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

Thoreau72 · Aug 22, 2017

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

Fearandloathing said:
Interesting article, but with an opening line " Besides, this article does not consider any conspiracy behind nuclear demolition of the WTC on 9/11, neither does it consider any moral aspect of this issue - such as ground zero clean-up works and so on - it aims to explain its purely technical aspect." I can't afford enough time to get too deeply into a spec piece.

It still comes back to my experience with human nature. That large a project would have to involve hundreds, likely thousands, which makes the idea of keeping them all quiet about the most well known building destruction in history. When that aspect can be dealt with properly, I will take a closer look.

But with so many needed, it simply would not be possible to keep a secret without killing them all....and that would stand out a bit

Yes, sometime in the future, if conditions are just perfect, you will take a closer look. That shows the very restricted limits of your curiosity. If you turned out to be Scott Pelley, it would fit right in. Almost, but not quite, morbid incuriosity.

Thanks for at least reading the first paragraph or two.

mike2810 · Aug 22, 2017

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

Thoreau72 said:
Neither or both might be true. As to exactly how many devices there might have been, and how and when they were placed, either or both could be correct. I don't recall Prager being that specific as to location, and I haven't read his work in some time, but for the sake of argument I'll say your correct. From my view, it doesn't matter if only one of them, or both of them, are correct. The Russian seems to write from experience, while Prager seems to write from another perspective, he is still learning.

Ditto with thermite, as I've mentioned so many times before. Whether or not thermite was used does not really matter. As a layman, it seems one possibility would be that the net effect of the pulverization of steel would appear chemically to be the results of the thermite reaction. In my view it's not important.

It is entirely possible that as Prager says, Jones may be disinfo. It does seem odd that a man who did so much work in nuclear related fields as Jones did would be so oblivious to the many signs of a nuclear event. Again, I don't care about personalities as you do. I prefer the forensic angle.

This will probably be the last time I post this part to you Mike, because I've said it so many times, and you have commented on it so many times, but you still just can't grasp the point--I'm an independent thinker. I read as much as I can, then I make up my own mind.

You prefer to be led by somebody or the other you see as a hero of sorts. Not me.

That is ok. Don't respond. The reason I keep asking is you keep posting conflicting information. You have bought into the various fairytales and have accepted them. I know you want to believe it was CD. That is why you pretty much accept any statement that says it was CD. Good for you.

Thanks for admitting you don't have a clue regarding the alleged controlled demolition of the WTC 1,2,7.

I grasp what you believe just fine. I am just surprised you don't accept JWood energy beam explanation. She supports that it was a CD.

Thoreau72 · Aug 22, 2017

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

mike2810 said:
That is ok. Don't respond. The reason I keep asking is you keep posting conflicting information. You have bought into the various fairytales and have accepted them. I know you want to believe it was CD. That is why you pretty much accept any statement that says it was CD. Good for you.

Thanks for admitting you don't have a clue regarding the alleged controlled demolition of the WTC 1,2,7.

I grasp what you believe just fine. I am just surprised you don't accept JWood energy beam explanation. She supports that it was a CD.

Especially on this internet Mike, but even before, the world is full of conflicting information.

The rational thinker can often sort the wheat from the chaff, the real from the fake, and so on. Maybe I'm better at that than you? Maybe I've just had more training that way? I don't know, but at age 69 it's really easy to spot the propaganda these days, and I was only about 59 when Kean and Hamilton and the others noted that they were set up to fail.

The older I get, the easier it is to spot the government cover-up. Maybe I remember too well the lessons of The Pentagon Papers, while you were too young to remember them?

mike2810 · Aug 22, 2017

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

Thoreau72 said:
Especially on this internet Mike, but even before, the world is full of conflicting information.

The rational thinker can often sort the wheat from the chaff, the real from the fake, and so on. Maybe I'm better at that than you? Maybe I've just had more training that way? I don't know, but at age 69 it's really easy to spot the propaganda these days, and I was only about 59 when Kean and Hamilton and the others noted that they were set up to fail.

The older I get, the easier it is to spot the government cover-up. Maybe I remember too well the lessons of The Pentagon Papers, while you were too young to remember them?

You don't sort anything T72. If you did you would have sorted out the many fake controlled demolition explanations that are not supported by the evidence.

As far as your ability to "spot the govt. cover up". Keep believing what you want. I have said it before, you really need to expand your sources you use.

Thoreau72 · Aug 22, 2017

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

mike2810 said:
You don't sort anything T72. If you did you would have sorted out the many fake controlled demolition explanations that are not supported by the evidence.

As far as your ability to "spot the govt. cover up". Keep believing what you want. I have said it before, you really need to expand your sources you use.

You have no idea, and do not want to know, how many times I posted at NYT in 2002 and 2003, the official government talking point at the time about "pancake collapses" as being the official explanation. I've walked quite a few miles in your most uncomfortable shoes Mike, trying to fit that square peg into the round hole. Don't worry about me pal. Don't worry about anything, just be happy. Ignorance is bliss.

Fearandloathing · Aug 22, 2017

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

Thoreau72 said:
Yes, sometime in the future, if conditions are just perfect, you will take a closer look. That shows the very restricted limits of your curiosity. If you turned out to be Scott Pelley, it would fit right in. Almost, but not quite, morbid incuriosity.

Thanks for at least reading the first paragraph or two.

Please save the ****ing cheep assed insults. Because I don't totally buy your **** you have to try to put me down.

Incuriosity is not a word.

Now go to someone else to make yourself feel superior.

mike2810 · Aug 22, 2017

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

Thoreau72 said:
You have no idea, and do not want to know, how many times I posted at NYT in 2002 and 2003, the official government talking point at the time about "pancake collapses" as being the official explanation. I've walked quite a few miles in your most uncomfortable shoes Mike, trying to fit that square peg into the round hole. Don't worry about me pal. Don't worry about anything, just be happy. Ignorance is bliss.

For you to post his it shows how little you know of what I know and understand. Like I have said before. You need to expand your sources and try learning from more scientific sources.

I don't worry about you. I had you figured out a long time ago.

Still no one concise controlled demolition explanation. The controlled demolition supporters cannot agree on the most basic information.

stundie · Aug 23, 2017

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

Quag said:
Yes they point out your lies and logical errors, you then divert to other subjects then run away,
Sam MO for all truthers.

That only ever happened in your imagination Quag......:lamo

Quag · Aug 23, 2017

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

stundie said:
That only ever happened in your imagination Quag......:lamo

Reality disagrees with you

gamolon · Aug 23, 2017

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

Thoreau72 said:
Ignorance is bliss.

I guess your full of bliss then?

mike2810 · Aug 23, 2017

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

gamolon said:
I guess your full of bliss then?

see post 400. An example of being all over the board. His sources may or may not be telling the truth according to T72. Yet, he has concluded it was a nuclear event or not. Same for the use of thermite. He only knows it was not fire.

I can agree with T72 that the small details don't matter. Therefore it does not matter if it was column 79 in wtc7 that cause the failure. What is known is debris from the wtc tower damaged wtc7 resulting multiple fires. The best science shows the most probable failure point. All three buildings were fire induced collapses. The evidence supports that it was fire. The rest is just fantasy.

stundie · Aug 23, 2017

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

Quag said:
Reality disagrees with you

If reality disagreed with me, you would have a point to make.

But nothing......as per usual. :lamo

Deuce · Aug 23, 2017

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

camlok said:
I agree. It is not a good choice of images.

Are you honest enough to print images from 7, 8 and 9 seconds?

The video is more than one frame per second. You want to show me a perfect cone? Do it. If you can't prove your perfect cone, it doesn't exist.

Deuce · Aug 23, 2017

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

I still haven't seen what the hell this "accelerating fall" thing is about. Do truthers literally not understand gravity causes acceleration?

Quag · Aug 23, 2017

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

stundie said:
If reality disagreed with me, you would have a point to make.

But nothing......as per usual. :lamo

Its been posted over and over again 4 planes were hijacked and crashed on 911 with the ensuing results.
What have you got?
Nothing just denial of reality

Quag · Aug 23, 2017

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

Deuce said:
I still haven't seen what the hell this "accelerating fall" thing is about. Do truthers literally not understand gravity causes acceleration?

Most of the ones you find here have little to no comprehension of physics, hence the reason they are truthers

camlok · Aug 23, 2017

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

mike2810 said:
For you to post his it shows how little you know of what I know and understand. Like I have said before. You need to expand your sources and try learning from more scientific sources.

YOU show with every post how little you know, mike, just as your fellow science deniers illustrate they too know nothing. As I have said, you anti-truthers are so scared shi*less to say anything because you will then show you know nothing.

mike2810 said:
Still no one concise controlled demolition explanation. The controlled demolition supporters cannot agree on the most basic information.

Still not one iota of evidence from mike and the science denying anti-truthers to support the wackiest of all time conspiracy theories, the US government official conspiracy theory.

stundie · Aug 24, 2017

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

Quag said:
Its been posted over and over again 4 planes were hijacked and crashed on 911 with the ensuing results.

I agree that 4 planes were hijacked and were crashed.

So you are not making a point, other than stating the obvious! :lamo

Quag said:
What have you got?

Well as been pointed out....We have 3 buildings, 2 hit by a plane which collapsed and 1 which wasn't but caught fire.

We have no other example of high rise building being hit by a plane catching fire and collapsing.

So what do we have ?
We have examples of high rises being hit by a plane, catching fire and not collapsing to the ground.
We have examples of smaller buildings being hit by a airliner, catching fire and not collapsing to the ground.
We have examples of high rises buildings which caught fire and didn't collapse to the ground.
We have examples of smaller buildings which caught fire and didn't collapse to the ground.

We now have one building which supposedly caught fire and collapsed to the ground.

So statisically speaking, you have a very weak argument. That's what we've got.

Quag said:
Nothing just denial of reality

Which part of reality am I denying....be specific.

Quag · Aug 24, 2017

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

stundie said:
I agree that 4 planes were hijacked and were crashed.
So you are not making a point, other than stating the obvious! :lamo

And the ensuing results which is where you disagree however many of your fellow truthers (who like you all hate the truth) disagree that 4 planes were hijacked and crashed.
perhaps you should try reading before posting

Well as been pointed out....We have 3 buildings, 2 hit by a plane which collapsed and 1 which wasn't but caught fire.

We have no other example of high rise building being hit by a plane catching fire and collapsing.

So before we built planes no one had done it before, before the world was circumnavigated it had never happened before. Big deal why do truthers try to somehow make it important?

So what do we have ?
We have examples of high rises being hit by a plane, catching fire and not collapsing to the ground.
We have examples of smaller buildings being hit by a airliner, catching fire and not collapsing to the ground.
We have examples of high rises buildings which caught fire and didn't collapse to the ground.
We have examples of smaller buildings which caught fire and didn't collapse to the ground.

None of which were the same situation as on 911, not the same planes at the same speeds, hitting in the same spots with the same unfought fires or same building construction
apples to oranges comparisons are worthless

We now have one building which supposedly caught fire and collapsed to the ground.

So?

So statisically speaking, you have a very weak argument. That's what we've got.
Which part of reality am I denying....be specific.

Apples and oranges
However structures have collapsed from fire in the past so it isn't even a decent apples to oranges comparison
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasco_Building
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/31/atlanta-major-interstate-bridge-collapses-in-fire

So I will state it again you are denying reality by claiming that somehow CD (of indeterminate and often shifting type) is required to have caused the collapses.

stundie · Aug 24, 2017

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

Quag said:
And the ensuing results which is where you disagree however many of your fellow truthers (who like you all hate the truth) disagree that 4 planes were hijacked and crashed.
perhaps you should try reading before posting

Sorry but I don't disagree with the ensuing result.....:lamo

4 Planes were hijacked and 3 buildings collapsed, didn't they? They were the result! I don't disagree with the results......lol

What I disagree with is how those results were acheived.

And why do you think I care about what "fellow truthers!" think?

I know you would like to construct a strawman, but you are going to have to do much better than that. I have my own thoughts thank you and you would be better addressing what I say thank you very much.

I couldn't give a flying toss what other truthers think, what they think is their business. If you have a problem with them, take it up with them.

Quag said:
So before we built planes no one had done it before, before the world was circumnavigated it had never happened before. Big deal why do truthers try to somehow make it important?

Why don't you ask them?

Have I claimed that it is important?? NO!!

You are clearly suffering from some sort of delusion.

Quag said:
None of which were the same situation as on 911, not the same planes at the same speeds, hitting in the same spots with the same unfought fires or same building construction
apples to oranges comparisons are worthless

So?

I never claimed they were the same situation did I?? I was stating the facts to a question you asked and I even agree that no airliners have hit high rise buildings!

This whole post is nothing more than a bunch of imaginary arguements that I have never made, it's clear you aren't arguing with me, but the voices in your head. :lamo

Quag said:
Apples and oranges
However structures have collapsed from fire in the past so it isn't even a decent apples to oranges comparison
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasco_Building
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/31/atlanta-major-interstate-bridge-collapses-in-fire

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!HAHAHAHAHA!!! Do you actually read what you just said in your previous quote?? Such hypocritical drivell......it's unbelievable!

So I can't use other buildings (Even though I didn't!) to show that buildings don't collapse from plane strikes and fires.
But...
You can use 1 building (Which didn't collapse the ground!) and a bridge for comparisons.
:lamo

The logical loopholes you guys will fly through, you should be one of those Red Bull Air Races! lol

In other words, it's like comparing Apples to Beef! :lol:

Quag said:
So I will state it again you are denying reality by claiming that somehow CD (of indeterminate and often shifting type) is required to have caused the collapses.

I'm not denying reaity or even complaining that you can't use comparisons, then go ahead and make a comparison.

At least the buildings I mention were buildings, you've had to pull up a bridge FFS!! :lamo

I forgot how amusing pantomime debunkers like you are.

The reality is no one knows how they collapsed, pretending you know just highlights that you are more interested in your religious beliefs than the truth.

Quag · Aug 24, 2017

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

stundie said:
Sorry but I don't disagree with the ensuing result.....:lamo

4 Planes were hijacked and 3 buildings collapsed, didn't they? They were the result! I don't disagree with the results......lol

What I disagree with is how those results were acheived.

Then you disagree with the ensuing results
Sorry word play wont get you anywhere here.
4 planes hijacked and crashed the ensuing results were the collapses, otherwise they would not have been the ensuing results but due to some other event(s)

And why do you think I care about what "fellow truthers!" think?

Why do you think that I think that you care?

I know you would like to construct a strawman, but you are going to have to do much better than that. I have my own thoughts thank you and you would be better addressing what I say thank you very much.

No strawman being constructed.

I couldn't give a flying toss what other truthers think, what they think is their business. If you have a problem with them, take it up with them.
Why don't you ask them?

Where did I say you care? Oh yeah I didn't, you are doing that assuming stuff again.

Have I claimed that it is important?? NO!!

You are clearly suffering from some sort of delusion.

Then why mention it at all if you think it is unimportant? You brought it up yet you think it is irrelevant?

I never claimed they were the same situation did I?? I was stating the facts to a question you asked and I even agree that no airliners have hit high rise buildings!

You are trying to compare apples to oranges then trying to divert away by claiming that I claimed you said they were the same, that is just silly.

This whole post is nothing more than a bunch of imaginary arguements that I have never made, it's clear you aren't arguing with me, but the voices in your head. :lamo

You seem to be doing Hd's thing and referring to yourself here.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!HAHAHAHAHA!!! Do you actually read what you just said in your previous quote?? Such hypocritical drivell......it's unbelievable!

Apparently you dont read what you post.

So I can't use other buildings (Even though I didn't!) to show that buildings don't collapse from plane strikes and fires.
But...
You can use 1 building (Which didn't collapse the ground!) and a bridge for comparisons.
:lamo

YOU tried to make that argument dont deny it we all know you did otherwise you never would have mentioned it at all.
As to 1 building collapsing from fire yes it does prove that building CAN collapse from fire just as one airplane flyng proves that airplanes can fly. Does it mean every airplane will fly? No but it does show the possibility.

The logical loopholes you guys will fly through, you should be one of those Red Bull Air Races! lol

In other words, it's like comparing Apples to Beef! :lol:
I'm not denying reaity or even complaining that you can't use comparisons, then go ahead and make a comparison.

No matter how many times you spout nonsense it will remain nonsense.

At least the buildings I mention were buildings, you've had to pull up a bridge FFS!! :lamo

I forgot how amusing pantomime debunkers like you are.

A steel and concrete structure is a steel and concrete structure if one can collapse from fire what logical explanation can you give that another cannot?"

The reality is no one knows how they collapsed, pretending you know just highlights that you are more interested in your religious beliefs than the truth.

Actually almost everyone knows that they collapsed from the damages and fires, the exact sequence in such a large and chaotic event are impossible to detail but that doesn't change the fact that it was damage and fires.

stundie · Aug 24, 2017

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

Quag said:
Then you disagree with the ensuing results. Sorry word play wont get you anywhere here.

Its not word play. The results are regardles of how it was done.

In other words if the answer is 4....there are different ways to get the answer... 1+3, 2+2, 3+1, 4+0 etc etc etc.

Quag said:
4 planes hijacked and crashed the ensuing results were the collapses, otherwise they would not have been the ensuing results but due to some other event(s)

|The result are the results, the difference is that we disagree on the formula of how the results were acheived.

You're not very good at this are you?? lol

Quag said:
Why do you think that I think that you care?

Cause you cared enough to respond to my post.

Quag said:
No strawman being constructed.

Yes they are, you are creating arguments that you say truthers have made....but they are not the ones I've made.

Quag said:
Where did I say you care? Oh yeah I didn't, you are doing that assuming stuff again.

Well you decided to tell me what truthers thinks, so it's obvious you thought it necessary to tell me about it, otherwise you wouldn't have typed into your post.

Quag said:
Then why mention it at all if you think it is unimportant? You brought it up yet you think it is irrelevant?

Again, you asked a question, so I answered it and agreed that no airliners have crashed into a high rise and pointed out that we have had planes hit high rises and airliners have hit smaller buildings and not collapsed.

And you pointed out that no airliners have hit high rise buildings.......completely forgetting that WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane, yet still collapsed. Despite the fact both WTC 5 & 6 suffered significantly much more damage and had larger fires in relation to their size.

Quag said:
You are trying to compare apples to oranges then trying to divert away by claiming that I claimed you said they were the same, that is just silly.

You are the one who brought up the Madrid Towers and the bridge.

Quag said:
You seem to be doing Hd's thing and referring to yourself here.

No, I address what is on the screen and I have no idea who Hd is.

Quag said:
Apparently you dont read what you post.

Care to explain what I didn't supposedly read Quag?? lol

Quag said:
YOU tried to make that argument dont deny it we all know you did otherwise you never would have mentioned it at all.

Go and find the argument I've made in this thread. Otherwise, we are just going to have to accept thiat this is another one of your imaginary strawman arguments.

Quag said:
As to 1 building collapsing from fire yes it does prove that building CAN collapse from fire just as one airplane flyng proves that airplanes can fly.

You have been saying we can't use other buildings as comparators and here you are, doing exactly what you said we couldn't do! hahahahahahahha!!

Quag said:
Does it mean every airplane will fly? No but it does show the possibility.

I've never said it was not possible have I?? lol

You'#re doing that thing were you take some random truther arguements, then apply them to me thinking I have made them.

I think you need some help brother! lol

Quag said:
o matter how many times you spout nonsense it will remain nonsense.

Well if its nonsense to highlight your hypcrisy, then guilty as charged my lord! lol

Quag said:
A steel and concrete structure is a steel and concrete structure if one can collapse from fire what logical explanation can you give that another cannot?"

Because as you essentially said, there are many variables, like the impact/damage and the size and location of the fires.

You are onle walking, talking ball of pure hypocrisy but you are too blind to see it. lol

Quag said:
Actually almost everyone knows that they collapsed from the damages and fires, the exact sequence in such a large and chaotic event are impossible to detail but that doesn't change the fact that it was damage and fires.

So if something is such a large and chaotic event is impossible to detail, then how can you possibly know it was damages and fires?? :lamo

You see, you are operating on your beliefs.....not details! lol

And who is almost everyone, do you have some figures to back that up....or is it more incoherent babbling from someone who can't distinguish the difference between what they believe and facts?? :lol:

camlok · Aug 24, 2017

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

Deuce said:
I still haven't seen what the hell this "accelerating fall" thing is about. Do truthers literally not understand gravity causes acceleration?

You are right, gravity causes acceleration. But when these accelerating bodies/pieces hit stationary material, material designed to hold/support these same bodies/pieces, they cannot, according to the laws of physics, keep accelerating.

Twenty volkswagons dropped onto 80 semis stacked vertically will not accelerate. There will be a jolt, more jolts and as energy is drained from the system, it will come to a halt, or fall over to the side.

Even anti-truther dishonesty loving folks like you all can't abolish Newtons laws of motion.

Therein lies the problem and all you science deniers know this. This is part and parcel of your patent dishonesty, your total lack of regard for the truth.

Come on, Deuce, you wouldn't even put forward a picture of the cone shaped object exiting the south wall of WTC2.

You won't even admit that the molten metal flowing from WTC2 minutes before the collapse CANNOT be aluminum. Aluminum never pours yellow white in daylight conditions and all you anti-truthers/science deniers hold to these huge lies, defending them like you might your mother if she was an axe murderer.

It's dishonesty on an epic scale, a US scale!

camlok · Aug 24, 2017

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

gamolon said:
I guess your[sic] full of bliss then?

Thoreau, Stundie, all the folks who hold the truth in high respect have to deal with folks who are incompetent in so many respects, not the least of which is how patently dishonest they are.

camlok · Aug 24, 2017

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

Deuce said:
The video is more than one frame per second. You want to show me a perfect cone? Do it. If you can't prove your perfect cone, it doesn't exist.

It does exist, Deuce, and again, you knew it before you went thru this latest song and dance dishonesty.

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

Thoreau72

mike2810

Thoreau72

mike2810

Thoreau72

Fearandloathing

How long is now?

mike2810

stundie

Quag

gamolon

mike2810

stundie

Deuce

Outer space potato man

Deuce

Outer space potato man

Quag

Quag

camlok

stundie

Quag

stundie

Quag

stundie

camlok

camlok

camlok