It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

China's Tallest Building Catches Fire, Does Not Collapse

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Shouldnt this building have collapsed?Afterall WTC 7 came crashing down due to fire.I guess this was some kind of "special" building.


(PrisonPlanet)-Shanghai's World Financial Center, the tallest building in China upon completion, defied all known physics yesterday afternoon when it caught fire but did not collapse, a modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours.

www.prisonplanet.com...


Anyone who has visited Shanghai's Pudong district will note that the World Financial building eerily resembles the twin towers in New York that were destroyed on 9/11, which is why the sight of it catching fire yesterday would have led many to immediately fear the imminent collapse of the structure.

www.prisonplanet.com...

Full story and picture here
www.prisonplanet.com...




posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
That's pretty incredible, and further proves the fact that the 9/11 buildings were a demolition job. These politicians in America must think we are lower beings on the totem pole.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I fail to see in the story where the structural integrity of the bldg in China was compromised by being struck by a high speed jumbo jet.

Apples and Oranges people....no use comparing the 2.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
I fail to see in the story where the structural integrity of the bldg in China was compromised by being struck by a high speed jumbo jet.

Apples and Oranges people....no use comparing the 2.


Thats funny because i dont recall any plane hitting building 7.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Whats also funny is I don't recall a Jumbo Jet hitting towers 1&2 either......!



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Black_Fox

I cringed once I saw this thread and immediately started getting a headache because I knew the "well a jet didn't hit that building" and the "well, there wasn't burning jet fuel" posts were inevitable.

Yes people, we all know jet fuel along with water coolers and bic pens burns at 10,000 degrees, hot enough to liquefy steel, and cause a building collapse that looks like a demolition.

There, I got that out of the way.

Peace



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Black_Fox


Thats funny because i dont recall any plane hitting building 7.


Thats funny because I recall that debris from North Tower were hitting building 7, which is why it caught on fire in the first place. Unless you just found out now.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Deltaboy-
Yes debris did fall on WTC 7,but debris also fell on buildings 5 & 6(if im not mistaken) and they didnt collapse.In fact,they had to be brought down by controlled demolition in the days after.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Hmm, that building isn't even completed yet. The damage was reported to be slight as well, and was only on fire for an hour.
As opposed to uncontrolled fires started by aircraft exploding in the building and weakening structure with the impact, and the heat of the fire.
Now don't get me wrong, but you don't have to melt steel to reduce it's strength, otherwise how would a blacksmith ever make anything?



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   
The two incidents cannot be compared. There are many different variables that would have to be accounted for to make an accurate comparison....variables that the thread author, thread source and OP fail to mention.



[edit on 15/8/2007 by SportyMB]



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   
And let's not forget that the WTC were made out of wire coat hangers that were repeatedly bent back and forth, causing the buildings to collapse in the same way as a controlled demolition.

Peace



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   
agreed, the fact that they are two completely different buildings built with different techniques (considering the age of the WTC). Planes hit the twins towers, they slammed in at speed, and ripped through the centre of the building, that in itself can weaken a structure that was already rumoured to be inefficient.

Guys, really, okay, 3 buildings came down on 9/11, in a very dense area of a major city. Why bring down WT7 as well? What do you stand to gain? Is it merely an insurance scam, or was it to further the NWO and invade the Middle East by demonising muslims. There are so many different theories as to the motives, which proofs that there is absolutely no proof WHAT-SO-EVER that it was an 'inside job'. Nilche.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Just another attempt, really lame one at that, to manufacture a 'CT' by comparing apples to bowling balls.
Why threads like this, which are blantly mis-informing, are allowed is beyond me.

If the OP was so confident that these are the same......why doesn't he/she list the similarities?



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
I fail to see in the story where the structural integrity of the bldg in China was compromised by being struck by a high speed jumbo jet.

Apples and Oranges people....no use comparing the 2.


Wrong.

The towers stood after collapse. That means that the structural integrity of the buildings were NOT compromised. The buildings were able to shift the loads so that after the impacts, it was just the same as any other building.

Saying that the plane damage had any cause in collapse is a red herring.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Thats funny because I recall that debris from North Tower were hitting building 7, which is why it caught on fire in the first place. Unless you just found out now.


Please provide evidence of this other than quotes. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex
otherwise how would a blacksmith ever make anything?


Ever see a blacksmith be able to do anything to steel that wasn't glowing red hot?

Did we see the steel glowing red hot on 9/11?



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peyre
There are so many different theories as to the motives, which proofs that there is absolutely no proof WHAT-SO-EVER that it was an 'inside job'. Nilche.


So, the fact that the US government has gone on a propoganda campaign is proof that there was no inside job? ok.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
If the OP was so confident that these are the same......why doesn't he/she list the similarities?


You are so confident that it is apples to bowling balls, why don't you list the differences?

And no, plane damage won't count. Unless you don't understand what redundancy means. Try googling Factor of Safety for starters.

[edit on 8/15/2007 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
And since people think they know everything about how steel framed structures act in fires. Here's something to chew on. A study pre-9/11 that shows conclusively that it has no affect on them. The biggest affect is the elongation due to the heat. NOT strength reduction. Fire-proofing or not.

DEBUNK THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

guardian.150m.com...



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Griff - I did not start this thread so I'm under no obligation to refute such a stupid claim.

It is the OP's resposibilty to list WHY he/she thinks the builds are similar.

The motto of ATS is DENY IGNORANCE

Something which is severly lacking in the 9/11 threads and from posts like the OP and yours.




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join