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

reply to post by TrentReznor


You know what I missed on this story in how it relates to 9/11?

The giant plane slamming into it.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Doctor Smith

 

Oh but it did fall towards the direction of damage! Its only been mentioned a few hundred million times here on ATS. But I guess you must of "missed" it all.

More misinformation from you again.

In 2008 the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) produced a report
which changed the official explanation for the collapse of WTC 7. Apparently they had
realized that the failure of the building to lean to the south made their previous
explanation look foolish.

www.journalof911studies.com...

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Doctor Smith

 

You guys CLAIM NO STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS have collapsed due to fire THEY have,KADER BUILDINGS were more than one storey and collapsed, we also have records of partial collapse where concrete etc has remained in place but structural steel has collapsed due to fire.

NO other office building fire YOU CLAIM was in a building built like the twin towers provide link to one ,consrtuction must be the same.

1) tube in tube
2) open plan floors
3) open truss floor support.
4) OF COURSE STRUCTURAL DAMGE BEFORE FIRE.

Provide link to construction pictures & documentation I wont hold my breath.
I WILL even let you off with number 4 and you still wont find one

The KADER 4 story toy factory disaster in Thailand has nothing in common with a modern skyscraper. In fact no modern skyscraper has collapsed for ANY reason except on 911. And nothing else but Controlled Demolition can explain the way they fell.

Enjoy!
9/11 Inside Job, says FBI Special Agent in Charge Ted Gunderson
www.youtube.com...

"Oh but it did fall towards the direction of damage! Its only been mentioned a few hundred million times here on ATS."

Considering that you and your debunker cookie cutter buddies sound like a broken record operating in unison, I do not doubt for one second that this has been mentioned a few hundred million times. I can also mention a few hundred million times that I am the Pope, but does this make the statement true or does it make me look like a fool?

reply to post by Doctor Smith


You guys CLAIM no steelframed building has collapsed only by FIRE, the Kader Toy Factory PROVES you wrong the same way as NO building fire YOU compare to the towers to was

1) Tube in tube consruction
2) 110 stories high
3) Hit by an aircraft.

So SHOW ME ONE EXAMPLE of a hi rise fire in a building constructed like the twin towers SHOW ME one
you CANT can you!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Doctor Smith

 

You guys CLAIM no steelframed building has collapsed only by FIRE, the Kader Toy Factory PROVES you wrong the same way as NO building fire YOU compare to the towers to was

1) Tube in tube consruction
2) 110 stories high
3) Hit by an aircraft.

So SHOW ME ONE EXAMPLE of a hi rise fire in a building constructed like the twin towers SHOW ME one
you CANT can you!!!!!!!!!

I can! When you have the truth on your side it's easy.


Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

911research.wtc7.net...

Now you show us all just one building that collapsed like the 3 on 911. You can't.