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.

 

44-Floor Building engulfed in flames... Stands Strong

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   

A fierce fire consumed all 44 floors of a skyscraper in Beijing today, shooting 30 foot flames into the air, but unlike the similarly-sized 47-story WTC 7, which suffered limited fires across just eight floors, the building in China did not collapse


Just a little video showing a building completely engulfed in flames and stays strong. Was this an engineering miracle?







AAC




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I pulled down a building on some property I have out in the country over the weekend. Funny thing, I believe I saw saw some squibs as the roof came off the frame. Oddly enough, no thermite, mini-nukes, or controlled explosions were used. How can that be?



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by stevegmu
 


I am surprised you have an industrialized commercial metal-framed sky-scraper on your land.
You should have filmed it for proof.


AAC



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
A plane did not crash into it.
Therefore the steel did not get greatly damaged.
Set your house on fire and crash a plane into another one. See wich one falls faster.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by thebeast2012
A plane did not crash into it.
Therefore the steel did not get greatly damaged.
Set your house on fire and crash a plane into another one. See wich one falls faster.


Uh a B-52 bomber crashed into the empire state building in 1945, burned for longer and did not fall.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Look at all the thermite!


2ND LINE



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1xion325alpha

Originally posted by thebeast2012
A plane did not crash into it.
Therefore the steel did not get greatly damaged.
Set your house on fire and crash a plane into another one. See wich one falls faster.


Uh a B-52 bomber crashed into the empire state building in 1945, burned for longer and did not fall.


Wrong, it was a B-25.

Apples and oranges.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
These comparisons don't make much sense. So.. a building with a different layout with less stories and no jumbo jet crashing into it did not fall.. and that proves that 9/11 was an inside job?

Some of you people's logic hurts my head.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
These comparisons don't make much sense. So.. a building with a different layout with less stories and no jumbo jet crashing into it did not fall.. and that proves that 9/11 was an inside job?

Some of you people's logic hurts my head.


You people? Well, your reading comprehension hurts my head. WTC Building 7 DID NOT have a plane crash in it.

You guys realize another building collapsed that day, right?


AAC



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
reply to post by stevegmu
 


I am surprised you have an industrialized commercial metal-framed sky-scraper on your land.
You should have filmed it for proof.


AAC


The black helicopters flying overhead were too distracting to film the pull-down.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
"There's a reason most soldiers grow up in rougher neighborhoods than this. There's a reason most soldiers grow up hunting deer in the woods, instead of hunting for the right-sized tee shirt at Abercrombie&Fitch. And there's a reason most soldiers come from the breadbasket of rural America and not from west-coast suburbs: we want to win the wars.
Lt.G, Nov. 17, 2007"


PS!
Only completely brain-dead folks can believe there's any glory in getting yourself
killed by invading a foreign country, thinking you thereby are defending your own!

The whole idea of "sacrifice" stems from the deepest of paganism, and therefore
has its roots in the deepest of darkness.

To think you can grow in maturity or advance spiritually by killing a lot of people
is nothing but insane.

No wonder your government primarily recruit soldiers who has not yet learnt to
think independently, and who therefore are easily led and impressionable to all
kinds of brainwashing.
Poor sods!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Here's a link that gives pics of the building after the fire was out. The fire was so intense it destroyed everything EXCEPT the steel frame which is still standing just fine! How unlike WTC-7.



www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by stevegmu
 


You're an idiot. Come back with an 'argument'. Oh, I forgot. You rednecks are incapable of maintaining civility during debates.

As for the other posts here:

Yes, it wasn't hit by a plane, but NEITHER WAS BUILDING 7. This had worse fires than Building 7. Also, Building 7 wasn't much taller than this building. Very comparable.

Interesting all the disinfo agents coming to spin this.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   


I pulled down a building on some property I have out in the country over the weekend. Funny thing, I believe I saw saw some squibs as the roof came off the frame. Oddly enough, no thermite, mini-nukes, or controlled explosions were used. How can that be?


#1: "Squibs" aren't the issue here.

#2: I can bet anything that your making this up. If you aren't, then you saw a bit of smoke that looked nothing like the clearly observable squibs at the WTC.

#3: Was there melted steel or nuclear chemicals left in the rubble? Was most of the building converted into dust? Was there secondary explosions?

SORRY TO FOIL YOUR HUMILIATION ATTEMPT




A plane did not crash into it. Therefore the steel did not get greatly damaged. Set your house on fire and crash a plane into another one. See wich one falls faster.


#1: The steel in the Twin Towers would not have been weakened, since only a small fraction of it was destroyed. All of the steel supports above and below the 'impact zone' were in-tact.

#2: A plane didn't crash into Building 7. That's the building that this is comparable to.

#3: My house isn't a massive steel skyscraper. If a Boeing hit my house, the whole thing would be gone.




Look at all the thermite!
2ND LINE


www.jackbloodforum.com...




Wrong, it was a B-25. Apples and oranges.


#1: The Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 traveling at 600mph.

#2: The issue here is Building 7. No plane hit it. No plane hit this building and it had longer and larger fires.




These comparisons don't make much sense. So.. a building with a different layout with less stories and no jumbo jet crashing into it did not fall.. and that proves that 9/11 was an inside job? Some of you people's logic hurts my head.


#1: Building 7 only had a few more stories than this building.

#2: Building 7 wasn't hit by a jumbo jet. Nor were the Twin Towers, IMO.

#3: Yes, this fire proves 9-11 an inside job. If the official story was correct, this building would have collapsed.




The black helicopters flying overhead were too distracting to film the pull-down.


You're #ing pathetic. Go watch FOX News, you stupid redneck. You deny the existence of black helicopters?

en.wikipedia.org...

WHATS THIS THEN? AN ELEPHANT?



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Duplicate Thread

Please Post all relevant replies here:

Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing

Closing

Thank you

Semper



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join