Grenfell vs WTC 7 ( conspiracy )

submitted by Techius

I think there's a few interesting parallel comparisons between Grenfell and WTC 7 that hasn't been addressed yet, that at least I've seen.

  • The thing thing is that WTC 7 was built in 1983, and opened in 1987. Grenfell on the other hand was built in 1972, and opened in 1974. Why did a 14 year old tower (on 9/11) collapse due to fire when it would have been subject to much higher building standards and codes, the material would be more newer and therefore stronger, and the construction time was longer, which usually means that when the concrete was poured, it had longer time to set, which means that it gets stronger. If I know anything about concrete construction, it's that the more time you allow it to set, the stronger it gets.

  • The temperature in Grenfell got up to 1,000 celsius. Do you know what else did as well? The twin towers. All though this is about the WTC 7 specifically, it's claimed that debris from the twin towers fell and started a fire. Let's give the temperature a leeway of 2/3 for the sake of the environments of the twin towers and WTC 7 being different. That's still 660 degrees + in the WTC which it collapsed under.

  • Why is a 43 year old building, built in less time, has weaker material, and had a fire for 3x the duration of WTC 7 still stand, while with WTC 7 we saw the supports collapse simultaneously?

  • Even at the fundamentals, the basic materials for Grenfell and WTC 7 would be the same. Steel that's concreted (as steel improves tension in concrete) for the columns, and generally steel for the floors (if it were to be concreted, it'd be heavy).

  • While WTC 7 looked great on the outside, Grenfell looks horrible, though this can be attributed to the material they used when panelling the exterior. Despite this, why isn't there any glass left on Grenfell, while on WTC the exterior walls were basically kept in tact. You'd think that glass might break due to being in an environment like WTC 7 where there's shit burning at massive temperatures.

What are your thoughts on my claims? I don't generally study conspiracy theories, but these are some legitimate comparisons between the two buildings that I'd be interested in on expanding.

whisky_cat

Or how the radio tower begins to tilt & drop ahead of the "pancake" collapse, the upper portion begins to rotate into an asymmetrical downfall, yet then magically acts as the pylon to pulverize 100 stories of steal beams and 100 very large, thick concrete floors. And ultimately pulverize itself (ironically, it pulverizes itself at the start of the collapse, and is all but gone as the rest of the building continues to dismember itself into dust). I could go on.

EngelbertHumperdinck

I'm not so sure about that story of the heroic passengers. Apparently, there was no evidence of a plane at the alleged crash site in PA. See Christopher Bollyn's work on this topic for more info.

whisky_cat

I followed Bollyn's work for a long time, even donated to it, his research is excellent stuff. As you may already know - He reached the point where an unmarked, undercover Chicago-area police squad roughed him up at night, tased the shit out of him, then charged him with assaulting a police officer.

EngelbertHumperdinck

Yeah, that was fucked up. I've met him on two occasions and this last time, he was being escorted by 4 nation of islam guys, who Farrakhan sent with him for protection.

Cheesebooger

I love watching all of the jewbags and gov shills come out to play anytime 911 is discussed.

blackguard19

I'm talking to one on Reddit now..

Sometimes I feel like I shouldn't demolish them so embarrassingly every time to avoid being put on a list or something.

B3bomber

You exist, means you're on a list already. Might as well make use of your existence.

MrPim

I have no i terest in discussing it. Its not that I cant, i wont. It is a waste of my time. Your mind is made up. It has been for years. The entire theory starts w a conclusion and works backwards fitting evidence to support the conclusion they started w. Which is not how a real investigation of anything works.

whisky_cat

AE911 does the exact opposite of what you describe here. They look at the event, and run parallel hypothesis', one for destruction by fire, and one for destruction by demolition. I highly recommend you take a look and compare the differences in there investigation.

And if you stopped looking at 9/11 after Popular Mechanics allegedly debunked Loose Change, you've missed out on A LOT of useful evidence for which people have drawn different conclusions than that of the underfunded & understaffed NIST 9/11 Investigation which is observed to have flawed science in multiple regards.

LostandFound

I commend you for continuing to look into this I thought this kinda died outside of select circles, but I am afraid your not comparing apples with apples here.

Grenfell - Was affected by a fire

WTC7 - Spent over 70% of its collapse travelling at free fall acceleration - this was not and cannot be related to a fire. Office fires cannot make structural elements effectively disappear which is required for free fall.

Even the NIST reports / computer models could not reproduce the free fall speeds observed on the day, even after they fudged their models by removing supports, removing rivets from the beam connectivity, weakening the steel and exaggerating the extent of the fires in the final models. In the end, and this is documented officially, that they only modeled the initiation of the collapse and not the entirety of the event. Which is kind of like ending an air crash investigation after working out the engines stopped working at 40k feet.

IMO as WTF 7 was an FBI and CIA operations hub - documented and verified - used to spy on foreign delegates in the country, and Mayor Rudi Gulliani's emergency reponse / crisis centre. This was the control centre for the pyrotechnics display we saw that day and had to be 'pulled'. 'Lucky' Larry Silverstein had a great day that day I will tell you.

As you are probably aware 'pulling' a building is an industry term for demolishion which takes months of planning and lots of explosives.

Edit: I said free fall speed, whe it was actually falling with free fall acceleration, ta @belphegorsprime

belphegorsprime

speeds acceleration FTFY

LostandFound

Damn You! Yes your 100% correct. I dont think it had enough time to actually reach terminal free fall velocity before the rubble underneath caught up. Will correct

pretty_innocuous

I think the simple explanation that more closely follows Occam's razor is that WTC 7 threatened to become the source of a blazing inferno that would spread across downtown (which couldn't be dealt with due to thinned resources) and was consequently "pulled".

The reason you won't know who ordered/carried it out (or even admission that it was) until the 9/11 report is declassified is to protect the people responsible for it from being the targets of hundreds of lawsuits.

EngelbertHumperdinck

The only way it could be possible to make a last minute decision to "pull" a building, is if the building have been pre-rigged with explosives. How many other buildings do you think have been secretly pre-rigged for demolition?

There was a Get Smart episode with a plot similar to this.

Read about it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0587562/

Watch it: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3m9fz3

pretty_innocuous

Way I heard is that pulling specifically refers to using like a crane or something to pull out the building supports.

EngelbertHumperdinck

"Pull it" is a demolition term meaning to ignite the explosives and bring down the structure.

See here: https://youtu.be/LZsQxy8XhnM

MrPim

Oh youre right, i didnt read very carefully. No that building was crushed w falling, burning debris. Youve had a decade and thousands of people looking at this and youve got nothing. You ignore the simplest answer that it was simply allowed to happen in favor of holograms and RC airliners. You guys dont need the CIA to label you conspiracy wackjobs, you take care of that yourselves. Ive looked at your evidence a decade ago, it isnt evidence.

Techius

No that building was crushed w falling, burning debris.

Except that was put out a few hours later. Still collapsed, in a free-fall motion where the supports gave away simultaneously. As one guy from IRC said, you'd think you'd see partial collapses, but you don't. It's all one big collapse at the same time.

Also, this tower burned for over a day. No collapse.

swasagon

You look like the craziest person here

blackguard19

Good work. No high rise skyscraper ever collapsed from fires before 9/11, since 9/11.... or on 9/11.

MrPim

Thanks for proving youre a retrograde retard.

swasagon

hes not wrong?

MrPim

Because they are complety and utterly different structures using diffenent materials and a different construction technique. Something you tards have been reminded of repeatedly. There also that whole thing where an airplane loaded w fuel hit one and the other was a simple fire. Youre comparing apples to hedgehogs.

Techius

There also that whole thing where an airplane loaded w fuel hit one and the other was a simple fire

WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane.

GIF-lLL-S0NG

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center,_NY -_2001-09-11 -_Debris_Impact_Areas.svg

WTC 7 is across the street from the others in the complex..about 150 yards.

WTC 5 burned a little but didnt collapse because of the wreckage on the roof.

Seems there was better fire surpression equipment in WTC7 than the Glenfell tower.

A conspiracy theorist tried to get the building in London condemned: https://www.rt.com/uk/392272-council-grentfell-blogger-fire/

LostandFound

Fire suppression systems in WTC 7 were disabled shortly after due to failing water pressure in the external water sources needed elsewhere. WTC 7 was evacuated so the call was made no harm if it burns.

SaveTheChiIdren

because sometimes you think its a woman, but its actually a chick with a dick

GizaDog

This would be a nightmare!

0rion

This sums up the situation perfectly.

Techius

A feminine penis is a feminine penis.