Alert individuals will have been shocked to notice that in Moscow’s financial district, a raging inferno engulfed the still under construction “Federation Tower”. Despite the fire burning between the 65th and 67th floors for in excess of 3 hours, no fire suppressant system installed and high winds continually fanning the flames – it did not collapse.
News reports were crystal clear on the severity of the fires; “Orange flames were leaping about 250 meters (880 feet)” – AP. “The top floor was nearly completely ablaze, with the fire smoothing out and then bursting again. The wind in lower floors facilitated the fire’s expansion. The huge image boards on the skyscraper’s walls were ignited and threatened neighboring buildings.” “The blaze could be seen from as far as ten kilometers away. ” Witnesses say it resembles a “fiery crown on top of the building.” – RT News
This latest skyscraper fire is somewhat at odds with the official version of events on September 11th 2001 when BOTH of the twin towers of the World Trade Centre Complex in New York collapsed after smaller less intense fires burned for much less time. The South Tower had burned for only 56 minutes before collapsing directly onto it’s own footprint at near freefall speed, meanwhile the North Tower took only 102 minutes before it too collapsed exactly on to it’s own footprint. No other skyscraper in history has ever entirely collapsed due to fire – except on this day. A third building, Bulding 7 of the World Trade Centre Complex also collapsed directly on to it’s own footprint despite the fact it was not hit by a plane. Again in this instance, fire was blamed despite film clearly showing that the fires were relatively small and in isolated pockets.
Footage later emerged of building 7 collapsing almost completely symmetrically – similar to what would be witnessed with a controlled demolition. BBC Reporter Jane Standley famously made her report on the morning of 9/11 stating that building 7 had collapsed, while in the background of the camera shot building 7 could quite clearly be seen still standing. It eventually fell approx 23 minutes later and fueled further questions on just exactly how the BBC knew of the impending collapse which they had seemingly reported prematurely.
This latest building fire in Moscow only further reinforces the evidence that the official story of how the towers fell on 9/11 due to fires is a complete fabrication with no scientific precedent in history.∗
Photos – RIA Novosti / Alexey Filippov / Vitaliy Matveev
More on this story – CBC News Canada BBC News RT.com
Read more related posts:
BREAKING NEWS 2pm,"The divers are n...
Disclosure movie Sirius is moving forwar...
For years I have been fascinated by the ...
Starting in May 2006 and peaking in 2007...
When I saw the news report about these fires, I knew it would stir another round of debate about the 9/11 “official report”. I’m a person that is still waiting the official confirmation of the finding of explosives in the towers, having good memory and having watched live the multiple reports and speculation about how the towers seemed to have fall from explosions, speculations which were aired the very day of the events. I also saw the WTC collapse live on TV, and thought to myself “Why did they demolish that one?” Only dumbed down people can really look at the footage of the events and swallow the “official account”.
i am gonna guess that due to the fact that it was still under construction and wasnt hit by a plane it wouldnt collapse. i mean come on why would just a simple fire cause a collapse?
The building in Russia was not hit by a plane travelling at 500mph!
Kevin, neither was Building 7 of the World Trade Centre complex. It too, collapsed exactly into it’s own footprint. The footage is on YouTube of the building falling – it is quite clearly a controlled demolition. There’s also an interview with WTC owner Larry Silverstein stating they had to “the smartest thing to do was to pull it” which is slang for a controlled demolition.
Do your research.
Hi. After many years of thinking there was bombs in the buildings and then dismissing that belief due to lies told in many Documentaries, I have now reviewed the latest footage available and am astounded I could have ever thought other than there were bombs inside the buildings. I think after years of unhappiness and being considered mad by my peers for believing bombs were used that it was just easier to think otherwise. So, tail between legs, I was wrong. THERE were bombs inside the Twin Towers and Building 7
James, I have watched ALL the 911 docs. But, wasn’t the artical comparing the collapse/fire of the Twin Towers to the fire in Russia ? Building 7 had massive damage at the back of the building with a huge gapping hole. The whole structure had been compromised, but we never see the pics of that in the conspiracy videos. For every explosions expert that says pull it is a demolishing term there is 2 that contradict. Although Larry said pull it, it has been said by firemen that pull them is a fire fighting term for pulling the people. Larry did say pull them, but it was such a mind boggling day and people can be forgivin for muddling up words. If you watch screw loose change you will get the figures on the insurance he recieved, costs and future earnings and losses Larry made. Building 7 did look like a controlled explosion, but there were no “pops” from the ground up as in normal controlled demolishing. I am not an expert on exploding buildings, but I have heard conflicting information from many experts. PS, I think Bush knew and let it happen, and I think other traitors who consider themselves patriots helped in the organization of 911. It was an inside job, to an extent, just not what Alex Jones says it is.
PPS, James, you would feel silly about your “do your research” comment if you knew the research I have done since 2003/4 and still do. A true researcher is always revising the facts.
This is all pretty ignorant to me. The building fire in Russia is on top of the building, not 3/4 of the way up it. The number of people that would have to be involved is astounding. There is no way to do this on purpose and not have a major leak. I read the scientific reasoning for the building collapsing and found it to be accurate as far as I could tell. I can see the weight of the initial part of the structure that collapsed could pancake down and look like controlled demo. The flashes below could be electrical explosions, I am not sure about that. Something like this has never happened and was covered by so much footage from so many angles. We are going to see things we have never seen before when you can see every detail. Whenever something big happens, here comes the conspiracies!
@Ron, I think the eye witness reports, visual evidence and the proof of gagging orders and disappearing witnesses is enough for one to come to an educated conclusion. It’s easier to think the government would never commit such acts against its own people. Deceit is the nature of Government!
@Kevin, How reputable is this kind of information. Funny with all the local news stations and other media never heard of any of that. Sensationalism is rampant nowadays, its all over the place. Its all worth money too. Look at all the so called reality shows.
you have to use your brain free fall can only happen with an expert demolition and how did the reporter know before seven went down and sorry? what hole in the back ? check the reports my friend there were no holes in building seven only fires burning behind unsmashed windows