posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 11:04 PM
Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Human_Alien
Buildings don't collapse when hit by planes ?
Sure they do , take a look :
Steel and concrete-reinforced buildings won't collapse due to fires ?
Sure they will , here , take a look :
edit on 25-9-2010 by okbmd because: (no reason given)
Upon further examination , I must conclude that the youtube video in my first
post is obviously a fake .
edit on Sun Sep 26 2010 by DontTreadOnMe because: per member request
OKBMD is now doing what's called "back tracking"....as evidenced from above.
Your original post stated that steel and concrete reinforced BUILDINGS won't COLLAPSE due to fire.
You posted a photo of the Madrid Windsor building, which strangely, as many photo show, is STILL STANDING.
Now you're breaking down your debate to mean "certain parts of buildings" or "steel sections collapsing".
You've changed you debate which is available for all to see if they read your posts.
I debunked your first video as a fake. YOU debunked YOURSELF before I did. You even admitted that you asked the moderator to remove it. (guess it's
Your own PHOTO that you point to as proof of the Madrid Windsors COLLAPSE....debunks YOU simply by seeing the PHOTO and understanding the word
"COLLAPSE". I.E. The majority of the structure is still standing, it still qualifies as a standing structure. I.E. It is a very badly burnt, melted,
building...which is mainly intact.
You are now being disingenuous after being given multiple times to simply say you concede, and you were wrong. You cannot let go so now you're
spinning a different debate and moving the goal posts.
The tactic is widely known and transparent.
If you said that "steel integrity can be weakened by fire" or that "a section of a building has collapsed due to fire"....we wouldn't be here.
I would say nice try, but it isn't. It is flat out disingenuous.
Now YOU are on ignore.