China's Tallest Building Catches Fire, Does Not Collapse

Originally posted by apex
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?

please cite how the damage from the jet impacts was able to destroy the core of the building down to ground level in wtc 1, 2, or 7.

thats what had to have taken place for the 'accepted' story to have happened, and so far hasnt been proven in the slightest.

Originally posted by DoomX
Why would a building crack and bow if CD was used? For suspense?

They didn't "crack and bow" until the collapses started. NIST uses misleading photography. They show WTC2 as it was beginning to tilt, a close-up of the perimeter columns as the building tilted, and they try to suggest that what we're seeing is the trusses pulling columns inward because they're sagging. What about the fact that the entire upper structure was pivoting off of the lower structure there?

Why do firefighters also report the building to seem unstable? To create more drama?

I've also heard firefighters and a former NYPD officer say that there was no significant damage to WTC7, that it was damaged but not nearly to the point of the entire thing free-falling to the ground, and never do I hear anyone there that day mention the fires in WTC7 as anything extraordinary. Not that it matters, because I can see for myself very plainly in photographs how much of WTC7 was actually burning.

Why is the new WTC7 built stronger?

I don't know that it is. I see wider staircases, and I see more fireproofing. Fireproofing has nothing to do with preventing a global collapse. The danger posed to steel by fire comes more from the heat causing the steel to try to expand, creating extra stress between columns.

This building was on fire.

The WTC was hit by a freaking jet.

One of these things are not like the other.

Originally posted by prometheus1
This building was on fire.

The WTC was hit by a freaking jet.

One of these things are not like the other.

Now that we've worked our way up through Kindergarten, do we want to step up the thinking a little and make a more detailed and encompassing comparison?

The planes only took out less than 15% of the columns on the impacted floors in either building. I keep saying this. Do you people know how redundant skyscrapers are built? ALL skyscrapers. I don't care if you want to think the WTC were built poorly; they can be just barely up-to-code and would still be very redundant, or at least redundant enough to require more than 50% of its columns be severed in one place before that place fails to bear its loads.

Ok, then what? Then what does the fire do to the rest of the columns, the majority of undamaged columns left standing? We know that they weren't critically heated. NIST says this. So how did the fire manage to fail the structure, exactly? It's never happened before. And IT WASN'T THE PLANES!, because we've already TAKEN the planes into account. You STILL need to fail the majority of the columns, so how is it going to be done with fire alone? The planes only took out

Does everyone remember reading this when signing up at ATS?

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

If a refresher course is needed, we'd be happy to help:

ATS Terms & Conditions

This your last chance, no name calling or bickering, warnings will be issued.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I've also heard firefighters and a former NYPD officer say that there was no significant damage to WTC7, that it was damaged but not nearly to the point of the entire thing free-falling to the ground, and never do I hear anyone there that day mention the fires in WTC7 as anything extraordinary. Not that it matters, because I can see for myself very plainly in photographs how much of WTC7 was actually burning.

Got a link there buddy?

This is the first I'ver heard of what you're saying...

911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Got a link there buddy?

Here's the interview (Google-video format) with Craig Bartmer, NYPD that day:

www.freedom-fight.net...

how come "they" named the attacks on the world trade center ground zero?

The WTC buildings had the middle blown out BY THE PLANES, they didn't just catch on fire

I suggest everyone watch this slide show for some answers. I know many will not agree...but I will take the word of the investigating engineers over random internet posters everytime.

Why the towers fell

Anyone find this a little misleading?

posted by boone 870. 3. Design changes occured before construction began due to concerns after September 11.

posted by Griff.
Please elaborate because I can't comment until you do. Thanks.

Construction finally resumed on February 13th, 2003.
- The designs changes results an extra spending of more than $200 million USD due to the sophistication of designs which includes structural system re-design, foundation re-design and increased safety features after September 11th.

Article here. This is all I can find for now but I will keep looking.

Ya Griff its not to scale..

Meaning its not real world specs... as in if a wall is 10ft and you put a couch in front of it the wall looks 2 ft.

Originally posted by Boone 870
This is all I can find for now but I will keep looking.

Thanks for that. No need to look any further unless you want to.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
...You won't find many pictures because the firefighters and policemen had more important things to worry about than taking pictures at that moment. You'll find a few though. And according to the firefighters and people actually there it was the structural damage they were more worried about, not necessarily the fires.

Sry but your pics have already been de-bunked here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That 'smoke' you see is actually dust from the collapse of the South Tower.
Analise the series of pics I posted and you can clearly see this.

Also if there was such a raging fire, how come almost all of the diesel fuel was recovered?

From FEMA report...

To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

So I will also ask, where is the fire? You are just making assumptions as to what happened from bogus information. There was no raging fire in 7 and there was no reason for it to collapse neatly into it's own footprint, which it wouldn't do from fires and asymmetrical damage anyway.

So you can carry on acting like you are all superior and we are just a joke, or you can go do some actual research and offer something valid to the discussion...

Originally posted by sensfan
...but I will take the word of the investigating engineers over random internet posters everytime.

Why the towers fell

Sry but this shows nothing. All they did is take the official version and make a animation to fit. It proves nothing but the animators ability to follow instructions. Wow blinded by science. Just because someone is a professional doesn't mean they're telling you the truth. This stuff is not rocket science. A knowledge of basic high school physics should tell you something is not right with the way the towers, and seven, collapsed.

Where is the part where they explain how the building offered no resistance to collapsing floors? Where is the explanation of how WTC 2 defied physics when the inertia of the tilting top section changed? This animation barely scratches the surface of unanswered questions. All it does is make you feel comfortable with believing the biggest government lies this century.

If anyone is interested, here's a video from liveleak.com with Leslie E. Robertson talking about some of the design features of the building.

Originally posted by 420prajna
The WTC buildings had the middle blown out BY THE PLANES, they didn't just catch on fire

Huge exaggeration. Go back and read the NIST report. Their claim is 15% of the columns were severed. But think about that though. An aluminum plane flies through a steel mesh facade and stays solid enough to sever massive steel columns? Hmmmmm....

Remember the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon? It went through a concrete wall and that supposedly turned flight 77 into confetti and dust.
Now concrete wall vs steel wall, something doesn't compute here...

What about the South Tower? The plane didn't even hit the central columns, so where does that leave your theory? Or the governments?

Also if the core was damaged so much, how did it remain standing for an hour? The fires, even according to NIST, did not get hot enough to cause column failure. So why did the towers suddenly decide to let go completely with no resistance from undamaged floors? Something doesn't compute here...

Well, if the WTC was blown up for the gov or not, and it was used to issue some super secret yet obvious objective to limit us, the point is that it failed. I was thinking that they were doing evil deeds for a while, then 2007 came along and is now going along and in 6 years since 9/11. Pretty much nothing has happened, except that people are smarter to notice things more. Isn't that a reverse reacton of our dear NWO friends objective? their glass house is falling apert.

So I will also ask, where is the fire? You are just making assumptions as to what happened from bogus information. There was no raging fire in 7 and there was no reason for it to collapse neatly into it's own footprint, which it wouldn't do from fires and asymmetrical damage anyway.

Check the pictures of WTC 7 here

www.debunking911.com...

Enough fire for you?