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

Run_to_da_hills · 09-02-2009 09:41PM #1

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.

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

Gaspode · 09-02-2009 10:10PM

So what's the conspiracy theory on that then?

How many jets hit the one in Beijing?
Was a similar building in construction, materials etc. or is its only similarity that it was tall.

Sofa_King Good · 09-02-2009 10:12PM

deswalsh wrote: »

How many jets hit the one in Beijing?
.

How many hit WT7??

Gaspode · 09-02-2009 10:19PM

'pologies, didnt see the 7 there when I read that!!

0 planes afaik!

mysterious · 09-02-2009 10:25PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

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.

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

Oh I would love to hear bonky's logic on this:D

But urmm urmm.

bonkey · 09-02-2009 10:30PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

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.

Did it have the same, identified, structural weakness that WTC 7 had?

mysterious · 09-02-2009 10:31PM

deswalsh wrote: »

So what's the conspiracy theory on that then?

How many jets hit the one in Beijing?
Was a similar building in construction, materials etc. or is its only similarity that it was tall.

Fire was supposedly (falls over my words) brought down WT7. oh and fire melted steel and BAM brought WT7 down 9 seconds. No planes..

They can't blame islamic terrorists:p:p Thats the conspiracy with that.

But..... Yet a building of simalar size in beijing didn't fall was raged by fire and all that jazz.. God deception seems to really stick out in America. People should start thinking now.

Penn · 09-02-2009 10:32PM

You're right, no planes hit WTC7. But you seem to be forgetting the fact that Twin towers (which were hit by planes) collapsed right beside it, not to mention the fact part of WTC7 was smashed by falling debris from the nearest tower to it. This would have exposed the structural steel, or simply broke them, enough for the fire to finish the job.

It didnt just collapse because of the fire. As with the Twin Towers, there were other factors at work

mysterious · 09-02-2009 10:32PM

bonkey wrote: »

Did it have the same, identified, structural weakness that WTC 7 had?

Well bonky I respect that you like to have logic and facts to every argument but.

If logic, was to prevail here. Then WT7 was reinforced with butter and not steel.

9seconds, a fast baby to fall.

bonkey · 09-02-2009 10:34PM

mysterious wrote: »

Oh I would love to hear bonky's logic on this:D

Its very simple really....unless the building had the same, identified structural weakness, its comparing apples to oranges.

No-one has claimed (that I'm aware of) that WTC7 collapsed because it was a 47-storey building nor, to my knowledge, has there been claims that any 40-something storied building must collapse from fire.

Such claims would be ludicrous, but so far its about the only connection I can see in the initial claim. If what should have been said is that the structure did have the same design-flaw, then I'm most interested in finding out why the buildings behaved differently.

mysterious · 09-02-2009 10:36PM

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

You're right, no planes hit WTC7. But you seem to be forgetting the fact that Twin towers (which were hit by planes) collapsed right beside it, not to mention the fact part of WTC7 was smashed by falling debris from the nearest tower to it. This would have exposed the structural steel, or simply broke them, enough for the fire to finish the job.

It didnt just collapse because of the fire. As with the Twin Towers, there were other factors at work

Wrong wrong wrong WRONG.:mad::mad:

WT7 is not right beside it's actually on the corner of the next block. It's freestanding on it's own in the block. It did not get hit by rubble from the WTC. WTC towers that got hit had buildings accross the road that got hit and never fell. They were closer. WT7 is also protected by a wide boulevard.

I was in New York, I know the structural damage to the adjacent building's

WT7 is actually on the other side of the plot.

God that post was incredibly ignorant. The building collapsed in 9 seconds, rubble from a further way building will not make it collapse in 9 seconds. Oh my head hurts now.

mysterious · 09-02-2009 10:37PM

bonkey wrote: »

Its very simple really....unless the building had the same, identified structural weakness, its comparing apples to oranges.

