It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 04:33 AM

Originally posted by GhostR1der

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.

PSY OPS with traumatic brain injury... I wonder if someone will hire my shoe to provide more effective psy ops.

ITs all politics... You will often find the same folks defending torture and domestic spying. Same ones seem to believe Bush was an effective leader. They bring the same diminished level of logic to those threads as well.

ITs a need protect their ideology by defending the representative of their strong held beliefs.

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 04:37 AM

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 04:39 AM

Originally posted by Loke.
What is somehow compelling is also somehow a pointer to all who says Chinese are making poor products, this clearly outstand an american product i say...

Dutch Design by the office of Rem Koolhaas (OMA). You should know by now to ask the Dutch to design your buildings and protect you from the threat of water (sea and river). Worldwide Dutch delta expertise

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 05:11 AM

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 05:36 AM

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


It is amazing how very simple thinking and observation escapes some people

[edit on 10-2-2009 by donhuangenaro]

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 05:42 AM

Originally posted by donhuangenaro

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


It is amazing how very simple thinking and observation escapes some people

[edit on 10-2-2009 by donhuangenaro]

Ya and considering the fact B7 was not hit by a plane and likely framed with ice and hair dryers.

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 05:45 AM
reply to post by talisman

Just curious but do you also have a photo of a large plane, traveling at near mach speeds, slamming into the side of the building, doing massive structural damage? Please post that photo also. Thanks.

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:03 AM
I've read a few posts about people raving about airplanes, and how this dosen't prove anything, but sorry, it does.

Nowhere in the official reports about 911 does it say the planes made the buildings collapse. They come to a conclusion that what made it collapes was "thermal expansion" of the steel, weakening it. This despite the fact that we see buildings burn all around the world and not fall down. The madrid skyscraper fire a few years ago was very similar to the WTC towers in topology. This current fire in Beijing was similar to WTC 7, and orders of magnitude more severe.

Flying a plane, made essentially of alluminium and designed to flex under strain, into a concrete and steel building is like throwing a chicken into a modern jet engine. Sure, there will be damage, but it's very unlikely that the engine will explode, the most probable thing is it will retain most of it's integrity. The WTC towers were designed to take an impact from a fully loaded 707, so I very much doubt that they fell like they did just because of the aircraft impact, especially considering that one of the towers only lost support on one of the exterior faces, and still had 3 faces and a center column supporting it's weight. This means that it still had more than 80% structural integrity, which was subject only to fire. And not particularly hot flames, as the building was insulated and most of the jet fuel blew up instantly. This beijing incident shows that buildings, if left with steel integrity, don't fall down, unless they are poorly designed or rusted out, which may have been the case with the 17 story amsterdam case early last year (iirc).

WTC 7 is even more glaring an omission as the pictures shown on the first page show. There was hardly any fire, yet that was supposed to melt the building into a perfectly emulated controled demolition by natural mechanisms? What are you guys smoking? I want some.

No, 911 was an inside job, sorry but by now it's obvious.

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:22 AM
Also there was a skyscraper in italy quite a few years back that was completely engulfed in flames from top to bottom and it was still under construction and didnt collapse. It burned for 2 days and it was still standing at the end of it.

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:26 AM
my government told me that fire brings down buildings so thats what im believing

no in all seriousness fire obviously melts steel, as proven by this picture....wait, it didnt fall down?
crap wheres the CIA when you need it, if the chinese had the CIA this building would have fell, and they would be invading some random country, which may or may not have natural resources and everything would be fine. sheesh, when will those chinese learn.

we're beating a dead horse here, we all know we've been lied to about 9/11, lied to about terrorism and all that # that goes along with it, although it still makes me very angry

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:15 AM
This forum seems to entertain disinfo bods.

WTC 7 was not hit by a plane.
Larry Silverstein appeared to know it was going to collapse.
BBC appeared to know it was going to collapse.
NIST report ignored it altogether originally. They then blamed a diesel fire, which they have now changed. Currently I believe they just say they don't know why it collapsed, and don't seem too interested any more in why a modern skyscraper collapsed so quickly.

Calling for us all to just forget about his seminal event and move on is lunacy. You move on if you want, but nothing wakes people up like telling them about this building, which many people have not even heard off, deliberately so.

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:34 AM

"I looked and saw the huge tower full of fire, and there were hundreds of Chinese down near my apartment taking pictures," she said. "If this had been the United States, you would think a perimeter would be secured, but there was nothing like that. (CNN)

After 9/11, ordinary folk expect burning skyscrapers to implode but the authorities know better.

To Tide88 - who still hopes the implosion of WTC7 was caused in part by damage sustained from falling debris - let's put this one to bed.

For years this fig leaf (along with the now discredited diesel fuel theory) was waived in front of WTC7 while NIST delayed release of their final report. I guess they hoped nobody would be interested over 7 years later.

In 2007, Davin Coburn, "fact checker" on Popular Mechanics "Debunking 9/11 Myths" said he had been shown photos of this damage, but for some reason nobody else was allowed to see them.

At NIST's New York presentation, in April 2005, they were still claiming to have pictures of the "scooped-out" area, but in their final report, for some reason, the pictures were nowhere to be seen.

Now, ask yourself, Tide88 - does this not suggest that both Popular Mechanics and NIST were lying? How else do we interpret it?

