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

Beijing skyscraper.

WTC 7

Beijing skyscraper.

WTC 7

Beijing skyscraper.

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?
Remember that WTC 7 was structurally            reinforced and suffered limited fires across just 8  floors. 
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
 
           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.
 
             
          Compare these images of the  Windsor            building fire to those of WTC 7 and the twin towers.
 
             
          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.
 
 

 
No comments:
Post a Comment