Another High Rise in China Burns Completely Without Collapse

On Nov. 15th in China a 28 storey building burned on almost every floor, and stood the next day to be inspected. This was the fire:

And the next day:

Even the scaffolding is standing!!!

Furthermore, people are being held accountable in this very recent Chinese fire!

 The 9/11 victims families are still waiting for answers and accountability.

This is the fire that engulfed the Chinese CCTV building last year (and did not collapse):

And the American populace is supposed to think that World Trade Center #7 fell from a fire - that burned a few floors?

That is what NIST would like you to believe.

This is WTC #7 “falling” on 9/11/01:

This is just one of many examples that a steel-framed high-rise building will not fall from fire, no matter how long and intense it burns, according to our case histories.

Only controlled demolitions can bring down buildings in seconds; cleanly, uniformly, and to dust or into “footprints” as we saw happen on 9/11/01.

wonderful example of stating the obvious..

..and what is obvious needs repeating and showing..

It is fear of the realization of such consequences of a 9/11 false flag op and cove-up that overcomes many with fear that they willingly choose not to see the obvious.. But either we have a society based on laws and science, or chaos that threatens us all. Thanks for re-posting..

For a resource page on this issue at Flyby News, see:
New 9/11 Investigation vs New World Order

Unless a building...

Is built identically to one of the WTC Towers, I don't think it makes for a good example of what should have happened to them. Especially when taking the towers into consideration (they had massive planes fly into them). A computer model should be set up with the exact specifications of the buildings, with a good physics model that would show what should have really happened to them. If one has not already been built.

Oh no...

"they had massive planes fly into them"

WTC 7 didn't have a massive plane fly into it.

Jon, there have been innumerable highrise fires in the world, and yes, in some cases even ones initiated by airplanes (outside 9/11). In not a single case of even a very massive and long-lasting fire has a highrise collapsed. It is completely unreasonable to expect an identical situation to either the twin towers or WTC 7 (which had a different structure). If steel-framed higrises could collapse floor by floor to the ground while completely disintegrating during the process, that would have happened elsewhere too. There has not been as a much as a hint that anything like that could happen due to fires or other random damage. As it is, steel buildings are constructed so that they do not collapse from fires (which is the official explanation in all 9/11 cases as well) or some local random damage.

In my opinion...

It's like comparing apples to oranges, and I KNOW WTC7 didn't have a massive plane fly into it. I said the towers. And no commercial airliner the size of the ones that struck the towers on 9/11 has ever hit another building to my knowledge. I realize you're not allowed to have a differing opinion in this movement with regards to how those buildings came down. Believe me, I know.

If the standard comparing

If the standard comparing buildings is that they have to be identical copies, then there will never be any comparisons at all, and it will render all building analysis irrelevant. Buildings are not mass produced in factories, and therefore you have to do nearest neighbor analysis instead of clone analysis. This is just common sense.

Saying that you can't compare buildings unless they're identical is like saying that doctors can't assess two different patients unless they're identical twins. After all, every human is different, just like every building is different. But, of course, doctors have to look at general trends and apply to different people with different physiologies.

So, I agree with Vesa and think that all of these raging infernos (Philly, Madrid, many others) are absolutely relevant analogs to Building 7 and, to a lesser extent, to towers 1 and 2.

And you mentioned that you'd like to have simulations done of the towers. You might want to check out the great work of Jonathan Cole, which you're probably already familiar with, 'cause he has tons of simulations (a.k.a. "tests"): Or you could check out NIST's own attempt to induce structural failure in their secret tests that Kevin Ryan exposed. It's shown about 1:07 into 'Loose Change: Final Cut' -

Hey, I think it'd be great to have a carbon copy of the towers erected and then duplicate the events as a 1:1 test. But that'd cost countless millions of dollars. (As far as computer simulations go, anybody familiar with video game engines or Hollywood effects will tell you that there's a hundred times more that they don't know to compute or can't compute than they can. So computer simulations are just general aid tools, at best. That's my opinion.)

Every human...

Has identical organs, in the same exact place. That's a bad analogy, but whatever... I don't think if building A, which has a completely different design than building B, should be shown as an example of what should have happened to building B.


... I just presented my differing opinion, Jon. :-)

That opinion is based on the ENTIRE evidence that points to all three buildings having been destroyed by controlled demolition. That evidence includes

- the above-discussed lack of other examples (incidentally, don't you think that e.g. hits from missiles used in wars should be more effective in destroying buildings than airplanes or just fire, as in the case of WTC 7?)
- the way the buildings were destroyed
- the physical impossibilty of complete freefall (WTC 7) across the span of 8 stories except in controlled demolition
- the way the building disasters were "investigated": no serious investigation into unprecedented highrise disaster would be preceded by the destruction of virtually all the research material - something that even a young kid should be able to realize
- no real investigation would include completely obvious distortions, as exemplified here:

And so on and on. So it's definitely not just about HOW the buildings came down. But yes, I do support construction of computer models to further prove the case.

I love when people...

Say that I am not as bright as a child. Really makes me want to participate.

I didn't say that

I said that even a young kid should be able to realize that the investigations into the WTC disaster are not valid - AND I remember you yourself, Jon, once replying to me here on 911Blogger that to you the NIST WTC 7 investigation does not look valid.

So you definitely don't seem to be less bright than a young kid, Jon. :-)

DRG once used a similar young kid analogy regarding some aspect of the OCT. Alas, I wasn't able to find that reference.

Opinions are one thing, facts are another thing.

So Mr gold, I'm sorry, maybe I didn't read all the debates here about your opinion, but if I can understand well, you are actually saying 1200 architects and engineers are wrong to claim they present facts, that in the end they just have an opinion, as you do, and thus, we shouldn't push so much the CD theory, even if huge questions about those collapses have never been answered by NIST or any debunking articles or tv show?

All this nano thermite evidence is just subjective?

Maybe I missed a few debates containing crucial piece of evidence that would seriously undermine what Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Steven E Jones and all are claiming.

I'm just trying to understand. Because the "right to an opinion" is not exactly clear in my mind in this case. Would that mean that we should have accepted also the opinion of the space beam theory group? Or the no planers?

I'm kind of lost here. I thought the evidence was overwhelming at this point about control demolition, and I read your post, you, an activist I respect so much, saying your "opinion" differs... why? Can you provide me a link where you explain clearly what facts you know that contradict what I read day after day here that support the CD theory ?

I don't want to start a big debate here, I just want to better understand what are your views about the facts that are presented for instance by AE911 truth.


I think bombs in the buildings is something entirely different than a professional "Controlled Demolition."

Well, let's see, could "bombs in the buildings" have been

put there to help the structures stay upright????

U can call it CD, call it Ray-Jay, call it a baloney sandwich,

they was all 3 still blown to freakin' smithereens.

Newton, Einstein and plenty others can PROVE that.


What do you mean exactly?

Bombs put there by terrorists? Bombs so well placed they would pulverize 3 buildings while falling on their own footprint?

Wow, I'm even more confused now.

I want to understand your point of view, out of respect, because I know you are an intelligent man, so I'm curious to know what are your thoughts on the matter since I've read many comments you wrote saying your opinions are not welcomed here while never knowing exactly what they are.


It may have been Mossad or Blackwater for all we know, but placing bombs in the buildings is something entirely different than a professional "Controlled Demolition." I think it's possible the term has been overused, and possibly incorrectly. I think "explosives" or "bombs in the buildings" might be more accurate than a "Controlled Demolition."


Can you be more specific? You enunciate a theory right there. I'm open minded about it. But please elaborate a little? What made you come to that theory? Any hints, clues, evidence?

Because, to discredit the nano thermite experiments I've seen here, which were serious and very conclusive in my view, I think you need more than just an opinion expressed in two lines.

I don't want you to perceive me as sarcastic or derogatory. I really am curious.

You see, I was interested and pretty much sold to what the CIT came up with. But then I took the time to read what professor Harrit (not sure about the spelling) wrote, and also what SnowCrash has posted here, and I changed my mind about the flyover theory. So I am open to questioning our certainties as long as I have facts to consider.

So that's why I'm asking you to help me better understand why you feel you have a valid opinion that is too easily rejected in here? What are the aspects of the 3 WTC towers "collapse" that lead you to think it could be bombs that were placed there instead of a nano-thermite controlled demolition planned in details months, if not years in advance?

Has nanothermite...

Ever been used for a professional "Controlled Demolition?"

And I don't have a "theory" other than perhaps Mossad or Blackwater being involved. There is more information to suggest Mossad than Blackwater, but Blackwater seems like the type of organization that would do something like that, and they surely benefitted from 9/11.

I just think a professional "Controlled Demolition" taking place in those buildings is unlikely as compared to just bombs in the buildings.

Bombs cause random damage

WTC 7 was destroyed in a way that matches a very skilful conventional controlled demolition. I don't think "bombs" could possibly have done that. Similarly, in the Twin Towers hundreds of columns, across the entire width of the buildings, had to snap within a fraction of a second on several floors.

Again, think about a hit on a building by a rocket launcher or a missile. They cause random damage, as do bombs. Or earthquakes. We do not seem buildings come down the way they did on 9/11 in wars or earthquakes -- only in controlled demolitions.

I'm not saying that the Twin Towers were a conventional CD. They were not. WTC 7 may not have been all that conventional, either. But it surely very closely resembles one, as Geraldo also noted.

Random Explosives? Gravity? Or Something more obvious?

As Brent Blanchard wrote...

... "A review of photographic images clearly show about 95 % of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure, creating
a giant 'mushroom' effect around its perimeter."

What mr Blanchard forgets in his attempt to buttress the official story is that no material falling outside a building's footprint can contribute to its collapse. If anything close to 95 percent of the material ended up outside the buildings' footprints, the buildings were exploded.

Thanks for pointing this out,

"no material falling outside a building's footprint can contribute to its collapse"...
Sometimes, it is the little things we overlook.

WTC 7 is clearly a classic contolled demolition,

a textbook example, I would say (and I feel safe in stating that more than one professional has also stated the same, Danny Jowenko being one).

The Twin Towers, on the other hand, are better described as explosive demolitions (or perhaps uncontrolled demolitions) as they were largely top down and ejected debris which damaged nearby buildings.

That said, all three building demolitions had to have been very carefully engineered by professionals for them to have come down as observed.

Furthermore, the fact that the Twin Towers each took a plane strike and remained standing for 56 and 102 minutes means that the plane strikes played no part in the structural failure of each building (please see the 14 points paper for more on this).

Additionally, we know that the fires were also not intense or extensive enough to cause the structural failures needed to bring each tower down to the ground in the manner recorded (please also see the 14 points paper for more on this).

Add to this the fact that nanothermite has been found in the dust samples studied and the large amounts of molten iron and it is quite clear that a combination of incendiaries and explosives were used by professionals to destroy all three buildings.

Just because nanothermite has never been used in a commercial controlled demolition does not mean that it was not used to help bring down the three WTC buildings on 9/11/01.

[ I think it is always important to remember that no one has ever taken down buildings as tall as the Twin Towers before, so there was more than one precedent being made that day.]

Jon, if your point here is that we should all be very careful about how we describe the destruction of WTC 7 and the Twin Towers, and even more careful when comparing the two, then I support your point.

If, however, your point is to somehow cast doubt on the physical reality that all three buildings were demolished by unknown professionals employing state-of-the-art technologies, then I really think you need to sit down with some engineers and physicists and finally have all your questions answered so that you can finally move past this point (and we can stop having these same tiring interrogations each time the subject comes up and you choose to chime in).

Please note that I am not saying that everything we need to know about the demolitions at the WTC is known and that there are not still many unanswered questions regarding the events at the WTC.

Please feel free to clarify your position regarding the destruction of the three WTC buildings.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.


Like that.


Please be more specific (ambiguity is not helpful here).


jon thx

4 raising points as i just learned something from you and from leffwright
to do with terminology and the finer points about 9/11
if you hadnt raised points and taught me something along the way, leffwright wouldnt have mentioned his side and i wouldnt have learned from him

as for the rest of you voting stuff down jus cause you can, you shud be ashamed of ur selves
go to your rooms (oh , youre already there, tidy them then!)

i will now attempt to partially resuscitate some of the negatively voted down comments above whilst for comic value voting my own comment down immediately on posting it

So you agree with Left Wright?

Because he sums up what my opinion is also.

I still don't know why you said your opinions are not welcomed here, because if you agree with him, your opinion is precisely what I read here all the time...

Man, this is confusing.

space beam

I think saying the collapse was not caused by explosives in a controlled manner falls in the same category as space beams and holograms. We know better than this. As for a model, we asked NIST for a copy of theirs generated with taxpayer money and they refused.

Thanks, but no

I do not agree with you Jon.

No disrespect, but I find it perfectly legitimate to compare the buildings.

The buildings are essentially built of the same materials, and to have a carbon copy is impossible.
UL labs did as good as a replica as we have seen for now.

Furthermore, with specs, I am sure WTC #7 would be found to be much STRONGER structurally than this Chinese high rise.

We can compare apples to oranges too! They fall in Gravity no different from each other!

What this post is comparing is how they hit, or don't hit the ground after you shake the tree, not the fruit itself.

The building is the medium, and the fire is the energy.

This post has shown that the energy in fire is not enough to completely collapse the medium (building) as we saw with WTC 7. This can be seen in any high-rise fire, because unless it has "got bombs" it won't fall like WTC 7!

Why you have a bone to pick is beyond me.

This may be what you are looking for:
Gordon Ross' site, I believe.

Gordon Ross lecture

The Spinklers.....

near column 79 in this building must have working.

No WTC Steel used here

Evidently, they did not use the recycled WTC steel for the construction of this building.

Very good one!

I still have cramps over that one!

Clever humor...

is always welcome!

the perps

are putting some of the remaining evidence into memorials on guarded, no public access DoD land