Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing

www.nytimes.com...

BEIJING — A fierce fire engulfed one of the Chinese capital’s most architecturally celebrated modern buildings on Monday, the last day of festivities for the lunar new year when the city was ablaze with fireworks. By late evening the blaze was still raging and the cause remained unknown, but it seemed clear that the 34-story structure, not yet completed, had been rendered unusable.

As you can clearly see, we have another Building on Fire far worse than WTC-7. It is not the Building in Madrid So I believe this one is MADE OF STEEL---Guess what? It does not do the 6.5 second global collapse! Guess it would need a CIA office for that one.


You can see more video of it here:
www.huffingtonpost.com...

[edit on 9-2-2009 by talisman]

[edit on 9-2-2009 by talisman]

What is somehow compelling is also somehow a pointer to all who says Chinese are making poor products, this clearly outstand an american product i say...

Best regards.

Loke.

wow, talk about a raging inferno!!!
of course there are those who will mention the fact that an airplane didn't crash into this building

Originally posted by Loke.
What is somehow compelling is also somehow a pointer to all who says Chinese are making poor products, this clearly outstand an american product i say...

Best regards.

Loke.

LoL! Very true indeed. I guess poor steel and building guide lines actually are enough to keep a building standing from enormous fires.

Check this out

Fire Steel


Fire Steel Collapse



www.msnbc.msn.com...


Yeah that's right.

It wasn't even complete. and did I mention the NIST report "wtc 7 collapse caused by fire"

Notice how I compare Steel to Steel and Fire to Fire.







[edit on 9-2-2009 by Aubryish]

Or we could point out the fact that it was 34 stories tall and was not complete. Or that it wasn't built the same way. Or a whole bunch of other details when the only real similarity is that it was a building on fire.

As much as i know that 9/11 was not done by terrorists, and this is a very nice reminder of the lie that is the officials story. Were NEVER going to know the truth behind that day, ever.

I mean come on, government secrets stay secret, as much as we don't want them too, thats the way the cookie crumbles.

Sorry folks but it's almost time to let this one die unfortunetly, were just shooting in the dark at this point.

~Keeper

Make it clear once again, this building wasnt as tall, as old, as poorly constructed, and didnt have a jetliner with a full gas tank crash into it out how many MPH than exploded at impact thus burning and destroyed the already crappy made support beams.

Case closed!

So any pictures after the fire was out? Hunting far and wide for a second line.

mikell

reply to post by KonigKaos


No one is talking about WTC 1 or WTC 2. They are talking about WTC 7.

More evidence that 9/11 could possibly be an inside job.


Here is the picture of the luxury hotel. It's the one in the left.






How did that survive?

[edit on 9-2-2009 by danielsil18]

Originally posted by mpriebe81
wow, talk about a raging inferno!!!

of course there are those who will mention the fact that an airplane didn't crash into this building

You act like planes crashing into a building is no big deal. Or that huge chucks of a building collapsing onto wtc7 wouldnt have a huge effect on the building structure. People need to stop trying to find similarities in burning buildings that dont have two 757's crashing into them. And as another poster mentioned, although sarcastically, I doubt those buildings were structurally built the same way. Whether or not it was finished I guarentee that this building was built more soundly then the WTC.

Originally posted by danielsil18
reply to post by KonigKaos

 

No one is talking about WTC 1 or WTC 2. They are talking about WTC 7.

More evidence that 9/11 could possibly be an inside job.

Well I am pretty sure that this building didnt have a 110 story building collapse into it, ripping huge holes into the side of the building and doing unknown damage to the inside.

Possibly even contained recycled WTC steel?That would be 'iron'ical.BTW the jetliner had more like kerosene than 'gas',that's why the fires on 9-11 were so dark red,smoky and not even half way hot enough to sag the well made,x-ray inspected jointed steel buildings,nor pulverise what was it a missing150,000 tons of vaporised steel found in nano particles all over Manhattan?At least no cover up seems to have happened in Beijing.Think they'll have an actual investigation?That would be refreshing,as compared to what we,in the 'Land of the FREE and Home of the Brave',etc Got.Maybe they'll ship the steel BACK here to help us!?!

reply to post by tide88


where are these huge holes that you speak of? Can you show us all?

I know how you collapse guys love to compare Apples with say cats but riddle me this:

1) Was the building of the same construction as WTC I and II?
2) Was the structure of the building subject to a high mass object contaning volitile fuel on board travling at a high rate of speed prior to the fire ?


Hmmmmmm, I realize that I migh be throwing water on the fire here but really :shk:

Edit to add: Even WTC 7. Was this building subject to stresses of two huge structural collapses nearby?

[edit on 2/9/09 by FredT]

[edit on 2/9/09 by FredT]

This fire in Beijing...in fact, no fire in any other building in the world....
will support or refute the WTC's

Don't some of you realize that we have watched or in fact help create
a model of political parties?

We have those that say; a) no terrorist and b) all government/NWO
they are like the far left of lets say....the "Truther" party

We have those that say; a) all terrorist and b) Bush/Cheney protected us from any other attack after that and governments don't attack their own people....they are likt the far right of lets say....the "Anti-Truthers"
(funny as heck if you look back to how pissed the Anti-Federalist were with being left with that lable when they were the ones supporting State Sovereignty.) anyway......

Some of us I guess are "Independents"? We use common sense and entertain different ideas until the facts don't add up and tweek things as new information presents itself. Maybe some of us are moderates in either party....

So the point? If you are a political moderate...perhaps look at what you are when it comes to 9/11 "parties"

If you expect to convince someone or be convinced yourself with 1000 burning steel buildings that it explains 9/11 understand what fringe of the 9/11 party you are addressing and of course where you are.

just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by darkspeed
reply to post by tide88

 

where are these huge holes that you speak of? Can you show us all?

Of course I can. Why else would I mention it. What, you think I work for loosechange or someone. Stateing false info and not backing it up.

"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately ten stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out," Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology"

significant damage to WTC7

reply to post by tide88


that works! Thanks for the info. do you know if there were other buildings that sustained the same amount if not more damage and remained standing?

Originally posted by tide88

Originally posted by mpriebe81
wow, talk about a raging inferno!!!

of course there are those who will mention the fact that an airplane didn't crash into this building

You act like planes crashing into a building is no big deal. Or that huge chucks of a building collapsing onto wtc7 wouldnt have a huge effect on the building structure. People need to stop trying to find similarities in burning buildings that dont have two 757's crashing into them. And as another poster mentioned, although sarcastically, I doubt those buildings were structurally built the same way. Whether or not it was finished I guarentee that this building was built more soundly then the WTC.

Just putting aside lack of similarity between methods used to build the buildings of WTC and others post 9/11 that have had fires and not fallen, may we take two moments to absorb some scientific fact that there is no way WTC 1/2 or 3 should have collapsed they way they did, in the time they did and as #'ing neat (tidy for anyone having a problem with the context of neat) as they did, regardless of poor construction, fully tanked up planes, 19 hijackers with box cutters etc etc

In reality guys we don't need pictures of post 9/11 buildings on fire for hours on end not dropping on the floor to provide substance to the perceived fact that 9/11 was in some way or another an inside job, we've enough pictures and videos of the buildings that fell that day to do this for us.

Thats my quid on the situ'