Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing

reply to post by jfj123

"Do" what?You can't sue the Fed Gov't.You can't raise the dead.Can't undo the War.Can't un pay for it.Can't seem to rebuild the buildings.The evidence has been suppressed and shipped.
Seppuku is a partial solution,but that is not my job.Besides that would presuppose honor to be lost or gained and the perp's have none of that.

Although it is lighter, it's a plane and it flew into a skyscraper. There was surely jet fuel burning and it took 40 minutes to extinguish the fire and most of the floors were open for business on Monday. Far cry from a collapse in a similar circumstance plus this was in 1945, but the fire didn't burn as long either.

Maximum fuel load of B 25 was 2000 gallons (according to my reference book) the 767 which hit WTC were carrying almost 10,000 gallons

Also in 1945 most furnishings would have been organic (wood/paper/cloth)
office equipment would be a manual typewriter. Forward ahead 50+ years
Furnishing (chairs, carpets, cubicle dividers, etc) would be synthetic
aka plastic which are made from petroleum and burn with 50-100% more
heat energy (12-16000 btu/lb vs 8000-8500) Also everyone a computer
of even two - most of it having plastic cases. This along with POP (plain
old paper) tons and tons of it provided plenty of fuel for fires.

reply to post by thereaintnospoon

Hey genius...WTC tower 7 was NOT hit by a plane and only had fires on 6-8 floors and it collapsed into its own footprint.

Explain if building collapsed in footprint why the building across a 4 lane
road was smashed by debris so bad it is being demolished?

30 West Broadway aka Fiterman Hall



30 West Broadway to left - note debris heaped against it

[img][/img]

Also explain why the adjacent building - 140 West St aka Verizon building
suffered 1 billion dollars in damage? Fortunately being built of heavyweight masonary did not collapse




Verizon after debris removed - not damage

Originally posted by trueforger
reply to post by jfj123

 

"Do" what?You can't sue the Fed Gov't.You can't raise the dead.Can't undo the War.Can't un pay for it.Can't seem to rebuild the buildings.The evidence has been suppressed and shipped.
Seppuku is a partial solution,but that is not my job.Besides that would presuppose honor to be lost or gained and the perp's have none of that.

OK so since we can't do anything about it, why are we even discussing it? According to you:
Nothing can be solved by discussing it.
Nothing can be done to those who perpetrated it.
History will never confirm it.

So lets close all 9/11 threads since there's no point talking about it.

No.All the perps have family members and eventually a bit of this will bite 'em where it hurts.The more we uncover and discuss the sooner this will happen by 'osmosis'.We are all connected,comrade.Like for recent example the case of Howard Hunt being implicated in "the DOINGS in Dallas" by his confession to his son.And there's the Zionist thingie-poo.There are a lot of people with much to lose even yet.No it's not over by a long shot.Deaths are investigated in perpetuity.Even after the perp's are safely deceased.This is the American way.Speaking of not answering the question,what will you do?

reply to post by thedman

But that is one of the more 'curiouser and curiouser' phenomenae,why did the paper NOT burn like it would if it had been a simple fire?!?The ground was covered with nano particles of concrete and steel and unburned paper.I have a book with page after page of pictures of people picking through full sheets of paper and that dust everywhere.Try again.

Originally posted by trueforger
No.All the perps have family members and eventually a bit of this will bite 'em where it hurts.The more we uncover and discuss the sooner this will happen by 'osmosis'.We are all connected,comrade.Like for recent example the case of Howard Hunt being implicated in "the DOINGS in Dallas" by his confession to his son.And there's the Zionist thingie-poo.There are a lot of people with much to lose even yet.No it's not over by a long shot.Deaths are investigated in perpetuity.Even after the perp's are safely deceased.This is the American way.Speaking of not answering the question,what will you do?

I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job. If I did, I would connect with others and form a group who could combine their talents in different industries to write and present a scientifically backed paper to the world media and world governments.
So what are you going to do? Care to actually answer my question now?

[edit on 14-2-2009 by jfj123]

I find it interesing how skeptics were so quick to point out a "bridge" that collapsed last year, but unwilling to see something connected with 2 different skyscrapers.

AS has been mentioned:

The Beijing Building had no sprinkler system working and was AN UNFINNISHED BUILDING.

WTC-7 had not only collapsed near free-fall speeds into its own footprint, but people became aware of its collapse BEFORE IT OCCURED or KNEW OF THE APPROX TIME OF SUCH.


Also there were a few other buildings ON 9/11 that were damaged FAR WORSE THAN 7 and Burned with FIRE. But they did not do the near freefall collapse. The answer skeptics give to this is: "Buidling 7 was Taller."

Yes WTC-7 was taller! That is why it is more redundant! They build larger buildings with more redundancy. So the point about it being taller actually supports the cause of most truthers.

ITs absolutely ridiculous to assume that something is not wrong here. Skyscrapers have never before 9/11 collapsed because of raging fires. For a skyscraper to collapse is one thing, but to have people sort of knowing about it brings this to a whole new topic.

Either way you look at it, something is wrong and the OFFICIAL STORY is OFFICIALLY DEAD.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by talisman]

reply to post by talisman


WTC 7 was damaged by debris. That being said, if demolitions charges were planted, they would probably have been damaged and the explosives wouldn't have gone off in the proper sequence or at all.
Just curious how you reconcile this?

reply to post by jfj123

Redundancy.
Computer controlled ignition,wireless.
It did happen.So someone did it right.
Lotta time to plan since the Northwoods doc. was written."They"claim to be stupid,which is a hint.As in,"We had no idea..."
One also wonders why you keep at it?For all the reasons you listed,BTW.

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by talisman

 

WTC 7 was damaged by debris. That being said, if demolitions charges were planted, they would probably have been damaged and the explosives wouldn't have gone off in the proper sequence or at all.
Just curious how you reconcile this?

Do you have proof of this damage to WTC 7 that you keep bringing up? The pics of damage that have been shown only seem to show facade damage and NIST admitted that the damage did not play a factor in the collapse which would seem to indicate that it was not structural damage. Why would demolition wires be run between the columns and facade to begin with?

Originally posted by trueforger
reply to post by jfj123

 

Redundancy.
Computer controlled ignition,wireless.
It did happen.So someone did it right.
Lotta time to plan since the Northwoods doc. was written."They"claim to be stupid,which is a hint.As in,"We had no idea..."
One also wonders why you keep at it?For all the reasons you listed,BTW.

My point is that with a RANDOMLY damaged building, they had no fool proof way of rigging it no matter what. The building would need to have been rigged way in advance of 9/11 and they couldn't have accounted for debris impact damage, fire, etc...

And your statement "It did happen" is your opinion and not fact but I notice you stated it as fact. Is it just your opinion or can you prove it as fact?

reply to post by mpriebe81


if they want to bring up planes, just refer them to the NIST report, it says fire caused the collapse, not a plane.

reply to post by trueforger

But that is one of the more 'curiouser and curiouser' phenomenae,why did the paper NOT burn like it would if it had been a simple fire?!?The ground was covered with nano particles of concrete and steel and unburned paper.I have a book with page after page of pictures of people picking through full sheets of paper and that dust everywhere.Try again.

If the paper is mixed with the dust it is POST COLLAPSE! Also talking about the floors impacted by the planes and involved in fire - the paper
stored there fueled the fires. Just look around any office - count the
cabinets stuffed with paer, now imagine them on fire. The fuel load of
modern buildings is incredible - get a good fire going and almost impossible to extinguish aka Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia (1990)

reply to post by jfj123


Umm, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, dedicated to 9/11 research using the scientific method.

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by talisman

 

WTC 7 was damaged by debris. That being said, if demolitions charges were planted, they would probably have been damaged and the explosives wouldn't have gone off in the proper sequence or at all.
Just curious how you reconcile this?

It could very well be that the explosives went off in the wrong sequence, as there are videos of explosion sounds coming from there, it could also be that only some of the explosions went off before the main ones had to. Also non-conventional could have been used. Remember, the CIA had an OFFICE in this building after all.

edit -non convential means

[edit on 14-2-2009 by talisman]

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by trueforger
reply to post by jfj123

 

Redundancy.
Computer controlled ignition,wireless.
It did happen.So someone did it right.
Lotta time to plan since the Northwoods doc. was written."They"claim to be stupid,which is a hint.As in,"We had no idea..."
One also wonders why you keep at it?For all the reasons you listed,BTW.

My point is that with a RANDOMLY damaged building, they had no fool proof way of rigging it no matter what. The building would need to have been rigged way in advance of 9/11 and they couldn't have accounted for debris impact damage, fire, etc...

And your statement "It did happen" is your opinion and not fact but I notice you stated it as fact. Is it just your opinion or can you prove it as fact?

Right, so why do have need of controlled demolition people anymore? Just randomly damage a buidling and start some fires, and we can't get a global near freefall collapse.

Originally posted by bloodWolf762
reply to post by mpriebe81

 

if they want to bring up planes, just refer them to the NIST report, it says fire caused the collapse, not a plane.

Wrong.
This is exactly what the NIST report says

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel.

wtc.nist.gov...
You'll find it under FAQ header #3.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by talisman

 

WTC 7 was damaged by debris. That being said, if demolitions charges were planted, they would probably have been damaged and the explosives wouldn't have gone off in the proper sequence or at all.
Just curious how you reconcile this?

Do you have proof of this damage to WTC 7 that you keep bringing up? The pics of damage that have been shown only seem to show facade damage and NIST admitted that the damage did not play a factor in the collapse which would seem to indicate that it was not structural damage. Why would demolition wires be run between the columns and facade to begin with?

I am not sure what you are asking. ARe you denying that WTC-7 was damaged by falling debris? I thought that is what most people agreed on?

IF NIST admitted that the damage played no real role in the collapse, than we are left with FIRE and there is no way that FIRE took that building down.

Originally posted by jfj123

I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job. If I did, I would connect with others and form a group who could combine their talents in different industries to write and present a scientifically backed paper to the world media and world governments.
So what are you going to do? Care to actually answer my question now?

Here are the problems I see as far as "what do we do?" First off, the media and the anti-truthers like you and the others here have labeled us as a bunch of crazies who are mentally ill and unstable. Why would the media or the "terrorist" government listen to us? There are already firefighters, families of the victims, demolition experts and others who want a new investigation and do not believe the official story for a second. I remember reading something years ago showing that 1/3rd of people in New York didn't believe the official story either. Problem is the government nor the media want that and if they don't want it, it's not going to happen. They got rid of all the hard evidence before anything could be investigated. Who knows, maybe China is holding on to some of the incriminating evidence in case they need leverage against us in the future. I would consider that if I was China and I kinda hope they did and do use it against us.

So, what could we really do? I'm sure if anyone got too close, the government would get rid of those people before any real damage was done. I think the only thing that would get this ball rolling is if most of the population demanded an investigation. I suppose that is where the truth movement is now, trying to get people to at least see the possibility that they are being lied to and that things don't add up in the hopes that they will want a new investigation and help to push it to a point where it can't be ignored anymore. It would be harder to just write it off as mentally ill people if it was 90% of the population. Even then, who knows? The government doesn't seem to care what we want anymore.

I have a question for you which you haven't answered. What if it came to be that you were wrong and we were right? It is my opinion that people like you would be angry almost to the point of being homicidal, very angry.