Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Features 9/11 Conspiracy Theory as 'Trending' (slashdot.org)
Facebook is having a tough time with stories that trend on the social network. The company has been accused of gaming what it shows as "trending" on the site, and sometimes favoring things it showed to people. Not long ago, it fired the human editors who took care of it, but then earlier this month, a fake story about Megyn Kelly. It apologized for the slip, but it has happened again. The Hill reports: Facebook is taking heat yet again for its Trending Topics section after featuring a story from a British tabloid pushing a conspiracy theory that the World Trade Center collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, because of a "controlled demolition." Facebook users who clicked on the "September 11th Anniversary" trending topic Friday were presented an article titled "September 11: The footage that 'proves bombs were planted in Twin Towers.'"
It says 'Trending' not 'Trending Truthful News Stories'.
It's close...very close
Facebook will go the way of MySpace, AOL, and the rest of the fad social sites.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
They have to compete with Slashdot. If all the birthers and truthers leave, who would be left here to promote stories and moderate?
That kind of crap is almost exactly what I associate about a third of my Facebook feed to, people love click-bait garbage and they love sharing it and debating it constantly
Facebook trends actually match what trends on Facebook (and it's terrible,) surprised? No. ...I get a lot of use out of that mute feature...
crazy dynamite monkey
Either we want them to filter and judge or we want them to put what is actually trending which is a purely algorithmic assessment.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/911...
People are fawning all over it. Of course, some cynics have struck back:
http://www.amerika.org/politic...
Alternative Right.
Everybody knows that FaceBook users have no bullshit detector or they wouldn't be there in the first place.
If they didn't want it on facebook, they'd have put a naked kid on front.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
When the story broke about the political bias scandal, I posted here a prediction of what a purely algorithmic news feed would look like. This is pretty close to one of my predictions.
Here's the problem: The internet is full of *lies*. It is very hard for an algorithm to tell what is true and what is not. Often the not-true stories are the most popular, because they can play into what people wish to believe. That's why you need human editors.
Now all we need is some nice clickbait. Something like "This housewife makes $120,000 a year from home, see how she does it!"
So yes, it's a theory about a conspiracy, thus a conspiracy theory.
It's clear what the solution is. Do away with "trending now" entirely.
See only what your Facebook friends share, and their friends...
Where is it written that FB must be a paragon of news excellence? Maybe we're better off if the place sinks to the tabloid level that the low-information debris that frequent the place prefer to see?
If the choice is between crap tabloid "news" and left-wing/SJW curated "news" I honestly can't say which is worse or that I care to choose. Fuck it; leave the dunderheads to their poison.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
After watching the collapse of Building 7 I have my doubts: https://youtu.be/Mamvq7LWqRU
Instead of ignoring the fact that we all have biases, do what Fox news did successfully for a long time and get both viewpoints to weigh in. The happy medium needs to be found. If FB had say 6 editors, 3 liberals and 3 conservatives they could have a voting system. Any topic that the software determines is a trending story goes to these 6 editors. Each editor gets a vote up or down. In theory they are only supposed to vote down click bait, trolling, and false stories. A vote of 4 or more down kills the story. If the 3 liberals cant differentiate between truth or fact, you fire them and hire 3 more liberals until you find 3 that are both liberal and smart enough to be able to differentiate BS from reality. (Say what you will about conservatives, they typically have better BS detectors.)
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Give their users the tools to incorporate whatever mainstream or bizarro feeds they want into their feeds or pages or whatever they call it. They can stick Free Republic or Daily Kos or Medijate or whatever other crazy-ass site they want up there next to Aunt Dolly's pix of recently baked muffins. FB can still sell profiles of their users to their real customers without worrying about pissing off the extremists, because it's 2017 and we're all online and we're all extremists, about one thing or another.
But Facebook won't do this, because it's not about the Money anymore, it's about the Power, and Facebook has something to prove to the Global Playas about their ability to mind-control the masses...
