Now *THAT* is a skyscraper FIRE. The fires in WTC 1,2 and 7 were nothing in comparison. And did *this* building collapse neatly into its own footprint at free fall acceleration? Hell, no... of course it didn't... steel and concrete buildings no NOT collapse on account of fire.
I don't buy constructional differences between this and WTC's. There was no damage done to the majority of both WTC towers, yet they fell like the bottom lost its structual integrity. The fuckers were not made out of cards. Do you honestly believe a building of steel and stone could fall like that without help?
Lol, Where is the massive implosions? LAwLs at the US! Thanks for the entertainment, but everyone else knows about your Hollywood Tricks, a fairy tale is a fairy tale no matter how you look at it!
and people criticize the chinese for making inferior products, Watch how the chinese make their buildings, reinforced concrete columns and stairwells. Very strong and resistant to fire. This building was gutted but it did not collapse.
@bombarderoazul Because it was built by foreign architect, engineers and supervision. China only provide workers and suppliers on the site yet has little knowledge on the blueprint of the building. Another inferior goods on the site was fireworks. If it wasn't those stupid firework show, the building would schedule for grand opening. Now it is left charred yet little repair works to be seen on site.
@TheRequimen Continuing from below: And which, after all seven tests are met, the building does not fall down. Anyone dissecting this into 7 separate events is lying to you.
@TheRequimen those buildings were both rated and designed to survive the impact of a 727 jet airliner and there is not much difference. check it out and research it if you don't believe me......
@steveokneivo1 First off, it was the smaller Boeing 707 that it was designed to take in a impact, during the design phase of that time, you know, back in 1970...
@steveokneivo1 That's false, you might want to check your facts. Look up The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. Though it is true the that 1 WTC and 2 WTC are the first high rise buildings to collapse due to fire... after having their outside trusses severed by 767s. Oh and the twin towers were not built like most other steel buildings, they had a large number of supports on the outer face to save office space.
CAPITALISM creates ELITE CRIMINALS. BANKERS. DRUG LORDS. INEQUALITY. INSECURITY. GREED. RUTHLESS COMMUNISM. NWO. NAZI. TERRORISM. LAZY PEOPLE. REBEL POLITICIAN. ANARCHY. worst is WAR etc.. etc..
CAPITALISM was designed only for CORRUPT OPPORTUNISTIC MANIPULATIVE LAZY POLITICIAN. BANKERS. LAWYERS. DRUG LORDS. JUDGES. CRIMINALS. DICTATORS. RULERS. KING. SULTANATE. EMPEROR etc. etc..
HARD WORKING PEACE LOVING HAPPY HONEST SOCIETY were always the slave victim and poorly starve to death. :(
@mikkinho the titanic is not the best example at hand i believe - a ship sinks if it has a hole in its body - think of it differently - the WTC collapsed rather comapctly in itself - so why is it then necessary to hire specialists that demolish a building with high precision if things are that easy? just light a fire in the upper part of a skyscraper, let it burn for about 1-2 hours and the building is falling into itself.
there was 0 resitance from the intact part of the WTC below, why?
after reading some comments here, i find that no one showed any compassion to those chinese ppl who was dead or injured in this tragedy, instead, they again raised a debate on whether 911 was a inside job. this is SICK
In WTC 2, this caused the eastern face to buckle, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. In WTC 1, the south wall later buckled in the same way, with similar consequences. … All without any lunatics pushing themselves up the stairways between hundreds of firefighters of both WTCs and carefully planting and detonating bombs *** precisely above *** the level of the airplane impacts!
@eckythimble "...lunatics pushing themselves up the stairways between hundreds of firefighters of both WTCs and carefully planting and detonating bombs *** precisely above *** the level of the airplane impacts!"
(*sigh) Not another "debunker" kook making the baseless claim that the preparation work for a controlled demolition HAD to have been done on the morning of 09/11/01 AND that conventional controlled demolition techniques HAD to have been used.
@jelinto: Actually I think stupid can be fixed. Go back to school and take up debating class. i can see you have the potential to be a strong debator one day: the enthusiasm is there, only the finesse is still lacking. But that can be improved with practice.
Although the fires were not hot enough to melt the core columns, they were weakening the steel. So the core columns in the area of impact were being slowly crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of higher floors. As the top section tried to move downward the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. The perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the fire heat and as the floors began to sag, they pulled the exterior walls inwards.
The jet fuel burned at most for a few minutes, but the contents of the buildings burned over the next hour to hour and a half. The fires might not have been as centrally positioned nor as intense, had traditional heavy masonry been used in the WTCs’ construction. In both cases, the portion of the building that had been damaged by the airplanes failed, which allowed the floors above the airplane impacts to fall onto the undamaged structure below.
As WTC 1 was impacted the 93rd to 99th floors and WTC 2 the 77th to 85th floors, the number of combined floors involved in the free fall in each case were minimum 11 and 25 respectively. In addition to severing load-bearing columns on the perimeter, the resulting explosions in each tower ignited 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. The light construction of the WTCs allowed the fuel to penetrate far inside the towers, igniting many large fires simultaneously over a wide area.
As you undoubtedly know, the key physics formula here is F=mg, i.e. force of free-falling objects = mass x gravity. Since the motion of the falling portion of the WTCs began as a free-fall through the height of at least one story (approx. 3 meters), the structure beneath it was unable to stop the collapses once they began. Actually a fall of only 50 centimeters would have been enough to release the necessary energy to begin an unstoppable progressive “pancake” collapse.
"...demolition experts knock down a skyscraper they always set explosions from the bottom upwards. Otherwise the top levels could blow up without creating sufficient downward weight to collapse the bottom floors..."
Except it wasn't just a regular controlled demolition. And YES, the tops of the buildings blew apart and outwards, before they could have provided the sufficient downward weight to collapse the bottom floors. Thus rendering the "pile driver" theory a complete fairytale.
@jelinto: Ok, mister PhD in Cartoon Physics. All is quite well with the logic controls over here, not to mention eyes control. There were no tops of buildings exploding laterally, no assumption that the core was the only support structure, no chance for a partial collapse to preclude a full collapse and you display complete ignorance of the well known *** POOR FIRE-PROOFING *** of the WTCs. Anyway here’s what DID happen using baaaa-sic physics...
For anyone who thinks it was an explosion, surely you noticed the WTCs collapsed from the top downwards? Because when demolition experts knock down a skyscraper they always set explosions from the bottom upwards. Otherwise the top levels could blow up without creating sufficient downward weight to collapse the bottom floors.
Anyway I am quite bored of this subject by now. Please carry along further squabbling amongst yourselves about the first time you saw the Tooth Fairy.
China is overpopulated. The planet is trying to empty space for new to come by getting red of some old. Conservation of mass and energy. Someone has to go for new one to appear. Seriously, 53 in China is like ........nothing compared to almost 2 billion people. It's like a snowflake on a mountain of snow.
Not everyone in America is dumb and uneducated. Many of us know 9/11 was a terrorist act perpetrated by those within the United States for the sole purpose to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only that but to begin instituting laws to control a society that will revolt against it's corrupt government.
@KrayzieBone222 I am suprised and glad to see so many comments similar to yours. It's not only in the US this is a problem of mankind don't divide stay united.
