BEIJING — A fierce fire engulfed one of the Chinese capital’s most architecturally celebrated modern buildings on Monday, the last day of festivities for the lunar new year when the city was ablaze with fireworks.

the late evening the blaze was still raging and the cause remained unknown, but it seemed clear that the 34-story structure, not yet completed, had been rendered unusable.

see the inferno and take note it didnot collapse into its own footprint
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/world/asia/10beijing.html?_r=2&hp

was the internal structure demolished by tons of high speed steel and was there jet fuel feeding the fire?

thought not..

seriously, dude, put your tinfoil hat back on..

The 911 commision report officaly blamed the fire and nothing else for the collapse. Put your common sence hat on. If it were the impact that weakened the building why then did it not fall in one direction first , like notching a tree? what we had was a total and systematic collapse of all the trusses and supports causing these buildings to fall into their own footprints. Its verry simple logic realy.

what school again did you get your civil/structural engineering degree from??

You dont have to be a rocket scientist to see how improbable it is for 3 buildings to collapse like that. If you took the time to view the link I posted you would see that this Beijing skyscrapper was flameing from top to bottem a far worse fire than the smoldering twin towers and building 7. I suppose I have to go with the majority of americans on this one. A CNN poll found 89% thinks the offical 911 commision report is a load of garbage. Here is the link to that poll Just an FYI. http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/14340.exclude.html

so the report you want me to go by in your last post you now say is garbage? which is it?

the next time time we see a jumbo jet slam into a building, dump thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel into it and it not fall down, let's talk..

It is this. You claimed it was the Jets hiting the building that caused it to fall. I asked you if that was the case why didnt the buildings fall toward the weakened impact areas? Like a tree being wedged to fall a certain direction. You didnt answer that. I did in fact state the 911 commision report stated the fires caused the buildings to collapse and not the plane impacts. So if you go to the link I posted and see this truly towering inferno you have to ask yourself......... why doesnt it collapse like a house of cards.

might I inquire what the undercut in a tree has to do with the direction it falls? I spent most of my life logging, and I can gaurantee that there is a whole lot more to getting a tree to fall directionally than the undercut. Sounds like a weekend warrior statement to me...lol...You must also take into account the strength of the heartwood, any rot present? which way does it lean? has there been an impact?which way does the prevailing wind blow? Are there any trees near which influenced its growth patterns? A lot more considerations than where the undercut is

Madisonman,

You can't. You can't make them to take a look. Because the government has said it was the impact and the jet fuel. The people from the government had the government licenses. This is it.

It does not matter what the facts are. It's too hurtful to look at the truth.

Pearl Harbor is still an unexpected attack, the Waco is an accident. The attack of Germany on Soviet Union is still an unprovoked aggression.

Those who understand are quiet. Those who don't... they'll believe in a building collapse from a fire, but not in anything that makes sense.

buildings like the twin towers do not collapse completely to the ground because of a jet plane parachuting through the top of the building.
there was so much more to it
for some reason, the video that explains just what happened keeps disappearing from the internet...huh...go figure

The building on fire is the one on the left in this picture:

I'm not going to go thru a whole lesson on petrology, metalurgy or the melting of steel.. but there's a saying in medicine that goes something like, "If you hear hoofbeats, think 'horses' not 'zebras'". Roughly restating Ockam's Razor which says that the simplest explanation, the one with the fewest moving parts, is usually correct.

I don't know for sure because apparently there are dozens of variables that determine the temperature at which jet fuel burns, but the estimates I've seen range anywhere from 700F to 3500F. More than steel held those buildings up, in fact the structural rigidity depended in no small part on the glass on the outside which shattered in the vicinity of the impact when the planes flew into the buildings.

the tree analogy fails the prima facia test on two points. a tree in your analogy is chopped down from near the base. if the planes had hit near the bottom you might, I stress, might have an arguement. but they hit near the top AND if you watch the top section begin to fall it does rotate toward the impact site. second is a tree trunk is mostly a solid mass where a building is mostly empty space supported by carefuly engineered trusses and specified materials..

Not certain, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason the towers fell had something to do with the vertical section of missing support columns near the tops of the buildings owing to the highspeed impact of the jumbo jets and the burning of the jet fuel that (even if it didn't completely melt the structural beams columns) further weakened them to the point that the overburden began to collapse.

your conspiracy is a fantasy, driven, I'm guessing, in no small part by your driving desire to find George Bush at fault for the attacks of September 11..

time for dollar tacos..

have a pleasant evening..

And what about the time of collapse? How do we account for the collapse being so fast, almost a free fall?

What about a building being designed to withstand an impact of a similar in size liner?

What about our military, that is capable of "shocking and awing" everyone as they proceed to demolish a next nation on their list, being asleep at the wheel?

What about WTC7, a collapse without any jetliners? For this one takes away the burning jet fuel and massive damage arguments, leaving small damage and fire to be the only reason for the collapse, again, at the free fall speed?

What about the plane missing, and being blown up over the countryside, while it has been awaited by the WTC7 to impact it, so it can too, gracefully be accounted for?

What about a massive metal column mesh, that would have taken all the heat and dissipated it?

great post no games. the offical version of the collapse is simply laughable. Jet fuel only burns hot when it is vaporised and mixed with air. POURED ON THE GROUND IT ISNT HOT ENOUGH TO DO WHAT THEY CLAIM IT DID

I have asked a few engineers, and they have all said that it is reasonable to believe the jet fuel burned hot enough to weaken the structure and cause the collapse.

I have also been told that George Bush personally set explosives in the WTC, and that caused the collapse.

While both explanations could be true, it is much less likely that the WTC was destroyed by explosives, without many witnesses telling their stories. Which means that it is much more likely that the planes destroyed the WTC.

Since I was not in the buildings at the time of the collapse, and I am not an engineer, I am left to believe that which is most likely.

Regardless of the facts, to believe that the destruction on 911 was caused by something else is too much for most Americans to swallow, at least right now. I think the truth, whatever that may be, has been irrecoverably swallowed by the maw of history. Perhaps in many years, there will be a public outcry for the truth, but by then the reports may be long gone. Documents had a way of going missing or being altered in the W. Bush administration...

And what about Pearl Harbor? When does an enemy attack on a largely militarized area give anyone the right to drop two nukes on two cities FULL of civilians? Sorry to move things off-topic with all this. Most historians (American and non-American) now believe that our reaction was not only unnecessary, but a crime against humanity. What's more, the "party-line" for why we dropped the nukes (to end the war) is said to be a cover. Rather, the nukes were an attempt to show Russia that our nukes worked and that we were willing to use them. Perhaps, there are other, more complicated reasons as well. Try finding that one in the high school history books though. I suppose it's the victors who write history, huh?

I'm sure, though, that the following replies will consist of bashing the second paragraph of my post. T_T At least I'm prepared for it!

Well, notquite00, good thing that pearl harbor did happen. How do you suppose could we drop the nukes if we weren't even involved in the war? Russians may have dropped theirs then, and now, we would be talking about the collapse of the Ruble, the world reserve currency.

I sincerely doubt that Russia would have dropped their bombs on the US as a test, just as we didn't use Russian civilians to test ours. Remember, at that time, Japan had no nukes, so we weren't afraid of so-called MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction. If we accept that we also used the nuke to scare Russia, then obviously we were hopping Russia would back-off their nuclear bomb project out of fear.

After we dropped the nukes, Russia did NOT back-off. We know this because...the Cold War occurred.
Remember that Russia first tested their bomb only in 1949, where as we had already *used* two of ours in 1945. Seeing us drop our bomb probably frightened the Russians quite a bit, which, I'd imagine, only led them to accelerate their atomic bomb project. Bottom line, maybe Russia got its nuclear bomb in 1949 and not later *because* we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe if we had not given the impression that we were "trigger-happy," tensions would not have risen so high between Russia and the US. However, I do think MAD would have still been an issue.

Personally, I think a much more effective message to send to the Russians would have been, "We have this scary bomb, and we know you're about to get one too. However, we don't want to use it on you guys, and I'm sure burning the flesh off our civilians isn't your idea of a good time either. Let's figure out a way to put our hell-weapons down and talk about this like civilized people."

This was a rhetorical question, bud.

//Fixed up//

Are you making fun of me, or did you misspell that accidentally? =\ I blame my parents' being foreigners for my not having a good sense of when someone's being sarcastic.

No, unless you were being totally sarcastic with that question, I think a response was appropriate.