More on the Beijing Blazer

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from GrimFandango. Show GrimFandango's posts

    More on the Beijing Blazer

    http://tyrannyalert.com/jpg/beijing_blazer_01.jpg

    New videos of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire in Beijing highlight the vivid contrast between the damage it suffered as it was completely consumed by roaring flames, yet remained standing, and the comparative sporadic fires across just 8 floors that led to the complete free fall collapse of WTC 7.

    9/11 truth debunkers are in a bind as to how to respond to the Beijing skyscraper fire because of the building’s similarity in size to Building 7 and the gargantuan fire damage it suffered in comparison with the limited “office fires” witnessed in WTC 7. The Mandarin Oriental Hotel is over 500 feet tall, just 100 feet short of the height of WTC 7.

    The fires that consumed the Beijing building were on a completely different scale to those witnessed on 9/11, with the flames so violent and widespread that they masked almost the entire view of the building.

    The best debunkers have come up with seems to be the false notion that the fires caused a partial collapse by making the building “lean”. This is of course complete baloney because the facade of the building was designed to appear as if it was leaning in the first place, as the image below highlights, with shots before and after the fire.

    http://tyrannyalert.com/jpg/beijing_blazer_02.jpg

    Since the Beijing building was still under construction, sprinkler systems had not been installed, providing another similarity to WTC 7, in which sprinkler systems malfunctioned before its collapse. The Mandarin Oriental Hotel was also a steel-framed building with a concrete core and may even have included steel salvaged from the debris of the twin towers and WTC 7 that was hastily shipped off to China shortly after 9/11.

    Just take a look at the intensity of the fire that consumed the building but failed to bring it down in the following You Tube clip.

    . .

    Now compare that with the fires that preceded the collapse of WTC 7.


    . .

    How can any rational thinking person watch those two videos and lend any credence whatsoever to www.prisonplanet.com/nist-wtc-7-report-shameful-embarrassing-and-completely-flawed.html">NIST’s claim that “thermal expansion” could have brought down WTC 7 into its own footprint, whereas the dramatic inferno that totally consumed the Beijing building had little structural effect whatsoever?

    Apparently forgetting NIST’s newly invented “thermal expansion” theory, a scientific discovery that presumably has replaced the laws of physics, this Chinese news correspondent stands perilously close to the building completely unaware that since 9/11, all buildings that suffer minor fires, never mind towering infernos such as this, must collapse within 7 seconds into their own footprint.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    More on the Beijing Blazer



    GRIM with his shrink....

    www.bible.ca/marriage/psychiatry-couch.gif" alt="" />
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from GrimFandango. Show GrimFandango's posts

    More on the Beijing Blazer

    [Quote]

    GRIM with his shrink....

    [/Quote]

    Why don't you accept my simple challenge?

    I say it's because you can't pass it, because I've got you pegged, you're a phony.

    Everyone that believes that you are just another poster here should request you get some balls and accept. Make me look foolish by passing that simple challenge, and be a hero to those that would love to see me compromised.

    And everyone here can also participate in deciding if my challenge to you is a fair and honest one, something the long-time poster named BobinVA could easily handle, or not.

    If you are who you say you are, you have nothing to lose and a fair amount to gain.

    You won't, because you can't, because you’re nothing but a phony paid government infiltrator.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    More on the Beijing Blazer

    Grim, Where is the area in the Bejing hotel where a gash @10 floors in length and up to @1/4 of the width of the building while the fires were in full bloom? I don't see that from your pictures. Wouldn't that make them more apples-to-apples rather than watermelon-to-raisin like you are suggesting?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    More on the Beijing Blazer

    The fires that consumed the Beijing building were on a completely different scale to those witnessed on 9/11, with the flames so violent and widespread that they masked almost the entire view of the building.

    Also eye-witness accounts published and unpublished (people I spoke to that were there on 9/11 on the corner of Barclay and Greenwich) said there were widespread fires in WC7 and that most if not all floors were engulfed with flames.

    Beijing hotel was extinguished in 5 1/2 hours and water pressure was never an issue. WC7 burned uncontrolled for @7 hours with major water pressure issues. Other wise they are identical...


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMedford. Show GreginMedford's posts

    More on the Beijing Blazer

    the Coconut Grove didn't collapse either. Its obvious
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from enlighttened1. Show enlighttened1's posts

    More on the Beijing Blazer

    [Quote]the Coconut Grove didn't collapse either. Its obvious[/Quote]

    Maybe not, but I had a fire at camp last year and that collapsed. Hmm
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from enlighttened1. Show enlighttened1's posts

    More on the Beijing Blazer

    [Quote]


    Why don't you accept my simple challenge?

    I say it's because you can't pass it, because I've got you pegged, you're a phony.

    Everyone that believes that you are just another poster here should request you get some balls and accept. Make me look foolish by passing that simple challenge, and be a hero to those that would love to see me compromised.

    And everyone here can also participate in deciding if my challenge to you is a fair and honest one, something the long-time poster named BobinVA could easily handle, or not.

    If you are who you say you are, you have nothing to lose and a fair amount to gain.

    You won't, because you can't, because you’re nothing but a phony paid government infiltrator.
    [/Quote]
    +++++++++++++

    What's the challenge, oh great copy/paste king? You didn't accept my challenge either.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from GrimFandango. Show GrimFandango's posts

    More on the Beijing Blazer

    [Quote]

    The fires that consumed the Beijing building were on a completely different scale to those witnessed on 9/11, with the flames so violent and widespread that they masked almost the entire view of the building.

    Also eye-witness accounts published and unpublished (people I spoke to that were there on 9/11 on the corner of Barclay and Greenwich) said there were widespread fires in WC7 and that most if not all floors were engulfed with flames.

    Beijing hotel was extinguished in 5 1/2 hours and water pressure was never an issue. WC7 burned uncontrolled for @7 hours with major water pressure issues. Other wise they are identical...


    [/Quote]

    There are no pictures of the WTC7 fire that anyway near approaches the Beijing fire. Where is the proof?

    There are videos and photos of three sides of WTC7 – and they show dislocated minor fires. The South side has a few photos and one short video I have seen, and all there is visible is – again – minor fires, and a lot of smoke from the smoldering debris from WTC1

    The fire in Beijing hotel totally engulfed the building from the base to over 50 feet in the air above the roof, visible from all sides at once. It was a far larger and hotter fire, it is all part of the visual record.

    And the water situation was exactly the same – the mains to WTC7 were severed, so no water to the sprinklers, the Beijing hotel did not yet have their sprinklers installed – no sprinklers both buildings.

    Yet one collapsed in a physics-defying free-fall heap, the other had absolutely no structural failure whatsoever.

    So – to recap - the only three steel high rise structures ever to collapse from fire were all at Ground Zero on 9/11/01. Not one collapsed in the 90+ years before that day, and up to this very moment eight years later, there are still none others that have.

    Don't you find that just a wee bit strange??

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from GrimFandango. Show GrimFandango's posts

    More on the Beijing Blazer

    [Quote]Grim, Where is the area in the Bejing hotel where a gash @10 floors in length and up to @1/4 of the width of the building while the fires were in full bloom? I don't see that from your pictures. Wouldn't that make them more apples-to-apples rather than watermelon-to-raisin like you are suggesting?[/Quote]

    Look at the Beijing video.

    The total building is fully engulfed with raging fires that are shooting up past the roof into the sky – RAGING FIRES ENGULFING THE TOTAL BUILDING.

    You follow the sorry debunker crap that we can’t see that “raging fire” in WTC7, because it’s hidden on the South side, where there was damage from WTC1’s collapse.

    WTC7 was 47 floors (660 feet) high. You speak on an area ¼ of the width (the width was 330 feet) so that was an area of damage 130 feet high by 80 feet wide.

    Obviously the fires they claim were hidden from view did not achieve the same intensity as Beijing, or the flames would have been visible at and above the roofline. No such fire was visible from any videos or photos taken from the North, East or West. If it were as serious, at least on the one side, the South side, you would have seen it, and you did not. The reason you didn’t see it is because it wasn’t there.

    Now go look at the Beijing fire, and notice that not just one side was on fire, the whole structure was fully engulfed.

