Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing

reply to post by adam_zapple


The very famous one -- with the curtain wall and a bit of the core sticking up and the mounds of dust from pulverized concrete.

All angle cuts -- steel doesn't break that way.

You could probably find it pretty quickly. Right now, I have to get to work and stop playing with this nonsense. Bush Crime Family, made it happen on purpose, so that they could go to war in Iraq, and lay the groundwork for enough power to mess up our economy, make themselves and friends more wealthy and powerful in the process, and perhaps get rid of the pesky middle class.

There might be one or two things that fit the Coincidence Theory of super kerosene and a magic airplane engine, that destroys magic exploding concrete and inferior steel, in three buildings >> but they don't all fit. The only thing that fits the facts and the obvious obstruction of justice that followed (the firefighters, the widows of 9/11 are on the record suing the Bush administration), is some sort of Demolition.

And yet again, we have another MAGIC steel building that does not follow the new physics theories that supported the WTC collapse. Why does reality want to make the BushCo look bad?

You know what will happen with the NEXT steel skyscraper to get burnt? It won't fall down either. And neither will the one after that.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by adam_zapple

 

The very famous one -- with the curtain wall and a bit of the core sticking up and the mounds of dust from pulverized concrete.

"The very famous one"?

How about a link to the photo you're referring to. If you're referring to the one posted earlier in this thread, it does not have a timestamp. Please provide the evidence that proves that the photo was taken "IMMEDIATELY after the collapse" or admit that you're simply making that up.


[edit on 12-2-2009 by adam_zapple]

Hahahahahahaha 20 pages later and the debate still rages.


How hard is this people? This can be tested on any scale, watch any video of a house on fire, the whole thing eventually becomes engulfed but the ENTIRE HOUSE DOES NOT COLLAPSE AT THE SAME TIME, INSTANTLY!


IT IS THE SAME WAY WITH ANY FIRE! COLLAPSE IS NEVER ENTIRE, AND NEVER EVEN!!!!!

HOW THE HELL DOES 50 STOREYS EVENLY COLLAPSE, AT A GIVEN MOMENT? IT DOES NOT HAPPEN!

END OF DEBATE!

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by adam_zapple

 

The very famous one -- with the curtain wall and a bit of the core sticking up and the mounds of dust from pulverized concrete.

"The very famous one"?

How about a link to the photo you're referring to. If you're referring to the one posted earlier in this thread, it does not have a timestamp. Please provide the evidence that proves that the photo was taken "IMMEDIATELY after the collapse" or admit that you're simply making that up.


[edit on 12-2-2009 by adam_zapple]

Darn, I spent 5 minutes trying to find the VERY DANG famous shot, with the core and the jagged curtain wall, and a think a few first responders looking like Iwo Jima-- no dice. But any image you want -- I'll put a "time stamp" of whatever date--really, time stamps are not EVIDENCE, the are XML data attached to JPEGs and RAW image files. But, I realized something after about 10 minutes -- you aren't paying me, and I already mentioned I'm done with this.

Here is one image -- but really AdamZapple -- I just don't think it's good enough for you, and I feel bad about even distracting you with it, from all the other evidence you apparently ignore;


Someone probably has it, but of course, this will be an "ah ha!" and therefore, all the anti-truth folks can go on about their day, secure in the knowledge that a bunch of folks on the internet can't completely fill track last logical fallacy.

No excuses here -- just don't need to spend hours a day tracking down things I've seen and filed away. I came across a lot of photos of angled cuts -- but of course, we don't know if that was part of the cleanup or not -- but I can't find the one I remembered seeing. You can ignore everything else, and try to get documentary evidence -- unfortunately, there isn't any. Just photos we've all seen, with the smoldering debris. I mentioned this in passing. I documented a hundred other things -- I can't spoon feed everything I remember and I'm not even an expert.

The other day, I was talking about the design of the building to withstand aircraft and some bright anti-truth person said; "Then show me the blueprints from the Port Authority or admit you made all this up." Well, I pointed to the conversations of two of the architects. The problem with PROOF, is that the Ports Authority got blowed up in WTC 7. Wow, we truthers really are slackers -- we can't even read minds and make documents reappear from charred dust. I kind of know how rape victims must have felt, trying to PROVE that they weren't asking for it, or imagined the whole thing. Its the system denying what you know, that is more painful than the crime. You SEE a demolition of a building -- and you say; "wow, that just got demolished." And someone on TV in a suit that costs more than your house explains with impossible physics how what you saw wasn't what you saw.

We have to accept that all the videos of the Pentagon went Poof! Or that they must be seized to "protect America." Probably because we can't handle the truth, eh?

Next time we American folks get a Republican president manufacturing reasons for war -- we'll document this stuff a bit better, OK? But likely, anyone trying to document the crime scene will be shot as they are helping the enemy.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


Isn't that was bush stated, that famouse line to the American public and the rest of the world:

"You're either with us, or the trrrrrrrrrrrrrrrists..."

[edit on 12/2/2009 by phushion]

Originally posted by Griff
First, we were told it was a terrorist attack and not a simple accidental fire. Let's not forget that when we go making sarcastic posts about investigations.

Now, if the authorities said that this building in Bejing was an arson fire, then yes, I would feel an investigation is in order. You don't?

So you believe the chinese authorities but not the American authorities ?

BTW, the bolded part makes me laugh. I can pretty much guarantee that the steel will be kept for at least a small amount of time for an investigation. Unlike the WTC 7 that couldn't leave our country fast enough before any professionals got to examine it. BTW, those aren't my words.

I'll be interested to find out how long it takes for them to recycle the debris for money.

But, we're the crazy ones right?

If the straight jacket fits

Also, I wonder if they're going to do a proper investigation such as making sure a plane didn't hit the building and start the fire, or check the molecular cohesion of the steel to make sure high energy beam weapons didn't disassociate the steel supports molecules? Or check to see if arab workers went into the building earlier and planted thermite charges? Because we all know if they don't check all those things, then they didn't do a proper investigation and/or they are covering up what really happened.

Again, I'll state that this was not reported as arson. Therefore a more thourough investigation (like finding the causes of things) isn't neccessary.

OK let me get this straight. You said that since the Chinese government said it wasn't arson, we don't need to investigate further.

Let's take your logic and move it to the WTC's.
The US government said the WTC's weren't dropped with demo charges, therefore a more thorough investigation isn't necessary.

So why are we talking about controlled demolition ????

Also, the building didn't collapse. So, your sarcastic remarks about planes, molecular beams, arabs and thermite are so out there in left feld it isn't even worth commenting on really.

So if the building collapsed then my remarks would be reasonable but instead, we're out there in left field?? Maybe the difference is that the chinese building could have been built a bit better?

Just some thoughts about how similar these situations should be based on previous complaints from some "truthers" .

If this building was considered an arson attack or a terrorist attack, then yes, I would demand an investigation before most of the steel is carted away and recycled.

Your argument makes no sense what-so-ever.

So you're not demanding an investigation because the chinese government said it wasn't arson and since they are always so honest, you're just going to take their word for it
And you say my argument makes no sense
Thanks for walking into that one I needed a good laugh

[edit on 12-2-2009 by jfj123]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by jfj123
Those who would relinquish liberty to gain security, deserve neither and will soon lose both.

Thanks for your tireless work to help facilitate the loss of liberty.

What a wonderful statement to move the thread along.

Care to just accuse me of planning 9/11 too?

Or maybe accuse me of being an agent that posts on threads to keep all you brain trusts from learning the terrible secret that the reptilian governing council ordered the destruction of the WTC's and pentagon

Ever read this phrase ?
DENY IGNORANCE?? Learn it, live it, love it.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by adam_zapple

 

The very famous one -- with the curtain wall and a bit of the core sticking up and the mounds of dust from pulverized concrete.

"The very famous one"?

How about a link to the photo you're referring to. If you're referring to the one posted earlier in this thread, it does not have a timestamp. Please provide the evidence that proves that the photo was taken "IMMEDIATELY after the collapse" or admit that you're simply making that up.


[edit on 12-2-2009 by adam_zapple]

Darn, I spent 5 minutes trying to find the VERY DANG famous shot, with the core and the jagged curtain wall, and a think a few first responders looking like Iwo Jima-- no dice. But any image you want -- I'll put a "time stamp" of whatever date--really, time stamps are not EVIDENCE, the are XML data attached to JPEGs and RAW image files. But, I realized something after about 10 minutes -- you aren't paying me, and I already mentioned I'm done with this.

Here is one image -- but really AdamZapple -- I just don't think it's good enough for you, and I feel bad about even distracting you with it, from all the other evidence you apparently ignore;

This photo was not taken "IMMEDIATELY after the collapse" as you assert. This was taken during the cleanup operation, in which many columns/beams were cut by rescue workers.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
No excuses here -- just don't need to spend hours a day tracking down things I've seen and filed away. I came across a lot of photos of angled cuts -- but of course, we don't know if that was part of the cleanup or not

Sure we do...we have photos of those very same angle cuts being made by rescue/cleanup workers.

Originally posted by king9072
Hahahahahahaha 20 pages later and the debate still rages.


How hard is this people? This can be tested on any scale, watch any video of a house on fire, the whole thing eventually becomes engulfed but the ENTIRE HOUSE DOES NOT COLLAPSE AT THE SAME TIME, INSTANTLY!


IT IS THE SAME WAY WITH ANY FIRE! COLLAPSE IS NEVER ENTIRE, AND NEVER EVEN!!!!!

HOW THE HELL DOES 50 STOREYS EVENLY COLLAPSE, AT A GIVEN MOMENT? IT DOES NOT HAPPEN!

END OF DEBATE!

Because a house behaves a certain way...a 47 story skyscraper should behave the same way?

Personal incredulity FTW!

reply to post by adam_zapple

Y'know...I was thinking...I've salvaged a fair bit of steel and cut up alot of steel with a torch.I would work with and without a crane,hardscrabble type stuff.I have also felled trees.I would not nor have I ever seen a salvage cut like this.It would be unstable and move during the cut and be unpredictable in practice when the cut through was achieved.Last thing you want when standing right next to a heavier-than-thou chunk of death-potential,already cursed!)is a 'jump off the stump' and unstable(pointy)bottom of the offcut!!!Plus that cut is an extra bit of traverse by half and more difficult a cut to start to boot.For whacking the chunk in a hurry,the top of the cut would be level and the slag would have all been blown into the inside,both of which appear to not be the case in this photo..

reply to post by Griff


I understand what you're saying, but I was just wondering if it was possible the concrete didn't heat up as fast as the steel would have, specifically in the regions of the most intense where the steel would have been more exposed to heat than the concrete.

reply to post by talisman


Well lets see, after both towers collapsed, how many cars, trucks, ambulances, fire engines, police cars, etc got buried or set on fire in the debris zone? What happens to them when they catch fire? What would happen to a fire fighter's pressurized oxygen canister when it gets crushed and exposed to high temps? What happens to the ammunition in police cars/trucks/police officers? What about flammable objects in the building? Gas? Power conduits? I can go on and on of what can go "boom" in a fire. Its not just explosives folks.

reply to post by trueforger

I was thinking the same thing. It's good to hear from someone who's done this professionally. The 9/11 lies and deceptions are so pervasive, it doesn't surprise me when the debunkers claim that salvage cuts that are difficult, unstable and unpredictable are somehow normal.

There are so many aspects of the official 9/11 story that require a belief of the unbelievable.

reply to post by GenRadek

Which one would this be -- flammable building object, exploding ammunition or oxygen canister?

Originally posted by GenRadek
I understand what you're saying, but I was just wondering if it was possible the concrete didn't heat up as fast as the steel would have, specifically in the regions of the most intense where the steel would have been more exposed to heat than the concrete.

I'm not saying you are incorrect, but wouldn't this mean we have a huge design flaw in our composite decking systems that should have been addressed by NIST? Correct?

Originally posted by GenRadek
What would happen to a fire fighter's pressurized oxygen canister when it gets crushed and exposed to high temps?

Depressurize.

It's not pure oxygen. It's pressurized air. Pure oxygen would explode in a fireman's face in a fire.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by talisman

 

Well lets see, after both towers collapsed, how many cars, trucks, ambulances, fire engines, police cars, etc got buried or set on fire in the debris zone? What happens to them when they catch fire? What would happen to a fire fighter's pressurized oxygen canister when it gets crushed and exposed to high temps? What happens to the ammunition in police cars/trucks/police officers? What about flammable objects in the building? Gas? Power conduits? I can go on and on of what can go "boom" in a fire. Its not just explosives folks.

