See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Beijing Skyscraper Fire: The Silence Is Deafening
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/art ... 009/021209_beijing_silence.htm
Published: Feb 12, 2009
Author: Paul Joseph Watson
Post Date: 2009-02-12 23:22:32 by wudidiz
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 777
Comments: 16
Beijing Skyscraper Fire: The Silence Is Deafening Three days after a towering inferno engulfed a 500 foot skyscraper in Beijing, debunkers have failed to come up with any answers as to why the building remained standing in comparison with WTC 7, which suffered a uniform 7 second implosion as a result of limited fires spread across just 8 floors on 9/11. Beijing's Mandarin Oriental hotel defied all known physics on Monday when it was consumed by fires but did not collapse, a modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer even limited fire damage implode in on their own footprint within seconds. All joking aside, any credibility that remained behind NIST's "thermal expansion" theory, which was apparently only evident on one day in history and not in the case of hundreds of other high rise buildings that have caught fire and remained standing, metaphorically went up in the flames that consumed - but did not collapse - one of Beijing's most prominent buildings. The silence of debunkers with regard to the hotel fire is both deafening and highly hypocritical. Proponents of the government's version of events are usually feverish to seize upon anything, no matter how inane and off tangent, in order to try and prop up the official fairy tale. The best retort we have seen since the fire is the claim that buildings are constructed differently and therefore no comparison can possibly be made between the Mandarin Oriental hotel and Building 7. Really? That argument didn't stop debunkers from comparing the collapse of two bridges to the collapse of the twin towers following freeway collapses in San Francisco and Minnesota in 2007. The frenzy was particularly evident at Fark.com following the San Francisco bridge collapse, with posters reveling in the notion that the freeway accident had made "WTC conspiracy theories collapse as quickly as that highway did." In that instance, the freeway section was made of highly flammable asphalt and took the brunt of a gigantic gasoline explosion with open air fires shooting 200 feet in the air. In comparison, the twin towers were impacted by aluminum planes filled with significantly less flammable kerosene and suffered limited fires that were oxygen-starved and almost out before the collapses occurred. "You can't even begin to compare 5 inch thick steel plate core columns, approximately 2 foot by 5 foot rectangle 5 inch thick boxes to quarter inch and 3 quarter inch dowels that connect the steel to the support members," a steel welding expert told us. "The logical deduction is that the rebar steel was exposed horizontally, that whole bridge surface and it was exposed intention, not like the fires that were lapping up fire-proofed 5 inch thick plate columns in the World Trade Center - these little bars had no heat sink and after two hours with all that weight on them they fell." But logic didn't stop the debunkers from comparing the collapse of a weakened and cracked freeway with the uniform implosion of skyscrapers that were designed to absorb multiple airliner impacts without collapsing. Neither did it stop them from using the absurd comparison to try and explain away the collapse of WTC 7 - which wasn't even hit by a plane. So when debunkers attempt to evade difficult questions about the Beijing skyscraper fire by claiming that no comparison can even be made to WTC 7, it's pertinent to remind them that they considered it perfectly legitimate to compare towering skyscrapers with run-down creaking bridges in order to push their agenda. The state-controlled communist media in China have all but censored coverage of the Beijing skyscraper fire to avoid public embarrassment, but the silence has been just as deafening in the U.S., where corporate media networks have largely ignored the story, ostensibly to prevent people make the obvious comparison to World Trade Center 7. Thankfully, an army of truth activists have been busy on You Tube compiling video comparisons of the fires in the two buildings and the resulting damage. The best videos are featured below.
Debunkers' only response is to claim that no comparison to WTC 7 can be made, yet they feverishly compared completely dissimilar bridge collapses to twin towers in 2007
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: wudidiz (#0)
I've shown these photo's to some previously resistant pairs of eyes in conjunction with the Building 7 video. The light is beginning to come on.
Join 2x4 Tuesdays & protect your RKBA. The communist chinkernese bought our best building secrets from the Israeli's who STOLE them from us. Now they have perfect buildings as well as perfect nukes...
