Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

[Fancy]

it didn't fall because buildings don't fall.

Some do, some don't and you should know that.

[Ranger66]

"it didn't fall because buildings don't fall."

It didn't fall because it was not structurally compromised.

[GordonH]

Whoever made that meme needs to investigate what's known as melting temperatures. Fire does melt steel and sufficient temperatures

Exactly, I remember many years ago (on a much smaller scale) when the Dorchester on Harvey & Ethel. When it was being constructed a fire happened, at the time is was just shell with steel I beams. That fire generated really intense heat caused those I beams to warp/bend. The heat was so hot the siding on the other side of Harvey was melting, thats at least 50 meters away.
So yes if enough heat is generated steel will give way.

[FreeRights]

lol if the building came down one floor slamming into the one below , then the laws of physics say that it will display mass hitting mass . what that means is we would not see near freefall speeds . plus the central core was connected from top to bottom. meaning it is impossible for the central core to compress into itself. infact we saw on live tv several ton chunks of the central core being ejected 500 feet plus horizontaly .


try quick experiment .. build a tower out of cards and use your hand and starting from the top use your hand topush on the top of the card tower and observe how it falls apart . that represents your theory . now build same tower and care fully remove bottom cards . watch how it comes down . you tell me which is closer to what we saw happen .


now in terms of comparison twin towers had boxed supports with the steel 4 inches thick . ten times the strength that tower iin london had plus twin towers had structural support built into the outside frame .


and your trying to say the london tower didnt come down because it was built better ? haha good ine

It's fun to play pretend engineer, but there are so many variables that you and I don't understand in terms of structural integrity that I doubt that it's as credible as an expert.

[Ranger66]

“ saw on live tv several ton chunks of the central core being ejected 500 feet plus horizontaly .”

No you did not.


“and your trying to say the london tower didnt come down because it was built better”

Better is a relative term, it was a different design intended to fulfil a different function

[maryjane48]

ranger you going to deny parts of the structural beams were not being ejected 500 feet plus horazontaly . theres lots of video of them towers coming down . . i can prove they were being ejected . you cant prove they were not . its not even dabatable .

why did nist change its report after engineers asked the head of nist why the speed was neer freefall ? they could never explain it and to this day have refused . and its a know fact at what temp structural steel starts to deform . jet fuel can never reach that high . infact its well under 500 degrees of what it takes .


nist and the govt at the time never did a forensic investigation . and we all know why if you to admit it or not . doesnt change known facts .

[What_the]

There s 25 tons of aluminum melting however, and when water s added, it explodes.

[atenbacon]

ranger you going to deny parts of the structural beams were not being ejected 500 feet plus horazontaly . theres lots of video of them towers coming down . . i can prove they were being ejected . you cant prove they were not . its not even dabatable .

why did nist change its report after engineers asked the head of nist why the speed was neer freefall ? they could never explain it and to this day have refused . and its a know fact at what temp structural steel starts to deform . jet fuel can never reach that high . infact its well under 500 degrees of what it takes .


nist and the govt at the time never did a forensic investigation . and we all know why if you to admit it or not . doesnt change known facts .

You saying that they are facts does not make them facts, the only fact I see here is how poorly you have comprehended NIST's reports.

But please... by all means prove the beams were ejected, this should be good for a giggle. (I am already doubting your legitimacy on the subject, more so with each post you perform)

[maryjane48]

well for one they were found on top other buildings and in the many videos you can see it being ejected 500 plus feet sideways . my proof is your eyes .


if your some nist expert , explain why the building come down at near freefalll . nist couldnt expain it . can you ? jet fuel burns 500 degrees if not more less than it takes to deform 4 inch steel boxed beams .

and while we have your expertice explain how aluminum wings slice through structural steel .


and after that try explaining why did the molten steel that was seen in the clean up efforts never mentioned by nist or the 9/11 report . even if i go down your rabbit hole that jet fuel magically burned hotter than it does at any other time it still is nowwhere near to melt iron .


if you cant expain them 3 things then as far as i will be concerned you do not have any moxy on this issue .

[atenbacon]

well for one they were found on top other buildings and in the many videos you can see it being ejected 500 plus feet sideways . my proof is your eyes .


if your some nist expert , explain why the building come down at near freefalll . nist couldnt expain it . can you ? jet fuel burns 500 degrees if not more less than it takes to deform 4 inch steel boxed beams .

and while we have your expertice explain how aluminum wings slice through structural steel .


and after that try explaining why did the molten steel that was seen in the clean up efforts never mentioned by nist or the 9/11 report . even if i go down your rabbit hole that jet fuel magically burned hotter than it does at any other time it still is nowwhere near to melt iron .


if you cant expain them 3 things then as far as i will be concerned you do not have any moxy on this issue .

Thankfully, I can explain "them 3 things". I stand by my original assessment of your abilities to comprehend NIST data, and the more you post I can fully understand why.

[maryjane48]

well im waiting you havnt expained anything yet

[What_the]

well for one they were found on top other buildings and in the many videos you can see it being ejected 500 plus feet sideways . my proof is your eyes .


if your some nist expert , explain why the building come down at near freefalll . nist couldnt expain it . can you ? jet fuel burns 500 degrees if not more less than it takes to deform 4 inch steel boxed beams .

and while we have your expertice explain how aluminum wings slice through structural steel .


and after that try explaining why did the molten steel that was seen in the clean up efforts never mentioned by nist or the 9/11 report . even if i go down your rabbit hole that jet fuel magically burned hotter than it does at any other time it still is nowwhere near to melt iron .


if you cant expain them 3 things then as far as i will be concerned you do not have any moxy on this issue .

Thankfully, I can explain "them 3 things". I stand by my original assessment of your abilities to comprehend NIST data, and the more you post I can fully understand why.

No one wants to take

[What_the]

well im waiting you havnt expained anything yet

Personally, I'm waiting for rebuttal on the chemistry of
25 tons of molten aliminum.

[Passion4Truth]

Personally, I'm waiting for rebuttal on the chemistry of
25 tons of molten aliminum.

25 tons of molten aluminum?

[What_the]

Personally, I'm waiting for rebuttal on the chemistry of
25 tons of molten aliminum.

25 tons of molten aluminum?

The aircraft