue of being dismissed WITH prejudice.

 

[nicepants]

Again - not an expert on thermite. But this is a perfectly viable setup.

Wait, wait....

So instead of using smaller shaped charges designed for this type of thing, they used much larger HE charges, along with never-before-used thermite "cutter charges", requiring a 1000-5000% increase in materials, etc to achieve a collapse which could be achieved with much smaller shaped charges.

Yes, perfectly viable. LOL

 

[Jonnyclueless]

nicepants, you forgot to add that this was set up in a portion of building that was struck by a massive commercial jet and managed to survive. OR that all of this setup was planted in less than an hour and done so in the midst of a burning/collapsing building.

Now who wouldn't understand that as being perfectly viable?

 

[MRC_Hans]

MRC_Hans is now on ignore.

Probably a wise move. Seeing that you couldn't cope with my arguments.

My time is too precious to waste it on filling the vacuum that only a very generous philantrope would call an intellect. Go back to high school, and get that diploma after all! It's the school's job to educate you basic stuff, not mine.

Yeah, well. I admit I was working mostly by memory and dead reconing. Could have done better, but, obviously, there was no need to. No need to take a big hammer to such a small nail.

Hans

 

[Dabljuh]

To illustrate why this is a problem, consider the size of the towers.
47 core columns, assuming only 50% were severed would be 23 per floor, even assuming only the fire floors and a few below were attacked, that would be around 230 100g charges, or 23kg of TNT or C4. This is going to be very audible, see 12 minutes in here

The rest of your post didn't make me flinch, if you'd stop using strawmans for a second you could actually contribute something here. But I watched that video. It's bad. Oh boy, is it bad. I mean, Loose Change bad. He uses examples of synchronous explosives use as a demonstration to why explosions are loud - That's at deceitful. Then he demonstrates that failing steel is loud too. Then he argues that because no explosives can be heard, there couldn't have been explosives, completely ignoring that failing steel-like sounds can also not be distinctively heard, rendering his entire point about not hearing explosions on the recordings moot.

And then he goes on and on about pulverizing concrete *after* he's stated that it was mostly gypsum. I have the distinct pattern of my palm now wedged into my forehead because I had to listen to him explain how hard it is to turn concrete into dust.

And then he argues that you could produce the ginormeous dust clouds without the use of explosives, which would argue for a pure-thermate hypothesis, but then he can't even reject such a pure thermate hypothesis, where -according to his argumentation- dust clouds were formed by the collapse itself, although the collapse were initiated by thermate weakening the steel.

And the rest is just name calling and non sequiturs, saying that Chewbacca was a wookie living on Endor, hence the WTC was not an inside job.