After we get past the pleasantries– the “tin foil hat,” “twoofer,” “conspiritard” name-calling bit, the first “science” the debunkers usually drag out to refute the controlled demolition hypothesis is What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York, Bazant, et al. It looks pretty fancy. It employs complex equations and complicated language to give it an air of legitimacy. In the figures section, you will find this:
(sorry for poor image quality. There may be a higher resolution version attached to the for-pay version of this paper. Save your money)
From another Bazant paper we find a clearer illustration of this mysterious effect, but without the labelling of “crush-down, crush up” phases of collapse, which are really quite essential to the ridiculousness of the theory.
The “crush-down, crush-up” hypothesis, is nullified by Newton’s third law:
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
The idea that a 1/6 portion of a building could descend straight down, through the remaining 5/6 of the building, through the path of greatest resistance, and that this indestructible building segment would somehow, at the very last momonet, then be pulverised by the remaining dust heap beneath it, is simply ludicrous.
Some group of anonymous jokers actually employs a photograph of Gallagher smashing a watermelon, together with various ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies, to “debunk” the thermite hypothesis of Harrit and Jones.
Please, by all means, click the watermelon-smashing idiot if you would like to read some truly ludicrous anti-science.
What is really strange is that there are pictures at http://www.debunking911.com of steel columns that have been melted (by thermite, may we presume?) at a classic “controlled-demolition” 45 degree angle. Why would they include these photos which would seem to demolish their entire argument?
Debunkers propose that this cut was made during the cleanup effort, but the rubble is still smoking, firemen are still present. It seems unlikely to me that the clean-up has even yet begun at the time this photo was shot.
Debunkers are a weird bunch of spooks, and their attacks tend to be more psychological than fact-based.
Still, this bunch of CIA-funded cretins manages to make a more convincing argument than NIST for the anomalies surrounding the collapse of WTC 7. I mean, at least they refrain from making use of the “office furnishings” hypothesis.
If you would like to see the collapse of building 7 explained in just three pages, click here.
“Debunking” sites (and 9/11 truth sites) are a dime a dozen, but in both cases, good ones are hard to find. Popular Mechanics I address elsewhere.