• 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]

camlok said:
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
Click to expand...

Grenfell Tower was recently covered in a flammable coating. This caused it to burn along the outside and without crushing the inhabitants under debris.
 
They are however unable to recover the dead because they dont trust the buildings stability. Been working on that for awhile now, shoring it up.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually the buildings DID survive the impacts, just not the ensuing fires. Which considering the differences in weight and speed is pretty impressive.
 
How low can truthers sink?
 
camlok said:
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
Click to expand...

This tragic event is yet another nail in the coffin of the scientifically bankrupt NIST report.

The idea that "if it had been built 3 years earlier" is absurd in the extreme. If a pig had wings, he could fly.
 
camlok said:
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
Click to expand...
Is this what you're all about camlok?

Posting lies and incorrect information, having them refuted, never responding to those refutation except to just call people "science deniers" and "official story reporters", and then opening new threads instead? Are you trying to bury your other embarrassing posts by posting more garbage?

How about addressing the items you've already been called out on instead of creating more threads that you won't address?

;)
 
camlok said:
Nowhere did I make the crazy assumptions that you have leaped to.
Click to expand...
Oh no? You didn't create this thread to try and show that WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 couldn't have collapsed from fire because, yet again, another "steel framed building" caught fire and didn't collapse? What a crock that you deny this thread is just for that purpose. Yeah, the part in red below you posted is not insinuating anything of the sort right camlok?

:roll:

camlok said:
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, ...
Click to expand...
 
camlok said:
WTC towers were the strongest buildings in the world, designed to take the impact from a 707/DC8 traveling at 600 mph.
Click to expand...
They did survive the impact! More incorrect information from you!

The collapsed due to the impact damage and resultant fires. Robertson has stated that they never investigated the effects of fire on the structure. You're lack of knowledge regarding structures and stress really shine in this thread camlok.
 
camlok said:
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
Click to expand...
It was primer paint they found!

Ever wonder why Harrit and his cronies never published the spectra of the two primer paint chips found in the dust samples? along side the supposed thermite chips? Mark Basile was doing his own study to verify Harrit's findings. He raised the $5,000 needed to send the chips to an independent lab on 1/12/2014. That's almost 3 1/2 years ago!!! Below is Mark's proposal for what he was going to have done for the $5,000.
Mark Basile

Proposal:
Sample Preparation:
- Red/gray chip separation using optical microscopy and magnetic attraction to assist in isolation of particles of interest.
- Optical images of collected particulates as collected at appropriate magnifications to record condition as collected.
Sample Analysis:
- SEM/EDX with elemental quantification of red/gray chips, both red and gray layers.
- FTIR analysis of organic components of red/gray chips, both red and gray layers.
- ESCA small spot technique with argon ion sputter for depth profiling to definitively establish the presence of elemental aluminum within the red layer of the red/gray chips. Scans of gray layer also to be taken to add to information base.
- DSC analysis of red/gray chips focusing on exothermic/endothermic reactions near 400 degrees C. Some chips to be scanned in inert atmosphere and some in air or oxygen containing gas stream.
- SEM/EDX with elemental quantification of residual products of DSC analysis of red/gray chips.
- Optical images of reaction products after DSC experiments.

Analytical Costs:
The following work is in need of funding to be run at independent facilities.
- DSC costs are $190 per scan and an estimated 5 to20 scans are desired, to look at the following materials in both air and inert atmospheres;
2 samples each of known building primer paint
2 samples each of red chips of suspected primer from building dust
5 sample each of red/gray chips or red layer only from red/gray chips
-ESCA costs are $330 per hour and a total of 4 to 8 hours is desired. This should allow for evaluation of at least two known thermitic red/gray chips with some sputtering for depth profile information as well.
Click to expand...

It's the portion in red above that's causing Mark problems. He probably has the spectra of the two types of primer paint used on the tower steel and can't find the supposed thermitic chips because they are the SAME chips as the paint!
 
Thoreau72 said:
This tragic event is yet another nail in the coffin of the scientifically bankrupt NIST report.

The idea that "if it had been built 3 years earlier" is absurd in the extreme. If a pig had wings, he could fly.
Click to expand...

No it is just more proof that truthers dont understand science
 
Thoreau72 said:
This view might be interesting to you: False flag tower “collapse” alert, re: London high rise fire | Veterans Today

Fascinating consideration.
Click to expand...

