Thread: Architects & Engineers Discuss WTC No. 7

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

called for

-_-

No O, that's your interpretation given that you already believe in a conspiracy. It isn't evidence. The document doesn't "call for it", it's widely available for goodness sakes; it's just an observation. A correct observation; the US government obviously did capitalise on the attacks in the way it suggests. And no it doesn't give me "cause to pause", that would be to suggest that A being a motive for B is evidence that A was the motive for B, which is a logical fallacy.

Unfortunately, downing a couple of passenger planes wouldn't have quite filled that requirement, would it?

-_-

Why do you keep spinning stuff like this? They weren't going to 'down them', they were going to fly them into the Twin Towers, something that would almost certainly destroy them, and in any case give rise to massive anger. Why are you acting like flying two huge passenger planes into one of America's most famous landmarks and killing thousands of people is a long way from 'filling the requirement' of gaining public support for a war??

And so what, if people heard some banging and clunking going around in the service hallways of the building? Who in their right mind would come to the conclusion that someone was planting bombs in the building...even if they did happen to stumble upon a bunch of workers doing 'something or other'?

-_-

I don't know why you think I was referring to rigging the building with explosives. That doesn't tend to be the most ostensible part of a controlled demolition. The bit where you explode several floor's worth of dynamite is. Can you provide a single example of a controlled demolition which wasn't blatantly obvious?

Originally Posted by Xei

-_-

No O, that's your interpretation given that you already believe in a conspiracy. It isn't evidence. The document doesn't "call for it", it's a widely available document for goodness sakes, it's just an observation. A correct observation; the US government obviously did capitalise on the attacks in the way it suggests. And no it doesn't give me "cause to pause", you're suggesting that A being a motive for B is evidence that A was the motive for B, which is totally illogical.

Completely my fault. I admittedly worded that badly. I'm pretty sure you could understand that in place of 'called for', I meant that they expressed that it would be a likely prerequisite for that sort of transformation to occur. I didn't quite mean the expression in the way that you apparently think I did.

With that being the case, though, what do you think of the coincidence of what was stated, and what happened?

Originally Posted by Xei

Why do you keep spinning stuff like this? They weren't going to 'down them', they were going to fly them into the Twin Towers, something that would almost certainly destroy them, and in any case give rise to massive anger. Why are you acting like flying two huge passenger planes into one of America's most famous landmarks and killing thousands of people is a long way from 'filling the requirement' of gaining public support for a war??

Oy. Ok (you seem to find the most trivial things to latch onto sometimes), I will try to be more careful with my words. The point stands, though: there was no precedent for them to believe that flying the planes into the towers would have completely collapsed the towers. So, no. They had no reason to believe that 'thousands' of people would die, even if they did smash the planes directly into the towers. There was absolutely no precedent for that sort of thing, and the point I was making still stands.

So will you please address the coincidence that I was trying to highlight (albeit without perfect wordage, I admit), and not cherry-pick which points to reply to?

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't know why you think I was referring to rigging the building with explosives. That doesn't tend to be the most ostensible part of a controlled demolition. The bit where you explode several floor's worth of dynamite is.

You mean you weren't? I honestly couldn't tell. What were you talking about?

[Edit: Oh, wait...I get it. You're talking about the actual bombs going of? THAT being the loud thing you meant? Well, there are countless eyewitnesses who have testified about multiple 'bombs' / explosions going off before the towers went down. I mean, those are all over. I will find some, if you like, but I'd be really surprised if you haven't heard those testimonies yet. ]

Originally Posted by Xei

Can you provide a single example of a controlled demolition which wasn't blatantly obvious?

I can only try. In the meantime, could you provide a single example of an uncontrolled collapse, where a single column failing caused a complete and symmetrical collapse of an entire, multi-level building (which is what is alleged to have happened to WTC7), outside of the WTC attack?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

I can only try. In the meantime, could you provide a single example of an uncontrolled collapse, where a single column failing caused a complete and symmetrical collapse of an entire, multi-level building (which is what is alleged to have happened to WTC7), outside of the WTC attack?

He probably can't, but only because there's no real precedent for that sort of thing. I mean, WTC7 burned uncontrollably for 7 hours and subsequently collapsed. When has that ever happened? The roof structures collapsed first, along the interior supports. Only when the interior was gone did the outside finally collapse. It certainly wasn't symmetrical.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

With that being the case, though, what do you think of the coincidence of what was stated, and what happened?

It's not at all a coincidence. These are apparently people who write analyses related to the military. A comment along the lines of "we're not going to go to war with them - unless they attack us, of course" is a totally, totally obvious and unsurprising thing to see.

The point stands, though: there was no precedent for them to believe that flying the planes into the towers would have completely collapsed the towers. So, no. They had no reason to believe that 'thousands' of people would die, even if they did smash the planes directly into the towers. There was absolutely no precedent for that sort of things.

It's pretty obvious that there is going to be mass death and at the very least a huge amount of structural damage. If instead of falling the towers just stood and burned, do you really think America would have ignored such a huge, foreign (apparently) attack? Let the Afgahns go about their business? Come on, it makes no difference.

So will you please address the coincidence that I was trying to highlight (albeit without perfect wordage, I admit), and not cherry-pick which points to reply to?

Addressing every point isn't cherry picking.

You mean you weren't? I honestly couldn't tell. What were you talking about?

It's right there in my post...

In the meantime, could you provide a single example of an uncontrolled collapse, where a single column failing caused a complete and symmetrical collapse of an entire, multi-level building (which is what is alleged to have happened to WTC7), outside of the WTC attack?

Er... are you serious? How many Boeings had been flown into skyscrapers before? This is not remotely logical thinking, O.

Edit: oh wait, I think you're talking about the other building. That doesn't seem to have any relevance to the question I was asking, so I'll leave it. I don't know anything about the history of bombings anyway, although it seems highly unlikely that such a situation has occurred twice anyway, so I don't see any logic to this argument. Sometimes stuff happens for the first time, otherwise stuff wouldn't happen. :/

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Oy. Ok (you seem to find the most trivial things to latch onto sometimes), I will try to be more careful with my words. The point stands, though: there was no precedent for them to believe that flying the planes into the towers would have completely collapsed the towers. So, no. They had no reason to believe that 'thousands' of people would die, even if they did smash the planes directly into the towers. There was absolutely no precedent for that sort of thing, and the point I was making still stands.

It's no great leap of faith that crashing planes into a skyscraper will kill a lot of people. Firstly it will certainly cause massive fires, which means that people on floors above the impact will have a very difficult time getting out. Jet fuel burns very hot and isn't easily quenched by water. A Boeing 767 is a massive plane, and it's pretty self evident that it will cause structural damage. This, together with the fires, makes it plausible that it could bring down a skyscraper.

edit: Also, keep in mind the plane that crashed into the pentagon, and the plane that the passengers brought down. These four high-jackings and subsequent use as weapons would constitute a large scale attack on the USA without the twin towers collapsing.