China skycraper on fire right now!!!! Still Standing?

Another building in china ablaze? Didne we just have that on newyears eve? The cctv building was burning. It was a superawesome sight too. Asbest sounds better and better :p .

reply to post by TrentReznor

First of all offer sympathy to families of the disaster. Shamefully I smiled when I first heard story but when you see the pictures of the people you remember what this is all about. Truth and human life. Fire burned eight hours before being extinguished. 42 dead at last count. 42 families hurting.
Now if you followed this story over the next weeks and days you'll find owners and contractors sued and jailed for incompetence.If the debunkers were genuine why don't they go after the architects and engineers of WTC 7 and have them imprisoned for such shoddy CRIMINAL WORK? NO the debunkers never think of 'investigating' that angle.
How many people are in jail or fined for unprofessionalism, slum lords etc?
Then why not for WTC Building 7? Why don't the debunkers ever talk about that

Its not funny anymore, someone needs to stop this John McClane character and they need to do it now.....

On the serious side now, how are they gonna put that out? its huge and seriously dangerous, the buildings are very dense over there and that could spread like, well wildfire....

Before

After


Compare to Building 7 (Forward to 2:40)

I am sure that building was far better built than WTC 7, which was built in 1985 in America :p

It should have fallen down in its own foot print, at almost free fall speed? That's what all buildings do. What happened?

Skyscrapers & buildings are built with these sort of hazards in mind, its not surprising it didnt collapse.. unless you add some sort of bomb to the equation of course.

May the dead rest in peace, but 60-70 is little less tragic than 3000

Originally posted by AllNoing1

May the dead rest in peace, but 60-70 is little less tragic than 3000

edit on 17-11-2010 by AllNoing1 because: (no reason given)

I dont think there is a math for that XD .

reply to post by TrentReznor


YOU guys crack me up lets see was it

1) Hit by a passenger jet NO
2) Is it a tube in tube steel framed building NO

Using your warped logic I could race round a NASCAR TRACK in this



and have a chance of WINING after all its a car and so are these



You just dont have a clue do YOU.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by TrentReznor

 

YOU guys crack me up lets see was it

1) Hit by a passenger jet NO
2) Is it a tube in tube steel framed building NO

Using your warped logic I could race round a NASCAR TRACK in this



and have a chance of WINING after all its a car and so are these



You just dont have a clue do YOU.

There is no need for namecalling and shaming.
WTC 7 was not struck by an airplane. But if you want to go on believing that an appartment building in China is more resiliant than WTC 7 which was built in the 80s go right ahead. If you want to believe the NIST report that contains contradictions exageration of data errors and must have used the guide for fires and explosion investigation as toilet paper keep on wearing your tinfoil hat.

If I were to believe any wild claim a WMD_2008 makes on a conspiracy site I might as well wear your tinfoil hat.

Originally posted by andy1033
If skyscrapers fell down with fire, mankind would never get authority to build them, as accidents happen.

They would not get planning permission to build these buildings if it was not safe against fire.

The argument for wtc7 is just a joke, they would not of got planning permission if authorities thought it could fall down witha small fire.

The argument is pure rubbish, just like something like evolution. These things are told to us like people are stupid.

Do you work for building control do you work in the construction industry or are you just another internet expert.

LOOK here



The classic fire given as evidence of steelframed buildings not collapsing this building HAD a CONCRETE core and notice all the collapsed steelwork that SHOCK horror collapsed TWO AND A HALF hours after the fire started AND NO PLANE HIT IT.

Since YOU seem to know EVERYTHING about building codes WHY dont you post them here to back up your arguement I WONT HOLD MY BREATH

This is a tragedy with 42 lives lost. It seems some want to use it as a comparison to the WTC - every building, fire and incident is different!! This should be moved to Breaking news so everyone interested can comment about this incident - not another that has nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by Cassius666

There is no need for namecalling and shaming.
WTC 7 was not struck by an airplane. But if you want to go on believing that an appartment building in China is more resiliant than WTC 7 which was built in the 80s go right ahead. If you want to believe the NIST report that contains contradictions exageration of data errors and must have used the guide for fires and explosion investigation as toilet paper keep on wearing your tinfoil hat.

If I were to believe any wild claim a WMD_2008 makes on a conspiracy site I might as well wear your tinfoil hat.

edit on 18-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

Correct wasnt struck by a plane BUT a picture tells a thousand words



Damaged and on fire for 6 hours Madrid Tower steelwork collasped after 2 and a half.

Back to you

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Cassius666

There is no need for namecalling and shaming.
WTC 7 was not struck by an airplane. But if you want to go on believing that an appartment building in China is more resiliant than WTC 7 which was built in the 80s go right ahead. If you want to believe the NIST report that contains contradictions exageration of data errors and must have used the guide for fires and explosion investigation as toilet paper keep on wearing your tinfoil hat.

