- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAs far as conclusive scientific fact I admittedly don't have much of an argument. However, the two main authorities on the matter (Namely: CTBUH and NIST) models on how WTC 7 structurally failed do disagree to some extent (an extent worth mentioning as shown in the paper cited in an earlier post from the CTBUH prepared directly for NIST). Should this type of inconclusiveness be accepted in the field of science? Just pointing that out.
But in the second world war there was a reason. Admittedly rather strange ones. For the British by 1941 it had become a war of survival, so the strategic bombing campaign was for a reason, although this is the reason of Ares rather than Athena (see Wikipedia on the two gods to see what I'm saying). But in order to do it one must either be desperate or ...[text shortened]... golf swings) nor could it regard the inhabitants of the World Trade Centre as the other.
Also, If this was a conspiracy every attack that occurred that day would have to have been apart of it (I don't believe WTC 7 was a stand alone conspiracy, if it turned out to actually be one). That makes it difficult, but NOT impossible.
Even though my historical representation of the events surrounding Enigma were not true, what cannot be denied is that since ancient man the ruling class has been sacrificing the lower class for less than honorable agendas; i.e. the acquisition of wealth, power, land, commodities, etc... under the guise of honest (albeit naive) commoner motives. This is not in any sense of the word a new game by far. There are numerous examples of conspiratorial acts of this nature all through human history. To lie is in our nature. Why everyone seems to believe this behavior has suddenly stopped in the "modern world" is beyond me?
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOh I agree with you... (mostly)Engineers are just retarded gorillas that use sledge hammer physics handed down to us by the science gods. However, we do have exacting and rigorous standards that have been developed over the millenniums that demand large margins of error and multiple layers of redundant safety be worked into any design where the public's safety and well being are potentially at great risk.
How exact a science do you think structural engineering is?
No,but in all seriousness...Its not particle physics exact, but it is exact a science as it needs to be.
12 Feb 16
Originally posted by joe shmoI am an engineer and you are vastly overestimating the ability of state-of-the-art knowledge if you think structural engineers are able to predict accurately and in detail what happens to a structure during catastrophic and/or unusual circumstances. Just doesn't work that way. Consider for instance the paper you linked, where a one-dimensional idealization is presented and solved analytically. How one-dimensional are buildings again?
Oh I agree with you... (mostly)Engineers are just retarded gorillas that use sledge hammer physics handed down to us by the science gods. However, we do have exacting and rigorous standards that have been developed over the millenniums that demand large margins of error and multiple layers of redundant safety be worked into any design where the public's sa ...[text shortened]... n all seriousness...Its not particle physics exact, but it is exact a science as it needs to be.
12 Feb 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell Jeez, picky picky🙂
I am an engineer and you are vastly overestimating the ability of state-of-the-art knowledge if you think structural engineers are able to predict accurately and in detail what happens to a structure during catastrophic and/or unusual circumstances. Just doesn't work that way. Consider for instance the paper you linked, where a one-dimensional idealization is presented and solved analytically. How one-dimensional are buildings again?
12 Feb 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"Why was the completely unremarkable building 7 targeted?"
Why was the completely unremarkable building 7 targeted? How did those who planted the explosives know beforehand that the building would be damaged by the attacks on the two main towers, and that the building would subsequently catch fire? Why was no trace of explosives found? How did the evil masterminds manage to rig a building with explosives and th ...[text shortened]... the cooperation of many high-level government officials as well as thousands of other civilians.
What makes it unremarkable? It was a WTC building. Isn't that enough?
"How did those who planted the explosives know beforehand that the building would be damaged by the attacks on the two main towers, and that the building would subsequently catch fire?"
That is another baseless assumption. As I said before, one jet failed to reach the highjacker's intended target. Do you know what the specific intended target was? Things didn't go according to plan. Even you must admit that, so why are you digressing into meaningless assumptions that are not required to explain what happened?
"How did the evil masterminds manage to rig a building with explosives and then not have the explosives explode even with fires raging out of control?"
Not all explosives are detonated by fire. C4 for example, takes a while. It is relatively stable. As for traces of explosives? Here is a decent article.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201
It is not a secret that the Clinton Administration wanted to invade Iraq. Notice that Albright was one of those trying to coerce Americans into supporting the same lies Bush 43 would use later. She supports Hillary for president (who voted for the Iraq invasion) so these snakes back each other up.
My government has been itching to invade for some time and Albright, Cohen and the others failed. They needed a false flag event to get the support they could not in the 90s. That is why the establishment wanted Bush in office so badly. Enough that Gore had to lose the election by fraud. The Bushs' have a reputation for getting things done. Bush 41 was director of the CIA. They know how the world really works and they play ball for the big snakes. Cooperation is what they are good at. All organized crime works the way you don't think can possibly happen. People who seek power are people who want to use it. People who don't are well meaning people like you. People like you and me are not running things. Only shrewd people ( AKA organized crime at the highest level) do.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhat makes it unremarkable? It was a WTC building. Isn't that enough?
"Why was the completely unremarkable building 7 targeted?"
What makes it unremarkable? It was a WTC building. Isn't that enough?
