• 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!

Grenfell Towers doesn't come crashing down, crashing down, crashing down [W:57]

I'm impressed by your logic and insightful comments. Might you be a US government conspiracy theory supporter?

I'm glad you are impressed. Tell me all about the parallels between the two events you mentioned.
 
imo this thread belongs in the CT forum.

To compare the London apartment fire to what happened on 9/11/2001 is a pathetic attempt to keep the controlled demolition explanation of the WTC1,2,7 alive.

Of course, mike, you see diversion as your job. And although you are not very good at all at it, you keep on truckin'.



"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. ""
From the OP link.

And as usual, you make no sense at all. Because you know nothing of the science surrounding these types of events.
 
Enjoy your evening good sir.

That's what happens when you spend a lifetime saying, "yes sir/no sir". It takes away the ability to think for oneself.
 
Of course, mike, you see diversion as your job. And although you are not very good at all at it, you keep on truckin'.





And as usual, you make no sense at all. Because you know nothing of the science surrounding these types of events.

So you disagree with a source you provided.

You make no sense. But you know that.
 
Because there is nothing Quag hates more than facts and logic.

Still nothing from Quag the anti-truther, the science denier.

Lol you funny Cam
 
Moderator's Warning:
Moved to CT forum
 
I'm glad you are impressed. Tell me all about the parallels between the two events you mentioned.

Well its like this:
A building caught fire and didn't collapse so therefore the buildings on 911 could not have collapsed on 911.
Using similar logic a guy was shot by someone and didn't die thus the shooter could not have been shot to death by the police because bullets cannot kill people as shown by someone surviving a gunshot. So it had to be a staged false flag event and the shooter is still alive on some tropical island paid for by your tax dollars.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!!
 
So you disagree with a source you provided.

I only disagree with the distortions that you always present, mike.

Present something and discuss it, in your own words, showing how it is relevant.
 
Quote Originally Posted by RetiredUSN
Venturing out of La La land is scary for some people.



That is why most Americans never travel outside the US.

You guys are not at all big on reality and facts.



The real story is that when broken down, those 25.8 million trips overseas were taken by approximately just 13.3 million American residents. And that means that in total, the real number of Americans that actually traveled (took trips) overseas in 2009 for either business or leisure, was about 15.5 million —o r just five percent of our nation’s 311 million residents!

The Great American Passport Myth: Why Just 3.5% Of Us Travel Overseas! | HuffPost
 
I only disagree with the distortions that you always present, mike.

Present something and discuss it, in your own words, showing how it is relevant.

How could a direct quote be distorted? I quoted from your source you provided. The article explains why the tower did not collapse. If it wasn't for changed made in building code, it might have.

Your opening statement, "Only American exceptionalism can make steel framed high rises collapse from fires. That, and extraordinary US government lies, propaganda, fables, ... ."

Pure opinion on your part.
 
Grenfell Tower didn't collapse from hours long, raging fires. Only American exceptionalism can make steel framed high rises collapse from fires. That, and extraordinary US government lies, propaganda, fables, ... .

Grenfell Tower would have collapsed if built four years earlier, says expert

Grenfell Tower would have collapsed if built four years earlier, says expert
Really, Did you forget about the thousands of pounds of jet fuel??? ( basically diesel) do you have a clue on the energy release when this burned???? Think about this, has far does a single gallon of diesel propel a full size pickup?????? You obviously have no grasp on how some things work in life.....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
 
How could a direct quote be distorted? I quoted from your source you provided. The article explains why the tower did not collapse. If it wasn't for changed made in building code, it might have.

I only disagree with the distortions that you always present, mike.

Present something and discuss it, in your own words, showing how it is relevant.
 
Really, Did you forget about the thousands of pounds of jet fuel??? ( basically diesel) do you have a clue on the energy release when this burned????

Go ahead and explain "the energy release when this burned".
 
Your point being?

evidently Grenfell tower was more structually sound then the WTC. I mean it's not like WTC was hit with an Airliner pulling in at 350 knots or anything.
 
Really, Did you forget about the thousands of pounds of jet fuel??? ( basically diesel) do you have a clue on the energy release when this burned???? Think about this, has far does a single gallon of diesel propel a full size pickup?????? You obviously have no grasp on how some things work in life.....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

and how much energy is in the fuel that allows a 20 ton aircraft to carry hundreds of people 6 miles above the ground at 400 knots.
 
Quote Originally Posted by RetiredUSN
Venturing out of La La land is scary for some people.




That is why most Americans never travel outside the US.

You guys are not at all big on reality and facts.

Is there supposed to be a point hidden somewhere in that post?
 
Nowhere did I make the crazy assumptions that you have leaped to.

And for you, an obvious science denier who has come here to spread confusion, to suggest that you might have reviewed reams of data about anything to do with 911 is pure craziness. If you have ever appeared in any 911 thread, your offerings were as specious as this one.

So then how did you come around to the conclusion that Grenfell has any bearing on the WTC. The fire only happened what yesterday?

I haven't reviewed anything but then I'm not the one making the claim here. You are. And as far as I can see you're making it based on little more than thin air. So please prove me wrong.
 
evidently Grenfell tower was more structually[sic] sound then[sic] the WTC. I mean it's not like WTC was hit with an Airliner pulling in at 350 knots or anything.

Another of the old canards/old wives tales/propaganda that is force fed to Americans everyday.

WTC towers were the strongest buildings in the world, designed to take the impact from a 707/DC8 traveling at 600 mph.

It's the US government developed, non-commercially available nanothermite found in WTC dust that brought down the towers, all three.

Nano Scale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives
...

"Greater energy densities versus greater power—that's been the traditional trade-off," says Simpson. "With our new process, however, we're mixing at molecular scales, using grains the size of tens to hundreds of molecules. That can give us the best of both worlds-higher energy densities and high power as well."

https://str.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html
 
Another of the old canards/old wives tales/propaganda that is force fed to Americans everyday.

WTC towers were the strongest buildings in the world, designed to take the impact from a 707/DC8 traveling at 600 mph.

It's the US government developed, non-commercially available nanothermite found in WTC dust that brought down the towers, all three.

No, there was no thermite found in the WTC site, that's a lie.

regardless of the verbal declarations of designers, no engineering study on aircraft impact has been found, and the simple fact is, you can plan for the remote possibility a plane hits your tower, but a speeding airliner will do what it's going to do. you can't possibly predict every crash scenario which will occur under its own unique set of circumstances. the 767 is heavier than the 707, in fact the empty take off of the 767 is 176,000 pounds versus 123 for the 707. and the scenario for an impact during the design was a 707 lost on landing approach in IMC weather. Not a deliberately targeted aircraft that had just taken off with fuel fuel and probably approaching max take off weight (315,000 pounds) full on fuel. this theory of your collapses just by looking at Boeing's public specifications for the aircraft.
 
Last edited:
No, there was no thermite found in the WTC site, that's a lie.

regardless of the verbal declarations of designers, no engineering study on aircraft impact has been found, and the simple fact is, you can plan for the remote possibility a plane hits your tower,

As to your number 1 fantasy: The nanothermite found in WTC dust

A. Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

B. 9/11: WTC Nanothermite chip vs Paint ignition by Mark Basile

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOzh5CbLqBw

C. Mark Basile Red Grey WTC Nanothermite Grey Side Unknown Usage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMIZ7pFNthw

=================================================

As to your number 2 fantasy: [bolding is mine]

John Skilling

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
4


9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters
 
As to your number 1 fantasy: The nanothermite found in WTC dust

A. Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

B. 9/11: WTC Nanothermite chip vs Paint ignition by Mark Basile

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOzh5CbLqBw

C. Mark Basile Red Grey WTC Nanothermite Grey Side Unknown Usage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMIZ7pFNthw

=================================================

As to your number 2 fantasy: [bolding is mine]

The actual engineering study has not been located however. it was certainly a design consideration, but it was purely pencil on paper, a jet liner that size had never struck a tower on overspeed before then. and the the plane that struck the WTC building was over 25 tons heavier then the one designed for, designed for, not tested for. I guess the design architect was wrong because his tower did not in fact survive the collision or ensuing fire.

The thermite myth has been debunked, the professor who did it was forced out of BYU after his fake study the solicited purported examples of 9/11 wreckage by first class mail, and this goofball honest to god believes that Mayan civilization is proof that the book of mormon is truth. you'll need to find someone far more credible as a researcher then that.
 
I only disagree with the distortions that you always present, mike.

Present something and discuss it, in your own words, showing how it is relevant.

What? What did I distort? It was a direct quote from your source.

From your OP link

"....*UK buildings are much more robust, or tolerant of losing structural capacity than the Twin Towers."*

So either state what I have distorted or drop it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom