• 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]

Why Grenfell Tower didn?t collapse like the World Trade Centre buildings in 9/11

This pretty much ends this thread.
The buildings were built differently.

New building codes in England had the building designed to be able to handle such fires.
According to structural experts had it been built before the new code then it would have collapsed.

Do you understand that the WTC towers were built to withstand aircraft strikes, as noted by Robertson and others involved in the design and construction?

Do you understand that the buildings also met the New York Fire Code, and that's why NYFD sent their men up into the towers? Do you suppose that NY Fire Code is superior to whatever code applied to Grenfell in London?

Do you understand that Kevin Ryan who worked for Underwriters Laboratory pointed all this out only to be fired for having the audacity to speak the obvious truth?

It ends the thread and discussion only if one is in denial with a closed mind. It ends the discussion only if one ignores all the other buildings around the world that have caught fire and never collapsed. It ends the discussion only if one prefers the bliss of ignorance.
 
Do you understand that the WTC towers were built to withstand aircraft strikes, as noted by Robertson and others involved in the design and construction?

Do you understand that the buildings also met the New York Fire Code, and that's why NYFD sent their men up into the towers? Do you suppose that NY Fire Code is superior to whatever code applied to Grenfell in London?

Do you understand that Kevin Ryan who worked for Underwriters Laboratory pointed all this out only to be fired for having the audacity to speak the obvious truth?

It ends the thread and discussion only if one is in denial with a closed mind. It ends the discussion only if one ignores all the other buildings around the world that have caught fire and never collapsed. It ends the discussion only if one prefers the bliss of ignorance.

Evidently you don't understand the article I posted which says that you are wrong, but this is what I expect from CT.
deny actual evidence to in lieu of unproved accusations.

Nope it pretty much ends the thread.

I highlighted the last part for a reason.

You CT'ers really need to come up with an actual argument. this is not an argument yet every CT'er that I have ever run into uses the same mantra every time they can't disprove
actual fact. It is like all you guys copy and paste from the same book. the only people with a closed mind are CT'er's why? they refuse to look at any actual evidence and proof.
seriously you need to come up with something better than baseless accusations and ad hominems as an argument.

I understand if you can't actually deal with facts but at least admit it for everyone to know. throwing out projection fallacies is not a way to convince anyone.
 
You CT'ers really need to come up with an actual argument.

You are of the conspiracy theory folks, ludin. The incredibly wacky US government conspiracy theory. You guys are science deniers, anti-truthers.

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?

7. Do you deny that John Gross [and others] of NIST lied about the molten/vaporized steel?

8. Do you deny that John Gross [and others] of NIST lied about the explosions, the bombs reported?

9. Do you deny that John Gross [and others] of NIST lied about WTC7 free fall?

10. Do you deny that John Gross [and others] of NIST lied about the shear studs, the composite floors, the ...?
 
Buildings do collapse from time to time. Perhaps he discounts damage, gravity, maintenance.

You ought to try research instead of remaining in a state of perpetual ignorance.
 
You are of the conspiracy theory folks, ludin. The incredibly wacky US government conspiracy theory. You guys are science deniers, anti-truthers.
*sigh* same old song and dance and same irrelevant nonsense that never ends.

1. Do you deny that the US government developed nanothermite in the 1990s?
nothing to do with anything and irrelevant.

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

actually no thermite was found. This has been confirmed by scientific labs. not the
now defunct professor jones. His biggest claim was that the paint chips were covered in
thermite and when examined by an actual lab they were just paint chips.

Thermite and Sulfur- Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition

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?

well since the previous mention was proven that there was no termite found at WTC then there certainly can be no dust can there? nope so this is disproven as well.
Traces of thermate at the WTC

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

It wasn't molten and vaporized steel.
WTC Molten Steel

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Molten Steel
5. Do you deny the molten and fused steel and concrete, one named the Meteorite and housed in a 911 museum?

It is possible that some metal melted but to it melts at sustained temps of 1531 F. even at the temps of 1000-1300
it will begin to warp. I checked out the picture. umm I guess you don't know what rebar is. you might want to look it up.
it shows evidence of compression in layers.

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

What does that have to do with anything?

