Dubai Address hotel fire
- Thread starter FalseFlag
- Start date
Have things changed? No.
No CD, no explosives; what is left? Constant acceleration failed, now what?
Are you the last 9/11 truth faith based followers?
Mark F
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,746
Great. I choose to do nothing with this off-topic and totally irrelevant event which had no reason to be brought up in the first place.
No, it is on-topic. A building caught fire. It did not collapse. That is on-topic. A building caught fire and it did not collapse.
Let me repeat that. A building caught fire, and it didn't collapse.
njslim
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,077
NO THE BUILDING DID NOT CATCH FIRE......
It was the external cladding which caught fire
Fire did not get into the building and threaten the structural integrity
The fire proofing was intact, there was no structural damage from big a** plane hitting the building
FACT
1) Fire was outside building
2) Fire proofing intact
3) No structural damage
Equals NO BUILDING COLLAPSE
Now run along ......
We are talking about two different fires in the Middle East. This has been clarified multiple times, yet you still chose to ignore this fact.
So, now we have two buildings in the Middle East that caught fire, and neither one collapsed.
Did either building collapse?
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 68,783
No, both you snd I know they didn't collapse. We also know you asked the question in this thread in the way you did to make a rhetorical point about the collapse of the WTC buildings.
What is the rhetorical point you are accusing me of making? Are you going to quote my post #40? If so, I corrected it. I was wrong when I assumed the building was steel-framed. It was actually steel-reinforced concrete.
OK. Post #71 was where I made comparisons to 9/11. They are still somewhat valid, even with the difference in design materials. I did say "somewhat", and not "exactly".
Last edited:
The answer is simple. I bring up the fact that the buildings didn't collapse to remind everyone that the buildings didn't collapse. This is a fact. I made a choice to remind everyone. I think I have given enough reminders now - until the next fire, and then I will be back.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Your reminder is an unscientifically irrelevant, comment, why should anyone care?
Because fire didn't cause a building to collapse.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Irrelevant and misleadingly so, each fire is different, do to individual circumstances, so in fact your ideas are self falsifying.
What buildings? Please don't use wooden buildings in your examples.
Mark F
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,746
Ummmmmmm,... so what?
Was the name of that building the Dubai Address?
No?
Then it isn't on topic for this thread.
Does any of this have anything whatsoever to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories?
No?
Then it isn't on topic in a forum devoted to 9/11 conspiracy theories.
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?
Mark F
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,746
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.