Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-11-2011, 11:55 AM
 
1,734 posts, read 1,817,429 times
Reputation: 1135

Advertisements

Look, lets us hypothetically suppose the notion of arranging 9/11 as an excuse hit Bushs desk.

He is then going to have the choice between setting up the plane hijackings, getting demolitions charges into the buildings and making up evidence connecting this to Saddam. An incredibly complex scheme involving thousands of things that could go wrong (KSS -keep it simple, stupid) and scores to hundreds of co-conspirators (Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead -Benjamin Franklin).

Or as option B he could just wait for Saddam to do something stupid like refuse weapons inspectors somewhere. Which Saddam inevitably would.

The cost-benefits ratio of scheme A would be...chance of failiure approaches total, cost if detected, everything. Benefit if successful, pretty much nothing you'd not get for just sitting around, so nil.

Anyone who picks alternative A of those two options going to be too dementedly devoid of common sense to ever pull off something that difficult and complex. They are also not going to be able to get anywhere in life from the word go. If you are a person inclined to schemes so massivly complicated and insanely risky over easy and simple alternatives you are not going to have the life skills to hold down a job or complete an education.
Far less rise to the highest office in the land, which involves a history of struggling against a lot of competent rivals.

Real life would just weed out anyone that dumb. And Darwin might well get them before they left their teens.

Also. People who read a lot of comic books may have seen a lot of pictures of Superman lifting an oil tanker or pushing a planet or something. Thats not real life. Superman would go through the steel of the tanker like a bullet thru soft butter. And if his point of impact was reinforced so he didn't, the tanker would break in half before it got out of the water.

If you make a small scale model of something like an oil tanker, you can pick it up. If you try to lift a real oil tanker like that, it breaks.

Things don't work the same at megascale as they do at person size scale.

Additionally. When someone puts up a building, he has a budget and materials. He is going to calculate how much money he needs to spend on materials, how much pressure and punishment it'll need to take, and from which direction. And then he'll add a safety factor. No skyscraper is going to be very far over that safety factor, because that would be throwing away money.

 
Old 09-11-2011, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Flyover Country
26,212 posts, read 19,436,889 times
Reputation: 21678
http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/february2009/090209top1a.jpg (broken link)

Beijing - Feb. 2009.

Didn't collapse.

Now, from the PM article "debunking" conspiracies:

Quote:
"WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires."


» Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!



http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/february2009/090209top5.jpg (broken link)

WTC7
 
Old 09-11-2011, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, CO
521 posts, read 857,631 times
Reputation: 1189
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
What is sad is how gullible and naive people are. It makes nefarious plans all the more inviting.

Not my fault it's taken you ten years to form an uninformed, personal opinion.

The rest of us have been looking objectively at the situation since it happened and after all of the inquiries could form a well educated thought torwards it about three years after the tragedy.
 
Old 09-11-2011, 12:01 PM
 
Location: The United States of Amnesia
1,355 posts, read 1,913,916 times
Reputation: 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Visvaldis View Post
Buildings made by Americans are inferior.
I guess so.

In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse. Seehttp://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html

October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. Seehttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml

In February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing. See http://www.itv.com/news/world_404914.html [This page has been removed.]

Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm

The still-uncompleted Beijing Television Cultural Center, containing the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, caught fire on 9 February 2009 (due to uncontrolled use of fireworks at Chinese New Year). 140,000 tons of steel was used in its construction. It burned for five hours, but it did not collapse. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/world/asia/10beijing.html
 
Old 09-11-2011, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Flyover Country
26,212 posts, read 19,436,889 times
Reputation: 21678
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiScree View Post
Not my fault it's taken you ten years to form an uninformed, personal opinion.

The rest of us have been looking objectively at the situation since it happened and after all of the inquiries could form a well educated thought torwards it about three years after the tragedy.
People like you who tout they have a "well educated" opinion on anything should always be questioned, and always will be from thinking people.
 
Old 09-11-2011, 12:07 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,665 posts, read 19,911,350 times
Reputation: 7313
I had no idea Rosie O'Donnell was an expert. (sar).
 
Old 09-11-2011, 12:09 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 18,702,645 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Klato View Post
I guess so.

In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse. Seehttp://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html

October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. Seehttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml

In February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing. See http://www.itv.com/news/world_404914.html [This page has been removed.]

Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm

The still-uncompleted Beijing Television Cultural Center, containing the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, caught fire on 9 February 2009 (due to uncontrolled use of fireworks at Chinese New Year). 140,000 tons of steel was used in its construction. It burned for five hours, but it did not collapse. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/world/asia/10beijing.html

I see, now which one of those buildings also had a 110 story building fall on it?

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7
 
Old 09-11-2011, 12:10 PM
 
Location: The United States of Amnesia
1,355 posts, read 1,913,916 times
Reputation: 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post

Beijing - Feb. 2009.

Didn't collapse.

Now, from the PM article "debunking" conspiracies:



» Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
WTC7
Let's not forget the hotel in Madrid which burned for 2 days. A

February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm
 
Old 09-11-2011, 12:11 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 18,702,645 times
Reputation: 3146
The title of this tread makes me laugh. When printed with the rational explanation, he insists he needs an irrational explanation.
 
Old 09-11-2011, 12:17 PM
 
1,734 posts, read 1,817,429 times
Reputation: 1135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Klato View Post
I guess so.

In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse. Seehttp://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html

October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. Seehttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml

In February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing. See http://www.itv.com/news/world_404914.html [This page has been removed.]

Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm

The still-uncompleted Beijing Television Cultural Center, containing the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, caught fire on 9 February 2009 (due to uncontrolled use of fireworks at Chinese New Year). 140,000 tons of steel was used in its construction. It burned for five hours, but it did not collapse. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/world/asia/10beijing.html
So what do we learn from this?

...buildings built in earthquake zones are build sturdier?

...building stuff on top of a power station isn't recommendable?

...tall buildings are not designed to withstand impacts from the side?

...the heat of a fire, and how easily it can get to the support skeleton of a building matter?

...how much weight rests on the stressed structure is important?

All these are sane things to learn from the above, and will score 2 marks each on an engineering exam
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top