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

[Nous]

I calculated the acceleration of the falling material based upon the figures you provided.
The result was impossibly fast.
So what was wrong?

I didn't examine your method very closely. I might not be able to discern what you did wrong. You obviously have plenty of time on your hands to try to reconcile what you did differently than what NIST did. You should try to do that if you ever tire of your ignorance on the matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You haven't substantiated a single thing I've been wrong about yet.

Sure I have. You have merely denied your errors. As I just pointed out you relied on a bogus peer reviewed article. That was an error.

 

[Nous]

Yes, several.

Quote all the errors you have found in the Harrit et al. paper or analysis.

 

[Nous]

Sure I have.

Quote them.

 

[Shad]

Source?

Chefredaktør skrider efter kontroversiel artikel om 9/11

So you don't know of any errors in the paper or the analysis of the red/gray chips. Correct?

I have yet to see a reason to take it seriously in it's conclusion of "explosives"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quote all the errors you have found in the Harrit et al. paper or analysis.

You are not paying attention. Or else you are not being honest. The fact that you had to quote out of context indicates the latter.

You are once again denying your errors.

 

[Nous]

Chefredaktør skrider efter kontroversiel artikel om 9/11

As the article makes clear, she didn't resign because of anything "controversial" in the Harrit et al. paper or their methods, but, rather, merely because the journal published the paper without her permission.

I have yet to see a reason to take it seriously in it's conclusion of "explosives"

So you are confirming that you know of no errors in the paper or in the methodology by which the authors derived their findings. You should have just said that upfront.

 

[Nous]

You are not paying attention. Or else you are not being honest. The fact that you had to quote out of context indicates the latter.

Quote whatever you claim I have "quoted out of context".

So you cannot quote anything I've said that's erroneous. Correct?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As the article makes clear, she didn't resign because of anything "controversial" in the Harrit et al. paper or their methods, but, rather, merely because the journal published the paper without her permission.

So you are confirming that you know of no errors in the paper or in the methodology by which the authors derived their findings. You should have just said that upfront.

No they published an article that had little to nothing to do with the science without her permission. Journals sometimes try to recruit people with credibility to raise their own. She even managed to convince some colleagues to publish in that journal. You can read her own translated words:

"I was in fact in doubt about them already because I had repeatedly requested information about the journal without hearing from them. It does not appear in the list of international journals, and it's a bad sign. Now I can see that it's because it's a bad magazine, "says Marie-Paule Pileni, continuing:

»There are also no references to The Open Chemical Physics Journal in other articles. I have two colleagues who agreed to publish an article that has never been quoted anywhere. If nobody reads it, it's a bad journal and there's no need for it, "sounds the hard judgment."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quote whatever you claim I have "quoted out of context".

So you cannot quote anything I've said that's erroneous. Correct?

When you screw up don't expect me to fix it for you. Simply try again with the entire post.

 

[dfnj]

There are 15,000 high-rise fires per year and only on 9/11 did buildings collapse from fire.

WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a jet.

Demolition is the only way buildings can collapse at near free-fall speed.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't examine your method very closely.

If one makes claims about acceleration, time, & distance,
one should be familiar with the really simple relationship
between them. If the figures cited mean that the building
is collapsing faster than gravity, that should be understood.

If debunkers can't even do elementary school level math,
this really calls into question the other claims.

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm not a conspiracy but I wonder why all the World Trade Center towers collapsed from fire but the Grenfell Tower kept standing after being on fire for so many hours.

Maybe because an airplane loaded with tons of jet fuel didn't fly into it???

 

[Milton Platt]

There are 15,000 high-rise fires per year and only on 9/11 did buildings collapse from fire.

WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a jet.

Demolition is the only way buildings can collapse at near free-fall speed.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS

How do you know assertion number 2 is true?

 

[ronki23]

Maybe because an airplane loaded with tons of jet fuel didn't fly into it???

Building 7 wasn't hit by planes; it was hit by flaming debris.

Also the towers collapsed not from the force of impact but the fire

 

[ronki23]

There are 15,000 high-rise fires per year and only on 9/11 did buildings collapse from fire.

WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a jet.

Demolition is the only way buildings can collapse at near free-fall speed.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS

 

[ronki23]

As we're approaching the 20th anniversary, I'm just curious how flaming debris got inside building 7 to cause an internal fire and collapse because no plane hit building 7.

BBC reported the collapse early but several news crews thought a collapse was imminent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As we're approaching the 20th anniversary, I'm just curious how flaming debris got inside building 7 to cause an internal fire and collapse because no plane hit building 7.

BBC reported the collapse early but several news crews thought a collapse was imminent.

Building 7 was hit by debris from a plane, if I remember correctly. That started a fire. Now it if was not a day where the world turned upside down they would probably have been able to control it but emergency services were overwhelmed. Why not read up on it? There are sources that did a very thorough analysis of it. Here is perhaps the best known one:

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oops, it has been too long. The collapse of Building 1 started fires on ten different floors of Building 7:

The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began.

There are intricate details in the article that I linked.

 

[ronki23]

@Subduction Zone

How did they know the identities of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 ? Because they didn't look at the manifesto until after the attack so how did they know which of the passengers hijacked the planes ?