Nick Kollerstrom — June 15, 2017
After it turned into a raging inferno, Grenfell tower showed no sign of collapsing. Were the laws of physics somehow suspended?
So how come the Towers collapsed in nine seconds on 9/11, falling into their own footprint?
NO STEEL STRUCTURE BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED AS RESULT OF FIRE
‘National Institute of Standards and Technology’ NIST have been discredited by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (particularly since their investigation stops at the point where collapse of the Twin Towers is supposed to have begun but ignores the rest of the collapse) – see their report: ‘Beyond Mis-information’. Also they have now pointed out that the weight of structure above the point of impact of the planes was only 4.5% of total tower structure (mass of support structure increasing as you would expect the further down you go). This means that if the steel at the top did collapse due to gravity (highly questionable) then it should be supported by the mass below.
Grenfell Tower would have collapsed if built four years earlier, says expert
“The Twin Towers collapsed because the aircraft fuel ignited the contents of the building and it was the burning of the contents of the building which caused the steel columns to lose stiffness. UK buildings are much more robust, or tolerant of losing structural capacity than the Twin Towers.” This article was very soon deleted, from www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/14/grenfell-tower-would-have-collapsed-built-four-years-earlier/:
The Twin Towers collapsed because the aircraft fuel ignited the contents of the building and it was the burning of the contents of the building which caused the steel columns to lose stiffness. UK buildings are much more robust, or tolerant of losing structural capacity than the Twin Towers.
Grenfell Tower is of ‘Brutalist’ architectural design, which uses bare concrete. The implication is that reinforced concrete will take longer to conduct heat, and so will be more resilient to collapse that steel-framed structures. This means that steel-framed structures are more vulnerable to collapse through office fires, as in Building 7. What utter tosh!
The purpose of the cladding was to bring it into conformity with newer buildings nearby.
See video by Lionel, who regularly contributes with comedy items in RT news broadcasts, comparing Grenfell with WTC 7
Of course you shouldn’t mention 9/11; that’s antisemitic. I’ve just been looking at the hype here in the UK. It seems that Grenfell Tower had a structure of reinforced concrete, rather than steel. Steel, it seems, is more susceptible to collapse through fire because it has a much higher thermal conductivity. That’s why our towers don’t collapse, whereas US towers do. We have more stringent building regulations here, of course, because we’re British, and we uphold British values of democracy and free speech. That’s why no-one listened to the residents, who were trying to tell the authorities about the fire hazards following the refurbishing work done on the tower. (Comments by I.F.)
Here is Building 6 of the WTC on 9/11 – nothing hit that did it???
The word on the street is that several hundred were killed: there could be easily a couple of hundred charred corpses in that Greville tower. No-one could escape from those top floors. The authorities have come out with an absurdly low figure. The effort of a truthful statement was too much for them.
Nobody knows what caused it: an ‘exploding refrigerator’ at midnight? No-one seems to have heard of an exploding refrigerator, or that it could be inflammable: how could that set light to the outer cladding of he building? Photographs show the fire glowing with strange colours…
Scheduled for demolition: 2014
Grenfell tower Demolition order. Click to enlarge
Does this remind you of the Twin Towers? As in, We couldn’t afford to demolish it, so we just upped the insurance to one billion a couple of months before, and …