From Vtoday
"Obligatory disclaimer: I am not calling this tragic event a false flag."

The story is a "what if" and provides no evidence to back up the speculation

Some kind of fire accelerant? "This inferno blazed with unnatural ferocity.
The apartment tower was not a steel framed building but reinforced concreate.
 
mike2810 said:
From Vtoday
"Obligatory disclaimer: I am not calling this tragic event a false flag."

The story is a "what if" and provides no evidence to back up the speculation

Some kind of fire accelerant? "This inferno blazed with unnatural ferocity.
The apartment tower was not a steel framed building but reinforced concreate.
Click to expand...

I read, speak and understand the English language Mike, do you?

Yes, what if the speculation has merit?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The actual engineering study has not been located however. it was certainly a design consideration,

The thermite myth has been debunked, .
Click to expand...

These science denying, US government conspiracy supporters never seem to have anything but their own fatuous opinions.

This is why in the Substantiating the US Government Conspiracy Theory thread there has been no evidence to substantiate the US Government Conspiracy Theory.

It's easy to tell from your writing that your CV doesn't approach that of Dr Steven Jones, who, you must understand was only one of several top scientists on the paper describing the US developed nanothermite that had no legal or legitimate reason to be in WTC dust.
 
Last edited:
When a CD supporter refuses to accept information provided nothing can be done to help them understand.

Jones claims the super nano thermite needs more than 1700F to ignite.
Harrit claims the thermite found could be ignited at 800F.

Seems Jones is saying Harrit didn't find any super nanothermite.
 
camlok said:
These science denying, US government conspiracy supporters never seem to have anything but their own fatuous opinions.

This is why in the Substantiating the US Government Conspiracy Theory thread there has been no evidence to substantiate the US Government Conspiracy Theory.

It's easy to tell from your writing that your CV doesn't approach that of Dr Steven Jones, who, you must understand was only one of several top scientists on the paper describing the US developed nanothermite that had no legal or legitimate reason to be in WTC dust.
Click to expand...
They found paint, not thermite.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I read, speak and understand the English language Mike, do you?

Yes, what if the speculation has merit?
Click to expand...

And if someone speculates that it was Isis? What if that speculation has merit?
Or speculation about it being mininukes having merit?
Or speculation about it being aliens having merit?
etc etc.

0 evidence speculation based on nothing but pure fantasy is worthless but of course YOU will believe that speculation because you WANT to believe it
 
mike2810 said:
When a CD supporter refuses to accept information provided nothing can be done to help them understand.

Jones claims the super nano thermite needs more than 1700F to ignite.
Harrit claims the thermite found could be ignited at 800F.

Seems Jones is saying Harrit didn't find any super nanothermite.
Click to expand...

When a science denying, conspiracy theory supporter illustrates time after time after time that he doesn't understand anything about the topic he comments upon, then he denies multiple realities that are placed directly in front of his eyes, [probably won't even view them] there is nothing that can be done to pull him out of his studied ignorance.
 
gamolon said:
They found paint, not thermite.
Click to expand...

Typical of science denying US government conspiracy theory acolytes. Never any proof.

The paint chips don't explode. The nanothermite red/gray chips do.

Do you deny that nanothermite is a US government military discovery?
 
camlok said:
When a science denying, conspiracy theory supporter illustrates time after time after time that he doesn't understand anything about the topic he comments upon, then he denies multiple realities that are placed directly in front of his eyes, [probably won't even view them] there is nothing that can be done to pull him out of his studied ignorance.
Click to expand...


The only people that are denying science here are you and your fellow truthers.
You have been shown to be wrong over and over again and still repeat the same lies.
Why do you hate the truth?
 
camlok said:
When a science denying, conspiracy theory supporter illustrates time after time after time that he doesn't understand anything about the topic he comments upon, then he denies multiple realities that are placed directly in front of his eyes, [probably won't even view them] there is nothing that can be done to pull him out of his studied ignorance.
Click to expand...

Well since I am not the person you described, "science denying" , your response is nonsense:mrgreen:.
You really should try to answer questions asked of you with something that has meaning and based in fact. or respond with your accepted evidence that refutes what someone posts.

Multiple realities? So there is more than one "reality" going on in your mind?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom