Why did WTC 7 Collapse from fire but not Grenfell Tower?

[Subduction Zone]

Quote NIST's explanation for why there was no resistance for 2.5 seconds during the fall of WTC 7

What makes you think there was "no resistance"? Yes, the fall was rapid but I can't answer your question since it assumes a claim that does not seem to be true.

 

[ronki23]

WTC were steel framed structures and burned with thousands of gallons of jet fuel on the inside, weakening the steel.

Grenfell Tower was a far smaller structure made of just reinforced concrete, and the fire was just some plastic cladding up the exterior, which was not load bearing.

Not comparable at all.

What do you mean the fire was plastic cladding up the exterior? What is the plastic for? I didn't know it was flammable

And how did building 7 collapse? Flaming debris?

 

[Nous]

What makes you think there was "no resistance"?

Wow, dude!! The fact that there was no resistance from the structure below is the only way the top portion could have fallen at free-fall rate.

 

[exchemist]

What do you mean the fire was plastic cladding up the exterior? What is the plastic for? I didn't know it was flammable

And how did building 7 collapse? Flaming debris?

Yes Grenfell Tower had new insulating cladding put on, to help reduce heating costs, which turned out not to be fire resistant!! Almost criminally negligent and showed the weakness of UK building standards in this area. Huge scandal. The fire went up the outside and then came in at each level from there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow, dude!! The fact that there was no resistance from the structure below is the only way the top portion could have fallen at free-fall rate.

But it didn't fall at "free fall rate". It fell slower than that. About one and half seconds slower.

 

[ronki23]

So you think that there was no conspiracy involved in the events of 9/11, that 19 young men all independently decided to hijack commercial airliners and fly them into buildings on the same morning?

What could be stranger than that?

You do realise Al Qaeda was responsible for a number of attacks long before 9/11?

Assassination of President Sadat, Attempt to kill Bill Clinton in Manilla, 1997 Luxor Massacre, 1998 Kenya and Tanzania Embassy bombing

 

[Nous]

You do realise Al Qaeda was responsible for a number of attacks long before 9/11?

Assassination of President Sadat, Attempt to kill Bill Clinton in Manilla, 1997 Luxor Massacre, 1998 Kenya and Tanzania Embassy bombing

So again I will ask: So you think that there was no conspiracy involved in the events of 9/11, that 19 young men all independently decided to hijack commercial airliners and fly them into buildings on the same morning?

 

[Nous]

But it didn't fall at "free fall rate". It fell slower than that. About one and half seconds slower.

See page 45 of the report you linked to. Have you not the report that you linked to?

 

[Subduction Zone]

See page 45 of the report you linked to. Have you not the report that you linked to?

That is exactly where they say that it was not at free fall speed:

Rats, it will not copy and paste. Free fall would have been about 3.9 seconds. It took 5.4 seconds.

 

[ronki23]

So again I will ask: So you think that there was no conspiracy involved in the events of 9/11, that 19 young men all independently decided to hijack commercial airliners and fly them into buildings on the same morning?

You obviously didn't read what I wrote because there was nothing 'Independent' in the actions of the 19 hijackers. It was a coordinated attack. I gave examples of pre-9/11 attacks by Al Qaeda

Don't forget they attempted to blow up the Towers in 1993.

 

[Nous]

That is exactly where they say that it was not at free fall speed:

Rats, it will not copy and paste. Free fall would have been about 3.9 seconds. It took 5.4 seconds.

Since you can't copy I went to the trouble of manually reproducing their exact words:

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft.), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.​

 

[Nous]

You obviously didn't read what I wrote because there was nothing 'Independent' in the actions of the 19 hijackers. It was a coordinated attack. I gave examples of pre-9/11 attacks by Al Qaeda

Don't forget they attempted to blow up the Towers in 1993.

So you agree that they perpetrated a conspiracy? You're a "conspiracist" (your word) about 9/11?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since you can't copy I went to the trouble of copying their exact words:

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft.), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.​

And what don't you understand about that? Once a significant mass was falling the support left over was almost nonexistent in regards to the weight that it was resisting. It started out slow and almost matched free fall towards the end. That was repeated in the computer models that were based upon the structure of the building. When a model matches observed events it is thought to be at least reasonably accurate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you agree that they perpetrated a conspiracy? You're a "conspiracist" (your word) about 9/11?

Now you are going the way of an equivocation fallacy. You are using the same term but applying different meanings to it.

 

[David T]

The WTC fell from the fire, not from the force of the planes. And WTC 7 wasn't hit by any planes; just flaming debris.

I'm not a conspiracist, just want to understand why so I can debunk them

Loads of diesel fuel inside the structure is way hotter than high desity foam on.the outside of the building. It had a natural channel to let the heat escape. The tower with the huge amount of fuel would have retained the heat. Think kiln vs open put fire. Wood can attain 2500 degree temps when in a kiln. Takes lots of wood and time. But in an open put not remotely close. Basic understanding of materials is all.

 

[Nous]

And what don't you understand about that? Once a significant mass was falling the support left over was almost nonexistent in regards to the weight that it was resisting. It started out slow and almost matched free fall towards the end.

What? How did there get to be no resistance from the lower part of the building? Where did the steel structure beneath the free-falling portion go?

That was repeated in the computer models that were based upon the structure of the building. When a model matches observed events it is thought to be at least reasonably accurate.

What computer models are you talking about? NIST's hand-inputted model didn't resemble the fall of WTC 7 whatsoever.

 

[Nous]

Now you are going the way of an equivocation fallacy. You are using the same term but applying different meanings to it.

This is the definition of "conspiracy" I'm using (especially #4): the definition of conspiracy

State the definition of conspiracy that you are using in denying that there was a conspiracy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What? How did there get to be no resistance from the lower part of the building? Where did the steel structure beneath the free-falling portion go?

What computer models are you talking about? NIST's hand-inputted model didn't resemble the fall of WTC 7 whatsoever.

Almost no resistance. The structural steel could not put up significant resistance any longer. There are two kinds of load in engineering. Static loads, or non moving loads, and dynamic loads. The dynamic load was so large at that time that the structure could not give any significant resistance. Here is a example involving a ten pound static load and a ten pound dynamic load:

And the experts seem to think that the computer models very closely matched the fall of WTC-7. What expertise do you base your opinion upon?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the definition of "conspiracy" I'm using (especially #4): the definition of conspiracy

State the definition of conspiracy that you are using in denying that there was a conspiracy.

Okay, then no other conspiracy was involved. Glad to see that we have that cleared up here.

 

[Nous]

I don't suppose anyone here is able to account for A36, noted in FEMA's report. NIST was unable to account for these high temperatures in WTC 7, and and didn't mention A36.