Stunning video: Blaze engulfs skyscraper in Chechnya

Stunning video: Blaze engulfs skyscraper in Chechnya

Skyscraper Engulfed By Fire, Does Not Collapse

Building refuses to conform to post-9/11 understanding of physics

Paul Joseph Watson
April 4, 2013

The new understanding of physics since September 11, 2001, that limited fire damage can cause buildings to implode at almost free fall speed into their own footprints, was confounded once again as a 40-storey skyscraper in Chechnya was engulfed with flames for hours yet did not collapse.

The blaze consumed an apartment building in Grozny, the Chechen capital yesterday evening before it was eventually put out in the early hours of Thursday morning. Fires burned on every single floor of the structure apart from the ground floor.

“According to the emergencies service, the blaze has damaged an area of more than 14,000 square meters. It has completely destroyed the plastic trimming used on the building’s exterior, but the interior remained untouched,” reports RIA Novosti.

The building is the tallest structure in the region outside of Moscow, standing at 145-meters (475-foot). No one was injured or killed in the blaze but dozens had to be evacuated.

Although officials expressed concern at one point that the building could collapse, its core structure was not affected by the huge fire.

Compare the skyscraper in Grozny to the similar-sized WTC Building 7 on 9/11, which was not hit by a plane, suffered comparably limited fire damage, and yet collapsed almost into its own footprint at near free fall speed.

Following 9/11, scientists agreed that instead of accepting the premise that some form of explosives must have been used to bring down WTC 7, physics itself must be wrong and that normal fires can burn hot enough to weaken steel cores, despite the fact that they were barely hot enough to break the vast majority of windows in Building 7.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was forced to invent a “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” to explain to collapse of WTC 7, labeling it “the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building” in history.

The collapse of Building 7 was so highly anticipated that it was reported before it happened by several news stations, including BBC and CNN. Firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down.

The Grozny skyscraper is just the latest example of a building refuse to conform to our new post-9/11 understanding of physics, following the example of a similar sized building in Beijing which was also consumed by fire in 2009 but remained standing.

Chechnya High Rise Burns For 29 Hours With No Collapse, WTC 7?

Chechnya High Rise Burns For 29 Hours With No Collapse, WTC 7?
Chechnya high rise burned for 29 hours
Joe Martino
Activist Post

On April 3rd Chechnya’s tallest building, a luxury hotel, caught fire and burned for 29 hours before finally being put out. The building is completely destroyed; however, it did not collapse. This raises many questions as to how World Trade Center 7 could have collapsed on 9/11 with only small fires on a couple of floors.

Looking at the photo taken of yesterday's blaze and comparing it to the WTC 7 photo taken on 9/11, we see two very different situations. In one we see a large portion of the building on fire and the fire appears to have been burning for some time. In another, we see almost no fire at all. Yet the building with little to no fire collapsed at free-fall speed into its own footprint in just 7 hours. The 29-hour blaze of Chechnya’s building left the building still standing.

This should raise some interesting questions as to why WTC 7 collapsed so quickly, or even why it collapsed at all.

I wanted to end this one off with one of my favorite WTC 7 videos. Although it doesn’t go into every shocking detail that proves WTC 7 could not have collapsed by fire and was in fact a controlled demolition, it gets straight to an obvious point that doesn’t take a scientist to figure out.

I would suggest that anyone who hasn’t researched WTC 7 yet, spend a bit of time checking it out. WTC 7 also fell on 9/11 and was not struck by any planes. For me, it was another nail in the coffin to an already obvious truth.

I also would like to be clear that this isn’t just about making a point, but also about the fact that there are some serious questions that have been raised about 9/11 and the US government has refused to answer or re-investigate.

As a society we must stop negating any real questions by calling them conspiracies, and instead open our minds up to the fact that there is some big time denial going on here about an event that has drastically changed the way our world functions.


And what about the towers?! Does the writer think this report from Chechnya only sheds light on the ridiculousness of the official story as it applies to an occurrence that most people weren't even aware of, and not as it applies to the events that most people remember about that day? Why this exclusive focus on building 7, as if it's the only loose thread, the only glaring falsehood of the official story?! The only glaring falsehood about what happend at Ground Zero, even? To rely on the point, 'and it wasn't even hit by a plane' drives me up the wall, as it only reinforces what is possibly the greatest distortion perpetrated in the public's mind that day--namely, that the plane crashes, in their impact and in the fires they started, are what brought the towers down. Remember, the FEMA and NIST reports on the towers' destruction is likewise a fire theory, as with building 7--they did NOT try to argue that damage from the plane impacts caused them to come down. Moreover, even on the day of 9/11 itself, a perception that there was something wrong about the WAY the towers came down was evident (e.g., Peter Jennings comments on air, the reporter at the press conference who asked Giuliani about secondary explosions). But, again, to keep saying of building 7 'and it wasn't even hit by a plane' implicitly promotes the false view that there was nothing really surprising in the fact that the towers' came down after being hit by planes, nothing unusual about the manner in which they did.

It took a David Ray Griffin presentation some years ago to finally convince me of controlled demolition at the WTC. Far from shying away from the subject of the towers, he covered them FIRST. I had started out still very much in need of convincing of controlled demolition, but I found his presentation on the towers to be so devastating to the official account, that by the time he got to discussing building 7 later on in the presentation, it was like icing on the cake.

I can't help but feel discouraged sometimes. The growth of the 9/11 truth movement was most dramatic back around 2005 to 2007, a time when truth activists talked about ALL the things that were wrong with the OCT. People might argue that: it's a helpful entry point, something to get people started--and I agree with that, as far as it goes. What I'm much less sure about is the seeming belief that once people hear about building 7, they'll come around to learning about all else that's wrong with the OCT. While such an approach might well have been successful in reaching some people, sometimes I fear that it may instead be having a very different effect that is not being discussed: Leading much of the wider public--who've either forgotten about other points raised by the 9/11 truth movement in years past, or were never even made aware of those points in the first place--to think that the 'collapse' of building 7 is the only problem the truth movement has with the 9/11 official story. And in the process, reinforcing their (mis)perception re the basic soundess of the official account of what brought down the towers and killed all those people, thereby launching the war-that-will-not-end-in-our-lifetime (after all, if there were anything wrong with what they were told about that part of the story, surely the 9/11 truth arguments they encounter would include it). And this need not be so, particuarly in view of the kind of information from Chechnya, to go along with many other such events.

While this video is getting

While this video is getting little attention here, it has 40,000 + views in a couple of days, and most of the comments I've seen somehow relate
to 9/11.