Chinese building on fire and DOESN'T collapse

[mrmoney]

My note: People, this is HUGE. We've always wondered if someone could do a test to see if a inflamed building would collapse, and here is the perfect example! WTC 7 wasn't even slightly burned, yet it collapsed. And this one in China is completely wrecked and yet no collapse..

http://www.infowars.com/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 (http://www.prisonplanet.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?

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

http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/february2009/090209top7.jpg
Beijing skyscraper.

http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/february2009/090209top6.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.

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/3976/74753914ti9.jpg

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

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/646/24758124ei4.jpg

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.

[anthony65]

And anybody who still doesn't get it is....

:rolleyes:

[adzboarder]

Nicely done, GREAT comparison. :)

[devanshoom]

....a modern day chinese building, no doubt riddled with cost-cutting budget characteristics that all chinese stuff is famous for, would be far inferior quality to a US skyscraper built in the early seventies....man i bet those WTO towers were fucking STRONG

[milone]

The fact that this story has slipped down the list of views today illustrates just how far gone most of the so called "enlightened" people on this forum have fallen. This should be top of the list, forget about UFO stories in the SUN....we should be standing on the rooftops screaming about this right now. I must have forwarded this on to 20 people already today. Wake up people!!!

[helloperator]

But but but but wt7 was unique...it was the structure of it...it was different...no other buildings ilke it

[metacomet]

I feel like this is cosmic justice or something...

like something was proving a point? And we know what that point is... it might have come a little late though.

If only this comparative fire had happened a few months after 9/11 ... people would see past the official explanation in a FLASH.

Now that people are tired of the topic altogether this feels like too little too late...

Those who still enforce the status quo explanation don't even involve themselves in debates anymore. They just hang back and snicker...

The whole 9/11 issue is left in the hands of some very angry 'conspiracy theorists' - we all believe it. We all know it. Now what?

[lightgiver]

The fact that this story has slipped down the list of views today illustrates just how far gone most of the so called "enlightened" people on this forum have fallen. This should be top of the list, forget about UFO stories in the SUN....we should be standing on the rooftops screaming about this right now. I must have forwarded this on to 20 people already today. Wake up people!!!

What do you think people have been doing since 911,have you checked out the 911 section:confused::rolleyes:
Have you seen the thousands protesting?? year after year,and still no investigation.

You need to look at yourself before you start judging so called awakened people on this forum,have you not met the trollers and dis info agents on the 911 section,maybe you need to go on it and get your brain atrophied because that's what nearly happened to mine arguing with shills,you kinda get pissed off with it,after a while.

we are well awake thank you.:)

[reptileslayer]

My note: People, this is HUGE. We've always wondered if someone could do a test to see if a inflamed building would collapse, and here is the perfect example! WTC 7 wasn't even slightly burned, yet it collapsed. And this one in China is completely wrecked and yet no collapse..

http://www.infowars.com/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 (http://www.prisonplanet.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?

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

http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/february2009/090209top7.jpg
Beijing skyscraper.

http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/february2009/090209top6.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.

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/3976/74753914ti9.jpg

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

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/646/24758124ei4.jpg

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.Game set and match awarded to the controlled demolition. That also
throws the NIST bollocks in the trash. Alex jones should ring them wankers up direct, and ask them to comment on this, without spewing more bollocks.

[metacomet]

Well the worst thing is that plenty of people will still throw out bullshit explanations...

'Oh the chinese structure is different. Different material. Different composition. Architecture is totally different.'

Everyone is happy to do mental gymnastics to avoid the truth... the skeptic community is up their own ass to the shoulder...

This story which is incredible and 'told you so' to us is just another oppurtunity for them to twist logic.

[tabea_blumenschein]

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.

Funny that structural engineers would disagree with you there (as they would with just about everything else in your OP).

The 9/11 "truth" movement loves to bring up the Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia. Too bad they never tell you that most firefighting operations were suspended because a structural engineer feared a collapse of the building due to the fires. Don't believe me? See for yourself:

Firefighting Operations Suspended

All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors. Bearing this risk in mind along with the loss of three personnel and the lack of progress against the fire despite having secured adequate water pressure and flow for interior fire streams, an order was given to evacuate the building at 0700 on February 24. At the time of the evacuation, the fire appeared to be under control on the 22nd though 24th floors. It continued to bum on floors 25 and 26 and was spreading upward. There was a heavy smoke condition throughout most of the upper floors. The evacuation was completed by 0730.

(source (http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza_thefire.html).)

Structural engineers take building fires seriously. So do high-rise architects. Why don't truthers?

[tabea_blumenschein]

I should also say that it amuses the hell out of me when conspiracy people put "thermal expansion" in quotation marks as if it isn't a real phenomenon. Never mind that thermal expansion is a standard part of any college-level physics or engineering curriculum. My copies of "Schaum's Outline of College Physics" and "Schaum's 3000 Solved Problems in Physics" both have entire chapters devoted to thermal expansion.

Here, have a look at these two links:

Thermal stresses. (http://www.uoregon.edu/~struct/courseware/461/461_lectures/461_lecture27/461_lecture27.html)

Temperature stresses can cause significant loads for high-rise and long-span structures. In both cases the initial design and construction detailing must allow for these dimensional changes to prevent excessive stresses and strains.

Thermal strain. (http://www.uoregon.edu/~struct/courseware/461/461_example_problems/ex_prob_lecture_27/461_example27-1.html) A worked example. Note the force exerted by the pipe is calculated to be 95,600 pounds of force:

Determine:
What force would this exert on buttresses?

Solution:
Knowing that stess is equal to the force divided by the cross-sectional area, turn this around to get: Force = (stress)(area).

(30160 psi)(3.17in2) = 95,600 poinds of force. (quite a large force!!!)

These problems should illustrate the incredible force that a variation in termperature can exert upon a structure.

[januspolanski]

I feel like this is cosmic justice or something...

like something was proving a point? And we know what that point is... it might have come a little late though.

If only this comparative fire had happened a few months after 9/11 ... people would see past the official explanation in a FLASH.

Now that people are tired of the topic altogether this feels like too little too late...

Those who still enforce the status quo explanation don't even involve themselves in debates anymore. They just hang back and snicker...

The whole 9/11 issue is left in the hands of some very angry 'conspiracy theorists' - we all believe it. We all know it. Now what?

+1.

What a great peice of evidence this chinese building could turn oout to be.

[samsonnait]

The billions are in the pocket. Bush has bought a piece of land as big as the city of London in south america. Im pretty sure that the current president wont have a clue about who's behind the next FF. If the whole bailout desaster aint one itself.
Its kind of sad to know that we didnt stand up while we could. Well be in survival mood soon. Their game is plaid as planned, and were sucked and deluted into it so slowly its hard to notice. Like the boiling frog.

Same kind of fire happened before in Madrid Spain, and didnt collapse. WTC7 was built like a bunker!

i wish you all the luck love and light you might need