skyscraper on fire in beijing

  Awepittance said:

the statistical improbability of such an event has caused me zero curiosity.

lol...

apparently people are afraid to face the deeper conspiracy...the conspiracy to conceal the existence of:

steel-boring termites.

I think the popping noises you hear in the video are just from fireworks that people are setting off.

Video reminds me of that movie about ice skating.

  277: 930-933 said:

I think the popping noises you hear in the video are just from fireworks that people are setting off.

Video reminds me of that movie about ice skating.

Blade Runner?

eat my ass assegai

That sounds about right, assegai.

all of you can eat my ass.

There were fireworks before... it's what started the fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP50yddytzs from 30 minutes before the fire, there was a big fireworks show around the building that set it on fire. Crazy yes, but hey its China. THe atrium inside the building just fed the fire like a chimney, since sprinklers were not yet installed.

p.s.: It's a reinforced concrete structure, shaddap conspiracy bitches. WTC7 was "left to burn" by firemen because it was evacuated and they had to put their efforts on rescue. The Beijing fire was controlled by the firemen.

don't if this has been mentioned already, but the building that is/was on fire was not the building posted by chaos (not the rem koolhaas design) but a builing next to it that's part of the same complex.

  lumpenprol said:

  Awepittance said:

the statistical improbability of such an event has caused me zero curiosity.

 

lol...

 

apparently people are afraid to face the deeper conspiracy...the conspiracy to conceal the existence of:

 

 

steel-boring termites.

heh ..

What's Blade Runner?

  OneToThirtySix said:

What's Blade Runner?

Wikipedia article on Blade Runner

  Philip Glass said:

  OneToThirtySix said:

What's Blade Runner?

 

 

Wikipedia article on Blade Runner

 

Weird.  I thought it was a movie.

  Quote

漁貓

维基百科，自由的百科全书

跳转到: 导航, 搜索

?

漁貓

 

保护现状

 

瀕危 (IUCN) [1]

科學分類

界： 動物界 Animalia

門： 脊索動物門 Chordata

綱： 哺乳綱 Mammalia

目： 食肉目 Carnivora

科： 貓科 Felidae

亞科： 貓亞科 Felinae

屬： 豹猫屬 Prionailurus

種： 漁貓 P. viverrinus

二名法

Prionailurus viverrinus

(Bennett, 1833)

亞種

 

* P. v. viverrinus

* P. v. risophores

 

異名

 

Felis viverrinus (Bennett, 1833)

 

漁貓（学名：Prionailurus viverrinus）是一种中等体型的猫科动物，主要分布於中南半岛、印度、巴基斯坦、斯里兰卡、蘇門答臘、爪哇岛和台湾。

 

漁貓学名的种加词“viverrinus”意为“灵猫”，这源於其外表与灵猫有些许相似。

目录

[隐藏]

 

* 1 分类

* 2 特征

* 3 生态习性

o 3.1 栖息地

o 3.2 食性

o 3.3 行为

o 3.4 繁育

* 4 保护现状

* 5 参考资料

* 6 外部链接

 

[编辑] 分类

 

* Prionailurus viverrinus viverrinus：指名亚种，分布在蘇門答臘、东南亚及印度。

* Prionailurus viverrinus risophores：分布在爪哇岛和巴厘岛。

 

[编辑] 特征

 

漁貓全身棕灰或橄榄灰色，躯体分布有稀疏的棕黑色斑纹[2]，头顶至颈後排列有平行的棕黑色带纹，脸部最明显的特征是其扁平的鼻子。尾短粗，长度一般为躯体的一半至1/3[2]，躯体强壮，下颚和脖子粗壮，齿较小[3]，腿短，小耳白色，耳边缘有黑色环。爪有力，趾间具半蹼，向前伸直，且不能完全缩回，这是由於其爪鞘较短。其爪是区别於其他猫科动物的显著特征之一。

 

渔猫体长65－85 cm，体重6－14 kg。[2][4]其体型在不同地区的大小均有差异：印度渔猫体长80 cm，尾长30 cm；而印尼渔猫体长仅有65 cm，尾长25 cm。印度渔猫个体重量可达到11.7 kg，而印尼渔猫的一般重量为6 kg。雌性渔猫体型明显小於雄性渔猫。[4]

 

[编辑] 生态习性

 

[编辑] 栖息地

 

如其近亲豹猫一样，渔猫居住於海拔1500米以下[4]的河流、溪流、芦苇湿地及红树林湿地等淡水资源丰富区域。渔猫对其栖息地具有良好的适应性，极擅长游泳和潜水。

 

[编辑] 食性

 

渔猫一名反映了其主要猎物之一是鱼类，包括大概10种，不过其近亲扁头猫（Prionailurus planiceps）对鱼类的需求比其更甚；同时它也会捕食其他水生生物，包括蛙类、淡水龙虾、螃蟹、甲壳类和软体动物等，以及陆地生物，包括啮齿类、鸟类、小牛、山羊、狗以及大型动物的尸体等。[4]其趾间半蹼有助於渔猫在半水生环境，如沼泽与水流中产生更大的附着摩擦力，使其行动更自如。

 

[编辑] 行为

 

与大部分猫科动物一样，渔猫喜夜行。其生性凶猛，敢於攻击体型比自己大的动物，不易人工驯养，野性难以磨灭；而要是驯养则需精心呵护。其捕鱼时动作迅速，在猎物靠近时可即刻将猎物从水中抛出至岸上。

 

[编辑] 繁育

 

渔猫一年四季都能繁殖，不过在印度东北部，繁殖期是3－6月的春夏之际，而高峰期是3月和5月。渔猫会将巢穴建在芦苇丛中。春季发情交配，妊娠期63－70日，一次产1－4崽。幼崽出生时双眼紧闭，约16日後睁开眼睛[3]，一个多月大时可以离巢，53日後能够吃固体食物，如肉类，但直到4－6个月大时才会断奶。其生长迅速，小渔猫8－9个月时即达到成年体型，9－10个月後就能独立生活。渔猫是独居动物，但在人工饲养条件下得知雄性渔猫会帮助小渔猫捕食。[5]

 

渔猫的平均寿命为10－12年，但是人工饲养条件下的渔猫最长曾活到15年。[4]

 

[编辑] 保护现状

 

渔猫现在已被IUCN评定为濒危状态，主要的生存威胁来自其极为依赖的湿地和森林被大量破坏而成为农业用地，以及渔业资源的过度开发。目前在渔猫在阿富汗已经确定灭绝，在马来西亚和中国也已极为罕见，而在其现有的分布区数量大幅减少。[1]其他的生存威胁包括水资源和化学污染、为获取其美丽毛皮或作野味食用而进行的捕杀等。其被CITES列入附录Ⅱ中。[4]

 

北美洲有22个动物协会拥有笼养渔猫，截止至2005年12月，所有动物协会拥有的渔猫数量是72只。

 

在中国，渔猫已被确定为国家二级保护动物。

 

除不丹、马来西亚和越南外，渔猫分布区的其他国家和地区都对其采取了保护措施。[4]

 

[编辑] 参考资料

very interesting

  Philip Glass said:

p.s.: It's a reinforced concrete structure, shaddap conspiracy bitches. WTC7 was "left to burn" by firemen because it was evacuated and they had to put their efforts on rescue. The Beijing fire was controlled by the firemen.

It really makes no sense that you would actually believe WTC7 fell naturally after seemingly knowing more information about it than the average ignorant American. (Just knowing about it makes you more informed)

god I could type out a few paragraphs on why that's a retarded thing to believe but I will just lazily link to articles about it that you wont read(I figured this out waaay before I even knew about infowars.com or read much on it online)

WTC7 vs TVCC

WTC7's Design

The sheer size of the sound is epic, man someone is gona be pissed about that, or though it quite easily could be an insurance scam, dont think anyone would pay out 4 that though.

  OneToThirtySix said:

  Philip Glass said:

  OneToThirtySix said:

What's Blade Runner?

 

 

Wikipedia article on Blade Runner

 

Weird. I thought it was a movie.

Blade Runner is English for... for... what kind of cat is that again?

  Blanket Fort Collapse said:

  Philip Glass said:

p.s.: It's a reinforced concrete structure, shaddap conspiracy bitches. WTC7 was "left to burn" by firemen because it was evacuated and they had to put their efforts on rescue. The Beijing fire was controlled by the firemen.

 

It really makes no sense that you would actually believe WTC7 fell naturally after seemingly knowing more information about it than the average ignorant American. (Just knowing about it makes you more informed)

 

It fell because when firemen don't control the building, they had other things to do more important. Saving potential lives in the debris. WTC7 was evacuated, the sector around it too. They let it burn and fall down. This fire yesterday was controlled, there were firemen working hard all night on it, that's why it didnt weaken the structure (which anyway is completely different in design). It's really hard to explain the role of firemen in controlling the structure of a building, but its their job, they don't just put out the fire.

Go to skyscraperpage or other forums and talk with engineers and firement and architects about it. Not just conspiration freaks that go on Art Bell' Radio show. Heck, I'm a landscape arch with 5 years study in architecture. I know my shit.

man everytime I see this thread title all I can think of is this song:

oh, fuck off you conspiracy twats. without a motive, its all meaningless

  Philip Glass said:

  Blanket Fort Collapse said:

  Philip Glass said:

p.s.: It's a reinforced concrete structure, shaddap conspiracy bitches. WTC7 was "left to burn" by firemen because it was evacuated and they had to put their efforts on rescue. The Beijing fire was controlled by the firemen.

 

It really makes no sense that you would actually believe WTC7 fell naturally after seemingly knowing more information about it than the average ignorant American. (Just knowing about it makes you more informed)

 

 

It fell because when firemen don't control the building, they had other things to do more important. Saving potential lives in the debris. WTC7 was evacuated, the sector around it too. They let it burn and fall down. This fire yesterday was controlled, there were firemen working hard all night on it, that's why it didnt weaken the structure (which anyway is completely different in design). It's really hard to explain the role of firemen in controlling the structure of a building, but its their job, they don't just put out the fire.

 

Go to skyscraperpage or other forums and talk with engineers and firement and architects about it. Not just conspiration freaks that go on Art Bell' Radio show. Heck, I'm a landscape arch with 5 years study in architecture. I know my shit.

ok but so do 100's of other scientists that have more than 5 years experience and they are fucking wailing on every single argument coming at them. the only reason people are still going on about how everyone is crazy and 911 was really a terrorist attack are people who wont read/accept the evidence that is so undeniably true if you just look at it close enough

  ezkerraldean said:

oh, fuck off you conspiracy twats. without a motive, its all meaningless

but then if we told you what we think there motives are you would just scoff and continue on our way. so you can fuck off

  Philip Glass said:

  Blanket Fort Collapse said:

  Philip Glass said:

p.s.: It's a reinforced concrete structure, shaddap conspiracy bitches. WTC7 was "left to burn" by firemen because it was evacuated and they had to put their efforts on rescue. The Beijing fire was controlled by the firemen.

 

It really makes no sense that you would actually believe WTC7 fell naturally after seemingly knowing more information about it than the average ignorant American. (Just knowing about it makes you more informed)

 

 

 

It fell because when firemen don't control the building, they had other things to do more important. Saving potential lives in the debris. WTC7 was evacuated, the sector around it too. They let it burn and fall down. This fire yesterday was controlled, there were firemen working hard all night on it, that's why it didnt weaken the structure (which anyway is completely different in design). It's really hard to explain the role of firemen in controlling the structure of a building, but its their job, they don't just put out the fire.

 

Go to skyscraperpage or other forums and talk with engineers and firement and architects about it. Not just conspiration freaks that go on Art Bell' Radio show. Heck, I'm a landscape arch with 5 years study in architecture. I know my shit.

the question is do you know anything about demolition? the fact that larry silverstein let it slip that he made the decision to PULL IT??? means the demolished it with explosives........... you know how long it takes to plan a perfect collapse like that??

and the schmuck who says there was no motive??? larry silverstein made billions of dollars off the collapse of the world trade center buildings and it gave united states a new pearl harbor to go to war for oil. Most importantly it gave the ammo to go to war on your mind and "freedom". its a classic scenario, its been done in many reign's of power.

what bothers me isnt that people dont believe what i believe, its their close minded idiocy on the matter that fucking erks me

  ET said:

what bothers me isnt that people dont believe what i believe, its their close minded idiocy on the matter that fucking erks me

nigga this aint bible study talking imaginary things.

This ignorant minds watching the collapse of society to big brother, defending it like a fucking fool, then they talk down people actually investigate the situation, follow their gut instincts and call them stupid conspiracy theorists.

its disgusting

  Philip Glass said:

Heck, I'm a landscape arch with 5 years study in architecture. I know my shit.

which makes it even more surprising that you'd buy the 'fireman were'nt paying attention to wtc7' bs

have you seen how little fire there was in the building? I mean yes WTC7 was abandoned by the fire fighting team early on, but just visual comparisons make it pretty easy to see that the Beijing tower had much more intense and engulfing fires for much longer durations, regardless of how much fire fighting effort there was.

The flames coming out of the beijing building are bright orange showing massive heat, most of the 'flame' coming out of WTC7 is black smoke, implicate the fire is being cooled down.

The fires were extremely miniscule for the building to collapse, that in and of itself is questionable. Unless of course you assume the WTC7 was the worst construction in skyscraper history.

  ezkerraldean said:

oh, fuck off you conspiracy twats. without a motive, its all meaningless

so basically we need to have the entire conspiracy laid out from beginning to end with a motive 100% locked down to get assholes like you to even look at a single piece of evidence.

lazy bastard

just the statistical improbability of such an event happening

the event - a steel framed concrete reinforced skyscraper falling completely to the groubd in free fall speed from a small sized fire relatively speaking.

how could this make someone curious? Its such a strange thing to me that people are so quick to explain it away as a simple natural event, i mean for christ sake its never happened before in the history of architecture!

you cannot find me one single event of another building falling like this.

  ezkerraldean said:

without a motive, its all meaningless

i just realized the absurdity of this statement

if someone finds a dead body with a massive blow to the head do the cops tell this person 'hey man if you dont know the motive your find is meaningless, next time you find a body please provide us with motive otherwise we will not investigate'

if there is physical evidence, visual evidence making a strong case for an event, the motive is found through out the course of the investigation, not at the start of an investigation.