I thought fire collapses steel structured skyscrapers?!?!

Cooter

Liberty or Death
Beijing Skyscraper Fire: The Silence Is Deafening


Debunkers’ only response is to claim that no comparison to WTC 7 can be made, yet they feverishly compared completely dissimilar bridge collapses to twin towers in 2007


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, February 12, 2009

Three days after a towering inferno engulfed a 500 foot skyscraper in Beijing, debunkers have failed to come up with any answers as to why the building remained standing in comparison with WTC 7, which suffered a uniform 7 second implosion as a result of limited fires spread across just 8 floors on 9/11.

Beijing’s Mandarin Oriental hotel defied all known physics on Monday when it was consumed by fires but did not collapse, a modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer even limited fire damage implode in on their own footprint within seconds.

All joking aside, any credibility that remained behind NIST’s “thermal expansion” theory, which was apparently only evident on one day in history and not in the case of hundreds of other high rise buildings that have caught fire and remained standing, metaphorically went up in the flames that consumed - but did not collapse - one of Beijing’s most prominent buildings.

The silence of debunkers with regard to the hotel fire is both deafening and highly hypocritical. Proponents of the government’s version of events are usually feverish to seize upon anything, no matter how inane and off tangent, in order to try and prop up the official fairy tale.

The best retort we have seen since the fire is the claim that buildings are constructed differently and therefore no comparison can possibly be made between the Mandarin Oriental hotel and Building 7.

Really? That argument didn’t stop debunkers from comparing the collapse of two bridges to the collapse of the twin towers following freeway collapses in San Francisco and Minnesota in 2007.

The frenzy was particularly evident at Fark.com following the San Francisco bridge collapse, with posters reveling in the notion that the freeway accident had made “WTC conspiracy theories collapse as quickly as that highway did.”

In that instance, the freeway section was made of highly flammable asphalt and took the brunt of a gigantic gasoline explosion with open air fires shooting 200 feet in the air. In comparison, the twin towers were impacted by aluminum planes filled with significantly less flammable kerosene and suffered limited fires that were oxygen-starved and almost out before the collapses occurred.

“You can’t even begin to compare 5 inch thick steel plate core columns, approximately 2 foot by 5 foot rectangle 5 inch thick boxes to quarter inch and 3 quarter inch dowels that connect the steel to the support members,” a steel welding expert told us.

“The logical deduction is that the rebar steel was exposed horizontally, that whole bridge surface and it was exposed intention, not like the fires that were lapping up fire-proofed 5 inch thick plate columns in the World Trade Center - these little bars had no heat sink and after two hours with all that weight on them they fell.”

But logic didn’t stop the debunkers from comparing the collapse of a weakened and cracked freeway with the uniform implosion of skyscrapers that were designed to absorb multiple airliner impacts without collapsing. Neither did it stop them from using the absurd comparison to try and explain away the collapse of WTC 7 - which wasn’t even hit by a plane.

So when debunkers attempt to evade difficult questions about the Beijing skyscraper fire by claiming that no comparison can even be made to WTC 7, it’s pertinent to remind them that they considered it perfectly legitimate to compare towering skyscrapers with run-down creaking bridges in order to push their agenda.

The state-controlled communist media in China have all but censored coverage of the Beijing skyscraper fire to avoid public embarrassment, but the silence has been just as deafening in the U.S., where corporate media networks have largely ignored the story, ostensibly to prevent people make the obvious comparison to World Trade Center 7.
 

Come on HK4U, I know you have something to say about this. :biggrin:


i will just say that nothing would surprise me. There are a lot of evil people out there and they are not all from foreign countries. Scripture says that in the last days evil doers will abound and if I were a betting man I would bet we are in the last days.
 
Deleted my comment as pointless. No amount of fact or argument will overcome a good conspiracy theory.
 
Last edited:
Deleted my comment as pointless. No amount of fact or argument will overcome a good conspiracy theory.

That is why you need to invest in tin foil, especially recycled tin foil from alien spacecraft. That is the best type and blocks four times as many waves as regular tin foil. Be sure not to be fooled by this aluminum foil sold in grocery stores for kitchens. It is pretty much useless in blocking all but the most basic of radio waves and doesn't even slow down the new digital TV waves.
 
That is why you need to invest in tin foil, especially recycled tin foil from alien spacecraft. That is the best type and blocks four times as many waves as regular tin foil. Be sure not to be fooled by this aluminum foil sold in grocery stores for kitchens. It is pretty much useless in blocking all but the most basic of radio waves and doesn't even slow down the new digital TV waves.

DAM! you mean Reynolds doesn't work?:sarcastic:
 
Conspiracy theories of the moment often become fact later on. Two examples that come to mind are the sinking of the Lusitania and how the ship was carrying munitions and there was advanced warning that the Germans knew it and it would be hit. This provided Wilson the reason he needed to enter WW1. Also FDR had advanced warning of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the attack gave him the reason he needed to enter WW2. Most people are the same today as they were back then. We can not accept the fact that or world is not everything we have been led to believe it is. Denial helps us sleep at night.
 
That is why you need to invest in tin foil, especially recycled tin foil from alien spacecraft. That is the best type and blocks four times as many waves as regular tin foil. Be sure not to be fooled by this aluminum foil sold in grocery stores for kitchens. It is pretty much useless in blocking all but the most basic of radio waves and doesn't even slow down the new digital TV waves.
That explains a lot :)
 
Conspiracy theories of the moment often become fact later on. Two examples that come to mind are the sinking of the Lusitania and how the ship was carrying munitions and there was advanced warning that the Germans knew it and it would be hit. This provided Wilson the reason he needed to enter WW1. Also FDR had advanced warning of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the attack gave him the reason he needed to enter WW2. Most people are the same today as they were back then. We can not accept the fact that or world is not everything we have been led to believe it is. Denial helps us sleep at night.
Except that neither of those is true ... oh, never mind, no amount of fact will overcome a good conspiracy theory.
 
Except that neither of those is true ... oh, never mind, no amount of fact will overcome a good conspiracy theory.

Both are true, No amount of truth can over come a mind brain washed by the public school system and the major news networks.I]
 
Research has been published on the subject of FDR & Pearl Harbor, and the only "evidence" that has been published was circumstantial, at best. Anyone can have a theory, but it requires solid proof to be considered fact. No solid proof has been offered indicating that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance.

Here's one reason why I think that Pearl Harbor was still a surprise attack. While one may guess that FDR needed an excuse to get involved in WWII, I highly doubt that he would have done so at the expense of our "capital ship" fleet. Naval doctrine at that time centered around large Battleship task forces (similar to today's carrier battle groups). The aircraft carrier at that time was nothing more than an old battleship with a wooden deck superstructure to launch and land aircraft. In 1941, the Pacific Fleet was DECIMATED and essentially rudderless without its battleships. The saving grace to Pearl Harbor was that the aircraft carriers based in HI at the time were out to sea, and not subject to attack. Initial intelligence reports were dismal, thinking that the war was already lost w/out battleships and only able to rely on carriers. The Battle of Midway months later proved otherwise, and thus, history would be forever changed. Since the Aircraft carrier was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be the ultimate in Naval battle vessels, they realized that the "ship had sailed", so to speak, on a Navy based around the battleship.

At that time, nobody could've predicted the success, and ultimate change in Naval doctrine that Pearl Harbor brought about by the miraculous saving of the carrier fleet.
 
Real simple.....

It's called the contractor applied all the fire proofing material to the structure like he was suppose to, unlike NY. You see there if the contractor messes up he has two choices, and both involve his death.
 
The best retort we have seen since the fire is the claim that buildings are constructed differently and therefore no comparison can possibly be made between the Mandarin Oriental hotel and Building 7.
Here's a better retort. The accidents were entirely different, the environment was somewhat different and the buildings were different.

Really? That argument didn’t stop debunkers from comparing the collapse of two bridges to the collapse of the twin towers following freeway collapses in San Francisco and Minnesota in 2007.

The frenzy was particularly evident at Fark.com following the San Francisco bridge collapse, with posters reveling in the notion that the freeway accident had made “WTC conspiracy theories collapse as quickly as that highway did.”
Whoever said that, did so in error. An incorrect opposing argument to an incorrect theory, which seeks to lend an incorrectly based support to a correct theory, does not undermine the correct theory. The theory, if correct, is able to stand on its own. The incorrect argument is merely irrelevant.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,520
Messages
610,641
Members
74,980
Latest member
Brad_R
Back
Top