Grenfell Towers did not collapse

[hot enough]

The massive fires of the Grenfell Towers in London did not cause the collapse of the building. 

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/14/grenfell-tower-would-have-collapsed-built-four-years-earlier/

[hot enough]

Why in this forum? Because there should be a whole lot of people who are checking their sense of morality.

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, hot enough said:

The massive fires of the Grenfell Towers in London did not cause the collapse of the building. 

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/14/grenfell-tower-would-have-collapsed-built-four-years-earlier/

Did you read what your source had to say about other burning Towers?

Quote

The Twin Towers collapsed because the aircraft fuel ignited the contents of the building and it was the burning of the contents of the building which caused the steel columns to lose stiffness.

 

[Boges]

George W Bush did it. 

[hot enough]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Did you read what your source had to say about other burning Towers?

 

Are you suggesting that you have anywhere near the knowledge base to discern whether what he was saying has any scientific validity?

Now you will disappear.

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

George W Bush did it. 

How adult like, Boges.

[OftenWrong]

[hot enough]

To make any valid point, OftenWrong, you have to show that WTC steel got to whatever temperature you think is necessary

to cause any localized steel to collapse. That has never ever happened in the history of steel framed high rises. 

THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.

...

Summarizing: 

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. 

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F). 

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse. 

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media. 

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

Edited June 15, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

This fire test, described below, which had much additional fuel added [large stacks of 2x4 material] beyond what is in normal office fires, shows that steel will deform but it won't suddenly give way and collapse at free fall speed/and accelerating speed. That goes against the laws of Newtonian physics. 

 

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments." 

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A). 
 

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

Edited June 15, 2017 by hot enough

[Hal 9000]

^^^Take your bullshit elsewhere.  There is possibly a couple hundred people dead in London today.

[dialamah]

11 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

^^^Take your bullshit elsewhere.  There is possibly a couple hundred people dead in London today.

Got HE on ignore but pretty sure this statement is warranted anyway.

[OftenWrong]

59 minutes ago, hot enough said:

To make any valid point, OftenWrong, you have to show that WTC steel got to whatever temperature you think is necessary

I read the article and it seems to make some pretty erroneous assumptions.

- Combustion type 1 (perfect combustion) assumes that there was an unlimited amount of oxygen. The primary fire from fuel would have burned at the highest temperature. However it would also have burned most quickly and completely. That's not necessarily the best model to transfer heat from the fuel energy into the steel.

- They calculated the total mass of steel on the floor and used it as the volume into which the thermal energy is delivered, by dividing the total fuel energy into this volume. The resulting number is the average temperature if the fuel were distributed and burned in completely uniform fashion, that is why the temperature in the calculation is necessarily lower. However that doesn't need to be the case, nor is it even remotely likely to have happened that way. Its far more likely that the energy density was not uniform. That means the temperature would be higher than the calculation in localized spots. Those flawed assumptions lead me to reject the calculation as overly simple and flawed.

[betsy]

17 hours ago, eyeball said:

Did you read what your source had to say about other burning Towers?

 

Good eye, eyeball.  No pun intended.

[Wilber]

13 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

^^^Take your bullshit elsewhere.  There is possibly a couple hundred people dead in London today.

Indeed.

[eyeball]

17 hours ago, hot enough said:

Are you suggesting that you have anywhere near the knowledge base to discern whether what he was saying has any scientific validity?

I have enough, along with the capacity to know who I should and shouldn't pay attention to when it comes to the information I digest.  In your case you posted a source that refutes your premise, ergo, its clear you lack this capacity and as such its probably you who should be making themselves scarce.

Quote

Now you will disappear.

And you'll keep coming back.

[Wilber]

Well, when people are taken to task for turning a thread about a fire tragedy in London into yet another 9/11 thread, those posts get deleted but the 9/11 posts remain. Effing pathetic. 

Edited June 15, 2017 by Wilber

[hot enough]

13 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

^^^Take your bullshit elsewhere.  There is possibly a couple hundred people dead in London today.

Exceedingly poor propaganda, Hal. The death toll is at 17, with some more expected. 

I have never heard you folks complaining about all the rank propaganda the world was exposed to minutes after the first plane hit WTC1. 

Quote

CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/plans-for-iraq-attack-began-on-9-11/

 

[hot enough]

27 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Well, when people are taken to task for turning a thread about a fire tragedy in London into yet another 9/11 thread, those threads get deleted but the 9/11 posts remain. 

Wilber, talk about pathetic. Minutes after the hit on WTC1, it was Osama bin Laden Osama bin Laden Osama bin Laden Osama bin Laden ...

[hot enough]

4 hours ago, betsy said:

Good eye, eyeball.  No pun intended.

Explain how it is pertinent, Betsy.

[hot enough]

13 hours ago, dialamah said:

Got HE on ignore but pretty sure this statement is warranted anyway.

That is not indicative of the brave dialamah I thought existed. Without any look at the evidence you are "pretty sure this statement is warranted anyway". 

[hot enough]

13 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

However that doesn't need to be the case, nor is it even remotely likely to have happened that way. Its far more likely that the energy density was not uniform. That means the temperature would be higher than the calculation in localized spots. Those flawed assumptions lead me to reject the calculation as overly simple and flawed.

You fail to note the incredible and unrealistic "gives" to the official conspiracy theory.

1. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center,

2. that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency,

3. that no hot gases left this floor,

4. that no heat escaped this floor by conduction

5. and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. 

You know that all things thing were nowhere near reality but you failed to mention them at all.

You also fail to mention or discuss the Cardington Test fires where no collapse occurred. 

 

You do not possess the requisite knowledge to reject anything. 

[hot enough]

48 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I have enough, along with the capacity to know who I should and shouldn't pay attention to when it comes to the information I digest.  In your case you posted a source that refutes your premise, ergo, its clear you lack this capacity and as such its probably you who should be making themselves scarce.

 

Yet you can't explain how it refutes anything, eyeball. That's not science, that's leaping to conclusions where it is not warranted. 

How do you, a fellow who has shown he knows nothing about the science of 911, "know who I should and shouldn't pay attention to when it comes to the information I digest". 

Do you reject US government scientists describing the new super explosives, varying types of nanothermite, they developed in the 1990s?

Nanothermite that was found in WTC dust, the by products of nanothermite reactions, huge quantities of iron microspheres, 1500 times normal office dust amounts. 

Nanothermite that ONLY the US has/had. No one else on Earth had it, certainly not "Arab hijackers".

Edited June 15, 2017 by hot enough

[eyeball]

My conclusion in this thread is based on your capacity for refuting yourself.  You're saying that's unwarranted?

[hot enough]

14 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

There is possibly a couple hundred people dead in London today.

There ARE a couple of million people dead from these lies, Hal, the lies, the war crimes, the terrorism you are supporting.

[hot enough]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

My conclusion in this thread is based on your capacity for refuting yourself.  You're saying that's unwarranted?

It is when you make an assertion without anything. 

How about the nanothermite? Are you going to deny that REALITY?