- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why didn't Grenfell collapse?
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:17 pm
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:17 pm
12
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:19 pm to tilco
Duh!!!! Only jet fuel melts metal beams and crumbles concrete.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:19 pm to tilco
Because US govt did set if to collapse
Duh
Serious answer....probably lots of fire resistant asbestos on structural members
Duh
Serious answer....probably lots of fire resistant asbestos on structural members
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:19 pm to tilco
Because a plane didn't smash in to it?
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:20 pm to tilco
The fire was more intense outside than inside (due to the flammable cladding).
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:21 pm to tilco
Have you seen fires in dubai? Some of you folks are just amazing. I feel bad for you.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:22 pm to rattlebucket
It's just a question bro
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:22 pm to tilco
Residential building, so fewer office supplies?
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:25 pm to tilco
Conspiracy crap aside..
Why didn't it?
Why didn't it?
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:28 pm to Amazing Moves
Perhaps having a 767 knocking out a couple of floors of support beams before the fire started had something to do with it.
I don't know about the 3rd WTC bldg though.
I don't know about the 3rd WTC bldg though.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:29 pm to gthog61
quote:
don't know about the 3rd WTC bldg though.
Demo
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:30 pm to tilco
Because a building or two didn't fall on top of it.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:30 pm to Amazing Moves
I'm sure it's condemned now.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:33 pm to Amazing Moves
UK building codes call for a building to be able to withstand an explosion that damages/destroys a structural beam/column of a building.....in other words, remain standing if one of the structural supports is destroyed. This code is due a gas line explosion that happened in a UK tower in 1968. The US doesn't have such a requirement.
LINK
quote:
As explained by Dr John Knapton, emeritus professor of structural engineering at Newcastle University, it all has to do with a change in regulation in 1971 after a gas explosion at a high-rise in East London. "I don’t think this building will collapse because in 1968, a block of flats at Ronan Point in East London partly collapsed as a result of a gas explosion in a kitchen," he told The Telegraph. "As a result of that, the design of tower blocks in the UK changed from about 1971 onwards. From then on, the design had to allow for an explosion or a fire to remove part of the supporting structure and for the building to remain standing. "
LINK
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:42 pm to tilco
It would have collapsed if it was built 4 years earlier
quote:
Grenfell Tower was completed in 1974, so would have needed to comply with strict new regulations which ensured buildings would not fall down in the event of a blast, or a major fire.
This post was edited on 6/17/17 at 5:43 pm
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:47 pm to tilco
Building 7 was split open by the North Tower falling down on it. That video is shot from where the North Tower was behind Building 7. Building 7 had a huge gash on the other side that you can't see. It was structurally compromised when the North Tower gashed it open.
Posted on 6/17/17 at 5:52 pm to tilco
Made it didnt have a hollow weak core structure like the towers did according to the 9/11 commission.
But as you can see the core had more to it than the outside columns
quote:
For the dimensions, see FEMA report, "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart. These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004
But as you can see the core had more to it than the outside columns
Posted on 6/20/17 at 10:19 am to The Boat
quote:
Building 7 was split open by the North Tower falling down on it. That video is shot from where the North Tower was behind Building 7. Building 7 had a huge gash on the other side that you can't see. It was structurally compromised when the North Tower gashed it open
No it didnt at least not according to the NIST report.
quote:
Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7,** the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7**. [...] Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001." :: NCSTAR 1A, p. xxxvii
LINK
Posted on 6/20/17 at 10:20 am to tilco
Because it's made of f&%king concrete and it didn't have a fully loaded down airliner crash into it?
Posted on 6/20/17 at 10:23 am to Amazing Moves
quote:
Conspiracy crap aside..
Why didn't it?
Because the fireproofing material did it's job.
WTC collapses were due to removal of insulation and intense combustion caused by hundreds of gallons of jet fuel that weakened the support structures of the building.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News