Conspiracies

[yoda]

Yep, nothing untoward about stealing another countries resources and killing over a million of them in the process.

Only one, fairly insignificant, oil contract went to a US supermajor (Exxon, who don't have any significant ties to the Bush administration). US companies may be sub-contracted by the likes of CNPC and Lukoil for oilfield services but Halliburton are one of four that received sub-contracts. US companies dominate the oilfield services market, so it was expected that they would receive the sub-contracts.

If Cheney wanted to start war for profit from oil contracts then he was playing a very long and quite risky game, given that three other companies would primarily contest them. Is Cheney a hawk? Absolutely but as I said before, Rice openly stated a desire to remove Saddam from office before Bush even won the election.

Pedantic point: Halliburton don't even do the "stealing" resources part.

The oil argument doesn't really stand up for Afghanistan given that China bagged the commercial production contract.

[DAFC]

Rumsfeld met with saddam and america armed him against iran as soon as he decided to stand up to their exploitation and thought about trading oil in euros they came up with the wmd lies.

Do you really think america or the west would spend billions on a war with no benefit or gain? World police my arse we are looking after number one and whatever gets in the way is branded evil or a threat to democracy.

Was it so long ago that tony blair met with Gaddafi or assad? Why would such dangerous men be allowed to meet our prime minister?

[11thHour]

I watched a few videos of the WTC 7 collapse on YouTube, you can hear an explosion right before the top of the building starts coming down.

[cracowjambo]

I watched a few videos of the WTC 7 collapse on YouTube, you can hear an explosion right before the top of the building starts coming down.

Would that not be the first few floors collapsing and pushing air out the caused the sound of a explosion?

[JamboMikey]

I watched a few videos of the WTC 7 collapse on YouTube, you can hear an explosion right before the top of the building starts coming down.

Well that's me convinced.

[AberdeenBud]

I can hear an explosion on YouTube!

[turboshandy]

Why is the Pentagon still called 'The Pentagon'? Surely since one side got taken out by a big fucking plane, it should be called 'The Square' now?

It's fucking Lorne.

[RandomGuy.]

I watched a few videos of the WTC 7 collapse on YouTube, you can hear an explosion right before the top of the building starts coming down.

Experts who watched the video say that it falls like a pancake, as in it falls flat. While an actual fire damaged steel structure, if it did collapse due to fire damage, would fall more unevenly. I've not seen the video so can't really comment

Then again, here's a photo of WTC 7 before it collapsed, and you can see the beams around the windows starting to buckle at the top right hand side of the photo

Edited September 5, 2013 by RandomGuy.

[DA Baracus]

It's fucking Lorne.

So the Pentagon should be called 'The Lorne'?

Experts who watched the video say that it falls like a pancake, as in it falls flat. While an actual fire damaged steel structure, if it did collapse due to fire damage, would fall more unevenly. I've not seen the video so can't really comment

You know this how?

[captain kirk]

Experts who watched the video say that it falls like a pancake, as in it falls flat. While an actual fire damaged steel structure, if it did collapse due to fire damage, would fall more unevenly. I've not seen the video so can't really comment

Then again, here's a photo of WTC 7 before it collapsed, and you can see the beams around the windows starting to buckle at the top right hand side of the photo

All these experts seem to have failed to notice that it didn't collapse due solely fire damage ,,,another factor may have been the 700,000lb rocket laden with fuel slamming into it wiping out several floors on impact causing the floor above to drop down , multiplying in weight at every level thus blowing out the foundations (hence the ,we heard explosions in the basement stories)

Edited September 5, 2013 by captain kirk

[RandomGuy.]

So the Pentagon should be called 'The Lorne'?

You know this how?

I was just repeating what "experts" have said on the matter, the only sentence in that paragraph that was my own thoughts was the final one, about not watching the video

All these experts seem to have failed to notice that it didn't collapse due solely fire damage ,,,another factor may have been the 700,000lb rocket laden with fuel slamming into it wiping out several floors on impact causing the floor above to drop down , multiplying in weight at every level thus blowing out the foundations (hence the ,we heard explosions in the basement stories)

I think you should walk away from this conversation

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

Experts who watched the video say that it falls like a pancake, as in it falls flat. While an actual fire damaged steel structure, if it did collapse due to fire damage, would fall more unevenly. I've not seen the video so can't really comment

Then again, here's a photo of WTC 7 before it collapsed, and you can see the beams around the windows starting to buckle at the top right hand side of the photo

There are no beams round the windows, they are the window frames.

The outside of the building(the skin if you like) is just a curtain wall which is built on the floor below and carries no weight.

The strength of the building comes from an inner frame of columns and beams.

[RandomGuy.]

There are no beams round the windows, they are the window frames.

The outside of the building(the skin if you like) is just a curtain wall which is built on the floor below and carries no weight.

The strength of the building comes from an inner frame of columns and beams.

Christ knows then, I'm trying to be impartial and post both sides. As that photo, and the connected video, were posted as "proof" that the structure was damaged enough by the fire to have collapsed. The official explanation was that one part of the structure was significantly damaged and this weakened the others, eventually leading to a collapse

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

Christ knows then, I'm trying to be impartial and post both sides. As that photo, and the connected video, were posted as "proof" that the structure was damaged enough by the fire to have collapsed. The official explanation was that one part of the structure was significantly damaged and this weakened the others, eventually leading to a collapse

This would have to have been damage to the central core, a lift shaft or stair well perhaps.

[yoda]

Rumsfeld met with saddam and america armed him against iran as soon as he decided to stand up to their exploitation and thought about trading oil in euros they came up with the wmd lies.

Do you really think america or the west would spend billions on a war with no benefit or gain? World police my arse we are looking after number one and whatever gets in the way is branded evil or a threat to democracy.

Was it so long ago that tony blair met with Gaddafi or assad? Why would such dangerous men be allowed to meet our prime minister?

Rumsfeld met Saddam in the 1980s and sold him weapons (the enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that), I'm not sure what relevance that has to any point of mine.

Shit, China has been trading oil in yuan since 2012 and there's been no war. As for the "benefit or gain" part - well what has the US gained from Iraq? The negatives outweigh the positives.

Oil (and gas) are cornerstones of the world economy. They're really important and it was definitely beneficial to the world as a whole to have Saddam's sons' grubby hands not holding onto Iraq's oil production, but the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq weren't over oil. The USA hasn't particularly benefitted from either, bar a handful of private companies that made money (Halliburton primarily from logistics like they did in Bosnia but that doesn't fit the conspiracy nut agenda).

So, we can sum this up as: "Middle East wars were for teh oil? Nah, they weren't".

The Russians and Chinese must have also helped plan the war seeing as they have companies making money from oil.

[captain kirk]

I think you should walk away from this conversation

As I was saying ....

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

[RandomGuy.]

The Tower I was discussing wasn't hit by a plane, so that entire post is pointless when quoting me

[captain kirk]

The Tower I was discussing wasn't hit by a plane, so that entire post is pointless when quoting me

Sorry thought you were taking about the twin towers .

[cracowjambo]

This would have to have been damage to the central core, a lift shaft or stair well perhaps.

That could be why people above the crash zone were trapped and took the quick way down.

There is also a video of a UFO flying off the side of one of the towers so maybe aliens caused the towers to fall

[Bigmouth Strikes Again]

All these experts seem to have failed to notice that it didn't collapse due solely fire damage ,,,another factor may have been the 700,000lb rocket laden with fuel slamming into it wiping out several floors on impact causing the floor above to drop down , multiplying in weight at every level thus blowing out the foundations (hence the ,we heard explosions in the basement stories)