China's Tallest Building Catches Fire, Does Not Collapse

[Rufus_1611]

China's Tallest Building Catches Fire, Does Not Collapse

Shanghai's World Financial Center, the tallest building in China upon completion, defied all known physics yesterday afternoon when it caught fire but did not collapse, a modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours.

...

Hundreds of buildings worldwide suffered major fires that gutted the entire facade of their structure before 9/11 and did not collapse, but since the twin towers behaved differently, rather than consider an alternative explanation for the collapse of the towers, experts simply decided to reverse the fundamental precepts of all known physics to make it easier for everyone to understand.

Since that time, it has been commonly accepted that limited fires in tall buildings are 99% certain to cause an almost instantaneous collapse.

..........

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Surely even you can see how the two episodes just do not compare.

I know you hate Bush & don't trust anything, but can't you at least attempt to see how rediculous this is ?

 

[Rufus_1611]

Surely even you can see how the two episodes just do not compare.

I know you hate Bush & don't trust anything, but can't you at least attempt to see how rediculous this is ?

No. Explain it to me. I thought the new science was that steel framed building's that are on fire, collapse at the rate of gravity into a heap of pulverized concrete and metal. According to the new science, it is nothing short of a miracle that this Shanghai building is still standing, why should I think otherwise?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Did a plane crash into it, spilling thosands and thousands of gallons of jet fuel on it ?

You're not being honest on this, and I find it troubling.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Does anyone think it makes a difference to the the structural integrity of a building whether a fire breaks our or it is slammed into by a fuel laden jetliner?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Does anyone think it makes a difference to the the structural integrity of a building whether a fire breaks our or it is slammed into by a fuel laden jetliner?

Not to conspiracy wackos.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours.

This is disgusting. Shame on you, Rufus. Nobody believes that, and you know it. If you have to twist facts, you don't have a point worth considering.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Did a plane crash into it, spilling thosands and thousands of gallons of jet fuel on it ?

You're not being honest on this, and I find it troubling.

I'm sorry you're troubled but in your trouble you have apparently forgotten that not all of the high rises that collapsed on that day were struck by airplanes.

 

[Rufus_1611]

This is disgusting. Shame on you, Rufus. Nobody believes that, and you know it. If you have to twist facts, you don't have a point worth considering.

I didn't author that article but I'll stand by the author's statements. What about it is in error?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

It starts with a lie, the article is rubbish, the people who think like that are daft, and I won't discuss it anymore.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

If you are going to tell me that this building and the WTC complex suffered comparable trauma, then you are either being deliberately misleading, or you don't know what you are talking about. In either case, it is not worth discussing.

 

[James_Newman]

I think that in the interest of science, the WTC7 scenario needs to be recreated so we can see what happens. Take a 47 story building, and knock it down by flying a plane into a building nearby. Then I'll stop talking about it. But if you think a 7/10 split is hard...

 

[carpro]

It starts with a lie, the article is rubbish, the people who think like that are daft, and I won't discuss it anymore.

Bush did it.:tonofbricks:

 

[Rufus_1611]

Bush did it. ...

You think? What evidence do you have for this argument?

 

[KenH]

There you go, Rufus, upsetting people by causing them to question the standard Establishment line about what caused WTC7 to collapse on 9/11/2001.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Rufus bugged outta this one, you probably should, as well.

Unless you can convine us that the two buildings went thru similar trauma. Other than that, this is a pretty lame attempt from the tin-foil-hat crowd to make people who disagree with them look bad. The article starts out with a lie, nobody I know thinks the following.....

in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours.

If this article points out anything, it is the lack of willingness the conspiracy theorists seem to have against intelligent, fact based discussion.

 

[KenH]

What about WTC7 that wasn't hit by an airplane?

 

[hillclimber1]

What about WTC7 that wasn't hit by an airplane?

Bush and Cheney....duh !

 

[Bro. Curtis]

in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours.

This is a lie. It is not an accepted premise, it is a rediculous exaggeration, and renders the whole point the article is trying to make, moot. Will you admit that ?

This thread is as bad as all the threads about how the left hates the truth, the right only cares bout the rich, democrats want us to live in gulags, Bush is gonna put us in gulags....it's low-brow, bush league political debnate.

 

[JustChristian]

Mr

..........

The first three steel framed skyscrapers to EVER collapse due to fire were WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.