No-one has claimed (that I'm aware of) that WTC7 collapsed because it was a 47-storey building nor, to my knowledge, has there been claims that any 40-something storied building must collapse from fire.

Such claims would be ludicrous, but so far its about the only connection I can see in the initial claim. If what should have been said is that the structure did have the same design-flaw, then I'm most interested in finding out why the buildings behaved differently.

So you still don't believe in the inside job?

Penn · 09-02-2009 10:58PM

mysterious wrote: »

Wrong wrong wrong WRONG.:mad::mad:

WT7 is not right beside it's actually on the corner of the next block. It's freestanding on it's own in the block. It did not get hit by rubble from the WTC. WTC towers that got hit had buildings accross the road that got hit and never fell. They were closer. WT7 is also protected by a wide boulevard.

I was in New York, I know the structural damage to the adjacent building's

WT7 is actually on the other side of the plot.

God that post was incredibly ignorant. The building collapsed in 9 seconds, rubble from a further way building will not make it collapse in 9 seconds. Oh my head hurts now.

From Wikipedia - A section which links to the official report:

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the buildings. The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.

And I didnt say rubble from a further way building would cause a building to collapse in 9 seconds. But if that rubble damaged the structural integrity of the steel frame of the building, coupled with the fires, then yes, the building could collapse in 9 seconds. Like I said, it was a combination of factors.

And were you actually in New York on 9/11, in that particular region, looking at the structural integrity of WTC7 before it collapsed? And you call me ignorant

Oh my toe hurts now

mysterious · 09-02-2009 11:04PM

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

From Wikipedia - A section which links to the official report:

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the buildings. The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.

And I didnt say rubble from a further way building would cause a building to collapse in 9 seconds. But if that rubble damaged the structural integrity of the steel frame of the building, coupled with the fires, then yes, the building could collapse in 9 seconds. Like I said, it was a combination of factors.

And were you actually in New York on 9/11, in that particular region, looking at the structural integrity of WTC7 before it collapsed? And you call me ignorant

Oh my toe hurts now

Then how come the closer, older and more damaged building's than WT7 that were beside WTC did not fall. Some building's actually were carved down due to the falling rubble from WTC.

WTC7 did not have this structural damage. It is further away, as there is a wide road and parkland around WTC onside sheilding WT7

I was in New york. Infact the closest towers that were damaged still withstood the WTC collaspse. Infact alot of building's were damaged, some damaged so much they were knocked a few weeks after.

WT7 was not damaged to a great degree, and to have fallen in 9 seconds, and fire melt steel in that short space of time. Is beyond ignorant.

mysterious · 09-02-2009 11:07PM

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

From Wikipedia - A section which links to the official report:

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the buildings. The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.

Wikipeadia is not a reliable source for info as sensitive as this. WTC 7 was a demolition job just even looking by videos. On the videos. it DOES NOT show much structural damage. It might have got a shower of debris.

But I should be coughing up my tea right now, reading such idiocy on the "factors" that left a 40/50 story building to collaspe from debris and fire.

When most of the building surrounding WTC (and closer) didnt collapse.

mysterious · 09-02-2009 11:16PM

Even if despite claims, watchin videos of WTC 7 it clearly is a demolition job. You don't need to delve into rocket science when you can see the facts in plain view.

It's gone to the point. If it were proven to be the government.

People would still say ah but no it cant be :rolleyes:
Sheep..

Penn · 09-02-2009 11:17PM

mysterious wrote: »

Then how come the closer, older and more damaged building's than WT7 that were beside WTC did not fall. Some building's actually were carved down due to the falling rubble from WTC.

WTC7 did not have this structural damage. It is further away, as there is a wide road and parkland around WTC onside sheilding WT7

I was in New york. Infact the closest towers that were damaged still withstood the WTC collaspse. Infact alot of building's were damaged, some damaged so much they were knocked a few weeks after.

WT7 was not damaged to a great degree, and to have fallen in 9 seconds, and fire melt steel in that short space of time. Is beyond ignorant.

