Facebook Features 9/11 Conspiracy Theory as 'Trending' (slashdot.org) 251
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.'"
doesn't say true stories (Score:3, Insightful)
It says 'Trending' not 'Trending Truthful News Stories'.
Re: doesn't say true stories (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That is misinformation.
NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report [nist.gov]
The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.
In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7's Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column's failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
You misunderstand the quote:
World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories [wikipedia.org]
In the PBS documentary America Rebuilds, which aired in September 2002, Larry Silverstein, the owner of 7 WTC and leaseholder and insurance policy holder for the remainder of the WTC complex, recalled a discussion with the fire department in which doubts about containing the fires were expressed. Silverstein recalled saying, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it". "They made that decision to pull", he recalled, "and we watched the building collapse." Silverstein issued a statement that it was the firefighting team, not the building, that was to be pulled.[72][78][79]
You might want to look into this:
Debunking 9/11 Myths: Introduction to PM Expanded Investigation [popularmechanics.com]
And maybe: The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 [amazon.com]
Competition (Score:3)
Zeitgeist (Score:2)
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...
If that is what is popular so be it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If that is what is popular so be it (Score:5, Insightful)
something untoward happened as testified to by industry pros
Who? What "untoward" thing happened? Is the hijacking of planes, destruction of landmarks, and killing of 3000 people not "untoward" enough?
when the mainstream-news-reported-it-before-it-happened thing has blown over
Why, if you're the government and you've planned this conspiracy, not just wait for the media to get wind of it the normal way? (I mean, I'm sure someone in the largest city in the country would have noticed the tallest building bursting into flames). Why leak the story to them early? What purpose does that serve in the conspiracy, except to blow it wide open?
videos of under-wing missiles on the aircraft have disappeared from youtube
This one is my favorite. So YouTube, which didn't exist until 2005, had these videos at one point that have since mysteriously vanished. In spite of the government being unable to stop ISIS recruiting people, child pornography, piracy... this is the one thing they've managed to completely erase without a single copy being hosted by anyone, anywhere? Why can't I get a torrent of this amazing piece of media? Julian Assange is really slacking off on the job here...
But let's assume this is true (because it's fun showing how ridiculous this is).
1. These couldn't have been commercial flights with civilians passengers, right? If the missiles were noticeable from the ground while the planes struck the buildings at 500mph, surely passengers with a window seat would have noticed something. Where are the people who died (or rather, didn't die) on that flight? What about the crews, who were United and American Airlines employees? Where did they disappear to?
2. They couldn't have taken off from a civilian airport, or else the ground crew, who spend all day every day staring at the underside of aircraft would have probably noticed a few extra engines that look nothing like engines.
3. The two Boeing 767s, built in 1983 and 1987, didn't come off the factory line with missile mounts on the wings. Either the government seized the planes from United and American Airlines, and then modified them, or they built new planes specifically for the purpose of this conspiracy.
3.a. If the former, that's quite a few people to keep quiet. You'd think someone at AA or UA would be able to put 2 and 2 together ("Gee, that plane just happens to be the one the government seized from us a few months ago..."). At the very least the accounting department is going to want to know why the fleet is suddenly short a 767.
3.b. If the latter, it's even more people to keep quiet. I mean, what happened to the original planes? There aren't 767s with those registration numbers flying around, so where are they? No one at Boeing was suspicious when the Government ordered 2 new 767s, with no paint jobs (or UA/AA paint jobs), no registration numbers (or even more suspiciously, with existing registrations that just happened to be the same as those that would be used on 9/11), and told them to keep their construction off the books?
4. Why bother? If you're going to crash a modified, mostly empty, 767 into a building with missiles under the wings... why not just rip out all the fucking seats and put the missiles inside? Better yet, just pack it full of C4 or dynamite.
There are a ton of other points I could make about how unbelievably stupid this is, but for now I think that's enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you've just answered a reasonable analysis of stupid ideas with accusations of "shill". Do you know that your dumb conspiracy ideas lead to yet another conspiracy that you're the shill, design to get people to dismiss how the conspiracy "really" happened?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to demonstrate that my points are nonsense, address them rather than asking questions which draw attention away from the issues
They were addressed. That you chose to call shill instead of respond with an argument is on you. Responding to the argument now doesn't change that.
Re: (Score:2)
Each point was referred to - not the same as addressed.
Word games. There was plenty for you to respond/address yourself, as can be seen by your reply when you were called out on your name calling without any counter-argument.
I responded to point out that you don't have an argument.
That was you. Also, I'm not the person who originally responded to you, so if that person wants to take up the argument it's up to them, not me. The bottom line for me is extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
I came here to basically say the same thing. It counts how often something is said and posts the most "popular" items. If it happens to be a conspiracy theory about 9/11 or a politician sharing penis pictures or flat worlders thinking trees used to go into space or some world news event then that's what people are talking about. (Three of those things make me shudder, can you guess which ones?) You can modify things to check to see if people aren't gaming the system (a small group of people posting the i
Re: (Score:2)
This could be Facebook doing just what you suggest. I am not biased against conspiracies and actually believe people acting shitty in pursuit of self interest is never unlikely.
This Theory Is Everywhere (Score:2)
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/911... [wnd.com]
People are fawning all over it. Of course, some cynics have struck back:
http://www.amerika.org/politic... [amerika.org]
Small wonder (Score:2)
Everybody knows that FaceBook users have no bullshit detector or they wouldn't be there in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
n/t -- see .sig
--
FecesBook: where other people's bullshit is posted as "news"
Damnit, I predicted this. (Score:5, Insightful)
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!"
Re:Damnit, I predicted this. (Score:5, Funny)
Trending now:
"The Hidden Connection Between ISIS and the iPhone7's Missing Earphone Jack"
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Doctors hate what this man does with systemd, click here to find out why!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The IRIS problem also comes to mind. A third-party Siri competitor - it was supposed to be a virtual agent similar in function, but not so tied to apple, and was fed with a knowledge base gathered by natural language processing whatever a web crawler could drag in. Unfortunately the web crawler stumbled upon a few religious sites, and assimilated all the information it found within - which resulted in people asking it for information about contraception and getting back a rambling rant about sin and natural
Re: (Score:2)
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.
While this is true, IBM has made some impressive headway during the creation of WATSON in sifting out fact from fiction. They will need to employ the same types of algorithms to judge the truthfulness of things or just give up an go with humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook has their reputation to think about. If the trending list shows things that are obviously wrong, that's going to reflect badly on them. Worse, if the trending list shows things that are highly offensive, that's going to reflect really badly on them. They got off fairly lightly with a 911 conspiracy theory, people will just dismiss that out of hand. There are far worse possibilities.
What's the problem? (Score:2)
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.
Forensic Investigation of 9/11 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
> 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.
What's the point of monitoring if they can't stop shit?
Exactly.
It it's 'trending' and is on the social stuff ... (Score:2)
FFS (Score:2)
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
911 Myths debunked (Score:2)
Then lets play the same game and see if we can get this trending
http://www.debunking911.com/ [debunking911.com]
Problem? (Score:2)
Building 7 (Score:2)
Jumping the Shark (Score:4, Insightful)
It's close...very close
Facebook will go the way of MySpace, AOL, and the rest of the fad social sites.
Re:Jumping the Shark (Score:4, Informative)
AOL lasted about 10 years before the chumps at Time/Warner (overpaid for it/accepted AOL stock). Millions of users etc.
It took about another year or two before even morons (e.g. Ted Turner) could see how bad a move TW had made.
Re: (Score:2)
AOL died because only their dial-up business was ever actually successful, and dial-up went away. Not a comparable scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
AOL died because, eventually, even their customers got smarter. The inertia that kept them going for a few last years was that AOLers had their social life on AOL chat rooms.
AOL was a ripoff for the entire time it existed. It's not like the dialup version was a good value.
Maybe They Should Stay Out of the "News" Biz? (Score:2)
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 [larrycarlson.com] 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
Re: (Score:2)
If they didn't want it on facebook, they'd have put a naked kid on front.
Re: (Score:3)
So yes, it's a theory about a conspiracy, thus a conspiracy theory.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:"Conspiracy theory" (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
You think that's air you're breathing now?
How to hide inconventient ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:How to hide inconventient ideas (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I thought the planes flying into the buildings were a pretty good explanation for why they fell down.
Re:How to hide inconventient ideas (Score:4, Interesting)
2 Planes managed to take out 3 buildings, with the third containing much interesting paperwork that conveniently burned up..
Re: (Score:2)
2 Planes managed to take out 3 buildings, with the third containing much interesting paperwork that conveniently burned up..
And O'bama and Hellary were seen running out of the area right before they fell. A coincidence? I don't think so!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How to hide inconventient ideas (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the more fundamental point for a sane person to consider would be this: no conspiracy would've changed the method used to bring down the buildings. If the CIA (for example) decided to take out the WTC with explosives and blame it on Al-Qaeda, they'd obviously accuse Al-Qaeda of planting the explosives by sending their operatives into the building or getting them jobs as window washers or whatever. All goals would be accomplished by that, and with less economic collateral damage too since it wouldn't have temporarily depressed plane travel. The only reason for the CIA to use hijacked airplanes would be if they felt that was the most effective way to take down the buildings, in which case they would've gone ahead and done it that way.
Whether it's a conspiracy has nothing to do with the method selected to destroy the buildings. Heck, if one doubts how they were destroyed, one could much more plausibly argue that it was Al-Qaeda who rigged explosives and then pretended the planes did it because they wanted to scare people into thinking they could blow up buildings with just airplanes.
Re: (Score:2)
>Whether it's a conspiracy has nothing to do with the method selected to destroy the buildings. Heck, if one doubts how they were destroyed, one could much more plausibly argue that it was Al-Qaeda who rigged explosives and then pretended the planes did it because they wanted to scare people into thinking they could blow up buildings with just airplanes.
This is where Occam's razor comes in handy.
Re: (Score:2)
Dumbed down enough for you?
Re: (Score:2)
There are two possibilities - either something nefarious caused those buildings to collapse, or they were built like the Towering Inferno and incredibly shoddily built, which is certainly possible. Either way, it's a scandal.
Look beyond Hollywood (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of making us feel sick here why don't you go watch some Vegas demolition videos or disaster footage.
Making you feel sick? It is what it is I'm afraid and I wasn't responsible.
Buildings don't just have bits fall off or topple like cardboard boxes like they do in the Hollywood movies.
I'm not entirely sure what this is supposed to tell us.
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.
There is a lot of steel in that building, most of which as on the lower floors was completely intact and had no reason to be destabilised. The whole bottom two thirds of the buildings were solid, intact structures. You're not going to stabilise anything above which will cause all of that to crumble from top to bottom. You'll get a dissipation of debris and energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. It's in the report linked else where - buckling and the whole thing came down just like in thousands of fires.
Slashdot - where coder boys spew words they do not understand at engineers and think they should be taken seriously despite not knowing shit about what they are talking about. How about you spend a couple of years reading about solid mechanics and then get back to us when you have finally started to understand that you don't "know about buil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you "win" by getting plenty of anger from people who think you are lower than dirt for doing this shit - congrats on your "win". Do you piss on soldiers graves as an encore?
Re: (Score:2)
That's not an explanation, that's a narrative that doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Even the evidence in the official report doesn't support that theory.
OK, let me fill in a little more detail in words you might understand, since you've chosen to ignore the detailed explanations in the NIST report.
A) Building: A very tall, very heavy thing, supported by a metal framework with lots of vertical bits.
B) Plane: A very heavy fast thing, full of fuel.
C) Plane hits building in the middle of its rise, destroys many vertical bits by virtue of being heavy. The fuel fuels a big hot fire that compromised the rest.
D) The heavy bit above the bit the plane hit is then not
Re: (Score:2)
Building 7?
What of it? Are you saying the twin towers were downed by aliens because of building 47?
Re: (Score:2)
Jet fuel cant reach a temperature high enough to melt steal.
Stealing melts wasn't in question.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I see - you ascribe to the conspiracist conspiracy conspiracist conspiracy conspiracist conspiracy conspiracist conspiracy theory. 8^&
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother when you can use hundreds of tons of aviation fuel and paper?
There is no point following these losers down a rabbit hole because they have no clue about any of the questions you have asked.
Re: (Score:2)
And how many liberal "birthers" have you met?
Re: Trending News must have editors (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
A "remotely credible claim" would be about 1000x more credible than anything birthers have claimed about Obama.
Re: (Score:2)
(Say what you will about conservatives, they typically have better BS detectors.)
And if by this you mean so irrationally gullible they fall for EVERY lie that comes along as long as it lines up with their tribal-head-up-ass world view, and actively try to avoid reality at all costs... then yes.
Re: (Score:2)
All of your bias are belong to Zuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Except when it comes to the magical man in the sky of course...
Re:Analysis of the videos (Score:5, Insightful)
"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!"
Re:Analysis of the videos (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Analysis of the videos (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
The towers were detonated by a shot from the second gunman on the grassy knoll.
I thought everyone knew this already.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] 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."
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Analysis of the videos (Score:4, Insightful)
"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... [steemit.com]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I dare say you've never built anything for a living. Please, stop being part of the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 ext
Re: (Score:2)
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 res
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 c
Re: (Score:3)
"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... [ae911truth.org]
http://www.ae911truth.org/news... [ae911truth.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Those people are architects -- and one Mechanical Engineer. No structural engineers.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. Corbett did an outstanding job of tying together many obscure connections and influences of 9/11.