Tuesday, 10 February 2009

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse


(2:02)

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.

“The fire was burning from the ground floor to the top floor of the large building, the flames reflecting in the glass facade of the main CCTV tower next to the hotel and cultural center,” reports the New York Times.

“The 241-room Mandarin Oriental hotel in the building was due to open this year. Flames were spotted around 7:45 p.m. and within 20 minutes the fire had spread throughout the building, dominating that part of the city.”

“Hundreds of firefighting vehicles and police blocked off all approaches to the building - which was also set to house a luxury hotel due to be opened in 2009 - with flames appearing to leap 20 to 30 feet into the air,” adds The London Times.

Compare images of WTC 7 with those of the skyscraper fire in Beijing. Note that the Beijing skyscraper appears to be leaning due to the unorthodox design of the building - it did not suffer any kind of collapse.

http://www.infowars.com/fire-consumes-wtc-7-size-skyscraper-building-does-not-collapse/

Although this Chinese building and WTC 7 differ they are both steel framed skyscrapers such that one could reasonably expect some sort of collapse in the former considering what we saw on 911.

What this story shows, which includes mention of the 2005 Madrid Fire, is that the likelihood of a TOTAL collapse of steel framed buildings due to fire is extremely unlikely. That any collapse should be symmetrical, without using explosives, would defy all good reason. A symmetrical collapse requires split second removal of all load bearing columns.

At the heart of the matter is the fact that steel framed skycrapers are designed to withstand severe fires and the fires in WTC 7 were weak. The core problem with the official NIST investigation into the WTC 7 collapse is that it was based only on a HYPOTHETICAL model that didn't even match the observed features of the fall. Absolutely no verifiable physical evidence or testing backed up the NIST claims.

On the other hand, the explosive demolition hypothesis fits the observed situation more accurately and it also gels with the physical evidence that was found at the 911 crime scene. Molten Steel and Thermate byproducts proved that the WTC 7 building was taken down using explosive incendiaries. 911 = Inside Job. Case closed.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, February 10th, 2009.]

2 comments:

steven andresen said...

spook,

As I've said, I don't think very many people don't get it.

SpookyPunkos said...

Yes,

I don't think many people get it either, but I'm here to eduate and inspire as much as I can.

When the best 911 truth advocates go up against the very best debunkers the debunkers lose everytime.

The official story is a house of cards on many levels and most debunkers know it.

Because the best 911 truth scientists and debaters can beat the debunkers everytime using real evidence, we can use their examples to argue against these same top-notch debunkers.

When you understand the issues, and can point out the nonsensical lies, then you will win over the more educated audience. So many more educated people online, who have taken the time to do some fact chaecking, disbelieve the official story vs the team of debunkers and those they have tricked.

The other day I was readig a thread that included metal workers, concrete workers that were saying the official story was obvious bunk. On more than one occasion it has been related to be that "on the day" various individuals in construction called "bullsh**" when they saw the towers literally disintergrate into a massive cloud of concrete dust whilst rapidly collapsing.

Privately many people are aware of the deception, which is encouraging. All the experts, and those who have done research will help to keep the ball rolling.

I fully realise that most lay people who are not closely following the debate will only believe the best propaganda, whether true or not. The problem with the official propaganda, which makes it easy for those of us who are informed, is that it's ultimately based on lies which can be exposed.

This building fire in china does raise a question, enough so that the curious might go and see who is really winning the 911 debate here online.

The talk from the debunkers that 911 truth is finished and no-one cares is propaganda. It's to get inside people's heads to make them give up on the hard evidence.

Yes, this IS an information war. My aim here is to educate as much as possible and encourage 911 truth disemmination such that people will become suspicious and active in this fight.