China's Tallest Building Catches Fire, Does Not Collapse

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, yes, debris hit many buildings that day, including 7 which was on fire for more than 7 hours before collapse. An uncontained fire folks.

Got proof of that?

Define uncontrollable so we know what you are talking about.. that we we don't mix up uncontrollable small fires with real uncontrollable ones..

Yes PROVE IT.. I want to see UNCONTROLLABLE FIRES IN WTC 7 Till then fire = loss cause. Debris = Loss cause.

And define Uncontained please...

I would like to see this meaning.. don't tell me show me.. Using all available footage of WTC 7.

EDIT

This is how I define Uncontrolled Fires.





[edit on 8/15/2007 by ThichHeaded]

Griff

You have awakened the trolls

We need to post a sign

Please Don't Feed The Trolls

There seem to be more of them lately, I am just putting them on ignore now. The only way I know they have even posted is if someone refers to them or quotes them.

About the china building the point is taken, what about that other building that burned for over 25 hours and the whole building was engulfed.
Strangely it did not not suffer a global collapse
Yes it was possible for the WTC buildings to suffer a limited topple the top collapse, but not an enitire global collapse the pulled the core down, no way, impossible

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
what about that other building that burned for over 25 hours and the whole building was engulfed.
Strangely it did not not suffer a global collapse

www.studyof911.com...

That would be this one. The Windsor Building in Madrid Spain. Burned 28 hrs and only had partial collapse where the building was burning. It did not fall onto itself and all that stuff..

Sorry about the crappy music in it..

*Imagines Bush saying...

Of course Shanghai's World Financial Center didn't collapse, the source of it's fire wasn't Jet fuel.

As everyone knows, Jet fuel is so potent you can dump a few hundred gallons of it over a baseball field, set it on fire, and soon enough you'll have a giant miles-deep sinkhole. Jet fuel is potent stuff!

The Madid building was not designed in the same manner as the WTC, and that makes a big difference. You can make a sub out of steel that will sink, and a ball out of the same steel that will sink. It is the design that determines the strength and the integrity of the building.

You cannot compare the two fires. Find a structure such as the WTC, and fly a plane into it at 500 mph and let me know what happens.

Originally posted by esdad71
You cannot compare the two fires. Find a structure such as the WTC, and fly a plane into it at 500 mph and let me know what happens.

hmmm WTC 7 anyone?

This thread has NOTHING to do with the 9/11 conspiracy. Comparing the Shanghai buidling to the Twin Towers is like comparing apples and coconuts.

This neither supports or discredits the CTers/official story advocates because the situations involving both fires, the material used to construct both buildings, structures of both towers, etc... are all different.

Originally posted by SportyMB
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]

And yet its ok for you guys to compare some freeway in CA to WTC 1 2 and 7...

Isnt that really interesting??

communication wes probably installed to authoritize authority to take em down to prevent further "demolitian"

Couldn't really be bothered to read all the posts here - not after people started comparing this to WTC 1 + 2 when the OP clearly wanted to compared case to WTC 7, he did that in the first line.

Anywho, just wanted to insert this bit of tongue in cheek from the original article;

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.

link

Carry on

ATS General Discussion Etiquette - PLEASE READ


[edit on 16-8-2007 by elevatedone]

There is a thread that was recently psoeted by De;taboy, look it up, that shows the WTC 7 fires and the pushing back of people due to thoughts of collaspse "prior to the collpase".

Thich, I have a question. In those videos, did any of the buildings around that building collapse? I see a raging fire and falling debris that is also on fire. Surely, some of that debris hit surrounding buildings. Did any of those surrounding buildings catch fire? If so, did any of them collapse?

I have seen some overhead shots of other WTC buildings that were basically hollowed from falling debris. These buildings were also on fire. Yet, they have extreme damage and fire and didn't collapse. An earlier poster ask why would anyone demolish WTC 7. I think that is a good question. Ask yourself that and see what you can come up with. What was in WTC 7? A good place to start.

THere was no need for the CIA/NSA to rebuild WTC 7 as that was a main point of operation. They had been operating in that building for a long time.

This is about China though. Maybe they used some of the lead that they use in their toys to fortify the building.

If we're comparing the NO. 7 Building to the Shanghai Center.

Perhaps it would be a good idea, to note the similarities, as well as the differences.

What was the same?
1. They were buildings, that caught fire.

What was different?
1. One collapsed, one did not collapse.

Why the different reactions to a "similar" circumstance?
What additional answers can be applied to the two questions above?

Was it the type of fuel? (and no, I'm not talking jet fuel here)
What was the structural integrity of each building ?
Was there severe damage to WTC 7 earlier in the day? Or was it superficial damage?
How many levels of each building were burning? Big fires? Multiple fires?

Can we take these one at a time instead of fighting about this?

Now, I'm assuming here, that everyone is interested in the truth.
Not a personal belief, but more along the lines of what actually happened at both places..Since we are comparing them..

Can we do it that way?
Or is it going to escalate into yet another war of words that gets nowhere fast?



[edit on 15-8-2007 by spacedoubt]

I have no idea what tempature jet fuel burns at but the twin towers were made to stand an airliner jet crashing into them. from the evidence i have seen i hate to say it but it could have been an "inside job". Reports said that 5 weeks after sept 11 there was still liquid steel with the debris and when the the molten was tested they found components that are found in explosives. Not only that but if you looked at the main support beams they were cut at a slant, the same way they use in demolition. another theory is that the building should have "pancaked". In this case the buildings floors would colapse on eachother, but leave the steel structure behind. and to say that a jetliner could take out 46 steel support beams, causing them to simotaniously collapse is nonsense. i highly doubt that they had an even distribution of damage.

and as for WTC tower 7, look at the way it colapsed. the central beam colapsed causing it to fall in on itself, same way they use on vegas building demolitions. as for fires in that building, they were on three floors and contained within 45 minutes. the tower colapsed around 5pm, long after the fire. i saw no sign of inner structural weakening, the majority of the damage apeared to be on the left side of the building

the chinese building burned four TWO hours and its upper floors. why didnt it fall?

Plus jet fuel, have you ever played with flamible liquids? as soon as they are uncontained they burn off very quickley, the towers would have colapsed in less than a minute if it could superheat the steel structure by jet fuel.

Jeez there's so much bs in this thread...



How is it possible for a building to collapse symmetrically from asymmetrical damage? That goes for all three WTC buildings. How does a building show no sign of resistance from undamaged structural elements? That goes for all three also.

How much of the massive central structure of 47 columns, made from construction steel, could have really been damaged by an aluminum aircraft (that if we are believing the official story disintegrated into nothing after going though a concrete wall) that had just gone through the steel facade? Concrete vs construction steel? Do the math...

The official story just doesn't stand up to reality. Unless you got your edumication from hollywood...

Originally posted by ferretman2
It is the OP's resposibilty to list WHY he/she thinks the builds are similar.

The motto of ATS is DENY IGNORANCE

Tell us why you think they're so dis-similar.

Both made of steel. Both caught on fire for lengths of time.

The jet impacts knocked out only less than 15% of the columns on the impacted floors in either building, and fire was supposedly what ultimately brought all three steel buildings down on 9/11. A lot of damage was chalked up to the fire. Why don't we even see a partial collapse here? Why do we NEVER see any other steel skyscrapers collapse from fires, when there are plenty of case histories of steel buildings suffering catastrophic fires and surviving, including WTC1 in 1976?

Originally posted by BPI
Thich, I have a question. In those videos, did any of the buildings around that building collapse? I see a raging fire and falling debris that is also on fire. Surely, some of that debris hit surrounding buildings. Did any of those surrounding buildings catch fire? If so, did any of them collapse?

No, only Windsor partially collapsed where it was on fire.

removed by staff

And it's posts like this that go unwarned that make me go hmmm....



[edit on 16-8-2007 by elevatedone]