_________________________________________________________________________ If this dosen't do it one must wonder what would.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" Since a lot of the debunkers (like the less than Amazing Randi) are likely Intel Assets they are being paid to defend the Official Fairy Tale. Since they are bought whores they'll be loyal to the pay master - as long as the payola keeps coming.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Bob, n the people..... 400 years (400 years, 400 years. Wo-o-o-o) And it's the same - The same (wo-o-o-o) philosophy I've said it's four hundred years; (400 years, 400 years. Wo-o-o-o, wo-o-o-o) Look, how long (wo-o-o-o) And the people they (wo-o-o-o) still can't see. Why do they fight against the poor youth of today? And without these youths, they would be gone - All gone astray Come on, let's make a move: (make a move, make a move. Wo-o-o-o, wo-o-o-o) I can (wo-o-o-o) see time (wo-o-o-o) - time has come, And if-a fools don't see (fools don't see, fools don't see. Wo-o-o-o) I can't save the youth: The youth (wo-o-o-o) is gonna be strong. So, won't you come with me; I'll take you to a land of liberty Where we can live - live a good, good life And be free. Look how long: 400 years, (400 years, 400 years) - Way too long! (wo-o-o-o) That's the reason my people (wo-o-o-o) - my people can't see. Said, it's four hundred long years - (400 years, 400 years. Wo-o-o-o) Give me patience (wo-o-o-o) - same philosophy. It's been 400 years, (400 years, 400 years) Wait so long! Wo-o-o-o, wo-o-o-o. How long? 400 long, long years. [fadeout] "400 Years" Bob Marley Lyrics
4um Traitor The light is beginning to come on. You may want to point out that no building codes have been revised as a result of 9/11. Surely they would have revised them so they'd stand the way this latest one did, right? And, wouldn't we see other buildings being dismantled because like WTC 1,2 and 3 they too were unsafe? Wouldn't architects be sued, and books rewritten? (They did send a confidential memo around instructing builders and owners not to remove all of the support bolts on existing structures, cautioning that it could be as devastating as thermite charges cutting main supports in a timed collapse sequence) They did pass a law that prevented running electrical lines through airplane fuel tanks after that was used as the excuse for the TWA 800 crash, and as you know that law was recently repealed because Boeing needed it taken off the books for a new plane of theirs. (And on or off the books it didn't cost any "wealthy" (wink wink) landlords/real estate moguls a dime) But imagine if the WTC fairie tale was true and high rise buildings had to be dismantled, insurance companies rightfully refused to pay and loads of landlord types (like Lucky Larry) were bankrupted? Under those circs WTC-9/11 wouldn't have been such a good idea after all. And imagine a judge's dilemma; do I stick it to "wealthy" (wink wink) landlords or "wealthy" (wink wink) insurance company stockholders?"
Very interesting... Postscript: Lucky Larry will rot in Hell. Insurance $ gets Larry plenty of Shiksa "love" but he's still a shyster at the end of the day.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has quietly decided to loosen stringent fuel-tank safety regulations written after the 1996 fuel-tank explosion that destroyed flight TWA 800 off the coast of New York state. The FAA proposes to relax the safeguards for preventing sparks inside the fuel tank during a lightning strike, standards the agency now calls "impractical" and Boeing says its soon-to-fly 787 Dreamliner cannot meet. Webmaster's Commentary: The fuel-tank rules were part of the public relations aspect of the cover-up. They were cosmetic right form the start. TWA 800 was shot down by a US Navy missile during a botched test of the Aegis-CEC system conducted off of Long Island during that summer. Missiles had been seen in flight both before and after the tragedy. But the US Government covered it up (as they have covered up so much through the years) and blamed an exploding fuel tank. So, the FAA, to conform to the deception, had to impose new rules on fuel tanks, rules which were pointless, and as this article confirms, to be quietly disposed of once they were no longer needed to support the official story. Log in to vote 0 Posted on Feb 10, 2009 at 12:27 ______________________ Postscript: Lucky Larry will rot in Hell. I wish I believed that.
maybe those buildings didnt have a jew bankster criminal owner who said 'pull it'? it's possible.
Glory to God in the highest, and Peace to His people on Earth. There's little question that the NY buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, probably using nukes. The planes were just part of the false flag paraphernalia. Canada's CBC did have physicist Richard Muller of U of CA, Berekely, on its Quirks science radio show, saying that while the energy impact of the planes was small, the jet fuel had an energy content 15 times that of TNT (per pound). Muller, author of Physics for future presidents, also attributed US involvement in Iraq as being over oil (rather than on behalf of Israel to stop Saddam from funding Palestinian bombers who were just trying to get back the land stolen from them by Israeli terrorists).
Where is the hole caused by a 20-ton airplane, loaded with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, that flew into the building at hundreds of miles and hour, severing most of the buildng's supports? Oh -- there isn't one.
You meant to say 5% of the supports, if even that much, right?
Make awkward sexual advances, not war. they're comparing this to wtc7 which was not hit by an airplane. But more importantly, do you believe the official 911 government version of events?
Glory to God in the highest, and Peace to His people on Earth. That is probably true, but incredibly deceptive. And he knows it.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
Like poking a hole in a screen door. It doens't collapse. A hole in the middle of the buiding didn't do anything to the support below. WTC was blown up. It is clear as day.
www.righttokeepandbeararms.com
#2. To: wudidiz (#0)
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#3. To: randge (#1)
#4. To: tom007 (#3)
#5. To: wudidiz (#0)
#6. To: wudidiz (#0)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#7. To: randge (#1)
I've shown these photo's to some previously resistant pairs of eyes in conjunction with the Building 7 video.
#8. To: HOUNDDAWG (#7)
They did pass a law that prevented running electrical lines through airplane fuel tanks after that was used as the excuse for the TWA 800 crash, and as you know that law was recently repealed because Boeing needed it taken off the books for a new plane of theirs. (And on or off the books it didn't cost any "wealthy" (wink wink) landlords/real estate moguls a dime)
#9. To: scrapper2 (#8)
FAA to loosen fuel-tank safety rules, benefiting Boeing's 787
#10. To: wudidiz (#0)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#11. To: wudidiz (#0)
#12. To: wudidiz (#0)
No place is better than Turtle Island.
#13. To: Turtle (#12)
(Edited)
severing most of the buildng's supports?
Restaurants Schenectady, NY
#14. To: Turtle (#12)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#15. To: Tatarewicz (#11)
the energy impact of the planes was small, the jet fuel had an energy content 15 times that of TNT (per pound).
#16. To: Turtle (#12)
Where is the hole caused by a 20-ton airplane, loaded with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, that flew into the building at hundreds of miles and hour, severing most of the buildng's supports?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
