Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, June 14, 2017

A baby thrown from the window of a blazing high-rise apartment building in London early Wednesday fell at least nine floors before being caught by a bystander, according to a witness. "A woman appeared at the window gesturing and trying to get someone's attention," Samira Lamrani told NBC News. "She had the baby in hand -- she was gesturing like she was going to throw the baby out." She added: "She wrapped the child up in some sort of thick blanket, and then just dropped the baby out of the window."





Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Nice job. Lucky there was no Thermite. :-)

#1 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-06-14 10:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Amazing concentration.

Not surprised the building is still standing.
The only time steel high rise buildings fell "because of fire" all happened
The same day, in the same city. A mathematical impossibility. Demolition crews must have had the day off in London yesterday.

#2 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2017-06-14 10:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Incredible. I hope the baby wins millions against these slumlords.

#3 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-06-14 11:00 PM | Reply

Slumlords? It was public housing as far as I've heard. Still a ------ situation, but it was shelter.

#4 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-06-14 11:10 PM | Reply

Not surprised the building is still standing.

Wanna bet it wouldn't be if a 200 ton airplane had hit it as well?

#5 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-06-14 11:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

No video?!?! Of all things for the millenials NOT to video.

#6 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-06-14 11:59 PM | Reply

Wonderful happens even during tragedy. Unspeakable sadness surrounds this poor child's salvation. I don't quite know why but this tragedy, in Great Britain, has affected me personally and powerfully. I think that the idea of people jumping to their deaths to avoid the flames is probably so reminiscent of 9-11 that the emotion is unavoidable.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-15 06:59 AM | Reply

The only time steel high rise buildings fell "because of fire" all happened


"In summary, a total of 22 cases from 1970-2002 are presented in Table 1, with 15 from the US and two from Canada. The number of fire-induced collapse events can be categorized by building construction material as follows:
• Concrete: 7
• Structural steel: 6
• Brick/masonry: 5
• Unknown: 2
• Wood: 2
Three of these events were from the 1970's, three were from the 1980's, four were from the 1990's, and twelve occurred in 2000 and beyond."

#8 | Posted by 726 at 2017-06-15 07:44 AM | Reply

Did the catcher put down his beer first?

#9 | Posted by catdog at 2017-06-15 08:15 AM | Reply

I hope he doesn't develop a speech impediment.

#10 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-06-15 08:51 AM | Reply



"Slumlords? It was public housing as far as I've heard. Still a ------ situation, but it was shelter.


A private company KCTMO manages the building. And some politicians are calling it Corporate Manslaughter.

#11 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-06-15 09:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Did the catcher put down his beer first?"

I hope he didn't spill it. I hope he is having a great day, a great week. He's a real hero!

#12 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-15 09:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Reports are the building that did not have operational fire sprinklers or alarms.


"'The building has been redone on the outside, a cover - some kind of plastic has been put on it and the windows done.

'The fire went under a new cover which had been put on with wooden slats. Most of the residents were worried about this."

Genius coating the building with a highly flammable surface.

#13 | Posted by 726 at 2017-06-15 09:57 AM | Reply

So shines a good deed in a weary world!

#14 | Posted by e1g1 at 2017-06-15 10:09 AM | Reply

The building was supposed to collapse.

#15 | Posted by Ray at 2017-06-15 11:11 AM | Reply

This was amazing! I can't believe he saved that kid.

I just wish he wouldn't have spiked the kid afterwards and yelled, "3-28! Go Patriots!" And certainly the touchdown dance was a little much.

#16 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-06-15 11:35 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

Okay 9/11 conspiracy folks. I am sooooooo tired of the absolute ignorance in these conspiracy theories...

110 tons of Jet impacts at what? 200 mph?
This strips the old style inferior fire protection from many key beams and columns exposing the steel to the ensuing fire.
You have say 13,000 gallons of jet fuel adding to an office fire.
Fires burns at over 1500 F. Steel loses ALL structural integrity by 1800F. (It isn't melted but it literally has no strength...) I could make an analogy for you but...
So the tower hit LOWER (South) (having significantly more weight on weakened steel since if was hit 20 floors lower) collapses after burning for 56 minutes at 1500+ degrees.
The tower hit HIGHER (North) (having significantly LESS wieght on the weakened steel) collapses after burning for 102 minutes at 1500+ degrees.

I have seen the weight before but I don't remember off hand how much each of the upper floors weighs but the bottom line is the Huge amount of weight ended up causing a pancake collapse of the building - makes perfect sense to me knowing the actual physics and mechanics of such a collapse.

#17 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-06-15 11:45 AM | Reply


Best of luck using science to debunk a politically oriented conspiracy theory to science denying fringe-leftists.

#18 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-06-15 11:54 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Steel loses ALL structural integrity by 1800F.

The whole building didn't heat up at once. It was local. And the distribution of heat wasn't uniform. Diminishing with distance from the crash. As steel loses strength, it would buckle and bend first before it collapsed.

For a building to fall straight down, all the forces have to be aligned in parallel on every column. Since the weight on top didn't increase. The only plausible explanation is that it was cut from below. That's why it looked like the demolitions we've seen so often in videos.

Best of luck using science to debunk a politically oriented conspiracy theory to science denying fringe-leftists.

I would seriously advise not trusting anything that backs up the government narrative. Their explanations look plausible except to those who have first hand experience with steel.

I know steel because I designed with it for 40 years. Unless a bar of steel is hit with extremely high impact, it always bends before it breaks, even under heat.

I know what I know. If you attack me, I'm going to ignore you.

#19 | Posted by Ray at 2017-06-15 12:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

"The only plausible explanation is that it was cut from below." - #19 | Posted by Raystradamus at 2017-06-15 12:24 PM

When discussing similarities between the towers' collapse and an explosive demolition, many people overlook the single question most central to any objective investigation. It is not "how" or "when" the buildings failed, but "where" they failed. That answer holds the key to understanding almost everything that occurred at Ground Zero.

Since their inception in the late 1800s, blasting engineers have understood that building implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure. While smaller supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize control as the structure collapses, every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, "to get the structure moving."

This was not the case with the collapse of Towers 1 and 2. Close examination of these events from every video and photographic angle available does not indicate failure originating from the lowest floors, rather clearly shows each building beginning to fail at precisely the point where the respective planes struck. That is, no floors above or below the impact points ever move until the structural elements within the impact zone begin to collapse (WTC 7 collapsed differently, which we will cover later).

Furthermore, there are no independent failures present while the structures are collapsing (we're not talking dust plumes or debris, but actual structural failure). All lower floors remained completely intact until they were consumed by the collapse from above.

Because countless images confirm this assessment and none contradict it, we believe this fact to be visually indisputable.


#20 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-15 12:48 PM | Reply


Therefore, for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one would have to accept that either, a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact impact floors in advance and survived the violent initial explosions and 1100+ degree Fahrenheit fires, or b) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the buildings with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.

The chemical properties of explosives and their reaction to heat render scenario A scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely, as we know of no explosive compound that could withstand such force and/or heat without detaching from the columns or simply burning off prior to detonation.

There are other problems with both scenarios: Given the consistent weight distribution around the outer perimeter of each structure, one would have needed access to a prohibitively large quantity of load-bearing I-beam columns to allow "cutter charges" to initiate failure. Those columns would have needed extensive preparation, also known as "pre-burning", to allow the explosives to perform their function. And in order to prepare the columns you first had to be able to see the columns, which means at least partially removing the outer-perimeter interior walls of all blast floors, including furniture, plumbing and conduit lines, insulation, etc.

All of this would have been performed within the 55 minutes between plane impact and collapse – working in an environment of unspeakable heat and destruction – or have been performed completely undetected, in advance, on multiple floors in both buildings, while suffering no adverse effects from the planes' impact with these same areas.

This is impossible.



#21 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-15 12:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The catch was amazing. Odell Beckham level amazing. All the onlookers went wild. But then, to everyone's horror, the idiot had to spike the football. What a mess.

#22 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-06-15 12:51 PM | Reply

"The whole building didn't heat up at once." - #19 | Posted by Raystradamus at 2017-06-15 12:24 PM

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours -- less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature).


Oops, again.

#23 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-15 12:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

23 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-15 12:52 PM | Reply | Flag: Troll

#24 | Posted by Ray at 2017-06-15 01:05 PM | Reply

#24 | Posted by Ray at 2017-06-15 01:05 PM | Reply | Flag: Defeated again

#25 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-15 01:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2


This post explains everything I need to know about you and your posts.

#26 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-06-15 01:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

This post explains everything I need to know about you and your posts.
#26 | Posted by Sycophant

The reactions were expected.

#27 | Posted by Ray at 2017-06-15 06:56 PM | Reply

I thought the burn in the building was bad, but it was nothing compared to the burn Ray just took.

#28 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2017-06-16 09:50 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

#28 Dow 1600 was almost as epic of a burn, but today is the clear winner.

#29 | Posted by 726 at 2017-06-16 12:58 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort