U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-02-2009, 05:18 PM
 
Location: Rhode Island (Splash!)
1,150 posts, read 2,571,463 times
Reputation: 444

Advertisements

Well I waited and waited for somebody else to cover this but no one stepped up so here goes....

In early February 2009 the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Beijing was ignited by fireworks and very thoroughly burned. Casualties were nominal because the hotel was under construction and almost finished but basically vacant when the fire struck.

According to the New York Times (02/11/2009), the responsible party, the China Central Television network, apologized to the nation for "the severe damage the fire caused to the country's property". According to the Times, the hotel was "destroyed".

Interestingly enough, unlike the World Trade Towers on 9-11, although the Mandarin hotel was severely and thoroughly burned and "destroyed", it did NOT collapse and implode into a "fine white powder" in nine seconds.

HHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!

The NY Times article has an accompanying photo of the burned hotel. Although the fire clearly burned through every level of the steel-frame hotel, not a single floor of the hotel collapsed and in fact the steel frame was left completely intact, although severely blackened and charred.

I now open the floor to debate, as it were....
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-02-2009, 05:39 PM
 
8,175 posts, read 12,115,906 times
Reputation: 2886
Unless the hotel had massive amounts of airplane fuel stored in it the comparison is not valid.
Whenever one is discussing the effects of fire, one must always take into consideration the accelarant used.
Unless you just want to talk conspiracies that would make fox mulder shake his head in shame.....
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 06:13 PM
 
Location: Rhode Island (Splash!)
1,150 posts, read 2,571,463 times
Reputation: 444
I'm not an expert but I'm pretty sure that none of the WTC towers had "massive amounts of airplane fuel" stored in them. The jet fuel came from the planes, and was a relatively tiny amount relative to the size of the towers. Also, WTC7 was not hit by a plane or jet fuel.

My understanding is jet fuel burns at a low temperature and can not melt or pulverize steel.

Also, the Mandarin Oriental Hotel was burned much, much (MUCH) more severely and completely than the WTC towers and it did not collapse in the least bit. Not even a single floor collapsed! As stated earlier, neither did the Mandarin Hotel pulverize itself into crumbly white powder and collapse perfectly into its own footprint in less than 10 seconds.

Okay, I am now waiting for the next Great Brain of CD-F to step up to the plate.... (hah hah)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 06:17 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,098 posts, read 37,751,116 times
Reputation: 4934
No comparision whatsoever.

None.

Next??
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 06:24 PM
 
24,408 posts, read 45,292,779 times
Reputation: 26924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
No comparision whatsoever.

None.

Next??
True.

WTC design used a different design. I believe the outer skin was part of what held it up. The heat of the jet fuel burning in the WTC softened the steel above it until it lost strength, then the weight of the upper floors caused it to pancake down on itself. A known flaw. The Beijing fire was in a building that was mostly empty, the combustibles went quickly before having a chance to really soften the steel, not to mention it's different design.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 06:36 PM
 
48,503 posts, read 92,795,512 times
Reputation: 18248
Large difference as stated. China had a building not long ago that actaully collapse without any damaging factor other than how it was build.Bsically it was a huge skyscraper with faulty design.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 06:37 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 80,727,040 times
Reputation: 27699
Plus the WTC had a bunch of explosives in the basement that got detonated..right ?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 07:48 PM
 
Location: Rhode Island (Splash!)
1,150 posts, read 2,571,463 times
Reputation: 444
Well, kudos to Mike FBE for offering a logical argument of some kind.

"The heat of the jet fuel burning in the WTC softened the steel above it until it lost strength, then the weight of the upper floors caused it to pancake down on itself." - Problem with that statement is that burning jet fuel will not melt steel, not even close. Look it up for yourself. Also, this argument does not explain what happened to building 7 aka WTC7.

"The Beijing fire was in a building that was mostly empty, the combustibles went quickly before having a chance to really soften the steel, not to mention it's different design." First part is true, last part is true but a moot point. Middle argument is incorrect. The Mandarin Oriental Hotel was totally, and thoroughly burned, severely burned. In fact, investigators (according to the NYT article) believe that because the construction was incomplete, the hotel burned much more thoroughly and completely. Even so, not a single floor of the hotel collapsed. Fire will not and can not burn, melt or pulverize a steel high-rise building. It never has and it never will. The temperature is not hot enough to damage the steel framework.

9/11 is the only exception to this. Hmmmmmmmmmmm!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 07:55 PM
 
Location: um....guess
10,479 posts, read 14,929,125 times
Reputation: 1835
I guess I'm not seeing where the "conspiracy" is in this. The towers had 2 planes fly into it, loaded to the gills. They started on fire & collapsed. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that bombs were planted in the towers to go off at the exact moment the planes flew into them? Please explain.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2009, 08:10 PM
 
Location: Rhode Island (Splash!)
1,150 posts, read 2,571,463 times
Reputation: 444
Karfar, more or less yes that's what I'm saying. 9/11 was a complete fraud on the American people. The three (not 2) towers were brought down by thoroughly planned and executed controlled demolitions.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top