"You certainly would not expect it to collapse in a tidy heap at the speed of gravity where the entire building becomes... "
And I know a guy who doesn't wear a seatbelt because he thinks his arms can keep his face from going through the windshield in a car accident.
Your intuition about physical processes is meaningless when dealing with materials and processes at these scales.
Without getting into the stupidity, the utter, mindblowing, holy-crap stupidity of the idea that hundreds of people sitting in offices throughout the WTC wouldn't say "HEY, you had a maintinence guy deliver a giant package and install it in the HVAC two months ago? me too! Maybe it was so that when the guberment crashed the jets into the building, it would make sure that the evacuated buildings blooo flat down! As opposd to havign the tops slide off or sides crumble like they were supposed to!"
Maybe some of the outer walls would fall off, but there would be a central core at least 1/2 to 1/3 of the height of the building sticking up.
I don't know why I'm attempting the hopeless task of trying to educate a "loose change" type person, but this shows you don't know how the Twin Towers were constructed. The outer walls were the structure. It was not hanging off of a central core. And before you do the tired old "fire can not soften steel" thing, google "Sherman's Neckties".
If I wanted to stop people taking alternative explanations to an event seriously I would find convenient nutters to add their wacky ideas to the list of explanations and get them onto talk shows, lecture circuit, etc. The more outlandlish the better; aliens - even better; new physics - great; the proposer have a checkered past and outlandish hairstyle - just who we want. The result is a couple of dozen of competing ideas for people to read; they will, rightly, dismiss many of them as cranky, and, by association, this reduces the credibility of the more considered explanations.
The ideas become hidden because mainstream media can ignore them by labelling them 'conspiracy theories'.
I'm not saying who/what caused the 3 buildings to fall on 9/11, but the official story has questions in it that it's authors don't answer; some alternative stories seem to have good evidence behind them.
"Trending" means it's popular. People won't watch (and share) something that they don't actually want to watch. Here's the thing though about those WTC and Building 7 videos: a simple analysis of any of the off-the-street real-time videos - of which there were several so it's not like they could all be faked - by using simple equations of motion from O'Level Physics it is undeniably obvious that the tops of all of those buildings are in free-fall, accelerating at 9.8 metres per second squared.
Now, if a building is hit two thirds of the way up and becomes damaged, you would expect that damage to cause the top to fall over. Maybe some of the outer walls would fall off, but there would be a central core at least 1/2 to 1/3 of the height of the building sticking up. Bits would hit other bits, and it would take a long time and there would be rubble strewn out across a wide area, damaging the surrounding buildings and killing or injuring the people in them. You certainly would not expect it to collapse in a tidy heap at the speed of gravity where the entire building becomes a neat pile of rubble without any kind of significant damage to surrounding buildings.
For a quite insightful analysis which goes beyond the above brief invitation to use simple physics equations, logical analysis and reasoning, you might want to read this: https://steemit.com/tyranny/@b...
Bottom line is: not everything that "trends" under automatic algorithms (which would be filtered out by humans too scared of what they're seeing) is bullshit.
You literally have no idea what you are talking about? Have you have seen video of building collapsing? They ALWAYS collapse straight down. There is rarely any overengineered piece that can withstand forces this far outside its design paramenters, so when good chunk in middle collapses, ALL of it collapses straight down.
Well, here's the thing: so much of what we take on faith as solid hangs on the slender thread of engineering. None of this kind of "it stands to reason" bullshit really stands to reason, because it's based on a false and shallow understanding of how the built world behaves.
It might look believable for Godzilla to pick up a ship and use it like a club in a movie, but a real ship would tear like tissue paper. Likewise buildings don't fall over because they have nowhere near the strength it would take to resist the kind of sheering forces involved. A massive structural failure like the WTC collapse consists of millions of extremely rapid, sequential failures; once the building is no long in static equilibrium, it might as well be made of smoke.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Insightful? Apparently Slashdot "human editors" are no better at calling bullshit than a facebook algorithm.
