Dubai Fire. God loves Arab skyscrapers more than Yankee ones

[Galaxian]

How strange; the 63 floor, slender hotel in Dubai burns fiercely for several hours & stands tall as ever.

WTC 7, of the same height, & much broader footprint, with over 80 distinct columns, burns for less time in a few filing cabinets, & suddenly comes down uniformly at freefall speed in 6 seconds.



Obviously God loves Dubai more than New York. And they went ahead with the New Year fireworks anyway

[pErvinalia]

Fireproofed structural beams, no jet fuel. [End thread]

[cronus]

Aviation fuel requires a jet engine to get really hot...most would have spilled inert into lower levels within minutes....the burn zone of WTC was exactly the same as Dubai - no spectacular flares reminiscent of a something burning furiously through solid concrete...

[Seth]

Aviation fuel requires a jet engine to get really hot...

No it doesn't. Jet-A auto-ignites at 410 degrees F, which is lower than the ignition temperature of paper, and it's open-flame flash-point is only 100 degrees F.

most would have spilled inert into lower levels within minutes

Complete physics fail. See below.

....the burn zone of WTC was exactly the same as Dubai

No, the burn zone at the WTC started at the floors where the aircraft impacted, not at the base of the tower.

- no spectacular flares reminiscent of a something burning furiously through solid concrete...

Well, the concrete wasn't particularly solid after a 60,000 pound aircraft hit it going 400 knots don't you see...

So, therefore, horseshit. The impact of 60,000 pounds of fully-fueled flying metal at 400 knots, then the atomization of said jet fuel due to velocity and disintegration of the airframe and fuel tanks, then the ignition of said atomized fuel explosively, as seen on TV, in a manner consistent with the most destructive non-nuclear bomb ever invented, the fuel-air explosive, then the hours long deep internal fire weakening improperly engineered joist end connectors and improperly fireproofed columns leading to deformation of the joist ends and their slipping off of the support members causing the concrete pan to fall to the floor below, whose joist ends were weakened by the fire, which caused collapse of those two floors onto the floor below, whose joist ends were weakened by the fire, causing all three of those floors to collapse to the floor below, which was not designed to support the sudden impact of hundreds of thousands of pounds of concrete descending at 35 feet per second per second, causing the joist ends to fail, leading to a catastrophic cascade failure of every succeeding floor is what brought down the towers.

No such forces impacted the Dubai tower, but I doubt it's still structurally sound and it's likely it will have to be demolished due to damage to the steel structures from the heat. Maybe not, if they properly insulated the steel, but the fire was so widespread it may not be worth the risk.

[Brian Peacock]

So, therefore, horseshit.

I find myself in total agreement.

[JimC]

So, therefore, horseshit.

I find myself in total agreement.

Seth has his uses, if only in crapping on Galaxian from a great height...

[cronus]

I don't know what I'm on about, thankfully experts here put me right. Tin foil hat discarded.

[pErvinalia]

It waz the Joos

[Galaxian]

Fireproofed structural beams, no jet fuel. [End thread]

Don't know what you're all wittering about. Read my post again. http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 3#p1634525

I distinctly wrote, WTC 7. I did make one mistake; the Dubai building (63 floors, 302m) is taller than WTC 7 (47 floors, 226m) and thus has greater stresses. But it is still intact.

Still, keep deluding yourselves with your theism, that God intervened on 9/11 to prove His existence with 3 miracles of spontaneous demolition

[Brian Peacock]

B ¬ A. Therefore conspiracy.

Or...

B is not like A, but B should be exactly like A, therefore someone must have done something to make B different from A. I mean, things happen for a reason don't they(?), and when you can't see or find a reason for something happening, 'specially some big, significant thing happening like a massive building falling down, then somebody must have changed the conditions of B so they were different than the conditions of A. In fact, the fact that B is different from A proves that some changes had been made because B should be exactly the same as A, and any excuses for why B is not the same as A are either just part of the smokescreen, false-flag, disinformation put out by whoever changed the conditions, or it just means that people can't or won't accept that something significant is going on here - probably because they're too stupid or brainwashed to even grasp the basics. The fact that B is a Building and A is an Assumption about how buildings should behave makes no difference at all, something happened that should not have happened and some powerful agency like the CIA, Mosad, Spectre, the Illuminati, or God interfered to make it happen.

[laklak]

It waz the Joos

Alien Joos.

[mistermack]

As far as I recall, the WT7 building was brought down after being struck by debris from one of the two giant buildings, not as a direct result of fire.
It's a totally different collapse. It could be that fire contributed to the collapse, but it wasn't the direct cause.

[pErvinalia]

The most insidious kind!

[JimC]

B ¬ A. Therefore conspiracy.

Or...

B is not like A, but B should be exactly like A, therefore someone must have done something to make B different from A. I mean, things happen for a reason don't they(?), and when you can't see or find a reason for something happening, 'specially some big, significant thing happening like a massive building falling down, then somebody must have changed the conditions of B so they were different than the conditions of A. In fact, the fact that B is different from A proves that some changes had been made because B should be exactly the same as A, and any excuses for why B is not the same as A are either just part of the smokescreen, false-flag, disinformation put out by whoever changed the conditions, or it just means that people can't or won't accept that something significant is going on here - probably because they're too stupid or brainwashed to even grasp the basics. The fact that B is a Building and A is an Assumption about how buildings should behave makes no difference at all, something happened that should not have happened and some powerful agency like the CIA, Mosad, Spectre, the Illuminati, or God interfered to make it happen.

[Seth]

As far as I recall, the WT7 building was brought down after being struck by debris from one of the two giant buildings, not as a direct result of fire.
It's a totally different collapse. It could be that fire contributed to the collapse, but it wasn't the direct cause.

Yup. The collapsed buildings literally knocked the pins out from under it.

We should take this however as an admission that the actual attack on the twin towers was actually a terrorist attack actually committed by flying aircraft into the buildings, since he chooses to attempt to evade the core question by talking only about building 7.

The other obvious question would be, "If your conspiracy theory with respect to Building 7 is true, and that structure was demolished by pre-planted explosives put there by the government, what would the motive be to bring down Building 7 deliberately? It couldn't be to kill people as the building was entirely evacuated long before it collapsed. If the whole attack was a pre-planned event with all the buildings pre-wired with explosives then why didn't Building 7 go down at the same time, when it was occupied?

By evading the collapse of the towers and trying to focus on Building 7 alone he is desperately trying to prop up a conspiracy theory that just doesn't hold water, at all.

Now, it could be that, being the heroic guys they are, the Port Authority bomb-riggers went into the burning Building 7 and, at great risk to themselves, wired it with explosives in order to bring it down. Of course this ignores the question of why they might do so.

Here's the reason: They wanted to bring the building down safely because it was a serious danger as long as it still stood due to the massive damage caused by the collapse of the towers and could not be reoccupied anyway.

Interestingly, I recall news reports of discussions to do exactly that, for exactly that reason, but only after the fire was extinguished so that demolition teams could enter with some reasonable safety. That plan was under discussion when the building collapsed of it's own accord, to great sighs of relief from the authorities who weren't looking forward to the extremely dangerous notion of having to either enter the structure to wire it or even try to demolish it a little at a time externally, given the enormous danger of exactly what happened to it.

The reason I recall this is because I recall having a specific discussion with friends about the possibility of simply having a military aircraft drop a couple of JDAM's on the building to bring it down safely.