What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[Spendulus]

There was one funny and weird evidence:
One of terrorist's half bunt passport was found.

And the sole of one shoe of an unfortunate astronaut that died, burned up on reentry in the Space Shuttle was found on the ground.

There was one funny and weird evidence:

Imagine that jet fuel melted steel beams

It's just wackos that claim "melted steel beams,"  re the twin towers attack.

Any blacksmith would think you were certified insane saying that.  He just gets the metal red hot so he can work it easily.  Same happened with the towers.

A Boeing 757 hit Pentagon. Boeing 757 has 38m wide wings, 120 tons empty weight, 9 m height and one Rolls-Royce motor each wing.
But damage, on building is like a Chessna crashed. 10 meters wide damage!  Can you believe?

Aluminum is a ductile metal.  That means that under pressure it flows like a liquid.  Look at youtube videos of how soft drink cans are made.  The Pentagon was built to withstand attack, dude.   You are not talking about an ordinary building.

There's a fuel station near to Pentagon and station's security cameras captured all incident. But in ten minutes men in black went there and immediately siezed tapes.

Well, duh....  What do you think they'd do?  Leave them there?

There was one funny and weird evidence:

I'm waiting for it...

That means you believe polar bear in desert too!:-)

Naw, actually I sort of like that one.   

[1714654172]

1714654172

[1714654172]

1714654172

[1714654172]

1714654172

[1714654172]

1714654172

[1714654172]

1714654172

[1714654172]

1714654172

[dread454]

The Towers were filled with asbestos.
Burning fuel burns only at a max of 1200 degrees F.
You need special configurations to get blow-torch effects out of the burning fuel.
Tons of concrete insulation ward off heat convection.
Little heat as shown in the pictures above.

The heat was far from sufficient to take the towers down.

None of that above statements is accurate.  It only shows Baddecker's ignorance.  Insulation concentrates heat, rather than reducing it.  Ovens and such are...insulated.  Lots of wind blowing into that fire means lots of oxygen.  

And we can easily calculate the joules of energy released by these planes' fuel burning, and see if it is sufficient to weaken the tower structure (Hint:  I already did this in the other thread.  So I can just copy and paste, duh).  

Two words for you:

Controlled Demolition

All three buildings were simply "pulled" as Larry Silverstein said. It was all planned moths before the "attack" on US soil, attack by it's own government.

Buildings "pulled?"  Really?  Why don't you go try to pull a building?  I'll loan you a rope.

Silverman explains this stupid misinterpretation of his comment, as I recall, he was talking about getting the firemen out of there.  Great idea, they wouldn't be dead if he had.

Regardless, if you want to make the claim of controlled demolition, why not support it?  Some actual evidence?  Start with the claim that the US government was involved just for grins.

Oh man, I can't believe what I'm reading here. I don't know if you're so stupid or just too lazy to use your own brain. Do you even know how the twin towers were build? Twin towers were build with the intention to withstand multiple plane hits. I say it again, MULTIPLE plane hits! it is just impossible for thse towers to collapse like your government is telling you they did, their explanation is defying the laws of gravity. Both of the twin towers as well as wtc building 7 were demolished using explosives mixed with thermite, not because of the burning fuel LOL Explosives were placed days before the incident.

Yes, all three buildings were "pulled" meaning they were demolished following carefully planned execution. "Pulled" is a word used by people doing controlled demolition. Silverstein did used that word himself and he was talking about the wtc building 7, not the firefighters LOL. Seriously, you should do your own research on the subject instead of believing what the media is telling you. Did you know that Larry Silverstein, the owner of wtc complex bought and insured twin towers months before they collapsed? Coincidence, right? Want evidence?

http://realitieswatch.com/larry-silverstein-bought-wtc-months-911-got-4-55-billion-insurance-buildings/

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact"

http://wtfrly.com/2012/08/10/911truth-wtfact-no-33/#.VuM5OvkrLIU

http://investigate911.org/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu_qct5gp-M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfxkcBmZfK0

Just watch this video above and listen to people who were actually there and heard all explosions going off at ground floors and below, those explosives were placed there to weaken the whole structure of the building before the main pillars could be "pulled"

Now watch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjmktbt-F_Q

and finally take a look at how the wtc building 7 collapsed and listen carefully to what Larry Silverstein said, he said "PULL IT" as in "pull" the building and not "pull them" as in pull the firefighters out as you suggest. Your claim is actually impossible because there were no firefighters at building 7, they were ordered out at 11:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4   

[justspare]

There is really no way to tell what happened. It really could have been anyone. The US might have done it to make the muslims(or whoever the 'terrorists' were) look bad.

[Spendulus]

The Towers were filled with asbestos.
Burning fuel burns only at a max of 1200 degrees F.
You need special configurations to get blow-torch effects out of the burning fuel.
Tons of concrete insulation ward off heat convection.
Little heat as shown in the pictures above.

The heat was far from sufficient to take the towers down.

None of that above statements is accurate.  It only shows Baddecker's ignorance.  Insulation concentrates heat, rather than reducing it.  Ovens and such are...insulated.  Lots of wind blowing into that fire means lots of oxygen.  

And we can easily calculate the joules of energy released by these planes' fuel burning, and see if it is sufficient to weaken the tower structure (Hint:  I already did this in the other thread.  So I can just copy and paste, duh).  

Two words for you:

Controlled Demolition

All three buildings were simply "pulled" as Larry Silverstein said. It was all planned moths before the "attack" on US soil, attack by it's own government.

Buildings "pulled?"  Really?  Why don't you go try to pull a building?  I'll loan you a rope.

Silverman explains this stupid misinterpretation of his comment, as I recall, he was talking about getting the firemen out of there.  Great idea, they wouldn't be dead if he had.

Regardless, if you want to make the claim of controlled demolition, why not support it?  Some actual evidence?  Start with the claim that the US government was involved just for grins.

Oh man, I can't believe what I'm reading here. I don't know if you're so stupid or just too lazy to use your own brain. ....

Lol, no, we're not going for "facts and evidence" from Youtube videos.

Let's start with the problem of the steel.  You think the fire from the kerosene was insufficient to weaken the steel to the point where it was very weak, right?  That's what leads to the "need to talk about thermite" and in turn that leads to a "need for a conspiracy."  This is a simple problem at the high school level of physics and chemistry, so tell me if I understand this objection correctly.

RE the "involvement of the US Government" I assume that if there is no need for a conspiracy theory, then the US Government were not conspirators.  Take your pick, either that view or the US Government was involved in hiring/coercing "innocent Islamic Jihadists" to take lessons in flying planes and then crashing them into the towers.  Either or both is fine just let us know.

[Spendulus]

There is really no way to tell what happened. It really could have been anyone. The US might have done it to make the muslims(or whoever the 'terrorists' were) look bad.

That makes no sense.  There is no need to "make them look bad," the Islamic terrorists do a pretty good job of that without any help, don't they?  28,000 terror attacks since 911, and thousands dead each month.

www.thereligionofpeace.com

[dread454]

The Towers were filled with asbestos.
Burning fuel burns only at a max of 1200 degrees F.
You need special configurations to get blow-torch effects out of the burning fuel.
Tons of concrete insulation ward off heat convection.
Little heat as shown in the pictures above.

The heat was far from sufficient to take the towers down.

None of that above statements is accurate.  It only shows Baddecker's ignorance.  Insulation concentrates heat, rather than reducing it.  Ovens and such are...insulated.  Lots of wind blowing into that fire means lots of oxygen.  

And we can easily calculate the joules of energy released by these planes' fuel burning, and see if it is sufficient to weaken the tower structure (Hint:  I already did this in the other thread.  So I can just copy and paste, duh).  

Two words for you:

Controlled Demolition

All three buildings were simply "pulled" as Larry Silverstein said. It was all planned moths before the "attack" on US soil, attack by it's own government.

Buildings "pulled?"  Really?  Why don't you go try to pull a building?  I'll loan you a rope.

Silverman explains this stupid misinterpretation of his comment, as I recall, he was talking about getting the firemen out of there.  Great idea, they wouldn't be dead if he had.

Regardless, if you want to make the claim of controlled demolition, why not support it?  Some actual evidence?  Start with the claim that the US government was involved just for grins.

Oh man, I can't believe what I'm reading here. I don't know if you're so stupid or just too lazy to use your own brain. ....

Lol, no, we're not going for "facts and evidence" from Youtube videos.

Let's start with the problem of the steel.  You think the fire from the kerosene was insufficient to weaken the steel to the point where it was very weak, right?  That's what leads to the "need to talk about thermite" and in turn that leads to a "need for a conspiracy."  This is a simple problem at the high school level of physics and chemistry, so tell me if I understand this objection correctly.

RE the "involvement of the US Government" I assume that if there is no need for a conspiracy theory, then the US Government were not conspirators.  Take your pick, either that view or the US Government was involved in hiring/coercing "innocent Islamic Jihadists" to take lessons in flying planes and then crashing them into the towers.  Either or both is fine just let us know.

Why? Don't you think Youtube videos hold more than enough evidence for people to realize what really went down that day? or would you say youtube videos are a hoax, that we shouldn't ask questions but instead believe what US government and media is telling us?
The truth is right out there for anyone wiling to search for it. I did my research extensively and I can tell you the US government and media lied to us. Many people died that day, it's unforgivable.

Even if the steel was weakened by the jet fuel this would not have dropped the entire building! Sky scrapers don't just get thrown together and collapse in free fall, they have a very strict building code. One of which relies on the build being able to take impacts from flying objects. When the steel at the point of impact was heated (btw jet fuel burns at 980C in a controlled environment) it may have been heated enough for enough amount of time to change it's crystal structure but that would not have weaken the massive steel pillars below or above it. Also, to mention the pools of melted metal, STILL glowing red hot weeks after the initial collapse. Are you trying to say that jet fuel burns hot enough and long enough to melt enough metal to create pools of lava like liquids to last at least a week? These were found by fire fighters when they were removing ruble searching for bodies.

This is not a conspiracy theory, it's god damn fact laying on the floor in front of you. The only conspiracy theory is that bullshit the government fed us so we would want to go invade the middle east and implant our own seeds of governmental dominance so we can have a foothold on that economy as well. 

     

[Spendulus]

....
Even if the steel was weakened by the jet fuel this would not have dropped the entire building! Sky scrapers don't just get thrown together and collapse in free fall, they have a very strict building code. One of which relies on the build being able to take impacts from flying objects. When the steel at the point of impact was heated (btw jet fuel burns at 980C in a controlled environment) it may have been heated enough for enough amount of time to change it's crystal structure but that would not have weaken the massive steel pillars below or above it. Also, to mention the pools of melted metal, STILL glowing red hot weeks after the initial collapse. Are you trying to say that jet fuel burns hot enough and long enough to melt enough metal to create pools of lava like liquids to last at least a week? These were found by fire fighters when they were removing ruble searching for bodies. .....
    

None of all that conjecture is necessary, I asked a simple question regarding whether you believe that the jet fuel burning was insufficient to weaken the structure and cause the collapse.  You've answered it.  

I must beg to disagree.  Here are the reasons.

"Standard burning heat" is all it takes to turn iron red hot allowing it to have no more structural strength than mud.  Acetylene cutting torches melt steel everyday, by simply adding oxygen.   But that is not what is required to bring the structural framework down.  It is required to bring it up to about 1000F.  That's all.

http://www.steelconstruction.info/Fire_damage_assessment_of_hot_rolled_structural_steelwork

I'm feeling a bit lazy at the moment but my opinion is that 600F would be enough.   The next part of this is to determine how much steel was there, and how many joules would it take to bring it to this temperature, and whether a fraction of the jet fuel and energy of impact was sufficient to allow that temperature to be reached.

[tvbcof]

None of all that conjecture is necessary, I asked a simple question regarding whether you believe that the jet fuel burning was insufficient to weaken the structure and cause the collapse.  You've answered it.  
...

Obviously if we talking about the twin towers and not building seven given the talk of 'jet fuel'.  In these cases, the 'down' is suspicious but the 'up' is even more so.  That is to say, the shattered i-beams and debris velocities and trajectories as the 'collapse' occurred.

It's OK to go ahead and concede that the whole thing was probably a false flag operation performed in order to achieve a psychological impact on the citizens.  The 'catastrophic and catalyzing new Pearl Harbor' anticipated as necessary in the PNAC document not to long before the event (authored by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and co.)  The feeling of entertaining a hypothesis which nicely matches most or all of the observations is much more comfortable than trying to strain a hypothesis which just doesn't work (like the global climate change scammers are burdened with.)   Lots of nations have done such things over the years.  It's probably more common than not.

In hindsight, I am sort of seeing things as a struggle between the 'one-worlders' and the 'American century' crowd.  The former represented by Obama an the latter latter by Cheney.  As I study things more, I see the 'American century' path to be the lesser of two evils which makes me glad they pulled off 9/11.  I've always been in awe of Cheney for the audacity of the feat.  Even the PNAC document concedes that the 'new American century' would probably be the last time a multi-polar world was practical and we'll end up in a one-world system anyway.  In my mind there is no way that such a thing does NOT turn into a hideous totalitarian dictatorship from which there will be nowhere to run and hide.

[BADecker]

Here we go. We are starting to see Spendy's deception more clearly.

The Towers were filled with asbestos.
Burning fuel burns only at a max of 1200 degrees F.
You need special configurations to get blow-torch effects out of the burning fuel.
Tons of concrete insulation ward off heat convection.
Little heat as shown in the pictures above.

The heat was far from sufficient to take the towers down.

None of that above statements is accurate.  It only shows Baddecker's ignorance.  Insulation concentrates heat, rather than reducing it.  Ovens and such are...insulated.  Lots of wind blowing into that fire means lots of oxygen.  

Insulation can concentrate heat in a room, rather than letting it penetrate into the walls. Oven insulation does exactly this, concentrating the heat in the open space inside the oven, rather than the oven walls. In the Towers, the heat remained in the rooms, and went out the windows, rather than going into the walls, and weakening the structure.

And we can easily calculate the joules of energy released by these planes' fuel burning, and see if it is sufficient to weaken the tower structure (Hint:  I already did this in the other thread.  So I can just copy and paste, duh).  

One can easily measure the amount of latent energy in fuel. This isn't easy to do in burning fuel. Why not? Because some of the energy escapes unburned in thick clouds of black smoke, as was the case in the Towers.

Two words for you:

Controlled Demolition

All three buildings were simply "pulled" as Larry Silverstein said. It was all planned moths before the "attack" on US soil, attack by it's own government.

Buildings "pulled?"  Really?  Why don't you go try to pull a building?  I'll loan you a rope.

Silverman explains this stupid misinterpretation of his comment, as I recall, he was talking about getting the firemen out of there.  Great idea, they wouldn't be dead if he had.

Regardless, if you want to make the claim of controlled demolition, why not support it?  Some actual evidence?  Start with the claim that the US government was involved just for grins.

The information supporting this is in websites that talk about following the money.

Spendy, you are on your last legs regarding this topic. Believe what you will, but any credibility you have is going up in Twin Tower smoke.

[BADecker]

....
Even if the steel was weakened by the jet fuel this would not have dropped the entire building! Sky scrapers don't just get thrown together and collapse in free fall, they have a very strict building code. One of which relies on the build being able to take impacts from flying objects. When the steel at the point of impact was heated (btw jet fuel burns at 980C in a controlled environment) it may have been heated enough for enough amount of time to change it's crystal structure but that would not have weaken the massive steel pillars below or above it. Also, to mention the pools of melted metal, STILL glowing red hot weeks after the initial collapse. Are you trying to say that jet fuel burns hot enough and long enough to melt enough metal to create pools of lava like liquids to last at least a week? These were found by fire fighters when they were removing ruble searching for bodies. .....
    

None of all that conjecture is necessary, I asked a simple question regarding whether you believe that the jet fuel burning was insufficient to weaken the structure and cause the collapse.  You've answered it.  

I must beg to disagree.  Here are the reasons.

"Standard burning heat" is all it takes to turn iron red hot allowing it to have no more structural strength than mud.  Acetylene cutting torches melt steel everyday, by simply adding oxygen.   But that is not what is required to bring the structural framework down.  It is required to bring it up to about 1000F.  That's all.

http://www.steelconstruction.info/Fire_damage_assessment_of_hot_rolled_structural_steelwork

I'm feeling a bit lazy at the moment but my opinion is that 600F would be enough.   The next part of this is to determine how much steel was there, and how many joules would it take to bring it to this temperature, and whether a fraction of the jet fuel and energy of impact was sufficient to allow that temperature to be reached.

The buildings were built to withstand airplanes crashing into them. Most of the fuel went up in billows of black smoke, unburned, or partially burned. This is the part of the fuel, the boiling of which, helped to keep the Tower structures cool.

There simply wasn't enough heat to destroy the towers. You can tell by looking at the pictures of the people in the Tower windows... pictures I posted in several above posts.

[Spendulus]

None of all that conjecture is necessary, I asked a simple question regarding whether you believe that the jet fuel burning was insufficient to weaken the structure and cause the collapse.  You've answered it.  
...

Obviously if we talking about the twin towers and not building seven given the talk of 'jet fuel'.  In these cases, the 'down' is suspicious but the 'up' is even more so.  That is to say, the shattered i-beams and debris velocities and trajectories as the 'collapse' occurred.

It's OK to go ahead and concede that the whole thing was probably a false flag operation performed in order to achieve a psychological impact on the citizens.  The 'catastrophic and catalyzing new Pearl Harbor' anticipated as necessary in the PNAC document not to long before the event (authored by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and co.)  The feeling of entertaining a hypothesis which nicely matches most or all of the observations is much more comfortable than trying to strain a hypothesis which just doesn't work (like the global climate change scammers are burdened with.)   Lots of nations have done such things over the years.  It's probably more common than not.

In hindsight, I am sort of seeing things as a struggle between the 'one-worlders' and the 'American century' crowd.  The former represented by Obama an the latter latter by Cheney.  As I study things more, I see the 'American century' path to be the lesser of two evils which makes me glad they pulled off 9/11.  I've always been in awe of Cheney for the audacity of the feat.  Even the PNAC document concedes that the 'new American century' would probably be the last time a multi-polar world was practical and we'll end up in a one-world system anyway.  In my mind there is no way that such a thing does NOT turn into a hideous totalitarian dictatorship from which there will be nowhere to run and hide.

Lol, of course we agree on many things, but my position here is only to look at the chemistry and physics, not the human dynamics.  So, for example, my explaining how assertion 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 of blind devotees of 911 conspiracy theories are wrong, in simple language, does NOT MEAN there cannot be 911 conspiracy theories.  In fact, I have welcomed them.   While you are at it, please figure out the Kennedy killing.

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.

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

[BADecker]

None of all that conjecture is necessary, I asked a simple question regarding whether you believe that the jet fuel burning was insufficient to weaken the structure and cause the collapse.  You've answered it.  
...

Obviously if we talking about the twin towers and not building seven given the talk of 'jet fuel'.  In these cases, the 'down' is suspicious but the 'up' is even more so.  That is to say, the shattered i-beams and debris velocities and trajectories as the 'collapse' occurred.

It's OK to go ahead and concede that the whole thing was probably a false flag operation performed in order to achieve a psychological impact on the citizens.  The 'catastrophic and catalyzing new Pearl Harbor' anticipated as necessary in the PNAC document not to long before the event (authored by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and co.)  The feeling of entertaining a hypothesis which nicely matches most or all of the observations is much more comfortable than trying to strain a hypothesis which just doesn't work (like the global climate change scammers are burdened with.)   Lots of nations have done such things over the years.  It's probably more common than not.

In hindsight, I am sort of seeing things as a struggle between the 'one-worlders' and the 'American century' crowd.  The former represented by Obama an the latter latter by Cheney.  As I study things more, I see the 'American century' path to be the lesser of two evils which makes me glad they pulled off 9/11.  I've always been in awe of Cheney for the audacity of the feat.  Even the PNAC document concedes that the 'new American century' would probably be the last time a multi-polar world was practical and we'll end up in a one-world system anyway.  In my mind there is no way that such a thing does NOT turn into a hideous totalitarian dictatorship from which there will be nowhere to run and hide.

Lol, of course we agree on many things, but my position here is only to look at the chemistry and physics, not the human dynamics.  So, for example, my explaining how assertion 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 of blind devotees of 911 conspiracy theories are wrong, in simple language, does NOT MEAN there cannot be 911 conspiracy theories.  In fact, I have welcomed them.   While you are at it, please figure out the Kennedy killing.

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. 

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

Oh, oh. Starting to use the F-word, are we? What's the matter, can't take the gaff? Too much smoke from the boiled off fuel that kept the Towers cool enough that the steel could barely get warm, right? Chemistry and physics useless because nobody can determine how little of the fuel actually burned to produce heat?

Get off it, Spendy. There wasn't enough jet fuel burned to produce enough heat to melt the aluminum, to say nothing about weakening the concrete encased steel girders, etc.

Tower destruction came from elsewhere, other than the jet fuel.

[Spendulus]

.....

The buildings were built to withstand airplanes crashing into them. ....

It makes no difference that you say this.  What happened is what happened.

....
The heat was far from sufficient to take the towers down.

A hope of yours, but not a proof.  The proof says the opposite, as I have shown you previously.  I do not even have to recalculate it, just pull the prior numbers.

Believing something does not make it real. 

[tvbcof]

...
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/

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.

[clickerz]

There are many conspiracy theory surrounding the internet.Too much information and disinformation and one thing is sure,they were attack by terrorist.With the persons being held and investigated,its clearer that its connected with terrorist groups.

[magnific61]

Nobody claims that US directly did it. American Deep State did it.
Weird, Bush said to Americans after attack "Shop"

[greBit]

Nobody claims that US directly did it. American Deep State did it.
Weird, Bush said to Americans after attack "Shop"

Yes it was an inside job done by the bush and zionist lobby just to invade iraq and loot their wealth and kill the innocents thats the reason many veterans have comitted suicide

[magnific61]

Nobody claims that US directly did it. American Deep State did it.
Weird, Bush said to Americans after attack "Shop"

Yes it was an inside job done by the bush and zionist lobby just to invade iraq and loot their wealth and kill the innocents thats the reason many veterans have comitted suicide

That is definitely true. They are making same always when they need public opinion for entering a war. Because American families don'tt want to send their sons to death in vain.

[Spendulus]

Nobody claims that US directly did it. American Deep State did it.
Weird, Bush said to Americans after attack "Shop"

Yes it was an inside job done by the bush and zionist lobby just to invade iraq and loot their wealth and kill the innocents thats the reason many veterans have comitted suicide

I WAS WAITING FOR THIS!!!

Here it goes again!  The EVIL JEEWWWSSSSS! 

[Spendulus]

...
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/

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)