China's Tallest Building Catches Fire, Does Not Collapse

[poncho]

We've been through this bromide before.
It's a shame that some "Christians" love to smear so much.
Never let facts or science get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

Since when did the words smear and question become interchangeable.

What are the facts? Please list them for us.

 

[poncho]

C4K:


yes. Enough fuel was on board to fly
a plane with over 100 passengers across the
USofA on a 100-ton aircraft -- this is
a lot of energy not present in the stuff inside
most skyscrapers. I think the fuel makes
a big difference.

And the source one believes for one's information
makes a big difference also.

Yep, only the conglomerated monopoly of the mass media owned and/or controlled by a handful of the global elite can be trusted...right Ed?

How much fuel actually burned inside those buildings? How much fuel was consumed in those big ole fire balls outside the buildings at impact? Got numbers? Anyone?

 

[poncho]

Amen, Brother Bro. Curtis -- Preach it! :thumbs:


Strange how all the paranoia press (PP) hang together
and cross-reference each other, eh?

I forget how many gallons of aviation fuel it
takes to go across the country, but I don't
think 1,000,000 pounds of fuel is more than
two orders off (i.e. the true answer is somewhere
between 10,000 pounds and 100 Million pounds.

Strange how the conglomerated monopoly mass media just repeats what the Pentagon and "government officials" say without actually investigating any of what either says. Then when confronted with questions after the fact either ignores them or calls the questioners "wackos". They know they can't let the facts be discussed openly, just like those here who use the same techniques.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Strange how the conglomerated monopoly mass media just repeats what the Pentagon and "government officials" say without actually investigating any of what either says. Then when confronted with questions after the fact either ignores them or calls the questioners "wackos". They know they can't let the facts be discussed openly, just like those here who use the same techniques.

I rebuke your axiom in the Blessed & Holy name of Jesus!

Of course, your axiom being in error, your conclusions
are in error also.

Strangely, my main source of both information and
miss-information is the present Baptist Board (BB).
I have to pray a lot to figure out which is which.

 

[poncho]

I rebuke your axiom in the Blessed & Holy name of Jesus!

Wouldn't it be easier to just call me a "wacko" and be done with it Ed? Why drag Jesus into this?

Of course, your axiom being in error, your conclusions
are in error also.

Then it shouldn't be to hard for you to prove it, but yet you haven't even tried. What's that say about your conclusion?

Strangely, my main source of both information and
miss-information is the present Baptist Board (BB).

I can tell you aren't much into doing any reasearch yourself.

I have to pray a lot to figure out which is which.

So, I take it you aren't all that interested in digging for the truth then. Why would someone who isn't interested in the truth enough to dig for it themselves keep claiming someone who is, is wrong all the time? That makes no sense to me.

BTW, nice job of avoiding answering my questions about the jet fuel. Yer quite the expert at avoiding answering direct questions these days. Congratulations.

Oh yeah! I'm putting together a list of people "in the know" who've written books and papers on what they know. It's going to be quite a long list from the looks of it. Kinda strange that people who know have not only talked but commited it to paper. Looks like your own axiom may be in error brother.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Poncho: //I can tell you aren't much into doing any reasearch yourself.//

By contrast, I can see you do a lot of REARsearch yourself

Ed Edwards: //Of course, your axiom being in error,
your conclusions are in error also.//

Poncho: //Then it shouldn't be to hard for you to prove it,
but yet you haven't even tried. ... //

Actually I did prove it. But it wasn't very hard.
It slipped right under your radar.

 

[JustChristian]

Mr

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.

An army aircraft hit the Empire State Building during WW2 and somehow it didn't collapse. In fact, the first (and only) steel framed skyscrapers that have ever collapsed due to fire were WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7, which no aircraft hit by the way.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Thanks for posting this link. I am sure it won't change anyone minds.. Some people won't even think of any other possiblitilies other than what they think now.

People are not openminded enough to review documents/films and then make a decision. They only want to spout off and deflect. ...

I'll be glad to spout off.
I've studyed enough of THE 9/11 Commission Report
(Authorized Version, First Edition) (Norton & co., undated)

On 9/11 I saw live the second building to collapse.
I figured that some bad guys, willing to die to confuse
Satan America, had done it -- it was part of the Grand Stanic
Conspiracy: the one that brought inquisition, Communism,
various and sundry 'ethnic clensings' etc., etc.

I've found no reason to change my belief.

In fact, under Carter I learned about PC = politically correct,
It is politically correct to be searching for the truth.
But when you find it and find it isn't some clammy thought
that seems dandy but is a person: Messiah Yeshua,
(AKA: 'Iesus' in the KJV1611 Edition, 'Jesus' in the KJV1769
Edition). When you find that truth, under PC - you are damned.

This world isn't my home,
I'm just passin' through.
My treasure is laid up
Somewhere beyond the blue.

Anyway, it is strangely & falsly arrogant
to say in short: you gotta study the misinformation
until you agree with me. Well, I can abe arrogant also:
If you don't agree with Ed Edwards, you are
WAY OUT OF LINE.

Some bad muslim terrorists with more fervor than
common sense flew some hi-jacked planes into
some buildings. Those buildings fell from the point of
impact down (WTC-7 was bombed from the top
by splatter from the other tawo and fell ground up -
just like a planned (but not a planned) fall.

It wasn't the government I was part of at all --
that is paranoia (a totally curable mental condition)

IMHO the bad muslim terrorists (and any kind of terrorists
like Christian abortionist killerss) should be killed as close to
home as possible. Amen.

 

[Baptist Believer]

An army aircraft hit the Empire State Building during WW2 and somehow it didn't collapse. In fact, the first (and only) steel framed skyscrapers that have ever collapsed due to fire were WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7, which no aircraft hit by the way.

Of course, you're comparing a traditionally-built steel-framed skyscraper with the skyscrapers of the World Trade Center complex. If you do even cursory research regarding the structural design of WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7, you'll know why you can't make the comparison you're making.

And I wish you would change your name. I've had "Baptist Believer" for five years and I don't care to have my opinions confused with yours.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Thanks for posting this link. I am sure it won't change anyone minds.. Some people won't even think of any other possiblitilies other than what they think now.

People are not openminded enough to review documents/films and then make a decision. They only want to spout off and deflect. Like some of the questions in this thread haven't even been answered....

Thanks again!

Jamie

So Jamie, are you saying that anyone who is not a conspiracy theorist is closed minded?

 

[poncho]

Poncho: //I can tell you aren't much into doing any reasearch yourself.//

By contrast, I can see you do a lot of REARsearch yourself

Ed Edwards: //Of course, your axiom being in error,
your conclusions are in error also.//

Poncho: //Then it shouldn't be to hard for you to prove it,
but yet you haven't even tried. ... //

Actually I did prove it. But it wasn't very hard.
It slipped right under your radar.

All you've proven is that you and the "authorities" can't prove "19 hijackers 15 of them Saudis" commited the crime. All the slick little word games and silly paragraphs in the world isn't going to change that one bit. Your conspiracy theory has more holes in it than a three ton block of swiss cheese.

 

[KenH]

Of course, you're comparing a traditionally-built steel-framed skyscraper with the skyscrapers of the World Trade Center complex.

So are you claiming that the WTC was shoddily built?

 

[Baptist Believer]

So are you claiming that the WTC was shoddily built?

No, but it was built in a unique way which gave it some unique weaknesses.

The design of the WTC-1 and WTC-2 was not a traditional steel-framed skyscraper with a series of strong beams and supporting columns going through each floor, from top to bottom. Instead, it was built somewhat like a square tube with an inner core (a much smaller square tube) that houses building utilities/systems/elevators/etc. The floors were supported by long trusses which extended from the building core to the outer skin, thereby creating large expanses of floor space unimpeded by columns. The entire weight of the building was carried by the exterior "skin" and the interior core. In normal circumstances, this worked well and allow the building to flex in the wind while remaining very strong. But when a very large aircraft crashed into the building, ripping a huge hole in the outer skin and damaging the core of the building, the entire building was weakened. And the massive fire caused begun by the jet fuel (burning huge quantities of paper, furnishings, office finish-out materials) allowed the trusses to weaken (steel doesn't have to melt into a liquid to bend, flex, and fail), the inner core began separating from the outer core, the floors started pancaking, and the momentum of the falling material caused both the damaged outer and inner cores to collapse.

 

[Hope of Glory]

If I remember correctly, it uses a cantilevered construction technique.

 

[Hope of Glory]

The fuel tanks on the planes in question had about the same volume as the entire B-25 planes that hit the Empire State building, if memory serves.

However, on a full airliner travelling cross country, per person, the fuel economy is about 80 MPG.

 

[hillclimber1]

However, on a full airliner travelling cross country, per person, the fuel economy is about 80 MPG.

Curious: Were did you get that? Doesn't seem reasonable.

 

[Ed Edwards]

No, but it was built in a unique way which gave it some unique weaknesses.

The design of the WTC-1 and WTC-2 was not a traditional steel-framed skyscraper with a series of strong beams and supporting columns going through each floor, from top to bottom. Instead, it was built somewhat like a square tube with an inner core (a much smaller square tube) that houses building utilities/systems/elevators/etc. The floors were supported by long trusses which extended from the building core to the outer skin, thereby creating large expanses of floor space unimpeded by columns. The entire weight of the building was carried by the exterior "skin" and the interior core. In normal circumstances, this worked well and allow the building to flex in the wind while remaining very strong. But when a very large aircraft crashed into the building, ripping a huge hole in the outer skin and damaging the core of the building, the entire building was weakened. And the massive fire caused begun by the jet fuel (burning huge quantities of paper, furnishings, office finish-out materials) allowed the trusses to weaken (steel doesn't have to melt into a liquid to bend, flex, and fail), the inner core began separating from the outer core, the floors started pancaking, and the momentum of the falling material caused both the damaged outer and inner cores to collapse.

Amen, THE REAL BAPTIST BELIEVER
{AKA: Baptist Believer with a space ( ) } --
You are so RIGHT ON!

I note the constructing Chineese Building didn't have
the office materials nor jet fuel to burn
(just some construction material and a few
gallons of fuel for the wielding unit.)

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally Posted by Hope of Glory


However, on a full airliner travelling cross country, per person, the fuel economy is about 80 MPG.

Hillclimber1: //Curious: Were did you get that? Doesn't seem reasonable.//

That would be about 1/2 a gallon per mile for the whole plane,
yep - unreasonable -- a plane would need 1500 gallons for the whole
flight. I'm thinking the order is more like twice that or about
450,000 pounds?

So, I'm an order off -- pretty good for an Electrical Engineer, eh?

abovetopsecret.com forum says:
a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon
had 40,800 to 47,600 pounds of fuel
aboard

This is enough energy to transport nearly 180 people
across the USofA at 350-400 MPH. (facts guessed)
or probably power Oklahoma City all day (350K folks & their
air conditioners).

 

[Steven2006]

The comparison between the fire in this Chinese building and the World Trade towers is ridiculous, and anyone seriously thinking that it proves anything is just feeding into preconceived conspiracy notions. Here is a link to a serious article of the events.

http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2007/08/14/afx4016900.html


Here is the key qoute:

"The fire, which hit the Shanghai World Financial Center in the late afternoon, was quickly put out and there were no casualties, a fire department supervisor surnamed Zheng told Agence France-Presse."


The fact that this was a smaller fire that was quickly put out, should put an end to any serious comparison. It is just because it happened to be in a tall building people want to equate the two, when in fact there is nothing similar to these two circumstances.

 

[Ed Edwards]

...

The fact that this was a smaller fire that was quickly put out, should put an end to any serious comparison. It is just because it happened to be in a tall building people want to equate the two, when in fact there is nothing similar to these two circumstances.

And I understand it happened on the same planet
and in the same Century (the 21st Century, 2001-2100). :thumbsup: