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

camlok · Jun 19, 2017

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

Mark F said:
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.

Speaking of "spewing the usual array of speculation and innuendo with plenty of fill in the blanks yourself", Mark, there is nothing in the way of facts or discussion from you.

Address some of them and show us your stuff!

Quag · Jun 19, 2017

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

camlok said:
Why haven't you ever been able to provide any evidence to support the US government official conspiracy theory, mike? Not one iota from any of you.

That is a lie

Did you see WTC5 on page two of the article that none of you US government conspiracy theory supporters haven't even read? It was fully engulfed in flames and it never collapsed. It burned for over eight hours, it even had a huge cantilevered section and it never collapsed.

A building not collapsing doesn't mean ALL buildings will not collapse anymore than a building collapsing means all buildings will collapse
Another massive science failure from Cam

camlok · Jun 19, 2017

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

mike2810 said:
"

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.

That's exactly what the designers of the twin towers designed for in the 1960s.

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. "

You really should research before posting, mike.

camlok · Jun 19, 2017

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

gamolon said:
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.

The twin towers were designed for that.

1. Do you deny that the US government developed nanothermite in the 1990s?

2. Do you deny that unreacted nanothermite particles were found in WTC dust?

3. Do you deny that the by-products of thermitic reactions were found in WTC dust, iron microspheres in volumes 1500 times greater than that of normal office dust?

4. Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel described by FEMA, pictures of which anyone can see?

5. Do you deny the molten and fused steel and concrete, one named the Meteorite and housed in a 911 museum?

6. Do you deny the molten handguns found and stored in a 911 museum?

camlok · Jun 19, 2017

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

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

That is hilarious.

You believe that three in one day, a 500 trillion to one chance, could collapse symmetrically, at free fall and near free fall, pulverizing 220 acres of concrete, hurling multi-ton steel sections 600 feet when it has never happened before or since.

Talk about hilariously gullible.

camlok · Jun 19, 2017

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

Quag said:
The congressional baseball game practice shooting there were people who got shot and didn't die proving that bullets cannot kill people. The policeman and perpetrator both later "died". Obviously this was a false flag attack and the "perp" is living on a tropical island somewhere, because we know he cannot be dead from bullets.

I can believe that you advanced this fatuous, inane comparison, Quag.

camlok · Jun 19, 2017

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

mike2810 said:
So the govt got it wrong about the fires at the WTC1,2,7 buildings. "If the government story had any truth to it". Seems fires occurred. You just need look at the video evidence.

.

Yes, fires occurred and never before or since has afire caused the collapse of a steel framed high rise.

You just need look at the video evidence.

And also here,

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

on page two where you see WTC5 engulfed in flames for 8 hours, no collapse.

camlok · Jun 19, 2017

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

Quag said:
Doesn't matter what the truth is you will deny it because you just want to blame the evil US govt for everything

As you deny everything about the evil US government. Let's you and I have a head to head on a thread about the evil US government and you'll be crying for your mama in minutes.

mike2810 · Jun 19, 2017

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

camlok said:
Why haven't you ever been able to provide any evidence to support the US government official conspiracy theory, mike? Not one iota from any of you.

Did you see WTC5 on page two of the article that none of you US government conspiracy theory supporters haven't even read? It was fully engulfed in flames and it never collapsed. It burned for over eight hours, it even had a huge cantilevered section and it never collapsed.

Look at old threads. been there done that.

Each explanation needs to stand on its own. How come you don't support yours?

mike2810 · Jun 19, 2017

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

camlok said:
That's exactly what the designers of the twin towers designed for in the 1960s.

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. "

You really should research before posting, mike.

research what? I was stating the UK tower. Why you jumping all over the place?

camlok · Jun 19, 2017

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

mike2810 said:
How come you don't support yours?

I do. So can you by answering these six easy Yes/No questions.

1. Do you deny that the US government developed nanothermite in the 1990s?

2. Do you deny that unreacted nanothermite particles were found in WTC dust?

3. Do you deny that the by-products of thermitic reactions were found in WTC dust, iron microspheres in volumes 1500 times greater than that of normal office dust?

4. Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel described by FEMA, pictures of which anyone can see?

5. Do you deny the molten and fused steel and concrete, one named the Meteorite and housed in a 911 museum?

6. Do you deny the molten handguns found and stored in a 911 museum?

camlok · Jun 19, 2017

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

mike2810 said:
research what? I was stating the UK tower. Why you jumping all over the place?

I know you were stating the UK tower. And I said that what you described,

"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."

was exactly what the designers of the twin towers designed for in the 1960s.

You really should research before posting, mike.

camlok · Jun 19, 2017

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

mike2810 said:
Look at old threads. been there done that.

That's what you science deniers always say, but you can never seem to say it again, because you know nothing but your assigned memes for the day.

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/arti...2016474p21.pdf

on page two where you see WTC5 engulfed in flames for 8 hours, no collapse.

And WTC5 with a huge cantilever.

mike2810 · Jun 19, 2017

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

camlok said:
That's what you science deniers always say, but you can never seem to say it again, because you know nothing but your assigned memes for the day.

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/arti...2016474p21.pdf

on page two where you see WTC5 engulfed in flames for 8 hours, no collapse.

And WTC5 with a huge cantilever.

Did you miss what the editor of the publication had to say?

"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."

Or the follow up the editors did:
Europhysics News
"In the present case we realized that the final manuscript contained some speculations and had a rather controversial conclusion. Therefore a 'Note from the editors' was added, stressing that the content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent an official position of EPN. "

mike2810 · Jun 19, 2017

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

camlok said:
I do. So can you by answering these six easy Yes/No questions.

1. Do you deny that the US government developed nanothermite in the 1990s?

2. Do you deny that unreacted nanothermite particles were found in WTC dust?

3. Do you deny that the by-products of thermitic reactions were found in WTC dust, iron microspheres in volumes 1500 times greater than that of normal office dust?

4. Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel described by FEMA, pictures of which anyone can see?

5. Do you deny the molten and fused steel and concrete, one named the Meteorite and housed in a 911 museum?

6. Do you deny the molten handguns found and stored in a 911 museum?

Since you refuse to answer my questions I will not bother to answer your yes / no questions.

Quag · Jun 20, 2017

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

camlok said:
I can believe that you advanced this fatuous, inane comparison, Quag.

Its the exact same non logic you are using to compare 2 different buildings and 2 different fires.
Butr then you dont understand science do you?

Quag · Jun 20, 2017

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

camlok said:
As you deny everything about the evil US government. Let's you and I have a head to head on a thread about the evil US government and you'll be crying for your mama in minutes.

Another lie from you Cam, I do not deny the US govt does bad things, But YOU think they do ALL the bad things that happen.
As to making me cry considering your failures and lies here you really have a massively inflated ego.
Short list of your lies:
Pyroclatic flows on 911
WTC7 collapsing at freefall
Jetfuel requires ideal conditions to reach 1800F
Every single one of these claims by you has been shown to be a false yet you have repeated them after shown to be wrong. Then you divert away and move onto another lie, never adressing your failures, like a good little truther who despises the truth.

Make me cry :lamo

gamolon · Jun 20, 2017

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

camlok said:
2. Do you deny that unreacted nanothermite particles were found in WTC dust?

YES

I have a question for you camlok.

Is ignition of a red chip in a DSC an important characteristic to determine if that red chips was thermite or not? According to Harrit's paper?

gamolon · Jun 20, 2017

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

camlok said:
The twin towers were designed for that.

Another question for you regarding the supposed active thermite chips found in the dust. Harrit says the thermite chip thickness ranged from 10 to 100 microns. Are you telling me that you think a layer of 10 to 100 microns of nanothermite painted onto a box column made of 5" thick steel plate is enough to burn through it? One of the supposed chips they ignited burned out in about 1 second!

camlok · Jun 20, 2017

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

mike2810 said:
Did you miss what the editor of the publication had to say?

"

That is no different than any other scientific journal. But I do notice how diligently you science deniers are to divert attention away from the science, which is your usual, and only, dog and pony show.

camlok · Jun 20, 2017

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

Quag said:
Its the exact same ?

Six easy questions for you, Quag.

1. Do you deny that the US government developed nanothermite in the 1990s?

2. Do you deny that unreacted nanothermite particles were found in WTC dust?

3. Do you deny that the by-products of thermitic reactions were found in WTC dust, iron microspheres in volumes 1500 times greater than that of normal office dust?

4. Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel described by FEMA, pictures of which anyone can see?

5. Do you deny the molten and fused steel and concrete, one named the Meteorite and housed in a 911 museum?

6. Do you deny the molten handguns found and stored in a 911 museum?

mike2810 · Jun 20, 2017

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

camlok said:
That is no different than any other scientific journal. But I do notice how diligently you science deniers are to divert attention away from the science, which is your usual, and only, dog and pony show.

The article was an opinion piece by Tony Sz , et.al.(AE911T). Funny how you ignore the editors disclaimer. But that is to be expected.

Not diverting away from anything. Do you agree there are conflicting papers regarding the collapse of WTC 1,2,7? What makes Tony's paper any better than the others?

Throwing insults is a sure sign you have nothing to refute what was stated. Typical.

camlok · Jun 20, 2017

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

gamolon said:
YES

I have a question for you camlok.

Is ignition of a red chip in a DSC an important characteristic to determine if that red chips was thermite or not? According to Harrit's paper?

You are incoherent, gamolon. The paper is there for you to read. The paper has not not been refuted by any mainstream scientist in any peer reviewed journal.

There are many better questions like "how did US government nanothermite get into WTC dust"?

camlok · Jun 20, 2017

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

mike2810 said:
Throwing insults is a sure sign you have nothing to refute what was stated. Typical.

You guys are hilarious. Throwing insults is your entire song and dance routine. That's is all you do, interjected with inane questions that make no sense.

camlok · Jun 20, 2017

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

mike2810 said:
The article was an opinion piece by Tony Sz , et.al.(AE911T).

Do you agree there are conflicting papers regarding the collapse of WTC 1,2,7? What makes Tony's paper any better than the others?

Let me explain. You guys still have not provided any evidence for the US government conspiracy theory. You guys won't discuss details from all these "conflicting papers regarding the collapse of WTC 1,2,7".

Stop mouthing off about them. Bring them forward.

Here's the first one that shows how bogus is the US official conspiracy theory.

b FIG. 3: The final
frame of NIST’s
WTC 7 computer
model shows large
deformations to
the exterior not
observed in the
videos (Source: NIST).

On page 23 of EPN article.

NIST's computer model is a joke. It is so completely out of touch with reality. It's perfect for science deniers/anti-truthers. You guys should adopt it as your symbol.