Esperanto said:
Call people who make steel and ask them if they use kerosene to forge their goods.
Not that I like argument from authority, but I'm a mechanical engineer: I've had both thermodynamics and materials science. And so have the engineers who did the reports for the media in the days following the attack. The people who promulgate conspiracy theories
never have the expertise required to say the things they say: what they say may
sound reasonable, but it isn't. There is a reason why real structural engineers buy into the conventional explanation.
...let's talk about this clip http://reopen911.org/video/painful_deceptions-an_analysis_of_the_911_attack_part2.wmv , that has my kudos, starting at sixteen minutes into it.
I downloaded it and watched bits and pieces of it totaling about 5 minutes - that's all I could stand:
its really, really bad. Pretty much everything he says is a misrepresentation of the conventional explanation or a made-up or misunderstood piece of evidence for his explanation. Just a few examples:
-He misrepresents the "pancake" theory (with a pretty diagram) by saying that the floors would pancake one on top of another all the way down inside the shell of the building without disturbing the shell. That's pretty rediculous - the shell doesn't have any structure of its own, so that's not what the conventional explanation says would happen. What would (did) happen is when each floor collapsed, the entire floor, including the shell went with it.
-He uses the example of the steel in your fireplace to prove that fire doesn't weaken steel. Wood fires and kerosene fires are two very different things.
-His claim is that explosives were used
on every floor - a monumental engineering task in and of itself. It couldn't possibly have gone unnoticed.
-He notes that the building fell at very near its theoretical maximum rate and claims air resistance and the strength of the building would slow it down. That's a pretty basic misunderstanding of structural mechanics: when things like a buiding column fail, they fail quickly and completely. And since the building is dense and fell straight down, air resistance was insignificant.
-He claims the high temperature of the rubble is evidence of explosives. If you've ever seen a show where they explain demolitions, you know that's not true: demolitions use very small quantities of explosves, shaped to cut structural members like a an axe - you can touch a severd beam seconds after its blown up. It also happens
fast, which does not provide enough time to heat up and melt a beam. The fact that there were hot-spots means there were pools of jet-fuel burning. It is not evidence of explosives.
And I'm trying hard to find images of flight 77 that supposedly made a mess at Pentagon.
They are easy to find. If you want to find them, you will - if you don't want to, you won't.
And let me just re-highlight a common conspiracy theory tactic:
especially since it wasn't burning when the wtc's went kaput.
This was a clear and obvious lie and you know it: so you ignored the response. That's what conspriacy theorists do. When their lies and errors are pointed out, they just move on to the next lie misunderstanding/misrepresentation. Pretty soon, most people realize that a conspiracy theory is just a never-ending stream of lies and misunderstandings/misrepresentations.
