Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
OfflineTheHealCure
Stranger


Registered: 02/23/09
Posts: 199
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse
    #10953914 - 08/28/09 08:41 AM (14 years, 6 months ago)

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

    * Text size
    * Larger
    * Smaller

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, February 9, 2009

Giant flames engulf every floor of 44-story building and it remains standing, yet limited fires across just 8 floors of WTC 7 brought down building within 7 seconds on 9/11. How can NIST’s “new phenomenon” explain this one?

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top1a

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.

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top2
Beijing skyscraper.

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top3
WTC 7

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top4
Beijing skyscraper.

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top5
WTC 7

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top7
Beijing skyscraper.

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top6
WTC 7

To any sane and rational observer, which of these buildings would have been the most likely to collapse? And yet it was WTC 7 which collapsed within 7 seconds into its own footprint on 9/11. The Beijing skyscraper, though gutted by fire damage, remains standing.

How do the debunkers explain away this one? How come NIST’s newly invented “phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” didn’t put paid to the skyscraper in Beijing? Does fire have different properties in China compared to the U.S.? Does it behave in different ways depending on what country it’s in?

    * A d v e r t i s e m e n t
    * efoods

Remember that WTC 7 was structurally reinforced and suffered limited fires across just 8 floors.

The core of NIST’s explanation, that an “extraordinary event” called “thermal expansion” was to blame for the sudden total collapse of WTC 7 is of course on the face of it a fraud when one considers the innumerable number of buildings that have suffered roaring fires across the majority of their floors and remained standing, whereas WTC 7 suffered limited fire damage across a handful of floors.

The Beijing skyscraper fire provides yet more comparable evidence to illustrate the monolithic hoax that fire damage alone can cause buildings to collapse implosion style, adding more weight to the argument that both WTC 7 and the twin towers were  destroyed by explosives that were seen and heard by dozens of eyewitnesses who were at ground zero.

Take another example – the Windsor building in Madrid, a 32 story skyscraper which was a raging inferno for no less than 24 hours before fire crews were able to put out the flames. Despite the building being constructed of columns a fraction as thick as those used in the WTC twin towers, as well as a total lack of fireproofing, the building’s top section only partially collapsed while the integrity of the whole structure remained firmly intact.

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top8 Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top9

Compare these images of the Windsor building fire to those of WTC 7 and the twin towers.

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top10 Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse 090209top11

The skyscraper fire in Beijing offers another stark and bold reminder that when one eliminates the dodgy, agenda-driven, and incomprehensible delusions of NIST, one fact remains abundantly clear;

Office fires – even the flame shooting towering inferno variety – cannot cause modern buildings to implode in on themselves and collapse. Only deliberately placed explosives can achieve this end. The Windsor fire, the Beijing skyscraper fire and many more yet to come painfully underscore the awful truth that the only way WTC 7 and the twin towers could have collapsed in the manner that they did was by means of controlled demolition


--------------------
I don't want to be hostile.
I don't want to be dismal.
But I don't want to rot in an apathetic existance either.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTrancedShroom
Mr. Hanky
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/08/06
Posts: 8,002
Loc: Rippin Waves
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse [Re: TheHealCure]
    #10953921 - 08/28/09 08:43 AM (14 years, 6 months ago)

911 was caused by the government. All to raise oil prices and to take over Iraq. We will never leave Iraq.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTaco Chef
I found dead John Cheever
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/03/06
Posts: 33,222
Loc: the city of dis
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
Re: Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse [Re: TheHealCure]
    #10953934 - 08/28/09 08:48 AM (14 years, 6 months ago)

is pure cut and paste like this allowed?


--------------------




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSHiZNO
-


Registered: 03/14/03
Posts: 1,467
Re: Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse [Re: Taco Chef]
    #10953945 - 08/28/09 08:52 AM (14 years, 6 months ago)

oh boy


--------------------
...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegzuf
٩(̾๏̮̮̃̾๏̃̾)۶
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/09
Posts: 6,535
Re: Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse [Re: Taco Chef]
    #10953946 - 08/28/09 08:53 AM (14 years, 6 months ago)

WTC Debates are so 2005.


--------------------
+1 Post ٩(̾๏̮̮̃̾๏̃̾)۶


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesupercollider
superconducting


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/13/00
Posts: 1,234
Loc: Waxahachie
Re: Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse [Re: TheHealCure]
    #10953966 - 08/28/09 09:02 AM (14 years, 6 months ago)

You couldn't clean that text up, or add some links to info about this building in China, or add any thoughts of your own? Kinda weak.


--------------------
Supercollider? I just met her!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinearg6
Stranger
Male
Registered: 07/18/09
Posts: 368
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
Re: Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse [Re: supercollider]
    #10953973 - 08/28/09 09:07 AM (14 years, 6 months ago)

Hey look, another prisonplanet.com reader!!! :wink:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offline2859558484
Growery is Better
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/10/06
Posts: 8,752
Last seen: 3 years, 6 months
Re: Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse [Re: arg6]
    #10953975 - 08/28/09 09:08 AM (14 years, 6 months ago)

alex jones is pathetic


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse [Re: TheHealCure]
    #10954034 - 08/28/09 09:27 AM (14 years, 6 months ago)

This thread has been closed.

Reason:
it's not like we havent heard all this crap before

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* GOOD READ: a postive interview with erowids earth N fire. C20H25N3O 2,456 7 05/07/04 09:43 AM
by MOTH
* WTC Idiot 459 2 05/07/06 10:53 PM
by splifner180
* Tallest Skyscraper Ever Proposed in Dubai
( 1 2 3 4 all )
FeedingMyDreams 3,724 77 01/01/16 12:49 AM
by FeedingMyDreams
* build more prisons! aldanova 556 3 03/20/05 10:07 AM
by delta9
* Fire Fox 1.0
( 1 2 all )
duster 1,361 33 12/03/04 02:46 PM
by Vvellum
* IT IS A RAGING FIRE *DELETED* blink 834 14 10/29/04 12:04 AM
by FlusH
* I'd like to build a giant trebuchet Hanky 1,087 9 08/05/04 10:54 AM
by Loki
* Fire on the mountain Miscusi 523 1 07/28/04 02:12 AM
by Anonymous

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
691 topic views. 10 members, 44 guests and 68 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.