Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

[Thinktank]

^ Maybe if he would have owned the burning tower in Britain, it would have totally collapsed
on it's own footprint.

[Queen K]

OH Yes exactly!

Thinktank, trust you!
Good catch.

I was thinking it in a different way. It's not like you can take this building and implode it with all those hazardous materials in it, how are they going to get it down?

But the way you've said it speaks volumes to 9/11. How did the those huge buildings just collapse from airplanes hitting the sides and a bit of fire?

Okay, a lot of fire, but nothing like Grenfell.

Someone has a lot of explaining to do.

[Fancy]

"UK buildings are much more robust, or tolerant of losing structural capacity than the Twin Towers," he said.

Maybe now we can stop with these theories and focus on why the fire spread so rapidly.

http://mashable.com/2017/06/16/grenfell ... mBNiG6eaq8

[Merry]

Interesting read but now the question is, if it's possible to build high rises that can withstand an explosion, why don't they build them like that on this side of "the Pond" as well?

What are the regulations here in Canada?

[Fancy]

The devastating fire that ripped through a London apartment building Wednesday is unlikely to occur in Canada due to its strict building and maintenance regulations, fire and safety experts say.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3527903/high- ... ng-a-fire/

[Ranger66]

“What are the regulations here in Canada?”

The most important regulation is 100 % sprinkler coverage in a residential tower.
Sprinklers are not designed to put out a fire but provide an adequate time frame for people to exit the building in a safe manner. The fire dept. can connect to the Siamese connection to continue sprinkler action if they decide it is necessary.

[LTD]

OH Yes exactly!

Thinktank, trust you!
Good catch.

I was thinking it in a different way. It's not like you can take this building and implode it with all those hazardous materials in it, how are they going to get it down?

But the way you've said it speaks volumes to 9/11. How did the those huge buildings just collapse from airplanes hitting the sides and a bit of fire?

Okay, a lot of fire, but nothing like Grenfell.

Someone has a lot of explaining to do.

coulda been the jet travelling into the side at six hundred miles an hour fully loaded with jet fuel that made the difference

[Merry]

The devastating fire that ripped through a London apartment building Wednesday is unlikely to occur in Canada due to its strict building and maintenance regulations, fire and safety experts say.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3527903/high- ... ng-a-fire/

My question wasn't so much about the fire and safety regulations, but more about whether or not we include standards to make our high rise buildings more able to withstand internal explosions (such as a gas main breaking)?

After all, the States also have pretty stringent fire and safety regs, yet they apparently didn't have (and may still not have) the same strict standards as the UK regarding explosions originating within high rise buildings. So I was wondering if our regs in that regard were more like the U.S or the U.K.?

Does anyone know?

[maryjane48]

the twin towers were constructed to withstand a full throttle hit from 737 . with full fuel load . jet fuel does not burn hot enough to warp boxed 4 inch thick centralcore or the floors that were attached .

plus nist never explained near freefall collapse .

[LTD]

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

[maryjane48]

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

[NotNorthAnymore]

I think that: It sure did not take long for this discussion to get into the 911 conspiracy about the Twin Towers.

I suspect that it should be about GB's building codes and practices rather than debunked conspiracy theories about 911.

GB has their fair share of shoddy building techniques as does everyone else.
Applying an external cladding that can burn that fast shows that something was done wrong, if not criminally.
Sort of like the building in (I think) UAE last year that burnt.
Flammable cladding on a high rise??
Never should have happened in either case.

I would hope that the Canadian building codes as applied across Canada would help prevent this type of tragedy.
At least the multiple death toll with help with opening the discussions and hopefully inspections of high rises in Canada.

We need someone with actual knowledge of both GB & Canadian building codes to weigh in on this.
Otherwise everyone here (IMO) is just blowing smoke... and speculation only leads to conspiracy theories (At least on Castanet Forums)....

[Ranger66]

There are many buildings in Canada that have combustible exteriors, the difference is that they are installed so that the flame spread meets the BCBC or ABC etc. The work in GB was a renovation and the product selected was either not up to design intent, was installed incorrectly or both. The panels were probably installed on Z bars and that leaves a gap behind the panel. A poorly done rain screen (to allow any moisture to drain behind the panels and not produce mold etc.) could allow a gap to provide a chimney effect.

[Thinktank]

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

[What_the]

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