So in other words, that would be perfect cover for "bombs" going off.

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by king9072
Hahahahahahaha 20 pages later and the debate still rages.


How hard is this people? This can be tested on any scale, watch any video of a house on fire, the whole thing eventually becomes engulfed but the ENTIRE HOUSE DOES NOT COLLAPSE AT THE SAME TIME, INSTANTLY!


IT IS THE SAME WAY WITH ANY FIRE! COLLAPSE IS NEVER ENTIRE, AND NEVER EVEN!!!!!

HOW THE HELL DOES 50 STOREYS EVENLY COLLAPSE, AT A GIVEN MOMENT? IT DOES NOT HAPPEN!

END OF DEBATE!

Because a house behaves a certain way...a 47 story skyscraper should behave the same way?

Personal incredulity FTW!

Notive I said "ITS THE SAME WAY FOR ANY FIRE" which includes a 47 story building such as the WTC 7. What part doesn't make sense? How do you get an entire building every square inch of it, to fail at the exact same time by fire?

You cannot. You light any building on fire, and if it burns to a point where its collapsing, the entire building will not fail at once, sections will fail far before the entire structure fails in one instant. Thats just common sense.

Why do the "debunkers" and naysayers of this movement, all use semantics to dance around an issue, instead of dealing with it?

Reading this thread the irony has just hit me that quite a few of the people here debating that 911 was not an inside job, just boxcutters yadda yadda, are probably working in or for the pentagon, which was one of the 911 targets.

Strange world.

An even bigger irony is that they have a high chance of being victims in the next false flag terror machination...

reply to post by jfj123


I don't think you seriously dealt with this -- this seems like you are being intellectually dishonest. This is an empty building, the Chinese are not going to war over it, and it has no strategic use -- why should they lie?

There has to be motive in most cases. This is just a building that caught on fire and its only significance here, is that it was totally engulfed in flames and is still standing after 20 hours. Nothing like a real-world example.

There is a constant chirping that the Truthers are illogical and grasping at straws -- but the only evidence for a steel skyscraper, collapsing, much less in on itself at the speed of gravity, is the three building at the WTC. So, every explanation of how this can happen WITHOUT a demolition -- needs to be proved, because there is no examples to base it on.

There is a lot of video of top-down demolitions --useful for larger buildings. They look so very much like the 9/11 tragedy. There are NO examples, of buildings not being demolished, falling quickly, nor completely and very few that don't slope to one side unless really wide. There are also other buildings that have been hit by airplanes. A 707 is nearly as large as a 757 -- also, no destruction of the building.

>> To be clear; The Truthers don't need to prove that it was a Demolition -- the anti-Truthers need to prove that it was not.

>> Right now I'm reading about the trading irregularities before 9/11 of businesses inside the WTC.

It's funny. You can talk about Neuburu, Planet X, Space Embargoes, Lizard people invading and it is all civil and open minded more or less -- even the religion. But if you talk about 9/11, Global Warming, and Economics that might hurt some entrenched multinationals -- wow, there are people sitting on that topic ready to bury you. Why are people so much more vested in these Status Quo topics?

Alien spaceships and chem trails have a lot less evidence -- yet people have an open mind about them relative to these topics.

I suspect that either people's identities are more wrapped up with 9/11 -- because it allowed them to justify some anger issues they may have had, or because people are paid to care about it. It's like arguing against smoking, when Big Tobacco was hiring scientists to misinform the public. My Grandfather actually worked as a writer for Phillip Morris which he tried to make up for by being one of FDR's speech writers.

So don't even bother telling me that conspiracies can't be big, and that EVERYONE will figure it out. We had the Kennedy assassination -- and people still think there wasn't a conspiracy involved. Yeah, how did that single shooter manage to make off with Kennedy's brain after he was dead?

I didn't get into these conspiracy theories until after 9/11 by the way. That was my final break with believing the "Big Lies." The more I've learned -- the more I realize that what I was taught as a kid was only correct in the Names and Dates. Most of what we think we know, is wrong. Because nobody gets paid to tell you the truth unless you have a subscription to Consumer Reports.