@KrayzieBone222 yup and we all know that impostor 'astronaut' Neil Amstrong or should i say Neil 'the janitor' Armstrong did not land on the moon, Roswell was a cover up and Rosie O'Donald is the true heir to the English throne. Damn those unedumacated Americuns, can't they see the truth like us KrayzieBoner. Teh truth is out there.
@murph1973 If it had collapsed because a "huge chunk taken from one of its corners" it would have fallen over but all four corners gave way at the same moment - stop shilling TRAITOR!!!
Must be really embarrassing for the "REAL" perpetrators of 911 when something like this happens and everyone sits there waiting for the "inevitable" collapse which never happens
@murph1973 If Building 7 fell from a huge chunk taken out of it, than why did it not fell assymetrically? How do you explain free fall speeds? You're wrong my friend. All three buildings had explosives in them. How do you explain MOLTEN steel found weeks after the collapse? Marvin Bush was head of Securacom which had the security contract on the WTC, Dulles airport, and United Airlines on 9/11. Coincidence? Put 2 and 2 together bro. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out
Nothing about this event in the western news. Why? because they have spent nearly 10 years trying to convince the population fire was the main cause of WT7 collapse.
53 people died, real, living, once breathing people. if you died in a small group. noone would notice you right? noone remembers when only 7 people died in columbine? right?
I have always found it funny that most the people that think they know about a conspiracy that happened to the towers on 911 live in their mom's basement .
@hanksnow82 - "I have always found it funny that most the people that think they know about a conspiracy that happened to the towers on 911 live in their mom's basement ."
You know what I find funny? People who write retarded statements like yours cannot write properly.
It's called gluttony... in this case it's information, the comparison of 3 skyscrapers, This chinese skyscraper has 53 victims which I truly feel bad about. No one deserves to die. But the other 2 skyscrapers have had millions of victims and from the day they fell until today they have managed to touch everyones lives around the world and that is a human tragedy, even better the human is the tragedy.
By 'millions' I presume you mean the subsequent war in Iraq? 9/11 itself had 3,000 killed (the same number that perished in the Qinghai Earthquake earlier this year) and 6,000 injured
I was told a lot of the residents/tenants are still "missing". No bodies were found... ( Most likely they wouldn't find the bodies as the temperature, my parents insisted, reached 1500 degrees.. I am not sure if it is true...)When firefighters were asked what they saw at the scene, they refused to describe what exactly they saw but just said it is not a pretty sight.
@nobledoll. And do you know what firefighters said on 9/11? They said they were confident that they were able to put the fires out. That's why they went so high up there.
@EnzoRDS A firefighter would say that, they are as brave as any soldier, more so in some respects, they will often go that "extra mile" if it meant they could save a few extra souls, groups who, after losing comms, continued with their tasks even though they knew they were "cut off" from their station OP's. I have a friend who was a firefighter in the UK (a station officer with 20+ years experience, now retired) he rarely talks about work at all.
@mikkinho. lol you are even trying to dispute what the firefighters are saying now? I suggest you go to their website firefightersfor911truth-dot-org
@EnzoRDS I am not disputing what they said at all, read it with the respect it was written, dont try and misrepresent me, I am simply stating that a firefighter would have gone all the way to the top if he thought he could have rescued someone. Don't jump on your high horse because you didn't understand a simple statement.
@mikkinho. You are trying to dispute them by saying that it was an act of bravery rather than them acting rational and in a way that they are trained.
Fortunately there are firefighters that actually survived that day and said that the fires weren't that big and that they could put them out.
Not only that, but that there were explosions underneath them. Where the planes didn't hit.
@EnzoRDS No I was saying the way a firefighter acts in the line of duty is to do what he is trained to do and that is to attempt to save lives, and they did do just that in the towers, when comms were lost the procedure should have been to report back to their CP, many continued to man the stairwells, the basement and the posts that they were assigned to, as people were still in danger or still in their vicinity. That is also debatable, I have seen the transcripts in and out of context.
@mikkinho Debatable, as I still haven't seen any actual evidence of explosions, I have heard comments made and read transcripts, I have also read the same transcripts missing portions due to the change of context, or used to attempt to further one particular side of an argument.
@mikkinho. Oh, so now their words are taken out of context. Like I say before, go to firefightersfor911truth. You will see many statements and speeches by the proffesionals THEMSELVES And they bring up many good questions. Like why most evidence was destroyed before investigation. And why NIST refuse to test for accelerants and that when independent scientists discovered THERMITE in the dust of 9/11 buildings, this EVIDENCE is still ignored.
@EnzoRDS Don't start with this there was enough misrepresentation last night, you are starting to take my comments out of context now. Their statements were USED out of context. Ok, so how much evidence of thermite was there?,there would have to be a lot of it !, and where was it found ?, and I thought it was explosions ? why both? when did the explosions occur?, the argument for demolition has far too many absurd variables involved, they are chaotic to say the least.
First you say it was an act of bravery why them firefighters thought they could put out them fires, then you say their words are taken out of context when they said there were explosions underneath them. NOW you are trying to dispute the evidence of thermite found by independent scientists from the dust of 9/11 towers.
It looks to me that you are clutching at straws my friend. I don't have to misrepresent you, your words are clearly written down here. Go to their website, it is all there.
@EnzoRDS Ah, you are trying to go that route, read it and quote me correctly if you aren't misrepresenting, I didn't mention the firefighters putting fires out, you did!, I mentioned them staying at their posts to aid rescue. I said that their statements about explosions were not used in full when quoted by the theory brigade. And I actually asked you a question about the quantity of thermite, because the amount needed and the method involved would take some explaining, but as usual you can't
@mikkinho - Since you don't want to go to their website and find out for yourself. - - firefighterfor911truth - I suggest you search for the paper at google. titled - "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". There are many pdf files of that document that you can download.
I'm sure you will find it very interesting, and also I'm sure you will try your very best to dispute it. But you cannot dispute facts. Which is your ultimate downfall.
@mikkinho - Since you don't want to go to their website and see for yourself. I suggest you search at google titled - Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.
I'm sure you will find that document very interesting, but I'm also sure you will try your very best to dispute it, ignore certain facts, and twist things like you have done here. But you cannot dismiss facts my friend. No matter how hard you try, and that is your ultimate downfall.
@EnzoRDS I will read through the document, I have read all documents given to support a point, but as I said I have already seen a number of claims and counter claims, and as I stated earlier I won't dismiss it out of hand, if there is a valid point made in it. Again you are trying the tactic of twisting comments, and ignoring valid, reasonable questions as well as dismissing facts. there was enough of that last night, (if you care to read through the thread). it all sounds repetitive.
@EnzoRDS "Clutching at straws", It isn't me avoiding questions or twisting comments to suit a whim, the thermite theory is avoided at every examination because it simply couldn't have happened. You did start the discussion well, but as usual from the demolitions argument, it simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The arguments for explosive demolition have no basis in real events, why for instance thermite and explosives?, you didn't answer that question either.
@mikkinho So far thermite and demolitions have been the best explanation for those fantastic and unique events on how WTC 7 collapsed. Also what makes you think no thermite was found? Because it was not written in the official report? The official report of the Nazis was that the reichstagfire was started by the jews and communist. The official report of Iran is that the holocaust never happaned.
What about firefightersfortruth? Slimy truthers which should have died with their brethern ?
@cassius969 maybe in your opinion. Because the amount of thermite needed to bring about a collapse, and the method of deployment just wasn't plausible. Why bring the reichstag into it? what bearing has it got here ? What is wrong with people seeking the truth?, and not falling for the rumours and unsubstantiated claims.
@everyfukaznameisbear Well, where is the evidence of thermite cutting? do you know how messy thermite is? not clean like a shaped charge, the weight involved, the method of attatchment to the corresponding beams/columns Thermite does not cut horizontal as far as i'm aware as stated in some descriptions, if you can show me a device for this then I would be happy to reconsider that part, some may say paste, again I would like proof of that.
@everyfukaznameisbear Where to start, This is still as messy as "regular" thermite, and would still leave telltale molten residue on any beams it is used on . Do I take it from the experiment it is used to weaken a beam and not cut through as the"regular" thermite was supposed to?.
My opinion, it was more dramatic TV than actual evidence of its use. I thought large amounts of steel remained on (can't remember the name of the refuse place) arrayed in order for investigation, at least thats,cotd
@everyfukaznameisbear what i remember seeing, I will attempt to find evidence of that place, still the method of application bothers me, and the actual ignition, this would still burn relatively slowly, and weaken the steel in a similar manner as the normal fires did only faster, I would be interested to know at what point this was ignited too, before, during or after the impact of the aircraft, is this what is supposed to have been falling from the towers as a stream of molten metal?,
@everyfukaznameisbear "Fresh kills" ( I knew it was an unusual name) was the scrapyard I remember seeing the steel stored, but not for long as it turned out. but that rapid disposal is not in itself proof of the thermite obviously, but it does beg the question, why was it disposed of so quickly?, evidence, which would suit both my and other theorists point of view, so I guess the vid was partially a success in that it adds to my own intrigue too. You did ask "for my thoughts"...
@mikkinho@everyfukaznameisbear Have you guys also seen the Windsor Building Fire in Madrid Spain, youtube it. It too is also a very interesting skycraper fire.
@everyfukaznameisbear all in all, it opens more questions than it answers I think. (and yes, sorry I watched it a couple of times hence taking a while to reply)
@mikkinho What do you mean when did the explosions occour? Did you not see WTC 1 and 2 popping floor by floor? Look for the extreme closeup video of the tower collapse. Loud enough for you?
@cassius969 Well I saw debris leaving the building and accelerating, not decelerating. not the usual behaviour of explosives is it ?.
I also saw windows blowing out with the relating escape of debris, do you know how the pressure caused by failing floor panels would build up and exit at the point of least resistance ie the windows ?. I saw no, and heard no explosions at these points.
There was this middle aged couple happened to go out for lunch. The woman said that they never really dined out but for some reason that day she didn't feel like cooking lunch so she suggested to go out and eat. She said its only few minutes after they walked out of the building then they heard something and turned around saw the building went out fire.
@mikkinho This is exactly what my dad said to me "material possessions mean little in a situation like that." He said after seeing this disaster you just feel nothing is more important than being alive.
@mikkinho This is exactly what my dad said" material possessions mean little in a situation like that". My dad said after seeing this disaster you just feel like nothing is more important than being alive.
Just spoke to my parents and was told they saw the whole thing from two blocks away. The fire lasted about 4 hours and it was caused by this welder accidently burned some flammable materials( my dad said they were plastic forms) right beside him when he was doing his job. My parents said all they saw was: Smoke, people running out crying, someone standing on scaffolding screaming for help. Dad said he is shocked as he has never seen such big fire and it gave him the shivers...
@nobledoll That goes along with the reports so far, it has been stated that they were unlicensed contractors, I heard of a (not so) fireproof foam, but if your father saw the plastic then that is the best reference I have. thank you for the comment.
@mikkinho Yes. The guy is unlicensed. He and the whole contractor team got arrested right away but I mean this whole renovating the building thing was supposed to be a city project. Sadly no one dares to dig deeper as there are " people" involved. I shouldn't be talking about this here... My parents are still back in China ><
@IauthenticI Any loss of life, especially an avoidable one, (avoidable due to unsafe working practices by the contractors). is a disaster, no matter where it happens!, that is unless you are a xenophobic ignoramus.
Disaster: "a sudden event, such as an accident or a natural catastrophe, that causes great damage or loss of life" (Oxford).
The World Trade Center towers 1,2, and 7 still the hold the distinction of being the only steel framed high rises to ever collapse due to fire. But we all know fire is not what brought them down.
Engineering perspective: WTC 1 & 2 are also the only buildings without internal columns subject to major fire I know of. They were open space on the inside and therefore structurally weaker than conventional designs.
Psychological perspective: did the biggest kid at your high school ever give himself a broken nose as 'justification' to pick a fight with someone half his size? Did America really need to destroy it's largest buildings to justify bombing some Afghani mountain hideouts?
@eckythimble Hey there genius why don't you pull up photos of the towers while they were being built and see for yourself the many core columns that ran continous all the way down to the bedrock below. Also we've bombed a lot more than a couple of caves in Afghanistan. How much you get paid to lie on Youtube? Another waste of taxpayer money I'm sure.
@Camyum: Of course the WTCs were built around a core like any skycraper - but between the core and perimeter were NO further columns, only huge open space. When you add to this fact that traditional buildings use heavy masonry to insulate the steel structure from fire and the WTCs only used a "spray-on" fire resistant material, then clearly the WTCs were both less fire-proof and less-collapse proof than traditional skyscrapers.
@eckythimble "...did the biggest kid at your high school ever give himself a broken nose as 'justification' to pick a fight with someone half his size?"
How retarded is that? Did the biggest kid in your high school need to go around to the rest of the high school student body to try to gain support for picking a fight with someone half his size? If he did go pick a fight with someone half his size, did he have any guarantee that nobody would intervene and stick-up for the smaller kid? Geez!
@jelinto: Your argument is irrelevant if the bully is Superman and the whole school is full of weeners! Similar to what America the Superpower militarily is relative to the rest of the world. 1000 weeners would not dare stop Superman and neither would the combined military might of Latvia, Nepal, Paraguay, Fiji and Zambia dare stand in the way of America and the person who broke it's nose.
...But I guess when you're understanding of basic physics comes from the "RKOwens4 School of Wyle E. Coyote Physics", I guess anything is possible, huh? Silly boy.
@eckythimble You're logic (or lack thereof) is astounding!
First, your assumption that only the center core of the twin towers supported the floors is false. The outer perimeter walls were more than just a facade. It was a load bearing structure. HELLO!??!?
Second, uneven damage from plane impacts, plus unevenly spread weak burning fires would result in an uneven, PARTIAL collapse. It ain't rocket science! HELLO!??!?
Burning inferno for all day and still standing! Then I scratch my heard and wondered why world trade centre burned for two hours with smoke only then collasped free fall. What happened??????
Was there a plane that hit WTC7? The twin towers are not what is being used as comparison. Building 7 which fell because of fires, is the subject of the comparison to this Shanghai tragedy.
Look at the WTC complex, look where WTC7 stood, across the street from what i look at as two "buffer" buildings, WTC 5 and 6. They acted as buffers for the debris which fell into its own footprint, largely containing it within their own structures and debris. Nothing hit WTC7 but fire knocked it down?
This is NIST's Q&A factsheet I posted earlier about their investigation, make what you like out of it, but it does mention the debris from WTC 1's collapse and the subsequent fires and lack of water pressure leading to thermal expansion failure.
@mikkinho. It says that that document is unavailable. However there is a book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" which takes apart what NIST reported and debunks that. NIST keep on changing their reports and write new ones because they are constantly wrong.
@EnzoRDS It's a vicious circle with no real direction it seems, (and why I said to make what you want from the report) I have the page open at the moment, so it is available, maybe it was just the way I quoted it ?. That is partly what grieves me about this whole situation, when some report comes out, one side refuses to believe any evidence, the same happens on these forums, people simply refuse to believe or instantly cry "foul" when another explanation is put forward....
@mikkinho. I don't refuse to believe any evidence put forward. I choose to believe the one that sounds the most accurate. Believe me, I would love to believe the 9-11 Commision Report, the NIST report, theory put forward by Popular Mechanics, I'd love to believe them. I've read them all. But when other experts dispute them all and they make FAR more sense, then I have no choice but to believe them. The only thing I want is the truth and the American people haven't got it, or their allies.
@EnzoRDS The truth is what i'm seeking too, although both sides (i use the term side loosely) seem more and more intent on ripping each other apart that seeking the truth, which is becoming more and more clouded in theories, counter theories and lies from all angles...
@EnzoRDS My own opinion as I have stated on this thread is for a independant inquiry (involving both "sides" if you will). I personally don't believe the conspiracy concerning detonation (and certainly not nukes as some have suggested), but I do believe there are people who need to be answering questions about the actual collapse of the buildings, I also believe that members or representatives of government could well have information that is not being brought forward.
COOL
crocosiom 2 weeks ago
Now *THAT* is a skyscraper FIRE. The fires in WTC 1,2 and 7 were nothing in comparison. And did *this* building collapse neatly into its own footprint at free fall acceleration? Hell, no... of course it didn't... steel and concrete buildings no NOT collapse on account of fire.
bloggulator 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane.
TheJavecantrell 2 months ago
@7600692 A plane into a skyscraper and a fire are two different things.
GodOfUnbelief 2 months ago
according to 9/11 logic it should have burned for 7 hours, (maybe 8 because it did not have damage) before collapsing upon itself
sh9683 3 months ago
I don't buy constructional differences between this and WTC's. There was no damage done to the majority of both WTC towers, yet they fell like the bottom lost its structual integrity. The fuckers were not made out of cards. Do you honestly believe a building of steel and stone could fall like that without help?
signofsatan 4 months ago 2
Now I'm in the mood for some sweet and sour pork.
1971SuperLead 4 months ago
Lol, Where is the massive implosions? LAwLs at the US! Thanks for the entertainment, but everyone else knows about your Hollywood Tricks, a fairy tale is a fairy tale no matter how you look at it!
RoboBagons 4 months ago 2
and people criticize the chinese for making inferior products, Watch how the chinese make their buildings, reinforced concrete columns and stairwells. Very strong and resistant to fire. This building was gutted but it did not collapse.
bombarderoazul 5 months ago
@bombarderoazul Because it was built by foreign architect, engineers and supervision. China only provide workers and suppliers on the site yet has little knowledge on the blueprint of the building. Another inferior goods on the site was fireworks. If it wasn't those stupid firework show, the building would schedule for grand opening. Now it is left charred yet little repair works to be seen on site.
Chris58851 3 months ago
'therequiem' is an obvious shill, peddling the 9/11 lie!!
wellifthemediasaysit 7 months ago
@supporterDark1 wow i guess we need more Chinese engineers and architect.
MyTigerMonkey 7 months ago 3
They should have hired low wage Chinese builders to work on WTC building 7.... Man, the Chinese are superior to Americans in every way.
countingdown27 8 months ago
A challenge to conspiracy theorists:
1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
TheRequimen 9 months ago
@TheRequimen Continuing from below: And which, after all seven tests are met, the building does not fall down. Anyone dissecting this into 7 separate events is lying to you.
TheRequimen 9 months ago
This building didn't get smashed by TWO Boeing 767's, so I think 9/11 is a completely different situation...
TheRequimen 10 months ago
@TheRequimen those buildings were both rated and designed to survive the impact of a 727 jet airliner and there is not much difference. check it out and research it if you don't believe me......
steveokneivo1 9 months ago
@steveokneivo1 First off, it was the smaller Boeing 707 that it was designed to take in a impact, during the design phase of that time, you know, back in 1970...
TheRequimen 9 months ago
@TheRequimen not to forget that the only 3 steel framed buildings ever to collapse from fire, all happened on 9/11
steveokneivo1 9 months ago
@steveokneivo1 That's false, you might want to check your facts. Look up The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. Though it is true the that 1 WTC and 2 WTC are the first high rise buildings to collapse due to fire... after having their outside trusses severed by 767s. Oh and the twin towers were not built like most other steel buildings, they had a large number of supports on the outer face to save office space.
TheRequimen 9 months ago
9/11 was a jewish job
darealcase 11 months ago
its amazing how small office collapsed wtc7 in free fall speed while these fires are much worse and the buildings still stand
mnbfavor 1 year ago 2
china has had 2 skyscrapers burn and none collapsed, 9/11 was an inside job. fuck you america
7600692 1 year ago 9
@7600692 they wernt hit by fucking passenger jets you tit
edcurant 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7600692 you are one sick motherfucker
pe6obutilkata 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CAPITALISM creates ELITE CRIMINALS. BANKERS. DRUG LORDS. INEQUALITY. INSECURITY. GREED. RUTHLESS COMMUNISM. NWO. NAZI. TERRORISM. LAZY PEOPLE. REBEL POLITICIAN. ANARCHY. worst is WAR etc.. etc..
CAPITALISM was designed only for CORRUPT OPPORTUNISTIC MANIPULATIVE LAZY POLITICIAN. BANKERS. LAWYERS. DRUG LORDS. JUDGES. CRIMINALS. DICTATORS. RULERS. KING. SULTANATE. EMPEROR etc. etc..
HARD WORKING PEACE LOVING HAPPY HONEST SOCIETY were always the slave victim and poorly starve to death. :(
kopellhinex 2 months ago
@7600692 : u dumb ass. U should know that bcz the aircraft fuel generated incredible hot fire that could smelt down anything.
Some Chinese buildings did not have to be turned into a torch to be collapse lol. How good quality of their buildings are.
ThePASSIONteam 2 months ago
@7600692 you are one crazy motherfucker
pe6obutilkata 1 month ago
still dangerous welding done nowadays. nothing learned really.
thechinacondition 1 year ago
對不起。。不好意思。。。我只希望世界知道9/11真相.。。我也不知道真相， 但是我的希望， 那使我說是壞事。 原諒我的無知， Lao-Hu
flowersonhorseback 1 year ago
@mikkinho the titanic is not the best example at hand i believe - a ship sinks if it has a hole in its body - think of it differently - the WTC collapsed rather comapctly in itself - so why is it then necessary to hire specialists that demolish a building with high precision if things are that easy? just light a fire in the upper part of a skyscraper, let it burn for about 1-2 hours and the building is falling into itself.
there was 0 resitance from the intact part of the WTC below, why?
sholean 1 year ago
after reading some comments here, i find that no one showed any compassion to those chinese ppl who was dead or injured in this tragedy, instead, they again raised a debate on whether 911 was a inside job. this is SICK
MultiAlpha111 1 year ago 2
@MultiAlpha111 fool
flowersonhorseback 1 year ago
@flowersonhorseback 小人
simonissheep 1 year ago
@flowersonhorseback 无耻狗贼
MultiAlpha111 1 year ago
@MultiAlpha111 only a fool would say sth like that, wise up
flowersonhorseback 1 year ago
@flowersonhorseback shame on you, your are a disgrace
MultiAlpha111 1 year ago
Hmmm...interesting...and this building didn't implode like the World Trade Center did.
abbadabbadolittle 1 year ago
mais um grande incêndio em menos de um ano....!
Qual a segurança dos arranha-céus chineses?
pauloste39 1 year ago
Stupid is as stupid does.
TransNeptunianObje 1 year ago
In WTC 2, this caused the eastern face to buckle, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. In WTC 1, the south wall later buckled in the same way, with similar consequences. … All without any lunatics pushing themselves up the stairways between hundreds of firefighters of both WTCs and carefully planting and detonating bombs *** precisely above *** the level of the airplane impacts!
eckythimble 1 year ago
@eckythimble "...lunatics pushing themselves up the stairways between hundreds of firefighters of both WTCs and carefully planting and detonating bombs *** precisely above *** the level of the airplane impacts!"
(*sigh) Not another "debunker" kook making the baseless claim that the preparation work for a controlled demolition HAD to have been done on the morning of 09/11/01 AND that conventional controlled demolition techniques HAD to have been used.
Oh well...ya can't fix stupid.
jelinto 1 year ago
@jelinto: Actually I think stupid can be fixed. Go back to school and take up debating class. i can see you have the potential to be a strong debator one day: the enthusiasm is there, only the finesse is still lacking. But that can be improved with practice.
eckythimble 1 year ago
Comment removed
eckythimble 1 year ago
Although the fires were not hot enough to melt the core columns, they were weakening the steel. So the core columns in the area of impact were being slowly crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of higher floors. As the top section tried to move downward the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. The perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the fire heat and as the floors began to sag, they pulled the exterior walls inwards.
eckythimble 1 year ago
The jet fuel burned at most for a few minutes, but the contents of the buildings burned over the next hour to hour and a half. The fires might not have been as centrally positioned nor as intense, had traditional heavy masonry been used in the WTCs’ construction. In both cases, the portion of the building that had been damaged by the airplanes failed, which allowed the floors above the airplane impacts to fall onto the undamaged structure below.
eckythimble 1 year ago
As WTC 1 was impacted the 93rd to 99th floors and WTC 2 the 77th to 85th floors, the number of combined floors involved in the free fall in each case were minimum 11 and 25 respectively. In addition to severing load-bearing columns on the perimeter, the resulting explosions in each tower ignited 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. The light construction of the WTCs allowed the fuel to penetrate far inside the towers, igniting many large fires simultaneously over a wide area.
eckythimble 1 year ago
As you undoubtedly know, the key physics formula here is F=mg, i.e. force of free-falling objects = mass x gravity. Since the motion of the falling portion of the WTCs began as a free-fall through the height of at least one story (approx. 3 meters), the structure beneath it was unable to stop the collapses once they began. Actually a fall of only 50 centimeters would have been enough to release the necessary energy to begin an unstoppable progressive “pancake” collapse.
eckythimble 1 year ago
"...demolition experts knock down a skyscraper they always set explosions from the bottom upwards. Otherwise the top levels could blow up without creating sufficient downward weight to collapse the bottom floors..."
Except it wasn't just a regular controlled demolition. And YES, the tops of the buildings blew apart and outwards, before they could have provided the sufficient downward weight to collapse the bottom floors. Thus rendering the "pile driver" theory a complete fairytale.
jelinto 1 year ago
Comment removed
eckythimble 1 year ago
@jelinto: Ok, mister PhD in Cartoon Physics. All is quite well with the logic controls over here, not to mention eyes control. There were no tops of buildings exploding laterally, no assumption that the core was the only support structure, no chance for a partial collapse to preclude a full collapse and you display complete ignorance of the well known *** POOR FIRE-PROOFING *** of the WTCs. Anyway here’s what DID happen using baaaa-sic physics...
eckythimble 1 year ago
Comment removed
jelinto 1 year ago
For anyone who thinks it was an explosion, surely you noticed the WTCs collapsed from the top downwards? Because when demolition experts knock down a skyscraper they always set explosions from the bottom upwards. Otherwise the top levels could blow up without creating sufficient downward weight to collapse the bottom floors.
Anyway I am quite bored of this subject by now. Please carry along further squabbling amongst yourselves about the first time you saw the Tooth Fairy.
eckythimble 1 year ago
Comment removed
eckythimble 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sincerely condolences to the victims of this tragedy!
sagagucheng 1 year ago
China is overpopulated. The planet is trying to empty space for new to come by getting red of some old. Conservation of mass and energy. Someone has to go for new one to appear. Seriously, 53 in China is like ........nothing compared to almost 2 billion people. It's like a snowflake on a mountain of snow.
bomberfun1 1 year ago
@bomberfun1 Hey, dude, you can go hell ASAP. No one will remember you coz you are nothing compare with stardust.
lakeyyin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bomberfun1 Hey, dude, you can go hell ASAP. No one will remember you coz you are nothing compare with stardust.
lakeyyin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bomberfun1 Hey, dude, you can go hell ASAP. No one will remember you coz you are nothing compare with stardust.
lakeyyin 1 year ago
HEAD CHEF: "Who started this fire?"
Everyone, except John: "JOHNNY DID!!!"
Head Chef of kitchen: "Johnny, I hate to do this to ya under these type of circumstances, but you are FIRED, buddy!"
John: "But, I'm already on fire, sir!"
HEAD CHEF: "Oh, sorry...Poor choice of words.".
MrYungFatal 1 year ago
fuck me it didnt colapse ooh yeah no explosives
fuzzgog 1 year ago
@murph1973 A huge chunk taken from it? Really? Where are the huge chunks in this vid? watch?v=8T2_nedORjw
Only people who believe 911 is the uneducated Americans/ Oh yeh, the USD is going to crash by itself as well.
smasila 1 year ago
Who can save the innocent people under the governance of evil communist party...
taylorzhang0215 1 year ago
Condolences to the victims of this tragedy
WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 1 year ago
Not everyone in America is dumb and uneducated. Many of us know 9/11 was a terrorist act perpetrated by those within the United States for the sole purpose to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only that but to begin instituting laws to control a society that will revolt against it's corrupt government.
KrayzieBone222 1 year ago 33
@KrayzieBone222 I am suprised and glad to see so many comments similar to yours. It's not only in the US this is a problem of mankind don't divide stay united.
aranax69 1 year ago
@KrayzieBone222
"Not everyone in America is dumb and uneducated."
Not as dumb and uneducated as you are.
greenmanofkent 8 months ago
@KrayzieBone222 yup and we all know that impostor 'astronaut' Neil Amstrong or should i say Neil 'the janitor' Armstrong did not land on the moon, Roswell was a cover up and Rosie O'Donald is the true heir to the English throne. Damn those unedumacated Americuns, can't they see the truth like us KrayzieBoner. Teh truth is out there.
mechanism8 7 months ago
@murph1973 If it had collapsed because a "huge chunk taken from one of its corners" it would have fallen over but all four corners gave way at the same moment - stop shilling TRAITOR!!!
Moreofthesamez 1 year ago
Must be really embarrassing for the "REAL" perpetrators of 911 when something like this happens and everyone sits there waiting for the "inevitable" collapse which never happens
Moreofthesamez 1 year ago
@murph1973 If Building 7 fell from a huge chunk taken out of it, than why did it not fell assymetrically? How do you explain free fall speeds? You're wrong my friend. All three buildings had explosives in them. How do you explain MOLTEN steel found weeks after the collapse? Marvin Bush was head of Securacom which had the security contract on the WTC, Dulles airport, and United Airlines on 9/11. Coincidence? Put 2 and 2 together bro. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out
Camyum 1 year ago
I figured there would be a bunch of 911 comments. Right on Americans I support YOU 100%. Down with fascism!
Brandoregularo 1 year ago
for europeans china and US are just too chaotic....
pinoko1311 1 year ago
small fire = collapse.
huge fire = not collapse.
is that physics...?
wow, i won't learn physics anymore...
prihanantozh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you got to watch this clip /watch?v=VlmDsyo3AGs
WalliwBerky046 1 year ago
Nothing about this event in the western news. Why? because they have spent nearly 10 years trying to convince the population fire was the main cause of WT7 collapse.
tedmaulz 1 year ago 39
@tedmaulz you really fuck up you head watching that shit video thinking 911 is a conspiracy of my goverment
heavyrain24 1 year ago
@tedmaulz none of the towers was collapsed by fire thats for sure
aranax69 1 year ago
@tedmaulz indeed. I bet 911 official version believers are pissed at that building for not falling down :D
galaxything 5 months ago
@tedmaulz Different structure construction will have different damage. You cannot compare this fire to that of the WTC.
ninjax105 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
911 was an inside job!
kingneddy 1 year ago
@KOMC4444 Yes it is.
CuiZinieR7 1 year ago
@ergovanilla most deff not fake!!! 56 people lost their lives in this fire !!
wandaslice 1 year ago
waiting for "China PATRIOT Act"...
prihanantozh 1 year ago
Im surprised the building didnt collapse due to "Fire Damage"...
screwehow 1 year ago
Call Larry Silverstein!
Jlennon08 1 year ago
you will never see that kind of shit in the USA thats for sure
trinimark123abc 1 year ago
@trinimark123abc 9/11 much?
tlkaus118 1 year ago
53 people died, real, living, once breathing people. if you died in a small group. noone would notice you right? noone remembers when only 7 people died in columbine? right?
xXxERICxXx8 1 year ago
Для матери России!
111PAWN 1 year ago
I have always found it funny that most the people that think they know about a conspiracy that happened to the towers on 911 live in their mom's basement .
hanksnow82 1 year ago
@hanksnow82 You whish.
cassius969 1 year ago
@cassius969 hahahaha I bet you whish you could spell wish hahahahahahaha
hanksnow82 1 year ago
@hanksnow82. I don't know what your laughing at. Before you wrote:
"I have always found it funny that most the people that think"
Your use of English isn't that great either.
everyfukaznameisbear 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hanksnow82 - "I have always found it funny that most the people that think they know about a conspiracy that happened to the towers on 911 live in their mom's basement ."
You know what I find funny? People who write retarded statements like yours cannot write properly.
everyfukaznameisbear 1 year ago
The very same day, some 66 people were killed when an apartment collapsed in Delhi. This has been a dramatic year for human tragedy.
My condolences to the victims
WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 1 year ago
OMG!
davidlee110 1 year ago
9/11 Eat your heart out!
avianak 1 year ago
@avianak
I hate that expression
WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 1 year ago
@WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1
It's called gluttony... in this case it's information, the comparison of 3 skyscrapers, This chinese skyscraper has 53 victims which I truly feel bad about. No one deserves to die. But the other 2 skyscrapers have had millions of victims and from the day they fell until today they have managed to touch everyones lives around the world and that is a human tragedy, even better the human is the tragedy.
avianak 1 year ago
@avianak
By 'millions' I presume you mean the subsequent war in Iraq? 9/11 itself had 3,000 killed (the same number that perished in the Qinghai Earthquake earlier this year) and 6,000 injured
WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 1 year ago
WHy didn't that building collapse, I thought when buildings catch fire they collapse..
xHeARTtHroBx 1 year ago
made in china
swiFtey08 1 year ago
I was told a lot of the residents/tenants are still "missing". No bodies were found... ( Most likely they wouldn't find the bodies as the temperature, my parents insisted, reached 1500 degrees.. I am not sure if it is true...)When firefighters were asked what they saw at the scene, they refused to describe what exactly they saw but just said it is not a pretty sight.
nobledoll 1 year ago
@nobledoll. And do you know what firefighters said on 9/11? They said they were confident that they were able to put the fires out. That's why they went so high up there.
EnzoRDS 1 year ago
@EnzoRDS A firefighter would say that, they are as brave as any soldier, more so in some respects, they will often go that "extra mile" if it meant they could save a few extra souls, groups who, after losing comms, continued with their tasks even though they knew they were "cut off" from their station OP's. I have a friend who was a firefighter in the UK (a station officer with 20+ years experience, now retired) he rarely talks about work at all.
mikkinho 1 year ago
@mikkinho. lol you are even trying to dispute what the firefighters are saying now? I suggest you go to their website firefightersfor911truth-dot-org
EnzoRDS 1 year ago
@EnzoRDS I am not disputing what they said at all, read it with the respect it was written, dont try and misrepresent me, I am simply stating that a firefighter would have gone all the way to the top if he thought he could have rescued someone. Don't jump on your high horse because you didn't understand a simple statement.
mikkinho 1 year ago
@mikkinho. You are trying to dispute them by saying that it was an act of bravery rather than them acting rational and in a way that they are trained.
Fortunately there are firefighters that actually survived that day and said that the fires weren't that big and that they could put them out.
Not only that, but that there were explosions underneath them. Where the planes didn't hit.
EnzoRDS 1 year ago
@EnzoRDS No I was saying the way a firefighter acts in the line of duty is to do what he is trained to do and that is to attempt to save lives, and they did do just that in the towers, when comms were lost the procedure should have been to report back to their CP, many continued to man the stairwells, the basement and the posts that they were assigned to, as people were still in danger or still in their vicinity. That is also debatable, I have seen the transcripts in and out of context.
mikkinho 1 year ago
@mikkinho Debatable, as I still haven't seen any actual evidence of explosions, I have heard comments made and read transcripts, I have also read the same transcripts missing portions due to the change of context, or used to attempt to further one particular side of an argument.
mikkinho 1 year ago
@mikkinho. Oh, so now their words are taken out of context. Like I say before, go to firefightersfor911truth. You will see many statements and speeches by the proffesionals THEMSELVES And they bring up many good questions. Like why most evidence was destroyed before investigation. And why NIST refuse to test for accelerants and that when independent scientists discovered THERMITE in the dust of 9/11 buildings, this EVIDENCE is still ignored.
EnzoRDS 1 year ago
@EnzoRDS Don't start with this there was enough misrepresentation last night, you are starting to take my comments out of context now. Their statements were USED out of context. Ok, so how much evidence of thermite was there?,there would have to be a lot of it !, and where was it found ?, and I thought it was explosions ? why both? when did the explosions occur?, the argument for demolition has far too many absurd variables involved, they are chaotic to say the least.
mikkinho 1 year ago
First you say it was an act of bravery why them firefighters thought they could put out them fires, then you say their words are taken out of context when they said there were explosions underneath them. NOW you are trying to dispute the evidence of thermite found by independent scientists from the dust of 9/11 towers.
It looks to me that you are clutching at straws my friend. I don't have to misrepresent you, your words are clearly written down here. Go to their website, it is all there.
EnzoRDS 1 year ago
@EnzoRDS Ah, you are trying to go that route, read it and quote me correctly if you aren't misrepresenting, I didn't mention the firefighters putting fires out, you did!, I mentioned them staying at their posts to aid rescue. I said that their statements about explosions were not used in full when quoted by the theory brigade. And I actually asked you a question about the quantity of thermite, because the amount needed and the method involved would take some explaining, but as usual you can't
mikkinho 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikkinho - Since you don't want to go to their website and find out for yourself. - - firefighterfor911truth - I suggest you search for the paper at google. titled - "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". There are many pdf files of that document that you can download.
I'm sure you will find it very interesting, and also I'm sure you will try your very best to dispute it. But you cannot dispute facts. Which is your ultimate downfall.
EnzoRDS 1 year ago
@mikkinho - Since you don't want to go to their website and see for yourself. I suggest you search at google titled - Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.
I'm sure you will find that document very interesting, but I'm also sure you will try your very best to dispute it, ignore certain facts, and twist things like you have done here. But you cannot dismiss facts my friend. No matter how hard you try, and that is your ultimate downfall.
EnzoRDS 1 year ago
@EnzoRDS I will read through the document, I have read all documents given to support a point, but as I said I have already seen a number of claims and counter claims, and as I stated earlier I won't dismiss it out of hand, if there is a valid point made in it. Again you are trying the tactic of twisting comments, and ignoring valid, reasonable questions as well as dismissing facts. there was enough of that last night, (if you care to read through the thread). it all sounds repetitive.
mikkinho 1 year ago
@EnzoRDS "Clutching at straws", It isn't me avoiding questions or twisting comments to suit a whim, the thermite theory is avoided at every examination because it simply couldn't have happened. You did start the discussion well, but as usual from the demolitions argument, it simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The arguments for explosive demolition have no basis in real events, why for instance thermite and explosives?, you didn't answer that question either.
mikkinho 1 year ago
@mikkinho So far thermite and demolitions have been the best explanation for those fantastic and unique events on how WTC 7 collapsed. Also what makes you think no thermite was found? Because it was not written in the official report? The official report of the Nazis was that the reichstagfire was started by the jews and communist. The official report of Iran is that the holocaust never happaned.
What about firefightersfortruth? Slimy truthers which should have died with their brethern ?
cassius969 1 year ago
@cassius969 maybe in your opinion. Because the amount of thermite needed to bring about a collapse, and the method of deployment just wasn't plausible. Why bring the reichstag into it? what bearing has it got here ? What is wrong with people seeking the truth?, and not falling for the rumours and unsubstantiated claims.
mikkinho 1 year ago
@mikkinho "Because the amount of thermite needed to bring about a collapse, and the method of deployment just wasn't plausible"
Why not?
everyfukaznameisbear 1 year ago
@everyfukaznameisbear Well, where is the evidence of thermite cutting? do you know how messy thermite is? not clean like a shaped charge, the weight involved, the method of attatchment to the corresponding beams/columns Thermite does not cut horizontal as far as i'm aware as stated in some descriptions, if you can show me a device for this then I would be happy to reconsider that part, some may say paste, again I would like proof of that.
mikkinho 1 year ago
@mikkinho - The evidence found was not that of regular thermite, but super thermite.
Watch this video about super-thermite : watch?v=xLxjKy5BEs0
I'd like to know your thoughts.
everyfukaznameisbear 1 year ago
@everyfukaznameisbear Where to start, This is still as messy as "regular" thermite, and would still leave telltale molten residue on any beams it is used on . Do I take it from the experiment it is used to weaken a beam and not cut through as the"regular" thermite was supposed to?.
My opinion, it was more dramatic TV than actual evidence of its use. I thought large amounts of steel remained on (can't remember the name of the refuse place) arrayed in order for investigation, at least thats,cotd
mikkinho 1 year ago
@everyfukaznameisbear what i remember seeing, I will attempt to find evidence of that place, still the method of application bothers me, and the actual ignition, this would still burn relatively slowly, and weaken the steel in a similar manner as the normal fires did only faster, I would be interested to know at what point this was ignited too, before, during or after the impact of the aircraft, is this what is supposed to have been falling from the towers as a stream of molten metal?,
mikkinho 1 year ago
@everyfukaznameisbear "Fresh kills" ( I knew it was an unusual name) was the scrapyard I remember seeing the steel stored, but not for long as it turned out. but that rapid disposal is not in itself proof of the thermite obviously, but it does beg the question, why was it disposed of so quickly?, evidence, which would suit both my and other theorists point of view, so I guess the vid was partially a success in that it adds to my own intrigue too. You did ask "for my thoughts"...
mikkinho 1 year ago
@mikkinho @everyfukaznameisbear Have you guys also seen the Windsor Building Fire in Madrid Spain, youtube it. It too is also a very interesting skycraper fire.
biorgymd 1 year ago
@kikkinho @everyfukaznameisbear PS: The Windsor Building burnt for over 18 hours.
biorgymd 1 year ago
@everyfukaznameisbear all in all, it opens more questions than it answers I think. (and yes, sorry I watched it a couple of times hence taking a while to reply)
mikkinho 1 year ago
Comment removed
biorgymd 1 year ago
@mikkinho What do you mean when did the explosions occour? Did you not see WTC 1 and 2 popping floor by floor? Look for the extreme closeup video of the tower collapse. Loud enough for you?
cassius969 1 year ago
@cassius969 Well I saw debris leaving the building and accelerating, not decelerating. not the usual behaviour of explosives is it ?.
I also saw windows blowing out with the relating escape of debris, do you know how the pressure caused by failing floor panels would build up and exit at the point of least resistance ie the windows ?. I saw no, and heard no explosions at these points.
mikkinho 1 year ago
Survivors ( according to my rents)
There was this middle aged couple happened to go out for lunch. The woman said that they never really dined out but for some reason that day she didn't feel like cooking lunch so she suggested to go out and eat. She said its only few minutes after they walked out of the building then they heard something and turned around saw the building went out fire.
nobledoll 1 year ago
@nobledoll Sounds like they were "lucky" ones (they have their lives), material possessions mean little in a situation like that.
mikkinho 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikkinho This is exactly what my dad said to me "material possessions mean little in a situation like that." He said after seeing this disaster you just feel nothing is more important than being alive.
nobledoll 1 year ago
@mikkinho This is exactly what my dad said" material possessions mean little in a situation like that". My dad said after seeing this disaster you just feel like nothing is more important than being alive.
nobledoll 1 year ago
Just spoke to my parents and was told they saw the whole thing from two blocks away. The fire lasted about 4 hours and it was caused by this welder accidently burned some flammable materials( my dad said they were plastic forms) right beside him when he was doing his job. My parents said all they saw was: Smoke, people running out crying, someone standing on scaffolding screaming for help. Dad said he is shocked as he has never seen such big fire and it gave him the shivers...
nobledoll 1 year ago
@nobledoll That goes along with the reports so far, it has been stated that they were unlicensed contractors, I heard of a (not so) fireproof foam, but if your father saw the plastic then that is the best reference I have. thank you for the comment.
mikkinho 1 year ago
@mikkinho Yes. The guy is unlicensed. He and the whole contractor team got arrested right away but I mean this whole renovating the building thing was supposed to be a city project. Sadly no one dares to dig deeper as there are " people" involved. I shouldn't be talking about this here... My parents are still back in China ><
nobledoll 1 year ago
53 killed. Peanuts. Pocket change.
Chinese need to die in the 100s or even 1000s to actually call it a disaster. Double those numbers now that they are allowed to multiply x2.
IauthenticI 1 year ago
@IauthenticI Any loss of life, especially an avoidable one, (avoidable due to unsafe working practices by the contractors). is a disaster, no matter where it happens!, that is unless you are a xenophobic ignoramus.
Disaster: "a sudden event, such as an accident or a natural catastrophe, that causes great damage or loss of life" (Oxford).
mikkinho 1 year ago
The World Trade Center towers 1,2, and 7 still the hold the distinction of being the only steel framed high rises to ever collapse due to fire. But we all know fire is not what brought them down.
Camyum 1 year ago 25
@Camyum Oyu compare this to 9/11?
Why?
As if the cause of the fires doesnt matter?
What a buffoon!
LHOdidntdoit 1 year ago
@Camyum: The World Trade Centres were steel framed but of a different (poorer) design. So there are no mysteries at all as to why they collapsed.
eckythimble 1 year ago
@eckythimble Bullshit.
Camyum 1 year ago
Comment removed
eckythimble 1 year ago
Engineering perspective: WTC 1 & 2 are also the only buildings without internal columns subject to major fire I know of. They were open space on the inside and therefore structurally weaker than conventional designs.
Psychological perspective: did the biggest kid at your high school ever give himself a broken nose as 'justification' to pick a fight with someone half his size? Did America really need to destroy it's largest buildings to justify bombing some Afghani mountain hideouts?
eckythimble 1 year ago
@eckythimble Hey there genius why don't you pull up photos of the towers while they were being built and see for yourself the many core columns that ran continous all the way down to the bedrock below. Also we've bombed a lot more than a couple of caves in Afghanistan. How much you get paid to lie on Youtube? Another waste of taxpayer money I'm sure.
Camyum 1 year ago
@Camyum: Of course the WTCs were built around a core like any skycraper - but between the core and perimeter were NO further columns, only huge open space. When you add to this fact that traditional buildings use heavy masonry to insulate the steel structure from fire and the WTCs only used a "spray-on" fire resistant material, then clearly the WTCs were both less fire-proof and less-collapse proof than traditional skyscrapers.
eckythimble 1 year ago
@eckythimble "...did the biggest kid at your high school ever give himself a broken nose as 'justification' to pick a fight with someone half his size?"
How retarded is that? Did the biggest kid in your high school need to go around to the rest of the high school student body to try to gain support for picking a fight with someone half his size? If he did go pick a fight with someone half his size, did he have any guarantee that nobody would intervene and stick-up for the smaller kid? Geez!
jelinto 1 year ago
Comment removed
eckythimble 1 year ago
@jelinto: Your argument is irrelevant if the bully is Superman and the whole school is full of weeners! Similar to what America the Superpower militarily is relative to the rest of the world. 1000 weeners would not dare stop Superman and neither would the combined military might of Latvia, Nepal, Paraguay, Fiji and Zambia dare stand in the way of America and the person who broke it's nose.
eckythimble 1 year ago
@eckythimble
...But I guess when you're understanding of basic physics comes from the "RKOwens4 School of Wyle E. Coyote Physics", I guess anything is possible, huh? Silly boy.
jelinto 1 year ago
@eckythimble You're logic (or lack thereof) is astounding!
First, your assumption that only the center core of the twin towers supported the floors is false. The outer perimeter walls were more than just a facade. It was a load bearing structure. HELLO!??!?
Second, uneven damage from plane impacts, plus unevenly spread weak burning fires would result in an uneven, PARTIAL collapse. It ain't rocket science! HELLO!??!?
jelinto 1 year ago
Burning inferno for all day and still standing! Then I scratch my heard and wondered why world trade centre burned for two hours with smoke only then collasped free fall. What happened??????
samkoi56 1 year ago
@samkoi56 maybe, but this was only 30 floors, the wtc was 110 floors.
There was also a plane.
The1stPoster 1 year ago
Was there a plane that hit WTC7? The twin towers are not what is being used as comparison. Building 7 which fell because of fires, is the subject of the comparison to this Shanghai tragedy.
Look at the WTC complex, look where WTC7 stood, across the street from what i look at as two "buffer" buildings, WTC 5 and 6. They acted as buffers for the debris which fell into its own footprint, largely containing it within their own structures and debris. Nothing hit WTC7 but fire knocked it down?
mattmatt115 1 year ago
@mattmatt115 nist dot gov/public_affairs /factsheet /wtc_qa 082108 dot cfm
This is NIST's Q&A factsheet I posted earlier about their investigation, make what you like out of it, but it does mention the debris from WTC 1's collapse and the subsequent fires and lack of water pressure leading to thermal expansion failure.
mikkinho 1 year ago
@mikkinho. It says that that document is unavailable. However there is a book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" which takes apart what NIST reported and debunks that. NIST keep on changing their reports and write new ones because they are constantly wrong.
EnzoRDS 1 year ago
@EnzoRDS It's a vicious circle with no real direction it seems, (and why I said to make what you want from the report) I have the page open at the moment, so it is available, maybe it was just the way I quoted it ?. That is partly what grieves me about this whole situation, when some report comes out, one side refuses to believe any evidence, the same happens on these forums, people simply refuse to believe or instantly cry "foul" when another explanation is put forward....
mikkinho 1 year ago
@mikkinho. I don't refuse to believe any evidence put forward. I choose to believe the one that sounds the most accurate. Believe me, I would love to believe the 9-11 Commision Report, the NIST report, theory put forward by Popular Mechanics, I'd love to believe them. I've read them all. But when other experts dispute them all and they make FAR more sense, then I have no choice but to believe them. The only thing I want is the truth and the American people haven't got it, or their allies.
EnzoRDS 1 year ago
@EnzoRDS The truth is what i'm seeking too, although both sides (i use the term side loosely) seem more and more intent on ripping each other apart that seeking the truth, which is becoming more and more clouded in theories, counter theories and lies from all angles...
mikkinho 1 year ago
@EnzoRDS My own opinion as I have stated on this thread is for a independant inquiry (involving both "sides" if you will). I personally don't believe the conspiracy concerning detonation (and certainly not nukes as some have suggested), but I do believe there are people who need to be answering questions about the actual collapse of the buildings, I also believe that members or representatives of government could well have information that is not being brought forward.
mikkinho 1 year ago
@samkoi56 It burned with smoke only?
zOMGLaserGunzPewPew 1 year ago