Change Player Size
Watch this video in a new window

Aftermath - Beijing CCTV Annex Fire - Mandarin Oriental Hotel

Through the afternoon haze, the aftermath of the fire left the building in its bare shell state. The claddings of the façade remain mostly intact although replacements are most definite. Local sour...  
 
Customize

More From: knikkor

Loading...

QuickList(0)

Upgrade to Flash Player 10 for improved playback performance. Upgrade Now or get more info.
8 ratings
Sign in to rate
20,264 views
Want to add to Favorites? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Want to add to Playlists? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Want to flag a video? Sign In or Sign Up now!

Statistics & Data

Loading...

Video Responses (0)

This video has no Responses. Be the first to Post a Video Response.
Sign in to post a Comment

Text Comments (146)   Options

Loading...
syrillee (6 days ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
beautiful
dallas71 (2 months ago) Show Hide
+2
Marked as spam
WTC demolished. Proof of thermite exists in all dust samples studied. Any further questions?
TimReed22222 (3 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
"umm what about wtc 7?"

Don't forget to drop a huge chunk of a collapsing 110-story skyscraper on it first!
xgm199x (3 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
that wouldn't make it pulverize into its footprints
TimReed22222 (3 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
"that wouldn't make it pulverize into its footprints"

Don't forget to provide a huge supply of diesel fuel to feed the fires & leave them unfought for 6 hours!
thehipsterofnewyork (2 weeks ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
Do forget that Popular Mechanics even contradict NIST, who say that the debris was "no significant factor". Don't forget that the supposed tank that fed the fires did not even get the fires hot enough to break windows (only 1300ºF)!
TimReed22222 (2 weeks ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
>Do forget that Popular Mechanics even contradict NIST, who say that the debris was "no significant factor".

Oh, really? I just re-read the PM article & I can't find any such statement. In fact, they cite NIST as a source that building 7 was MORE badly damaged than originally thought:

"NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris..."

Can you tell us where this "no significant factor" quote comes from?
thehipsterofnewyork (2 weeks ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
Did damage from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the collapse? "...this structural damage did not initiate the collapse." Right from NIST's own website!
TimReed22222 (2 weeks ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
>"...this structural damage did not initiate the collapse."

Last I checked, "contribute to" and "initiate" were not the same thing.

Did the falling debris from tower 1 *initiate* the collapse? No.
Did it CONTRIBUTE TO the collapse? Absolutely!
thehipsterofnewyork (2 weeks ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
The top of Building 7 was damaged by debris. If it did contribute, then lets see the south side of the top of 7 topple while the fire causes different damage and an asym. collapse. Is that what happened? Nope.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.