Comment: Oh really?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Listen Jackwad (see in situ)

Oh really?

First, when you say the so-called 'debunking' what are you talking about? You present this as a video or something, "they can't hardly listen to the end." The debunking of your [truther] arguments has been a long and drawn out process over many years involving thousands of people. Even Popular Mechanics got involved. From time to time people get sick of how annoying you idiots are and decide to reason with you.

You claim that every engineer you know is a 911 truther. I call b.s. What a lie. Or perhaps these "engineers" you refer to are software engineers, in other words, not engineers at all. I challenge you, let's see a list of registered professional engineers who have publicly supported 911 truth. And please don't send me a link to AE911Truth, the response to that charade is, AE911Truth is a dishonest organization that engages in quote mining, taking people out of context to make it appear as though they are truthers when they aren't. When you actually dig into that site you find that there are but a tiny handfull of actual degreed engineers who have supported 911 truth, and of those none of them are professionals. They may have a degree, from some joke of a school, but they work in other unrelated fields or are complete nobodies with dead or long-retired careers.

Show me the head of a university engineering department or a registered PE with 20-30 years experience actually designing steel buildings. Show me a demolition engineer that has been blowing up buildings his whole life. And this is the key, in all the diversity that is our world, with all the hundreds of thousands, millions, of engineers that are out there, you can't find even a single reputable person to support you. Not. Even. One.

An architect is not an engineer. A theoretical physicist is not an engineer. A wordpress webmaster is not an engineer.

The closest thing you've got to a "professional" is a disgraced physics professor from BYU who's been a hack his whole life. The guy was part of a cold fusion debacle many years ago. His whole career he's done research in very theoretical and impractical areas, with zero success by the way even in his field of study. Long story short, the guy isn't an engineer and doesn't know the first thing about structures. He's a theoretical physicist, a wonky mad scientist searching for free energy in a tub of water. Even before the 911 truth stuff he was a joke, even among physicists. In academia and the physics world he had a horrible reputation. Why do you think BYU fired him so easily? Because he had no clout and they had no pressure to keep him around. And do you see any other universities picking him up after he got fired? Nobody will touch him. Man has no job.

He's made a constant loon out of himself online since then, especially with his self-peer-reviewed papers, lol. Even he recognizes that setting charges in the towers is an impossible task, requiring too many people, the explosives weigh too much, etc, so how did he solve this problem? By inventing magic paint. He says the government must have secretly invented a magic explosive paint. Seriously? This is what it has come to, magic explosive paint that nobody in the world has ever seen or heard of. Literally a fairy tale at this point.

Are you man enough to debate the science yourself? I challenge you. Come on big man, let's debate it. I've got a wall full of books on the properties of materials and the mechanics of steel right behind me. I can make this discussion as technical and math-intensive as you'd like to take it.

Your claims go against even a freshman-level understanding of engineering. In the engineering world what happened at WTC wasn't a surprise. Many in the community thought it was a poorly-designed building and that it could easily collapse as a consequence of an airplane crash. People talked about this long before 911. University engineering classes even openly discussed it.

Steel doesn't have to melt for the building to come down, it just has to lose a portion of it's strength. Go read about tensile strength. Not a very complicated concept.