Dubai Address hotel fire

[FalseFlag]

Why?

Even if you want to make a comparison to 7 WTC you can't -
1. Totally different design and construction
2. Totally different nature of the damage and fire
3. 7 WTC burned for 7 hours, not 2 and it burned on the inside

I agree with you on point 1, which is an important point. There is no question there. I was wrong about the type of construction. Now I know that it is a concrete building. To say we are now comparing apples to oranges is mostly true.

It's too early to tell what the extent of damage is, so I disagree with you on point 2.

I disagree with you on point 3. The fires in WTC7 did not burn continuously in the same place for 7 hours. Also, we don't know the extent of the damage to the Address hotel, so it's too early to say what has burned on the inside.

 

[FalseFlag]

CNN is now talking to Bernard Kerik, former NYPD Commissioner. He just said he heard of a balcony collapse. He says he is concerned with an "implosion", similar to the WTC. He made that reference, not me.

 

[Mark F]

Explosion just reported by eyewitness and aired on CNN.

Yeah, right here:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/201...cnn/video/playlists/dubai-address-hotel-fire/

Guy is apparently American and seems very familiar with the building. Thinks the explosions are likely from LP and NG gas supplies for various restaurants inside the hotel - all perfectly reasonable assumptions.

Again, why do we care?

 

[DGM]

CNN is now talking to Bernard Kerik, former NYPD Commissioner. He just said he heard of a balcony collapse. He says he is concerned with an "implosion", similar to the WTC. He made that reference, not me.

Do you think this guy thinks the building is rigged for CD?

 

[FalseFlag]

Do you think this guy thinks the building is rigged for CD?

I have no idea. He is talking to the CNN anchor about clearing a perimeter. He is the one who keeps mentioning collapse. Not me.

 

[Mark F]

I agree with you on point 1, which is an important point. There is no question there. I was wrong about the type of construction. Now I know that it is a concrete building. To say we are now comparing apples to oranges is mostly true.

Totally true, not mostly.

It's too early to tell what the extent of damage is, so I disagree with you on point 2.

The Dubai Address did not have a 110-story burning building fall on it, venting one side of the building and starting multiple internal fires on multiple floors simultaneous with taking out the water supply to the neighborhood.

My point stands.

I disagree with you on point 3. The fires in WTC7 did not burn continuously in the same place for 7 hours. Also, we don't know the extent of the damage to the Address hotel, so it's too early to say what has burned on the inside.

I disagree with your strawman. But we have already established the nature of the structures is completely different, the nature of the fires is completely different - so what is it we are supposed to be comparing to what happened on 9/11?

Let's not lose the plot over trivial details. The reason you opened this thread in the 9/11 CT forum is because you assumed that because a tall building was on fire it was somehow relevant to what happened on 9/11. With every passing moment we seem to get further and further away from whatever meaningful relevance this event may have had to 9/11.

 

[DGM]

I have no idea. He is talking to the CNN anchor about clearing a perimeter. He is the one who keeps mentioning collapse. Not me.

So you're just highlighting how people describe things in media interviews. Good to know.

 

[Childlike Empress]

5 minutes to midnight there and the fireworks are supposedly still on.

 

[FalseFlag]

So you're just highlighting how people describe things in media interviews. Good to know.

Yes. This way we can go back to see what was said and when. It might or might not be important. We will see.

 

[DGM]

Yes. This way we can go back to see what was said and when. It might or might not be important. We will see.

There's talk of balcony collapses. You do know they are most likely part of the building that is steel framed?

 

[FalseFlag]

Totally true, not mostly.

Wrong. You have a high-rise building on fire. WTC 1, 2 and 7 were high-rise buildings on fire. Yes, the construction is different, and yes, their performance during a fire is going to be different, but they are all high-rise buildings that are on fire or were on fire. There are enough similarities to make this relevant.

My point stands.

About what? Let's see if anything collapses, and what happens then.

I disagree with your strawman. But we have already established the nature of the structures is completely different, the nature of the fires is completely different - so what is it we are supposed to be comparing to what happened on 9/11?

Let's not lose the plot over trivial details. The reason you opened this thread in the 9/11 CT forum is because you assumed that because a tall building was on fire it was somehow relevant to what happened on 9/11. With every passing moment we seem to get further and further away from whatever meaningful relevance this event may have had to 9/11.

This fire and this thread is relevant, and you know it. The end result might not be conclusive to either side, but right now it's still relevant.

 

[FalseFlag]

There's talk of balcony collapses. You do know they are most likely part of the building that is steel framed?

Source?

Let's assume you're right, though. Did the collapsing balcony destroy all of the balconies below it? That question is entirely relevant.

 

[Whip]

Are you comparing the situation it the towers to this? Really?

Are you serious? About 300 firefighters died in the WTC.

They were inside to evacuate the building and begin fighting the fires. When the first tower collapsed their radios didn't transmit inside the building and they didn't get the messages to stop and evacuate themselves. So they died in both towers in the collapse. I doubt anyone knows who was on which floor.

seems lopez signed up under a new name.

 

[DGM]

Source?

Let's assume you're right, though. Did the collapsing balcony destroy all of the balconies below it? That question is entirely relevant.

How does it matter? If they didn't does it mean steel structures can't fail in fire? One collapsing shows the vulnerability.

 

[Whip]

And it's a structural concrete building.

and not burning from jet fuel.

 

[DGM]

and not burning from jet fuel.

The jet fuel only got things going, it was not the primary cause of all the collapses.

 

[FalseFlag]

Are you serious? About 300 firefighters died in the WTC.

They were inside to evacuate the building and begin fighting the fires. When the first tower collapsed their radios didn't transmit inside the building and they didn't get the messages to stop and evacuate themselves. So they died in both towers in the collapse. I doubt anyone knows who was on which floor.

I know all of this. They died fighting the fire. An attempt was made to insinuate that the fire is being fought in Dubai, but nothing was done on 9/11. That is obviously not true.

 

[FalseFlag]

The jet fuel only got things going, it was not the primary cause of all the collapses.

We agree on this point. It's nice to see that.

 

[crescent]

and not burning from jet fuel.

Bingo.

• Ram a great big airplane into it,
• causing massive structural damage, and
• soaking all of the furniture and carpet in jet fuel and
• knocking out most of the firefighting system

Then you might have some comparisons, if it was the same sort of structure, which is it not.

 

[FalseFlag]

Bingo.

• Ram a great big airplane into it,
• causing massive structural damage, and
• soaking all of the furniture and carpet in jet fuel and
• knocking out most of the firefighting system

Then you might have some comparisons, if it was the same sort of structure, which is it not.

WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane. There was no jet fuel.