7. Do you deny that John Gross [and others] of NIST lied about the molten/vaporized steel?

Please see previous comments on this.

8. Do you deny that John Gross [and others] of NIST lied about the explosions, the bombs reported?

Since there were none how did he lie again?
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Explosions

9. Do you deny that John Gross [and others] of NIST lied about WTC7 free fall?

They didn't lie about it. The building collapse way slower than free fall speed.
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

10. Do you deny that John Gross [and others] of NIST lied about the shear studs, the composite floors, the ...?

they didn't do that either. you need to stop reading steven jones. he has proven himself inaccurate to the point his own universities
engineering department went umm dude you are wrong.

however this is my last post on this because you will just repeat the same insane nonsense over again even though I have provided
scientific evidence that says otherwise.

links to an actual peer reviewed paper.

http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm
sorry what you throw is not science that is why it is CT.

as I said I won't respond again because it doesn't matter you will ignore any and all fact.
 
as I said I won't respond again because it doesn't matter you will ignore any and all fact.

You had no facts. Why are anti-truthers/science deniers such intellectual cowards?


nothing to do with anything and irrelevant.

Very relevant. It was found in WTC dust as were the by products of thermitic reactions.


actually no thermite was found. This has been confirmed by scientific labs. not the
now defunct professor jones. His biggest claim was that the paint chips were covered in
thermite and when examined by an actual lab they were just paint chips.

False. You don't know the facts. The Harrit et al paper has never been refuted by any scientist. There has never been any paper in a peer reviewed journal challenging said paper.


well since the previous mention was proven that there was no termite found at WTC then there certainly can be no dust can there? nope so this is disproven as well.
Traces of thermate at the WTC

Again, completely false. The Harrit et al paper found it. It was nanothermite because it was at the nano scale. Only the US government has nanothermite. Result - NO ARAB HIJACKERS
You have been badly duped, ludin, still, to this day, when a sensible person, looking at the science would say there isn't a snowball's chance in hell the US government conspiracy theory has any sense to it at all. It was one of the wackiest of lies ever to come out of the lyingest government the world has ever known.




YES, IT WAS! You can see the pictures from FEMA. Can you say "duped"?


It is possible that some metal melted but to it melts at sustained temps of 1531 F. even at the temps of 1000-1300
it will begin to warp.

Your completely disjointed sentence above illustrates that you don't know anything about these issues so perhaps it is better that you stay out of the discussions.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for melted steel and vaporized steel to have occurred under the goofy US government conspiracy theory. There was no legal/legitimate fuel in the wacky USGOCT that could have melted/vaporized steel.


they didn't do that either. you need to stop reading steven jones. he has proven himself inaccurate to the point his own universities
engineering department went umm dude you are wrong.

You are repeating another meme you have heard because you are terribly ignorant of what actually transpired.




No "actual peer reviewed paper". Do you know what "peer review" even means?
 
I apologize if I disturbed your normal living area.

Carry on.

So you are saying then that research is out of the question for you.
 
Last edited:
I apologize if I disturbed your normal living area.

Carry on.

camlok will only believe information that supports his distorted view of the world. Links to information that refutes his opinion is either ignored, claimed to be false/wrong, or tied to the govt, therefore is false.
 
Evidently you don't understand the article I posted which says that you are wrong, but this is what I expect from CT.
deny actual evidence to in lieu of unproved accusations.

Nope it pretty much ends the thread.

I highlighted the last part for a reason.

You CT'ers really need to come up with an actual argument. this is not an argument yet every CT'er that I have ever run into uses the same mantra every time they can't disprove
actual fact. It is like all you guys copy and paste from the same book. the only people with a closed mind are CT'er's why? they refuse to look at any actual evidence and proof.
seriously you need to come up with something better than baseless accusations and ad hominems as an argument.

I understand if you can't actually deal with facts but at least admit it for everyone to know. throwing out projection fallacies is not a way to convince anyone.

We're all CTs Ludin. Wake up and smell the sophistry dude. You embrace the Official CT, I reject it. :lol:
 
We're all CTs Ludin. Wake up and smell the sophistry dude. You embrace the Official CT, I reject it. :lol:

Agreed.
Yet some CT are based more in facts that others. :mrgreen:
 
Agreed.
Yet some CT are based more in facts that others.

And science denying, anti-truther, US conspiracy supporting know nothings have NEVER provided a speck of fact or evidence to support the completely wacky too crazy to believe US government official conspiracy theory.

All the government scientists are bald faced liars.

Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives

As Documentation of Thermitic Materials
in the WTC Twin Towers Grows,
Official Story Backers Ignore, Deny, Evade, and Dissemble

by
Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, April 3, 2009


The obliteration of the Twin Towers was the centerpiece of the event that launched the 'War on Terror'. Shocking on multiple levels, the events were especially traumatic for Americans, being the first bombing on the US mainland in modern history that killed thousands of people -- civilians -- in one day. Given the collective psychological trauma of the attack, it is not surprising that public discourse would remain free of observations that the destruction of the Twin Towers bore obvious features of controlled demolitions. Early candid public remarks by reporters and demolition experts where quickly retracted or forgotten. Passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Afghanistan would proceed apace.

By 2003 the United States had occupations of two countries, and an international reputation as a rogue state all resting on a shaky-at-best collapse theory whose principal alternative hypothesis -- controlled demolition with pre-planted pyrotechnics -- had not even been tested by the straightforward forensic analysis of debris for residues of such materials.

By early 2009, the residue testing that NIST refused to do had been done by independent researchers, and reported on in a peer-reviewed chemistry journal. Small bi-layered chips, found consistently in dust samples, have layers of red nano-engineered material that is clearly aluminothermic: it has sub-micron-diameter particles of largely of elemental aluminum, and smaller crystalline grains of primarily Fe2O3. On ignition, the chips produce temperatures above the melting point of iron, leaving tiny iron droplets matching the residues of commercial thermite pyrotechnics.

The publication of these results should be astounding to anyone who uncritically accepted the collapse explanations in TV documentaries and never looked seriously at any of the several bodies of evidence for controlled demolition.

WTC Dust to NIST Authors: Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives

But not the science denying, anti-truther, US conspiracy supporting know nothings.
 
That's moot.
It is? Why?

Are you afraid to post what exactly did collapse because it takes away from the shock and awe of the lies you post?

Let's see. Which is correct.

1. WTC7 collapsed at freefall speed like camlok keeps saying. This leads people to believe the entire WTC7 structure fell at freefall.

...or...

2. What was left of the WTC7 structure after the mechanical penthouse portion of it collapsed into the structure 6 or 7 seconds earlier, finally collapsed. Overall, WTC7 collapsed in stages, NOT the entire structure collapsing at freefall in about 7 seconds.

Changing the entire scenario doesn't it camlok. Keep misleading people though. It's what you're good at.
 
Last edited:
Close the thread. It's disrespecting the Grenfell victims with this off topic crapulence.
 
Close the thread. It's disrespecting the Grenfell victims with this off topic crapulence.

It's disrespecting science and common sense to claim the Grenfell incident is not relevant to fires, highrise buildings and collapses.

It is a blatant appeal to emotion that you make sir, and such appeals are typical when a person advances a false argument. Play those heartstrings dude.
 
Grenfell is relevant to high rise buildings and how fire can affect them. It can tell engineers and designers what works and was does not. Now expecting a different designed and constructed buildings to react the same way to fire is just not rational.
 
Question:
Why would someone believe a source that the main editor has stated much of what they post is false?

https://archive.org/details/GordonDuff.FalseInformationControversy

" Mike Harris interview Duff makes the following statement:

"I don’t know know any imaginable way you can get information…First of all…Because, about 30%, based on what I believe…and you know what? Who says I’m right? According to my belief, and I have as good of, uh access to information as anyone in the world, probably, anyone I know of. About 30% of what’s written on Veterans Today, is patently false. About 40% of what I write, is at least purposely, partially false, because if I didn’t write false information I wouldn’t be alive. I simply have to do that. I write…anything I write I write between the lines."


The linked article in VT is an opinion piece. Let Duff's own statement by the readers guide. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Better question, why do some people deliberately avoid facts that make them uncomfortable?

Better yet, why do some people believe known liars in politics? Why do some people believe authority figures with strong reputations for mendacity?
 
Better question, why do some people deliberately avoid facts that make them uncomfortable?
Yes why do you do that?

Better yet, why do some people believe known liars in politics? Why do some people believe authority figures with strong reputations for mendacity?

Yes why do you do that?
 
Better question, why do some people deliberately avoid facts that make them uncomfortable?

Better yet, why do some people believe known liars in politics? Why do some people believe authority figures with strong reputations for mendacity?

Yes, why do you avoid facts that makes you uncomfortable?

The editor of VT has admitted that much of what he writes is false. While we all know politicians do not tell the truth all the time. I don't recall any of the scientists, researchers who wrote many of the papers regarding 9/11 stating what they write is false.

Thanks for sharing a source. However, I don't just accept opinion pieces as 100% true. Other than it is true the author made some statement.
 
Yes, why do you avoid facts that makes you uncomfortable?

The editor of VT has admitted that much of what he writes is false. While we all know politicians do not tell the truth all the time. I don't recall any of the scientists, researchers who wrote many of the papers regarding 9/11 stating what they write is false.

Thanks for sharing a source. However, I don't just accept opinion pieces as 100% true. Other than it is true the author made some statement.

It doesn't make me uncomfortable in the least Mike. I understand what Duff said, and what he meant. No problem. He is just another human talking. I've been dealing with this phenomenon and fact my entire adult life.

I don't need a weatherman to tell me which way the wind is blowing because I sailed as a youngster. I don't need Duff to tell me that what damage was done at WTC was not consistent with the NIST Fairy Tale. I'm an independent thinker, and after dozens of times telling you that, you still don't get it. But you sure as hell believe whatever Dick & Dubya tell you. It's comical really.

Richard Gage is made uncomfortable by the glaring case for nuclear, and I understand that and respect it. Same for you.

Duff may embellish, or not. Sometimes he gets it right, sometimes he gets it wrong.

That human bodies were torn into hundreds of pieces does not mean anything to you or Gage, but it means very much to a person curious. The NIST tale is sophistry, and the only possible theory that fits all the facts is the nuclear theory. Wake up and count the Thorium. :mrgreen:
 
It's disrespecting science and common sense to claim the Grenfell incident is not relevant to fires, highrise buildings and collapses.

It is a blatant appeal to emotion that you make sir, and such appeals are typical when a person advances a false argument. Play those heartstrings dude.

Common sense and science are often mutually exclusive, why bring both to the argument? Maybe this is your problem...
 
It doesn't make me uncomfortable in the least Mike. I understand what Duff said, and what he meant. No problem. He is just another human talking. I've been dealing with this phenomenon and fact my entire adult life.

I don't need a weatherman to tell me which way the wind is blowing because I sailed as a youngster. I don't need Duff to tell me that what damage was done at WTC was not consistent with the NIST Fairy Tale. I'm an independent thinker, and after dozens of times telling you that, you still don't get it. But you sure as hell believe whatever Dick & Dubya tell you. It's comical really.

Richard Gage is made uncomfortable by the glaring case for nuclear, and I understand that and respect it. Same for you.

Duff may embellish, or not. Sometimes he gets it right, sometimes he gets it wrong.

That human bodies were torn into hundreds of pieces does not mean anything to you or Gage, but it means very much to a person curious. The NIST tale is sophistry, and the only possible theory that fits all the facts is the nuclear theory. Wake up and count the Thorium. :mrgreen:

Keep believing your fairy tale. Your good at it.:mrgreen:
I am not uncomfortable when I read VToday or the works of the likes of Prager. It makes me wonder how some can be so gullible.

So why do you keep contributing to AE911T. According to you, you know the "truth". Nothing more to find out.

I will stick to science and creditable sources. Conspiracy rags and vids don't do much for me, other than a good chuckle from time to time.
 
Last edited:
Common sense and science are often mutually exclusive, why bring both to the argument? Maybe this is your problem...

He is not using common sense nor science to come to his conclusions, he is basing it solely on his fear/hatred of the ebil US govt.
 
Back
Top Bottom