Wassup with German Fire Trucks?

Foofie wrote:

Let's question why in 2008 a four story building didn't have a fire escape.

Because you only find fire escapes of that type, in certain types of architecture, in buildings of a certain age.

They're quite rare in Toronto, for example.

It's quite striking to see all the fire escapes in Manhattan, as there is such a density of that particular age and design of building.

It is not common at all.

ehBeth wrote:

Foofie wrote:

Let's question why in 2008 a four story building didn't have a fire escape.

Because you only find fire escapes of that type, in certain types of architecture, in buildings of a certain age.

They're quite rare in Toronto, for example.

It's quite striking to see all the fire escapes in Manhattan, as there is such a density of that particular age and design of building.

It is not common at all.

Poppycock! If there is concern with safety, some type of fire escape can be attached to the side of a building. Engineers can do these things, but it costs money. Something that might not exist in city treasuries everywhere, and God forbid the citizenry should be taxed for such things.

you tell me, since you're making allegations, i'm sure you have read the latest press about the case.

why would "administration" be guilty? do they own the building?

Poppycock! If there is concern with safety, some type of fire escape can be attached to the side of a building.

Foofie wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

Foofie wrote:

Let's question why in 2008 a four story building didn't have a fire escape.

Because you only find fire escapes of that type, in certain types of architecture, in buildings of a certain age.

They're quite rare in Toronto, for example.

It's quite striking to see all the fire escapes in Manhattan, as there is such a density of that particular age and design of building.

It is not common at all.

Poppycock! If there is concern with safety, some type of fire escape can be attached to the side of a building. Engineers can do these things, but it costs money. Something that might not exist in city treasuries everywhere, and God forbid the citizenry should be taxed for such things.

you know everything about everything, don't you.... you should be advising architects and legislators on affixing some type of something on buildings all around the world...

Foofie wrote:

Poppycock! If there is concern with safety, some type of fire escape can be attached to the side of a building.

It's got nothing to do with taxation or safety.

It has to do with architecture and design. Fire escapes of the type you commonly see in Manhattan simply are not the norm.

There's a reason tourists wander around taking photos of the fire escapes in Manhattan. They're novelties.

you don't know what i thought you were saying...

administration does not "maintain" fire codes.

this building was in violatiion of german fire codes. that's not "administration's" fault.

did you read at least one whole article about the incident? you don't seem to know the basics of what happened there.

first of, the newspapers DID report that the building was in violation of fire codes. so you can take your entire collective guilt youknowwhere...

secondly, the remorse is your question, not mine. you go do the footwork.

and yes, i can read german.

besides, you can start with the english version... not your style though. you just profess and preach. research? not so much.

Is this Italg/massagat/whatthehello again?

Is this Italg/massagat/whatthehello again?

The endless point avoiding babble resembles it.