Russia's tallest building burns- a raging inferno - but does not collapse.

Wonder of wonders. They must be much better architects than us.

I guess someone forgot to press the implode button and blame Islamic terrorists.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elq6iBFVMaI

Luxury skyscraper hotel on FIRE in Russia's Grozny, Chechnya : DRAMATIC VIDEO.

Interesting comment:
I got money saying it doesn't fall into its footprint at free fall speed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6LsLcX_ItY

Now that's a fire.

And yet it did not collapse.

I just love the commentator's voice and cadence; it was like he was giving us a play by play of a golf game....
The Russians and perhaps even Putin are in shock just now; just wait and see if they suddenly invade some tiny third world type of country(no, not one in central Asia like Afghanistan; Tristan da Cunah perhaps... They must have set the fire or crashed a boat into it!

was it hit by a plane weighing more than 300,000 pounds traveling at 400 mph?

damn that Newton..

No, and neither WAS BUILDING NUMBER 7.
Which didn't have nearly as big a fire.

But you see what it did.

It collapsed.

how did bldg 7 catch on fire?

I heard a rumour that they use real steel & concrete for buildings in Russia. Until now I figured it was just another wild rumour and that they too used white metal & Silly Putty like we do...Guess I was wrong.

Owned.

does it matter how? the fact is it wasn't hit by a damn thing and it collapsed into it's own footprint anyway in seconds......no damn way that was ANYTHING except a controlled demolition.

YUP

OMG,The Inginurs at work again!

Mixing Apples and Oranges as usual,and making the normal Mess!

One problem with you all thinking!
This Building is structurally intact,whereas the Towers weren't!
And Tower #7 was damaged by burning Debris from the other Towers!
Pulease go on spinning your Yarn!

http://www.rferl.org/content/chechnya-skyscraper-fire/24947061.html

http://rt.com/news/moscow-tower-catches-fire-068/

...and then there were two?
Has to be a Conspiracy by the Putin-KGB along with that Kravitz Woman!

RIA Novosti said preliminary information indicated the fire was caused by a short circuit. Plastic trimming on the exterior was destroyed. The building's interior was untouched, according to the news agency.

Wednesday, officials told CNN that no one was living at the building at the time of the fire. It was not clear whether those evacuated were workers or others temporarily in the building.

Most of the floors of the building -- the largest in Chechnya, and built just a few years ago, according to RIA Novosti -- were on fire, a police source told the news agency.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/03/world/russia-grozny-building-fire/index.html?eref=edition



This alone makes one MAJOR difference. Also Russian building 40 floors. WTC 110 floors. Major difference in weight/stress.

There is absolutely no comparision here.

So building 7 was hit with some falling debris. (yawn) and it started a fire right? And it was the fire that caused that building to suddenly nearly free fall into its foot print according to the official report.

It was not damage to the actual building that caused it to fall... IT WAS THE FIRE according to the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Wow.

You know, if buildings were that easy to take down, then explosive experts would be out of business.


I don't know of any other building fire that caused that kind of collapse do you?

Building 7 was only 49 floors. Who said anything about 110 floors?
Building 7 was not hit by a plane.
Building 7's fire was so much smaller than the one you see pictured here.

ACCORDING TO NIST.GOV

Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system (see the answer to Question 9).
Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

IN RESPONSE TO THAT:

FROM JOESPH WATSON, PRISON PLANET:

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, August 22, 2008

In its final report on the collapse of WTC 7 that news outlets are reporting “puts 9/11 conspiracy theories to bed,” NIST claims that the never before observed “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” was to blame for the destruction of the building, a completely ludicrous conclusion in a report that simply ignores eyewitness testimony and hard evidence that points to the deliberate demolition of the structure.

NIST completely fails to address prior knowledge of the building’s collapse, including why news outlets like the BBC and CNN reported that the building had collapsed an hour before it actually fell, as well as firefighters on the scene who are heard on video saying, “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.”
If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a “new phenomenon” and an “extraordinary event” that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, then why did news stations and ground zero workers know it was about to happen a hour or more in advance?

And are the two buildings architecturally the same? Building 7 did not have standard skyscraper architecture and it also was damage from collapses of other buildings.

You argument is basically me comparing 2 people getting shot. "The first guy got shot and lived, the second guy died but since the first guy lived the second couldn't have been killed by a bullet. It must have been aliens or his internal organs did an inside job"

Except a controlled demolition is a scientific impossibility.... but lets just forget that. Who needs science anyway.

Not at all. They had 6 to eight weeks to plant charges and a total lack of any security in those buildings.

This is the age of technology and who knows how they took those buildings down, but it sure wasn't an airplane or a fire.