Which building suffered a catastrophic (part free-fall) collapse? (L) Grenfell apartments in London, (R) Building 7 on 9/11/17
by Dee McLachlan
Another terrible tragedy has once again reminded us of a past atrocity. This one most likely accidental, the other in 2001 — deliberate.
Hell On Earth in London Tower
Horrified onlookers said the inferno resembled “hell on earth.”
The fire started around 1.16 am in the 27 storey Grenfell Tower on the Lancaster West Estate in west London.
It was soon surrounded by 200 firefighters that desperately tried to fight the blaze. They bravely rescued people, but there are an unknown number of causalities — in a building that featured high density living. This is a worry, and a sad day.
27 storeys ablaze
News.com.au claims a blog by the tower’s occupants warned late last year, that only a catastrophic fire would “bring an end to the dangerous living conditions.” To quote:
“Unfortunately, the Grenfell Action Group have reached the conclusion that only an incident that results in serious loss of life of KCTMO residents will allow the external scrutiny to occur that will shine a light on the practices that characterize the malign governance of this non-functioning organisation.”
A very sad prediction.
Dawn breaks over the Grenfell inferno
Many hours later, with the building burned to a crisp, some MSM reporters claimed there were concerns for the structure of the building.
By morning the tower was a smoking gutted ruin
But the ABC reported:
“The London Fire Brigade said a structural engineer and rescue crews had assessed the stability of the building and believed it was not in danger of collapsing.” [How is that possible?]
It was later declared structurally sound — and safe enough for emergency personnel to search for victims
I wonder what the London structural engineer would say about the part free-fall collapse of the seemingly sophisticated steel skyscraper, Building 7?
Experts from NIST, however. concluded that fires expanded floor beams…
“…which pushed a girder off its seat, precipitating multiple floor failures, which left column 79 unsupported and it buckled, which then dragged floors 14 to the roof downward.”
The Grenfell is once again a reminder of the fraudulent explanation for the collapse of building 7.
Building 7 — AT THE MOMENT OF COLLAPSE (not a flame in sight)
I cannot tolerate anymore of the BS over the collapse of Building 7.
Yes — there were a few fires on several floors, but the government and the media want us to believe that the building was “brought down” by FIRE.
No — it was demolished.
Professor Jonathan Barnett
The professor was a consultant for FEMA and agreed to meet me in a coffee shop in Melbourne in 2014. I looked forward to a feisty debate over Building 7, but the hour and a half discussion left me with a sinking feeling. Why was this fire expert, who studied the collapse (with the FEMA team), unable to demonstrate any logic? (My article here)
He insisted the collapse was a result of the most uniquely unusual (poor) design; that the sulfur from the drywall was the cause of the ‘furnace-like corrosion’ of the beams, and that the computer modelling proves the fire theory correct. It does not — see video here.
When I questioned him whether they looked for explosives, he said “NO.” He said, “There was no need to [look for explosives].”
The FEMA and NIST teams abandoned due diligence and never investigated for “explosives”. Barnett told me they had possible causes written on a white board — and they just rubbed off the obvious that did not cause the collapse (including explosives).
It is truly shocking. It looked like a demolition — why not investigate that option?
Just imagine the LAPD looking down at a murder victim and saying: “Those look like bullet holes – but there is only a knife at the scene. That blade must have made those round wounds”.
Another Unfortunate Prediction
Let us look at another prediction — that only a “new Pearl Harbour” would enable the military and defense policy transformations to rapidly take place. This was in the 2000 paper “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” produced by the Project for the New American Century.
As MintPress reported, Larry Silverstein, the lease holder of the WTC, is on camera — admitting to a design meeting for the New WTC 7 building — BEFORE the old WTC 7 came down on 9/11/17. Why would they meet to discuss new designs? He said:
“…We got the designs (chew). And the first design meeting (chew) was in April of 2000 (chew). And construction began (chew) shortly thereafter, in 2002.”
He also admitted to “pulling” the building on the 11th September, 2001.
It is truly astonishing that the media and even our politicians in Canberra are unable to question the obvious.
When are lies going to end?
There are now plenty of examples of skyscrapers ablaze — and not spontaneously collapsing.
Enough — ENOUGH of the lies and fraudulent deception of the media.
A Footnote – Another Comparison
Several residents (of the Grenfell Apartments) said they had been previously advised to stay in their apartments if there was a fire. Michael recounted what he had been told to the BBC, “if ever there was an outbreak of fire you must stay in the premises, they’re fireproofed for up to an hour and by then you would have been rescued”. Michael said, “If we had stayed in the flat we would have perished.”
This reminds us of the announcements in the South Tower. Workers had looked through the windows at the North Tower burning. Many had decided to make a run for it — but announcements were made instructing workers to remain or return to their desks.
In a crisis, listen to your gut instincts — and not the announcements.
A video of the London Grenfell inferno: