Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire VERSUS 911/WTC "fire" (conspiracy, 9/11, party)

[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....

[camping!]

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.....

[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.

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)

[Greatday]

No comparision whatsoever.

None.

Next??

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by Greatday

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.

[texdav]

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.

[HappyTexan]

Plus the WTC had a bunch of explosives in the basement that got detonated..right ?

[POhdNcrzy]

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!

[karfar]

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.

[POhdNcrzy]

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.