Safe Mode: On
Mandarin Hotel vs WTC7

With the fiery inferno of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel (MOH) in Beijing on February 9, 2009, the obvious point of comparison is with World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) on September 11, 2001. Yes, the buildings were very similar in size and construction. Their heights were comparable, 522 ft. for MOH, vs. 610 ft. for WTC7. But the differences in the magnitude of the fires and ultimate results were dramatic, in the extreme.

Fires in the MOH raged on every floor, reportedly requiring between 13 and 30 minutes before the entire building was engulfed in flame (first photo). In contrast, WTC7 had small fires on only a few floors at a time, typically burning the office materials, then moving on. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reported fires on only 10 floors.

With the MOH engulfed by more extensive fires, the dramatic differences in eventual outcomes for the two buildin



Added: Feb-23-2009 
By: bushfocker
In:
Other
Tags: wtc7, 9/11, china, fire, demolition
Views: 7038 | Comments: 73 | Votes: 5 | Favorites: 3 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • It's too early in the morning to deal with whackjob truthers.

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (4) | Report

  • Bushflocker:

    Unless you are a certified structural engineer and can professioanlly refute the report below, I suggest that these conspiracy theories are best left to the same people who still believe the earth is flat.

    http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (4) | Report

  • The structual weight of each WTC tower was 500,000 tons. The 45,000 liters of exploding jet fuel consumed approximately twelve floors of plastics, fabrics, petroleum products, chemical mixtures, wood, paper, etc. Structural steel begins to soften at around 425C; the conflagration at the WTC exceeded 700C. The collapse of the Towers was due to three factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fires; structural trauma from the impact of the planes; loss of integrity due to distortion ( More..

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (3) | Report

  • hotstuffz:

    The NIST study took three years and is definitive. The Mandarin Hotel fires were not being fueled by jet fuels and their concomitant effects, as cited above.

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (3) | Report

    • I think the NIST study has been debunked by many engineers, How can you know exactly what happened inside a demolished building three years after it fell down and was cleaned up

      Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

      (-4) | Report

    • Show me the money. And I refer you to my previous comment concerning the VERY DETAILED study of the Building 7 collapse.

      Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

      (4) | Report

    • Click the Link below the video

      Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

      (-4) | Report

    • The huge gash in Building Seven is a major reason for its collapse. The bowing of the Mandarin hotel structure may be symptomatic of fire's ability to warp or bow structural steel, but there was never a sizable hole running down the hotel's superstructure, and none is cited in the link you provided. The two incidences are not the same at all.

      Now, YOU click on this link:

      http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

      Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

      (2) | Report

    • How much jet fuel got into WT7?

      Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

      (0) | Report

  • Bloody hell, we just had some school kid trolling about the Pentagon, now we got some kook comparing apples and screwdrivers.

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (2) | Report

  • What I find ludicrous is that in order to pull something such as a 9/11 "inside job" , you would need hundreds of people involved from the bomb planters, cover up agents, government officials in on the big gig, air traffic controllers, airlines people, and 19 pissed off Muslims willing to die for the great USA so that we could invade their countries and steal their oil??? And... during the planning phase of all this... not a single person raised their hand and said out loud "Hey More..

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (2) | Report

    • Actually it would be pretty easy, just keep the documents which could prove it to be top secret because of "national security".. case closed. You would also need a system of compartmentalism in which you are actively contributing small amounts without seeing the big picture of what you are contributing to. US does this all the time, other wise people wouldn't comply.

      Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

      (-1) | Report

    • Comment of user 'morganson281' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • @Proud Texan You said nothing intelligent to begin with. You would not need hundreds involved at all. You have absolutely no idea how compartmentalisation works. It was a false flag, deal with it you total moron.

      Posted Aug-19-2014 By 

      (0) | Report

  • "lowski" - I guess those images of people jumping out of their broken windows due to the intense heat somehow escaped your notice.

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (1) | Report

  • In any case, folks, I have cited all that I need to. If you still want to believe that this entire disaster was somehow orchestrated by the illuminti or a secret banker organization dedicated to globilzation, than enjoy your belief.

    Remember: George Bush couldn't take a shit and chew gum at the same time.

    I'm outa here. Bye.

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (1) | Report

    • Comment of user 'morganson281' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • blah blah blah, blah blah. Blah blah blah 9-11 blah blah blah wtc7 blah blah blah blah tinfoil hat. Blah blah, blah blah blah blah....<snore>zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Pale Ale - again, no. There was fatal structural damage to #7, and if you read the references I have posted here, you can see how severe that damage really was.

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

    • Comment of user 'morganson281' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • I would hesitate to call this the "proof" we need. But interesting juxtaposition anyway.

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • only difference is there's no plane ripping thru the building's supports half way up, FAIL

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Truthers are attention whores with no life. I am so thankful that I am not one of these pathetic, lonely, children. I pity them in a way.

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Pretty different buildings indeed. One type = tall and skinny, in lamens terrms for you all to try to comprehend, the other = short and wide with a massive base. Gee, I wonder which type would fail first?

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Time for another exciting round of Troofer Bingo!!!

    http://51short.com/imgref/bingo.png

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • I just wish I could have come up with that.

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Does any1 know who does this song?

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Cool song.

    This one is also pretty damn good.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTL070ymu6k

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (-1) | Report

  • funny that the cheap chinese steel held up but our building made out of good american steel fell....anybody that works with steel knows what I mean about chinese steel

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (-1) | Report

  • man troofers are dumb, run along little troofer run along and get hit by a bus.

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (-2) | Report

  • The truth's just too scary for some people BF .

    Posted Feb-23-2009 By 

    (-3) | Report