_LiveFree_ Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 ....doesn't collapse at free-fall speed into its own footprint. 1
shirgall Posted June 14, 2017 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
_LiveFree_ Posted June 14, 2017 Author 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
shirgall Posted June 25, 2017 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.
ofd Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 The cheap insulation made up the role of the jet fuel. Hey, but at least they saved 5000 pounds!
Recommended Posts