I agree that the chain seems convoluted, but do we really have a baseline for what is plausible when airplanes start flying into buildings in a dense urban area?
well, it’s not like WTC was hit by any of those airplanes, but I suppose one might argue for a certain “the world has gone topsy-turvy” latitude in explanation. How this additional uncertainty results in “no explosives” being a “slam dunk”, I’m not sure.
(Apologies if this is the same question that gets asked in every thread of this kind; I freely admit to not having researched this.)
What motive would the conspirators have for demolishing WTC7 with explosives? If they wanted to start a war or increase wiretapping or get Bush re-elected, or whatever the motive was, flying planes into the towers was enough. Blowing up WTC7, and especially blowing up WTC7 without arranging a plausible explanation (like “a plane flew into it”, as they did with the towers) seems careless and unnecessary—out of character for a group of people careful and competent enough to arrange 9/11 and get away with it.
What irks me about this is that you probably don’t know what an uncontrolled demolition brought on by massive pieces of falling building, thousands of gallons of rushing diesel fuel, and apparently unstable electric conditions ought to look like. I certainly don’t.
I expect it would look like the building FALLING OVER, among other things. Making a building fall straight down into its own footprint is actually quite tricky. Buildings are designed to stay in one piece.
Off the top of my head, pulverizing the buildings into small pieces allows for a much more complete destruction of evidence than simply tipping them over would have. After building seven “fell down”, the rubble was quickly shipped off to blast furnaces, ironically under the supervision of a company called “Controlled Demolition Inc.”
Evidence of how the alleged demolition was accomplished is best eliminated by demolishing the building?
Ironically, what you find to be an ironic coincidence sends the signal that you’re inappropriately excited by cute but totally non-causal coincidences.
They’re designed to stay in one piece under normal conditions, and predictable disaster conditions. Clearly this wasn’t one of those, but you expect the same thing to happen?
Wait, what? Neither of those tipped like you said you would expect.
I meant that they stayed in one piece, as per your objection. No, they did not fall over, but then these have had their lower floors taken out symmetrically. Presumably a natural disaster would not be as forgiving.
I agree that the chain seems convoluted, but do we really have a baseline for what is plausible when airplanes start flying into buildings in a dense urban area?
well, it’s not like WTC was hit by any of those airplanes, but I suppose one might argue for a certain “the world has gone topsy-turvy” latitude in explanation. How this additional uncertainty results in “no explosives” being a “slam dunk”, I’m not sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA
It certainly LOOKS like a controlled demolition.
(Apologies if this is the same question that gets asked in every thread of this kind; I freely admit to not having researched this.)
What motive would the conspirators have for demolishing WTC7 with explosives? If they wanted to start a war or increase wiretapping or get Bush re-elected, or whatever the motive was, flying planes into the towers was enough. Blowing up WTC7, and especially blowing up WTC7 without arranging a plausible explanation (like “a plane flew into it”, as they did with the towers) seems careless and unnecessary—out of character for a group of people careful and competent enough to arrange 9/11 and get away with it.
This is a good question, I’ve replied to yudkowsky’s rather more inflammatory version of it above.
For the record, it’s simply not true that fires never cause steel buildings to collapse.
The only total collapse due to fire in that PDF that I see is a 19 story concrete Russian apartment block. That and the buildings from 9/11.
What irks me about this is that you probably don’t know what an uncontrolled demolition brought on by massive pieces of falling building, thousands of gallons of rushing diesel fuel, and apparently unstable electric conditions ought to look like. I certainly don’t.
I expect it would look like the building FALLING OVER, among other things. Making a building fall straight down into its own footprint is actually quite tricky. Buildings are designed to stay in one piece.
Well then why wouldn’t they plant explosives in such a way as to make the building FALL OVER?
Seriously, spend like 5 seconds figuring out what we’re likely to reply before you post.
Off the top of my head, pulverizing the buildings into small pieces allows for a much more complete destruction of evidence than simply tipping them over would have. After building seven “fell down”, the rubble was quickly shipped off to blast furnaces, ironically under the supervision of a company called “Controlled Demolition Inc.”
Evidence of how the alleged demolition was accomplished is best eliminated by demolishing the building?
Ironically, what you find to be an ironic coincidence sends the signal that you’re inappropriately excited by cute but totally non-causal coincidences.
EDIT: Whoops, forgot we were supposed to be discussing this on the other page.
Reply is now here.
They’re designed to stay in one piece under normal conditions, and predictable disaster conditions. Clearly this wasn’t one of those, but you expect the same thing to happen?
Given that that’s what happens in failed controlled demolitions, yeah, I do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwGE92upfQM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c
Wait, what? Neither of those tipped like you said you would expect.
And failed controlled demolitions are not unprecedented disaster conditions, but I suspect this discussion is not worth having.
I meant that they stayed in one piece, as per your objection. No, they did not fall over, but then these have had their lower floors taken out symmetrically. Presumably a natural disaster would not be as forgiving.