Heh. The thing that always kills me about that allegation is that he says they decided to pull it.
Implying that they could have decided not to. Further implying they had a contingency plan to leave it standing.
Try this link instead to see exactly how damaged Building 7 was before it fell.
2626 professional architects and engineers want an independent investigation of the events of 9/11. The 9/11 commission was only created after the strong insistence of the 9/11 victims families over a year later after that tragic event. It was initially going to be led by the politically polarizing figure Henry Kissinger and two of the co-chairs claim the commission was setup to fail. A new independent investigation is required to address the deficiencies of the original 9/11 commissions report.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... The outer walls were NOT the structure. The outer walls supported 30-40% of the building. The central core supported 60-70% of the weight. Please stop spreading misinformation. The 9/11 psyop is being used to this day to kill innocent people and enslave the weak-minded. You're part of the problem.
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
An "Official Report" is not a Forensic Investigation that conducts various scientific analysis of the crime scene. The very fact that there has been no formal Forensic Investigation with evidence given from structural engineers and scientists on what was the biggest crime scene in U.S is evidence enough of some sort of conspiracy, regardless of how it was achieved.
The laws justified after 9/11 were the very ones that enabled the type of police state monitoring of citizens that not just US, but many other countries like the UK, Canada, Australia and, others all endure today. Before 9/11 western governments had not passed laws to remove our freedoms (that terrorists hated) because adequate laws were already in place to deal with terrprism. Those laws were based on what was learned by the UK government dealing with the IRA's terrorism.
Those two very obvious facts often go unacknowledged by 9/11 theorists and denialists because that allows them to (understandably) ignore the frightening reality that the laws justified by 9/11 moved western societies to an overt surveillance state. These two facts show us how and why, just not who could create such a conspiracy. Since time has revealed these laws to be in-effective at stopping terrorism that shows us who ever wants these laws to monitor us is very powerful indeed.
I don't know the specifics of how the towers were destroyed, but I do know that the laws passed because of 9/11 left us in a police state.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Mr. Corbett did an outstanding job of tying together many obscure connections and influences of 9/11.
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... at about 8:30 into this video Mr.Gage touches on the elevator renovation that would have provided cover for setting of demolitions.
I would also contend that intuition is not meaningless. Even a layman can often observe a process and make reasonable conclusions about that process. Rather, I would caution any observer to beware of a government who tells you "Don't believe your lying eyes, trust us instead."
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I dare say you've never built anything for a living. Please, stop being part of the problem.
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
so what's the big deal, false flag has been used for centuries. You think every person in power in the US is so moral they're above that?
I like how you equate 40% of the structure as "not the structure". Also, you're only accounting for the weight load of the building. The outer walls were responsible for supporting 100% of the lateral load.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Another wannabe construction expert... even when no longer in "static equilibrium" a building is still composed of steel and concrete girders, trusses, beams, joists, columns, etc. all tied together with connections designed to be stronger than the materials being joined. Definitely not "smoke". Once the top of the first tower to fall tilted over the side of the tower there is no explanation for it's disintegration while falling other than explosives/demolitions. Building 7's collapse defies physics outside demolitions being placed inside.
Explain this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and my favorite question is this... Why the hell would Atta carry with him to the airport luggage containing all the items needed to confirm the official story when he should have only reasonably expected it all to be destroyed in the coming collision? How convenient that his bag didn't make the transfer at Boston and was there to confirm the official story.... Get real people... every day innocent people are being killed as a result of this lie. What part are YOU playing in this criminal tragedy?
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
I like how the guys who supposedly pulled off perhaps the single greatest hoax in human history managed to overlook this one detail. Why plant any passports? They would have known who was on the plane from the manifests. This is a classic example of why conspiracy theories don't hold up, because they require the conspirators to be masterminds and complete idiots simultaneously.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
If there was a conspiracy, it was like Pearl Harbor, where intelligence reported an imminent attack, which some higher ups mostly ignored besides making sure the Aircraft carriers were not in the the harbour when the attack happened. (By 1942 it was obvious that the airplane had made battleships obsolete).
