9/11

[thetank]

The theory presents a logical chain of weak evidence (that is only as strong as it's weakest link) as if the cumulative effect of this evidence made the theory more and more indisputable. Everything that supports the theory is included, irregardless of how dodgy the source. Everything that does not support the theory is ommited, irregardless of how solid the source.

So called impossible facts backed up by circular and questionable sources give the illusion that there is consensus that there are "unanswered questions" as if everything in this complex world can and must be explained.

Then of course you've the army of people who are suppressing the truth. As a general rule of thumb, the more people who must be complicit in the dastardly conspiracy for it to work, the more likely it is that it's not actually a dastardly conspiracy at all.

[Bongo]

It's quite amusing that they point out that building 7 was full of diesel and oxygen and they say they can't see what could have caused a fire capable of bringing it down...

[kinboshi]

argumentum ad ignorantiam.

The "I don't understand something therefore it can't be true" argument.

[MC]

Then of course you've the army of people who are suppressing the truth. As a general rule of thumb, the more people who must be complicit in the dastardly conspiracy for it to work, the more likely it is that it's not actually a dastardly conspiracy at all.

Yeah I guess this is where it falls down.

But the collapse of building 7 seems the dodgiest thing.

[dik9]

Was the conspiracy theory behind WTC7 ever disproved, I have seen many explanations for each argument of conspiracy and rationally I believe them.

WTC7 always confused me though, how did a live reporter report the collapse of WTC7 12 minutes before it imploded whilst it was still standing in the live feed. Why did the leaseholder imply he gave permission for it to be demolished. All emergency service workers were ordered to evacuate that area shortly before it collapsed and no one was injured due to WTC7 collapsing, how did they know it would collapse and when? It would take months to prepare a controlled demolition and it takes highly skilled engineers to ensure that the building falls into its own footprint but this happened on 3 occasions on the same day naturally. Demolition experts have stated that it would take over a year to prepare for buildings the size of 1&2 yet there was absolutely no tilt.

Purely because of my thoughts on WTC7 and belief that, that particular building was controlled then I have to doubt whether this was not planned "call me a nutter".

But on the other hand why don't conspiracy theorists use the most compelling footage from the BBC in any of their documentaries, actually some of them do. But BBC1 did a program dispelling the myths but failed to even mention that report.

 

[EvilPie]

It would take months to prepare a controlled demolition and it takes highly skilled engineers to ensure that the building falls into its own footprint but this happened on 3 occasions on the same day naturally. Demolition experts have stated that it would take over a year to prepare for buildings the size of 1&2 yet there was absolutely no tilt.

Pretty sure the skilled demolition workers could do it in a couple of hours if they were allowed to kill everyone.

[dik9]

47 storeys of carefully placed explosives whilst the lower floors were on fire? And 100% it would fall into its footprint though? And they were just there waiting whilst the city was in panic.

Or maybe I am being WTC7'd (levelled) lol

[smashedagain]

I remember when the yanks always blamed those commi bastards the Russians. They never take responsibility for lots of people not liking them.

[boldie]

It would take months to prepare a controlled demolition and it takes highly skilled engineers to ensure that the building falls into its own footprint but this happened on 3 occasions on the same day naturally. Demolition experts have stated that it would take over a year to prepare for buildings the size of 1&2 yet there was absolutely no tilt.

Pretty sure the skilled demolition workers could do it in a couple of hours if they were allowed to kill everyone.

[rex008]

There has been many many engineering papers on why the main towers collapsed as they did. While they don't always exactly agree in all points, the main points are that once one or two floors have failed and fallen on to the floor below, there will be a very fast domino effect, and there is no reason for the floors to go anything other than straight down. The way the towers were constructed pretty much guaranteed it. The walls fell outwards in large sections, which is what caused huge holes in the buildings around, including WTC7. WTC7 was pretty much the same construction - shell walls and a central set of towers, and again, no reason why it wouldn't collapse in it's own footprint.

This one seems a pretty concise summary of the main towers. There are many many like it.

The whole thing about a "script" is utter sh!te as well. There are numerous sources that quote NYFD abandoning the building at least 2 hours before it collapsed, because the walls were already bowing, and at least 20 stories of the 45 were uncontrollably on fire. They were pretty sure at that point it was going to collapse. So yes, people knew it was going to collapse before it did. And this is news, apparently. If I said the sun has gone down 10 minutes before it actually does, is there a conspiracy to make the sun set? The government told me the sun was going to set in advance?

If you spend any time reading both sides of the conspiracy/debunking argument, it's patently obvious that the conspiracy theorists are generally total dickheads.

[kinboshi]

You don't think there was a conspiracy then Rex?

[dik9]

They were pretty sure at that point it was going to collapse. So yes, people knew it was going to collapse before it did. And this is news, apparently.

I dont want to be seen as pushing a crazy theory, as I just like to be skeptical with everything. It's just a niggle that something never sat right with WTC7, it collapsed totally different than 1 & 2. The reason that was given for the collapse of 1&2 was the extreme temperature of the fire that was more than normal due to aviation fuel. The sprinkler system was damaged in 1&2 due to the collision. 7 had no aviation fuel, no internal structural damage and the sprinkler system could not have been damaged. It was simply a fire that should not have led to a collapse.

The BBC are reputed to report facts after confirmation unlike sky etc, for them to report the collapse minutes before it happened is highly unlike them (in theory they will wait till the sun actually goes down before it is reported that the sun has already gone down).

[Bongo]

The conspiracy theorists said building 7 housed diesel and oxygen tanks.

[AndrewT]

The BBC are reputed to report facts after confirmation unlike sky etc, for them to report the collapse minutes before it happened is highly unlike them (in theory they will wait till the sun actually goes down before it is reported that the sun has already gone down).

That was 10 years ago - it's much more recently that the BBC have got a huge hard-on for source and fact checking (as you said, they wait until something is printed in the next day's newspapers before they report on it now)

[thetank]

I'm not an engineer but here's my explanation as to why the various building mentioned collapsed.



Building 1

A plane flew into it.



Building 2

A plane flew into it.



Building 7

Building 1, big building, much mess when it came down, building 7 pretty close.
Building 2, big building, much mess when it came down, building 7 pretty close.