NIST finally admitted:

Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7’s structure in a way that contributed to the building’s collapse?
The debris caused structural damage to the southwest region of the building—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building’s collapse ... A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated.


The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires.

Fact Sheets From NIST:

[edit on 10-2-2009 by EvilAxis]

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:39 AM

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.

I doubt it has anything to do with 9/11. However it might be jewish lighting. With the economy the way it is I wouldnt be surprised if he didnt just want to get a huge insurance check, but saying he is trying to open people eyes to what really happened on 9/11 by burning his building down is rediculous. It is also rediculous to think that anyone would risk prison buy commiting arson to prove a building 7 9/11 conspiracy, especially in China. You probably get the death penalty for it there.

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:50 AM
reply to post by EvilAxis

This puts nothing to bed. Even experts in the demo field say there is no way that WTC7 was demoed. You read the implosionworld article I posted. So unless you are an expert, excuse me if I dont throw the towel in an agree 100% with you that WTC7 was demoed. You watching youtube videos doesnt make you an expert. Also some hearing explosions, which could have been a number of things, doesnt prove a demo either. As for that picture a few pages back of that beam cut at a 45 degree angle, when was that taken? It could easily have been taken during cleanup, where they could have been cutting those beams for removal from the site. Also some claim that thermite made that cut. Really? Since when can thermite cut a beam at a perfect 45 degree angle. Again there isnt any proof that wtc7 was demoed. Showing a few pictures that arent dated, watching youtube videos, and claiming explosives were detonated (only proof of this is testimony from people who heard explosions, which could of been a number of things) doesnt prove anything. I am not saying 100% that it wasnt demoed, but I am saying nobody has proved it was. Just all speculation on your part. And I will take the word of experts that work in demo and studied the WTC collapses over people who watch loosechange, or the college kids who made loosechange, any day.

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:54 AM
Aha!! Tide88, I see you're with us again.

So once more I ask -

1. Why did Popular Mechanics and NIST both state that there were photographs showing the structural damage to WTC7 that we had not seen yet?

2. Why did they not appear in NIST's final report on WTC7?

3. Why did they lie to us?

4. Do you reconsider your position now you know NIST admit damage had no causal relevance in WTC7?

[edit on 10-2-2009 by EvilAxis]

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:54 AM
As much as it seems like a disease itself, 9/11 was but a symptom, albeit a gallingly huge one, of the larger disease of secrecy-BASED government (National Security State) altogether. The entire paradigm needs to change. There needs to be discussion of things mentioned nowhere publicly today.

I'm convinced once enough closeted skeletons are exposed, people will be more interested in forgiving (as much as possible). clean slates and solving problems instead of the eye-for-an-eye bloodlust for "justice," as strange or preposterous as that sounds now. Truth itself will prove to be its own justice, at least very primarily so, I'd wager. The solution to our problems, or definitely enough so, is a spiritual one; not political.

On the thread topic, this one has inspired my next blog entry titled BEIJING TOWERING INFERNO. This event, I believe, is the beginning of the end of the (currently) official story. tidings of comfort and joy

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:55 AM
Was it not the official story that the structure of the wtc failed because of the steal melting in these "very hot" fires?
The carsh of the planes bashed the fireproof material of the steel constructions and the "heat" could therefore melt the steel right ?
This created the "pancake" effect that "caused" the collapse.

There has been much discussion about the heat caused by the fires.
Many people say that there could never been enough heat to melt the steel in the wtc.

The other steel structured buildings we have seen on fire like this one in beejing and the one in madrid clearly show that even much bigger fires dont melt the structure of the building enough to make it collapse.

Side note to some post stating that the wtc building where of crappy construction.
I invite you to have a look around into information about the wtc construction, a lot people think that the buildings where of outstanding construction design and construction.
Have you considered the immense forces on the buildings from weather storms over the years that the buildings stood there.

Maybe have a look at this video: building the world trade center

Google Video Link

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:05 AM

Originally posted by Lightworth
Truth itself will prove to be its own justice

I fully support that sentiment, but how is truth to prevail while the MSM drown us in lies?

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:09 AM
reply to post by EvilAxis

Absence of 1 photo doesnt prove anything. If that is the case show me show hard evidence that explosive were used to bring down wtc7. There had to be residue from those explosives or even casings. There has to be hard proof that there were explosive used to bring down the building. Or are all those firefighters and clean up crew in on it too. Funny, there were no spike in seismic reading before the collapse either, which would show bombs going off if it was demoed. So you proof is youtube videos and speculation. And the because they have not produced this photo, if it even exists, it proves WTC7 was demoed.

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:11 AM
reply to post by FredT

Edit to add: Even WTC 7. Was this building subject to stresses of two huge structural collapses nearby?

Using that argument one has to then assume that there would have been a structural collapse (at least partly) of the US Post Office & The Verizon building on Vesy St, Or more interestingly at least a partial structural collapse of WFC 2 on West St, or the Bankers Trust building on Liberty Street.

These are buildings surrounding the WTC Complex, the buildings on West St, and Liberty St also were closer to the twin towers than WTC 7 (and weren't at least partially shielded by another building in the WTC complex) Yet amazingly they did not suffer a total global collapse due to the enormous structural damage they must have also received due to the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, Yet amazingly WTC 7 did.


Somehow this fire in China, engulfs the entire structure, yet no global collapse.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in