Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

[Fancy]

Think the guy that doctored the video was sleeping - certainly poor editing and even poorer content. Poor him.
Better videos on the WTC7 thread:
viewtopic.php?f=52&t=22316

[Ranger66]

"Duh elevator housing on top of high-rises always fall in the center and then the building collapses every day...

Duh the guy even circled the everything for you to watch. "

So wake me up with the proof that is so easy to supply, just more deflection.

[averagejoe]

Think the guy that doctored the video was sleeping - certainly poor editing and even poorer content. Poor him.
Better videos on the WTC7 thread:
viewtopic.php?f=52&t=22316

You too quit being a troll...

[Ranger66]

The whole point is that your theories are based on lies that guidable little trolls are so willing to feed on. When pressed for actual facts ( not second rate video or second rate architects )
All you can do is deflect. Prove that,

During the destructions of the twin Towers, massive steel beams, weighing 4 - 20 tons or more, were ejected 500 feet horizontally

[maryjane48]

nist and fema recorded where the beams were found . they could not explain how they got there . neither can you . so that is a fail on your part . explain how molten iron got to the basement when nothing in the towers or jets had anything that would burn as hot as a smelter . explain how if the floors pancaked there was no observable deceleration of mass when a simple highschool physics lesson easily explains to highschool students that if mass doesnt meet mass in a vertical drop you will see near freefall speeds which was observed and nist was forced to admit did occur but again never offered a viable reason . one the moon astronaughts did the same experiment on the moon to see if a heavier object would hit ground faster than a lighter one . they hit grou d at same speed so with that we can afree gravity is an actual force that acts evenly on all objects with mass . a feather in a vaccuum would hit ground at same rate as a car . so knowing that when observe near freefall speeds in twin towers and building 7 we can with confidance deduce that mass under the points were the building display a vertical motion was removed faster than the top mass was headed to earth .

your trying to convince yourself that the force of gravity magically grew in strength one one day and was able to pull on the mass in way never observed before or after . the laws of gravity is highschool level math . and yet your trying to suggest them laws just up and changed ? lol . keep putting mouth in foot . must be extra hungry today

[Fancy]

You too quit being a troll...

You apparently are at the top of the list considering the topic isn't WTC7. Doesn't matter - you'll get this thread shut down soon enough.

[Fancy]

give it up ranger . you cant even explain why multiton chunks of steel were blown sideways over 500 feet . until you can accomplish that tiny part of the day then your nothing more than a firecracker with no wick

Why are you comparing the two buildings when the damage was so significantly different?

[Fancy]

nist and fema recorded where the beams were found . they could not explain how they got there

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... de-center/
more on WTC7 thread

[Ranger66]

"nist and fema recorded where the beams were found "

If that is the case then supply a cut and paste from the report, so easy yet you have failed.

[averagejoe]

"nist and fema recorded where the beams were found "

If that is the case then supply a cut and paste from the report, so easy yet you have failed.

Why don't you actually do some investigation instead of being a troll

[Ranger66]

I have!

[Passion4Truth]

In conclusion, the Britain tower never collapsed because skyscrapers simply can not fall straight down into their strongest points due to simple office fires. The only way to explain that they can is by refusing to release the crucial model input data in a computer simulation and disregarding serious professional critiques that challenge the conclusions, which is exactly what NIST has done.

[Fancy]

In conclusion, the Britain tower never collapsed because skyscrapers simply can not fall straight down into their strongest points due to simple office fires.

This wasn't a simple office fire and there are many more buildings built the same in Britain.

The government announced that 120 high-rise buildings, in 37 areas, had used cladding and insulation similar to those installed at Grenfell Tower, the West London apartment building that was consumed by flames on June 14 in Britain’s deadliest fire in decades. All 120 buildings fell short in safety tests — “a 100 percent failure rate,” according to a spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May. Hundreds of other tall buildings are still being tested.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/worl ... ictim.html

[Passion4Truth]

In conclusion, the Britain tower never collapsed because skyscrapers simply can not fall straight down into their strongest points due to simple office fires. The only way to explain that they can is by refusing to release the crucial model input data in a computer simulation and disregarding serious professional critiques that challenge the conclusions, which is exactly what NIST has done.

[Fancy]

Two products that played a major role in the deadly inferno in London had been assailed for their fire risks and faced tighter restrictions in the United States.

Such regulatory gaps expose how multinational corporations can take advantage of the vulnerabilities in government oversight.

The two American manufacturers involved, Arconic and Whirlpool, are widely expected to be central players in litigation over the fire, which killed at least 79 people this month. The Metropolitan Police have also said they will consider manslaughter among other charges; in Britain, corporations can be charged with manslaughter.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/busi ... -fire.html

Dr Knapton said that if “Ronan Point (had) not happened, Grenfell Tower would have collapsed by now”.

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/gre ... 78aa1e79db