Grenfell Blaze

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Yeah.... no.

Right? That threw me a little too.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It was exhausting work...

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

It was exhausting work...

I spend a long time at the Philadelphia high rise fire. The entire Philadelphia Fire Department was deployed. Heat was so massive that firemen could spend no more than 15 minutes fighting the fire. Some were done after 5 minutes.

In the basement of the Municipal Services Building, firemen looked just like in that picture. A scene right out of "Towering Inferno".

Any high rise building without sprinklers on every floor is a death trap - to both occupants and firemen. That problem existed even in the MGM Grand (Las Vegas), Cocoanut Grove (Boston), Triangle Shirtwaist factory (New York), Ghost Ship Warehouse (Oakland), and in a Beverly Hills Supper Club (Cincinnati) fire.

If even low rise buildings need sprinklers, then why would any high rise not have them on every floor?

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Yeah.... no.

Originally Posted by DanaC

Right? That threw me a little too.

Yeah, re-watch the videos. After the initial fireball of fuel burning there was a lot of black smoke (incomplete combustion, basic science) and the fire was limited to a couple of floors. You never saw the kind of flames like those of other building fires.

Yes, there was a fire but in relative terms it was small, and smoky. In no way did it resemble the fucking inferno that was at Grenfell or dozens of other buildings all of which remained standing.

Did no one take physics classes in high school or college?

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Gage criticized NIST for not having investigated the complete sequence of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers,[43] and claims that "the official explanation of the total destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers has explicitly failed to address the massive evidence for explosive demolition."[44] In particular, Gage argues that the buildings of the World Trade Center could not have collapsed at the speed that has been observed without tearing apart several columns of their structures with the help of explosives.[32] To support its position, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth points to the "free fall" acceleration of 7 WTC during part of the collapse,[45] to "lateral ejection of steel," and to "mid-air pulverization of concrete."[30] Richard Gage also said that the absence of "large gradual deformations" associated with the collapse would indicate that the buildings have been destroyed by controlled demolition.[46] That the three buildings of the World Trade Center "fell through what should have been the path of greatest resistance" would, according to the organization, require "precisely timed removal of critical columns, which office fires cannot accomplish".[45] As the mass of the top of the North Tower had been blown outward during the collapse, there was "nothing left to drive this building to the ground," Gage says.[47]

Gage maintains that the "sudden and spontaneous" collapse of the towers would have been impossible without a controlled demolition, that pools of molten iron found in the debris of the buildings were evidence of the existence of thermite,[48] and that researchers had found unignited nano-thermite in the dust produced by the collapse of the World Trade Center.[26][45][47][49] Gage argues that this material "is not made in a cave in Afghanistan".[50] Iron-rich micro-spheres, which, according to the organization, have been found in the dust of the World Trade Center buildings by independent laboratory analyses, would indicate temperatures during the collapses much higher than temperatures that would result from hydrocarbon fires.[45] "We have evidence of high tech explosives found in all of the dust, we have evidence of thermite found in the molten iron samples. This can’t happen in normal office fires. They don’t have half the temperature required to melt steel, so where did the molten iron come from?" Gage asks.[51] A DVD produced by the group contains eyewitness accounts of explosions and flashes seen in the buildings.[52]

In 2008, Zdeněk P. Bažant, professor of civil engineering and materials science at Northwestern University, published with three coauthors a paper to examine whether allegations of controlled demolition might be scientifically justifiable. They found that the available video records are not consistent with the free fall hypothesis, that the size of the concrete particles is consistent with comminution caused by impact, and that the high velocity of compressed air explains why material from the towers were ejected to a distance of several hundred meters from the tower. The authors conclude that the allegations of controlled demolition do not have any scientific merit.[53] A spokesman for NIST said that any sightings of molten metal, including metal seen pouring from the South tower, were likely molten aluminum from the airplane, an explanation disputed by Richard Gage who stated that the color of the molten metal rules out aluminum.[5] "Basically, gravity and the utter force of the upper floors forced the towers down," said NIST spokesperson Michael Newman.[47]

--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth