China skycraper on fire right now!!!! Still Standing?

Just saw this breaking news of a Skyscraper in China,

a 30 story totally engulfed

Amateur video broadcast on CCTV showed the blaze engulfing the 30-story building. Xinhau reports witnesses saying scaffolding caught fire, before spreading throughout the building, which was being renovated. Thick smoke pouring from the building could be seen across the Shanghai skyline.

Source

Theres a Video on there showing the Building and its over 10 magnitudes worse than WTC 1,2 & 7.

The building was in the process of being renovated which even tells me that its structure probably was more compromised than WTC buildings.

The news source fails to note how long the fire has raged for....but looking at it I;d say a long time :-)

Another fine example of how well Skyscrapers can resist Intense fire damage.....Apart from WTC of course!





Lets see if it eventually collapses!

Its a lot worse than I thought :-(

42 people dead , that's terrible

Source 2

Bright orange flames could be seen enveloping scaffolding and spreading to the building as the fire raged, gutting much of the structure. The smoke could be seen from several kilometers (miles) away.

61 fire engines tackled the blaze. and it seems to be under control bit burned for well over 5 hours and gutted the insides totally.

And its still standing! a miracle huh?

reply to post by TrentReznor

And its still standing! a miracle huh?

It's only a miracle if you believe the official story.

I'll bet you a ride in my TR-3 that it won't collapse.
SNF.
This is just another example of how well concrete can hold up under fire and flame.
However, if thermite and explosive charges have been planted within the apartment, all bets are off.

Shouldn't this rather be in the section "Breaking News"?

Terrible event, never the less.

I guess small mercy that it was being renovated and wasn't fully occupied at the time.

42 peoples rip.

The de-bunkers excuse will be that the building was not hit by a plane so its structure has not been weakened.

If skyscrapers fell down with fire, mankind would never get authority to build them, as accidents happen.

They would not get planning permission to build these buildings if it was not safe against fire.

The argument for wtc7 is just a joke, they would not of got planning permission if authorities thought it could fall down witha small fire.

The argument is pure rubbish, just like something like evolution. These things are told to us like people are stupid.

reply to post by xxshadowfaxx


Hmm...lets apply a little two way logic. If it does fall the truthers will scream it was "pulled" using "rigged explosives" and that it was done to lend more credibility to the 9-11 OS.

to put it another way

If it does collapse due to the fire burning within it how will this effect your suspicions of the 9-11 OS?

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
The de-bunkers excuse will be that the building was not hit by a plane so its structure has not been weakened.

No, the debunkers response is (well at least mine) different building, different circumstances, different outcomes. Welcome to reality.

An insurance scam? maybe...

So the twin towers had like 110 stories and this has 30. They were built differently with different materials and at a different time. This one had a construction fire and the towers got hit by an airliner. Not to mention all the other differences to take into consideration like the outside climate, what stuff was inside of them and who knows what else.


Yes I can clearly see how you could connect the two.

No authority would ever give planning permission to a contractor for a tall building if it was not gurenteed that it will not fall down with fire. They would never get planning permission, if buildings could not stand fire as accidents happen.

That alone defies any argument over this and wtc7 building.

Tall buildings have to meet certain safety regulations, and do you think that man would build tall buildings if a simple fire could bring them down, of course not.

No matter what happens in this fire(rip those people), no tower is going to collapse with a fire.

Originally posted by whoshotJR
So the twin towers had like 110 stories and this has 30. They were built differently with different materials and at a different time. This one had a construction fire and the towers got hit by an airliner. Not to mention all the other differences to take into consideration like the outside climate, what stuff was inside of them and who knows what else.


Yes I can clearly see how you could connect the two.

That may be the case for the twin towers but how does that explain the building 7 collapse that only had fires on a few floors Columbo?

derrr

Maybe they had an accident while painting with nano thermite.

No

It’s just smoke generators!

Originally posted by swanson

Originally posted by whoshotJR
So the twin towers had like 110 stories and this has 30. They were built differently with different materials and at a different time. This one had a construction fire and the towers got hit by an airliner. Not to mention all the other differences to take into consideration like the outside climate, what stuff was inside of them and who knows what else.


Yes I can clearly see how you could connect the two.

That may be the case for the twin towers but how does that explain the building 7 collapse that only had fires on a few floors Columbo?

derrr

Look above and it still stands. Different circumstances. Different building type, materials, date built. The list goes on and on. Even if I was a 9/11 truther I wouldn't try and connect these two, its a horrible argument and wont stand.

Its like saying that if I can knock somebody down with one punch then I can apply that and know I can knock anyone down with 1 punch. You must not have watched Columbo because he was always right.

reply to post by swanson


Gee a few small fires you say?

Then why did the firefighters all say that that thing was burning like a roman candle across multiple floors? Why was the structure slowly failing, creating a bulge running three floors up its side? Magic explosives dont that. Why did they say it was leaning to one side prior to collapse? A few small fires? derr

Not true...

the firefighters said the fires were small and would be extinguished with only two lines......


Then they fell down...

There is all-ready a thread started on this

abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by benoni


Where? WTC7? Benoni, please, be sure to know which buildings you are talking about. This is about WTC7. Not 1 or 2.

What you stated is only partly true, as the firefighters reached the lowest impacted floor which was the sky lobby area. Not much in terms of flammable items there. Most of the fires were small ON THAT FLOOR. However, had they been able to go up an extra 5 floors, they would have been standing at the gates of hell. Fire likes move up in a building. The fires spread from the lowest floors UP towards more fuel for the fires in the offices. Also the impact holes allowed for more air to enter the building, pushing up more oxygen into the flames and pushing the fires towards the upper floors and towards the back. Remember key fact about fires: They like to spread up.

You see, that half-truth is just another party favor in the truther grab bag. Just another bit of proof that those hucksters at LC, and every other TM website will always twist the facts and hide the truth, just so they can sucker you in with their bull#.