    Just look with your own eyes, reason with your own brain, and please stop listening to the paid debunkers with their nonsense.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from GrimFandango. Show GrimFandango's posts

    More on the Beijing Blazer

    [Quote]

    What's the challenge, oh great copy/paste king? You didn't accept my challenge either.[/Quote]

    Ask debunker-boy(s) to play along and then I'll be more than happy to let everyone know. But no matter - he won't because he is what I accuse him of, and can't take the chance of exposure.

    You see, because he really is an infiltrator, he has everything to lose and nothing to gain..
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    More on the Beijing Blazer

    Grim sez : "the only three steel high rise structures ever to collapse from fire were all at Ground Zero on 9/11/01. Not one collapsed in the 90+ years before that day",

    Wrong....
    Kader Toy Company Fire. Enigma Business Park Fire. Delft University Fire...

    As to this 'challenge', Grim pulled this lame stunt before, with GreginMedford, when Greg was working in Virginia, and Grim thought Greg was at CIA headquarters, or something. Grim tried to figure Greg's IP address and failed miserably of course.

    Grim wants information on location and/or IP addresses on computers...
    I will volunteer no such information to a mentally ill loon who thinks I am an "infiltrator", thank you very much.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Winston69. Show Winston69's posts

    More on the Beijing Blazer

    You claim that WTC7 collapsed in its own footprint, falling at freefall speed indicating a deliberated destruction of the building. You also claimed that there were no fires as compared to the building in Peking, excuse me I mean, Bayzshing.

    Here is a photo of the WTC site. WTC7 is about in the center of the photo. Above the WTC7 site is a shorter, white building. Note that it has debris from WTC7 on its roof, the street between the two buildings is filled with debris and it goes up several floors of the white building. There is also debris to the left of the WTC7 site that has the same appearance in color as the WTC7.




    So your claim that it collapsed into its own footpriint is wrong.

    As for your claim that there were only minor fires in WTC7, there was a major fire on one side of the building. Of course you can't see what is going on inside the building, and a fire on the outside of the building like in Bayzshing cold do less damage to the internal structure that holds the building up. You also have no data on how hot the fires are inside either building.

    Here is a photo of the fire on one side of WTC7:



    Then you can watch this video which shows the entrie collapes sequence of WTC7 to show that it took far longer to collapse than you claim:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk&eurl=http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

    Stick to the Global Warming stuff.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from bowl. Show bowl's posts

    More on the Beijing Blazer

    Sheepie? An Engineer? Well that explains everything.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from bowl. Show bowl's posts

    More on the Beijing Blazer

    Yo Grim? Peace, dude? Too funny Sheepie! You get yourself into trouble on here and you can't even take the punishment like a man, can you?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    More on the Beijing Blazer

    [Quote]You claim that WTC7 collapsed in its own footprint, falling at freefall speed indicating a deliberated destruction of the building. You also claimed that there were no fires as compared to the building in Peking, excuse me I mean, Bayzshing.

    Here is a photo of the WTC site. WTC7 is about in the center of the photo. Above the WTC7 site is a shorter, white building. Note that it has debris from WTC7 on its roof, the street between the two buildings is filled with debris and it goes up several floors of the white building. There is also debris to the left of the WTC7 site that has the same appearance in color as the WTC7.




    So your claim that it collapsed into its own footpriint is wrong.

    As for your claim that there were only minor fires in WTC7, there was a major fire on one side of the building. Of course you can't see what is going on inside the building, and a fire on the outside of the building like in Bayzshing cold do less damage to the internal structure that holds the building up. You also have no data on how hot the fires are inside either building.

    Here is a photo of the fire on one side of WTC7:



    Then you can watch this video which shows the entrie collapes sequence of WTC7 to show that it took far longer to collapse than you claim:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk&eurl=http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

    Stick to the Global Warming stuff.[/Quote]
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from bowl. Show bowl's posts

    More on the Beijing Blazer

    There's a post about you. Sorry, I don't talk to BDC controllers..

    [Quote]

    Bowl,
    What does that explain? Do tell. And, if you don't mind me asking, what is your profession?
    [/Quote]
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share