LOL. Think about what you just said.
Dubai Address hotel fire
- Thread starter FalseFlag
- Start date
LOL. Think about what you just said.
I am certainly willing to learn more about this fire, but it's easy to make a preliminary conclusion as to why the building didn't collapse - it didn't have WTC in its name.
NoahFence
Banned
I don't mean to answer for him, but it may be because steel fails in fire pretty quickly. So there's a need to protect it from the heat of a fire. At least long enough to evacuate.
Why would you suppose there needs to be fireproofing on steel?
Obviously it does.
It's amazing that not one skeptic will admit to the hypocrisy they clearly exhibit. They will cite Ronan Point, Skyline Towers and verinage every single time they want to talk about building collapses, even though they have nothing to do with steel-frame high rises. But, if a truther talks about fire, then building material and everything else matters.
This is hypocrisy, and nothing else. Your hypocrisy invalidates your arguments. You can deny this, but it's a fact.
It's been a few months now, what is your conclusion?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wfpRO9bTfo
Was the building reduced to pulverized concrete? What was the construction of the building? Did the entire building collapse, or just a portion? I clearly see partially intact floors on the ground. Is that what we observed with the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2? You can also see the sides of the building still standing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p22OkclAU3o
It's a brick building that collapses. The part that is still on fire is still standing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB-6Sp7mKlQ[/QUOTE]
Another brick building collapses. What was the reason?
Proof?
What conclusion are you looking for?
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,502
Your conclusion to the fire at The Address Hotel.
What is your proof that steel fails quickly? It seems like a simple claim, so it seems like it would be easy to prove it.
If steel fails so quickly, why is it used as a construction material?
What conclusion is there to make? The building caught fire. The building did not collapse. The statement, "another high rise caught fire and didn't collapse" is true, but that is not a conclusion. It's just a true statement.
The only reason fire protection on steel has and is still being used is to cover up 9/11
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,502
Answer the question or ignore it.
I imagine the conclusion would be why the address hotel didn't collapse.
Remember you started the thread and said we can make a conclusion later.
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,502
You first. You do some meaningful research and teach me what I don't know.
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.