Did the skyscraper in Dubai collapse?

[Human101948]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by LeftishBrit (a host of the General Discussion forum).

As we know from 9/11, skyscrapers melt and collapse after fires like this.

[Skittles]

1. was it hit by a BIG plane?

[pintobean]

9. What footprint should they have collapsed into?

[OilemFirchen]

22. I'm not saying it was Godzilla...

[Warren DeMontague]

10. "so I just keep what's still unchewed... and I take it home, save it for later"

[wildbilln864]

12. precisely! thank you! n/t

[philosslayer]

13. So.... what caused it?

Enlighten us.

[ThePhilosopher04]

19. Controlled demolition most likely

Anyone with half a brain could figure that out.

[philosslayer]

23. Why thank you for filling me in.

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.

[pintobean]

24. Someone with a half a brain has.

[GGJohn]

26. Yep, you are one of those.

[cpwm17]

31. A half a brain and a 10 minute internet degree.

[juxtaposed]

32. I only have 3/4 of a brain and i think you are sadly confused

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

[GGJohn]

17. Oh, you're one of those?

[pintobean]

54. ThePhilosopher04 has collapsed into his own time-out

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

[GGJohn]

61. 2 hides in the same thread.

with the added bonus of a time out? Priceless.

[pintobean]

2. Did you ask Faye Roe?

[Human101948]

6. Hey what has a enflamed granary have to do with it?

Oh the humanity!

[pintobean]

21. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027486911

[philosslayer]

3. I assume you're trying to make a point

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.

[Nevernose]

4. Do gifs work on DU?

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

[Bad Thoughts]

14. Nah, this needs some Gospel music.

Please supply your own words.

[wildbilln864]

15. well yes I will make the point that

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

[philosslayer]

18. So these buildings, in which thousands of people visited each day..

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?

[GGJohn]

34. Oh, there are naive members here, just look in the mirror to see one. eom.

[GoneFishin]

40. Without the planes you would lose your cover story. So plausible deniability is the answer.

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.

[wildbilln864]

42. I see you're fairly lost

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.

[GGJohn]

55. Ahem,

Pegged it.

[wildbilln864]

57. pegged yourself yes! n/t

[GGJohn]

59. Now there's a snappy comeback.

[wildbilln864]

60. no need to be snappy

when it's true.

[cpwm17]

48. Silly you.

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?

[GGJohn]

20. LOL.

[L. Coyote]

43. And the planes, that was just a distraction so no one would notice there were explosives.

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.

[wildbilln864]

46. see post 42 since...

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

[Warren DeMontague]

5. TROOOOOOOOOOOOOF!

wrong forum.

[Dr. Strange]

51. DER BOMIN AR MUN!

DONT BOM AR MUN!

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Dont get me started on Mun

and what they did to Minmus, even worse.

[Logical]

8. Oh FFS, not this shit again. nt

[Human101948]

11. Your post is just encouraging this asshole...

My God! Will you never learn?

[rbrnmw]

16. Oh boy

[name not needed]

25. Did you know you can actually buy tinfoil hats now?

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/shieldapparel/shield-the-world-s-first-signal-proof-headwear

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Thanks they must be warm in winter

[sarisataka]

28. Let's ask Loki...

[darkangel218]

29. Forgive my ignorance, (not snark)

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.

[mak3cats]

37. Yes, building 7...

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

[darkangel218]

39. Hmm.. So why did it fell?

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.[

Still.
Wtf..

[tammywammy]

44. ...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

[wildbilln864]

56. well that was...

Nonsense! but thanks for playing.

[GoneFishin]

45. No mention of WTC7 was included in the 9/11 report. It was just one building, so I am sure

it was just an oversight or a typo or something.

[nationalize the fed]

38. No plane hit WTC 7

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

[darkangel218]

41. Oh crap...

[nationalize the fed]

49. The BBC wasn't surprised

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

[cpwm17]

50. WTC7 was set on fire by the falling, burning debris of the north tower. n/t

[rjsquirrel]

33. Where'd you get your engineering degree?

Because you deserve a refund.

This is CT bullpuckey.

[wildbilln864]

52. where'd you get yours?

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

[juxtaposed]

35. fruit cakes for everyone with 1/2 a brain or less!

[Drunken Irishman]

36. I saw a house collapse in a house fire once...but another one, another time, didn't.

What's your point?

[Codeine]

47. We jeep the embarrassing CT aunts in the attic.

Creative Speculation is elsewhere.

[Jarqui]

53. If there is a car accident and someone dies, does that mean to you

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.

[LeftishBrit]

62. The hosts have decided to lock this. You may re-post in Creative Speculation.