• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses[W:548]

Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

The note from the editor sums it up pretty well. We have another article that is based on speculation. Many of the issues the authors have had with the official report are just rehashed.

"NOTE FROM THE EDITORS This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors. "

The conclusion of CD presented is not supported within the article, unless you accept speculation. Interesting the article brings up the sprinkler systems, yet fails to address the failure of the sprinklers due to damage.

The paper conclusion is just another call for a new investigation. imo, a new impartial 911 investigation paid for by taxpayers is not going to happen. If it did, there are many who should not be on the investigation team. Starting with the authors of this paper, AE911T members, etc. It would be impossible to have a truly independent, impartial investigation team at this point. The events of 9/11 have been tainted with so much speculation and absurd vids posted on the net.
 
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

mike2810 said:
The note from the editor sums it up pretty well. We have another article that is based on speculation. Many of the issues the authors have had with the official report are just rehashed.

"NOTE FROM THE EDITORS This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors. "

The conclusion of CD presented is not supported within the article, unless you accept speculation. Interesting the article brings up the sprinkler systems, yet fails to address the failure of the sprinklers due to damage.

The paper conclusion is just another call for a new investigation. imo, a new impartial 911 investigation paid for by taxpayers is not going to happen. If it did, there are many who should not be on the investigation team. Starting with the authors of this paper, AE911T members, etc. It would be impossible to have a truly independent, impartial investigation team at this point. The events of 9/11 have been tainted with so much speculation and absurd vids posted on the net.
Click to expand...

Mike, the sprinkler system in WTC 7 was functional, and it is just alleged that the water mains which supplied the first 20 floors were broken due to the twin tower collapses. That is actually a stretch if you study the reports as the mains were a grid and not all paths to WTC 7 were damaged.

However, even if the mains could not deliver any water there was water at the WTC from three fire boats in the Hudson each capable of pumping 18,000 gallons per minute and WTC 7 had Siamese fittings on its exterior which could have been used to pressurized and feed the sprinkler system without even entering the building. Somebody made a decision not to do that. It was not because there was no water available. You are going to see more coming out about this in the next year.

I think your opinion is under informed, which is the problem with many who simply don't believe there was a major conspiracy at work on 911.
 
Last edited:
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

Tony Szamboti said:
I didn't see that this site knew about the recent article published in Europhysics News with the same title as this thread.

The 3,000 word article is available here http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
Click to expand...

I knew about it. Gave it the attention it deserved here - none.

So what? Plenty of existing threads you could have put this into. No reason to start a new one just to get the same tired old arguments spinning round' in endless circles.
 
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

Tony Szamboti said:
Mike, the sprinkler system in WTC 7 was functional, and it is just alleged that the water mains which supplied the first 20 floors were broken due to the twin tower collapses. That is actually a stretch if you study the reports as the mains were a grid and not all paths to WTC 7 were damaged.

However, even if the mains could not deliver any water there was water at the WTC from three fire boats in the Hudson each capable of pumping 18,000 gallons per minute and WTC 7 had Siamese fittings on its exterior which could have been used to pressurized and feed the sprinkler system without even entering the building. Somebody made a decision not to do that. It was not because there was no water available. You are going to see more coming out about this in the next year.

I think your opinion is under informed, which is the problem with many who simply don't believe there was a major conspiracy at work on 911.
Click to expand...

Yes, there was a conspiracy, it just is not who you most likely think it was. Even your reply just enforces the "speculation" you are doing.
What I see is you are so vested in CD, you can't let it go. Tony. lay out the "major conspiracy" that was at work. Provide your sources to the data that proves the CT.

Your paper was an interesting read. You however have failed to convice me of the need for a new investigation. Reminds me of the failed High Rise Safety Initiative, (which imo really was an attempt for taxpayers to pay for a new investigation). Would love to see the designs need to improve building safety to stop CD .:lamo

You have not a clue what I have read or not read regarding 9/11. But hey, I read your paper, guess it was under informative. :doh
 
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

mike2810 said:
Yes, there was a conspiracy, it just is not who you most likely think it was. Even your reply just enforces the "speculation" you are doing.
What I see is you are so vested in CD, you can't let it go. Tony. lay out the "major conspiracy" that was at work. Provide your sources to the data that proves the CT.

Your paper was an interesting read. You however have failed to convice me of the need for a new investigation. Reminds me of the failed High Rise Safety Initiative, (which imo really was an attempt for taxpayers to pay for a new investigation). Would love to see the designs need to improve building safety to stop CD .:lamo

You have not a clue what I have read or not read regarding 9/11. But hey, I read your paper, guess it was under informative. :doh
Click to expand...

I really am not invested the way you say. The problem is everywhere I look I find big problems with the official story.

I guess you think Rudy Giuliani really didn't intend to get rid of the steel from the buildings before it could be used in an investigation and that they just goofed.

You probably don't think it suspicious that when Rudy was asked about explosives being involved in the collapses on Sept. 12, 2001 at a press conference and turned to his police commissioner Bernard Kerik and Kerik said "no, no explosives were involved".
 
Last edited:
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

Mark F said:
I knew about it. Gave it the attention it deserved here - none.

So what? Plenty of existing threads you could have put this into. No reason to start a new one just to get the same tired old arguments spinning round' in endless circles.
Click to expand...

I would imagine the shills were told not to pass it around as it is legitimate and is likely to overwhelm them.
 
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

Tony Szamboti said:
I really am not invested the way you say. The problem is everywhere I look I find big problems with the official story.

I guess you think Rudy Giuliani really didn't intend to get rid of the steel from the buildings before it could be used in an investigation and that they just goofed.

You probably don't think it suspicious that when Rudy was asked about explosives being involved in the collapses on Sept. 12, 2001 at a press conference and turned to his police commissioner Bernard Kerik and Kerik said "no, no explosives were involved".
Click to expand...


and you find no problems with what you just posted.
One. Your guessing on what my view is one issue.
Two. Your strawman statement regarding the steel disposal.
Three. Making assumptions on what I may believe regarding explosives.

Even in your published paper, your paper states people heard explosions. Yet, the paper does nothing to rule out other possible explanations. Your premise to prove. Not mine to disprove.

the papers story on how a CD of a large building is done is not evidence that it was CD.

I know you will continue to say I don't understand, misinformed, etc.. I read a great deal regarding 9/11 from numerous sources. The CD explanation just doesn't add up., imo.


I believe you have a lot of passion for what you are doing. However, many look at the same info and come to different conclusions that you.
After all these years, the best you got is well we need a new investigation.
 
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

Tony Szamboti said:
I would imagine the shills were told not to pass it around as it is legitimate and is likely to overwhelm them.
Click to expand...

You should always wear an I'm With Stupid t-shirt with the arrow pointing straight up if you really think that was clever.

15 years and that's the best you can do - yet its people like me that are the problem.

Riiiiiiiggggghhhhhhttttttt
 
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

Tony Szamboti said:
The problem is everywhere I look I find big problems with the official story.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it is just so curious that "experts" do not talk about simple stuff like the distribution of steel in very tall skyscrapers. Especially considering that 50 structures over 1,000 ft tall have been completed since 9/11. Apparently they know how to do it. And then there is the location of the center of gravity of the tilted top portion of the south tower, but then the distribution of steel should affect that. :roll:

psik
 
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

Mark F said:
You should always wear an I'm With Stupid t-shirt with the arrow pointing straight up if you really think that was clever.

15 years and that's the best you can do - yet its people like me that are the problem.

Riiiiiiiggggghhhhhhttttttt
Click to expand...

The paper was nothing more than a rehash of talking points that the authors have used for years. It is another call for , "we need a new investigation". Nothing new is presented.

It is noted the quote from the article by the editors of "This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation." goes unchallenged by CT supporters and the authors of the paper. It must be that speculation is acceptable as "truth". :mrgreen:
 
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

mike2810 said:
The paper was nothing more than a rehash of talking points that the authors have used for years. It is another call for , "we need a new investigation". Nothing new is presented.

It is noted the quote from the article by the editors of "This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation." goes unchallenged by CT supporters and the authors of the paper. It must be that speculation is acceptable as "truth". :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

And it does not even attempt to support its own conclusion of controlled demolition - just spewing the usual array of speculation and innuendo with plenty of fill in the blanks yourself to find your truth ambiguity.
 
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

Tony

Welcome back! I'm sure you won't be here long, and I do understand why. The Peanut Gallery has not changed at all. :peace

Keep up the good work.
 
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

Thoreau72 said:
Tony

Welcome back! I'm sure you won't be here long, and I do understand why. The Peanut Gallery has not changed at all. :peace

Keep up the good work.
Click to expand...

Good work! :lamo:lamo:lamo:
 
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

Thoreau72 said:
Tony

Welcome back! I'm sure you won't be here long, and I do understand why. The Peanut Gallery has not changed at all. :peace

Keep up the good work.
Click to expand...

I understand why. Tony never hesitates to run away when he's losing - which is most of the time. Can't even count the number of examples.
 
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

Tony Szamboti said:
I really am not invested the way you say. The problem is everywhere I look I find big problems with the official story.

I guess you think Rudy Giuliani really didn't intend to get rid of the steel from the buildings before it could be used in an investigation and that they just goofed.

You probably don't think it suspicious that when Rudy was asked about explosives being involved in the collapses on Sept. 12, 2001 at a press conference and turned to his police commissioner Bernard Kerik and Kerik said "no, no explosives were involved".
Click to expand...

I always found Rudy's reasons for getting rid of the steel ridiculous. There are obviously answers to be found and he got rid of the evidence. Why?
 
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

Oops, it has happened yet again---27 story high rise in West London burns all night long and does not collapse.

Gosh, it appears the rules of physics were temporarily suspended on 11 September 2001. :mrgreen:
 
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

Oops. Some forgot to provide the arm the mini neutron bombs.:lamo

"Grenfell Towerwould have collapsed if had been built four years earlier, a structural engineering expert has said.
"However building regulations changed in 1971 following a gas explosion at the high-rise*Ronan Point in East London in which four people died, the*only time a block of flats in London has collapsed.
Grenfell Tower was completed in 1974, so would have needed to comply with strict new regulations which ensured buildings would not fall down*in the event of a blast, or a major fire.**However recent cladding works to the outside may have exacerbated the fire, according to experts at the University of Edinburgh.*"

As a result of that, the design of tower blocks in the UK changed from about 1971 onwards. *From then on, the design had to allow for an explosion or a fire to remove part of the supporting structure and for the building to remain standing. "
Grenfell Tower would have collapsed if built four years earlier, says expert

You really should research before posting.
 
Last edited:
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

mike2810 said:
Oops. Some forgot to provide the arm the mini neutron bombs.:lamo

"Grenfell Towerwould have collapsed if had been built four years earlier, a structural engineering expert has said.
"However building regulations changed in 1971 following a gas explosion at the high-rise*Ronan Point in East London in which four people died, the*only time a block of flats in London has collapsed.
Grenfell Tower was completed in 1974, so would have needed to comply with strict new regulations which ensured buildings would not fall down*in the event of a blast, or a major fire.**However recent cladding works to the outside may have exacerbated the fire, according to experts at the University of Edinburgh.*"

As a result of that, the design of tower blocks in the UK changed from about 1971 onwards. *From then on, the design had to allow for an explosion or a fire to remove part of the supporting structure and for the building to remain standing. "
Grenfell Tower would have collapsed if built four years earlier, says expert

You really should research before posting.
Click to expand...

