Friday, 30 June 2017

RECAP: The Reason the Grenfell Tower Tower Didn't Collapse is Because it Wasn't Rigged with Explosives

People thought about the Grenfell Tower collapsing but didn't really want to say anything afterwards on social media. The thought of collapse was planted in people's minds because of what happened on 911 and because of a TV coverage caption that stated there were 'fears of a collapse' ...

To quote myself on social media: "yeah, the reason it didn't completely collapse is that there were no bombs in the Grenfell Tower. People will [understandably] argue that the Grenfell Tower was more fire resistant because it was (apparently) a concrete reinforced building, and not a pure steel framed building. Even for the steel framed buildings, they don't collapse due to fire. You need bombs."

Debating the building's construction of reinforced concrete vs steel frames is a red herring in terms of what happens to the latter. Steel framed buildings are also highly fire resistant. The major factor in a building's survival is a LACK of EXPLOSIVES (juxtaposed to what people might expect concerning fire):

9/11 In Perspective

A reminder that Facts trump consensus opinion:

Remember the recent example when it was proved that Ulcers were caused by bacteria, not stress, which was the previous consensus. Plus don't forget the political aspect when it comes to information that challenges a prevailing narrative.

And when experts point out exactly what is wrong with an official story so that you UNDERSTAND the issue, then you logically must accept the new evidence. Alas, most people don't have the time to research and are generally straight-jacketed to their preconceived assumptions.

Understanding can be a difficult thing (psychologically, and time wise). This video is a good place to start, and helps explain why the Grenfell Tower did NOT collapse:

Architects and Engineers: Solving the Mystery of Building 7

Note: The recent Plasco Building 'Collapse' in Tehran was also a controlled demolition (likely a 'debunking' psy-op intended to throw water on what happened in NY). However, as psychologially difficult as this may be to accept, there is hard evidence of explosions, violent horizontal ejections, and impossible molten metal in the debris indicating incendiary use, because open air fires do not melt steel to the extent seen. A reasoned alternative explanation for this incident, not involving controlled demolition, would be welcome - but thus far none have been forthcoming (except for the "it can't be, therefore it isn't" mode of response/denial in the face of the physical evidence).


ps. Generally, in terms of fire temperatures, you need a lot of energy to weaken a steel or concrete building. You can have hot localised temperatures, but if the fire is not large enough and long lasting, it will often not significantly impact a heat resistant structure, including steel. It's important to take into account the difference between heat vs temperature. Small hot fires don't have enough energy to cause damage to fire resistant building structures:

Heat vs Temperature

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, June 30th, 2017.]

No comments: