latest false flag attack?

[Peter Fairbrother]

On 25/09/18 23:27, juan wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 08:19:15 +0100
> Peter Fairbrother <peter at tsto.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Cases,
>> especially from Russia and China, were excluded because data was lacking
>> or censored.
> 
> 	China's Netizens Ridicule CCTV Fire - so much for censorship.

I guess the Chinese authorities found it hard to deny that the fire 
existed. They did try to censor it. But reticence and censorship may 
well play a part in the lack of easily-available data about the fire.

What I couldn't find is details like the result of the fire, time 
uncontrolled inside the building, and the extent of the fire.

But I didn't look very hard, or for very long. I looked at about 110 
fires, picked out those I thought were structurally significant, then 
looked for data on materials of construction.

In about 8 cases where I couldn't find any data on the extent of the 
fire I excluded it. In about 10 cases where data was scant I either 
excluded or included the fire based on partial data and guesswork.

Some of the materials listed, especially for the smaller buildings, are 
the result of a quick look at a photo and "that's obviously rc", rather 
than written sources. And many of the sources were second or third or 
fifth hand, but I just used the first one I came on which had the data I 
was looking for in it.

And all in about 4 hours. So don't expect too much.


> 	Now this does look like a fucking "major conflagration"
> 	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg

No. It certainly doesn't look structurally significant.

"By structurally significant I mean where by my estimation there was 
significant insult to the structural parts of the building from fire - 
roughly, a large fire over much of the area of several floors, which 
lasted uncontrolled for an hour or more, and eg where the fire wasn't 
mostly on the outside of the building."

It looks spectacular, but if that was the worst of it I'd take it off my 
list of structurally significant fires.

What is shown there is a fire in outer parts of one or two lower floors 
on one side, fire in parts of one corner of the building - not large 
parts, the building is huuuge - and a whole lot of fire on the outside 
of the building, in the bamboo scaffolding.

By far the most spectacular part was the when the bamboo scaffolding 
caught fire, not the building itself. Engulfed in flames, yes. 
Structurally significant, no.

BTW the explosions are bamboo scaffolding - the air in the closed bamboo 
segments gets hot and expands, then the bamboo gives way explosively.

I wasn't sure that the Beijing TV fire counts - afaict most of the fire 
is outside where it doesn't insult the structure. But I included it 
anyway, on my best guess.


As I said, the list wasn't meant to be authoritative, inclusive or 
exclusive: merely indicative.


The nearby Mandarin Oriental hotel which was set on fire by the Beijing 
TV station may have been worthy of inclusion too, or perhaps instead of 
- some of the "Beijing TV fire" videos are actually of the nearby hotel, 
not Beijing TV - but I couldn't be bothered sorting it out.



ps the Beijing TV building was under construction, so there wouldn't 
have been carpets, furnishings, office equipment, standby generator fuel 
etc to feed the fire. That would have helped it survive. I was going to 
exclude fires were the building was under construction - they are 
surprisingly common -but decided not to.



-- Peter Fairbrother