Dubai Address hotel fire

FalseFlag said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, not even as a comparison to WTC 7. WTC 7's case was a combination factor resulting from non-fatal debris damage, having the fire protection passive and active systems crippled, and no fire fighting, along side several design-specific flaws which were exasperated by everything else. Whether 7 was hit by a plane or not is irrelevant, so you're wasting time emphasizing that.

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

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.
Click to expand...
Collapse is not expected provided that the building performs properly and provided nothing outside the scope of what was anticipated in its design unfolds. Nobody that pays attention to the design or circumstantial differences will consider this a direct analogue to WTC 1, 2, or 7. We go through this every time a skyscraper has caught fire... the fact that a million other tall buildings have not collapsed does not mean no building can collapse if subjected to the right combination of events - There are no direct analogues for what happened on 9/11 in precedent or since, and any analogues that do exist, are limited in how they can be applied.

That aside.... whoever is running the fire works display for new years over there... whoever they are... they are complete and utter morons IMO for holding a fire works display next to a raging fire. They must be begging for another Beijing, Mandarin style fire works display
 
Last edited:
Those towers collapsed in some measure because of their design and construction.... and there are none matching them before or since... not to mention the failed fire sprinklers and presence of jet fuel in the twins and diesel in 7... not all of which was "accounted for".
 
JSanderO said:
Those towers collapsed in some measure because of their design and construction.... and there are none matching them before or since... not to mention the failed fire sprinklers and presence of jet fuel in the twins and diesel in 7... not all of which was "accounted for".
Click to expand...
In the case of WTC 7, the "design flaws" and construction would not have mattered if not for the events caused by the collapse of the towers. At least that's what the court ruled in the ConEd case. If the sprinklers had worked I see little doubt WTC 7 would have survived.
 
DGM said:
In the case of WTC 7, the "design flaws" and construction would not have mattered if not for the events caused by the collapse of the towers. At least that's what the court ruled in the ConEd case. If the sprinklers had worked I see little doubt WTC 7 would have survived.
Click to expand...

Maybe... if the only flammables were office contents... but if there was diesel involved and on the order of thousands of gallons? Maybe not...

Heat distorted the frame, parts collapsed and it went into a progressive failure mode. The end.
 
I just realised that we missed something important here.

FalseFlag said:
CNN is talking to an eyewitness named Jaqueline Hurtado who said she heard an explosion before the fire started. She said it sounded like a loud pop. Fire is extremely fast moving.

Correction: The eyewitness just now said the fire may have caused the popping sound.
Click to expand...

A truther has just admitted the existence of, and illustrated their existence with an excellent example of, sounds caused by a building fire that may be mistaken for explosions by nearby witnesses. Perhaps there are some things to be learned from this fire (that is, learned by those who've taken so much trouble not to learn them already) that could be applied to an understanding of 9/11.

Dave
 
The very last thing I'd expect at a huge fireworks display is a loud popping noise.
 
JSanderO said:
Maybe... if the only flammables were office contents... but if there was diesel involved and on the order of thousands of gallons? Maybe not...

Heat distorted the frame, parts collapsed and it went into a progressive failure mode. The end.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't the sprinklers have dealt with fires in the generator areas? Generator shut down and you only have fuel in the day tanks and lines.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I just realised that we missed something important here.



A truther has just admitted the existence of, and illustrated their existence with an excellent example of, sounds caused by a building fire that may be mistaken for explosions by nearby witnesses. Perhaps there are some things to be learned from this fire (that is, learned by those who've taken so much trouble not to learn them already) that could be applied to an understanding of 9/11.

Dave
Click to expand...

for those that may have missed the exact same descriptors and dialogue/evasion tactics used here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=301443
 
DGM said:
Why wouldn't the sprinklers have dealt with fires in the generator areas? Generator shut down and you only have fuel in the day tanks and lines.
Click to expand...

depends on what type of suppression the sprinkler system used I imagine.
 
FalseFlag said:
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.

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

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.
Click to expand...

It's an unsupportable proposition that the burning edge of a building is in any way comparable to one gouged through and through with a jet, jet fuel added to the fire, and likely a different kind of support engineering.
 
FalseFlag said:
The purpose of this thread is not to make conclusions of any kind, even though yours are obviously in jest. Everyone involved in the 9/11 debate should be watching this and paying attention to everything. We can make conclusions later.
Click to expand...
Oh, did 19 terrrorists start the fire with planes and jet fuel, punching big holes and breaking window to feed the fires, oh, yes, oxygen starved fires because there was big hole in the WTC towers which did not let in oxygen, so the fire were starved? lol, 911 truth, the dumbest movement in history.

If this building falls down, does it mean thermite, or some other insane claim.

BS, Fire caused the collapse of WTC towers. Did terrorists start this fire with a 767? No, thus this has nothing to do with the acts of 19 terrorists? Or did a plane start the fire?

What does a fire have to do with 911? The 911 debate about what caused the collapse ended with fire.
 
Last edited:
Whip said:
My point was fuel floats on water.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't really matter. The sprinklers help cool the air in addition to putting out the fires. You end up with an area that is laden with steam and the fire consuming all the oxygen. Steady supply of water usually wins.
 
DGM said:
Wouldn't really matter. The sprinklers help cool the air in addition to putting out the fires. You end up with an area that is laden with steam and the fire consuming all the oxygen. Steady supply of water usually wins.
Click to expand...
That's wonderful, and works extremely well, but only when you have water because huge buildings failed to collapse and sever the power and water supplies to your building...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom