@gravityjunkie47 It was bonfire night by the looks of it or some festival where they set off fire works anyway. When the cameraman turns you see one going off in the sky. Probably what explains how the fire started in the first place, stray rocket maybe.
bin laden was seen around the cctv building on that day with a lighter in his hands, that's the smoking gun we were looking for, china could have declared war to some arab country
I don't understand why twoofers don't point out the explosions in this video, OBVIOUSLY we have controlled demo, right? Explosions means controlled demo. That is fact.
The only reason why this, & other high-rise buildings didn't collapse, is because they wern't stuffed with explosives & thermate.............. 911 INSIDE JOB
A mirage is now routinely spun. A verinage "is now routinely done." But it remains standing that "the building was designed" with 2000 percent liveload redundancy "to have a fully-loaded 707 crash into it."
I was there this week. It certainly did not fall down. The entire site is surrounded by a 20'+ tall metal construction fence and is abandoned for the most part. The specialists will not guarantee that the CCTV tower is structurally safe as it and the hotel were connected below grade and the CCTV tower is designed to lean away from the hotel. They are at a stand off from what I can surmise. If the cause was actually "fireworks" it is almost implausible that so much damage could have happened.
if it had started inside and there was a full sprinkler system then this wouldn't have happened at all
and even tho it started in the roof like that, it probably wouldn't be able to enter through the windows on the upper floors with sprinklers with good pressure
but if the outside of the building is covered in lots of flammables then you'd be right and it wouldn't help
i dunno about china but i know that in some countries they don't put sprinklers in new buildings still, and i've heard from a chinese friend that a lot of malls there are pretty outdated in safety even tho they're pretty new
Listen genius, steel melts around 2800 degrees but steel cables start to fail at 800 and steel beams and columns will start to lose strength and fail around 1200. It doesn't have to completely melt to lose it's ability to support weight. That and it expands around 7-9 inches per 100ft per 100 degrees increase which can push and cause huge strains on anything the steel beam is connected to.
No plane hit wtc 7 also. WTC 7 designed with fire proof and bomb proof materials. No molten metal in this building in China, but vast amounts of molten metal at wtc 7.
First of all I don't believe you. Why would WTC7 have "thousands of gallons of fuel" stored in it. A financial building? Hey maybe we found the oil speculators hoard then!? Bingo.
So it's fuel then? I guess perhaps we needed uh ... more fire for this building then? Maybe yeah more fire would have made it collapse. That's gotta be it. (Tell me how the heck you could have made that fire burn hotter, please, just look at every floor was on fire for 6 hours!!).
I'm saying this. How can anyone look at this video, and look at 9/11 videos of WTC7 collapsing and tell me honestly that WTC7 collapsed because it had a more severe fire than this building!
Point well taken, but how can anyone figure out a building collapse just by looking at a video? Your point is plausible on a surface level, but I don't have an engineering background and I doubt that you do either. Is either of us really able to understand and compare the structural properties of WTC7 and the CCTV annex? Who knows how much redundancy they built into the CCTV building for just such an eventuality?
I do have an engineering background. I have been an engineer for 7 years, but I'm not a civil engineer.
I disagree that visual evidence is not evidence. It is. Since we have no other documented cases of fire collapses like WTC7 in history we have to assume that it is a controlled demolition. The burden of proof is now for the WTC7 "fire theorist" to show us, how WTC buildings were different than any other building in history. The 911 commission did not do this, especially not with WTC7.
7 was a very unusual building in that it was built around another structure. It was a built over a Con Edison power station, which required some unusual structural designs to support the tremendous loads above it. The initial point of failure was at these points of unusual design, and it was expansion of columns due to heat in the area of the unusual design where the initial structural failures began. BTW, much smaller steel structures under much smaller loads have failed due to fire alone.
The building featured in the video is constructed of reinforced concrete like most high rises are today. A wing of Delft University failed due to fire alone and collapsed. Nearly all of the Windsor hotel that was made of steel I beams collapsed, the rest of the building was made of concrete. A steel bridge span in California collapsed when a tanker caught fire underneath it. Are you still clinging to truther nonsense?
All three towers of The World trade center was made with reinforced concrete too. Not only steel. Second, there is a difference between a bridge, many of which have had collapses for many different reasons, and the world trade center (being the first 3 in history to suffer a complete collapse.) 3rd, how about the few thousand Architects and Engineers who just had a conference in CA who think 9/11 was an inside job and want a new investigation. Are you still clinging to your denier nonsense?
The point of the bridge collapse is that it was a steel structure that failed due to fire alone. The WTC buildings were not supported by reinforced concrete.
Only the inner core of WTC 1 and 2 was concrete, and collapsed after the outer portions of 1 and 2 collapsed as can be seen in the vids of the collapse.
In contrast, the inner portion of 7 collapsed first, which can also be observed on video, and the outer portions of 7 ended up flopping over on top of the debris pile.
@Bernadotte01 Actually there was a business started in France that uses the method of taking out only one floor to start a progressive collapse. The technique is called verinage. and there are several videos on the net of it being done. You dumbass twoofers said it's impossible, but now it's routinely done.
@aredditor But building 7 was state-of-the-art imploded by thermal expansion of a single spotfire-warmed critical beam that was apparently integrated into the design like some kind of critical lynchpin bringing the entire house of cards down into its footprint at near-g acceleration when weakened. Or so the NIST report goes.
There was no side toppling "1/3 scooped out" as per popular mechanics, and no instant deletion of an entire floor, as per concrete destruction, not steelframe, by verinage.
@kapwns A fully loaded 707 means loaded with fuel. All such impacts will always result in fire, as per the Empire State impact that precipitated the 2000 percent live load redundancy incorporated into the WTC design.
(meaning 19 of twenty columns could be removed and the building would remain standing.)
You can indulge your fantasy by pretending it means something else, and you can pretend the 1975 World Trade Center fire didn't happen too. Delusions may provide comfort, but I don't need them.
@Bernadotte01 yes but frank is assuming that said resulting fire would be contained. again, why exactly are we taking his opinion as absolute fact?
so am i to assume you've previously removed 19 of the 20 columns to confirm this claim? what does the event in 1975 have to do with evidence for a conspiracy? red herring much?
i don't care about your ad hominem attacks and novella/deangelis postulates, next time save your characters for credible evidence
@kapwns Frank wasn't voicing his professional "opinion"--and let's NOT forget that he was employed at the WTC as a structural engineer to oversee repairs following the 93 bombing--back in April of 1964 when Engineering News Record described the 2,000 percent live load load redundancy design of the buildings intended to prevent unforeseen catastrophes arising from aircraft strikes or hurricanes.
A fully loaded plane includes fuel, in case you forgot.
@kapwns Credit to you for an excellent engineering analogy.
But the modern WTC towers were made of a much better quality of steel than the Titanic and the Empire State building. If people reported massive explosions on the Titanic and other events undermining the official narrative, perhaps conspiracy theories might prevail. But they don't.
Clearly, 911 is different, with hundreds of thread of evidence converging on the incendiary explanation. The Mandarin Hotel fire is quite large, isn't it?
