Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse
02-10-2009, 06:09 AM,
#1
Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse
Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, February 9, 2009

Giant flames engulf every floor of 44-story building and it remains standing, yet limited fires across just 8 floors of WTC 7 brought down building within 7 seconds on 9/11. How can NIST’s “new phenomenon” explain this one?

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top1a

A fierce fire consumed all 44 floors of a skyscraper in Beijing today, shooting 30 foot flames into the air, but unlike the similarly-sized 47-story WTC 7, which suffered limited fires across just eight floors, the building in China did not collapse.

“The fire was burning from the ground floor to the top floor of the large building, the flames reflecting in the glass facade of the main CCTV tower next to the hotel and cultural center,” reports the New York Times.

“The 241-room Mandarin Oriental hotel in the building was due to open this year. Flames were spotted around 7:45 p.m. and within 20 minutes the fire had spread throughout the building, dominating that part of the city.”

“Hundreds of firefighting vehicles and police blocked off all approaches to the building - which was also set to house a luxury hotel due to be opened in 2009 - with flames appearing to leap 20 to 30 feet into the air,” adds The London Times.

Compare images of WTC 7 with those of the skyscraper fire in Beijing. Note that the Beijing skyscraper appears to be leaning due to the unorthodox design of the building - it did not suffer any kind of collapse.

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top2
Beijing skyscraper.

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top3
WTC 7

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top4
Beijing skyscraper.

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top5
WTC 7

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top7
Beijing skyscraper.

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top6
WTC 7

To any sane and rational observer, which of these buildings would have been the most likely to collapse? And yet it was WTC 7 which collapsed within 7 seconds into its own footprint on 9/11. The Beijing skyscraper, though gutted by fire damage, remains standing.

How do the debunkers explain away this one? How come NIST’s newly invented “phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” didn’t put paid to the skyscraper in Beijing? Does fire have different properties in China compared to the U.S.? Does it behave in different ways depending on what country it’s in?

* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
* efoods

Remember that WTC 7 was structurally reinforced and suffered limited fires across just 8 floors.

The core of NIST’s explanation, that an “extraordinary event” called “thermal expansion” was to blame for the sudden total collapse of WTC 7 is of course on the face of it a fraud when one considers the innumerable number of buildings that have suffered roaring fires across the majority of their floors and remained standing, whereas WTC 7 suffered limited fire damage across a handful of floors.

The Beijing skyscraper fire provides yet more comparable evidence to illustrate the monolithic hoax that fire damage alone can cause buildings to collapse implosion style, adding more weight to the argument that both WTC 7 and the twin towers were destroyed by explosives that were seen and heard by dozens of eyewitnesses who were at ground zero.

Take another example - the Windsor building in Madrid, a 32 story skyscraper which was a raging inferno for no less than 24 hours before fire crews were able to put out the flames. Despite the building being constructed of columns a fraction as thick as those used in the WTC twin towers, as well as a total lack of fireproofing, the building’s top section only partially collapsed while the integrity of the whole structure remained firmly intact.

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top8 Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top9

Compare these images of the Windsor building fire to those of WTC 7 and the twin towers.

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top10 Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top11

The skyscraper fire in Beijing offers another stark and bold reminder that when one eliminates the dodgy, agenda-driven, and incomprehensible delusions of NIST, one fact remains abundantly clear;

Office fires - even the flame shooting towering inferno variety - cannot cause modern buildings to implode in on themselves and collapse. Only deliberately placed explosives can achieve this end. The Windsor fire, the Beijing skyscraper fire and many more yet to come painfully underscore the awful truth that the only way WTC 7 and the twin towers could have collapsed in the manner that they did was by means of controlled demolition.

http://www.infowars.com/fire-consumes-wtc-...s-not-collapse/
Reply
02-10-2009, 07:27 AM,
#2
Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse
Quote:Does fire have different properties in China compared to the U.S.?

:D
Reply
02-10-2009, 10:40 PM,
#3
Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse
Quote:
Quote:Does fire have different properties in China compared to the U.S.?

:D


Nope but building code in China takes into account the possiblities of Fire breathing dragons attacking large buildings.:D
In the 60's, people took acid to make the world weird. Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.

As a reputed atheist, the reverential nature of his film was surprising, but Pasolini himself said &If you know that I am an unbeliever, then you know me better than I do myself. I may be an unbeliever, but I am an unbeliever who has a nostalgia for a belief.&


[Image: Copyofsoldier2.jpg]
Reply
02-10-2009, 11:04 PM,
#4
Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:Does fire have different properties in China compared to the U.S.?

:D


Nope but building code in China takes into account the possiblities of Fire breathing dragons attacking large buildings.:D

LOL:D
Reply
02-11-2009, 01:04 AM,
#5
Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse
LMAO
Reply
02-11-2009, 09:17 AM,
#6
Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse
Note that the debunkers will say "this doesn't prove anything", which is true, it doesn't prove anything because it's a different building. With every building that burns like that and doesn't collapse their story becomes more implausible, but not impossible to be true.
Reply
02-11-2009, 09:21 AM, (This post was last modified: 02-13-2009, 04:58 PM by ---.)
#7
Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse
It was pulled.
Reply
02-12-2009, 12:48 AM,
#8
Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse
for the logic of the "911 truth" people in this case speaks volumes to the extent to which the media is controlled.
Reply
02-13-2009, 04:15 PM,
#9
Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse
I got into it with someone about this on another site. They said that this hotel and the building in Madrid both had concrete cores, instead of a steel frame, which stopped them from collapsing. Whereas the WTC7 building did not have that concrete core, just the steel frame, which could not stand the fires.

I still dont see how one building completely engulfed in flames doesnt collapse, yet one that barely had any big fires collapses so neatly.
"Listen to everyone, read everything, believe nothing unless you can prove it in your own research"
~William Cooper

DTTNWO!
Reply
02-13-2009, 04:55 PM,
#10
Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse
it made a very compact footprint as it was pulled down.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Something tells me we're not going to have any planes flying into THIS NYC building h3rm35 0 400 09-19-2012, 10:59 PM
Last Post: h3rm35
  Why humans keep building nuclear power plants? NuclearSpeak 71 12,514 11-29-2011, 12:07 AM
Last Post: sekular
  Student protester jailed for throwing fire extinguisher TriWooOx 0 466 01-11-2011, 03:27 PM
Last Post: TriWooOx
  Collapse(looks interesting) i8manu 2 610 10-27-2009, 01:11 PM
Last Post: rsol
  L.A. Federal Building Standoff April 7 1,352 08-14-2009, 07:44 AM
Last Post: mastermg
  Friday Weird Science: For Men, It Really IS The Size That Counts drummer 42 5,527 04-24-2009, 12:37 AM
Last Post: ---
  Max Keiser financial collapse /911 drummer 0 452 04-03-2009, 08:31 PM
Last Post: drummer
  Famed Social Sciences Author Jared Diamond Predicts 49 Percent Chance of Civilization Collapse --- 0 406 02-26-2009, 05:36 PM
Last Post: ---
  The NWO's Achilles Heal: Fire Flyers! Kombaiyashii 9 1,166 10-11-2008, 05:07 PM
Last Post: icosaface
  Soviet Collapse Lessons FlungPup 0 446 09-26-2008, 03:00 PM
Last Post: FlungPup

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)