"How did those who planted the explosives know beforehand that the building would be damaged by the attacks on the two main towers, and that the building would subsequently catch fire?"
That is another baseless assumpt ...[text shortened]... organized crime at the highest level) do.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/
No, it's not enough. The two main towers were iconic - I never even heard of WTC building 7 before I read about these ludicrous conspiracy theories.
As I said before, one jet failed to reach the highjacker's intended target. Do you know what the specific intended target was?
Do you really believe it was supposed to be WTC7? I mean, really? Between that and say, the Capitol or the White House, they opted for WTC7? Is that what you honestly believe?
12 Feb 16
The post that was quoted here has been removedNevertheless, for the British it was a war of survival. We have the benefit of hindsight, they did not, and it is their perception of the situation that made it a war of survival. Had the U-boat campaign had more success then it could have been a different matter. In the end what lost Germany the war, as much as anything else, was running out of fuel. Also there was more than one way we could lose, direct invasion wasn't the only way. A more realistic plan for the Germans was to try to win in North Africa before going into Russia. Had Britain lost control of Suez then we may have sued for peace.
12 Feb 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThese conspiracy theories shouldn't be completely dismissed. The main problem is that they are too detailed and have implausible contents. There was something murky going on as the FBI had information that terrorists were already in the US and intended an attack with airliners [1] (but note the quality of the information). They had spent years cultivating religiously motivated rebels to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, despite there being perfectly willing secular rebels they could have funded [2]. Carter had made play of the fact that the atheistic Soviet Union had invaded an Islamic theistic society. This doctrine persisted into the Reagan era. Benazir Bhutto told the then US president George Bush (the elder) that "you are creating a Frankenstein['s monster].". So the main conspiracy theory, that sections of the US intelligence community knew of the attacks in advance, has some basis in truth. I think the notion that they knowingly assisted the attackers is far fetched, but it is not beyond the bounds of reason that they may have allowed what they thought was a more minor attack to go ahead to justify the invasion of Afghanistan which they'd started to consider under Clinton [3].
[b]What makes it unremarkable? It was a WTC building. Isn't that enough?
No, it's not enough. The two main towers were iconic - I never even heard of WTC building 7 before I read about these ludicrous conspiracy theories.
As I said before, one jet failed to reach the highjacker's intended target. Do you know what the specific intended targe ...[text shortened]... and say, the Capitol or the White House, they opted for WTC7? Is that what you honestly believe?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds#Post-FBI
See quote near bottom of section.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
[3] I read that in the Guardian around a decade ago, I cannot quickly find a reference to it.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"I am an engineer and you are vastly overestimating the ability of state-of-the-art knowledge if you think structural engineers are able to predict accurately and in detail what happens to a structure during catastrophic and/or unusual circumstances. Just doesn't work that way"
I am an engineer and you are vastly overestimating the ability of state-of-the-art knowledge if you think structural engineers are able to predict accurately and in detail what happens to a structure during catastrophic and/or unusual circumstances. Just doesn't work that way. Consider for instance the paper you linked, where a one-dimensional idealization is presented and solved analytically. How one-dimensional are buildings again?
If that were the case the CTBUH wouldn't have stated in their paper directly addressing the NIST report that they believe a different member failure was the driving force behind the collapse of WTC 7. If they had such "sloppy" models they would know they wouldn't have the resolution to make a statement of that nature.
Also, from this paper it seems like they have pretty sophisticated modeling techniques.
https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/distribution/PapersChron/DDDAS09.pdf
"Consider for instance the paper you linked, where a one-dimensional idealization is presented and solved analytically. How one-dimensional are buildings again?"
Symmetry allows them to do this. The 1D model was shown to be evident beyond reasonable doubt once progressive collapse was triggered, why should it be more difficult than that? In case you forget, or didn't read the paper I ask you to read this exerpt:
"In broad terms, this scenario was proposed by Bažant 2001,
and Bažant and Zhou 2002a,b on the basis of simplified analysis
relying solely on energy considerations. Up to the moment of
collapse trigger, the foregoing scenario was identified by meticulous,
exhaustive, and very realistic computer simulations of
unprecedented detail, conducted by S. Shyam Sunder’s team at
NIST. The subsequent progressive collapse was not simulated at
NIST because its inevitability, once triggered by impact after column
buckling, had already been proven by Bažant and Zhou’s
2002a comparison of kinetic energy to energy absorption capability.
The elastically calculated stresses caused by impact of the
upper part of tower onto the lower part were found to be 31 times
greater than the design stresses note a misprint in Eq. 2 of Bažant
and Zhou 2002a: A should be the combined cross section area of
all columns, which means that Eq. 1, rather than 2, is decisive."
What part of "Up to the moment of
collapse trigger, the foregoing scenario was identified by meticulous,
exhaustive, and very realistic computer simulations of
unprecedented detail, conducted by S. Shyam Sunder’s team at
NIST" Makes you believe they do not have sophisticated models?
Since you were attacking Bazant's credentials in an earlier part of the argument I should also like to point out that S. Shyam Sunder fully accepted his simplified analysis. He holds a PhD from MIT, the most prestigous technical school in the world ( in case you didn't know). Here is a link to his page ( I'm guessing he must have wrote his own one too).