The point is, Fire Chief, that it was NOT built 3 years earlier, and the bigger point, the 800 pound gorilla in the room, is that it DID NOT COLLAPSE. Dodge all you want, shoulda coulda woulda all you want, the structure burned all night long and into the next day, and STILL HAS NOT COLLAPSED. I understand you are in denial of facts that don't suit your worldview, but those facts render the NIST theory at WTC absolutely INVALID.
 
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

Thoreau72 said:
Tony

Welcome back! I'm sure you won't be here long, and I do understand why. The Peanut Gallery has not changed at all. :peace

Keep up the good work.
Click to expand...
Yeah!

"Tony, welcome back! Keep up the good work that I don't believe is correct! I believe that nukes took down the towers, not explosives like you think!!"

What a crock Thoreau72!!!

:lamo

Still more proof of the truther mantra of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
 
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

Thoreau72 said:
The point is, Fire Chief, that it was NOT built 3 years earlier, and the bigger point, the 800 pound gorilla in the room, is that it DID NOT COLLAPSE. Dodge all you want, shoulda coulda woulda all you want, the structure burned all night long and into the next day, and STILL HAS NOT COLLAPSED. I understand you are in denial of facts that don't suit your worldview, but those facts render the NIST theory at WTC absolutely INVALID.
Click to expand...
Were any of the vertical supports severed or damaged from a plane impact? Why do you STILL, after being corrected on this issue, think it was only fires that caused the collapse of the structure? It was impact damage followed by fire weakening.
 
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

Thoreau72 said:
Dodge all you want, shoulda coulda woulda all you want, the structure burned all night long and into the next day, and STILL HAS NOT COLLAPSED. I understand you are in denial of facts that don't suit your worldview, but those facts render the NIST theory at WTC absolutely INVALID.
Click to expand...
I thought you truthers only compared to STEEL framed skyscrapers to try and prove your silly claims. This building was CONCRETE.

London Fire: Questions Swirl Over Deadly Blaze at Grenfell Tower - NBC News
Luder described Grenfell Tower as "almost a reinforced concrete frame with a central concrete lift shaft.
Click to expand...

OOPS!!!!

:doh
 
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

Thoreau72 said:
The point is, Fire Chief, that it was NOT built 3 years earlier, and the bigger point, the 800 pound gorilla in the room, is that it DID NOT COLLAPSE. Dodge all you want, shoulda coulda woulda all you want, the structure burned all night long and into the next day, and STILL HAS NOT COLLAPSED. I understand you are in denial of facts that don't suit your worldview, but those facts render the NIST theory at WTC absolutely INVALID.
Click to expand...

Correct is was not build 3 years earlier. It had the new improved safety designs built in to avoid possible collapse.
Wasn't it also more of a reinforced concrete building rather than steel framed? Wasn't it you who said the US highway overpass that collapsed due to fire was not comparable to the WTC1,2,7?

You need to bone up on your reading comprehension.:mrgreen:
I understand you seem to ignore facts that go against what you want the article to say.

So IF the NIST fire induced collapse is wrong, does that rule out that fire could not have caused the WTC Towers collapse ?

Still no one concise CD explanation from any of you who support the idea that it was CD.
Is TonySz correct when he states that it was not nukes? Yes or No will do.
 
Last edited:
Re: 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses

Thoreau72 said:
The point is, Fire Chief, that it was NOT built 3 years earlier, and the bigger point, the 800 pound gorilla in the room, is that it DID NOT COLLAPSE. Dodge all you want, shoulda coulda woulda all you want, the structure burned all night long and into the next day, and STILL HAS NOT COLLAPSED. I understand you are in denial of facts that don't suit your worldview, but those facts render the NIST theory at WTC absolutely INVALID.
Click to expand...

You believe if even one structure ever survives a serious fire, then all structures must always survive a serious fire.

That is hilarious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom