Conspiracy Theories for Cynics
Discussion
scherzkeks said:
Vaud said:
Indeed, and they were also the only ones that had 7000 gallons+ (?) of jet fuel added to their contents.. which was never in the design perimeter?
Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling:“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
Also, only this only applies to two of the buildings.
Essentially a life time apart in design and other simulation systems, though I am sure they did their best at the time with the tools available.
DoubleTime said:
shakotan said:
Not trure, consideration was made regarding a direct impact from a Boeing 707.
And how exactly do you "consider" for the impact then? Drivel.https://youtu.be/aAVd2txjNEc
DoubleTime said:
shakotan said:
Not trure, consideration was made regarding a direct impact from a Boeing 707.
And how exactly do you "consider" for the impact then? Drivel.How you design for it is reasonably easy though - you know a weight, you assume a speed, you work out a force, spread the force over an area and then design for it.
DanL said:
Incorrect is the word I'd have used, but there you go - 707 is still quite a small plane in the scheme of things, and I'm sure they'd have assumed it was going slowly.
How you design for it is reasonably easy though - you know a weight, you assume a speed, you work out a force, spread the force over an area and then design for it.
For impact, yes. not sure how good fire analysis was for structures then? How you design for it is reasonably easy though - you know a weight, you assume a speed, you work out a force, spread the force over an area and then design for it.
DanL said:
Incorrect is the word I'd have used, but there you go - 707 is still quite a small plane in the scheme of things, and I'm sure they'd have assumed it was going slowly.
How you design for it is reasonably easy though - you know a weight, you assume a speed, you work out a force, spread the force over an area and then design for it.
You are probably right, I wouldn't have thought that they were envisaging a full speed 'attack' with a recently air borne and therefore fully laden jet liner. i wonder how much difference the amount of fuel makes though, as most of it must have burned off in the initial fireball! How you design for it is reasonably easy though - you know a weight, you assume a speed, you work out a force, spread the force over an area and then design for it.
Vaud said:
For impact, yes. not sure how good fire analysis was for structures then?
No clue. Analysis would have been worse then than now I would assume, but they'd have had standard tables and specs for fire resistance. It's possible they'd have been more over engineered than now, as with a lower level of knowledge they may have had higher factors of safety. I wonder if anyone (Conspiratory nutters that is) has considered how much effort it would take to rig a building of such scale with explosives?
It would take a team of dozens weeks, if not months, all going unnoticed by the people who use the building day in day out. There would be holes being drilled of holes and det cord everywhere.
The level of organisation required to conduct such a civil engineering demolition would also run into the dozens.
Then you have the people who instigated the conspiracy, probably another few dozen.
Then all the people who were involved in moving the money around to profit.
Still, 16yrs later, no one has talked.
It would take a team of dozens weeks, if not months, all going unnoticed by the people who use the building day in day out. There would be holes being drilled of holes and det cord everywhere.
The level of organisation required to conduct such a civil engineering demolition would also run into the dozens.
Then you have the people who instigated the conspiracy, probably another few dozen.
Then all the people who were involved in moving the money around to profit.
Still, 16yrs later, no one has talked.
stevesingo said:
I wonder if anyone (Conspiratory nutters that is) has considered how much effort it would take to rig a building of such scale with explosives?
If they have, starting out by calling them nutters probably isn't the best way to find out.I am not a demolition expert, but I suspect that If 'special ops' wanted to demolish something they could do it much more quickly and discretely than a normal contractor that has to keep the mess and noise to a minimum, and they quite probably (definitely) can operate explosives wirelessly.
Still quite an undertaking, but that Doesn't make it impossible.
WTC7 looked like a textbook implosion/demolition , that can not be denied.
While I have my doubts about some of the things we were told, I don't have an alternative theory.
Shuvi McTupya said:
stevesingo said:
I wonder if anyone (Conspiratory nutters that is) has considered how much effort it would take to rig a building of such scale with explosives?
If they have, starting out by calling them nutters probably isn't the best way to find out.I am not a demolition expert, but I suspect that If 'special ops' wanted to demolish something they could do it much more quickly and discretely than a normal contractor that has to keep the mess and noise to a minimum, and they quite probably (definitely) can operate explosives wirelessly.
Still quite an undertaking, but that Doesn't make it impossible.
WTC7 looked like a textbook implosion/demolition , that can not be denied.
While I have my doubts about some of the things we were told, I don't have an alternative theory.
Seeing ad I have not seen any text book demolitions on that scale, I am a bit skeptical of that claim. What are the comparisons?
Wireless explosives, lets see. What can possibly go wrong, there had been enough commentary over the years by actual real experts, that would exclude those AE for truth, and the undertaking would not go in noticed.
Even ninja demo experts I think would have a problem.
jmorgan said:
7 can also be said to be the result of events on the day. That cannot be denied.
Seeing ad I have not seen any text book demolitions on that scale, I am a bit skeptical of that claim. What are the comparisons?
Wireless explosives, lets see. What can possibly go wrong, there had been enough commentary over the years by actual real experts, that would exclude those AE for truth, and the undertaking would not go in noticed.
Even ninja demo experts I think would have a problem.
You haven't seen buildings being demolished ? Try putting the search term 'building demolition' or 'highrise demolition' into the search bar of a popular video hosting website, there is one called 'you tube' you could try.Seeing ad I have not seen any text book demolitions on that scale, I am a bit skeptical of that claim. What are the comparisons?
Wireless explosives, lets see. What can possibly go wrong, there had been enough commentary over the years by actual real experts, that would exclude those AE for truth, and the undertaking would not go in noticed.
Even ninja demo experts I think would have a problem.
Then you can compare it to the footage of a video on the same website that will be called something like 'WTC7 collapse' and see if they look similar.
Jeez.
And I can't help with your ninja's , sorry.
(Edited to add the 7 after WTC)
Edited by Shuvi McTupya on Wednesday 21st June 22:24
uncinqsix said:
True, but you still need them to have covertly wired the building with explosives without a single person noticing.
Well if it was ninjas, they are by there very nature, sneaky b
ds so I wouldn't be surprised.For the sake of argument though, I suspect the military may practice doing things covertly that you and I are not familiar with. I am quite confident there is a highly trained sneaky b
d squad somewhere that would be capable of gaining access to buildings at night if needs be. I don't have a story for you though, sorry
Honestly, what made me first think things were not as they seem was when WTC7 collapsed and various people knew it was about to collapse. Even the building owner said they made a decision to 'pull it' . He then said that what he meant by 'pull it' was ' get the fire fighters out of there' ... It was just a coincidence that the term 'pull it' was a demolition term that meant to bring a building down.
Look up 'Larry Silverstein Pull it' on you tube to see what he said for yourself if you like, it was strange, in my opinion.
Shuvi McTupya said:
Well if it was ninjas, they are by there very nature, sneaky bds so I wouldn't be surprised.
For the sake of argument though, I suspect the military may practice doing things covertly that you and I are not familiar with. I am quite confident there is a highly trained sneaky bd squad somewhere that would be capable of gaining access to buildings at night if needs be.
I don't have a story for you though, sorry
Honestly, what made me first think things were not as they seem was when WTC7 collapsed and various people knew it was about to collapse. Even the building owner said they made a decision to 'pull it' . He then said that what he meant by 'pull it' was ' get the fire fighters out of there' ... It was just a coincidence that the term 'pull it' was a demolition term that meant to bring a building down.
Look up 'Larry Silverstein Pull it' on you tube to see what he said for yourself if you like, it was strange, in my opinion.
That's a great example of faulty conspiracy thinking, twisting one insignificant quote from a powerful person into something meaningful. What is more likely, that he was talking about the firemen, or hinting at a giant conspiracy? ds so I wouldn't be surprised.For the sake of argument though, I suspect the military may practice doing things covertly that you and I are not familiar with. I am quite confident there is a highly trained sneaky b
d squad somewhere that would be capable of gaining access to buildings at night if needs be. I don't have a story for you though, sorry
Honestly, what made me first think things were not as they seem was when WTC7 collapsed and various people knew it was about to collapse. Even the building owner said they made a decision to 'pull it' . He then said that what he meant by 'pull it' was ' get the fire fighters out of there' ... It was just a coincidence that the term 'pull it' was a demolition term that meant to bring a building down.
Look up 'Larry Silverstein Pull it' on you tube to see what he said for yourself if you like, it was strange, in my opinion.
I used to be interested in investigating 9/11 conspiracy theories and wasted too much time trying to explain it to people, I no longer bother. It's all complete b
ks. If you really want to get into it, check out the internationalskeptics.com forum (formerly the james randi forum) where you will find people who know far more than is healthy about 9/11. It's only really interesting in so far as it demonstrates how supposedly intelligent people can lose their minds once they get hooked into a narrative.
Anyway, as far as I can remember, Silverstein actually lost money from WTC7.
maxxy5 said:
It's only really interesting in so far as it demonstrates how supposedly intelligent people can lose their minds once they get hooked into a narrative.
This is the absolute crux of it for me. Otherwise intelligent people twist and turn things to fit their dyed in the wool narrative.It is very reminiscent of religion in some ways, actually.
And about as sensible………
It is one thing for the ‘911 professionals’ who I suppose have sold their souls to earn a living from it, as appallingly disrespectful as that is to those who died, and their families. But normal folks to get hoodwinked in is truly sad.
But then, there are still folks out there doubting the moon landings. It's truly depressing!
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff