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: 6
59
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
I was Just thinking of this yesterday. This is, in my opinion, the greatest testament to the entire conspiracy reality of explosives being used in New York. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the video of that building burning.
All of the windows had burst from heat, and the ENTIRE thing was in flames.

I wonder what type of fire control system they had in that building? Weren't the water pumps and reservoir's malfunctioning in the WTC on Sept. 11th?

star and flag Talisman


[edit on 10-2-2009 by becomingaware]

[edit on 10-2-2009 by becomingaware]




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Hey "Talisman", are you questioning the WTC Towers Collapse, or only Building 7?

Because as far as the Twin Towers go (Buildings 1 and 2), they were inundated with Jet Fuel (JP-8), which does not burn like a regular fire.

As for Building 7, well, that depends on a lot. For one, the Seismic Tremors unleashed by the Twin Towers collapsing would have weakened any building nearby that just so happened to resonate at the same frequency as the tremors (depends upon Building Materials, Foundation type, Ground Structure, etc.). Also, there is a maze of Underground connections between the WTC Towers, and Building 7, which includes an Underground Shopping Mall, Subway Tunnels, and Walkways.

Also, do not forget the Underground Parking Garages, which could have easily become a repository for smoldering Jet Fuel, as well as Vehicles full of Gasoline and Diesel.

When you consider the aforementioned, it becomes apparent that the foundation of Building 7 could have very easily been weakened to the point of collapse.

Taking into consideration the Exterior Damage imparted upon this very same building, in addition to the previously mentioned aspects, you soon begin to realize that there is a very apparent recipe for such a catastrophic structural failure.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
The NIST report claimed it was fire that caused structual failure of building 7.


The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.


Here is a good video explaining some elements of the incident, and demonstates a good comparison to the official report.


[edit on 10-2-2009 by becomingaware]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012



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!



Wow, that's it right there, the smoking gun. A perfect 45 degree angle cut into that steel complete with evidence of molten material having dripped down the inside of the top of the cut, the inside and outside of the two side cuts and a significant flow down from the bottom of the cut. I've always thought this was an inside job, but I've never seen photographic evidence as undeniable as that. Great find!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
Hey "Talisman", are you questioning the WTC Towers Collapse, or only Building 7?

Because as far as the Twin Towers go (Buildings 1 and 2), they were inundated with Jet Fuel (JP-8), which does not burn like a regular fire.

As for Building 7, well, that depends on a lot. For one, the Seismic Tremors unleashed by the Twin Towers collapsing would have weakened any building nearby that just so happened to resonate at the same frequency as the tremors (depends upon Building Materials, Foundation type, Ground Structure, etc.). Also, there is a maze of Underground connections between the WTC Towers, and Building 7, which includes an Underground Shopping Mall, Subway Tunnels, and Walkways.

Also, do not forget the Underground Parking Garages, which could have easily become a repository for smoldering Jet Fuel, as well as Vehicles full of Gasoline and Diesel.

When you consider the aforementioned, it becomes apparent that the foundation of Building 7 could have very easily been weakened to the point of collapse.

Taking into consideration the Exterior Damage imparted upon this very same building, in addition to the previously mentioned aspects, you soon begin to realize that there is a very apparent recipe for such a catastrophic structural failure.




I am only questioning WTC-7 in relation to this.

Many buildings that day were damaged from the WTC-Towers, NOT JUST WTC-7 and were on Fire Yet did Not Collapse.


You had buildings on 9/11 damaged far worse than WTC-7, yet they did not do a 6.5 second global collapse. They were damaged from the falling debris and fires, yet did Not Collapse.


Now we have a building in Beijing that is damaged beyond belief, and it did not have a global collapse.




[edit on 10-2-2009 by talisman]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Can someone please confirm the dates of the sourced picture?

The reason for this is, the same picture (burning building with 2 men infront) was on enterprisecorruption.com about 3 weeks ago.

At the time I found it interesting so tried to dig up a news article about it to no avail. I shrugged it off thinking that it is hard to find decent news sources from China. Now we are suddenly seeing this article brought up at the date 2/9 further more end of Chinese New Year.

I see a serious mix up in media here or perhaps this article has been purposely delayed. Please someone, help me find more sources!!!

Okay so this is what we know:

This happened at 15th of jan yet reported today

According to Chinese television, the fire began at 8:27 p.m. Monday, although witnesses said they spotted flames as early as 7:45 p.m

Fireworks should have started at 8pm.

There could have been a marginal error in setting off 15 min earlier (saw this in Melbourne)

The error however would have been reported.

EDIT: Sorry in my haste I didnt realise this is under the 911 conspiracy forum. However there is still a familiar scent of conspiracy within this story.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by JRSB]

[edit on 10-2-2009 by JRSB]

[edit on 10-2-2009 by JRSB]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Do you think this happened by coincidence? The creator is trying to open the eyes to those that are blind to the 9/11 Truth. NO building inferno or airplane in its side will not fall in less then 10 seconds flat. Alas they are all sleepers still not awakened.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator


MAGICAL steel

No doubt about it.


Actually you're wrong.

