_LiveFree_ Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 ....doesn't collapse at free-fall speed into its own footprint. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A4E Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 That is normal for a strong building. End of thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 It might have been different if someone put 60,000,000 Joules of fast-moving airplane and jet fuel into the building core about a quarter to a third of the way down from the top, as opposed to dropping a fork into a toaster oven. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_LiveFree_ Posted June 14, 2017 Author Share Posted June 14, 2017 24 minutes ago, A4E said: That is normal for a strong building. End of thread. Kinda my point. 15 minutes ago, shirgall said: It might have been different if someone put 60,000,000 Joules of fast-moving airplane and jet fuel into the building core about a quarter to a third of the way down from the top, as opposed to dropping a fork into a toaster oven. I totally agree. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 4 hours ago, _LiveFree_ said: WTC 7 won't go away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofd Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Concrete versus steel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A4E Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Thank god I have a lot of things to do now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted June 25, 2017 Share Posted June 25, 2017 On 6/14/2017 at 9:08 AM, shirgall said: It might have been different if someone put 60,000,000 Joules of fast-moving airplane and jet fuel into the building core about a quarter to a third of the way down from the top, as opposed to dropping a fork into a toaster oven. I stand corrected. It was a refrigerator not a toaster oven. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4632232/Grenfell-Tower-insulation-tiles-FAILED-fire-tests.html?ITO=1490 No news on whether it had 7,000 gallons of jet fuel in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofd Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 The cheap insulation made up the role of the jet fuel. Hey, but at least they saved 5000 pounds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts