Look, RedIbis, I suppose this warrants some kind of serious answer. For once, a truther has actually started taking steps along the road to serious respectability, and has demonstrated one very small thing that I thought was impossible. It's a very small step on a very long road, but at the end of that road, if indeed it leads in the right direction - which I'm fairly certain it doesn't - there might, perhaps, be the initial destination for the truth movement, which is to prove that enough elements of an alternative 9/11 theory are at least physically possible that such a theory won't instantly be rejected on grounds of utter absurdity.
If I'm worng, and it's possible to prove at least enough simple elements to construct a vaguely plausible hypothesis, there will then be another lengthy road ahead of the truth movement, which is to construct that hypothesis. The hypothesis will need to account for all the evidence that is already accounted for by the conventional understanding of 9/11; if it fails to account for any of it, it will still not be taken seriously, because it will be, by definition, an inferior explanation. And in order even to travel this road, truthers will have to revise their understanding of what constitutes evidence, and how to assess its validity. Discarding evidence because it disagrees with the hypothesis will no longer be acceptable; nor will misrepresentation of evidence, or fabrication of evidence, or presenting fantasy as evidence.
And if, in the end, this is finally achieved, and an alternative hypothesis is developed which is as fully detailed and explains the evidence at least as well as the conventional understanding, then there will still be the final hurdle to clear, of finding some reason to reject a simple hypothesis that explains all the known evidence. Because, whatever the delusions of the truth movement, the events of 9/11 are very fully understood, and the anomalies claimed by truthers are simply not real.
So, in truth, there is no Great Thermite Debate. All that there is, is a collection of contradictory and half-formed conjectures that fail to explain events that have already been explained. And all this video does is demonstrate that one small aspect of one such conjecture -specifically, that thermite could have caused superficially similar erosion to steel beams to that seen on a few samples from WTC7 - is not a physical impossibility.
So, as I'm sure you'll be glad to hear, I'm happy to abandon the claim that thermite could not have caused the sharp edges seen in the steel samples recovered from WTC7. If a victory that small means so much to you that you see it as a major triumph, then I'm very sorry for you.
Dave
