Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    26 Jan '16 19:30
    How likely is a conspiracy to stay secret?

    http://phys.org/news/2016-01-equation-large-scale-conspiracies-quickly-reveal.html

    The bottom line, once a certain number of people are involved the chances of it kept secret goes to basically zero.

    So good luck moon landing fake theorists. That was actually one of those studied.
  2. Subscriber joe shmo
    Strange Egg
    26 Jan '16 21:21
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    How likely is a conspiracy to stay secret?

    http://phys.org/news/2016-01-equation-large-scale-conspiracies-quickly-reveal.html

    The bottom line, once a certain number of people are involved the chances of it kept secret goes to basically zero.

    So good luck moon landing fake theorists. That was actually one of those studied.
    And yet the explosive demolition of (at least) WTC 7 is still concealed?
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    27 Jan '16 13:22
    Originally posted by joe shmo
    And yet the explosive demolition of (at least) WTC 7 is still concealed?
    It couldn't have been just the explosion going south in air ducts or some such path? That's what it looked like to me. I don't see a vast conspiracy there.
  4. 27 Jan '16 15:28
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    How likely is a conspiracy to stay secret?

    http://phys.org/news/2016-01-equation-large-scale-conspiracies-quickly-reveal.html

    The bottom line, once a certain number of people are involved the chances of it kept secret goes to basically zero.

    So good luck moon landing fake theorists. That was actually one of those studied.
    In theory a conspiracy does not have to be concealed to continue if people resist believing it because of incredulity. It does not necessarily have to remain secret.
  5. 27 Jan '16 15:31
    Originally posted by joe shmo
    And yet the explosive demolition of (at least) WTC 7 is still concealed?
    WTC7 is my favourite conspiracy theory because the building was completely evacuated and there were no casualties. So for this conspiracy to have occurred, it must have been masterminded by brilliant evil geniuses who kept it secret for so long, yet they were so inept they couldn't simply demolish the building a little bit sooner and actually kill some people rather than destroy a building no one really cared about.
  6. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    27 Jan '16 15:59 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    WTC7 is my favourite conspiracy theory because the building was completely evacuated and there were no casualties. So for this conspiracy to have occurred, it must have been masterminded by brilliant evil geniuses who kept it secret for so long, yet they were so inept they couldn't simply demolish the building a little bit sooner and actually kill some people rather than destroy a building no one really cared about.
    Hey, works for me Those evil geniuses will be exposed for who they are someday......
  7. 27 Jan '16 17:57 / 3 edits
    I bet some conspiracy theorists will believe that the authors of this OP link are all part of one huge worldwide conspiracy to cover up all the other huge worldwide conspiracies by convincing us that none of them can possibly be true -a kind of 'metaconspiracy'; a conspiracy to cover up all other conspiracies.
  8. Subscriber joe shmo
    Strange Egg
    27 Jan '16 21:01 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    It couldn't have been just the explosion going south in air ducts or some such path? That's what it looked like to me. I don't see a vast conspiracy there.
    Not a chance.

    Please at least carefully read the Abstract, Introduction, and Review of Causes of WTC Collapse portions of the following article a from the ASCE journal (Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World
    Trade Center and Building Demolitions). Pay Extra attention to the conditions under "Review of Causes of WTC Collapse". Now...Try to apply the same logic and conditions to the collapse of WTC 7. You will find that most of the criteria ( for progressive collapse justifying the collapse of the Twin Towers by a relatively narrow margin) can not be applied at all to WTC 7. The author expressly states the unlikelihood of total collapse if these criteria are met.

    http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Backup%20of%20Papers/466.pdf
  9. Subscriber joe shmo
    Strange Egg
    27 Jan '16 21:02
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    WTC7 is my favourite conspiracy theory because the building was completely evacuated and there were no casualties. So for this conspiracy to have occurred, it must have been masterminded by brilliant evil geniuses who kept it secret for so long, yet they were so inept they couldn't simply demolish the building a little bit sooner and actually kill some people rather than destroy a building no one really cared about.
    And yet it happened.
  10. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    28 Jan '16 12:53 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by joe shmo
    And yet it happened.
    Was the building to be demolished? I don't know the history of it. Could it have been ready to be knocked down?

    Just extemporizing here. So if it was by some co-incidence to be knocked down, and charges in place, could the resultant explosions of the two jets have initiated an explosion in that building?

    All wrong.

    Here is a site debunking the 7 collapse:

    http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

    Conspiracy theorists hang the whole tale on the word 'Pull' which actually meant, get everyone out of the building, it's moving around' not
    pull it down. It didn't have to be pulled down. You can see the damage on the one side. Demolition didn't do that.

    My take on conspiracy theorists, like the alien theorists, the moon landing hoaxes, 911 and such, these theories are their religion, they need conspiracies like Jews need Genesis, like Muslim's need Mohammed. These theories are their lifeline to the world. So there will ALWAYS be conspiracy theorists for most any event, any assassination, any man made disaster. Like the moon landing hoaxes, even if say, 100 years from now, tourists line up outside the Apollo footprints, there will be nutters claiming those footprints, those tire tracks, were all put their much later to keep up the deception.

    There will never be an end to moon hoaxers because that is their religion.
  11. 28 Jan '16 15:07
    Originally posted by joe shmo
    And yet it happened.
    What possible reason could this group of hypothethical evil masterminds have to destroy the evacuated WTC7 building? Is this really more plausible than a building collapsing due to the entire building being on fire for hours? I mean, really? Walk me through your thought process.
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    28 Jan '16 15:21 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What possible reason could this group of hypothethical evil masterminds have to destroy the evacuated WTC7 building? Is this really more plausible than a building collapsing due to the entire building being on fire for hours? I mean, really? Walk me through your thought process.
    To say nothing of it getting significantly damaged by the tower coming down, anyone not see that big slice out of the building before it crashed?

    As a conspiracy theory, it really sucks. The point is, why would anyone do that, what kind of points would they get from anyone to bring it down? And why didn't they (the evil conspirators) take down other buildings in the area? I don't think even the CN's (conspiracy nutters) are saying the jets didn't take down the towers so what is to be gained by deliberately knocking down an empty building? Insurance money?

    Don't think that is a motive since it was already half destroyed before it ever came down. Fires, the damage caused by the tower coming down on it and such would have been all they needed for insurance purposes. With that much damage, even if it had stayed vertical, it would have been deemed a menace and taken down later anyway, there was no way that building would have been left alone to just get fixed up later, it would have HAD to be condemned assuming it stood the stresses of the fires and the hits.
  13. Subscriber joe shmo
    Strange Egg
    28 Jan '16 21:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What possible reason could this group of hypothethical evil masterminds have to destroy the evacuated WTC7 building? Is this really more plausible than a building collapsing due to the entire building being on fire for hours? I mean, really? Walk me through your thought process.
    I could venture a guess as to a motive and conspirators, but that's all it would be. Again, I direct you to read the following analysis for your self. Paying close attention to all the conditions for a total collapse of a steel frame skyscraper under "Review of Causes of WTC Collapse" in the following analysis.

    http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Backup%20of%20Papers/466.pdf

    They DO NOT fall from normal office fires. There are countless examples where buildings of this type have been completely engulfed in flame. I point you to to a recent occurrence in a Dubia Hotel.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjY7cGct83KAhUGjz4KHW7KBE4QjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2015%2F12%2F31%2Fmiddleeast%2Fdubai-address-hotel-fire%2F&psig=AFQjCNHM-x9cdbggpCd6-ZczLXS8dkY6Lg&ust=1454102261448801

    And here is a nice comparison picture.

    https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.imgur.com/vDuc6bJ.jpg&imgrefurl=https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/32ubmm/can_you_guess_which_one_collapsed/&h=540&w=960&tbnid=2IZQ8msfCpzo9M:&docid=z_F7-rV8Eu8SmM&ei=74WqVofUE4HI-QH1noSIAQ&tbm=isch&ved=0ahUKEwjHh7zRt83KAhUBZD4KHXUPAREQMwgdKAAwAA

    If you would like me to reference all the exact lines in the civil northwestern analysis that that I draw this conclusion from I would be happy to. I would prefer you read it for yourself and formed your own concusions about WTC 7 based on its content. Then when you formulate a counter argument, we can debate.
  14. Subscriber joe shmo
    Strange Egg
    28 Jan '16 21:55
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Was the building to be demolished? I don't know the history of it. Could it have been ready to be knocked down?

    Just extemporizing here. So if it was by some co-incidence to be knocked down, and charges in place, could the resultant explosions of the two jets have initiated an explosion in that building?

    All wrong.

    Here is a site debunking the 7 c ...[text shortened]... up the deception.

    There will never be an end to moon hoaxers because that is their religion.
    "Conspiracy theorists hang the whole tale on the word 'Pull' which actually meant, get everyone out of the building, it's moving around' not
    pull it down. It didn't have to be pulled down. You can see the damage on the one side. Demolition didn't do that. "

    No they don't...It much more involved than that. Watch the video below to listen to Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth Richard Gage explain their position.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zbv2SvBEec
  15. Subscriber coquette
    Already mated
    29 Jan '16 03:03
    Where is Elmo?
    Case closed