Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Still Standing: The Building That Proves WTC 7 Was Imploded
New videos highlight vivid contrast of Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire to fires in WTC 7 before its free fall collapse
Paul Joseph Watson
February 10, 2009
New videos of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire in Beijing highlight the vivid contrast between the damage it suffered as it was completely consumed by roaring flames, yet remained standing, and the comparative sporadic fires across just 8 floors that led to the complete free fall collapse of WTC 7.
9/11 truth debunkers are in a bind as to how to respond to the Beijing skyscraper fire because of the building’s similarity in size to Building 7 and the gargantuan fire damage it suffered in comparison with the limited "office fires" witnessed in WTC 7. The Mandarin Oriental Hotel is over 500 feet tall, just 100 feet short of the height of WTC 7.
The fires that consumed the Beijing building were on a completely different scale to those witnessed on 9/11, with the flames so violent and widespread that they masked almost the entire view of the building.
The best debunkers have come up with seems to be the false notion that the fires caused a partial collapse by making the building "lean". This is of course complete baloney because the facade of the building was designed to appear as if it was leaning in the first place, as the image below highlights, with shots before and after the fire.
Here is a larger, clearer picture of the building prior to the fire that shows the 'kink' that debunkers called a 'partial collapse' as it was burning
Since the Beijing building was still under construction, sprinkler systems had not been installed, providing another similarity to WTC 7, in which sprinkler systems malfunctioned before its collapse. The Mandarin Oriental Hotel was also a steel-framed building with a concrete core and may even have included steel salvaged from the debris of the twin towers and WTC 7 that was hastily shipped off to China shortly after 9/11.
Just take a look at the intensity of the fire that consumed the building but failed to bring it down in the following You Tube clip.
Now compare that with the fires that preceded the collapse of WTC 7.
How can any rational thinking person watch those two videos and lend any credence whatsoever to NIST’s claim that "thermal expansion" could have brought down WTC 7 into its own footprint, whereas the dramatic inferno that totally consumed the Beijing building had little structural effect whatsoever?
Apparently forgetting NIST’s newly invented "thermal expansion" theory, a scientific discovery that presumably has replaced the laws of physics, this Chinese news correspondent stands perilously close to the building completely unaware that since 9/11, all buildings that suffer minor fires, never mind towering infernos such as this, must collapse within 7 seconds into their own footprint.
Here are another clip for comparison.
The dramatic flames engulfing the Beijing building, compared to the restricted "office fires" in WTC 7.
Here are four more images of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel ablaze and the aftermath.
Who could have guessed the resulting damage of the two fires? In Beijing….
And on 9/11….
9/11 truth debunking websites have so far been silent on the Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire and are likely to remain so. Yesterday’s fire serves to reinforce facts and not the fairy tales that the official 9/11 story is based around - namely that fire cannot weaken or melt steel to the point where a building collapses at free fall speed into its own footprint, without the aid of explosives.
Fire Consumes WTC 7-sized building - does not collapse
Debunkers claim WTC 7 "hit by a 757"