Dubai Address hotel fire

FalseFlag said:
I respectfully disagree. A building on fire is a building on fire. I mean, if skeptics can keep claiming "a progressive collapse is a progressive collapse" by citing Ronan Point, Skyline Towers and verinage, then I can certainly claim a building on fire is a building on fire. Can't I? If not, what is the difference, other than I'm the one who is saying it?
Click to expand...

A dog house on fire is a building on fire, are you going to relate that to the twin towers in which there was a massive stack effect?
 
Mark F said:
A building on fire is a building on fire,... and this current derail still without any stated relevance to the OP of this thread or to the topic of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

Now then, if you wish to discuss the specifics of building and fire engineering and how completely different circumstances lead to completely different results in two completely unrelated events I am sure there are forums for that.
Click to expand...

Can I quote you the next time someone mentions verinage, Ronan Point or Skyline Towers?
 
FalseFlag said:
Can I quote you the next time someone mentions verinage, Ronan Point or Skyline Towers?
Click to expand...

Sure, but if you want to seem intelligent I don't know why you would because right now you couldn't be more completely missing the point.

Buildings catch fire every day. There are even people whose full time job it is to deal with building fires. Some building fires are small and cause cosmetic damage. Some are large and cause major structural damage. Many are in between. In some extreme cases the building collapses. Every situation is different and unique.

We could spend the rest of our lives rattling off instances of building fires.

SO FREAKIN' WHAT?????

None of this has any stated relevance to the OP of this thread, which is one specific building in Dubai which is itself completely irrelevant to the topic of this forum, which is 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

Because I understand the concept of context and have little patience for those who don't, unless you next post establishes something resembling relevance to topic this discussion is at an end.
 
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw said:
A dog house on fire is a building on fire, are you going to relate that to the twin towers in which there was a massive stack effect?
Click to expand...

hqdefault.jpg


No word yet on if the building collapsed but witnesses report hearing sounds like explosions.
 
Last edited:
Mark F said:
[qimg]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tD8zws1Ffro/hqdefault.jpg[/qimg]

No word yet on if the building collapsed but witnesses report hearing sounds like explosions.
Click to expand...

Fido will be fine we know fire can't damage buildings, because Cters tell us so.
Oh wait I spoke too soon is that molten steel pouring out of the side, must be another evil Bush
Led CD.
 
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Fido will be fine we know fire can't damage buildings, because Cters tell us so.
Oh wait I spoke too soon is that molten steel pouring out of the side, must be another evil Bush
Led CD.
Click to expand...

You can tell from the color of the smoke that it must have been Super High Intensity Thermite.
 
Mark F said:
You can tell from the color of the smoke that it must have been Super High Intensity Thermite.
Click to expand...

Yes definitely, super intense super duper, nano explosive thermite Fido must have been blasted though the air thousands of feet, an we know that's impossible and violates Newtonian physics.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Yes definitely, super intense super duper, nano explosive thermite Fido must have been blasted though the air thousands of feet, an we know that's impossible and violates Newtonian physics.
Click to expand...

That Super High Intensity Thermite is nasty stuff. Stinky, brown and gooey.
 
Mark F said:
There are even people whose full time job it is to deal with building fires.
Click to expand...

Don't you think engineers belong to the group of people you are talking about? Don't you think it's their job to prevent buildings from collapsing due to fire? Don't you think that they know office furnishings catch on fire? Don't you think they use steel for a reason? Don't you think they design buildings with a large safety factor built in, so that a normal office fire (or fires - even burning uncontrolled for 7 hours) won't cause the entire building to collapse, even under extreme circumstances?

I'm sorry. I know the answer already, because each sentence started with, "Don't you think?"
 
FalseFlag said:
Don't you think engineers belong to the group of people you are talking about? Don't you think it's their job to prevent buildings from collapsing due to fire? Don't you think that they know office furnishings catch on fire? Don't you think they use steel for a reason? Don't you think they design buildings with a large safety factor built in, so that a normal office fire (or fires - even burning uncontrolled for 7 hours) won't cause the entire building to collapse, even under extreme circumstances?

I'm sorry. I know the answer already, because each sentence started with, "Don't you think?"
Click to expand...

Yes they use steel because it is ductible that is why they don't use cast iron any more.

They have spend years developing fire proofing to protect steel, why do you think they spent so much time doing that?
 
Oystein said:
I recommend to posters and lurkers to peruse this recource. It can make the currently active batch if threads a lot more tidy.
Click to expand...
I could do that but, that leaves him in "truther" land just talking to himself. I'm just a softy.......;)

I agree he should be flagged and removed from certain threads. Jay's (Summary) thread he has no reason to be posting in.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I could do that but, that leaves him in "truther" land just talking to himself.
Click to expand...
Don't you mean "TrollingPoeLand"??

DGM said:
I'm just a softy.......;)
Click to expand...
Redundant statement - we knew that. :)

DGM said:
I agree he should be flagged and removed from certain threads. Jay's (Summary) thread he has no reason to be posting in.
Click to expand...
No legitimate reason? ;)

In that thread he has a few colleagues pressing the "Drift off Topic" switch.
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
Don't you think engineers belong to the group of people you are talking about?
Click to expand...

I was referring to firefighters - you know, the people whose full time job is to deal with fires. That was part of my attempt to illustrate that building fires are so common communities have people dedicated just to dealing with them. I would implore you to stop cherry-picking my comments and keep them within the intended context. You won't win doing otherwise. All that will happen is I will point out your flawed logic and failure to get me to chase you down the Rabbit hole.

BTW - I have no intention of following the rest of your evasion and derail.

I must admit I do not understand your inability to grasp a simple concept. Buildings (which we can and I shall loosely describe as any man-made structure) burn every day.

So what?

What makes any one of them more special or relevant to 9/11 conspiracy theories than any other?

So far your logic is running someting like this:

A building is on fire,.... something,... its tall,...something,...something,... 9/11,... see!

That dog just ain't gonna hunt.

You appear either unwilling or unable (or both) to establish the necessary relevance to 9/11 conspiracy theories. The conditions for establishing the relevance having not been met, I consider this line of discussion over.

What you should probably do is actually examine any one of the dozen or so recent high-rise fires in Dubai (any one will do really) and figure out why they didn't collapse, then see if those same conditions apply to the events of 9/11/2001 in NYC.

But since you probably won't do that I will give you a spoiler - THEY DON'T.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw
Your reminder is an unscientifically irrelevant, comment, why should anyone care?
Click to expand...

FalseFlag said:
Because fire didn't cause a building to collapse.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

WOW! You certainly have a keen grasp of the obvious! :rolleyes:Thanks for reminding us of what we can read on the news! :D

But if you really want to discuss WHY these buildings didn't collapse, I suggest you move it to a different forum, as this is strictly an engineering question and has nothing to do with 9/11 conspiracism. I'll give you another example: 90 West St., a steel-framed skyscraper, burned for days after 9/11, and DIDN'T collapse. It's a good topic for engineering discussions. You might learn something. :rolleyes:
 
Redwood said:
WOW! You certainly have a keen grasp of the obvious! :rolleyes:Thanks for reminding us of what we can read on the news! :D

But if you really want to discuss WHY these buildings didn't collapse, I suggest you move it to a different forum, as this is strictly an engineering question and has nothing to do with 9/11 conspiracism. I'll give you another example: 90 West St., a steel-framed skyscraper, burned for days after 9/11, and DIDN'T collapse. It's a good topic for engineering discussions. You might learn something. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You can lead a horse to water...................;)
 
FalseFlag said:
What buildings? Please don't use wooden buildings in your examples.
Click to expand...
Why not? What are we comparing this to? Does construction and site condition matter?

What buildings do your examples compare to the ones on 9/11. Please be specific.

As far as I can see your understanding, the dog house is in the same field.
 
DGM said:
Why not? What are we comparing this to? Does construction and site condition matter?

What buildings do your examples compare to the ones on 9/11. Please be specific.

As far as I can see your understanding, the dog house is in the same field.
Click to expand...

The wooden dog house is at least as valid an analogy as the reinforced concrete buildings he is blathering on about in Dubai.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom