"There's absolutely zero evidence"
I stopped after the word "evidence" because you didn't mention Larry Silverstein's "pull" comment and also a speech where he referred to the plans for a new WTC 7 building a full year before 9/11.
O_O
@chris this is exactly what AreWeSure does. He'll just flat out ignore evidence doesn't suit his version of events. I then provide a short refresher on the scientific method:
Bad: Conclusion -> Observation
Good: Observation -> Conclusion
To no avail I might add. That has lead me to the conclusion AreWeSure is either a shill or the most naive person on planet Earth.
:-D
[–] Are_we_sure ago
No. You stopped because you know you always get the science of 9/11 wrong and you simply don't care. You never engage honestly on this subject. . You misunderstand some really basic things. And continually reuse points that have been refuted. So you try to shift the battlefield from science to politics Because you are completely unarmed on scientific battlefield, You try to rely on politic arguments and tendentious interpretations of what someone said to.
Larry Silverstein said yada yada yada does not disprove the fact that slow reaction time of thermite makes it a terrible choice for a simultaneous collapse and the quicker high explosives that are perfectly suited for a simultaneous collapse cannot be made silent if they are also going to through up to 5 inches of steel. It doesn't disprove that high explosives or thermite or thermate would have to all wired together with some form of detonating cord/wireless receivers that never would have withstood the fires. It doesn't disprove that fact that bringing in box of thermite or high explosives on the 70th Floor would not have brought the towers down. That for either scenario to work you had to get to the bare steel of the columns which meant you had to rip apart occupied offices, break through drywall, get past plumbing an other pipes to get to the steel. Demolition via explosives would have you required to pre weaken the steel using torches that release noxious fumes. You would have to go in at night smash everything up, do your work and then put everything back the way it was with no dust/fumes left over by 7am the next day. One of the scientists the truth movement relies on for its thermite claims (the same one who won't let other scientists recreate his tests.) said 100 tons of thermite would be needed in each building. Well after the reaction, that means 70 tons of iron would be left over it weird looking blobs like this http://www.theodoregray.com/periodictable/Samples/026.14/s14s.JPG
Were any of the buildings on 9/11 brought down by a controlled demolition, there would be massive physical evdience all over the debris site. A debris site worked by many, many workers experienced in controlled demolition.
[–] DarkMath ago (edited ago)
"you always get the science of 9/11 wrong"
Wrong? Holy hand grenades. AreWeSure it's YOUR "scientific" explanation of how a minor office fire could cause WTC 7 to collapse EXACTLY like it would if brought down by a controlled demolition that's not "scientific". Remember?
"the fact that slow reaction time of thermite makes it a terrible choice for a simultaneous collapse"
Quite to the contrary the slow reaction time is essential to the entire demolition. You must remember too many explosions would give the whole thing away. Explosions had to be kept to a minimum. The very property of thermite you're talking about helps spread the "steel cutting" out over a couple of hours.
"Larry Silverstein said yada yada yada"
Sorry AreWeSure but "yada yada yada" doesn't cut it(pun intended). You actually need to explain Larry Silverstein's comments. Those two infamous gaffs are, DING DING DING, evidence of a controlled demolition. There's no way around it. You MUST address them.
:-D