Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FetishTom
We have a winner! 
Comparison of the two events is in fact meaningless. Madrid sheds no light either way on what happened to Building 7 or the twin towers as the height/design/construction of the building and the event trauma were different in each case.
Goodnight |
LMAO. So you are honestly going to say that comparing the two skyscrapers means nothing? Then why did you bring it up in the first place? I'll explain it to you if you don't understand it yourself:
Let's see... you brought it up because you somehow thought it would magically prove that a skyscraper could be demolished completely from fire alone. Instead of double checking, you were so sure that this was your "magic bullet" and you went ahead and decided to foolishly make an entire post dedicated to the Madrid building. When I point out to you that the Madrid building never collapsed, unlike Building #7, you went on to say "Uh huh, it did TOO get destroyed tee-hee! See the fire damage! Tee-hee!". When I pointed out that the entire time I have been referring to modern skyscrapers and being destroyed is using destroy in such a context to mean total COLLAPSE of the building. In fact, if you care to actually re-read pages 1-5 you?ll see that I clearly state modern skyscraper + collapse about fifty some-odd times BEFORE you stupidly brought Madrid into the mix.
Instead of accepting your wrongs, you instead have to keep on posting more and more bullshit and in doing so you keep digging yourself deeper into a hole. That hole is kinda huge now wouldn't you say? I bet it's so big that not even O?Reilly could lie himself out of. I really enjoyed our little debate though to be honest it really wasn?t much of a debate with you lying and spewing out false analogy after false analogy. But it was fun regardless! If you care to continue please bring up some other useless lie so we can have fun with that tomorrow
