Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 CONSPIRACY 'Does fire have different properties in China compared to the US?' Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse By Paul Joseph Watson 09 Feb 2009 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... 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. 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.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 I am not a fire expert, but wouldn't the fact that thousands of gallons of high explosive jet fuel on the planes that crashed into the WTC, be a giant difference when compared to the fire in Beijing, which developed on the ground floor and moved up through the building, not concentrated and just a few floors? CraigOn Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Clare@GOOGLE MAIL <theclaremcharris wrote: CONSPIRACY 'Does fire have different properties in China compared to the US?' Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse By Paul Joseph Watson 09 Feb 2009 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... 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. 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.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Jet fuel is not explosive http://www.safeenergyla.com/faq.htm http://www.foreworks.com/liquid.html--- On Fri, 2/13/09, Craig Rawlings <craig wrote: Craig Rawlings <craigRe: Fire properties???? Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 12:34 AM I am not a fire expert, but wouldn't the fact that thousands of gallons of high explosive jet fuel on the planes that crashed into the WTC, be a giant difference when compared to the fire in Beijing, which developed on the ground floor and moved up through the building, not concentrated and just a few floors?Craig On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Clare@GOOGLE MAIL <theclaremcharris@ gmail.com> wrote: CONSPIRACY 'Does fire have different properties in China compared to the US?' Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse By Paul Joseph Watson 09 Feb 2009 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... 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. 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.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 , Bea Bernhausen <beabernhausen wrote: > > Jet fuel is not explosive > http://www.safeenergyla.com/faq.htm > http://www.foreworks.com/liquid.html ================================================ I don't buy this for one minute that jet fuel is not explosive. So when there is a jet crash what does explode then? This link sounds like something a big wig would put out so supposedly lay people would buy hook line and sinker. Many years ago it was said propane tanks do not explode. Well guess what, one did explode and caused serious consequences. Edith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 I hate to get into this...but there is much online evidence that shows the fires from the planes had subsided before the collapse of the buildings. You can even see people standing in the holes that were made by the planes illustrating that the area was not that hot anymore. There is also testimony by the firefighters about hearing explosions in the buildings before the buildings fell. This information has been very suppressed in major media outlets. There are also a number of groups fighting for 911 truth, calling for a new investigation including : firefighters and families of the victims. No building has ever fallen because of fire OR a plane crash in history. You must ask then, what are the odds of it happening twice in one day???? Susan Siegel On Feb 13, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Bea Bernhausen wrote:Jet fuel is not explosivehttp://www.safeenergyla.com/faq.htmhttp://www.foreworks.com/liquid.html--- On Fri, 2/13/09, Craig Rawlings <craig wrote:Craig Rawlings <craigRe: Fire properties???? Friday, February 13, 2009, 12:34 AMI am not a fire expert, but wouldn't the fact that thousands of gallons of high explosive jet fuel on the planes that crashed into the WTC, be a giant difference when compared to the fire in Beijing, which developed on the ground floor and moved up through the building, not concentrated and just a few floors?CraigOn Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Clare@GOOGLE MAIL <theclaremcharris@ gmail.com> wrote: CONSPIRACY 'Does fire have different properties in China compared to the US?' Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse By Paul Joseph Watson 09 Feb 2009 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... 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. 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.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.