That's some conclusion you have come too.
Thanks for that, it explains more than you will ever know
Dubai Address hotel fire
- Thread starter FalseFlag
- Start date
That's some conclusion you have come too.
Thanks for that, it explains more than you will ever know
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,502
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 68,738
Never go Full Truther.
You disregard all the facts and infirmation available because you have an ideological position you need to support and spread.
That every engineer and architect and fire safety professional with relevant qualifications and experience disagrees with you is a mere detail.
You disregard all the facts and infirmation available because you have an ideological position you need to support and spread.
That every engineer and architect and fire safety professional with relevant qualifications and experience disagrees with you is a mere detail.
What's my conclusion?
I answer what is relevant. Sometimes I miss posts, but I do try to answer the relevant posts that I see.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 68,738
That's the bit you will never know
That's why this whole thing is typical CT.
His aim is just to keep the thread churning, he sees that as some kind of victory.
If he won't tell us what his thoughts and conclusions are, why does he do it?
You mean the buildings it was attached to. The building was too low to suffer a complete collapse (not enough material in the upper floors to crush the lower ones), but with 2 stories it can be called a complete collapse.
It's two buildings, one with no remaining visible flames and the other still with visible flames. The one with no visible flames completely collapses. The cause of the collapse was fire. Nothing ambiguous about it. It was not made of wood. It meets your requirements.
Fire. Can't you see the hoses?
So, Captain Swoop's point stands. Some buildings collapse due to fire; some buildings don't collapse due to fire.
Did the upper floors pulverize the lower floors?
Yes. I see the hoses. They could also be used to control dust, if the demolition was planned.
This statement is true.
Can you show me a steel-frame high rise that collapsed due to fire, other than one that starts with WTC?
How about you first show that the Ajman building was steel-framed, that the fire affected the structure and that the fire was not fought by either active or passive means? There haven't been any other unfought fires in steel-framed high rises to compare to, you know.
Mark F
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,746
Well, you made it to Step 0.5.
The rest of us are up beyond Step 100. You will let us know when you catch up won't you?
Maybe you could start by doing that task which you have been carefully avoiding all week - explaining why any of the recent high-rise fires in Dubai in the last few years which you have introduced into this thread are relevant to 9/11 conspiracy discussion.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Mark F
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,746
You can't even get the simple stuff right................
Just like the OP of this thread that one post is full of false starting assumptions, errors, and irrelevant nonsense. No wonder he gets the conclusion so fundamentally wrong.
FF is at least equal parts unwilling and unable to learn and carefully avoids all attempts to make him do so.
A complete waste of time.
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 24,133
Other things you should know. None of those three buildings with WTC in their name had working sprinklers. None of those buildings had active firefighting. None of those buildings had concrete cores.
How does any of this prove the buildings should have collapsed? Don't you think engineers design buildings with safety margins?
If there was no active firefighting, why did no many firefighters die when WTC2 collapsed?
Are you saying a concrete core guarantees a building won't collapse?
I already knew your points. The difference is that I'm not grasping on to them as reasons to support a fantasy, like you are doing.
You claim that my post is "full of false starting assumptions, errors, and irrelevant nonsense", yet you fail to provide just one example to support your claim. Why is that? Are you just lazy, incompetent, or is it because you can't support your claim?
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Because none is needed, your claim is self Falsified by your lack of knowledge.
Why did firefighters die on 9/11? Because they tried to help people egress the WTC towers. You have no idea what firefighters do... why?
A concrete core can keep a building from collapsing. And there are examples; look them up, you continue a Gish Gallop of BS and have no evidence; and JAQs
you have the CD fantasy, and you offer no evidence to support the failed fantasy of CD by silent explosives.
No, what you really mean to say is that you can't prove your claims.