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: 805
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
#11. To: wudidiz (#0)
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).
#15. To: Tatarewicz (#11)
That is probably true, but incredibly deceptive. And he knows it.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Replies to Comment # 11. the energy impact of the planes was small, the jet fuel had an energy content 15 times that of TNT (per pound).
End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.