« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Time for the CCT. Who Will Go First. ScubyDoo? De?

By: De_Composed in GRITZ | Recommend this post (0)
Fri, 16 May 25 7:57 AM | 9 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Grits Breakfast of Champeens!
Msg. 08400 of 08427
(This msg. is a reply to 08397 by Zimbler0)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Zimbler0:

Re: “Instead, the searing inferno caused the steel beams and girders to thermally expand and eventually buckle. This in turn led to a ‘cascade of floor failures’ and the building’s collapse.”
There was an earthquake in Taiwan last month in which a high rise under construction collapsed. What I've read is that it shouldn't have collapsed. But it did. Taiwan is now accusing its Chinese builders of using inferior materials.

So, maybe that's what happened with Building 7. It shouldn't have collapsed, but if it was made of inferior materials or shoddy workmanship, it could have.






- - - - -
View Replies (2) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Time for the CCT. Who Will Go First. ScubyDoo? De?
By: Zimbler0
in GRITZ
Fri, 16 May 25 7:31 AM
Msg. 08397 of 08427

Fiz > Extraordinarily implausible that that plane brought down any of those buildings, and certainly not building 7.


The twin towers themselves have been discussed in here before. My favorite theory is that the planes were full of jet fuel when they slammed into the buildings. The jet fuel got loose and caught fire.

Now, one does NOT have to actually melt the steel to get a catastrophic collapse. All that needs to happen is the steel gets hot enough that it loses sufficient structural integrity to hold the building up.

The burning jet fuel heats up the steel . . . it loses structural integrity and the entire upper part of the building pancakes down pretty much like it was seen on TV.

As for 'Building 7' . . . One of the favorite theories seems to be that 'the government planted explosives' to bring it down. Now unless I miss my guess, in order to 'demo' a building the guys need to strip back a LOT of the building to expose the steel and they have to run a lot of wires to time and detonate the explosives . . . I just can't see 'the government' being able to do all that work without somebody noticing.

>>>
https://www.history.co.uk/articles/building-7-conspiracy-theories-debunked

What really happened to Building 7?

A thorough investigation into the collapse of Building 7 was carried out by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Published in 2008, its report confirmed that fires raged in an uncontrolled fashion after the building was hit by North Tower debris.

Its spread was particularly rapid as the water supply to the sprinkler system had been blocked off by the collapse of the Twin Towers. In the words of the NIST report: ‘Had a water supply for the automatic sprinkler system been available and had the sprinkler system operated as designed, it is likely that fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented.’

Instead, the searing inferno caused the steel beams and girders to thermally expand and eventually buckle. This in turn led to a ‘cascade of floor failures’ and the building’s collapse.
>>>

Zim.


« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next