UAE: Dubai hotel goes up in flames.

[Andylusion]

so what was the average wage of the slaves that built this place? $3.25 hr?

Are you kidding? $3.25 is upper class money in some of these areas. Remember, not everyone on the planet is so stuck up and spoiled like Americans.

 

[pwjohn]

Massive Blaze Engulfs Luxury Hotel in Dubai

Massive Blaze Engulfs Luxury Hotel in Dubai

• By JULIA JACOBO

Dec 31, 2015, 1:00 PM ET

Ahmed Jadallah/Reuters
WATCH Massive Fire Engulfs Hotel in Dubai

• 1KSHARES
• Email

A massive fire erupted at the Address Downtown Hotel in Dubai today - sending flames shooting into the sky ahead of the city's glitzy New Year's Eve celebration, the Dubai Media Office confirmed in a tweet.

The fire started on the 20th floor, according to the Dubai government. No injuries have been reported so far, the Dubai Civil Defense General said.

APTN
Fire engulfs a building identified by the Dubai Media Office as The Address Downtown Dubai hotel on Dec. 31, 2015.


The hotel was evacuated, and four teams of firefighters are currently on the scene and have controlled about 65 percent of the fire, according to the Dubai Civil Defense General. Internal fire extinguishers prevented the fire from spreading inside the building, the Dubai government said in a tweet.

The hotel fire is across the street from the location of the New Year's Eve fireworks show, billed to be “bigger than ever” this year with a 20-minute domino-effect firework display shooting from the entire length of the Burj Khalifa skyscraper, the tallest building in the world.

The show will go on as planned, the Dubai Civil Defense General said.

Ahmed Jadallah/Reuters
People run away as a fire engulfs The Address Hotel in downtown Dubai in the United Arab Emirates Dec. 31, 2015.


The cause of the fire is still unknown, the government said.

Ahmed Jadallah/Reuters
A fire engulfs The Address Hotel in downtown Dubai in the United Arab Emirates Dec. 31, 2015


This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Why didn't this tower collapse like the WTC towers straight into its own foot print all tidy like?

Your ignorance rules you.

 

[aris2chat]

so what was the average wage of the slaves that built this place? $3.25 hr?

Are you kidding? $3.25 is upper class money in some of these areas. Remember, not everyone on the planet is so stuck up and spoiled like Americans.

construction workers in Dubai average between $1000-$5000 a month. Engineers, electricians, etc., higher

 

[leftwinger]

Not clear if this was intentional (terrorist) fire. Big fire very quickly. Hard to believe one cigarette?

 

[Rexx Taylor]

maybe some couple was hosting a barbecue on the 20th floor and got the directions wrong?

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[Andylusion]

so what was the average wage of the slaves that built this place? $3.25 hr?

Are you kidding? $3.25 is upper class money in some of these areas. Remember, not everyone on the planet is so stuck up and spoiled like Americans.

construction workers in Dubai average between $1000-$5000 a month. Engineers, electricians, etc., higher

Yeah, that's what I figured. My point was, Americans routinely look down on people in other countries who earn far less than our average, and either start yelling about international companies, or look down at them. In reality, in some places in the world, $3.25 an hour would be an upper class life. People ignore that in those countries, those people are the envy of those around them.

 

[aris2chat]

so what was the average wage of the slaves that built this place? $3.25 hr?

Are you kidding? $3.25 is upper class money in some of these areas. Remember, not everyone on the planet is so stuck up and spoiled like Americans.

construction workers in Dubai average between $1000-$5000 a month. Engineers, electricians, etc., higher

Yeah, that's what I figured. My point was, Americans routinely look down on people in other countries who earn far less than our average, and either start yelling about international companies, or look down at them. In reality, in some places in the world, $3.25 an hour would be an upper class life. People ignore that in those countries, those people are the envy of those around them.

Dubai highers those from outside to do much of the labor. For some they earn enough to support family back home as well as themselves in Dubai.

 

[Andylusion]

Wow.... So he made the video, you posted it here, and someone agreed with it...... and I'm assuming none of you realize the video proves nothing? In fact the video doesn't even make a point.

1. How many forges did you see built around the steel frame of the twin towers?

None. There were no constant heat from a forge. Jet fuel (kerosene) burns extremely fast. Again, the government report made it clear nearly all the fuel burned off with the initial fire ball. If you doubt that, go look at the pictures. There is a picture of a woman standing in the hole of the building. Apparently she missed the memo of the never ending furnace of 1800º heat that you morons claim was there.

So the idea that the steel frame of the building was in a furnace like this one in the video this moron made.

2. 1800º is 300º higher than the max temperature of jet fuel. The moron in the video admits that.

First 1500º is the ideal burn temp. That's an oxygenated fire. Was the fire at 9/11 a environment of pure oxygen? Of course not. It was outdoor air, and 78 floors up. Open air burn temp is lower than ideal. Yet we already know the jet fuel burned off in the first few minutes. The rest of the fuel was paper, and carpet, and office furniture (according to the government report). All of those things burn at a much lower temp than jet fuel.

It is highly impossible for the fire temp to even have reached 1000º, let alone 1500º, let alone 1800º. And while the moron in the video says 1800º is only 300º more than 1500º.... that's huge. 300º difference, is the difference between strong enough to hold up a building, to bending it with your pinky. Steel doesn't weaken linearly. Steel goes from super strong to super weak.

This is for generic steel, but it makes the point.... at 500ºc, it still has 90% of it's strength. At 700ºc it has 20%. So when that idiot says "it's only 300º higher"... that's HUGE.

2. This video shows steel still solid, not melted.

Even the moron in your video agrees it was not melted.... but pictures from 9/11 show molten metal. That is liquid metal in that picture. There are dozens of pictures of this, from numerous sources. Moreover, long after the towers fell, the people who cleaned up, found pools of molten metal.

So the entire point of the video is completely and entirely irrelevant. If you want to be ignorant, and bicker about 1300º, or 1500º or 1800º, because you don't understand science, and were a public school idiot that didn't learn what little is taught in public schools.... ok fine. Be stupid.

But even Forest Gump can figure out that this picture shows LIQUID MOLTEN METAL. Period. And there is absolutely no possible way for jet fuel... let alone office equipment and paper, to melt steel.

So bottom line.... not one thing you posted, or that was in the video, even comes close to addressing the issue we're talking about. Not even close.

 

[aris2chat]

Wow.... So he made the video, you posted it here, and someone agreed with it...... and I'm assuming none of you realize the video proves nothing? In fact the video doesn't even make a point.

1. How many forges did you see built around the steel frame of the twin towers?

None. There were no constant heat from a forge. Jet fuel (kerosene) burns extremely fast. Again, the government report made it clear nearly all the fuel burned off with the initial fire ball. If you doubt that, go look at the pictures. There is a picture of a woman standing in the hole of the building. Apparently she missed the memo of the never ending furnace of 1800º heat that you morons claim was there.

So the idea that the steel frame of the building was in a furnace like this one in the video this moron made.

2. 1800º is 300º higher than the max temperature of jet fuel. The moron in the video admits that.

First 1500º is the ideal burn temp. That's an oxygenated fire. Was the fire at 9/11 a environment of pure oxygen? Of course not. It was outdoor air, and 78 floors up. Open air burn temp is lower than ideal. Yet we already know the jet fuel burned off in the first few minutes. The rest of the fuel was paper, and carpet, and office furniture (according to the government report). All of those things burn at a much lower temp than jet fuel.

It is highly impossible for the fire temp to even have reached 1000º, let alone 1500º, let alone 1800º. And while the moron in the video says 1800º is only 300º more than 1500º.... that's huge. 300º difference, is the difference between strong enough to hold up a building, to bending it with your pinky. Steel doesn't weaken linearly. Steel goes from super strong to super weak.

This is for generic steel, but it makes the point.... at 500ºc, it still has 90% of it's strength. At 700ºc it has 20%. So when that idiot says "it's only 300º higher"... that's HUGE.

2. This video shows steel still solid, not melted.

Even the moron in your video agrees it was not melted.... but pictures from 9/11 show molten metal. That is liquid metal in that picture. There are dozens of pictures of this, from numerous sources. Moreover, long after the towers fell, the people who cleaned up, found pools of molten metal.

So the entire point of the video is completely and entirely irrelevant. If you want to be ignorant, and bicker about 1300º, or 1500º or 1800º, because you don't understand science, and were a public school idiot that didn't learn what little is taught in public schools.... ok fine. Be stupid.

But even Forest Gump can figure out that this picture shows LIQUID MOLTEN METAL. Period. And there is absolutely no possible way for jet fuel... let alone office equipment and paper, to melt steel.

So bottom line.... not one thing you posted, or that was in the video, even comes close to addressing the issue we're talking about. Not even close.

There was no need to melt metal, just weaken it enough at any one or more points.

weakest link..............

heat, pressure, gravity effected all the interconnected building


....it all began with a terrorist attack, years in the planning

 

[Andylusion]

Wow.... So he made the video, you posted it here, and someone agreed with it...... and I'm assuming none of you realize the video proves nothing? In fact the video doesn't even make a point.

1. How many forges did you see built around the steel frame of the twin towers?

None. There were no constant heat from a forge. Jet fuel (kerosene) burns extremely fast. Again, the government report made it clear nearly all the fuel burned off with the initial fire ball. If you doubt that, go look at the pictures. There is a picture of a woman standing in the hole of the building. Apparently she missed the memo of the never ending furnace of 1800º heat that you morons claim was there.

So the idea that the steel frame of the building was in a furnace like this one in the video this moron made.

2. 1800º is 300º higher than the max temperature of jet fuel. The moron in the video admits that.

First 1500º is the ideal burn temp. That's an oxygenated fire. Was the fire at 9/11 a environment of pure oxygen? Of course not. It was outdoor air, and 78 floors up. Open air burn temp is lower than ideal. Yet we already know the jet fuel burned off in the first few minutes. The rest of the fuel was paper, and carpet, and office furniture (according to the government report). All of those things burn at a much lower temp than jet fuel.

It is highly impossible for the fire temp to even have reached 1000º, let alone 1500º, let alone 1800º. And while the moron in the video says 1800º is only 300º more than 1500º.... that's huge. 300º difference, is the difference between strong enough to hold up a building, to bending it with your pinky. Steel doesn't weaken linearly. Steel goes from super strong to super weak.

This is for generic steel, but it makes the point.... at 500ºc, it still has 90% of it's strength. At 700ºc it has 20%. So when that idiot says "it's only 300º higher"... that's HUGE.

2. This video shows steel still solid, not melted.

Even the moron in your video agrees it was not melted.... but pictures from 9/11 show molten metal. That is liquid metal in that picture. There are dozens of pictures of this, from numerous sources. Moreover, long after the towers fell, the people who cleaned up, found pools of molten metal.

So the entire point of the video is completely and entirely irrelevant. If you want to be ignorant, and bicker about 1300º, or 1500º or 1800º, because you don't understand science, and were a public school idiot that didn't learn what little is taught in public schools.... ok fine. Be stupid.

But even Forest Gump can figure out that this picture shows LIQUID MOLTEN METAL. Period. And there is absolutely no possible way for jet fuel... let alone office equipment and paper, to melt steel.

So bottom line.... not one thing you posted, or that was in the video, even comes close to addressing the issue we're talking about. Not even close.

There was no need to melt metal, just weaken it enough at any one or more points.

weakest link..............

heat, pressure, gravity effected all the interconnected building


....it all began with a terrorist attack, years in the planning

Doesn't matter. That does not make any difference. The fact is THERE WAS MOLTEN METAL. Doesn't matter whether they needed molten metal, THERE WAS MOLTEN METAL.

How did it get there? Burning paper melted steel? Burn jet fuel melted steel? Burn farts melted steel? The bottom line is, there is no known method by which you can burn kerosene, or paper, or anything present at the twin towers, and result in molten metal flowing off the sides of the building.

Moreover, even your point is irrelevant. There is no way, no possible way, that jet fuel or paper, got that steel hot enough to weaken. Called physics. Can't get there from here.

 

[Godboy]

Wow.... So he made the video, you posted it here, and someone agreed with it...... and I'm assuming none of you realize the video proves nothing? In fact the video doesn't even make a point.

1. How many forges did you see built around the steel frame of the twin towers?

None. There were no constant heat from a forge. Jet fuel (kerosene) burns extremely fast. Again, the government report made it clear nearly all the fuel burned off with the initial fire ball. If you doubt that, go look at the pictures. There is a picture of a woman standing in the hole of the building. Apparently she missed the memo of the never ending furnace of 1800º heat that you morons claim was there.

So the idea that the steel frame of the building was in a furnace like this one in the video this moron made.

2. 1800º is 300º higher than the max temperature of jet fuel. The moron in the video admits that.

First 1500º is the ideal burn temp. That's an oxygenated fire. Was the fire at 9/11 a environment of pure oxygen? Of course not. It was outdoor air, and 78 floors up. Open air burn temp is lower than ideal. Yet we already know the jet fuel burned off in the first few minutes. The rest of the fuel was paper, and carpet, and office furniture (according to the government report). All of those things burn at a much lower temp than jet fuel.

It is highly impossible for the fire temp to even have reached 1000º, let alone 1500º, let alone 1800º. And while the moron in the video says 1800º is only 300º more than 1500º.... that's huge. 300º difference, is the difference between strong enough to hold up a building, to bending it with your pinky. Steel doesn't weaken linearly. Steel goes from super strong to super weak.

This is for generic steel, but it makes the point.... at 500ºc, it still has 90% of it's strength. At 700ºc it has 20%. So when that idiot says "it's only 300º higher"... that's HUGE.

2. This video shows steel still solid, not melted.

Even the moron in your video agrees it was not melted.... but pictures from 9/11 show molten metal. That is liquid metal in that picture. There are dozens of pictures of this, from numerous sources. Moreover, long after the towers fell, the people who cleaned up, found pools of molten metal.

So the entire point of the video is completely and entirely irrelevant. If you want to be ignorant, and bicker about 1300º, or 1500º or 1800º, because you don't understand science, and were a public school idiot that didn't learn what little is taught in public schools.... ok fine. Be stupid.

But even Forest Gump can figure out that this picture shows LIQUID MOLTEN METAL. Period. And there is absolutely no possible way for jet fuel... let alone office equipment and paper, to melt steel.

So bottom line.... not one thing you posted, or that was in the video, even comes close to addressing the issue we're talking about. Not even close.

There was no need to melt metal, just weaken it enough at any one or more points.

weakest link..............

heat, pressure, gravity effected all the interconnected building


....it all began with a terrorist attack, years in the planning

Doesn't matter. That does not make any difference. The fact is THERE WAS MOLTEN METAL. Doesn't matter whether they needed molten metal, THERE WAS MOLTEN METAL.

How did it get there? Burning paper melted steel? Burn jet fuel melted steel? Burn farts melted steel? The bottom line is, there is no known method by which you can burn kerosene, or paper, or anything present at the twin towers, and result in molten metal flowing off the sides of the building.

Moreover, even your point is irrelevant. There is no way, no possible way, that jet fuel or paper, got that steel hot enough to weaken. Called physics. Can't get there from here.

Shut up weirdo. Normal people dont give a shit about your stupid tin foil nonsense.

 

[Andylusion]

Wow.... So he made the video, you posted it here, and someone agreed with it...... and I'm assuming none of you realize the video proves nothing? In fact the video doesn't even make a point.

1. How many forges did you see built around the steel frame of the twin towers?

None. There were no constant heat from a forge. Jet fuel (kerosene) burns extremely fast. Again, the government report made it clear nearly all the fuel burned off with the initial fire ball. If you doubt that, go look at the pictures. There is a picture of a woman standing in the hole of the building. Apparently she missed the memo of the never ending furnace of 1800º heat that you morons claim was there.

So the idea that the steel frame of the building was in a furnace like this one in the video this moron made.

2. 1800º is 300º higher than the max temperature of jet fuel. The moron in the video admits that.

First 1500º is the ideal burn temp. That's an oxygenated fire. Was the fire at 9/11 a environment of pure oxygen? Of course not. It was outdoor air, and 78 floors up. Open air burn temp is lower than ideal. Yet we already know the jet fuel burned off in the first few minutes. The rest of the fuel was paper, and carpet, and office furniture (according to the government report). All of those things burn at a much lower temp than jet fuel.

It is highly impossible for the fire temp to even have reached 1000º, let alone 1500º, let alone 1800º. And while the moron in the video says 1800º is only 300º more than 1500º.... that's huge. 300º difference, is the difference between strong enough to hold up a building, to bending it with your pinky. Steel doesn't weaken linearly. Steel goes from super strong to super weak.

This is for generic steel, but it makes the point.... at 500ºc, it still has 90% of it's strength. At 700ºc it has 20%. So when that idiot says "it's only 300º higher"... that's HUGE.

2. This video shows steel still solid, not melted.

Even the moron in your video agrees it was not melted.... but pictures from 9/11 show molten metal. That is liquid metal in that picture. There are dozens of pictures of this, from numerous sources. Moreover, long after the towers fell, the people who cleaned up, found pools of molten metal.

So the entire point of the video is completely and entirely irrelevant. If you want to be ignorant, and bicker about 1300º, or 1500º or 1800º, because you don't understand science, and were a public school idiot that didn't learn what little is taught in public schools.... ok fine. Be stupid.

But even Forest Gump can figure out that this picture shows LIQUID MOLTEN METAL. Period. And there is absolutely no possible way for jet fuel... let alone office equipment and paper, to melt steel.

So bottom line.... not one thing you posted, or that was in the video, even comes close to addressing the issue we're talking about. Not even close.

There was no need to melt metal, just weaken it enough at any one or more points.

weakest link..............

heat, pressure, gravity effected all the interconnected building


....it all began with a terrorist attack, years in the planning

Doesn't matter. That does not make any difference. The fact is THERE WAS MOLTEN METAL. Doesn't matter whether they needed molten metal, THERE WAS MOLTEN METAL.

How did it get there? Burning paper melted steel? Burn jet fuel melted steel? Burn farts melted steel? The bottom line is, there is no known method by which you can burn kerosene, or paper, or anything present at the twin towers, and result in molten metal flowing off the sides of the building.

Moreover, even your point is irrelevant. There is no way, no possible way, that jet fuel or paper, got that steel hot enough to weaken. Called physics. Can't get there from here.

Shut up weirdo. Normal people dont give a shit about your stupid tin foil nonsense.

Stay stupid. It's ok with me.

If you can argue against anything I said, I'd love to see it. But no, that's why you resort to insults.

 

[Godboy]

Wow.... So he made the video, you posted it here, and someone agreed with it...... and I'm assuming none of you realize the video proves nothing? In fact the video doesn't even make a point.

1. How many forges did you see built around the steel frame of the twin towers?

None. There were no constant heat from a forge. Jet fuel (kerosene) burns extremely fast. Again, the government report made it clear nearly all the fuel burned off with the initial fire ball. If you doubt that, go look at the pictures. There is a picture of a woman standing in the hole of the building. Apparently she missed the memo of the never ending furnace of 1800º heat that you morons claim was there.

So the idea that the steel frame of the building was in a furnace like this one in the video this moron made.

2. 1800º is 300º higher than the max temperature of jet fuel. The moron in the video admits that.

First 1500º is the ideal burn temp. That's an oxygenated fire. Was the fire at 9/11 a environment of pure oxygen? Of course not. It was outdoor air, and 78 floors up. Open air burn temp is lower than ideal. Yet we already know the jet fuel burned off in the first few minutes. The rest of the fuel was paper, and carpet, and office furniture (according to the government report). All of those things burn at a much lower temp than jet fuel.

It is highly impossible for the fire temp to even have reached 1000º, let alone 1500º, let alone 1800º. And while the moron in the video says 1800º is only 300º more than 1500º.... that's huge. 300º difference, is the difference between strong enough to hold up a building, to bending it with your pinky. Steel doesn't weaken linearly. Steel goes from super strong to super weak.

This is for generic steel, but it makes the point.... at 500ºc, it still has 90% of it's strength. At 700ºc it has 20%. So when that idiot says "it's only 300º higher"... that's HUGE.

2. This video shows steel still solid, not melted.

Even the moron in your video agrees it was not melted.... but pictures from 9/11 show molten metal. That is liquid metal in that picture. There are dozens of pictures of this, from numerous sources. Moreover, long after the towers fell, the people who cleaned up, found pools of molten metal.

So the entire point of the video is completely and entirely irrelevant. If you want to be ignorant, and bicker about 1300º, or 1500º or 1800º, because you don't understand science, and were a public school idiot that didn't learn what little is taught in public schools.... ok fine. Be stupid.

But even Forest Gump can figure out that this picture shows LIQUID MOLTEN METAL. Period. And there is absolutely no possible way for jet fuel... let alone office equipment and paper, to melt steel.

So bottom line.... not one thing you posted, or that was in the video, even comes close to addressing the issue we're talking about. Not even close.

There was no need to melt metal, just weaken it enough at any one or more points.

weakest link..............

heat, pressure, gravity effected all the interconnected building


....it all began with a terrorist attack, years in the planning

Doesn't matter. That does not make any difference. The fact is THERE WAS MOLTEN METAL. Doesn't matter whether they needed molten metal, THERE WAS MOLTEN METAL.

How did it get there? Burning paper melted steel? Burn jet fuel melted steel? Burn farts melted steel? The bottom line is, there is no known method by which you can burn kerosene, or paper, or anything present at the twin towers, and result in molten metal flowing off the sides of the building.

Moreover, even your point is irrelevant. There is no way, no possible way, that jet fuel or paper, got that steel hot enough to weaken. Called physics. Can't get there from here.

Shut up weirdo. Normal people dont give a shit about your stupid tin foil nonsense.

Stay stupid. It's ok with me.

If you can argue against anything I said, I'd love to see it. But no, that's why you resort to insults.

Why would i bother? Youre just a fucktard who believes stupid shit. The insults arent necessary... just fun.

 

[Andylusion]

Wow.... So he made the video, you posted it here, and someone agreed with it...... and I'm assuming none of you realize the video proves nothing? In fact the video doesn't even make a point.

1. How many forges did you see built around the steel frame of the twin towers?

None. There were no constant heat from a forge. Jet fuel (kerosene) burns extremely fast. Again, the government report made it clear nearly all the fuel burned off with the initial fire ball. If you doubt that, go look at the pictures. There is a picture of a woman standing in the hole of the building. Apparently she missed the memo of the never ending furnace of 1800º heat that you morons claim was there.

So the idea that the steel frame of the building was in a furnace like this one in the video this moron made.

2. 1800º is 300º higher than the max temperature of jet fuel. The moron in the video admits that.

First 1500º is the ideal burn temp. That's an oxygenated fire. Was the fire at 9/11 a environment of pure oxygen? Of course not. It was outdoor air, and 78 floors up. Open air burn temp is lower than ideal. Yet we already know the jet fuel burned off in the first few minutes. The rest of the fuel was paper, and carpet, and office furniture (according to the government report). All of those things burn at a much lower temp than jet fuel.

It is highly impossible for the fire temp to even have reached 1000º, let alone 1500º, let alone 1800º. And while the moron in the video says 1800º is only 300º more than 1500º.... that's huge. 300º difference, is the difference between strong enough to hold up a building, to bending it with your pinky. Steel doesn't weaken linearly. Steel goes from super strong to super weak.

This is for generic steel, but it makes the point.... at 500ºc, it still has 90% of it's strength. At 700ºc it has 20%. So when that idiot says "it's only 300º higher"... that's HUGE.

2. This video shows steel still solid, not melted.

Even the moron in your video agrees it was not melted.... but pictures from 9/11 show molten metal. That is liquid metal in that picture. There are dozens of pictures of this, from numerous sources. Moreover, long after the towers fell, the people who cleaned up, found pools of molten metal.

So the entire point of the video is completely and entirely irrelevant. If you want to be ignorant, and bicker about 1300º, or 1500º or 1800º, because you don't understand science, and were a public school idiot that didn't learn what little is taught in public schools.... ok fine. Be stupid.

But even Forest Gump can figure out that this picture shows LIQUID MOLTEN METAL. Period. And there is absolutely no possible way for jet fuel... let alone office equipment and paper, to melt steel.

So bottom line.... not one thing you posted, or that was in the video, even comes close to addressing the issue we're talking about. Not even close.

There was no need to melt metal, just weaken it enough at any one or more points.

weakest link..............

heat, pressure, gravity effected all the interconnected building


....it all began with a terrorist attack, years in the planning

Doesn't matter. That does not make any difference. The fact is THERE WAS MOLTEN METAL. Doesn't matter whether they needed molten metal, THERE WAS MOLTEN METAL.

How did it get there? Burning paper melted steel? Burn jet fuel melted steel? Burn farts melted steel? The bottom line is, there is no known method by which you can burn kerosene, or paper, or anything present at the twin towers, and result in molten metal flowing off the sides of the building.

Moreover, even your point is irrelevant. There is no way, no possible way, that jet fuel or paper, got that steel hot enough to weaken. Called physics. Can't get there from here.

Shut up weirdo. Normal people dont give a shit about your stupid tin foil nonsense.

Stay stupid. It's ok with me.

If you can argue against anything I said, I'd love to see it. But no, that's why you resort to insults.

Why would i bother? Youre just a fucktard who believes stupid shit. The insults arent necessary... just fun.

Yeah, I believe physics. You believe in stupid. Please continue.

 

[Muhammed]

Not clear if this was intentional (terrorist) fire. Big fire very quickly. Hard to believe one cigarette?

Google



When the boss says no smoking...

...sometimes it is not just for his own health.

And Richard Pryor died a long time ago. So apparently it wasn't him freebasing cocaine.