The Great Thermite Debate...

[OnTheOtherHand]

50. I'm not sure how much you've thought about this

"a few random, isolated fires" -- that's what I call argument by adjective. It's convenient because it doesn't require any actual knowledge of the issues, but it is inherently unpersuasive for the same reason.

It's tendentious to assert that WTC 7 collapsed "straight-down in exactly the manner of a standard CD." By default, things fall down, not sideways. If you intend to offer reasons to prefer your idiosyncratic explanation(?) of WTC 7's collapse to NIST's, then a good approach would be to find observables that are better explained by your hypothesis than by NIST's -- not mere similes.

Yes, you said that the structural steel of the entire building would have to be exposed to the flames, and I pointed out that you hadn't supported this assertion. Now you're repeating it. I do not construe repetition as evidence.

Most of those pasted talking points have no apparent bearing upon the "official explanations." For instance, arguing that WTC 7 must have been blown up because other skyscrapers have withstood more intense fires is sort of like arguing that the Challenger must have been blown up because O-rings can function at temperatures far below freezing. It's logically possible that for a particular building to survive a particular fire would undermine NIST's analysis, but as a handwaving generalization, the argument fails.

WTC 7 fell straight down, which necessitated that all of the load-bearing columns be broken at the same moment.

I'm not sure this is stated clearly enough to be worth attempting to rebut. If this is the crux of the argument, then we can try to sort it out.

Inflicting such damage with the precision required to prevent a building from toppling and damaging adjacent buildings is what the science of controlled demolition is all about.

Then the irreparable damage to Fiterman Hall is evidence against controlled demolition, isn't that true?

The collapse of WTC 7 exhibited all of the features of a standard controlled demolition.

Nonsense. In a standard controlled demolition, people can see and hear explosives going off -- and, might I add, generally the structure isn't undergoing uncontrolled fires. I know that David Chandler has convinced himself that he can hear explosives going off, but even if we assume that he is right, the fact that he is struggling to make his case years after the event underscores just how unlike a "standard controlled demolition" the collapse of WTC 7 was.