Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

[atenbacon]

LOL... Newtons law of motion, and physics in general explains it exactly.

2,900 Architects & Engineers disagree with NIST's official explanation of the collapse.That's a bit of a Red Flag, don't you think?

Nope, considering the small number that disagree. Just by looking at the US employment estimate for that job classification it comes in at 2,499,050 jobs that carry that title. So, in fact 2,496,150 Architects & Engineers do not disagree with NIST's official explanation of the collapse.

Some red flag. rolls eyes....

[Passion4Truth]

Many Architects & Engineers haven't looked at the evidence and blindly believe the official story like you. Many more won't sign because the ridicule factor can be so high, so that list is quite large actually.

[What_the]

i gave you facts and figures from nist . if you dont believe your own side then whats your point ? scores still me 1 you zero

I wouldn't count your score yet.
Seems like a pretty good wind to me.
And, since I've kept bringing up aluminium/water explosions.
The bangs the firefighters/witnesses heard seem to me could very well be that. NIST did not account for upwards of 30 tons molten aluminum, nor does it seem you have accounted for that too. Could very well explain the beams travelling so far as per your and peace seekers posts.

I don't fully understand structural engineering but ive learned a thing or two about those buildings, and if your termite (our was it peace seeker) throwing a 5000 degree number out? That would definitely melt steel.

[maryjane48]

yea wind at 3500 feet . you going to call the official weather records for that day a sham ? i gave you the weather records it is what it is . it was a forge . it was simply jet fuel and some office stff burning . in the uk tower wer say was more aggressive fire behavior yet no steel was bending or even close to melting .

one explanation is the temp that nano thermite burns at . and what it is capable of producing . look there grasshopper , for the wisdom you seek is in that direction

[Fancy]

The winds carried a massive plume of smoke out over the city and New York's harbor.

http://www.businessinsider.com/haunting ... cks-2016-9

[What_the]

yea wind at 3500 feet . you going to call the official weather records for that day a sham ? i gave you the weather records it is what it is . it was a forge . it was simply jet fuel and some office stff burning . in the uk tower wer say was more aggressive fire behavior yet no steel was bending or even close to melting .

one explanation is the temp that nano thermite burns at . and what it is capable of producing . look there grasshopper , for the wisdom you seek is in that direction

Wait a second. Ive been referring to wind generating a forge effect within the towers. I've provided at least one picture to back up my... a theory. All the pictures that day, live television feeds, etc show the exact same thing. I couldn't care less about what essentially the "weather man" says at 3500 ft, at a thousand feet the wind was sufficient to blow the smoke sideways from the top of the towers.

Will you acknowledge this? Or not?
The picture is right there. :)

[What_the]

The thoughts of false flag or did bush know or let happen is beside the point. I'm interested in the structural failure of the two towers.

[GenesisGT]

slight breeze but no much as in wind what your talking about.


indicating that a smoke and debris plume was observed to the southwest rising from the surface to a height of 3,500 feet and drifting southeast.http://www.weatherwise.org/Archives/Bac ... -full.html

541 m, 546 m to tip is height of tallest tower. so as you can see the smoke was going up to 3500 feet before showing a drift so even if we say the tows are 2000 ft the smoke still went up 1300 more feet before showing drift https://www.google.ca/search?q=how+many ... e&ie=UTF-8

Based on the weather conditions in the first link you posted the comment I highlighted in red is incorrect.

The weather report in the link says

“FU AND DEBRIS PLUME SW FROM SFC-035 DRFTG SE,” indicating that a smoke and debris plume was observed to the southwest rising from the surface to a height of 3,500 feet and drifting southeast.

This weather report indicates that there is smoke (FU) in the area from the surface up to 3500ft and it is drifting southeast.

Not that the smoke is rising to 3500ft before the wind is making it drift SE when it reaches 3500ft.

[peaceseeker]

LOL... Newtons law of motion, and physics in general explains it exactly.

2,900 Architects & Engineers disagree with NIST's official explanation of the collapse.That's a bit of a Red Flag, don't you think?

Oh c'mon, Passion4Truth, don't you know fire can shatter structural steel and pulverize concrete to dust!?

Geez, get with the times!!

[Ranger66]

“Many Architects & Engineers haven't looked at the evidence”

How did you determine this?

[Passion4Truth]

“Many Architects & Engineers haven't looked at the evidence”

How did you determine this?

Common sense would dictate that not everyone has the time or even the interest in doing research on the matter, especially when it is labeled a Conspiracy Theory. Unless you have a link to a list of thousands of signatures from architects, engineers and physicists that agree with NIST's theory on the collapse?

[Dizzy1]

Common sense would dictate that not everyone has the time or even the interest in doing research on the matter, especially when it is labeled a Conspiracy Theory.

And there's a very good reason for that. Common sense and conspiracy theory are an oxymoron.

[Ranger66]

"Common sense would dictate"

So you created it.

[fvkasm2x]

it don't have to warp it all it had to do was compromise its strength which is exactly what it did the freefall effect was the weight of the upper floors collapsing on the ones below not really rocket science the building in Britian simply burnt none of the structure was compromised by a plane flying into it

And what about Tower 7?

You know, the tower that magically fell down exactly like a demolition without anything hitting it?

Fire and debris from the other tower managed to take down an entire sky scraper, but did almost no damage to the 2 buildings on either side of it?

Makes sense.

The thoughts of false flag or did bush know or let happen is beside the point. I'm interested in the structural failure of the two towers.

I'd focus on the 3rd tower. The one that fell exactly the same as the other 2, even though there was no jet fuel or plane impact.

[Fancy]

Actually a lot of debris hit it and when it fell it certainly did millions of dollars of damage to the adjacent building (Verizon I think). There's already a thread on WTC7:
viewtopic.php?f=52&t=22316&p=2077523#p2077523