Botched building demolition reinforces WTC 7 Lie

Status
Not open for further replies.

magick

magick

magick

Soldato
Joined
11 Apr 2004
Posts
4,413
Botched building demolition reinforces WTC 7 Lie

Demolition workers facing questions over the botched implosion of a building in Turkey only have themselves to blame, since they didn’t follow new laws of physics introduced on 9/11 which dictate that to achieve a perfect demolition of a building all you need to do is set a few office fires and wait for the entire structure to fall perfectly in its own footprint while partially evaporating into dust.

The planned demolition of a 25-metre high structure in Cankiri, central Turkey went badly wrong last week when the building rolled over onto its roof like a giant matchbox.

Despite the fact that the building was an old disused flour factory from 1928, its underground support structure proved strong enough to resist the blasts, unlike World Trade Center 7 which crumbled neatly into its own footprint within seven seconds on 9/11 after suffering sporadic fires across no more than 8 floors.

Other buildings that suffered fires since 9/11 have also stubbornly refused to follow the new laws of physics, coined “thermal expansion” by NIST, that were introduced on the day of the terror attacks.

Take for example the Windsor Building in Madrid, a 32 story skyscraper which was a raging inferno for no less than 24 hours before fire crews were able to put out the flames. Despite the building being constructed of columns a fraction as thick as those used in the WTC twin towers, as well as a total lack of fireproofing, the building’s top section only partially collapsed while the integrity of the whole structure remained firmly intact.

Likewise, the Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire in Beijing suffered raging fires across the entirety of its structure for hours, turning the building into a towering inferno and yet the structure did not collapse. 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, yet the structure still annoyingly refused to comply with the new laws of physics introduced by NIST.

This frustrated 9/11 truth debunkers who were boisterous about the collapse of bridges in San Francisco and Minnesota in 2007, bizarrely claiming that quarter inch dowels could be compared to 5 inch thick steel plate core columns, and yet were strangely silent when the hotel in Beijing did not conform to their expectations.

Watch the clips below.

continued with pictures on http://www.infowars.com/botched-building-demolition-reinforces-wtc-7-lie/
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
An honest question anyway, but why did these buildings not collapse and WTC7 did? The fires look worse in the other buildings.
 
me227 said:
An honest question anyway, but why did these buildings not collapse and WTC7 did? The fires look worse in the other buildings.
Click to expand...

totally different deisgns, plays a massive part
The Madrid building in the OP had a similarish construction for the top 6 floors. That section collapsed in just 2hr30mins. The rest of the tower was a completely different designs and clad in concordat which is very fireproof.
Also no other building has been hit by a passenger plane.

The OP is like comparing an apple to a cow.
 
facepalm
 
AcidHell2 said:
totally different deisgns, plays a massive part
The Madrid building in the OP had a similarish construction for the top 6 floors. That section collapsed in just 2hr30mins. The rest of the tower was a completely different designs and clad in concordat which is very fireproof.
Also no other building has been hit by a passenger plane.

The OP is like comparing an apple to a cow.
Click to expand...

Correct me if i'm wrong but the WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane either. It mysteriously caught fire in several places then suddenly imploded and collapsed at free-fall speed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom