Did the skyscraper in Dubai collapse?

Enlighten us.

Anyone with half a brain could figure that out.

Now explain to me how three building with tens of thousands of occupants could be wired with explosives (a very time consuming and labor intensive process) with no one noticing? And who did the wiring? Who paid them? Why? How have they been kept quiet? Why go to all the fuss of flying planes into the buildings when you could have just blown them up with the touch of a button and killed tens of thousands MORE people.

You just can't throw out bullshit conspiracy theories without having the detail to back them up. Please fill those of us with half a brain in please.

But if i only had 1/2 or less a brain I may agree.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=147862

with the added bonus of a time out? Priceless.

Oh the humanity!

Instead of being vague, why not actually MAKE the point? Are you implying that the World Trade Center came down not because a plane flew into it and it burned, but because of another reason? That it was wired with explosives perhaps and someone ordered the buildings detonated? Or something else? Please don't be shy. If you have a point to make, please make it.

Because this response deserves the slow clap treatment. The passive aggressiveness around this place sometimes reminds me of Thanksgiving with my own family.

?resize=200%2C200

Please supply your own words.

" That it was wired with explosives perhaps and someone ordered the buildings detonated? " But not just it but all three buildings on 911.

Were wired with enough explosives to bring them down, yet no one noticed a thing. Interesting.

Another question. If they were wired with explosives, and could be brought down with the touch of a button, what was the purpose in flying planes into them?

The answers to many of these questions are out there. But you, and everyone else who have not bothered to read the extensive material by now don't actually care about the how or why.

on the details of this crime. Ok then.
The purpose of the planes was many fold.
1) to insure Silverstein got his terrorist attack clause insurance cash.
2) to give the PNACers their "new Pearl Harbor event" so they could get their war on.
3) to help disguise the explosives and incendiaries used in the demolitions.
4) to get the patriot act passed...which was written well in advance of 911.
There are probably more but those immediately come to mind.

Pegged it.

when it's true.

Didn't you notice that both towers collapsed from the aircraft impact locations? What other explanation for that fact could there be other than the aircraft were needed to cover-up and help set off the explosions?

And, it gave them a few more minutes of distraction while the put the last ones in place, I'm guess is your rationalization.

Sometimes, it pays to think for a few seconds.

you seem to be so naive about 911and PNAC and the criminals running the world.

wrong forum.

DONT BOM AR MUN!

and what they did to Minmus, even worse.

My God! Will you never learn?

But there were no planes hitting the hotel.

Did any buildings collapse without being hit, at 9/11?

If so, I apologize. I may not know all the details.

I'm not opining one way or the other, but here's the Wikipedia link. Look for the section titled "Collapse."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

Any official explanation?

Ok nvm, from wiki:The original 7 World Trade Center was 47 stories tall, clad in red exterior masonry, and occupied a trapezoidal footprint. An elevated walkway connected the building to the World Trade Center plaza. The building was situated above a Consolidated Edison power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints. When the building opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants. In 1988, Salomon Brothers signed a long-term lease, and became the main tenants of the building. On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm, according to FEMA,[6] while the 2008 NIST study placed the final collapse time at 5:20:52 pm.[

Nonsense! but thanks for playing.

it was just an oversight or a typo or something.

NIST: Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?

The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm



For more info stop by Creative Speculation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135

Then they "lost" the 911 tapes. And "found" them a year later.

Because you deserve a refund.

This is CT bullpuckey.

Walmart?
http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html

What's your point?

Creative Speculation is elsewhere.

that someone must die in every car accident? Because the facts are that although some people die in car accidents, a lot of people do not die in car accidents and people do not die in every car accident. Outcomes between life and death vary in car accidents.

Accident investigations often determine reasons based upon science as to why someone might die in a car accident and why someone else might not in a different car accident - usually because the circumstances were different in some way. Occasionally, it might just be luck ... "an inch more that way and they'd be dead!" So it goes with structural buildings when engineers look at what went wrong.

Not all buildings suffer structural failure due to fire. Some because they don't have faulty fire retardant like the WTC. Some because the jet fuel fire at the WTC burned hotter. Some because they didn't suffer the structural damage the WTC did when the jets slammed into it. Some because most structural steel towers are designed structurally differently than the WTC was for economical reasons to reach it's lofty height - where the walls were oriented more to bearing some/more of the load. Some because of the size of the WTC relative to other buildings.

Etc, etc, etc.

All these things and more determine whether a building will stand or fall in a fire. And the engineers don't rely on conspiracy theorists to arrive at their scientific conclusions!!

Since there is no way to know all those things yet for this Dubai hotel, then no one can provide a credible answer for some time to come - though one might make some good guesses as they get more info collected.

You have to look at ALL the factors as to why a building stands or falls much like the engineers did when they examined the cause of failure of the WTCs on 9/11. Nearly every situation is different. My father and I, both with structural engineering backgrounds, reviewed the thousand page plus report and thought it made perfect sense and was pretty well done. I'm well aware of wackos on the internet who saw it differently and there were scientific explanations for the exploding joints video but I did not see the conspiracy theorists present anything remotely credible.