Dubai Address hotel fire

[HotRodDeluxe]

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?

To troll 'da debunkerz'. It'll give him bragging rights on some nutjob site.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

Firefighters died because they were doing their job, trying to rescue people, it's what they do.
In a situation like that fighting the fire is secondary.
Yes buildings are designed with safety margins but they aren't completely fire proof. They are designed to survive long enough to get people out.
On 9/11 fires were started by many tons of burning jet fuel being sprayed across many floors so the fires were instant and massive. Fire proofing on the steel was stripped away and damaged by the aircraft crashes.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I'm not an engineer. All I know is the building caught fire and it didn't collapse. Wait, I know a little more. Only three steel-frame high rises have caught fire and completely collapsed. They all had WTC in their names, were all leased by the same person, they were all within a few hundred yards of each other, and they all collapsed on the same day. Wait. Wait. I know a little bit more. I know I'm supposed to ignore all of that and believe the government, cuz, you know, 'murica.

You can't even get the simple stuff right................

You have highlighted a sentence in my post, and you then claim I'm wrong. If you claim I am wrong, why is it so hard to post a link to a credible source that proves I am wrong?

Reversal of the burden of proof. Your claim, old chap, so up to you to substantiate it.
Please link to a credible source proving you are right.

 

[Mark F]

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.

Safety margins were exceeded, buildings collapsed. Sorry you can not grasp the bleeding obvious.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

No, what you really mean to say is that you can't prove your claims.

No you show obvious lack of any true knowledge in any of the subjects your posting on,
no need for me to do anything your self debunked by yourself eventually.

 

[NoahFence]

How does any of this prove the buildings should have collapsed? Don't you think engineers design buildings with safety margins?

Safety margins. You're aware stuff can go outside the margin, right? It's not a Star Trek force field.

If there was no active firefighting, why did no many firefighters die when WTC2 collapsed?

No firefighting efforts = no water on flames. Not no firefighters present. You have a curious grasp of the language. ESL?

 

[DGM]

You have highlighted a sentence in my post, and you then claim I'm wrong. If you claim I am wrong, why is it so hard to post a link to a credible source that proves I am wrong?

You need me to post a link to prove that WTC7 was not part of the lease with the NYNJPA? Silverstein owned that building.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by FalseFlag
You have highlighted a sentence in my post, and you then claim I'm wrong. If you claim I am wrong, why is it so hard to post a link to a credible source that proves I am wrong?

You need me to post a link to prove that WTC7 was not part of the lease with the NYNJPA? Silverstein owned that building.

And WTC 3 was owned by the Marriott Corporation. Can Truthers get anything right?

 

[Mark F]

And WTC 3 was owned by the Marriott Corporation. Can Truthers get anything right?

The person who OP'd this thread can't even explain why none of the many Dubai high-rise fires are analogous to anything that happened on 9/11 in spite of the fact that everything he needs is right here in his own thread.

There is no point trying to explain anything to someone who is completely immune to it.

 

[sts60]

No firefighting efforts = no water on flames. Not no firefighters present. You have a curious grasp of the language. ESL?

No, just someone who doesn't really know much about firefighting. That's not a problem. The problem is the assumption that the little one does know covers the entire complex situation. That is what I've been trying to get FalseFlag to think about over in the "experiment" thread.

 

[FalseFlag]

The problem is the assumption that the little one does know covers the entire complex situation.

You kind of give away your most valuable trick in that statement. You try to convince truthers, and anyone actually looking for answers, that because they can't possibly understand every single aspect of the collapse, that the official story must be true. This is because the official story was written by experts, and the non-experts should listen to them.

That ideology is nonsense. One only needs a basic understanding of Newton's third law to understand the official story is a lie.

 

[Spanx]

You kind of give away your most valuable trick in that statement. You try to convince truthers, and anyone actually looking for answers, that because they can't possibly understand every single aspect of the collapse, that the official story must be true. This is because the official story was written by experts, and the non-experts should listen to them.

That ideology is nonsense. One only needs a basic understanding of Newton's third law to understand the official story is a lie.

Are you saying that if "The official story" was written by non experts you would be happy?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Are you saying that if "The official story" was written by non experts you would be happy?

Only if they agreed with him.

 

[Mark F]

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?

I don't bother because it wouldn't make any difference pointing them out to you and most everyone else already knows what they are without any guidance or input from me.

 

[NoahFence]

You kind of give away your most valuable trick in that statement. You try to convince truthers, and anyone actually looking for answers, that because they can't possibly understand every single aspect of the collapse, that the official story must be true. This is because the official story was written by experts, and the non-experts should listen to them.

That ideology is nonsense. One only needs a basic understanding of Newton's third law to understand the official story is a lie.

Wrong. So totally and galactically wrong it doesn't even warrant a laughing dog.



I lied.

The "official story" was reality. Planes were hijacked. I didn't need an expert to know that. They crashed, causing fires that made the buildings collapse. I didn't need an expert to tell me that.

You lot seem to think this is akin to some ancient culture, mysterious and wondrous. It wasn't. It happened right in front of our faces. Unless you can produce a plausible scenario that fits the day's events better than 4 planes hijacked, mayhem ensues, you're just wrong.

Why not be the first truther to do that? Not with physics, or big fancy threads dedicated to minutiae, just connect the dots. All 4 planes.


And.....

GO

 

[Andy_Ross]

One of the things common to a lot of CT believers and 'Pseudoscience' exponents is the belief that all you need is common sense and whatever level their understanding is at.
Anything more is a complication added by experts and scientists to obfuscate and exclude the masses.
Maths aren't needed, physics above high school level is a con etc.

 

[FalseFlag]

Are you saying that if "The official story" was written by non experts you would be happy?

3000 people died on 9/11, so I don't think I would be happy about anything. If the official story explained the collapses of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 then I might not be as suspicious.

How does NIST explain the freefall they admit exists?

How does NIST explain the motions observed during the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2?

Do any of their explanations make any sense? No. In fact, does NIST say anything about the observed motion during the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. No. They simply refer to the Bazant paper to explain what happened after the collapse began.

 

[FalseFlag]

The "official story" was reality.

When the official story disregards such a vast amount of evidence, it does not match reality.

Planes were hijacked. I didn't need an expert to know that. They crashed, causing fires that made the buildings collapse. I didn't need an expert to tell me that.

OK. For the sake of argument, we agree. That's right. We agree. You can claim anything you want in regards to collapse initiation. There is no reason to debate this.

Now, since we agree on what caused the collapse initiation, please explain the motions observed during the collapses. You know the drill. Please provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim.

 

[Andy_Ross]

3000 people died on 9/11, so I don't think I would be happy about anything. If the official story explained the collapses of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 then I might not be as suspicious.

How does NIST explain the freefall they admit exists?

How does NIST explain the actual collapse of WTC1 and WTC2?

Do any of their explanations make any sense? No.

So at the end of the day what you have is an argument from personal incredulity. You don't know so that means no one else can know?

 

[FalseFlag]

So at the end of the day what you have is an argument from personal incredulity. You don't know so that means no one else can know?

What? If you know the answer to the above questions, then please provide them.