@kapwns You seriously believe the official story of 911? What are you, retarded? You probably believe in shapeshifting reptillians and Aliens too. OOooOoooOoo watch out they are coming to get you tinfoilhatman :)
@ismhmr You're an idiot. The WTC was largely supported by steel, not reinforced concrete, and the impact destroyed or displaced what fireproof coating was in place on the steel. You are comparing structure that suffered a huge impact load high up in the structure where the framework is the weakest to a simple contents fire in a highrise that burned itself out within 3 hours. Apples to oranges but you fucktards will cling to anything to try and prove your bullshit agenda. Grow up.
@towely The Empire state building was also a steel structure, and was hit by a bomber in the early part of the last century. But whatever, you don't seem to comprehend anything. According to the official 9/11 report the fire weakened the steel, not the impact. Second, building 7 just collapsed on itself, and according to the NIST report it was again due to fires weakening the steel. I think you should do a little bit more research before you open your mouth because you feel offended.
@towely That does not explain why the undamaged floors gave way. Ten floors below where the plane hit those floors were completely undamaged and structurally sound. The fires around the impact points could well have weakened the steel, even enough to the point of collapse, but not a complete uniform collapse of all undamaged floors. Plus if it did fail through fire it would have failed at one single point not the whole floor. Worst case the top would have tipped over and fallen off, that's it.
@ismhmr not to mention i think we are forgetting one major difference between buildings here and in china and asia throughout. most mandarin buildings are built with a type of strong BAMBOO........WOOD which if a fire burned hot enough it would simply turn to ash. nice try you good ol' "debunkers" go tell your corporate masters you failed yet again we believe what we saw not what we were told
How much jet fuel has to burn to get the surrounding atmosphere over 700 degrees celsius? How much jet fuel was in the planes that hit the towers? What is the rate of consumption of the fuel? What is the efficiency of the energy transfer?
Do you help finding links to vids or pics on the net of steel structures failing due to normal fires, or to pics of sagging horizontal I beams in a high rise after a normal fire? You don't need jet fuel to make a hot fire, and plastic is also made from fossil fuels and can burn just as hot.
I worked on a mathematical model of the WTC disasters, which included the "math problem" I mentioned before. Some of the conclusions we found:
1) The towers didn't collapse from the collision/fire. The weight of the floors above the impact area crashing into the structure below AFTER the supporting structure was sufficiently compromised crushed each floor in succession like an accordion.
2) It's amazing the towers stood as long as they did after impact.
thats a very good argument in fact. I would like to believe it too. but the whole law of conservation of energy thing kinda puts a kink in it... how would that work if not every floor was uniformly affected by the fire? because the buildings didnt smack down and halt and then shudder and then collapse into a pile. They disintegrated in the wtc1 and 2 example this would mean that there should be around 80-90 floors that should have recognizable wreckage or maybe even discernible floors..
3) The impact site was a key to the collapse, which is why the second tower hit collapsed first.
I've read some of your comments on this issue, and I have some advise. The "conspiracy nuts", for lack of a better term, will only seek out the facts that support their theory. You will not change their minds.
Can we see this mathematical model? Because...for the south tower especially...I wouldn't expect straight down pancaking after the building started leaning.
The towers acctually wern't burning they imploded because explosives were in the towers look at the replay and see the explosions happening inside the building starting at the top and going down, also is u have daubts about the implostion just look at how they crumbled.
This hotel wasn't rammed by a jet plane; also, it was designed and built over 3 decades after the WTC towers, with an additional 3 decades of materials science and engineering at the architects' disposal. This is not to mention that 9/11 had already occurred, and had to have been taken into account when building the Beijing hotel. Apples and oranges.
apples and oranges steel is steel bro and building designs have not changed that much in the last 3 decades, columns, beams, trusses they are built with load carrying characteristics.
Do I even have to say it? A bomber crashed into the empire state building in 1945. A fire did blaze but it was contained, and the building was ok. Due to that (and other incidents) they designed the world trade centers for impacts with aircraft. Tell me how could their design have been so bad, so wrong, that this building here can burn completely for 6 hours and not explode into dust like WTCs? If that were the case the WTCs would have to be the biggest engineering screw up in history.
When others take into account what's been written or said and apply those things to other logic. Some will take what's been etched in stone in the media as absolute truth and accept without doubt. Whereas a critical thinker will take into consideration that the media is a tool of control to manipulate public opinion. Then based upon that realization, additional research and common logic help to draw more REALISTIC conclusions based upon the ACTUAL facts; NOT simply upon media conveyance.
Aredditor is a left brain thinking clown with little or no common sense in addressing this issue. Numbers, Stats, and testimonies can be manipulated, fabricated, and influenced. Common sense and critical thinking however can be used to decipher the truths in all of the mentioned categories. That's the difference between those that believe the conspiracy and those that don't. Some operate solely on what's written or said..
"Common sense and critical thinking however can be used to decipher the truths in all of the mentioned categories."
LOL twoofers flocked to this video of a concrete building as evidence that a steel building couldn't fall due to fire alone, but they're absent from the comments of a video showing a small steel building falling due to fire alone. Twoofers flocked to pics of the molten aluminum and zinc of automobile engines and proclaimed it evidence of molten steel.
All collapsing buildings make a lot of dust, even though only the supports are taken out, and the weight of the building is used to demolish itself. There's a company in France that has done dozens of demolitions by taking out only one floor, and letting the building do exactly what towers 1 and 2 did. The technique is called: "verinage", and it makes a lot of dust, just as any building collapse would. Put it in the youtube search bar. I'm surprised there's any truthers left.
Ok - this is a very cool example. However, there's a specific reason why they collapse the buildings from the middle in this case, this is due to conservation of energy. There is enough energy in the top half of the building to demolish the bottom half. If they only took out the top floor, or even a few floors from the top it would not be enough to demolish the whole building. These buildings will not demolish at freefall speeds. Also they used hydraulics to take out the floors (not fire).
@aredditor i looked at the wtc north tower collapse from a theoretical point of view, strictly speaking it was not a free fall, otherwise momentum is not conserved. this is not assuming any foul play/ nukes/ thermite/ directed energy weapons (which sounds very vague, a lot like "wmd")/ explosives et cetera.
I have a question for the fire experts (a serious question, not a 911 conspiracy question). Why is the Mandarin burning so vigorously on the exterior of the structure? The fire progressed very rapidly (some vids on yt show almost all of one side involved in fire in a short period of time) The fire itself only burned for a couple of hours, so what was the heavy fire load causing the massive blaze? btw thanks for the vid knikkor
Why what? Why watch the movie? So that you can please stop with the denial already. Look at that overwhelming evidence. Clearly we're not the only one's with the idea that that Administration committed war crimes. There were a few attempts on Capitol Hill to get Bush indicted for mass murder. Clearly some people in the Capitol aren't a deluded as you are.
Inferior? To what? Television? It's the same form of media. Why do you people continuously try to lie to yourselves about the truth just to ensure some sleep for the night? Does it help to find the minority of people on "Youtube" that actually agree with you? I'm pretty certain that about 6/10 believe the conspiracy, maybe 2 are undecided, and of course the last 2 are people like you. Where does the denial stem from?
Gotta love the Chinese... they own the west now... they just proved 9/11 official story was b.s. and soon they will prove humans have never been on the moon. Go China!
cauterize11 wrote: There was more structural damage to the buildings than a mere softening of the steel at the elevated temperatures, which is one of the primary reasons the World Trade Center collapsed. -- The other reason... Controlled Demolitions Inc.
That was amazing video. Is it just me or does it look like the actual metal is burning? Weird. And why didnt it fall straight down at free fall speed? I think chinese metal is stronger than american . Awesome engineers built that building to take that kind of raging fire and yet it still stands. No collapse.......maybe it was because the entire building was on fire and not just one small area. I'm pretty sure that's why.
If you're referring to WTC then think again. WTC was built sum 40 years ago, not even this century. Obviously the engineering is a bit different. And Chinese vs America metals? What? Plus, the steel could not melt in the flames during the WTC attacks. There was more structural damage to the buildings than a mere softening of the steel at the elevated temperatures, which is one of the primary reasons the World Trade Center collapsed. Fly a plane into this building and it probably won't stand.
Man i saw this building being constructed and stood still it was quite impressive, too bad its gone now in those circumstances and for Beijing people.
Right, but do you have ANY idea how much damage a tiny fire can do to a collossal building. This video is fake. Everbody knows that if the building next door catches fire everything around it falls! They proved this on 911. So there! You need a plane to hit you. It just has to hit something close by and somehow cause a fire in your building. You can do it with a match or a lighter. Light a fire and let it burn for 8 hours. Everything around you will collapse for miles and miles!
First and foremost I hope nobody got hurt during this event. 2nd I highly agree with jayron77.
I believe americans are just really that stupid to believe the wtc 7 came crashing due to extreme heat. Steel can stay stable even during a fire!!! JET FUEL DOES NOT MAKE A FIRE MORE HOT!!! THEREFORE THE STEEL SHOULDNT COLLAPSE LIKE WTC 7 DID, ESPECIALLY IN SUCH SHORT TIME. EDUCATE YOURSELVES AND WAKE UP PLEASE PEOPLE. ITS NOT THAT HARD, YOU JUST HAVE TO HAVE AN OPEN MIND. PEACE TO ALL.
How about you selfish people spare a thought for the Beijing people? I've visited Beijing many times staying just down the road from where this happened, I can empathise here.
China has done so much to rebuild, change, and be successful over the past years. That this building has been destroyed is a big disappointment. To see the buildings around Guomou that have gone up over the past few years, make you stare in awe at the bravery of the architects to push the design envelope. Such a shame.
Yea, this looks like 9/11 except one thing, this is more fire.... Hmm, more fire, almost the same structure but not faling...? What did WTC have that this tower doesn´t? Bombs maby...
Come and see another homemade video, completely different, on my channel. It's a short that i did years ago, named "drinking the sea". What do you think, is it fake or real? Someone really DIED? Try to guess
This was a recently built building, so it was completely empty and thus the sprinkler systems were non-operational. Apparently the construction workers decided to shoot off some fireworks from the roof, and that's where the fire started. Only 1 death which was a fireman. I still have no idea how the ENTIRE building got caught on fire, when the fire started on the roof.
People fired firecrackers illegally caused the CCTV new building burning in the evening of Feb. 9th . The Major himself went to direct fire fighting at the first minute.Five fireman and one staff were injured, one fireman was dead after sent into hospital. CCTV's programs were not influenced.That day is Lantern Festival ,the last day of Lunar New Year.
The fire in the world trade center didn't cause the collapse. The towers were made of steel, and steel will never melt from fire, not even fire from jet fuel. The towers were a controlled demolition. But hey don't take my word for it, do your own investigation, just don't listen to the news.
I honestly felt that building looks uninviting and even intimidating for a hotel. Koolhaus should build something with more of a human touch *if* he ever gets a second chance.
The entire complex looks like a brutalist nightmare that could only be constructed in a fascist country like China. The CCTV building looks inhuman and unnerving, like a collapse frozen in time. There is no beauty in it from any angle.
Koolhaus designed a museum complex for Lexington, KY that was a similar architectural nightmare. Fortunately it has been cancelled.
1) In addition to fire, WTC7 was severely damaged by falling debris from the collapsed WTC1 and 2.
2) There was a large storage tank of fuel in the WTC7 basement that caught fire, adding intensity to the fire.
3) The design of WTC7. A large portion of it was cantilevered over underground facilities (subway lines, power substation, etc.) This made it more susceptible to collapse when weakened.
4) CCTV Annex was built *after* 9/11. Lessons were learned.
I mean seriously.. if even ONE other steel structure EVER in history other than on 9/11, collapsed due to fire then perhaps we could have a discussion. Think about that for a moment. EVER? IN HISTORY!? It should be clear as day that after watching all of the conspiracy video and just based on natural logic that there was definitely some shanannies that day.
Man I love it. I've been fighting the good war of "Truth" for far too long. I love it when outstanding evidence like this fall out the sky and into the laps of all the people that deny the conspiracy. How many more skyscrapers need to be set ablaze for hours before people realize that they don't collapse into their own footprint, after an hour, WITHOUT the aid of EXPLOSIVES! Now that's a real fire okay? Not some kitchen fire that is barely noticeable through plumes of smoke. Ridiculous.
i'm not an expert, but i'm gonna do out on a limb here and guess that the 180 000 litres of fuel that a 747 can hold might have something to do with the reason the wtc collapsed and this didn't. also, this is a 44-story building, whereas the wtc was more than twice this height (more weight pushing down on the fire-weakened area). i'm not averse to a good conspiracy theory, but your theory isn't good.
Perhaps if you knew that the towers weren't the only buildings that went down that day, then perhaps you wouldn't have left the comment. Aside from that, jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to weaken steel in under an hour. The support columns at the base of the WTC towers were actually cut in a 45 degree angle. Indicative of a "Controlled Demolition." Molten steel was being pulled from ground zero up to 6 weeks after the collapse. Jet fuel doesn't even burn hot enough to melt steel. Only Thermite.
For any of you thinking that the force from the impact of the jet had something to do with it's collapse, the twin towers were built to withstand the winds from a severe storm which exerts far more force onto the building in terms of structural pressure. A massive gust of wind along one side of the twin towers exerts more force than the impact of a flimsy 747 aircraft, concentrated in a tiny portion of the building.
wow ... I'm shocked it didn't fall perfectly straight down into it's own footprint at near freefall speed just like on 911!
Actually I'm not shocked .
Building 7 - the building that wasn't hit by a plane, fell straight down with the central top penthouse caving first at nearly freefall speed ... due to a few visible tiny fires? Data shows people were saying it was going to come down... BBC reporter said it had come down when it was still in back of her in the shot!
Talk is cheap. You can spread hate through a video blog all you want but until you pick up a gun and FIGHT for what you believe you are nothing more than shit. Even the Jew that you probably despise has enough balls to pick up a gun and fight in the isreali army. What are you doing? Spreading hate online? That's the best you can do? That will get you 72 virgins in heaven?
I live in Beijing. They building is being repaired and will reopen. There was very little damage to the steel girders despite the massive inferno.
enunna 3 months ago
One thing that is interesting is the sounds of explosions from this fire. Anyone have any ideas about those?
gravityjunkie47 5 months ago
@gravityjunkie47 It was bonfire night by the looks of it or some festival where they set off fire works anyway. When the cameraman turns you see one going off in the sky. Probably what explains how the fire started in the first place, stray rocket maybe.
annuity100 4 months ago
it never fall down, check other videos to find out
Mrasianpopmusic 6 months ago
bin laden was seen around the cctv building on that day with a lighter in his hands, that's the smoking gun we were looking for, china could have declared war to some arab country
malcomino 7 months ago
Even if 100foot of the world trade centre magically dissappeared.
The tower wouldn't have collapsed the way it is.
Take some physics , Dumb DUmb Dumb Dumb
and chemistry.
and math
and just school in general
student135 9 months ago
I don't understand why twoofers don't point out the explosions in this video, OBVIOUSLY we have controlled demo, right? Explosions means controlled demo. That is fact.
Fucking twoofers.
Different building design, no impact.
Think.
Blacktoe 9 months ago
It is amazing how after THIS the building is still standing
MeInTheNewWorld 1 year ago
9/11INSIDE JOB THIS IS THE EVIDENCE ,BUSH ARE A KILLER
TheMEXICANOCHINGON 1 year ago
que lastima que se quemara el edificio, una gran obra
NINJEDS 1 year ago
The only reason why this, & other high-rise buildings didn't collapse, is because they wern't stuffed with explosives & thermate.............. 911 INSIDE JOB
martinavizcomm 1 year ago 4
9/11 is an oxymoron!
agreed?
wtc7 fell and it was nothing like this....
420bmxer 1 year ago 5
A mirage is now routinely spun. A verinage "is now routinely done." But it remains standing that "the building was designed" with 2000 percent liveload redundancy "to have a fully-loaded 707 crash into it."
v=xD126r9ihaw
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
Look it's imbosebole! se the fire!!!!
Judgemat 1 year ago
this is how China celebrate their Chinese New Year, can you beat that? ~
hotsou1 1 year ago 4
9/11 was some kinda conspiracy all you have to do is look at the evidence
but people wont do shit no one cares etc there is no society no truth
i mean comon you expect me to believe the plane his then the whole thing collapsed in the way it did
look at any building demoliton it max the top may have falled over
anyway thermite was found inside the building theres so much shit on it just read about it
lynched101 2 years ago
@lynched101 do you have a degree in engineering?
novatrek 1 year ago
Why did this whole building did not collapse when it is completely engulfed in flame?!
Answer: Because 911 was fake and the twin towers were imploded.
Nuff said, I rest my case your honor....
fredgt28 2 years ago
or because a jumbo jet didnt fly through this one. "nuff said"
Swood44 2 years ago
You rested your case without much thought.
It's made of concrete, silly. Even nearly all of the largest high rises in the world are now made of reinforced concrete.
aredditor 2 years ago
The interior support steel beams of the Twin Towers were also encased in concrete.
MultiBlinkey 1 year ago
I was there this week. It certainly did not fall down. The entire site is surrounded by a 20'+ tall metal construction fence and is abandoned for the most part. The specialists will not guarantee that the CCTV tower is structurally safe as it and the hotel were connected below grade and the CCTV tower is designed to lean away from the hotel. They are at a stand off from what I can surmise. If the cause was actually "fireworks" it is almost implausible that so much damage could have happened.
tboake2000 2 years ago 2
It looks to have burned completely, but did it fall down?
Snurdgerbly 2 years ago 14
@Snurdgerbly Nope, the World Trade Center did. Obviously this fire is way bigger...
robertdevald 1 year ago
@Snurdgerbly nope.
whycryforher 1 year ago
@Snurdgerbly No, it didn't fall, that only happens in America using Amero-physics.
IExposeMormonism 11 months ago
ok i'm done with 9/11 arguements lol
but one thing...it's pathetic that a brand new skyscraper building wouldn't have a sprinkler system!
trucksoner 2 years ago
i dont think a sprinkler system would put that out
SmartestPlaYA 2 years ago
if it had started inside and there was a full sprinkler system then this wouldn't have happened at all
and even tho it started in the roof like that, it probably wouldn't be able to enter through the windows on the upper floors with sprinklers with good pressure
but if the outside of the building is covered in lots of flammables then you'd be right and it wouldn't help
but the outside should be concrete i think
trucksoner 2 years ago
Hmm it just doesnt seem that simple. Im pretty sure an architect doesnt look over things like this, maybe they did.
SmartestPlaYA 2 years ago
i dunno about china but i know that in some countries they don't put sprinklers in new buildings still, and i've heard from a chinese friend that a lot of malls there are pretty outdated in safety even tho they're pretty new
trucksoner 2 years ago
The building wasn't completed yet, so the fire suppression system wouldn't be completely installed or fully functional when this fire took place.
Though a fire suppression system wouldn't have completely stopped the fire, it would have prevented a lot of damage.
The fire appears to have been started from a fire works display gone wrong.
xtjlowex 2 years ago
i didn't know that it was incomplete. that makes sense that the system wouldn't be working yet
scary huh?
trucksoner 2 years ago
Diesel Fuel was in the WT7 tower.
Diesel can only burn at 1832F
Steal Melts at 2795F
Lets say that they did melt the steal. It would mean that the supports would have to give at the same time in order for the building to come down.
Lets say they did give at the same time, because of the fires.
The pile of ruble that would be on the ground would be just about every floor above the main failing point. Not DUST.
BBC reported before the collapse that it COLLAPSED! watch?v=0fs_jrq6l7E
TruRevolution 2 years ago 2
@TruRevolution
Listen genius, steel melts around 2800 degrees but steel cables start to fail at 800 and steel beams and columns will start to lose strength and fail around 1200. It doesn't have to completely melt to lose it's ability to support weight. That and it expands around 7-9 inches per 100ft per 100 degrees increase which can push and cause huge strains on anything the steel beam is connected to.
towely 9 months ago
No plane hit wtc 7 also. WTC 7 designed with fire proof and bomb proof materials. No molten metal in this building in China, but vast amounts of molten metal at wtc 7.
kevin604bc 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So~nice~~
Let it burned~.
shit china
schmidtwangtainan 2 years ago
WHAT ABOUT WTC7?
CLEARLY DEMOLISHED
ssooccoo 2 years ago 4
There were tens of thousands of gallons of fuel in giant tanks in the basement of WTC7 that got pumped into the blaze due to a mechanical glitch.
ixat00 2 years ago
First of all I don't believe you. Why would WTC7 have "thousands of gallons of fuel" stored in it. A financial building? Hey maybe we found the oil speculators hoard then!? Bingo.
