The UK Grenfell building did not collapse after 2 day fire unlike WTC 7, 1, and2

Discussion in '9/11' started by Denizen, Jun 18, 2017.

  1. Denizen

    Denizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    9,197
    Likes Received:
    4,545
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This further exemplifies that WTC 1, 2 and 7 building collapses were demolitions.

    There have also been many fires of tall buildings in UAE since 9/11 and not one building collapse.

    [​IMG]

    and, below; aptly named Torch Tower in UAE:

    [​IMG]
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  2. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    29,831
    Likes Received:
    1,000
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is a lot shorter building too...

    ... and a plane didn't hit it...

    ... not as much of a load bearing.
     
  3. Denizen

    Denizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    9,197
    Likes Received:
    4,545
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A plane didn't hit WTC 7 and the fires in WTC 7 were minor and almost extinguished when it was demolished.

    WTC 1 and 2 were designed to withstand aircraft impact and there is no evidence that the aircraft incident was the cause of the collapse.
     
    Eleuthera and Bob0627 like this.
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,313
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2017
  5. The Rhetoric of Life

    The Rhetoric of Life Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2017
    Messages:
    7,966
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I went to Ground Zero in Manhattan in November 2001, just over 2 months since 9/11...
    When I went in November, the fire was still burning underground/smouldering and you could smell it walking up Wall Street...
    When I saw NYC, it was still hurting/ flowers, missing posters, candles, post cards in Time Square that you could buy that were black that said 'We'd never forget' (or something like that).

    The temperatures were way different, the fire after the planes had hit the buildings were so intense, that's why the WTC fell down.

    Also, on 9/11 apparently, you could see the smoke from The Jersey Shore some 70 to 90 miles away!..
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,313
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure.

     
  7. Right is the way

    Right is the way Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,303
    Likes Received:
    735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So what caused the collapse?
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,313
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This issue has been addressed in other threads. No one knows the exact cause of the total destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11 because it has never been legitimately investigated by any official entity. NIST, the agency commissioned by Congress to investigate the destruction, did not investigate the "collapse" of WTC1 and WTC2 by their own admission. The "investigation" into the collapse of WTC7 consisted mainly of a probable collapse initiation theory. This is all well detailed in this thread.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/

    The 9/11 Commission did not conduct any investigation into the destruction of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 on 9/11. The 9/11 Commission Report does not mention WTC7 anywhere in its 571 pages.

    Other experts have examined the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11 using whatever data is publicly available. NIST has to this day withheld an unknown amount of data and evidence that they used in their "investigation" despite several FOIA requests for such data.

    The conclusion of other experts is that the 3 towers did not collapse (meaning as a natural consequence of planes, damage and/or fire) as theorized by NIST but rather were all deliberately destroyed.
     
  9. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,229
    Likes Received:
    2,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Explosive devices planted beforehand.
     
  10. The Rhetoric of Life

    The Rhetoric of Life Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2017
    Messages:
    7,966
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you think exploding windows means explosive device in a towering inferno?
    Don't controlled explosions flatten a building within seconds?
    Wouldn't a building as big as those towers were have all sorts of explosive gasses and fluids for air conditioning or propane.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2017
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,313
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It doesn't if it's caused by the inferno. It does if it's caused by explosive devices. That's pretty straightforward.

    Only when done correctly, otherwise they don't necessarily:



    Do fires flatten steel framed high rises in seconds? Never in the history of steel framed high rises and never in the history of 40+ high rise infernos. Not even in one case where the building was hit by several rockets on multiple occasions and set on fire. And not even in the North Tower in the intense 1973 fire that affected up to 10 stories.

    Probably. What is your point?
     
  12. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,229
    Likes Received:
    2,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess you were talking to me?

    The buildings at WTC were indeed flattened within seconds, free fall rates of collapse.

    I don't think exploding windows, whatever on earth you're talking about, is all there was to it.
     
  13. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So what is the story with engineering schools that train people to design those TALL buildings saying nothing about the 9/11 collapses for FIFTEEN YEARS?

    Accomplices after the fact for not resolving the issue.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  14. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That is a nice CLAIM but how do you test to see if a design is successful?

    psik
     
  15. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,833
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    In case there are a few viewers who haven't seen this, start watching at the 2:40:21 time mark.

    September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,313
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The claim comes from the designers.

    That's a good question. It was however answered in a real world test. Both buildings withstood airplane impacts as claimed.
     
  17. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    But both DID buildings come down less than two hours after impact!

    So how easy is it for some people to believe the designers were wrong?

    I am not saying I believe plane impacts and fire could do that. But just having claims and counter claims is inadequate. Things need to be explained so middle school physics students could get it. Personally I do not believe any skyscraper that stood for 20 years could be brought down like that. But not talking about how the steel must be distributed in buildings that tall, just so they can hold themselves up, is absurd if some people want to CLAIM collapse was possible.

    psik
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  18. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    As far as I can tell the Grenfell case is very different. The UK government OKed flammable cladding and the fire was just cladding and building contents. The structure remained in perfect condition.

    I have seen videos where even homes for the well to do in England are crap.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,313
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly, they did not come down on impact, they both withstood the impacts as the designers claim.

    Apparently very easy since they were both destroyed later, giving the illusion that the planes were the cause. If a person dies of a heart attack and someone later shoots the corpse, to an unsuspecting person who later discovers the body, it looks like the person was murdered.

    Agreed. However, no accurate explanation is possible without a legitimate investigation, one that never happened. All one can do is eliminate the impossible or the least likely.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2017

Share This Page