Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, February 9, 2009
Giant flames engulf every floor of 44-story building and it remains standing, yet limited fires across just 8 floors of WTC 7 brought down building within 7 seconds on 9/11. How can NIST’s “new phenomenon” explain this one?
A fierce fire consumed all 44 floors of a skyscraper in Beijing today, shooting 30 foot flames into the air, but unlike the similarly-sized 47-story WTC 7, which suffered limited fires across just eight floors, the building in China did not collapse.
“The fire was burning from the ground floor to the top floor of the large building, the flames reflecting in the glass facade of the main CCTV tower next to the hotel and cultural center,” reports the New York Times.
“The 241-room Mandarin Oriental hotel in the building was due to open this year. Flames were spotted around 7:45 p.m. and within 20 minutes the fire had spread throughout the building, dominating that part of the city.”
“Hundreds of firefighting vehicles and police blocked off all approaches to the building – which was also set to house a luxury hotel due to be opened in 2009 – with flames appearing to leap 20 to 30 feet into the air,” adds The London Times.
Compare images of WTC 7 with those of the skyscraper fire in Beijing. Note that the Beijing skyscraper appears to be leaning due to the unorthodox design of the building – it did not suffer any kind of collapse.
To any sane and rational observer, which of these buildings would have been the most likely to collapse? And yet it was WTC 7 which collapsed within 7 seconds into its own footprint on 9/11. The Beijing skyscraper, though gutted by fire damage, remains standing.
How do the debunkers explain away this one? How come NIST’s newly invented “phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” didn’t put paid to the skyscraper in Beijing? Does fire have different properties in China compared to the U.S.? Does it behave in different ways depending on what country it’s in?
Remember that WTC 7 was structurally reinforced and suffered limited fires across just 8 floors.
The core of NIST’s explanation, that an “extraordinary event” called “thermal expansion” was to blame for the sudden total collapse of WTC 7 is of course on the face of it a fraud when one considers the innumerable number of buildings that have suffered roaring fires across the majority of their floors and remained standing, whereas WTC 7 suffered limited fire damage across a handful of floors.
The Beijing skyscraper fire provides yet more comparable evidence to illustrate the monolithic hoax that fire damage alone can cause buildings to collapse implosion style, adding more weight to the argument that both WTC 7 and the twin towers were destroyed by explosives that were seen and heard by dozens of eyewitnesses who were at ground zero.
Take another example – the Windsor building in Madrid, a 32 story skyscraper which was a raging inferno for no less than 24 hours before fire crews were able to put out the flames. Despite the building being constructed of columns a fraction as thick as those used in the WTC twin towers, as well as a total lack of fireproofing, the building’s top section only partially collapsed while the integrity of the whole structure remained firmly intact.
Compare these images of the Windsor building fire to those of WTC 7 and the twin towers.
The skyscraper fire in Beijing offers another stark and bold reminder that when one eliminates the dodgy, agenda-driven, and incomprehensible delusions of NIST, one fact remains abundantly clear;
Office fires – even the flame shooting towering inferno variety – cannot cause modern buildings to implode in on themselves and collapse. Only deliberately placed explosives can achieve this end. The Windsor fire, the Beijing skyscraper fire and many more yet to come painfully underscore the awful truth that the only way WTC 7 and the twin towers could have collapsed in the manner that they did was by means of controlled demolition.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.