Fire causses building collapse in philly

LastChild said:
So this was a garage that housed garbage trucks? How many floors was this skyscraper garage and I didn't read anything about global collapse. What floor did the garbage trucks park on? And what was all that about "exploding propane tanks"?

lol please
Click to expand...


Now, you're gettin' it! If you babble incoherently about an irrelevant fire long enough, all of your baseless, nonsensical fantasies about 9/11 will become true. Why didn't you think of this approach long ago?
 
Totovader said:
You didn't answer my question at all.

We have plenty of examples to satisfy the individual components of your faux-curiosity. Since you have no rational basis to exclude these examples, we can consider your efforts to dodge the question more of the same fraudulent behavior we've seen from you in the past. You aren't interested in the facts, you just want to maintain your fantasy- no matter what the cost to the truth.
Click to expand...

No you claimed to have plenty of example to compare to the WTC. Lets see them. I'll come back later when I need a laugh.
 
LastChild said:
No you claimed to have plenty of example to compare to the WTC. Lets see them. I'll come back later when I need a laugh.
Click to expand...


Priceless!

Pssst. Two 1360 ft. skyscrapers have been hit by commercial airliners. Both buildings collapsed. Don't tell anybody.
 
LastChild said:
No you claimed to have plenty of example to compare to the WTC. Lets see them. I'll come back later when I need a laugh.
Click to expand...

So now you are willing to admit that the set of non-WTC highrise steel framed buildings to suffer impact and uncontrolled fires is zero? If so, then your control group in null. As such your claim that no buildings in similar situations to the WTC have collapsed before is nullified. Until you can show that you indeed have buildings in your control group that didn't collapse, your claim that the ETC buildings should not have is void.
 
ITT: LastChild sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA" in the face of questions he is unable to answer.

LastChild: On what criteria do you exclude the numerous examples of building collapses due to fire, such as this one or this one?

Can you tell us what your standard is for judging what counts and what doesn't? Are buildings exactly identical to the WTC in every way the only examples that count?
 
Last edited:
The Jooooooos Did It!!!!!111
False Flag Terrorism!!!!!!!111
Parking Lot Wars!!!!!!!!111
 
What's funny to me is to watch conspiracists when they try to muscle in these "examples": they forget why they needed examples in the first place. Although it's silly- I wouldn't consider it entirely unreasonable to be interested in finding steel framed construction which collapsed from a fire.

If we had no examples- what would that mean? Nothing, really- since most fires are fought, most steel-framed construction (especially truss design) has fireproofing, and most skyscrapers are not steel-framed construction like that of the Twin Towers. Furthermore, the attack of September 11th was incredibly unique- we have no similar examples with which to draw exact comparisons. We aren't looking at steel-framed buildings hit by suicidal planes, in which a significant fire ensued, and caused collapse- because the only examples we have of that specific event are from September 11th. And don't think that "it never happened before" means it never happens.

What's the point of demanding it be a skyscraper? Absolutely nothing. It has nothing to do with the specific argument whatsoever- it's not like the towers collapsed because of fire, structural damage, and skyscraper-ness. The only reason conspiracists like LastChild include that curious requirement is so that they can avoid the examples that do fit that have already been provided for them.
 
We have two example in history of a tube structure, steel skyscraper being struck by airliners, resulting in massive fires.

Both buildings collapsed. That equals a 100% collapse rate.

Yet twoofers argue that these collapses were impossible based on....what exactly?
 
LastChild said:
No you claimed to have plenty of example to compare to the WTC. Lets see them. I'll come back later when I need a laugh.
Click to expand...

Why is the destruction of buildings and the loss of life something that prompts you to "need a laugh"?

Your a troll.
You do troll with pride so I will give you that.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Yes, and if you remind him of the planes, he will forget the fires.
Click to expand...


Yes. He’ll forget about the planes just long enough to provide you with an example of a building that burned yet did not collapse. Then he’ll forget about the fires just long enough to provide you with an example of a building that was hit by a plane yet did not collapse.

I suppose that’s the kind of bizarre epistemological plate-spinning you need to indulge in when you’re a conspiracy theorist. I couldn’t be bothered with it.
 
Totovader said:
Doesn't it bother you that you have to keep revising this demand to the point that it is so absurd that it isn't even realistic?

We have plenty of examples of steel-framed buildings collapsing from fire alone- which is much less than that on 9/11.

Under what ridiculous criteria do you exclude these various examples?
Click to expand...

Don't you guys realize that no 110-storey, steel framed, tube-in-tube designed, skyscrapers, have never been impacted by planes and caught fire and collapsed, and then 2 did on the same day? What are the odds?

It's almost like it was done on purpose or something . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom