PDA

View Full Version : Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper...



ELVIS
02-09-2009, 04:42 PM
Building Does Not Collapse

Paul Joseph Watson (http://www.infowars.com/fire-consumes-wtc-7-size-skyscraper-building-does-not-collapse/)

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?

http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/february2009/090209top1a.jpg

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.

http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/february2009/090209top2.jpg
Beijing skyscraper.

http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/february2009/090209top3.jpg
WTC 7

http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/february2009/090209top4.jpg
Beijing skyscraper.

http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/february2009/090209top5.jpg
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?

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.

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.



:elvis:

MUSICMANN
02-09-2009, 05:27 PM
I read that the reason the WTC burned and collapsed so fast was because of the jet fuel. It burned much hotter than a regular fire.

chefcraig
02-09-2009, 06:01 PM
For one thing, this building did not have parts of another building fall into it, like WTC 7. Did this building have a fully functional fire suppression system, that would have kept temperatures down? You can not tell from the way the article is presented. WTC 7's system failed due to low pressure, hastening the building's demise.

Speaking of that demise, this article claims that "WTC 7 collapsed into it's own footprint within seven seconds", which is nothing short of utter horseshit. In fact, the final sentence of this drivel actually tells you all you need to know about it's source:

"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." :umm:

ELVIS
02-09-2009, 07:02 PM
I read that the reason the WTC burned and collapsed so fast was because of the jet fuel. It burned much hotter than a regular fire.

You are oficially stupid!

LoungeMachine
02-09-2009, 07:10 PM
You are officially stupid!

And you're just now figuring this out?

:gulp:

He passed the stoopid test weeks ago....

Seshmeister
02-09-2009, 07:15 PM
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://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa210/daysfanforever32/rolleyes.jpg

ELVIS
02-09-2009, 07:23 PM
That's freaking me out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

kwame k
02-09-2009, 07:28 PM
You know those blog sites like Loose Change or whatever the fuck they are called.....I normally get banned after I make one simple statement.......If you have conclusive proof that the Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition or by any other means, other than the airplanes......why don't you sue the shit out of The City of New York or the US Government, on behalf of the people who died, don't you owe them that much?

chefcraig
02-09-2009, 07:35 PM
You know those blog sites like Loose Change or whatever the fuck they are called.....I normally get banned after I make one simple statement.......If you have conclusive proof that the Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition or by any other means, other than the airplanes......why don't you sue the shit out of The City of New York or the US Government, on behalf of the people who died, don't you owe them that much?

That's the rub, accountability. Look, some of this conspiracy stuff is kind of fun yet utterly pointless, like the theories of phony moon landings which are then immediately cancelled out by stories of structures found on the moon that NASA is keeping from the public. You can't have it both ways, ya know? :biggrin:

Guitar Shark
02-09-2009, 07:42 PM
Careful, some of those loony conspiracy nuts reside at this very board.

Seshmeister
02-09-2009, 07:51 PM
They build house of cards arguments but completely ignore any evidence, usually spectacularly strong, that doesn't work towards the conspiracy theory.

There are literally dozens of these, stuff like on the moon landing, how come the hundreds of amateur astronomers who watched the fucking thing fly to the moon and then orbit it on their telescopes got it so wrong. :)

Jesus suffering cunt the 'conclusive' proof that the government secretly spent months planting explosives here is that another building went on fire and didn't fall down... :)

ELVIS
02-09-2009, 10:20 PM
Jesus suffering cunt ??

Seshmeister
02-09-2009, 11:18 PM
It's an exclamation like holy cow, or for goodness sake.

I came up with it a while back and although it's started quite slowly so far I have great hopes for it becoming a common phrase. :)

knuckleboner
02-09-2009, 11:44 PM
They build house of cards arguments but completely ignore any evidence, usually spectacularly strong, that doesn't work towards the conspiracy theory.



goddamn it, sesh! i don't want to hear anymore about your so-called "house of cards." first of all, let me tell you that i am 107% positive that your deck did not contain all 52 cards when the house was built. secondly, there is no way houses of cards can burn without some sort of OUTSIDE incendiary.

in short, the collapse was a set up. no question.

ELVIS
02-10-2009, 12:36 AM
That's my next patent...

Flammable cards...


:elvis:

LoungeMachine
02-10-2009, 12:59 AM
What was your last patent?

:gulp:

Pink Spider
02-10-2009, 01:24 AM
http://splendidtable.publicradio.org/recipes/main_pbsand.html




Elvis Presley's Grilled Peanut Butter
and Banana Sandwich

* 2 slices of white bread
* 2 tablespoons of smooth peanut butter
* 1 small ripe banana mashed
* 2 tablespoons butter

Spread the peanut butter on one slice of bread and the mashed banana on the other. Press the slices gently together. Melt the butter (or to be truly Elvis-like, melt bacon fat!), over low heat in a small frying pan. Place the sandwich in the pan and fry until golden brown on both sides. Eat it with a glass of buttermilk.

Please note: Elvis tended to eat 12-15 sandwiches a sitting! So belly up!

chefcraig
02-10-2009, 01:28 AM
Yep, I highly doubt it was the mind-fuckingly enormous amounts of oddball drugs both legal and not that the King was ingesting. More than likely, it was his cholesterol that lead to his ...err, death upon the throne. :umm:

Seshmeister
02-10-2009, 04:30 AM
goddamn it, sesh! i don't want to hear anymore about your so-called "house of cards." first of all, let me tell you that i am 107% positive that your deck did not contain all 52 cards when the house was built. secondly, there is no way houses of cards can burn without some sort of OUTSIDE incendiary.

in short, the collapse was a set up. no question.

It was set up by the chaps that flew big fucking planes into the sides of the buildings.

There's some footage around somewhere...

Seshmeister
02-10-2009, 04:58 AM
What was your last patent?

:gulp:

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee43/Seshmeister/creationist01.jpg

Nickdfresh
02-10-2009, 07:35 AM
For one thing, this building did not have parts of another building fall into it, like WTC 7. Did this building have a fully functional fire suppression system, that would have kept temperatures down? You can not tell from the way the article is presented. WTC 7's system failed due to low pressure, hastening the building's demise.

Speaking of that demise, this article claims that "WTC 7 collapsed into it's own footprint within seven seconds", which is nothing short of utter horseshit. In fact, the final sentence of this drivel actually tells you all you need to know about it's source:

"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." :umm:

The Chinese building didn't also have two of the some of the world's largest skyscrapers collapse within its vicinity...

DLR'sCock
02-10-2009, 09:20 AM
I am not 100% on this, but weren't the buildings that collapsed on 911 the only skyscrapers to ever collapse after being set afire? Well, at least prior to that point. I am not sure about post 911, but of coruse this one in Beijing did not.

chefcraig
02-10-2009, 10:28 AM
I am not 100% on this, but weren't the buildings that collapsed on 911 the only skyscrapers to ever collapse after being set afire? Well, at least prior to that point. I am not sure about post 911, but of coruse this one in Beijing did not.

Coincidentally, they were the only skyscrapers that had airplanes with full compliments of jet fuel crash into them (thus weakening the structural integrity of the buildings) to start the fire in the first place. Just a tad different than an electrical fire or some dimwit leaving a cigarette unattended.

Seshmeister
02-10-2009, 11:39 AM
WTC 7 was built over 20 years ago, to a entirely different design, with different materials and had completely different things happen to it compared the to Chinese building but that somehow conclusively proves something????

It's pathetic...

Seshmeister
02-10-2009, 11:44 AM
Here's another one of those lying firemen lying about WTC 7 falling down whilst the invisible forces of paranoia are getting ready to do a controlled demolition on it for absolutely no sensible reason...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3HLDgjYuRHk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3HLDgjYuRHk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

It's amazing how many New York firemen were in on this conspiracy.

Basically all of them...

GAR
02-10-2009, 12:06 PM
the jet fuel loosened the temper of the steel

i buy that

Pink Spider
02-10-2009, 01:39 PM
There are literally dozens of these, stuff like on the moon landing, how come the hundreds of amateur astronomers who watched the fucking thing fly to the moon and then orbit it on their telescopes got it so wrong. :)


The lunar modules probably wouldn't have been visible by any known telescope. At least not in lunar orbit. If that were true, then they should be powerful enough to be able to pick up the remnants of the Apollo missions and that hasn't happened. With today's technology, it's barely possible to make out the International Space Station at 200+ miles. To give a comparison, the moon is 200,000+ miles away from earth..

The best proof that we have for moon landings are the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_laser_ranging_experiment) which are still being used today.

ELVIS
02-10-2009, 03:43 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lxqCeH6HCEo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lxqCeH6HCEo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


:elvis:

Nickdfresh
02-10-2009, 05:15 PM
I am not 100% on this, but weren't the buildings that collapsed on 911 the only skyscrapers to ever collapse after being set afire? Well, at least prior to that point. I am not sure about post 911, but of coruse this one in Beijing did not.


Probably, but then by saying "set on fire," you're ignoring that fact that two giant fucking jets filled with J-4 flew into them...

Nickdfresh
02-10-2009, 05:17 PM
the jet fuel loosened the temper of the steel

i buy that

Do I have to agree with GAR now

ELVIS
02-10-2009, 05:47 PM
JET A-1
Flash point: 38 &#176;C (100.4 &#176;F)
Autoignition temperature: 210 &#176;C (410 &#176;F)
Freezing point: −47 &#176;C (−52.6 &#176;F). (−40 &#176;C (−40 &#176;F) for JET A)
Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 &#176;C (549.5 &#176;F)
Density at 15 &#176;C (59 &#176;F): 0.8075 kg/L
Specific energy 43.15 MJ/kg [1]


I do not agree with Gar...


:elvis:

Seshmeister
02-10-2009, 07:04 PM
Why is this so difficult?

The melting point of a substance is a lot more than the point it becomes weakened and pliable.

This is fucking primitive knowledge FFS so even the religious superstitionists should be able to follow it. :)

How in the name of cunt do you think that they make a horseshoe without melting it?

Heat it up and it bends.

If there was a hell it would be a place where you had to explain this for infinity to people looking at you blankly saying 'but the 20 year old college dropout made a film and I believe it because the women narrator talked in a persuasive calm voice'.