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.

 

Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing

page: 5
59
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I have been through the Fire academy. Part of that training is structural collapse. A building made of heavy structural steel does not collapse due to fire. They do not collapse from partial structural integrity being breached or fire.

NIST said those buildings pancaked because of the fire and structure damage.

I know I am wasting my time here but what the hell.

They would have toppled into the street, you cannot bring those structural members up to failure evenly enough for it to all fail at the same time. The rest of the building will work as a giant heat sink. Anyone want to guess why we use water to put out fires?

Its the most abundant heat sink available. We use water to remove the heat.

Go in your backyard and build a raging fire and find a way to feed it oxygen to maximize the heat. Take a steel rod and have one end in the fire and have a the portion closest to the fire enclosed in concrete. If you do this you will be able to touch that steel rod on the other side of the concrete and not get burned.

This is a heat sink. The point is that you cannot heat steel evenly in a building to create the type of collapse on 9/11. It has never happened and will never happen again.

You thing the fed is telling you the truth? Like the bailout of the banks is the truth? Use your own heads and not what is fed to you.

This building in Beijing would have collapsed if you were to apply the story the fed has fed you. Eat something better for you please!




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by KonigKaos
 


LOL
EPIC *FAIL*

No. This building only had a full fledged inferno from floor 0 to floor TOP.

Lets see.

The building came down in a cough what was it again? Let me see, hold on, I have to tie my shoe, oh yeah, FREE FALL WAS IT? Hah. Hah. With one measily


Dec 15, 2008
WTC7: NIST Admits Freefall
— David Chandler

Watch Part I of the Video Now!
NIST has now officially accepted that WTC7 came down with the acceleration of gravity, but they still couch it as a phase in a 5.4 second interval they claim matches the 5.4 seconds required for their model to collapse 18 floors. The starting point of their 5.4 second interval is totally arbitrary. This new video highlights the August 26 technical briefing and allows Sunder and Gross to shoot holes in their own feet.
Watch Part II of the Video Now!
Watch Part III of the Video Now!

source: www.ae911truth.org...



Now am I high, blind, and retarded, or do I see a 45 degree slice in that rebar as though it was strapped with explosives to inhibit a freefall?


All you debunkers FAIL!

9/11 WAS, AND IS, AND WILL ALWAYS BE, A INSIDE JOB.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by Revolution-2012]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
yes structural yes structural ....structural


can guess, and take shots in the wind...all you like.

the ONLY REAL evidence would be in the fire protection information, not to mention the electrical side of things from smoke to heat detectors etc. etc. Have not even mention the security systems? esp. in some of these buildings with high profile tenants.

Guess they want everyone to "ignore" these items, items that may show what happened that day.

but cont. on compare apples to oranges like ush'

Y'r (still waiting) Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Because this building did not fall, it proves 9/11 was an inside job?

You fail at logic. Event B not happening does not prove that event A could not happen. This reminds me of the dead-guy hoax. "Guy was dead 5 days.. no one noticed! This is proof that people could have wired the biggest buildings in the world with explosives and no one would have noticed!" I said "That was a hoax you realize (posted link)." Response to that? That because people didn't realize that this was a hoax, it ALSO proved his point!


You'll make more headway when you stop trying to use nonsensical comparisons to try to make a point.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
So?

It was an UNFINISHED hotel...
lol.

WTCs were full of soo much PC equipment, servers, books, paper, JET FEUL..
gosh, what else.


9/11 may be a conspiracy but ill be 95% sure when I say..
THERE WERE NO PLANTED EXPLOSIVES IN THE BUILDING[S].



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 



What is steel made of in ASIA?

I was not comparing the structures in my post. I compared the Raw Materials used to make these buildings.

Shouldn't they burn at the same rate?



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by xbranscombex
...JET FEUL..
gosh, what else..


Sorry but is it me or does just about every third new poster on this thread forget to read the fine details that the OP made?

WTC1/2 were NOT mentioned in the OP by the OP, can we please stop bringing jet fuel and plane crashes into this discussion.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by phushion
 



I notice too. The building is not the exact same shape or make as WTC 7 but the raw materials are the same and fire brought down one of them after 5 hours of "raging" office fire on one side of the building.

So can someone please explain what is STEEL made of in ASIA?



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
please remember WT1/2 and 7 total site would be c/w UNDERGROUND levels that would cover the entire site. (from building to building) and the structural beams at say 1 level underground for WT1&2 will have effects on the others.

so again everyone compare away....cont. on


and I checked the angle in the picture....not 45 it's 44 so you prob. are high


Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   

By late evening the blaze was still raging and the cause remained unknown, but it seemed clear that the 34-story structure, not yet completed, had been rendered unusable.


What's with the guy who is smiling in that one picture? Any1 else find that a little strange?

Conspiracy Theorists:
1) Why did this building incinerate so quickly?
2) Why did this event take place at night?
3) Is the smiling "civilian" really a paid actor employed to cause confusion?
4) Who benefits most from this building being set ablaze?
5) What is the official line being reported by the Chinese media?
6) Does the Media appear to be targeting a certain type of suspect, one that it would have "wanted" to carry this out?
7) What are the INSURANCE details for this building?


Awaiting your replies



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aubryish
reply to post by phushion
 



I notice too. The building is not the exact same shape or make as WTC 7 but the raw materials are the same and fire brought down one of them after 5 hours of "raging" office fire on one side of the building.

So can someone please explain what is STEEL made of in ASIA?



In asia, steel is made of hurredly shipped out WTC1-7 steel


Another big office fire and another..

NON COLLAPSE.

How many more will it take for people to think a little more than what electronic heroin - sorry TV, tells them to think?

I love the programmed little drones running around this thread. Say hi to the CIA from me!



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mpriebe81
 


apparently you're not on the same boat everyone else here is. We're comparing this building to WTC7 which in fact was not hit by an airplane...that is unless i was totally out of it that day and completely forgot about the event or i'm living in some weird parallel universe...



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   



I was gonna post this same concept...

Right???



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostR1der

Originally posted by Aubryish
reply to post by phushion
 



I notice too. The building is not the exact same shape or make as WTC 7 but the raw materials are the same and fire brought down one of them after 5 hours of "raging" office fire on one side of the building.

So can someone please explain what is STEEL made of in ASIA?



In asia, steel is made of hurredly shipped out WTC1-7 steel


Another big office fire and another..

NON COLLAPSE.

How many more will it take for people to think a little more than what electronic heroin - sorry TV, tells them to think?

I love the programmed little drones running around this thread. Say hi to the CIA from me!


Its amazing!

Gotta love this country sometimes.

This is why babies should not be dropped on their heads.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aubryish
reply to post by phushion
 



I notice too. The building is not the exact same shape or make as WTC 7 but the raw materials are the same and fire brought down one of them after 5 hours of "raging" office fire on one side of the building.

So can someone please explain what is STEEL made of in ASIA?



MAGICAL steel

No doubt about it.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
Because this building did not fall, it proves 9/11 was an inside job?

You fail at logic. Event B not happening does not prove that event A could not happen. This reminds me of the dead-guy hoax. "Guy was dead 5 days.. no one noticed! This is proof that people could have wired the biggest buildings in the world with explosives and no one would have noticed!" I said "That was a hoax you realize (posted link)." Response to that? That because people didn't realize that this was a hoax, it ALSO proved his point!


You'll make more headway when you stop trying to use nonsensical comparisons to try to make a point.


Do you realize you turned around and did the exact same thing you said someone fails at logic for doing?

You used another event A, in order to debunk event B.

Personally, I think at this point people know the truth, it's just a matter of if they are willing to accept it or not. The excuses given in this thread by "believers" of the official story are just some of the worse I've seen.

I'll bet you if the building had fallen, all those who say it isn't valid now would say it was valid in supporting the official story. And that pretty much tells me some people aren't interested in the truth of things at all. And yes, that can go both ways.

Btw, that was one of the biggest fires I've ever seen. I seen the madrid pictures and such, but that blaze in the video is just nuts.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Funny that's what I was thinking....wondering maybe a labour dispute?

it's a hotel not completed...guess they w'r late for the olympics

and when was this hotel planned to open....and would it be empty in the future or booked up for years to come?

with 5 million new unemployed workers in China makes you wonder, but again...fire works and open buildings = fire. Would be a good time to start one if was a plan.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
is it just me or is there very little on the TV/News on this burning building in China?

Thank god for youtube etc., otherwise never would have seen this.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   


Sorry, if i seem ignorant but, how hot does an entire (was it a "34" storey) building on fire get?

Would a fire this size be considered an inferno? If someone were able to "toss" a steel beam into heart of this inferno, would this steel beam be severely weaken or partially melted by the time this inferno finally burns itself out?

The fires of 9/11 seemed kind of small compared to this one, but on WTC-7 was somehow intense enough to weaken the steel foundations and eventually collapse that building.

So what kind of sub-standard steel did they use to build the WTCs?


[edit on 10-2-2009 by ixiy]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ixiy
 


Oh yes, that is correct.

Not only that, he refused to make a comment about the PERFECTLY CUT 45 DEGREE PIECE OF METAL COLUMN.


Hahahaha........Yeah, the fire just caused that, and it's just a coincidence that in building demolitions they use 45 degree strands of thermite to shred the metal, oh it's just a coincidence.

But wait, does it not only get better? Yes, it does.

The floors crashing down on one and another, MAGICALLY created what seemed to be EXPLOSIONS in the VIDEO FOOTAGE of the WTC plummit.

Wait, that's just built up pressure right?

Yeah, so that's why the FIRE FIGHTERS inside of the WTC1 & 2 WERE REPORTING HEARING MULTIPLE *EXPLOSIONS* *BOOMS* NOT CRASHING SOUNDS.

Hmmmm. Wait?

I think there was some, 100 witness claiming they heard an explosion go off in one of the WTCs before the planes even hit?


Nah, they're all high on crack.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join