It must be... *drum roll*

PENTANIUM




Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
Hey "Talisman", are you questioning the WTC Towers Collapse, or only Building 7?

Because as far as the Twin Towers go (Buildings 1 and 2), they were inundated with Jet Fuel (JP-8), which does not burn like a regular fire.

I hope you are not going down the blast furnace argument road. It has been debunked. Fuel burns... You have a fuel (fuel), oxygen, heat. It's pretty simple. Simple maths: steel inside the towers rated by UL labs to 2000 degrees F for several hours. Jet fuel max temp 1520F in perfect conditions.
The amount of black soot pouring outta WTC 1 and 2 would indicate a poorly combusting fire, starved of oxygen. That's why people stood in the holes created by the planes... it wasn't that hot. Firemen reported two isolated pockets of fire... Then the buildings collapsed. Yeah right... collapsed. More like demolished to murder.


"We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. " www.rense.com...

"In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons such as jet fuel burning in air is 1520 F (825 C)." whatreallyhappened.com...


As for Building 7, well, that depends on a lot. For one, the Seismic Tremors unleashed by the Twin Towers collapsing would have weakened any building nearby that just so happened to resonate at the same frequency as the tremors (depends upon Building Materials, Foundation type, Ground Structure, etc.). Also, there is a maze of Underground connections between the WTC Towers, and Building 7, which includes an Underground Shopping Mall, Subway Tunnels, and Walkways.

Why didn't WTC6 collapse? It had half the building ripped out.


drjudywood.com...

Also, do not forget the Underground Parking Garages, which could have easily become a repository for smoldering Jet Fuel, as well as Vehicles full of Gasoline and Diesel.

When you consider the aforementioned, it becomes apparent that the foundation of Building 7 could have very easily been weakened to the point of collapse.

So it would then uniformly collapse at the exact same rate (minus the perfect kink in the roof) onto itself?

Taking into consideration the Exterior Damage imparted upon this very same building, in addition to the previously mentioned aspects, you soon begin to realize that there is a very apparent recipe for such a catastrophic structural failure.

Again, becomingaware states; "The NIST report claimed it was fire that caused structual failure of building 7."
I believe we can safely rule out the minor damage to the corner of WTC7. The question you should be asking is: what force propelled the beams into the side of WTC7? What force causes a massive dust cloud of pulverised concrete? it sure as hell wasn't fire and gravity.

911research.wtc7.net...

Quote from source:
"Conclusion
The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity. The over 10-fold disparity between the most conservative estimate and the gravitational energy is not easily dismissed as reflecting uncertainties in quantitative assessments."



edit for HTML rubbish

[edit on 10/2/09 by GhostR1der]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   
The element that is missing in this discussion is not fuel but oxygen.The inferno in China was hotter because,as an unfinished building,it had lots of free access of fresh air to fan the flames,even though there presumably was less fuel in the form of carpets and computers and furniture and such.No amount of jet fuel(kerosene) will heat steel to anything like failure temperatures without enough O2. Try stuffing a cold wood stove with too much oak and no kindling.You get a 'smoke' not a fire.Kindling is less dense wood(more air spaces within) chopped up to allow more surface area to be exposed to the fire/air.It is just like running a small gas engine with the choke left on,too rich a fuel/air mix results in black smoke and no power because the chemical reaction is not complete.The Beijing fire was too hot to even look at,look at the sweat on the smiling guy's face.WTC 7 had none of that,plus windows which starved the fire of air,hence the thick black smoke and dull orange fire.A steel beam in the China fire would have reached forging temperature pretty quickly and been rendered unfit for structural duty due to sag,sulfur contamination(from pyrotechnics) and actual burning damage.And they'll do a post mortem on the building which 'we' never really did.(no evidence!no evidence!waves hands)BTW the steel must be scrapped and resmelted to be recycled to eliminate unwanted contaminants most especially sulfur.Final point is the extreme powdering of the concrete yet paper was not consumed by the fire!?!Only one (actual)explanation for that anomaly,see videos.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by mpriebe81
wow, talk about a raging inferno!!!

of course there are those who will mention the fact that an airplane didn't crash into this building

Tower 1 and 2 were hit by planes, WTC bldg 7 was not hit by planes.

This is established fact on both sides of the issue.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

As for Building 7, well, that depends on a lot. For one, the Seismic Tremors unleashed by the Twin Towers collapsing would have weakened any building nearby that just so happened to resonate at the same frequency as the tremors (depends upon Building Materials, Foundation type, Ground Structure, etc.). Also, there is a maze of Underground connections between the WTC Towers, and BuildingAlso, do not forget the Underground Parking Garages, which could have easily become a repository for smoldering Jet Fuel, as well as Vehicles full of Gasoline and Diesel.

When you consider the aforementioned, it becomes apparent that the foundation of Building 7 could have very easily been weakened to the point of collapse.

Taking into consideration the Exterior Damage imparted upon this very same building, in addition to the previously mentioned aspects, you soon begin to realize that there is a very apparent recipe for such a catastrophic structural failure.


The logic in your first paragraph doesn't account for REALITY if the standard is logic.

Your assumption assumes that the seismic energy released was even comparable to a average California earthquake.

One tower indicated a 2.1 and the other 2.3



So I'm just letting you know that make your assertion of seismic activity catastrophically damaging building 7 laughable.

A 2.3 feels like a heavy freight truck passing in the street beside you.

I have been through an EARTHQUAKE so violent that you hear the boards in your walls cracking and you can see the other side other house rise and fall. On my street a couple of large apartments cracked open and shifted. However these structure built nearly a century before endured.

Richter Magnitudes Description Earthquake Effects Frequency of Occurrence
Less than 2.0 Micro Microearthquakes, not felt. About 8,000 per day
2.0-2.9 Minor Generally not felt, but recorded. About 1,000 per day

Note there are 365,000 2.0-2.9 earthquakes a year per USGS

I have not heard of any earthquake induced buildings collapse in the USA in many years.

So the basis of your entire statement is not based on reality, because it severely over estimates the power of a 2.3 seismic event.

Then you make the assertion that, jet fuel and reserve fuel flowed a block or more to building7. The imagined sight of such an event is like imagining a four thousand yard football pass.

I suggest that you are speculating - I suggest that you have a very illogical theory and I suggest that you are not very well versed in basic science.

Your recipe is like using garlic to achieve vanilla ice cream.

Considering your argument is so clearly flat, why are you even on this thread?
It seems you joining a discussion that is above your level of knowledge.

Your participation is on par with making things up as you go or spinning a chocolate charlie sized wooper.

It is evident you are not interested in actually understanding the collapse of building 7.

You seem more interested in taking an official position, which is not synonymous with truth or actuality.

CORN FLAVORED CHOCOLATE CHARLIE

[edit on 10-2-2009 by mental modulator]

[edit on 10-2-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   
if insanity is repeating something over and over expecting a different result,

Then I guess the insane can implode a building...scratch that...buildings...that are on fire and thus convince ones self that he/she is sane.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Kratos1220
 

Yup , that is done via Thermite or another cutter type device.

Thermite ash was fnd at the site, but it was hushed up.

They said they saw molten steel in the channel rails for several days.

Even the official story admits that jet fuel cannot melt steel, just
weaken it.

Numerous Firefighters and Policemen at ground zero have come
forward to tedtify there were additional explosions.

They are all written off as some group mass delusion ?

I cannot believe ppl will not take the word of the ppl that ran to the
site to risk their lives to save others over some political hacks in DC.

Truly a sad state that several firefighters have been bashed
verbally in public and by the media for telling the truth.

Orwell was a prophet.

Good Luck to you all !



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by GhostR1der
 





Cheers - PENTANIUM???


Ya, apparently building 7 was made of toosie rolls and hairdryers.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by imd12c4funn
if insanity is repeating something over and over expecting a different result,

Then I guess the insane can implode a building...scratch that...buildings...that are on fire and thus convince ones self that he/she is sane.


YA and someone built building 7 out of kindling and kingsford



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thiaoouba Prophecy
Do you think this happened by coincidence? The creator is trying to open the eyes to those that are blind to the 9/11 Truth. NO building inferno or airplane in its side will not fall in less then 10 seconds flat. Alas they are all sleepers still not awakened.


Also as mentioned by several structural engineers, no building that
has failed due to uneven damage has fallen in its own footprint.

As to the pancake theory, if that were true the 47 center columns
would still have been standing.

The 'many' reports by firefighters of explosions in the lower section
of the bldg are ignored by the media and the government.

I will take the word of the firefighters over the ppl that were not
even there any day of the week.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by imd12c4funn
if insanity is repeating something over and over expecting a different result,

Then I guess the insane can implode a building...scratch that...buildings...that are on fire and thus convince ones self that he/she is sane.


YA and someone built building 7 out of kindling and kingsford


Larry Silverstein saying he told them to pull bldg 7

Well maybe larry knew they had a lot of BBQ supplies in there so
he just told them to go ahead and setup a demo of the bldg in hours
instead of the usually many days.

LOL

The whole thing going down nice and even in its own footprint
would not happen to a building with uneven damage.

In other words with uneven damage you get an uneven fall.

Many structural engineers around the world have commented
on this fact.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Well, I think all the proof is here guys.


I say, now we can just point and laugh at the ignorant ones.

/me points

/me laughs



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
Well, I think all the proof is here guys.


I say, now we can just point and laugh at the ignorant ones.

/me points

/me laughs


I'm laughing at the sheer scope of imagination being applied by some folks.

to compound the humor

These seemingly legitimate ideas are so full of holes, that it seems as if the writers are trying to be ridiculous,,, so ya, its funny.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
Well, I think all the proof is here guys.


I say, now we can just point and laugh at the ignorant ones.

/me points

/me laughs


Even the psy ops guys have buggered off. It's been a page or so without any of the usual bait and switch/derail and switch or 'govt-theory-prancing-around-ignoring-physics' rubbish.

I think they're busy creating new websites to back up some new ludicrous claims... or they've found another thread which requires urgent attention instead.

Ah well...

A little burning building in china waits.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join