Parent Category: News
Category: Staged Events
Created on Monday, 09 February 2009 00:00
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.