If I were to believe any wild claim a WMD_2008 makes on a conspiracy site I might as well wear your tinfoil hat.

edit on 18-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

Correct wasnt struck by a plane BUT a picture tells a thousand words



Damaged and on fire for 6 hours Madrid Tower steelwork collasped after 2 and a half.

Back to you

Originally posted by crazydaisy
This is a tragedy with 42 lives lost. It seems some want to use it as a comparison to the WTC - every building, fire and incident is different!! This should be moved to Breaking news so everyone interested can comment about this incident - not another that has nothing to do with it.

You whish. It has everything to do with making the case that in all of human history only on 911 steelframe buildings collapsed due to fire.

IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY !!!!!!

IN ALL OF THE HISTORY OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM !!!! Thats over 2 billion years.

But I guess that does not sit well with the infoil hat wearing crowd which hold unto the official tale.

Of course we dont make steelframe buildings for 2 billion years but it sounds more dramatic

Back to WMD

Are you referring to this one?

www.youtube.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

What made you think it collapsed? Did you not hear the firechief? The buildings on september 11 were the first steele structures to collapse due to fire. EVER. Barely 10 years have passed, check back in 50 years, maybe we will have one more steelbuilding collapse due to fire. Who knows, they might make a sloppy work in a third world country in the area for the poor.

But like I told others, I am no expert, I just roll with people who know more about the topic than me. The same is true for you that is true for the moonhauxers, if they want to convince me, they must convince the experts on the subject first. Untill that happens, Mankind went to the moon in 1969 and again later on. But you keep believing in bigfoot for all I care. If you want me to believe in the NIST report, you gotta convince the american experts first, the European ones and then I might change camp. Untill that happens, you are some guy on a conaspiracy site, which I put in the tinfoil hat category and a lame trol too that feel the need to say LOL and HAHAHAHA a lot.

reply to post by Cassius666



LOOK at the picture CONCRETE CORE look at the collapsed steelwork around it



Actually A FEW steelframed buildings have collapsed over the years not as high as wtc1 and wtc2 but steelframed.

Also NONE were hit by planes but still collapsed.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Cassius666

 

LOOK at the picture CONCRETE CORE look at the collapsed steelwork around it

Actually A FEW steelframed buildings have collapsed over the years not as high as wtc1 and wtc2 but steelframed.

None were hit by planes? You are making it out as if it would be tough for a building to resist a plane impact. A building the size of WTC 1 and 2 suffers more stress from moderate winds than from a plane impact.

Okay I can believe some doofus on a conspiracy site (by which I do not mean you you are not a doofus you are making a very good case) that quite a few steelframe buildings collapsed due to fire, or I can believe people who know their stuff who say that no steelframe building collapsed due to fire in the history of mankind EVER. I think I am going to stick with the people who know their stuff.

Also Are you sure you are linking the correct picture? I am seeing a STANDING burned out building, that looks a lot a lot a lot worse than WTC 7 just before it came down. We can not agree on what a collapsed building is apparently, so this discussion is leading nowhere.

reply to post by Cassius666


Will try to make this simple so even you can understand this picture




The building had a concrete core THE PILE OF TANGLED STEELWORK THAT A BLIND MAN COULD SEE!!!! collapsed after only two and a half hours THE CONCRETE AND CONCRETE COVERED STEEL SURVIVED the unprotected steel collapsed DUE TO THE FIRE NO PLANE RQUIRED.

OH RE YOUR EXPERTS lookup KADER TOY FACTORY FIRE then STFU!!!

This will save you having to look

forthardknox.com...

Back to YOU!

reply to post by wmd_2008


The building did not collapse its damaged after having been ablaze in fire. If the steele core would be down it would not be still standing now would it, with the steele core being what holds the building up. Did it come down in the fashion of a controlled demolition? No it did not. WTC 7 was not damaged by fire it collapsed, not partially totally.

Like I said your idea of a collapsed building is apparently different than that of the rest of the world.

But it does not matter what you say, experts cant explain the collapse of wtc 7 any other way than controlled demolition.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Will try to make this simple so even you can understand this picture




The building had a concrete core THE PILE OF TANGLED STEELWORK THAT A BLIND MAN COULD SEE!!!! collapsed after only two and a half hours THE CONCRETE AND CONCRETE COVERED STEEL SURVIVED the unprotected steel collapsed DUE TO THE FIRE NO PLANE RQUIRED.

OH RE YOUR EXPERTS lookup KADER TOY FACTORY FIRE then STFU!!!

This will save you having to look

forthardknox.com...

Back to YOU!

edit on 19-11-2010 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

Concrete buildings are actually weaker in a fire.

* Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete.
* Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. This is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to such an extent that it causes failures.

911research.wtc7.net...

. Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses

911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by Doctor Smith


Yeah if only you read the whole page:

On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...