I dont know why the older, closer buildings didnt fall. But in the experience I've had in the engineering business, I would deduce that the way each of the buildings was designed, the rubble hit WTC7 at the side. The rubble hit the other buildings on the top. The steel frame could more easily withstand a lateral force, as it would be landing on top of the frame. Whereas in WTC7s case, the rubble hitting the side of the building would cause more damage structurally because it would knock out more weaker members of the frame. But as I said, I dont know for sure.

But WTC7 did have significant damage because of the Twin Towers collapse. Its not a secret. Its fact.

And as said many times before, the fire in any of the WTC buildings did not melt steel. But it weakened it. The jet fuel fires in the Twin Towers were a factor in their collapse. They collapsed less than an hour after being hit IIRC. But the fire in WTC7 wasn't as hot, as there was no jet fuel. But if you take the time the Towers were hit, and collapsed, and compare it to the time WTC7 was hit by the rubble and collapsed, it took a lot longer for WTC7 to collapse by comparison.

Anyway. I'm off to bed.

GhostInTheRuins · 09-02-2009 11:28PM

mysterious wrote: »

On the videos. it DOES NOT show much structural damage. It might have got a shower of debris.

Most of the photos you see of wtc7 are from one angle showing smoke coming from a couple of floors. CTers like to ignore the photos that show that one whole side of the building was engulfed in fire/smoke

Penn · 09-02-2009 11:36PM

also, the videos do not show that it is clearly a demolition job. Have you any idea about demolitions for a building like that? It would take months of planning and months of running wires through pretty much the whole building. Thousands of explosives would have to be installed in very precise locations, with wires pretty much connection them all.

And the 'government' supposedly did this while the building was still occupied without anyone noticing? They must have been planning it for years! Even though they had only been the government for little over 9 months at point.

mysterious · 10-02-2009 12:03AM

But it's the first steel frame building in history to have fallen due to fire damage. Most dissagree that it fell from structural damage. Most building surroundng survived this. It was also on the southface corner. And it would not have caused a building to collapse vertically down in 9 seconds without some explosives been used.

Another building in cacaras. a medium sized tower had fire in the building for 17 hours, all within burned completely. Yet the buildng withstood. another example. In Madrid A 32-story building burns for more than 24 hours and does not collapse. It does not collapse because buildings made of steel and concrete...... http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
Some other major worse fires, that lasted far longer than the WTC7 fire damage to it's building.

Also another fact. WT7 was the only building outside the WTC block to have fallen. Everything within the WTC block collapsed. The WTC7 building is not in the block but fell.

Quote's
1.There was no structural damage to WTC post twin tower collapse; only some exterior cosmetic damage to one corner.

2.But according to the FEMA and NIST reports, it was fire (and not structural damage due to the twin tower collapse.....

3.Both of the landmark buildings on either side of WT7 received relatively little structural damage and both continue in use today.

4.
But, despite the difficulties confronting the perpetrators, the bottom line was that Building 7 had to go. If WTC 7 was indeed an operations and control center for this sprawling conspiracy, it was, essentially, a crime scene that needed to be destroyed. It was also the only WTC building left standing, making the plan to level the entire complex incomplete. This theory is supported by the fact that, throughout the day, absolutely no effort was made to save this extremely sensitive and valuable building (one that housed several key governmental and intelligence agencies) that was being threatened by only modest fires. This is all the more baffling when you consider that WTC 7 must have had a built in fire suppression system of some kind as well, one that presumably would have made short work of such a marginal threat.

5. all rubble and remains was removed before any investigation could be made into WTC7

Well that's enough for now.

mysterious · 10-02-2009 12:08AM

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

also, the videos do not show that it is clearly a demolition job. Have you any idea about demolitions for a building like that? It would take months of planning and months of running wires through pretty much the whole building. Thousands of explosives would have to be installed in very precise locations, with wires pretty much connection them all.

And the 'government' supposedly did this while the building was still occupied without anyone noticing? They must have been planning it for years! Even though they had only been the government for little over 9 months at point.