The attack was real, but conveniently ignored, which only took a few conspirators.
There's also the possibility of multiple conspiracies. The Americans wanting to get rid of the World Trade Center and have a convenient excuse to go to war and the Saudi's conspiring to take out Saddam by pressuring America, including planting the passport. It was interesting that the first flights allowed were all Saudi's (especially the Bin Laden family members) escaping America. The Bush's and Bin Laden's were very friendly with G.W. growing up playing with the Bin Laden's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Holy crap. Look, I fucking hate George W. Bush, and the Saudis even more, but that "they let the Saudis leave the country" thing is just garbage. It simply isn't true.
I have never bought the Pearl Harbor thing either. In fact, there's very little in your comment that I can take seriously.
"The Americans wanting to get rid of the World Trade Center"? That's a new one. Just when I think you conspiracy nuts can't sink any lower, you rise to the occasion.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Then it must be the one and only truth!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
You think that's air you're breathing now?
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
Perhaps we should call it a meta-conspiracy theory. Al-Qaeda plotted an actual conspiracy (a pretty large one at that, and one they continued denying for a couple years after the event before deciding that owning up was better for recruiting), and the people we call conspiracy theorists believe that conspiracy was fictional and replace it with something even more bizarrely inexplicable.
This space intentionally left blank
It's technically true that Saudis were allowed to leave the country, including members of the Bin Laden family (who had long disavowed Osama), just like all other innocent non-suspects are allowed to go wherever they want. Only in Trumpland can the free movement of Muslims be considered a conspiracy though.
This space intentionally left blank
God, the sheer fucking waste of human time with amateurs "analysing" this kind of crap.
If this set of comments in any way reflects real-world proportions, we're fucked.
Hey, everyone, Princess Diana was killed in a royal conspiracy! That was 19 years ago, let's continue to make up bollocks about that too!
This is also my biggest problem with YouTube. If you have time to piss about editing hours of video and "analysing" it by looking at blocky MPEG frames, you really need to be given community service to get you doing something more productive.
This site used to be full of insightful and rigorous discussion and technical info. I think I'm done.
is this news?
I mean, I really would have thought the 9/11 truthers would have burnt out by now and those of us who don't think it was a conspiracy aren't lured in by such things now but then again I'm not the type of person who uses Facebook so maybe they'll still click on that crap.
That source is notoriously deceptive.
The official report about WTC7 concluded that the damage to the building was superficial and did not have an effect on its structural integrity. Only 7 perimeter columns were damaged by debris from the towers. If you don't want to read the full report, they have a FAQ on the NIST website that clearly states this.
WTC 7 was labeled the first fire induced steel high rise collapse in the history of fire.
Please inform yourself before you decide to defend the crooks that did this.
Sorry but, before 9/11, not a single building had collapsed due to fire. In fact, I can't recall seeing any building collapse completely unless it was a controlled demolition.
Are you sure you're not thinking of movies instead of real life? Care to give us an example of a building completely collapsing?
Holy crap. Look, I fucking hate George W. Bush, and the Saudis even more, but that "they let the Saudis leave the country" thing is just garbage. It simply isn't true.
I'm afraid it is true. The FBI's own report have clearly implicated the Saudis, yet the media has stayed silent. They all knew each other through a network of interests.
I have never bought the Pearl Harbor thing either. In fact, there's very little in your comment that I can take seriously.
The British certainly kept quiet about Pearly Harbor because they wanted the US in the war.
They ALWAYS collapse straight down. There is rarely any overengineered piece that can withstand forces this far outside its design paramenters, so when good chunk in middle collapses, ALL of it collapses straight down.
Nope, you haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. The debris and energy would dissipate outwards, lessening as it progressed. The central core of the building is bound together as one solid whole, not as separate floors - rather sensibly. There is no reason whatsoever for the buildings to have become unstable from top to bottom. Partial collapse, possible. Full collapse? Absolutely not.
Perhaps we should call it a meta-conspiracy theory. Al-Qaeda plotted an actual conspiracy (a pretty large one at that, and one they continued denying for a couple years after the event before deciding that owning up was better for recruiting), and the people we call conspiracy theorists believe that conspiracy was fictional and replace it with something even more bizarrely inexplicable.
It was a coverup to prevent development of the EMDrive.
Putting scare quotes around "static equilibrium" doesn't change the fact that those very impressive structural members can't resist the force of collapse to any significant degree. It doesn't matter how strong a structural member looks, what matters is its strength relative to load.
The problem with your folk-engineering conspiracy theory is that if buildings naturally toppled, then getting the building to act unnaturally would have taken weeks of physical preparation. Don't you think people would notice crews cutting beams and laying explosive charges?
Skyscrapers are extreme engineering. When a practicing structural engineer working on tall buildings says the collapse was a result of deliberate engineering, then I'll listen. Until then it's just more Internet hogwash.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Then lets play the same game and see if we can get this trending
http://www.debunking911.com/
I'm afraid none of that addresses the suspicious way in which these buildings collapsed. That's why anti-conspiracy theorists are often even worse. They extrapolate their own ideas out of it so they can have a comfort blanket to hold on to and stop looking at what is in front of them.
The buildings collapsed exactly how you'd expect a building with strong center and shell supports would collapse, thus there's not much to explain there. Fuel heats cross-beams, steel loses half its strength at those temperatures and they bend in the center, one floor falls down to the next and cascades. The outer shell and inner shell hold it all together as its going down. Every single thing that happened to all three buildings and the field in PA is easily explained by physics, and doesn't need the conspiracy. Nothing that happened that day is "comforting," and insulting people doesn't help your case.
E pluribus unum
What's the problem? Why is Facebook getting slack because of this story? The story IS trending, and it IS true.... Because some people don't like the story, doesn't mean it isn't "trending".....
That bit was true but they were not the only ones flying out while most planes were grounded. "They" let a lot of people leave the country and not just that half a dozen Saudis with strong connections to Bush.
In hindsight a lot of intelligence reports from the lot of sources warned about it but it's likely they just didn't make it up the chain of command in time. The explorer Sir Hubert Wilkes was one who sent a report in from Japan but not being an American he may not have been taken seriously. The conspiracy theory hinges a lot of people having an operation like a well oiled machine and then doing something really stupid with it. Reality looks like a failure to listen and a failure to act.
I agree, it makes me very angry.
Somebody crashed planes into the buildings.
But it seems that people believe they had secret agents install some super-resillient, ultra-compact, undetectable explosives which would not detonate when a 250,000 lb aircraft hit it at 400 miles an hour, nor from the fire from 10,000 gallons of aviation fuel, but would be wired for a controlled demolition so as to flatten buildings which contained people who were evacuated except for people already dying from smoke and fire?
Whatever.
The towers were detonated by a shot from the second gunman on the grassy knoll.
I thought everyone knew this already.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Not to put fuel in the fire but what is the official explanation for the controlled demolition style fall of building 7?
Tired of my customary (Score:1)
the other that tries to explain that the official one is a joke.
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
and several suspects....
https://www.youtube.com/result...
"When a practicing structural engineer working on tall buildings says the collapse was a result of deliberate engineering, then I'll listen."
You may want to consider giving these individuals some of your precious time...
http://www.ae911truth.org/abou...
http://www.ae911truth.org/news...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
Those people are architects -- and one Mechanical Engineer. No structural engineers.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The PANCAKE theory? There are people still pushing that? Wow. Even the government had to abandon that laughable attempt at an explanation. Over a decade ago. Do some reading.
Here's a few thousand architects and engineers who disagree with you: http://www.ae911truth.org/
Easily explained, my fucking ass. WTC7 is a classic controlled demo. Asymmetrical fire damage does not remotely explain the symmetrical collapse observed, nor the period of free fall acceleration. But don't let empirical facts get in the way of your denial.
The Saudi's involvement in 9/11 is not the same thing as saying that they were allowed to fly out of the country when all other planes are grounded.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Bush, Bin Laden and other suspects all know each other through a network of commercial interests. There is only so many ways you can slice and dice this. All the Saudi suspects now being looked at melted away.
The buildings collapsed exactly how you'd expect a building with strong center and shell supports would collapse, thus there's not much to explain there.
Nope, that is not how anyone who has even ever built a Lego or Meccano model would expect a structure to collapse.
Fuel heats cross-beams, steel loses half its strength at those temperatures and they bend in the center, one floor falls down to the next and cascades. The outer shell and inner shell hold it all together as its going down. Every single thing that happened to all three buildings and the field in PA is easily explained by physics, and doesn't need the conspiracy. Nothing that happened that day is "comforting," and insulting people doesn't help your case.
Bollocks. In a large building like that there is absolutely no reason for the floors below to be affected. Floors do not cascade on to one another either, which is where you do show your ignorance. When one floor collapses on to another it collapses on to the eighty or however many floors below bound together in one whole structure. Tall buildings have to be built that way, otherwise they would be dangerously unstable.
What would happen is you might possibly get a partial building collapse, but the energy and debris would dissipate outwards lessening as the collapse progressed. A full collapse? No chance. There is no reason for every floor right down to the basement to destabilise.
You're simply repeating the tripe of others I'm afraid and the pancake tripe has been pushed every time this comes up. There is absolutely no way this can happen because this is not the way buildings are built, otherwise they would be dangerous...... Another possibility is that the towers were incompetently and scandalously built. Is that possible? Yer, it is, but either way there is a scandal here.
Instead of making us feel sick here why don't you go watch some Vegas demolition videos or disaster footage.
Buildings don't just have bits fall off or topple like cardboard boxes like they do in the Hollywood movies.
Also you've already seen why this happened you just are not thinking clearly. Surely you've seen at least on TV if not anywhere else a smith heating up steel so it's soft enough to work? Hot structural steel cannot support the weight above so the whole thing collapses - simple as that.
You're neglecting the facts.
NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You are mixing stuff up quite wildly.
The main argument of the "non conspiracy" people is: the whole building is made of steel, and the floors are hanging on that steel core.
There is no outer shell stabilizing it.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You literally have no idea what you are talking about? Have you have seen video of building collapsing? They ALWAYS collapse straight down.
Yes we have plenty.
And all the videos we see were a building is collapsing is a video about a planned demolition. So, the building does not really collapse but ends up in a neatly pile of rubble.
For some strange reason: that is exactly how the two towers of WTC ended. That is what you are referring, to. right?
In other words: collapsing buildings by natural causes are extremely rare on footage. Probably that explains your strange view.
Unfortunately, due to earth rotation and the height of the buildings, the buildings would topple over east ward. The stuff atop of the impact would be more or less intact stories that just dropped down from 100m height, and not "rubble".
The stuff below the impact of the plane would not even collapse, there is no reason for it.
so when good chunk in middle collapses, ALL of it collapses straight down.
No, it does not. See above. That is physically impossible.
Next time you have the opportunity: drop a stone into a deep well. It hits the wall before it hits the ground. Every child knows that. But well, you likely never were a child. Hitting the wall with the stone is due to earth rotation, I believe something like 25 meters is deep enough to hit the wall before the ground.
In the same way everything taller than 25 meters, significantly collapses in direction of the earth rotation.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There were a few air plane crashes into buildings.
None of them collapses, except the two WTC towers.
Go figure.
The stuff you say makes no sense anyway so I don't comment on it.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The Brooklyn Bridge was built using inferior wire. I can easily believe that the World Trade Center towers were not built to the standard claimed. In particular, reading the WTC 7 report from NIST even states that pretty clearly: failure of column 79 would result in destruction of the building. It was either architecturally a terrible design, or was not built to specification.
"This is also in spite of the substitution of inferior quality wire in the cabling supplied by the contractor J. Lloyd Haigh—by the time it was discovered, it was too late to replace the cabling that had already been constructed. Roebling determined that the poorer wire would leave the bridge four rather than six times as strong as necessary, so it was eventually allowed to stand, with the addition of 250 cables. Diagonal cables were installed from the towers to the deck, intended to stiffen the bridge. They turned out to be unnecessary, but were kept for their distinctive beauty." Source.
Read the list of occupations of those "experts" and soon you'll realise that a list of realtors and school drop-outs isn't probably the best source to cite if you want to look like you have a clue.
You are usually so logical, but on this subject something seems to have happened to you. I'm genuinely disappointed. A building isn't a solid piece of metal. You can't push hard enough at the top and expect the whole thing to topple over like a felled tree. They are extremely strong in one direction (top-bottom), and relatively weak sideways. So no, it won't topple as it simply isn't strong enough.
Dynamic not static.
Think of impacts
The top floor came down like a hammer on the floor below, those two came down on the one underneath and so on.
Perfectly normal and it happens a lot when buildings fall down.
Watch some demolition videos and you'll see it over and over again. Watch some videos of buildings on fire and you'll see it over and over again.
It just doesn't look right to you because Hollywood is always having buildings fall over like cardboard boxes and that is what you are used to. Like a lot of things in film it's nothing like the real thing.
Dynamic loading not static, just the same as the front of your car can support a lot of weight but it goes squish when you run it into a wall.
If you can't grasp that then picture what happens when you hit things with a hammer.
In this case all the weight of the floors above came down like a hammer - the difference between having a hammer sitting on a glass table and swinging it down quickly.
Pulling a book out of the middle of a tall stack is another example. As the books above drop onto the lower stack it will buckle under the impact and more then just the books above the removed book will fall over. You've seen it yourself haven't you?
Because it is not only true and somewhat obvious but has also been very frequently observed. Impact. Squish.
The bits where you called others ignorant are very entertaining considering how badly you have messed it up. Try playing with that lego and meccano with a bit of motion and you'll get things to a high school level.
The top floor came down like a hammer on the floor below,
Yes, and why exactly did it that?
Hm?
The fire was how many stories lower? Thirty? Why did the top story start crashing.
It just doesn't look right to you because Hollywood is always having buildings fall over like cardboard boxes and that is what you are used to.
No they are not. And I'm not used to hollywood stile crashes either.
If you want to see how a building crashes go google, youtube is full with it.
The main problem with the two WTC crashes is: they started both on the top, story wise, for no reason.
Like a lot of things in film it's nothing like the real thing.
Exactly. In the real world both buildings had lost the tip, by the tip dropping to the side of the most damage. Everything below the fire would have survived. The whole tip above the fire had more or less crashed down as one solid block and would have been cracked/scattered on the the ground: not in mid air.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
So no, it won't topple as it simply isn't strong enough.
The steel framework of those particular buildings is strong enough.
Also the picture of the top dropping more or less solidly was only to make a point, I don't care if it ripps apart while "toppeling over".
Point is: a building does not collapse story by story from _top_ to bottom. There are only two ways to see a build collapse in this way: earth quakes and controlled demolitions.
If the buildings collapsed by "ordinary" means triggered by the crashed planes, then everyone giving us an explanation failed to give a plausible one :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
And you need to look at this WTC 7 NIST Model vs. Reality It's a two minute video comparing the real footage of the collapse of Tower 7 to the NIST simulation. Can you tell me with a straight face that they match up? The simulation bends and twists all over, while the actual collapse is so smooth that most of the windows even remain intact until the very end.
"There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon