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: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Check the pictures of WTC 7 here

www.debunking911.com...

Enough fire for you?


Nope. I liked the part about the Murrah Building though. I wonder if the author realizes that that mess stood because of just one column?

Reaching.




posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman


Check the pictures of WTC 7 here

www.debunking911.com...

Enough fire for you?


I find it rather interesting that the Banker's Trust building, which probably suffered more damage than WTC 7 did and was closer to one of the towers, didn't collapse.

I already know the answer debunkers will say: No fire.


It's convenient how WTC 7 caught fire and the Banker's Trust didn't. Tack on another coincidence on 9/11.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Edit: OOPS, double post.



[edit on 17-8-2007 by Conundrum04]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Thank you thedman, thank you soooo much. You proved my other talking about how square based structures COMPLETLY SUCK! This proves it! For a square based structure like WTC 7, when one side goes, the ENTIRE structure goes. First its sides, then the top being dragged down, then the other sides crunch, then it all goes to hell.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Ok we finally got the definition of uncontrollable fires in WTC.. Lets recap...

I stated Windsor was a full Uncrossable fire...

Pics..







And on and on and on..

So you show me the true definition of UNCONTRALLABLE FIRES

Which is here..




Pics below Where are these uncontrollable fires again?


Pics above?? Where is these uncontrollable fires again??

Now I will add to your claim.








Now I want to ask you 1 more time. Where are these uncontrolled fires again..

And don't give my no crap about the Windsor Tower being night time, that is an half assed excuse on why there seems to be more fire there than at WTC 7.

As you see however this comment about uncontrolled fires is falling apart faster than a broken bottle..

So hey.. lets get with it.. Where are these fires again??



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conundrum04


I find it rather interesting that the Banker's Trust building, which probably suffered more damage than WTC 7 did and was closer to one of the towers, didn't collapse.

I already know the answer debunkers will say: No fire.


It's convenient how WTC 7 caught fire and the Banker's Trust didn't. Tack on another coincidence on 9/11.




Allow an architect to explain.

WTC had all its support in its sides. If one went, it could stand, however two went, so it was screwed.



The bankers building was supported by outside beams, much as the WTC towers were. However, unlike the WTC, it didn't have a 5th of the structure above it nor all of its strength on the outside, nor a plane destroy its structual sides. This shorter building had less to carry, and nothing but solid ground holding it in. Also, I think by pure luck and a miricle, it was damaged in a way so that its beams were able to support the broken beams.



I live in NY, and because of this luck, it stood, but its danger lead to its closing and current de construction.


WTC7 simply had no external supports to hold it up. Once one 2 sides went, it was game over.

Pics all together for comparison:













Good enough?


Update:

Thick headed, those structures were widened as they reach the ground, not simply square shaped with 4 main supports. So obviously it would still stand

[edit on 18-8-2007 by Gorman91]

[edit on 18-8-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Fix your images.. they are screwing the page up.

And by your definition, you building should have tipped over like WTC 2 did then suddenly fell straight down..

Good job on proving our point..

have a cookie why dont ya.

[edit on 8/18/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Fix your images.. they are screwing the page up.

And by your definition, you building should have tipped over like WTC 2 did then suddenly fell straight down..

Good job on proving our point..

have a cookie why dont ya.

[edit on 8/18/2007 by ThichHeaded]


But it did do that, did you watch the full collapse, it started pulling down on one side, collapsed side slightly, then went straigt down. I'll ready pics to show you



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I dont recall WTC 7 falling on any type of angle.. I recall it falling pretty much like this line below my word here...

EXP of how WTC 7 collapsed..

---------------------------------------------------------------------

See straight..

::EDIT::

According to your theory the building had 4 supports.. right??

Therefore if 2 were taken out it should have fallen like a table if you kicked out 2 legs..

[edit on 8/18/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

According to your theory the building had 4 supports.. right??

Therefore if 2 were taken out it should have fallen like a table if you kicked out 2 legs..

[edit on 8/18/2007 by ThichHeaded]


Yes, in some sorts. Just that it was so large it crunched and went down, take a look.



Notice it isn't exactly straight because of the tugging. Metal is very maluable, but it tugges very much also and can pull quiete a bit.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Did I win the debate? WOW, for once in my otherwise crappy life I actually wone something? yay!

Well, to further it, the WTC7 simply was weakend in one corner, not the entire structure like the burning buildings above. If the entire structure burns, then weight is even and it stays. However for the WTC7, it weakened on one end and created an unbalanced weight on the building, causing it to collapse on the side of the weakest one. Simple laws of gravity and physics.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:33 AM
link   
And once again the de-bunkers show pics of WTC 7 with the 'smoke' that has been shown to actually be dust from WTC 2 collapsing. They can't even keep up...


Yeah where is your raging inferno now? It is obvious that WTC 7 was not a towering inferno, and the fire and damage claims are extremely exaggerated.

You've only got to look at the gif of 7 falling to see there is no raging inferno at the time of it's collapse.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
And once again the de-bunkers show pics of WTC 7 with the 'smoke' that has been shown to actually be dust from WTC 2 collapsing. They can't even keep up...


Yeah where is your raging inferno now? It is obvious that WTC 7 was not a towering inferno, and the fire and damage claims are extremely exaggerated.

You've only got to look at the gif of 7 falling to see there is no raging inferno at the time of it's collapse.

True, but all it takes is to take out one side of a building and it's at risk of collapse if it's rectangular. Look at my above post of why the other raging building did not collapse.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Thank you for showing us a classic sign of a controlled demolition. You should be working for our side...


The kink you see is purposely done to allow the outer walls to fall inwards. Take out the central columns first and the building will fall inwards instead of outwards. Just like WTC 7 did...




posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Thank you for showing us a classic sign of a controlled demolition. You should be working for our side...


The kink you see is purposely done to allow the outer walls to fall inwards. Take out the central columns first and the building will fall inwards instead of outwards. Just like WTC 7 did...




Looks like fire took out a side to me.


As I said, the reason the other enferno building did not collapse was becasue it was evenly destroyed. The total structure was burned and lightened, not a section. The WTC 7 had a chunk bitten ot of it and a weight inbalancment.


[edit on 18-8-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
True, but all it takes is to take out one side of a building and it's at risk of collapse if it's rectangular. Look at my above post of why the other raging building did not collapse.


Utter garbage. You think after all these years of engineering and construction they would not have figured it out by now if they were building buildings wrong?


So what if a triangle is stronger than a rectangle? It doesn't mean anything that is not a triangle is prone to globally collapse into it's own footprints with no resistance from undamaged members due to sporadic fires and asymmetrical damage.

I'll say again, asymmetrical damage will NOT cause a symmetricall collapse.

Is this kiddy hour?



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91The bankers building was supported by outside beams, much as the WTC towers were. However, unlike the WTC, it didn't have a 5th of the structure above it nor all of its strength on the outside, nor a plane destroy its structual sides. This shorter building had less to carry, and nothing but solid ground holding it in. Also, I think by pure luck and a miricle, it was damaged in a way so that its beams were able to support the broken beams.


What!? The WTC towers were supported mainly by the core structure of 47 steel columns, not the external steel facade. You win nothing. Just because the NIST report ignored the core, doesn't mean we will.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Looks like fire took out a side to me.



So what? All I can see is damage to the facade. However hard I look I can't see any damage to columns inside the building. Can you?

And btw it wasn't the fire that caused that damage...



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

So what? All I can see is damage to the facade. However hard I look I can't see any damage to columns inside the building. Can you?

And btw it wasn't the fire that caused that damage...


Good, then that proves it even more. The video shows, fire or no fire, that the wall fell, tugged the roof down with it along with the penthouse, then the entire structure began falling down in that direction.

Don't get me wrong, there are un answered questions. It's just that I see the NWO as a collapsing organization with few supporters left. I mean come on, who sitll likes Bush but a few hicks in texas?

[edit on 18-8-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla

What!? The WTC towers were supported mainly by the core structure of 47 steel columns, not the external steel facade. You win nothing. Just because the NIST report ignored the core, doesn't mean we will.


Do you live in NYC? My father spent all his life in the city, saw them go up, even helped build the train stations under them (and is still now). He worked with the same guys who built it and he Says the workers said that the building was built with its strength on the outside. I'll trust the workers more then anyone else.




top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join