I think an analogy would be with the 9-11 "truthers" who trot out various facts and conclude that the towers were brought down by demolition charges rather than the plane strike.
Their facts are not wrong, they are just misapplied and someone with a more general understanding of physics knows that.
One of the facts quoted is that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. By itself, that is true. But the temperature at which jet fuel burns varies depending on all sorts of conditions, and the standard lab setup is not at all what the towers were. For example, fuel in a jet engine certainly burns hot enough to melt steel, it's the limiting factor in jet engine design.
Yeah sure, so it was just an unbelievable awesome coincidence that both towers collapsed in a way which normally takes demolition experts weeks if not month to achieve. And then there's building 7, which also collapsed in this perfect way and it didn't even get hit by a plane. It may very well be that the fuel burnt hot enough to melt the steel but it hardly explains the way the towers collapsed, not to mention building 7. It's just ridiculous.
You can immediately dismiss any "experts" who assert that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to weaken steel. That would include all the ones I've seen write web pages about it.
I forgot to mention - steel loses its strength at temperatures far below its melting point (which is why blacksmithing works). So anyone who talks about the steel needing to "melt" for the towers to collapse is also a quack.
Their facts are not wrong, they are just misapplied and someone with a more general understanding of physics knows that.
One of the facts quoted is that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. By itself, that is true. But the temperature at which jet fuel burns varies depending on all sorts of conditions, and the standard lab setup is not at all what the towers were. For example, fuel in a jet engine certainly burns hot enough to melt steel, it's the limiting factor in jet engine design.