The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
The NIST report addresses this question directly (#10): https://www.nist.gov/engineering-lab...-investigation
Reply
0
0
You should look into how WTC 7 was constructed and why a single column failure could start a sequence of events that brought it down.
The NIST report addresses this question directly (#10): https://www.nist.gov/engineering-lab...-investigation
The NIST report addresses this question directly (#10): https://www.nist.gov/engineering-lab...-investigation
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
I find the whole WTC 7 thing kind of a stupid discussion but even I know the building had an odd construction due to being built over a Con Ed substation. The idea that the building could collapse if a certain beam failed (and other beams lost strength due to heat) really doesn't surprise me.
Hell, it's even in the wikipedia:
Originally Posted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[15] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (56,000 m2).[16] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building than originally planned when the substation was built.[17] The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[7] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The 5th floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the 7th floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.[16]
Reply
0
0
I always find it amazing that people will spend 15 minutes watching a youtube video but won't even read the faq from the NIST website.
I find the whole WTC 7 thing kind of a stupid discussion but even I know the building had an odd construction due to being built over a Con Ed substation. The idea that the building could collapse if a certain beam failed (and other beams lost strength due to heat) really doesn't surprise me.
I find the whole WTC 7 thing kind of a stupid discussion but even I know the building had an odd construction due to being built over a Con Ed substation. The idea that the building could collapse if a certain beam failed (and other beams lost strength due to heat) really doesn't surprise me.
Reply
0
0
Why is no one questioning why they took the rubble away as fast as they could and melted everything in a month? We still have evidence from planes that crashed locked in storage but they decided to melt everything as soon as they got it on the truck? That seem right to you guys? Hurray for destroying evidence along with all the records of big cases such as the one against Enron.
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Next time I hire Osama Bin Laden (WHERE"S HIS BODY?!?!?!) to train a bunch of Muslim terrorists to fly planes into buildings so i can shred a few documents in a neighboring building, I'll make sure the strategically placed thermite I placed around the structure the day before makes the building fall a little less obvious. I'll do some computer modeling of how Hillary collapses and use that as my guide.
Reply
0
0
If you have people placing thermite AND explosive charges all over both buildings why even bother with plans involving airliners? The hijacking plans have a significantly higher risk of failure and make no sense if you could simply frame terrorists for setting explosives and also thermite, which are two different things. Airliners AND demolition adds an unnecessary layer of difficulty which is redundant and significantly more implausible.
I'm sure I just convinced you because you aren't already locked into your opinion and are willing to consider other options.
I'm sure I just convinced you because you aren't already locked into your opinion and are willing to consider other options.
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
https://www.facebook.com/cnn/videos/10155301862446509/
advice from an impartial judge to rape victim:
why didnt you just move your bottom to avoid penetration?
advice from an impartial judge to rapist:
i want you to tell your male friends that they need to be more gentle and patent with woman and be careful to protect themselves.
young women want to have sex.
sometimes sex and pain go together, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
advice from an impartial judge to rape victim:
why didnt you just move your bottom to avoid penetration?
advice from an impartial judge to rapist:
i want you to tell your male friends that they need to be more gentle and patent with woman and be careful to protect themselves.
young women want to have sex.
sometimes sex and pain go together, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Reply
0
0
If you have people placing thermite AND explosive charges all over both buildings why even bother with plans involving airliners? The hijacking plans have a significantly higher risk of failure and make no sense if you could simply frame terrorists for setting explosives and also thermite, which are two different things. Airliners AND demolition adds an unnecessary layer of difficulty which is redundant and significantly more implausible.
I'm sure I just convinced you because you aren't already locked into your opinion and are willing to consider other options.
I'm sure I just convinced you because you aren't already locked into your opinion and are willing to consider other options.
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
What year is it?
EDIT: I can't speak to the objective truth, but this article seems plausible: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinio...ar-oil-juhasz/
But no, we didn't literally take their oil... They have still have it and are selling it. It's just multinational corporations doing the work or organizing everything.
EDIT: I can't speak to the objective truth, but this article seems plausible: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinio...ar-oil-juhasz/
But no, we didn't literally take their oil... They have still have it and are selling it. It's just multinational corporations doing the work or organizing everything.
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
There are two possibilities here, Six.
A: Certain individuals are deliberately trolling the thread, and / or
B: The same people have a desperate need to ascribe overly-complicated explanations to apparently simple problems, and are thus unlikely to be persuaded by factual discussion.
Either way, the "don't feed the troll" rule would seem to apply. If someone wants to try to convince me that the earth is flat, fine. I'm not happy about the fact that Congress has granted them the same voting rights as you & I, but that's not a problem likely to be resolved by spirited debate on a cat-and-car forum.
A: Certain individuals are deliberately trolling the thread, and / or
B: The same people have a desperate need to ascribe overly-complicated explanations to apparently simple problems, and are thus unlikely to be persuaded by factual discussion.
Either way, the "don't feed the troll" rule would seem to apply. If someone wants to try to convince me that the earth is flat, fine. I'm not happy about the fact that Congress has granted them the same voting rights as you & I, but that's not a problem likely to be resolved by spirited debate on a cat-and-car forum.
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
This is the customary model in most nations, where the oil itself is considered to be a national asset, and its extraction is performed either by the state, by a national corporation which is owned by the state, or under contract by private companies under license by the state.
Reply
0
0
And now that we have removed Saddam, Iraq's oil fields continue to be owned by the state.
This is the customary model in most nations, where the oil itself is considered to be a national asset, and its extraction is performed either by the state, by a national corporation which is owned by the state, or under contract by private companies under license by the state.
This is the customary model in most nations, where the oil itself is considered to be a national asset, and its extraction is performed either by the state, by a national corporation which is owned by the state, or under contract by private companies under license by the state.
EDIT: Now that I have a minute free to expound, all of the above is true, but what the article argues is that before the war the corporations did not have "access" to the oil before the war and as a result of the war they do. That is all I am saying, and my reasoning is as a result of that ONE source (because I honestly don't care enough about the issue to go any further). I and the article could be wrong and I am sure there are a multitude of factors at play. It just seems to me that while we may have not gone to war singularly for oil, it was in the interests of corporate interests who have a lot of pull on government power. (same with the defense industry).
I also want to add, I am not someone who is damning corporations as a concept. I am not one of those people.
Last edited by Chiburbian; Sep 16, 2016 at 07:35 AM.
Reply
0
0