So it's fuel then? I guess perhaps we needed uh ... more fire for this building then? Maybe yeah more fire would have made it collapse. That's gotta be it. (Tell me how the heck you could have made that fire burn hotter, please, just look at every floor was on fire for 6 hours!!).
realgenius101 2 years ago
The 24,000 gallons of diesel were there to power the electricity generators of the NYC Office of Emergency Management which resided in WTC7.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the second paragraph.
ixat00 2 years ago
I'm saying this. How can anyone look at this video, and look at 9/11 videos of WTC7 collapsing and tell me honestly that WTC7 collapsed because it had a more severe fire than this building!
realgenius101 2 years ago
Point well taken, but how can anyone figure out a building collapse just by looking at a video? Your point is plausible on a surface level, but I don't have an engineering background and I doubt that you do either. Is either of us really able to understand and compare the structural properties of WTC7 and the CCTV annex? Who knows how much redundancy they built into the CCTV building for just such an eventuality?
ixat00 2 years ago
I do have an engineering background. I have been an engineer for 7 years, but I'm not a civil engineer.
I disagree that visual evidence is not evidence. It is. Since we have no other documented cases of fire collapses like WTC7 in history we have to assume that it is a controlled demolition. The burden of proof is now for the WTC7 "fire theorist" to show us, how WTC buildings were different than any other building in history. The 911 commission did not do this, especially not with WTC7.
realgenius101 2 years ago
I also wonder why the fires were not even hot enough to break windows (a mere 1300ºF). Plus NIST says "No significant factor" to Popular Mechanics.
thehipsterofnewyork 2 years ago
7 was a very unusual building in that it was built around another structure. It was a built over a Con Edison power station, which required some unusual structural designs to support the tremendous loads above it. The initial point of failure was at these points of unusual design, and it was expansion of columns due to heat in the area of the unusual design where the initial structural failures began. BTW, much smaller steel structures under much smaller loads have failed due to fire alone.
aredditor 2 years ago
No, a Steel structure has never failed due to fire alone.
Building 7 would have been the first.
Also are you suggesting that the Chinese use better building materials than us?
ismhmr 1 year ago
The building featured in the video is constructed of reinforced concrete like most high rises are today. A wing of Delft University failed due to fire alone and collapsed. Nearly all of the Windsor hotel that was made of steel I beams collapsed, the rest of the building was made of concrete. A steel bridge span in California collapsed when a tanker caught fire underneath it. Are you still clinging to truther nonsense?
mrpeepers06145 1 year ago
All three towers of The World trade center was made with reinforced concrete too. Not only steel. Second, there is a difference between a bridge, many of which have had collapses for many different reasons, and the world trade center (being the first 3 in history to suffer a complete collapse.) 3rd, how about the few thousand Architects and Engineers who just had a conference in CA who think 9/11 was an inside job and want a new investigation. Are you still clinging to your denier nonsense?
ismhmr 1 year ago 18
The point of the bridge collapse is that it was a steel structure that failed due to fire alone. The WTC buildings were not supported by reinforced concrete.
Only the inner core of WTC 1 and 2 was concrete, and collapsed after the outer portions of 1 and 2 collapsed as can be seen in the vids of the collapse.
In contrast, the inner portion of 7 collapsed first, which can also be observed on video, and the outer portions of 7 ended up flopping over on top of the debris pile.
aredditor 1 year ago
@aredditor
"The building was designed to have a FULLY LOADED 707 crash into it...
I believe that the building probably could SUSTAIN MULTIPLE IMPACTS of jetliners"
Frank DeMartini, WTC resident structural engineer in 2001, originally employed to oversee repairs following th 93 basement bomb.
Have you started a state-of-the-art demolition business that uses only a box of matches and a hammer?
If not, why not?
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
@Bernadotte01 Actually there was a business started in France that uses the method of taking out only one floor to start a progressive collapse. The technique is called verinage. and there are several videos on the net of it being done. You dumbass twoofers said it's impossible, but now it's routinely done.
aredditor 1 year ago
@aredditor But building 7 was state-of-the-art imploded by thermal expansion of a single spotfire-warmed critical beam that was apparently integrated into the design like some kind of critical lynchpin bringing the entire house of cards down into its footprint at near-g acceleration when weakened. Or so the NIST report goes.
There was no side toppling "1/3 scooped out" as per popular mechanics, and no instant deletion of an entire floor, as per concrete destruction, not steelframe, by verinage.
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
@Bernadotte01 notice how frank didn't mention fires? and since when do we take his opinion as absolute fact?
can you name a demolition company that uses thermite for controlled demolitions? didn't think so....
kapwns 1 year ago
@kapwns A fully loaded 707 means loaded with fuel. All such impacts will always result in fire, as per the Empire State impact that precipitated the 2000 percent live load redundancy incorporated into the WTC design.
(meaning 19 of twenty columns could be removed and the building would remain standing.)
You can indulge your fantasy by pretending it means something else, and you can pretend the 1975 World Trade Center fire didn't happen too. Delusions may provide comfort, but I don't need them.
Bernadotte01 1 year ago 2
@Bernadotte01 yes but frank is assuming that said resulting fire would be contained. again, why exactly are we taking his opinion as absolute fact?
so am i to assume you've previously removed 19 of the 20 columns to confirm this claim? what does the event in 1975 have to do with evidence for a conspiracy? red herring much?
i don't care about your ad hominem attacks and novella/deangelis postulates, next time save your characters for credible evidence
kapwns 1 year ago
@kapwns Frank wasn't voicing his professional "opinion"--and let's NOT forget that he was employed at the WTC as a structural engineer to oversee repairs following the 93 bombing--back in April of 1964 when Engineering News Record described the 2,000 percent live load load redundancy design of the buildings intended to prevent unforeseen catastrophes arising from aircraft strikes or hurricanes.
A fully loaded plane includes fuel, in case you forgot.
Notice how all place crashes result in fire?
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
@Bernadotte01 yeah and the titanic was described as "unsinkable" by its engineers, does that mean we conclude it was conspiracy that sank it?
kapwns 1 year ago
@kapwns Credit to you for an excellent engineering analogy.
But the modern WTC towers were made of a much better quality of steel than the Titanic and the Empire State building. If people reported massive explosions on the Titanic and other events undermining the official narrative, perhaps conspiracy theories might prevail. But they don't.
Clearly, 911 is different, with hundreds of thread of evidence converging on the incendiary explanation. The Mandarin Hotel fire is quite large, isn't it?
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kapwns You seriously believe the official story of 911? What are you, retarded? You probably believe in shapeshifting reptillians and Aliens too. OOooOoooOoo watch out they are coming to get you tinfoilhatman :)
cassius969 1 year ago
@ismhmr You're an idiot. The WTC was largely supported by steel, not reinforced concrete, and the impact destroyed or displaced what fireproof coating was in place on the steel. You are comparing structure that suffered a huge impact load high up in the structure where the framework is the weakest to a simple contents fire in a highrise that burned itself out within 3 hours. Apples to oranges but you fucktards will cling to anything to try and prove your bullshit agenda. Grow up.
towely 9 months ago
@towely The Empire state building was also a steel structure, and was hit by a bomber in the early part of the last century. But whatever, you don't seem to comprehend anything. According to the official 9/11 report the fire weakened the steel, not the impact. Second, building 7 just collapsed on itself, and according to the NIST report it was again due to fires weakening the steel. I think you should do a little bit more research before you open your mouth because you feel offended.
ismhmr 9 months ago
@towely That does not explain why the undamaged floors gave way. Ten floors below where the plane hit those floors were completely undamaged and structurally sound. The fires around the impact points could well have weakened the steel, even enough to the point of collapse, but not a complete uniform collapse of all undamaged floors. Plus if it did fail through fire it would have failed at one single point not the whole floor. Worst case the top would have tipped over and fallen off, that's it.
annuity100 4 months ago
@ismhmr AMEN
taylerbill115 4 months ago
Any idiot could tell that the building didn't fall down. It blew up. Try again.
ismhmr 1 year ago
@ismhmr not to mention i think we are forgetting one major difference between buildings here and in china and asia throughout. most mandarin buildings are built with a type of strong BAMBOO........WOOD which if a fire burned hot enough it would simply turn to ash. nice try you good ol' "debunkers" go tell your corporate masters you failed yet again we believe what we saw not what we were told
AQT187 1 year ago
people very happy
a494517519 2 years ago
Here's a math problem:
Jet fuel has an energy content of 43 Mj/kg
Steel melts at 1600 degrees celsius
Steel changes phase at 700 - 800 degrees celsius
How much jet fuel has to burn to get the surrounding atmosphere over 700 degrees celsius? How much jet fuel was in the planes that hit the towers? What is the rate of consumption of the fuel? What is the efficiency of the energy transfer?
Any second year engineering students out there?
thomabb 2 years ago
Do you help finding links to vids or pics on the net of steel structures failing due to normal fires, or to pics of sagging horizontal I beams in a high rise after a normal fire? You don't need jet fuel to make a hot fire, and plastic is also made from fossil fuels and can burn just as hot.
aredditor 2 years ago
I worked on a mathematical model of the WTC disasters, which included the "math problem" I mentioned before. Some of the conclusions we found:
1) The towers didn't collapse from the collision/fire. The weight of the floors above the impact area crashing into the structure below AFTER the supporting structure was sufficiently compromised crushed each floor in succession like an accordion.
2) It's amazing the towers stood as long as they did after impact.
thomabb 2 years ago
thats a very good argument in fact. I would like to believe it too. but the whole law of conservation of energy thing kinda puts a kink in it... how would that work if not every floor was uniformly affected by the fire? because the buildings didnt smack down and halt and then shudder and then collapse into a pile. They disintegrated in the wtc1 and 2 example this would mean that there should be around 80-90 floors that should have recognizable wreckage or maybe even discernible floors..
RegimeKillerZero 2 years ago
3) The impact site was a key to the collapse, which is why the second tower hit collapsed first.
I've read some of your comments on this issue, and I have some advise. The "conspiracy nuts", for lack of a better term, will only seek out the facts that support their theory. You will not change their minds.
thomabb 2 years ago
Can we see this mathematical model? Because...for the south tower especially...I wouldn't expect straight down pancaking after the building started leaning.
JSSTyger 2 years ago
"How much jet fuel has to burn to get the surrounding atmosphere over 700 degrees celsius? How much jet fuel was in the planes that hit the towers?"
Who here thinks jet fuel was the only stuff burning in the towers? Apparently you do.
thedman113 2 years ago
who here thinks that no stuff was burning in this hotel? smh...
Sanharib 2 years ago
The towers acctually wern't burning they imploded because explosives were in the towers look at the replay and see the explosions happening inside the building starting at the top and going down, also is u have daubts about the implostion just look at how they crumbled.
K7BoogieMan 2 years ago
"The towers acctually wern't burning"
Now the towers weren't burning at all. The twoof movement is brilliant.
thedman113 2 years ago
消防系统呢？
gaoe121 2 years ago
lol there goes the official 9/11 and Building 7 story.
scata99 2 years ago
This Hotel Survived and WTC 1 WTC 2 and WTC 7 Collapsed from "structural Failure" My ass.
Steel buildings + Plane with a lot of fuel ≠ Collapse
Ortega2Productions 2 years ago
No offence, Made in China > Made in USA, lol.
lzbin80 2 years ago
It's Not Offense
Ortega2Productions 2 years ago
This hotel wasn't rammed by a jet plane; also, it was designed and built over 3 decades after the WTC towers, with an additional 3 decades of materials science and engineering at the architects' disposal. This is not to mention that 9/11 had already occurred, and had to have been taken into account when building the Beijing hotel. Apples and oranges.
ixat00 2 years ago
apples and oranges steel is steel bro and building designs have not changed that much in the last 3 decades, columns, beams, trusses they are built with load carrying characteristics.
BrownsnBuckeyesfan 2 years ago
Do I even have to say it? A bomber crashed into the empire state building in 1945. A fire did blaze but it was contained, and the building was ok. Due to that (and other incidents) they designed the world trade centers for impacts with aircraft. Tell me how could their design have been so bad, so wrong, that this building here can burn completely for 6 hours and not explode into dust like WTCs? If that were the case the WTCs would have to be the biggest engineering screw up in history.
realgenius101 2 years ago
Once again, this just proofs that explosives were involved in the 911 attacks...
SuzukiAkiraReita 2 years ago
When others take into account what's been written or said and apply those things to other logic. Some will take what's been etched in stone in the media as absolute truth and accept without doubt. Whereas a critical thinker will take into consideration that the media is a tool of control to manipulate public opinion. Then based upon that realization, additional research and common logic help to draw more REALISTIC conclusions based upon the ACTUAL facts; NOT simply upon media conveyance.
Modelmaterial7 2 years ago
Zero: An investigation into 9/11.
Do yourself a favor and watch it.
Aredditor is a left brain thinking clown with little or no common sense in addressing this issue. Numbers, Stats, and testimonies can be manipulated, fabricated, and influenced. Common sense and critical thinking however can be used to decipher the truths in all of the mentioned categories. That's the difference between those that believe the conspiracy and those that don't. Some operate solely on what's written or said..
Modelmaterial7 2 years ago
Critical thinkers don't try to use a ad hominem attack as proof of anything.
"Numbers, Stats, and testimonies can be manipulated, fabricated, and influenced."
Is that a subliminal rejection of the science and math that so easily used to debunk twoofer theories?
aredditor 2 years ago
"Common sense and critical thinking however can be used to decipher the truths in all of the mentioned categories."
LOL twoofers flocked to this video of a concrete building as evidence that a steel building couldn't fall due to fire alone, but they're absent from the comments of a video showing a small steel building falling due to fire alone. Twoofers flocked to pics of the molten aluminum and zinc of automobile engines and proclaimed it evidence of molten steel.
aredditor 2 years ago
K I'm interested where is that video? Did the building explode into dust? Seriously post it.
realgenius101 2 years ago
All collapsing buildings make a lot of dust, even though only the supports are taken out, and the weight of the building is used to demolish itself. There's a company in France that has done dozens of demolitions by taking out only one floor, and letting the building do exactly what towers 1 and 2 did. The technique is called: "verinage", and it makes a lot of dust, just as any building collapse would. Put it in the youtube search bar. I'm surprised there's any truthers left.
aredditor 2 years ago
Ok - this is a very cool example. However, there's a specific reason why they collapse the buildings from the middle in this case, this is due to conservation of energy. There is enough energy in the top half of the building to demolish the bottom half. If they only took out the top floor, or even a few floors from the top it would not be enough to demolish the whole building. These buildings will not demolish at freefall speeds. Also they used hydraulics to take out the floors (not fire).
realgenius101 2 years ago
@aredditor i looked at the wtc north tower collapse from a theoretical point of view, strictly speaking it was not a free fall, otherwise momentum is not conserved. this is not assuming any foul play/ nukes/ thermite/ directed energy weapons (which sounds very vague, a lot like "wmd")/ explosives et cetera.
mjjuna 1 year ago
I have a question for the fire experts (a serious question, not a 911 conspiracy question). Why is the Mandarin burning so vigorously on the exterior of the structure? The fire progressed very rapidly (some vids on yt show almost all of one side involved in fire in a short period of time) The fire itself only burned for a couple of hours, so what was the heavy fire load causing the massive blaze? btw thanks for the vid knikkor
valleytenderfoot 2 years ago
Caused by fireworks
pizileizi 2 years ago
Burn, baby, burn
Idude893 2 years ago
Why what? Why watch the movie? So that you can please stop with the denial already. Look at that overwhelming evidence. Clearly we're not the only one's with the idea that that Administration committed war crimes. There were a few attempts on Capitol Hill to get Bush indicted for mass murder. Clearly some people in the Capitol aren't a deluded as you are.
Modelmaterial7 2 years ago
Inferior? To what? Television? It's the same form of media. Why do you people continuously try to lie to yourselves about the truth just to ensure some sleep for the night? Does it help to find the minority of people on "Youtube" that actually agree with you? I'm pretty certain that about 6/10 believe the conspiracy, maybe 2 are undecided, and of course the last 2 are people like you. Where does the denial stem from?
Modelmaterial7 2 years ago 2
BURRRRN CHINA BURRRRN!!!
fredvclk69 2 years ago
Disco inferno, eh?
Idude893 2 years ago
It was a political crime, hidden bu chinese dictatorship.
ikelaw 2 years ago
Gotta love the Chinese... they own the west now... they just proved 9/11 official story was b.s. and soon they will prove humans have never been on the moon. Go China!
ispyanewworldorder 2 years ago
cauterize11 wrote: There was more structural damage to the buildings than a mere softening of the steel at the elevated temperatures, which is one of the primary reasons the World Trade Center collapsed. -- The other reason... Controlled Demolitions Inc.
ispyanewworldorder 2 years ago
That was amazing video. Is it just me or does it look like the actual metal is burning? Weird. And why didnt it fall straight down at free fall speed? I think chinese metal is stronger than american . Awesome engineers built that building to take that kind of raging fire and yet it still stands. No collapse.......maybe it was because the entire building was on fire and not just one small area. I'm pretty sure that's why.
grego805 2 years ago
If you're referring to WTC then think again. WTC was built sum 40 years ago, not even this century. Obviously the engineering is a bit different. And Chinese vs America metals? What? Plus, the steel could not melt in the flames during the WTC attacks. There was more structural damage to the buildings than a mere softening of the steel at the elevated temperatures, which is one of the primary reasons the World Trade Center collapsed. Fly a plane into this building and it probably won't stand.
Cauterizee11 2 years ago
K let's see that. I'm up for it.
realgenius101 2 years ago
c bien pour les chinois ils nous laisse pas dormir
2jamaisss 2 years ago
oooh sorry for insurance company or owner !
uulaitai1 2 years ago
Man i saw this building being constructed and stood still it was quite impressive, too bad its gone now in those circumstances and for Beijing people.
matdevil01 2 years ago
Right, but do you have ANY idea how much damage a tiny fire can do to a collossal building. This video is fake. Everbody knows that if the building next door catches fire everything around it falls! They proved this on 911. So there! You need a plane to hit you. It just has to hit something close by and somehow cause a fire in your building. You can do it with a match or a lighter. Light a fire and let it burn for 8 hours. Everything around you will collapse for miles and miles!
FCKEVRY1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
First and foremost I hope nobody got hurt during this event. 2nd I highly agree with jayron77.
I believe americans are just really that stupid to believe the wtc 7 came crashing due to extreme heat. Steel can stay stable even during a fire!!! JET FUEL DOES NOT MAKE A FIRE MORE HOT!!! THEREFORE THE STEEL SHOULDNT COLLAPSE LIKE WTC 7 DID, ESPECIALLY IN SUCH SHORT TIME. EDUCATE YOURSELVES AND WAKE UP PLEASE PEOPLE. ITS NOT THAT HARD, YOU JUST HAVE TO HAVE AN OPEN MIND. PEACE TO ALL.
shake916 2 years ago
Comment removed
shake916 2 years ago
Either the Chinese have superior technology or Americans are really that stupid into beleiving the WTC came crashing due to extreme heat.
jayron77 2 years ago 7
but the twin towers were built in the 60s
alfdepalm 2 years ago
How about you selfish people spare a thought for the Beijing people? I've visited Beijing many times staying just down the road from where this happened, I can empathise here.
China has done so much to rebuild, change, and be successful over the past years. That this building has been destroyed is a big disappointment. To see the buildings around Guomou that have gone up over the past few years, make you stare in awe at the bravery of the architects to push the design envelope. Such a shame.
squizy66 2 years ago
Strange how concrete and steel can burn like that. Hmmm......
porchnapp 2 years ago
Yea, this looks like 9/11 except one thing, this is more fire.... Hmm, more fire, almost the same structure but not faling...? What did WTC have that this tower doesn´t? Bombs maby...
sportintreserad 2 years ago 4
correct me if im wrong but this building didnt have a plane packed with jet fuel fly into it-not quite the same circumstances
ajtucker14 2 years ago
Jet fuel can´t burn so hot that it eave makes steel weaker and WTC was created to take the impact from a plane and WTC 7 wasn´t even hit by a plane
sportintreserad 2 years ago
It wasnt jet fuel alone
IT WAS THE FORCE OF A PLANE CRASHING INTO A BUILDING THAT HELPED WEAKENED IT
NOT TO MENTION THE DEBRIS
Allmynamestaken 2 years ago
thats a strong building did not fall like WTC7 I wonder
Superstarent 2 years ago
congratulations!!!!!^^
charcoal tower is beutiful.this is an art.
onePeninsulak 3 years ago 2
All Videos of this fire should be used as Evidence against World Trade Center at 911 that as the master proof of demolition
bbbooobbbzz 3 years ago
ITS GODZILLA!!!!!
FOOZ3R 3 years ago
9/11 blueprint for truth movie.Watch it and listen to the unbiased scientific facts.
superoctane 3 years ago
It looks like 9/11....but not falling down....!?Hmm ;-)
bavarianoutlaw 3 years ago 5
妙～～
dxbox 3 years ago
free tibet
sogkg 3 years ago
Tibet is part of China, I mean reli go to study the history FIRST before you say anything like all IGNORANT foreignerS!
superlashi 2 years ago
read the real history book not what fucking mao wrote. he taught chinese to kill chinese,.
khamtu 2 years ago
Cool vid.
Come and see another homemade video, completely different, on my channel. It's a short that i did years ago, named "drinking the sea". What do you think, is it fake or real? Someone really DIED? Try to guess
guidotortorella 3 years ago
This was a recently built building, so it was completely empty and thus the sprinkler systems were non-operational. Apparently the construction workers decided to shoot off some fireworks from the roof, and that's where the fire started. Only 1 death which was a fireman. I still have no idea how the ENTIRE building got caught on fire, when the fire started on the roof.
jammaltaz 3 years ago
Im from Singapore and I saw it on the news and newspaper
Penlis 3 years ago
I heard this was caused because of fireworks.
Penlis 3 years ago
People fired firecrackers illegally caused the CCTV new building burning in the evening of Feb. 9th . The Major himself went to direct fire fighting at the first minute.Five fireman and one staff were injured, one fireman was dead after sent into hospital. CCTV's programs were not influenced.That day is Lantern Festival ,the last day of Lunar New Year.
LIURF2009 3 years ago
CCTV went in there without permit and one fire man died because of this.
porkisgood4u 3 years ago
Fireworks led this terrible accident.....
21Vanish 3 years ago
Man what happened here ..i mean , a pyromania ?
Jimderkaisser 3 years ago
用这个building跟WTC比有点不公,毕竟是差了超过50年的建筑,而且起火原因也不同
brooklynka 3 years ago
Why isn't it collapsing already like the WTC towers? There's more floors on fire than in WTC (4 floors) ? :]
JoleFIN 3 years ago
The fire in the world trade center didn't cause the collapse. The towers were made of steel, and steel will never melt from fire, not even fire from jet fuel. The towers were a controlled demolition. But hey don't take my word for it, do your own investigation, just don't listen to the news.
sockrateze 3 years ago 7
@sockrateze That's why I have the grin smiley after my comment .. "I know irony when I see it" ;D
JoleFIN 1 year ago
why it is caused so terrible fire? what is the contruction material? is it easy to get on fire?
coooolglen 3 years ago
so how dis happen O_o
nhiavang16 3 years ago
Hope no one got hurt
christopherinsc1981 3 years ago
I honestly felt that building looks uninviting and even intimidating for a hotel. Koolhaus should build something with more of a human touch *if* he ever gets a second chance.
DesignEnthusiast83 3 years ago
The entire complex looks like a brutalist nightmare that could only be constructed in a fascist country like China. The CCTV building looks inhuman and unnerving, like a collapse frozen in time. There is no beauty in it from any angle.
Koolhaus designed a museum complex for Lexington, KY that was a similar architectural nightmare. Fortunately it has been cancelled.
DFDalton1962 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
uhh.. nice vid...
*sigh* any cute guys wanna chat? im sooo bored
kittykatdoll19 3 years ago
wow!
JERMO180 3 years ago
its funny how it didnt collapse...building 7 fell like a sack of potatos
shtfuk666 3 years ago
Probably for a these reasons:
1) In addition to fire, WTC7 was severely damaged by falling debris from the collapsed WTC1 and 2.
2) There was a large storage tank of fuel in the WTC7 basement that caught fire, adding intensity to the fire.
3) The design of WTC7. A large portion of it was cantilevered over underground facilities (subway lines, power substation, etc.) This made it more susceptible to collapse when weakened.
4) CCTV Annex was built *after* 9/11. Lessons were learned.
DFDalton1962 3 years ago
Shill...
Modelmaterial7 3 years ago
Depends at what temperature. I'm only stating that Jet Fuel doesn't burn hot enough to do it.
And... about those other staggering facts that you decided to ignore.
Modelmaterial7 3 years ago 3
I thought thats u XD! That was too cool! Your cousin is amazing! Thanks
chick5581 3 years ago
I mean seriously.. if even ONE other steel structure EVER in history other than on 9/11, collapsed due to fire then perhaps we could have a discussion. Think about that for a moment. EVER? IN HISTORY!? It should be clear as day that after watching all of the conspiracy video and just based on natural logic that there was definitely some shanannies that day.
Modelmaterial7 3 years ago
Happens all the time. Steel loses structural strength long before it melts. That's why they insulate it.
donleahy 3 years ago
Man I love it. I've been fighting the good war of "Truth" for far too long. I love it when outstanding evidence like this fall out the sky and into the laps of all the people that deny the conspiracy. How many more skyscrapers need to be set ablaze for hours before people realize that they don't collapse into their own footprint, after an hour, WITHOUT the aid of EXPLOSIVES! Now that's a real fire okay? Not some kitchen fire that is barely noticeable through plumes of smoke. Ridiculous.
Modelmaterial7 3 years ago
i'm not an expert, but i'm gonna do out on a limb here and guess that the 180 000 litres of fuel that a 747 can hold might have something to do with the reason the wtc collapsed and this didn't. also, this is a 44-story building, whereas the wtc was more than twice this height (more weight pushing down on the fire-weakened area). i'm not averse to a good conspiracy theory, but your theory isn't good.
joelhamilton5 3 years ago
WTC7 wasn't hit by an aircraft.
Modelmaterial7 3 years ago
Perhaps if you knew that the towers weren't the only buildings that went down that day, then perhaps you wouldn't have left the comment. Aside from that, jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to weaken steel in under an hour. The support columns at the base of the WTC towers were actually cut in a 45 degree angle. Indicative of a "Controlled Demolition." Molten steel was being pulled from ground zero up to 6 weeks after the collapse. Jet fuel doesn't even burn hot enough to melt steel. Only Thermite.
Modelmaterial7 3 years ago 2
For any of you thinking that the force from the impact of the jet had something to do with it's collapse, the twin towers were built to withstand the winds from a severe storm which exerts far more force onto the building in terms of structural pressure. A massive gust of wind along one side of the twin towers exerts more force than the impact of a flimsy 747 aircraft, concentrated in a tiny portion of the building.
asant79 3 years ago
This fire proves that the official story about WTC7 collapsing because of fire is a big LIE!
There needs to be a new investigation of 911!
911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!
LightmanTruth 3 years ago
wats up with thw firework behind
maniac2011 3 years ago
I guess they decided not to "pull it."
VioletClub 3 years ago
wow ... I'm shocked it didn't fall perfectly straight down into it's own footprint at near freefall speed just like on 911!
Actually I'm not shocked .
Building 7 - the building that wasn't hit by a plane, fell straight down with the central top penthouse caving first at nearly freefall speed ... due to a few visible tiny fires? Data shows people were saying it was going to come down... BBC reporter said it had come down when it was still in back of her in the shot!
zetetic0void 3 years ago 2
WTC 7
metallus22 3 years ago 2
it is chink new year fire crack
uknowkick 3 years ago
is this what karma looks like?
china1fan 3 years ago 2
thats good karma,,because its going to create a lot of jobs to rebuild it,,good karma for the people.
eightincher8 3 years ago 2
pwnt
ObsessiveDesires 3 years ago
Epic.
joshtaco9 3 years ago
Talk is cheap. You can spread hate through a video blog all you want but until you pick up a gun and FIGHT for what you believe you are nothing more than shit. Even the Jew that you probably despise has enough balls to pick up a gun and fight in the isreali army. What are you doing? Spreading hate online? That's the best you can do? That will get you 72 virgins in heaven?
Workingman543 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey cool video!!
But you must watch
unbelievable football freestyle
This boy is amazing!!
CKcompany1 3 years ago