Conspiracy theorys……does anyone believe them?

Oddly enough, the “London Times” website has no such article in its archives

Here is a link to the original Times article (doesn’t work but I’m not sure if that’s just because I’m not a Times subcriber ):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,63-132939,00.html

Here is page purporting to be a copy of the article:
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/timesonline_gold.html

Here is a PBS story about them successfully recovering the gold and silver from WTC 4:
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_property_01.html

Along with pictures of them doing just that:

Here is a New York Times story about the same thing:

kaesae – Well, why don’t you offer us the benefit of your research. Independently verifiable info from sources that people might trust. So far, in all your threads, you’ve not managed to do this. Please, just this time, for us. Pretty please?

Kaesae- you need to chill a bit, go for a ride or two, all this angst about the world will only make you ill

When you research something you gather facts, the place that each fact relative to what you are researching comes from, is called a source. Once you identify information relative to what you are researching you then need to verify it and incorporate it into the picture you are building of the events or circumstances, of what has occurred.

I think you mean you gather ‘evidence based opinions’ for a start off.

Now now… Can everyone be respectful and pleasant when debating paranoid, delusional, crackpot conspiracy theories please?
No personal abuse or insults – no matter how bonkers the opinion you are addressing is.

The idea is they won’t collapse. With all sorts of torsion loads and even with some of the structure removed.

Quite obviously the torsional load capacity of the TTs was not exceeded (designed for massive windshear ) or they would have toppled immediately on impact. The “redundant structure” design was able to withstand the removal of large structural components, ie load shifting, because they stood for quite some time after with gaping holes in the side. The remaining structure was quickly weakened by the large fire and eventually something gave, with all the structure now in play and nothing redundant down it comes as a structural failure..

The only direction all that mass could go is strait down. As the upper floors fell through the rest of the building pulverised debris flew out in all directions damaging buildings and killing people 100s of meets away. A neat and tidy demolition style collapse it was not.

Did anyone else see the planes too? Or were my eyes laser hologramed by “them”?

nealglover, common sense? I do not think that means what you think that means!

Oh I’m pretty sure it does.

When you research something you gather facts, the place that each fact relative to what you are researching comes from, is called a source. Once you identify information relative to what you are researching you then need to verify it and incorporate it into the picture you are building of the events or circumstances, of what has occurred.

Yes.

And common sense tells me that YouTube videos, posted by random people on the Internet are not a Credible Source of Information.

You may think differently, that’s up to you.

But if you try and prove a point by posting a YouTube video, you will more than likely find that I am not alone in thinking that all it proves is that there are some very misinformed people with YouTube accounts, and some others who are willing to believe the shit they post on YouTube.

Not sure about a lot of that, amv, but there’s been reams and reams written about it, some reasonable some not, we’re not going to replicate it all here.

[/quote]A neat and tidy demolition style collapse it was not.

WCT7 was. Incredibly tidy, incredibly neat and incredibly quick. No planes either.

Hello

This 9/11 thing is something i have to deal with on a profesional level on an almost daily basis and has become something of a joke amongst the designers and engineers i work with.

If you consider in designing a tall steel frame building you will have to make considerations that under certain circumstances it will remain standing, then the considerations should have changed following the publication of the NIST report into why the WTC towers fell over. That is. A combination of impact trauma and office fires given the right set of circumstances can weaken steel structures to such and extent that they will fail.

NO.

This is not a consideration. Wasnt before. Wasnt immediately after. Wasnt now.

If 1 of the largest steel frame buildings on the planet collapse through impact and fire then this deserves to be forensically investigated because that then informs future design. If 2 of the largest steel frame buildings collapse on the same day within hours of each other then that surely warrents forensic examination of the steel structure. If a third building then collapses from fire alone (WTC 7 no great impact trauma)on the same day this really should be properly investigated so that the lessons learned are incorporated into future designs. Nope.

Results of the NIST report are ignored in US building codes. None of the Tall structure engineers I have worked with consider the events of 9/11 to impinge on future design as they dont believe that impact and (office) fires can cause structural failures of the magnitude and (this is quite important) symmetry witnessed on 9/11.

Im a safety engineer by the way working on tall buildings (design, construction and consulting on demolition)

Incredibly quick – it took 7 hours from the initial damage [damage from impact then 7 hours of fire damage] before it collapsed.
It hard to collapse under gravity by any method other than quickly or at the speed of gravity but it took a long long time to reach that point. perhaps they lost the trigger for the demolition in all the dust?

nealglover, a source of information cannot be discredited simply by where it comes from or it’s source.

To suggest that information is unreliable without first attempting to verify it or that researchers can be discredited because they own and post up their finding on you tube is simply not logical.

Information is being presented and should then be examined and either be verified thus becoming facts or discredited thus being removed from the investigation and any further consideration, unless new information is provided that means this information must be reevaluated.

To say that information provided by the media that cannot be confirmed or verified is more prevalent than information that can be independently verified, is to adhere to a belief that the truth is that which the mass corporate media report and that which is held by the majority of a society as the facts of an event, is not too be challenged. Unless you are prepared to become the target of social ridicule.

There are a great many questions to be answered if someone wants to grow in understanding and comprehension of the world we live in and also our place in it, why is it wrong to even ask these questions or challenge that which is commonly held to be true?

To suggest that information is unreliable without first attempting to verify it […] is simply not logical.

Fair enough I suppose.

…or that researchers can be discredited because they own and post up their finding on you tube is simply not logical.

Nor fair enough.

A combination of impact trauma and office fires

“Office fire”?

Those are normally furniture, paper, plastics, that kind of thing. Not thousands of gallons of jet fuel… Not sure of the logic of spending god knows how much to protect against that. How would it even be possible? If the middle of the building is entirely on fire, what’re you going to do? Emergency zipwires from the top of every building?

Actually.. that could work!

JY, I don’t understand you.

gottopickapenny, that’s very interesting, thank you.

Changes in building codes as a result of the investigations into the collapses is something that I would have expected and haven’t seen.

Unless anyone can point me towards anything stating that they have?

Of course, who really knows who this guy is? He probably puts things on youtube.

Of course, his arguments are well constructed with logic that’s hard to argue with, so I imagine people won’t.

mol, no fuel in building 7. Office fire, plus impact from debris.

a source of information cannot be discredited simply by where it comes from or it’s source

you may wish to reconsider your incoherent ramblings about “state sponsored media” and theother phrases you used to describe those who routinely lie to us 🙄
You do exactly the same with factual reporting and then worship at the alter of the confused with Internet access.

Given your inabilty to formulate questions, adequately research or listen to advice [ you only want confirmation of your views] and the conclusions you reach I would be surprised if anyone GAS about your “research methods”. These seem to consist of listening to you tube, making outlandish claims supported with waffle about the path to true knowledge and ignoring everything else in particular the actual EVIDENCE. Personally I would describe your research methods as non existent or if i was feeling kind ill concieved.

There are a great many questions to be answered if someone wants to grow in understanding and comprehension

I am crossing my fingers you can grow into a rational being or evena n hionest oine

So those frames then

When you research something you gather facts, the place that each fact relative to what you are researching comes from, is called a source.

Okay, so what is the source for your “300 billion dollars in gold goes missing” fact?

It doesn’t agree with what was reported.

It doesn’t even agree with the YouTube video you posted, which despite it’s title actually states “rumour has it over 160 billion dollars of gold was stored in the World Trade Centre. So where did all the gold go?” (“rumour”, nice source there).

Silverstein’s insurance claim was 7 billion? Wouldn’t there have been a claim for the 300 billion of gold??

Unless things have changed I am pretty sure offices are designed for 3 hours of uncontrolled burning, no sprinklers and no fire service. When I left the UK I was working on a big new build on Canary warf. All the talk was aboutnew evacuation regs, not sure about structure but even 6 years after 911 none could agree on how to move fwd with numbers and widths of evacuation routes.

Kaesae, I have a question for you. Yes, a question. I know, take your time.

Aside from doing a really REALLY bad job of debating them on STW. All these horrible things you keep fretting about. What exactly are you doing about them?

Some of the issues you discussed are very very serious, some are almost certainly total boII*cks. But some have the potential to be deadly serious.

So…. what are you doing?

He mentioned on the climate thread that he has an “escape plan” and “I plan on going camping and climbing and hiking and canoeing as well as lots of other survival activities if I can”

I believe the next stage is usually building a bunker and buying lot of weapons. 😀

Brilliant

Has anybody noticed how Kaesae NEVER repsponds to my questions about those frames he was flogging. Now that is a conspiricy

Which probably explains his belief in conspiracies. Himself being the architect of one!

for those who are unenlightened, what is with the ‘frames’ ?

i think it is this thread
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/whats-this-joker-on-about

Basically,iirc, he was able to source a number of frames – he never said where and a number of folk were not convinced about the legitimacy of the frames/sources

He answered the question in much the same way he does here – lots of words but no actual answer

My talent my skill and my passion went into this frame

Drys eyes

Ahh, that threads going to provide some amusement

I realise its going to take some time to read that, but i get the gist, i feel a bit sorry for the guy in some ways, but not that much….

Holy Crap, that thread is bonkers

That thread has been bookmarked

face like a shaved gerbils ass

It just keeps on giving.

Sorry, I’ll stop posting now

a classic insult , it brings strange images to my mind !

I remember watching a programme a while back, possibly C4 or the Beeb, not sure really, but it went into an enormous amount of forensic analysis about why the WTT’s fell, with computer diagrams of the internal structure, and details of what fire retardant materials were used to protect the internal structure. As I recall it, while there was protection given to the steel against fire, it was inadequate when asked to protect against an impact from a passenger jet travelling at 500mph, with a full fuel load; the immense heat generated severely weakened the main steel core, and because the impacts were some way down the towers, the sheer weight of building above the fires just collapsed straight down, accelerating and crushing everything below. Modern buildings have a completely different structure now, from what I understand, using a concrete core with all services contained inside, rather than steel, as with the Towers.
This gives more detail about the most likely cause of collapse:
http://sydney.edu.au/engineering/civil/wtc.shtml
And WTC7? It wa apparently severely damaged by debris to approximately half it’s height, 20 floors out of 47, and was burning pretty fiercely. It housed an electricity sub-station and generators, but no people, and because water pressure was inadequate for fire hoses to fight the main tower fires, at was decided to let it burn. Fire fighters reported creaking from the building structure some time before it fell.

That is not the full version of the insult, face like a shaved gerbils ass half way through a shit, after six months of constipation!

Good too see you lot are in your usual charming, tolerant, don’t you dare criticize the media or government as they wouldn’t lie to us mood.

There are no conspiracy theories, there are however a great deal of facts and a huge amount of evidence that is being ignored because it doesn’t fit what you believe.

Tell me something, in your opinion what exactly constitutes actual verifiable evidence for your perspective and opinion on a subject to change?

Also when you look at a situation do you apply your mind to the situation or do you alter the situation to fit your mind or perspective on things?

Also when you look at a situation do you apply your mind to the situation or do you alter the situation to fit your mind or perspective on things?

It’s dealing with unknowns. We apply Occam Razor, that the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely – a form of reductive reasoning.

Conspiracy theories can arise when we forget this, or find the simplest explanation a bit boring for our febrile imagination.

A converse danger is that having “made up our mind” we refuse to re-evaluate when a new fact appears. Or are just too unimaginative to see equally viable alternative explanations.

Yes I know there is some emphasis/showmanship 😆 and because your brain cannot process the information it must be false, but some of the evidence presented and the questions being asked are quite cool!

kaesae – You’d get less abuse if you’d answer the questions asked of you.

buzz-lightyear If there are still unanswered questions, then do you think it is fair to say that we have the truth of the matter?

Atlaz, when I was younger I would go to the zoo, many times when passing the monkey enclosure. I would see them having a go at people, making noise, throwing insults the usual conduct from primitive beings, that don’t know any better or are not civilized.

However their antics never got to me, at the end of the day what do they know? they are after all, only monkeys!

If there are still unanswered questions, then do you think it is fair to say that we have the truth of the matter?

What we mainly discover, is new limits to our knowledge. It’s fair to say what is truth based on current knowledge. But who is in posession of all the facts? Truth tomorrow may be somewhat different.

For example, consider the following timeline of scientific facts:

1976: Mars is dead planet
2012: Mars was once wet and may still be geologically active
2020: Mars once harboured indigenous life forms
2025: Mars harbours indigenous life forms

The SciFi author Arther C Clarke commented once: “If an older and respected scientist says something is Possible, he is almost certainly correct; if he says that something is Impossible, he is very likely mistaken”

For example, consider the following timeline of scientific facts:

1976: Mars is dead planet
2012: Mars was once wet and may still be geologically active
2020: Mars once harboured indigenous life forms
2025: Mars harbours indigenous life forms
2028: Mars holds inaugural Mountain bike Championship
2029: SingletrackMarsWorld forum argues about Helmets, Razors, Tyres, and Coffee…

Very funny!

Those cannot be scientific facts as two of the periods have not yet occurred.

Since a fact must be verifiable how can an event that has not yet occurred be verifiable.

Who wants to do some actual research and studying? we could look into and debate anything 😯 I just got some new books and I don’t have much hope of many people wanting to actually learn something.

So do I go off and read my books or do we want to start a research club?