Why not?
It was planned years ago.

Just like the Iraq war. Just because you see them on T.V doing their waffling. Doesn't mean they don't have plans outside of your perception. 9/11 was planned years ago. The 92 test was the first test to see how the sheeple would react.

Gulf war happened 20 years ago, but they still had all the plans drawn up for an Iraq war before 9/11. Didnt expose the information till post 9/11.
it doesn't matter who is in government. Your only seeing the public figures doing their public work. It doesn't matter whos in democrats or Republican. The shadow government controls both of them.

They needed to plan it, as Opec was threatnening to dump the dollar. They needed a fearful nation in order to control and manipulate the nation into all the wars they put their sheep into.

bonkey · 10-02-2009 08:07AM

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

From Wikipedia - A section which links to the official report:

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the buildings. The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.

For the record, NISTs findings concluded that this damage was incidental. The building would have collapsed from a specific design flaw, as a result of fire alone.

the building could collapse in 9 seconds.

The building didn't collapse in 9 seconds, so it doesn't matter.

Seriously...mysterious wants us to believe that the official explanation for the collapse of the building is wrong. To that end, there's no need to discuss any points which are not part of the official findings.

NIST do not claim the building fell in 9 seconds, nor do they claim that the structural damage inflicted from the falling towers played a key role. Therefore, neither of these points are truly relevant.

bonkey · 10-02-2009 08:10AM

mysterious wrote: »

Well bonky I respect that you like to have logic and facts to every argument but.

If logic, was to prevail here. Then WT7 was reinforced with butter and not steel.

NISTs findings were that WTC 7 suffered from a specific, identified physical design weakness which made it susceptible to fire.

Logic tells me that in the presence of such a weakness, that no, it doesn't need to be reinforced with butter.

9seconds, a fast baby to fall.

Had it fallen in 9 seconds, I'd agree with you.

It didn't, though, nor does the official account of the collapse claim it does.

Penn · 10-02-2009 08:37AM

mysterious wrote: »

But it's the first steel frame building in history to have fallen due to fire damage. Most dissagree that it fell from structural damage. Most building surroundng survived this. It was also on the southface corner. And it would not have caused a building to collapse vertically down in 9 seconds without some explosives been used.

But you're not listening to what I'm saying, it is not the first steel frame building to have fallen due to fire damage. Steel frames in a building like that would be protected with fireproofing measures such as being incased in concrete, intumescent paint, fire-resistant plasterboard etc, designed to keep the fire away from the steel long enough for evacuation and for emergency responses to extinguish the fire. But the steel became exposed when the rubble from the North tower hit it. It damaged a lot of the steel structure. The rest of the steel in that area which was hit was then weakened by the fire due to the fireproofing methods being damaged and exposing the steel.

And the building didnt collapse in 9 seconds. Its inconclusive how long it took it to collapse due to the amount of dust and debris. Although EXPERTS say it took approximately 14 seconds.

And as for it being the only building to have collapsed, as I said, the buildings closer were hit from above, as these buildings were not quite as tall, also taking into account the direction of collapse (another thing which proves it wasnt a controlled demolition), while WTC7 was hit at the side. I don't know how much you know about structural steel design, but if you did know even a little you would know that this is very significant.

Please mysterious, I am an actual structural steel designer. While I don't design skyscrapers or stuff like that, I do know that there is a hell of a lot more evidence to support my clams than yours.

And stop calling us 'sheep'. Because in all honesty, I think you've been brainwashed by the Loose Change films. And they're baaaad

Penn · 10-02-2009 08:40AM

Can I just say, I love 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Theorists: WE DEMAND THE GOVERNMENT TELLS US WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!

Government: 9/11 was not planned by us.

Theorists: YOU'RE LYING!

Nick_oliveri · 10-02-2009 10:52AM

Dammit, i predicted this thread, am i Psycho.....Ps..Psy...Psychic?

Big ass burning skyscraper comparison thread becomes carousel Wtc7 thread, I could have predicted that too....

Penn · 10-02-2009 11:35AM

mysterious wrote: »

Quote's
1.There was no structural damage to WTC post twin tower collapse; only some exterior cosmetic damage to one corner.

Some exterior cosmetic damage? The steel frame is the exterior of the building and the external members are some of the most important parts of a steel frame. Hence the term 'frame'.

2.But according to the FEMA and NIST reports, it was fire (and not structural damage due to the twin tower collapse.....

As I said before, the damage caused by the rubble exposed the steel to fire. Something which didnt happen to other buildings which have had large fires.

3.Both of the landmark buildings on either side of WT7 received relatively little structural damage and both continue in use today.

Again, as I said before, you can't compare those buildings as they were built and designed differently, and the rubble hit in different places. And if what Bonkey said is true, WTC7 had a design flaw which was a major factor in its collapse.

4.
But, despite the difficulties confronting the perpetrators, the bottom line was that Building 7 had to go. If WTC 7 was indeed an operations and control center for this sprawling conspiracy, it was, essentially, a crime scene that needed to be destroyed. It was also the only WTC building left standing, making the plan to level the entire complex incomplete. This theory is supported by the fact that, throughout the day, absolutely no effort was made to save this extremely sensitive and valuable building (one that housed several key governmental and intelligence agencies) that was being threatened by only modest fires. This is all the more baffling when you consider that WTC 7 must have had a built in fire suppression system of some kind as well, one that presumably would have made short work of such a marginal threat.

That is just ridiculous. Why bother posting something like that and not giving a source.

5. all rubble and remains was removed before any investigation could be made into WTC7

No investigation necessary. Its plainly obvious what happened.

Well that's enough for now.

Seriously, people have been coming up with conspiracy theories about 9/11 since 9/11. But if you just look at the facts, and not stuff like Quote 4 in your list, you'll see there is no conspiracy. Unless Bin Laden was on a grassy knoll with remote controls for the planes or something

Sofa_King Good · 10-02-2009 12:18PM

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Seriously, people have been coming up with conspiracy theories about 9/11 since 9/11. But if you just look at the facts, and not stuff like Quote 4 in your list, you'll see there is no conspiracy. Unless Bin Laden was on a grassy knoll with remote controls for the planes or something

TO be fair a false-flag attack on US soil was predicted in some quarters pre-9/11.

Penn · 10-02-2009 12:25PM

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

TO be fair a false-flag attack on US soil was predicted in some quarters pre-9/11.

Still not proof though. Its like Science Vs Religion. Some people accept what is proven and logical, some people choose to believe and have faith in something. But until I see some proof and evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, I choose Science

Diogenes · 10-02-2009 01:08PM

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

TO be fair a false-flag attack on US soil was predicted in some quarters pre-9/11.

Not to be fair, but the same sources have been claiming since 9/11 that there were for example, a nuclear false flag terror attack would occur since 911, that Osama Bin Laden would be found just before the 2004 elections, and a false flag terrorist attack would be used as justification for the declaration of martial law and preventing Obama being sworn into office.

It kind of diminishes your credibility if you keep claiming every six month that there will be a "false flag" terrorist attack, just so, liked a stopped clock you are right and a terrorist attack does occur, you can say "ha ha See I said they'd stage something like this"

Mysterious wrote:

Wikipeadia is not a reliable source for info as sensitive as this. WTC 7 was a demolition job just even looking by videos.

HA HA HA HA. Wikiepedia isn't a credible source but a video lets you an untrained lay man see the truth. Tell me where are the sounds of the shaped charges going off that you get in a regular demolition?

Sofa_King Good · 10-02-2009 01:17PM

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Still not proof though. Its like Science Vs Religion. Some people accept what is proven and logical, some people choose to believe and have faith in something. But until I see some proof and evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, I choose Science

To be honest I'd agree with you, but with reservations.

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

Comments