Proving Spontaneity of Post-Impact WTC Towers Collapse

Hello all. Europhysics Magazine has an interesting take on the WTC debacle. I don't know the time in which this Magazine came out but I am assuming early 2017. I didn't see anything posted about it so I just wanted to throw this on the site to help keep people updated.

I believe this is the summary.

The cause of collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York on 9/11/2001, clarified mathematically by mechanical analysis, has been questioned by some lay critics without any meaningful calculations. They blame the collapse on controlled demolition, implying some sort of conspiracy. The present article summarizes the reasons why the collapse must have been spontaneous and an inevitable result of the aircraft impact damage and the subsequent fire, and how the collapse is explained by mathematical analysis based on mechanics and confirmed by all the available observations.

Europhysics goes on to explain their position starting at page 18: EuroPhysics

I think it's goofy that they disclaim all attempts at proving something fishy as excusable because they are "lay critics". The Mag had hosted some opposing opinions back in 2016 here on page 21: EuroPhysics . Done by people who don't appear to be "lay".

I can tell you I believe we knew 9/11 was on the way but past that it's all speculation.

A bunch of Clinton enemies start killing themselves and another inside job denial article show up around the same time?


Hmmm.

Compressed air arse. I've seen the videos. Three buildings in a row fall in on themselves in one day- there's no record of any building with that type of frame falling in on itself. Not one.

And I've run a foundry. I know molten aluminum can eat steel.
It doesn't launch support beams up into the air, though. Not once, not never.

I'm glad this isn't my chair- good luck anyone hoping the government is in your side...

I just had a thought that investigating this Europhysics for any connections to the CFR and other globalists, their executives and their affiliations to certain people, would be revealing as to the veracity of any of their conclusions.

a reply to: lordcomac

"A bunch of Clinton enemies start killing themselves and another inside job denial article show up around the same time? "
lol.


"I'm glad this isn't my chair- " I don't get.

Europhysics knows very little about
certain areas of physics or they are
playing along.

How does an office fire 93 stories
up cause a spontaneous collapse
of all 110 stories in 10-11 sec ?

It's really getting to be so evident
the OS is poo.Its the religious like
belief in our universities and media
that is holding back the truth.

a reply to: Antipathy17

So this "research" was done 16 years later to combat some Wacky Conspiracy Theory that allegedly nobody in their patriotic right mind would entertain?

Hmmm, ok.

NIST revisited and absolute rubbish.

originally posted by: lordcomac

It doesn't launch support beams up into the air, though. Not once, not never.

...

Well since this didn't happen on 9/11-there were no support beams launched into the air- what's the relevance to this observation?

Oh, and first, you've got to prove this "launch" claim to be right in the first place.

Otherwise, you prove yourself to be uneducated.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
I just had a thought that investigating this Europhysics for any connections to the CFR and other globalists, their executives and their affiliations to certain people, would be revealing as to the veracity of any of their conclusions.

It wasn't the conclusions of Europhysics

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.

a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

How does an office fire 93 stories up cause a spontaneous collapse of all 110 stories in 10-11 sec ?

Only people without degrees talk like this.
You have only to ask your local fire department why they won't enter a burning Walmart and you will have your answer.

a reply to: samkent
How is a burning walmart -with a completly different roof structure- compareable to a building with 93 stories?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

How does an office fire 93 stories up cause a spontaneous collapse of all 110 stories in 10-11 sec ?

Only people without degrees talk like this.
You have only to ask your local fire department why they won't enter a burning Walmart and you will have your answer.

First of all rude.
People with degrees think kerosene and paper
can destroy 90+ floors of steel concrete gypsum and glass
in 10 seconds ? Keep your degree then .
Why not use kerosene and carpet to
demolish all buildings. Way less expensive.

a reply to: verschickter

How is a burning walmart -with a completly different roof structure- compareable to a building with 93 stories?

The floor structure (steel) is identical to the roof structure (steel) of all Walmart type structures.
Cheap floor trusses are identical to cheap roof trusses.

No fire department will enter a burning Walmart because they KNOW the roof WILL collapse at some point.
The floor trusses of WTC were the bracing for the inner and outer steel.
The outer steel could never support itself more than a few stories without bracing.
This is the flaw in the design of WTC.

a reply to: samkent


Are you suggesting that building 7 was built like a Walmart building?

About as informative and unbiased as Popular Science.

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
Europhysics knows very little about
certain areas of physics or they are
playing along.

How does an office fire 93 stories
up cause a spontaneous collapse
of all 110 stories in 10-11 sec ?

It's really getting to be so evident
the OS is poo.Its the religious like
belief in our universities and media
that is holding back the truth.

Probably has something to do with the video clip in this linked thread?

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: Salander

Are you suggesting that building 7 was built like a Walmart building?

Once again you change the topic.

As has been noted about all conspiracy theorist:
When they cannot debate or prove their assertions they will change the narrative.

The topic was 110 stories.
You tried to make it about 47 stories.

a reply to: samkent
first, I did not post to challenge you into a discussion about 9/11. Please do understand that my rethorical question was exactly how I formulated it.

You wrote walmart. Many walmart like "super super markets" use single floored architecture but with high ceilings that have a second, more decorative ceiling for the customers. Those can be "odenwald ceilings" for example. On top of that is hardware like climate control, electric cables, maybe a extingquisher system or fire/smoke detectors. And only a few places are walkeable with either trusses or on top of the staff rooms.

Those roofs are often either just thing unisolated, or god beware and that is also a reason, flameable insulation. Or melting insulation when heated long enough.

Of course, a hot enough fire will damage even poured steel laced concrete over a given period of time.

Ironic the builds showed signs they would fail.

Onset Of Collapse

ae911truth.info...

Building 7

Furthermore, the fire department determined that the building was slowly deforming before deciding to pull their men away by 2:00 p.m. From a Firehouse interview with Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

…also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to coll(apse)

From same article....

ae911truth.info...

The Towers

In fact, the towers show plenty of signs of severe structural problems before they collapse. Here is a video of the onset of Tower 2, the first to fall. Notice the perimeter columns being pulled into the building. This deformation is visible well before the columns finally failed, resulting in the collapse of the building.

m.youtube.com...

The towers falling at free fall speed is a lie. The floor system of each tower fell at 2/3rds the rate of free fall.

Richard Gage lied when claiming the only way the towers could have had a symmetrical collapse was through the paths of greatest resistance. The core columns fell slower than the floor system, fell at 40 percent the rate of free fall, and long lengths of core columns remained standing whole seconds after the last of each floor system collapsed into the pile.

The truth movement was founded on lies.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

www.representativepress.org...

Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says

Several minutes before the WTC buildings collapsed, the structures of the buildings were clearly failing and the exterior steel columns could be seen buckling.

By the why, is the title intellectually dishonest? Did Europhysics Magazine ever claim spontaneous collapse? It’s not even in the quote you provided? Is the use of spontaneous your own interjection from not understanding the actual events at the WTC?

originally posted by: Antipathy17
Hello all. Europhysics Magazine has an interesting take on the WTC debacle. I don't know the time in which this Magazine came out but I am assuming early 2017. I didn't see anything posted about it so I just wanted to throw this on the site to help keep people updated.

I believe this is the summary.

The cause of collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York on 9/11/2001, clarified mathematically by mechanical analysis, has been questioned by some lay critics without any meaningful calculations. They blame the collapse on controlled demolition, implying some sort of conspiracy. The present article summarizes the reasons why the collapse must have been spontaneous and an inevitable result of the aircraft impact damage and the subsequent fire, and how the collapse is explained by mathematical analysis based on mechanics and confirmed by all the available observations.

Europhysics goes on to explain their position starting at page 18: EuroPhysics

I think it's goofy that they disclaim all attempts at proving something fishy as excusable because they are "lay critics". The Mag had hosted some opposing opinions back in 2016 here on page 21: EuroPhysics . Done by people who don't appear to be "lay".

I can tell you I believe we knew 9/11 was on the way but past that it's all speculation.