Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire VERSUS 911/WTC "fire" (gallon, middle east, regular)

[jimhcom]

Interesting facts:

No Skyscrapers before or after 9/11 have ever collapsed due to fire.

The Towers fell at free fall speed; despite the fact that the fire was only on the upper floors and that the towers had massive steel frames.

The molten steel continued to burn for weeks after the implosion, Thermite was found in the remains.

WTC7 imploded and collapsed at freefall speed even though it was not impacted by any plane. The 9/11 commission could give no reason for the collapse.

Several witnesses including emergency response personnel heard series of explosions prior to collapses.

Some of the alleged skyjackers are still alive.

The 9/11 commission deemed the financing of the hijackers was of no importance to the investigation.

All of the suspected terrorists arrested in the weeks after 9/11 were released without charges.

9/11 was followed by the passage of the Homeland Security Act which suspends much of the Bill of Rights at the government’s discretion.

[newonecoming]

Originally Posted by POhdNcrzy

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.

But it did have large quantities of fuel stored in it.

Originally Posted by POhdNcrzy

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

Melting iron with waste oil waist oil to melt iron.

Originally Posted by POhdNcrzy

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.

The world trade center was built to collapse. The fire was confined to a small area and the insulation on the structural steal was removed by the mechanical force of the impact.

Originally Posted by POhdNcrzy

Okay, I am now waiting for the next Great Brain of CD-F to step up to the plate.... (hah hah)

[jimhcom]

The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate Towers should have remained standing on 9/11 | NowPublic News Coverage

Perhaps some of the amateur engineers would like to read what the experts and the people who built the towers had to say.

By the way...Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain.

[wdavid002]

Designers have no idea the condition of the spray-on fire proofing on the steel supports in the building. The impact of the plane sufficiently knocked off the fireproofing. That is why steel is fire proofed?? Otherwise why spend the money to do it?? Please/...you people need to get a life and stop wasting your time trying to spew out this garbage.

[Little-Acorn]

Originally Posted by POhdNcrzy

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

Isn't it humorous how this fanatic refers to this as "understanding"?

Look up the modulus of elasticity of steel, the effect of temperature on same, and static instability of structures as a function of the MOE of its members.

(yawn)

[Mightyqueen801]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate Towers should have remained standing on 9/11 | NowPublic News Coverage

Perhaps some of the amateur engineers would like to read what the experts and the people who built the towers had to say.

By the way...Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain.

So...let me get this straight. The words of the experts and the people who built the towers are applicable when it appears to make a case for a controlled demolition, but the words of the experts (in this case, P.E.'s who worked in and on the towers while they stood, were in the buildings that day, and worked on the recovery and participated in the collapse analysis) and the people who built the towers do not apply when they say it was not a controlled demolition? What engineers in 1971 theorized might happen is valid and what engineers subsequent to 2001 said actually happened is not?

I'm not talking about "the government".

[newonecoming]

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

So...let me get this straight. The words of the experts and the people who built the towers are applicable when it appears to make a case for a controlled demolition, but the words of the experts (in this case, P.E.'s who worked in and on the towers while they stood, were in the buildings that day, and worked on the recovery and participated in the collapse analysis) and the people who built the towers do not apply when they say it was not a controlled demolition? What engineers in 1971 theorized might happen is valid and what engineers subsequent to 2001 said actually happened is not?

I'm not talking about "the government".

Well it had to happen again. let it be.

The buildings fell. The point of falure has the point of impact. enough said.

[jimhcom]

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

So...let me get this straight. The words of the experts and the people who built the towers are applicable when it appears to make a case for a controlled demolition, but the words of the experts (in this case, P.E.'s who worked in and on the towers while they stood, were in the buildings that day, and worked on the recovery and participated in the collapse analysis) and the people who built the towers do not apply when they say it was not a controlled demolition? What engineers in 1971 theorized might happen is valid and what engineers subsequent to 2001 said actually happened is not?

I'm not talking about "the government".

I can find an "expert" to take any point. What you have to look at, is a preponderance of the evidence. The people who believe the government’s explanation of why the towers fell (even though they cannot explain WTC7) are going to stick to their point of view regardless of evidence. They are the same type of people who still believe Oswald shot Kennedy, the Gulf of Tonkin attack actually happened and that the CIA does not actively overthrow foreign governments. They just want to continue to live in their illusion that their interests are being served by government and the powers that be. They find comfort in making light of the people who have looked at both sides of controversy and found that more times than not, what is being said by mass media and government are fabrications designed to placate the masses. Even when the evidence is overwhelming as in the collusion between government and banking in the home loan debacle, people would prefer to believe that it just happened and no one was at fault. Nothing just happens. Things happen for reasons. When those reasons benefit the wealthy and powerful it is not just luck, it is planed and executed. How do you think they got wealthy and powerful? By looking out for your interests?

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

interesting facts:

No skyscrapers before or after 9/11 have ever collapsed due to fire. and no skyscraperS had been hit by fullyloaded commercial planes at full speed before

the towers fell at free fall speed; despite the fact that the fire was only on the upper floors and that the towers had massive steel frames. the towers did not fall at free speed, and were not a full steel frame

the molten steel continued to burn for weeks after the implosion, thermite was found in the remains. thermite (aka white phosferous was never found,,that's a lie from steven jones) and 'steel' can be melted by a car's battery and to electrodes


wtc7 imploded and collapsed at freefall speed even though it was not impacted by any plane. The 9/11 commission could give no reason for the collapse. and you fporget to mention the fact that wtc7 had a building fall on it (tower1) and it was built over a ConEd sub station


several witnesses including emergency response personnel heard series of explosions prior to collapses. hearing explosions doesnt mean bombs


some of the alleged skyjackers are still alive. totally false


the 9/11 commission deemed the financing of the hijackers was of no importance to the investigation.

All of the suspected terrorists arrested in the weeks after 9/11 were released without charges.

9/11 was followed by the passage of the homeland security act which suspends much of the bill of rights at the government’s discretion.

mine in bold

[jcarlilesiu]

Originally Posted by POhdNcrzy

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....

How hot does jet fuel burn again?